The Epidemic of “Gay Marriage”

[Bruno]

There are some who think that if you are a libertarian, you can never speak out on personal moral issues. This is not the case. Even if it was, I would fight against that, because I am a Christian individual before I engage in any political theory. The Scripture is the starting point and comes before everything.

That being said, this is yet another example of where natural law is inadequate to give ethical advice. Actually, ethics can never be validly obtained from natural law. Why? Because conclusions of an argument can never contain more than the premises. If your argument starts with "what is", the conclusion can't be "what ought to be". To put it simply, "natural law" can end up justifying any ethic because if nature is the measure, then whatever happens in nature becomes normative ethically. Whatever "is" is right.

God's law is the standard by which the Christian man should use for ethics. The Scripture alone is the Word of God, and it is sufficient to guide the man and therefore the society ethically. Natural law arguments are a form of creature-worship. The Christian should never use them. They're not valid logically or Biblically.

I thought you worship the AquaBuddha?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I thought you worship the AquaBuddha?

I've really got to change this name, huh?

 

[Liberty74]

I don't care for this subject but I've seen plenty of studies that actually show homosexuality occurring in nature..

One huge example would be the Macaque monkey.

Worms participate in homosexual sex in studies done.

 

[specsaregood]

Worms participate in homosexual sex in studies done.

I dunno if that is a proper example since worms are hermaphrodites and have both sex organs.

 

[Noble Savage]

There are a lot of gay guys married to women

 

[pcosmar]

God's law is the standard by which the Christian man should argue for ethics. The Scripture alone is the Word of God, and it is sufficient to guide the man and therefore the society ethically. Natural law arguments are a form of creature-worship. The Christian should never use them. They're not valid logically or Biblically.

And Christ was not condoning adultery when he said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

And he did not pick up a stone to throw.

 

[eduardo89]

And Christ was not condoning adultery when he said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

And he did not pick up a stone to throw.

Are you implying Christ committed adultery an thus did not pick up a stone?

 

[pcosmar]

Are you implying Christ committed adultery an thus did not pick up a stone?

No.
He was the only one who was without sin. and yet he did not pick up a stone.

 

[specsaregood]

No.
He was the only one who was without sin. and yet he did not pick up a stone.

I wasnt even raised a christian and I parsed that that as the obvious meaning.

 

[eduardo89]

No.
He was the only one who was without sin. and yet he did not pick up a stone.

Ah gotcha.

It reminds me of a sermon I was listening to this morning. Sinners and non-believers, including homosexuals, are not our enemies. We are all sinners and even non-believers are not our enemy. Our enemy is sin. We should not condemn the sinner (it would extremely hypocritical). But that does not mean we should not condemn the sin. Personally I do not hate homosexuals, but I hate the son of homosexuality. You cannot love God if you love or accept sin. You also cannot love God if you hate your fellow man.

 

[pcosmar]

Ah gotcha.

It reminds me of a sermon I was listening to this morning. Sinners and non-believers, including homosexuals, are not our enemies. We are all sinners and even non-believers are not our enemy. Our enemy is sin. We should not condemn the sinner (it would extremely hypocritical). But that does not mean we should not condemn the sin. Personally I do not hate homosexuals, but I hate the son of homosexuality. You cannot love God if you love or accept sin. You also cannot love God if you hate your fellow man.

Actually, sin is the result.
The enemy is spiritual.
Lucifer is our enemy.

 

[specsaregood]

You also cannot love God if you hate your fellow man.

One might consider referring to your fellow man as "freaks" as unloving. just saying...

 

[speciallyblend]

I've really got to change this name, huh?

haha yeah , to be honest everytime i see your id. I just thought you liked the bong! Knows plenty of pro-christian marijuana folks that support legalizing god's plant. I remind everyone god didn't create the dea, the devil did.

 

[eduardo89]

One might consider referring to your fellow man as "freaks" as unloving. just saying...

Freak:
A very unusual and unexpected event or situation: "a freak storm".

I never said I would hate them or that they don't deserve my love. I said they are freaks as in that situation is extremely uncommon. Perhaps I should have used another word.

 

[specsaregood]

I never said I would hate them or that they don't deserve my love. I said they are freaks as in that situation is extremely uncommon. Perhaps I should have used another word.

Yes, perhaps since you are just a freaky canadian mexican hybrid you didn't realize that the word "freak" carries with it negative connotations in english-speaking society.

 

[eduardo89]

Yes, perhaps since you are just a freaky canadian mexican hybrid you didn't realize that the word "freak" carries with it negative connotations in english-speaking society.

I agree, I am a freak. I hope you still love me though.

 

[speciallyblend]

There are some who think that if you are a libertarian, you can never speak out on personal moral issues. This is not the case. Even if it was, I would fight against that, because I am a Christian individual before I engage in any political theory. The Scripture is the starting point and comes before everything.


That being said, this thread is yet another example of where natural law is inadequate to give ethical advice. Actually, ethics can never be validly obtained from natural law. Why? Because conclusions of an argument can never contain more than the premises. If your argument starts with "what is", the conclusion can't be "what ought to be". To put it simply, "natural law" can end up justifying any ethic because if nature is the measure, then whatever happens in nature becomes normative ethically. Whatever "is" is right.


God's law is the standard by which the Christian man should argue for ethics. The Scripture alone is the Word of God, and it is sufficient to guide the man and therefore the society ethically. Natural law arguments are a form of creature-worship. The Christian should never use them. They're not valid logically or Biblically.

I understand what your saying but i also look at genetics. Just curious how you explain folks born transgendered with 2 sexual organs and possibly male or female traits or born gay? Sin at Birth? I will always say that the sin of homosexuality is a creation of man not GOD! No matter what the man("inspired by god") written bible says.

ps i am in no way trying to attack your beliefs or faith. My faith background (baptist,protestant and catholic) I do view organized religion and their doctrines the same as i view the gop establishment/dnc est.

 

[Douglass Bartley]

The only comment here to which a response is needed was the first:

"Word meanings change all the time, as quickly as the people who use them do. Hell, whole languages change.For example, nowadays "conservative" means someone like George W. Bush!"

But isn't it a bastardization of thought and word to call George a "conservative".

And if meaning changes, does that mean, for example, that the word "commerce" in the Constitution can be changed from what the founders meant by it ("trade") to the flaccid, elastic mess it is today, as in the Obamacare case?

Can Indiana by legislative act change the meaning of the word "Pi"?--as it once tried to do?

Similarly with "marriage". Its meaning cannot be changed by any one.

 

[green73]

Please see http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/the-epidemic...

No, I don't think I will.

 

[cstarace]

You ever been in a situation where a gay man put the hit on you? Just wondering.

Ever been in a situation where an unattractive female put the hit on you? I have. I don't see a difference. Unwanted sexual attention is unwanted sexual attention. I'm sure you encounter plenty of gay men everyday, the few that have happened to hit on you just stick out in your mind. Certainly doesn't give anyone an excuse to be homophobic.