@jaken7: Well to do that, I'd have to hear every "valid" argument and pick out the one I feel a good case to make. I don't really feel like debating against gays, considering I have like 10 gay friends, I'd feel pretty low.
Just in case though, the arguments presented so far have been:
- it won't produce children, (the more eccentric folks have taken it a step further and claimed that that means it will doom the human race to extinction)
- it's not natural
- it's icky
- god says it's a no-no
and that's about it. I agree with absolutely none of them, but it is what it is.
It's against God's Law. It's against the natural order of things, also.
Tatoos are against God's laws too. As are Shellfish and wearing gold.
Plenty of people do those things.
More than that, men without genitals can't be Christians.
"A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:1
If you get testicular cancer and choose to do anything about it, you're going to hell.
Many people misunderstand the difference between ceremonial and moral laws. Moral laws continue throughout time; ceremonial laws were for a particular period. The ban of certain types of food, including shellfish, was a ceremonial law, intended to essentially teach Israel that they should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That picture is no longer required in our time, and so the prohibition against eating shellfish is removed (though the moral law of restraining from being unequally yoked is still in play). Indeed, the Bible even teaches in the New Testament that everything is to be received, if it be received with thanksgiving (speaking about food).
The tattoos and genitals passages are also ceremonial laws, pictures intended to display a greater spiritual meaning.
What "plenty of people do" is not the issue. Many people lie, but that doesn't mean that lying is okay with God. And since we're all sinners, we're all doomed, unless God has mercy on any one of us. So, even if "doing something" about testicular cancer were wrong in God's eyes, that person would be in trouble with God for the many thousands of other sins they've committed.
Many people misunderstand the difference between ceremonial and moral laws. Moral laws continue throughout time; ceremonial laws were for a particular period. The ban of certain types of food, including shellfish, was a ceremonial law, intended to essentially teach Israel that they should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That picture is no longer required in our time, and so the prohibition against eating shellfish is removed (though the moral law of restraining from being unequally yoked is still in play). Indeed, the Bible even teaches in the New Testament that everything is to be received, if it be received with thanksgiving (speaking about food).
Well said but I don't think many people even know there are ceremonial and moral laws let alone that there are differences, too many people are stuck on the entire thing being timeless.
It's against God's Law. It's against the natural order of things, also.
Tatoos are against God's laws too. As are Shellfish and wearing gold.
Plenty of people do those things.
More than that, men without genitals can't be Christians.
"A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:1
If you get testicular cancer and choose to do anything about it, you're going to hell.
Many people misunderstand the difference between ceremonial and moral laws. Moral laws continue throughout time; ceremonial laws were for a particular period. The ban of certain types of food, including shellfish, was a ceremonial law, intended to essentially teach Israel that they should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That picture is no longer required in our time, and so the prohibition against eating shellfish is removed (though the moral law of restraining from being unequally yoked is still in play). Indeed, the Bible even teaches in the New Testament that everything is to be received, if it be received with thanksgiving (speaking about food).
The tattoos and genitals passages are also ceremonial laws, pictures intended to display a greater spiritual meaning.
What "plenty of people do" is not the issue. Many people lie, but that doesn't mean that lying is okay with God. And since we're all sinners, we're all doomed, unless God has mercy on any one of us. So, even if "doing something" about testicular cancer were wrong in God's eyes, that person would be in trouble with God for the many thousands of other sins they've committed.
The area of Texas is about 262,000 mi2. Dividing this figure by the current human population of 7 billion leaves each person with less than 100 square meters, a small plot the size of a big room about 10 m x 10 m.
I understand what your'e saying. I only know where the Bible says it about men. On one of my firsts posts here I said I wasn't sure what the Bible says about women. In this case I'm actually not disagreeing with you.
Also, I'm sorry if I said you were starting a fight. There wasn't really a fight. I just had the feeling it was about to turn into one.
I understand what your'e saying. I only know where the Bible says it about men. On one of my firsts posts here I said I wasn't sure what the Bible says about women. In this case I'm actually not disagreeing with you.
Also, I'm sorry if I said you were starting a fight. There wasn't really a fight. I just had the feeling it was about to turn into one.
To my recollection it doesn't say anything about women, honestly I doubt it was even considered back then, women were usually an afterthought and culturally I doubt lesbians even occurred to them as a thing, women were just the wife (past/present/future) or the whore, laying with beasts was more of a thing then woman on woman.
@goldgoblin: ah the good old separation of church and state oh how I've missed it :P I don't even think that's really been used the entire time I've been alive.
@pikahyper: are you talking about the separation of church and state or the 'god disapproves of gay people' argument? I've seen the latter a disheartening amount of times.
It's against God's Law. It's against the natural order of things, also.
Tatoos are against God's laws too. As are Shellfish and wearing gold.
Plenty of people do those things.
More than that, men without genitals can't be Christians.
"A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:1
If you get testicular cancer and choose to do anything about it, you're going to hell.
Many people misunderstand the difference between ceremonial and moral laws. Moral laws continue throughout time; ceremonial laws were for a particular period. The ban of certain types of food, including shellfish, was a ceremonial law, intended to essentially teach Israel that they should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That picture is no longer required in our time, and so the prohibition against eating shellfish is removed (though the moral law of restraining from being unequally yoked is still in play). Indeed, the Bible even teaches in the New Testament that everything is to be received, if it be received with thanksgiving (speaking about food).
The tattoos and genitals passages are also ceremonial laws, pictures intended to display a greater spiritual meaning.
What "plenty of people do" is not the issue. Many people lie, but that doesn't mean that lying is okay with God. And since we're all sinners, we're all doomed, unless God has mercy on any one of us. So, even if "doing something" about testicular cancer were wrong in God's eyes, that person would be in trouble with God for the many thousands of other sins they've committed.
Glad to see someone else has already mentioned it.
As for reasons, many have already been mentioned, but you do have to clarify what situation you are talking about here. If you are referring to legislating it as law, then many are not valid arguments, but when you speak of personal opinion there are many different ones.
@blacklegraph: I'm not talking about that, i'm talking about the fact that other religions have stuff there not allowed to do. If one religion is allowed to have their way, all of them do.
@pikahyper: Yeah, whenever i talk to people about this they just say that the law was created to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. Regardless of whether that's true, it doesn't change the fact that it works the other way around too.
@goldgoblin: it needs to be a two way street, just like the government is supposed to represent the people, I'm just so tired of religion being shoehorned in to anything political, it has put us back at least a decade.
The only problem I have is when people of one orientation force their orientation on another person with a different orientation. We all have freedoms, but when people start forcing their stuff on others, that's when it gets ugly.
Just in case though, the arguments presented so far have been:
- it won't produce children, (the more eccentric folks have taken it a step further and claimed that that means it will doom the human race to extinction)
- it's not natural
- it's icky
- god says it's a no-no
and that's about it. I agree with absolutely none of them, but it is what it is.
It's against God's Law. It's against the natural order of things, also.
Tatoos are against God's laws too. As are Shellfish and wearing gold.
Plenty of people do those things.
More than that, men without genitals can't be Christians.
"A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:1
If you get testicular cancer and choose to do anything about it, you're going to hell.
Many people misunderstand the difference between ceremonial and moral laws. Moral laws continue throughout time; ceremonial laws were for a particular period. The ban of certain types of food, including shellfish, was a ceremonial law, intended to essentially teach Israel that they should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. That picture is no longer required in our time, and so the prohibition against eating shellfish is removed (though the moral law of restraining from being unequally yoked is still in play). Indeed, the Bible even teaches in the New Testament that everything is to be received, if it be received with thanksgiving (speaking about food).
The tattoos and genitals passages are also ceremonial laws, pictures intended to display a greater spiritual meaning.
What "plenty of people do" is not the issue. Many people lie, but that doesn't mean that lying is okay with God. And since we're all sinners, we're all doomed, unless God has mercy on any one of us. So, even if "doing something" about testicular cancer were wrong in God's eyes, that person would be in trouble with God for the many thousands of other sins they've committed.
no one ever explained it this way to me. Even when I went to church. They basically just made people feel bad for not following the rules with no explanation as to why they are followed, the explination was "because god is a jealous vengeful god, you should fear him but love him" which as a child is some scary stuff. I am not spouting blasphemy here, but to a child that is confusing and scary...sooo thank you for explaining some things
ITT: Comicvine users use a word without knowing what it actually means in its context(the context of an argument). Waste 6 pages demonstrating that they don't know what it means. Though, I give props to the two users who say that the definition needs to be specified.
No such a thing as 'valid argument' in these matters. What's valid for one maybe invalid for others or opposite..
Um, no.... That's the very opposite of the idea of "valid".
For the record... as a public service announcement.... in the context of "arguments," validity refers to the structure of the argument. Whether the logical steps lead to the conclusion. The truth of the beliefs and/or premises do not matter. What matters is that point leads to next point or premises lead to next premises.
In other words, here is an argument that counts as "valid":
If I were Superman, I'd be Kryptonian. I am Superman. Therefore, I am Kryptonian. = valid argument, because conclusion would be true if these premises were true.... Yet, I am not Superman and he doesn't exist, so the conclusion is false and the argument isn't sound. And still, the argument is valid.
Whether you believe in mouth germs, God, homosexuality, religion, evolution, Superman, tattoos, public displays of affection, etc. does not matter. Concerning validity, what matters is the existence of logical steps. And for refuting it, what matters is that you show there is a disconnect in the logical steps. Such as showing that a premise doesn't lead to another or the conclusion. But in context, validity is looked at when it is assumed or hypothesized that all the premises are true.
I understand what your'e saying. I only know where the Bible says it about men. On one of my firsts posts here I said I wasn't sure what the Bible says about women. In this case I'm actually not disagreeing with you.
Also, I'm sorry if I said you were starting a fight. There wasn't really a fight. I just had the feeling it was about to turn into one.
To my recollection it doesn't say anything about women, honestly I doubt it was even considered back then, women were usually an afterthought and culturally I doubt lesbians even occurred to them as a thing, women were just the wife (past/present/future) or the whore, laying with beasts was more of a thing then woman on woman.
Have you ever considered that The Bible is the Word of God... and that God is just a total bro that is grossed out by dudes being together but thinks lesbians are sooooo hot
@racob7: I think you're asking the wrong question here. It's actually pretty easy to make a valid argument against homosexuality, because it is very easy to make any argument valid. From a philosophical standpoint, all that "valid" really means is that the argument is phrased in such a way that if the premises where true the conclusion would have to be true. Valid arguments don't have to be true, they just have to be coherent. For example, take the religious argument:
This is a valid argument because if both premises were true the conclusion would have to be true. Notice that the existence of God and discerning the bible's actual position on homosexuality is completely irrelevant towards accessing the validity of the argument. All that matters is that if the premises were true the conclusion is definitely true.
@cuddlebear: if he was so in to them he'd probably have mentioned them in the book in one way or another, god is more of a drunken abusive step dad then a bro.
@cuddlebear: if he was so in to them he'd probably have mentioned them in the book in one way or another, god is more of a drunken abusive step dad then a bro.
LOL... well this certainly has taken a dark turn :)
@cuddlebear: if he was so in to them he'd probably have mentioned them in the book in one way or another, god is more of a drunken abusive step dad then a bro.
LOL... well this certainly has taken a dark turn :)
More truthful than dark. If all creatures are the children of God and species continue to breed, than sex on nearly every level is incest. Also every murder would be fratricide.
@racob7: I think you're asking the wrong question here. It's actually pretty easy to make a valid argument against homosexuality, because it is very easy to make any argument valid. From a philosophical standpoint, all that "valid" really means is that the argument is phrased in such a way that if the premises where true the conclusion would have to be true. Valid arguments don't have to be true, they just have to be coherent. For example, take the religious argument:
This is a valid argument because if both premises were true the conclusion would have to be true. Notice that the existence of God and discerning the bible's actual position on homosexuality is completely irrelevant towards accessing the validity of the argument. All that matters is that if the premises were true the conclusion is definitely true.
Though, the validity of that argument could be challenged like this:
However,
Premise 3: The bible does not only state the laws of God, but more including human laws, parables, and opinions.
Thus, the fact that "The bible prohibits homosexuality" would not necessarily mean that its stated as God's law in the bible(there's a logical leap there), therefore the conclusion does not necessarily follow(and its invalid).
ITT: Comicvine users use a word without knowing what it actually means in its context(the context of an argument). Waste 6 pages demonstrating that they don't know what it means. Though, I give props to the two users who say that the definition needs to be specified.
No such a thing as 'valid argument' in these matters. What's valid for one maybe invalid for others or opposite..
Um, no.... That's the very opposite of the idea of "valid".
For the record... as a public service announcement.... in the context of "arguments," validity refers to the structure of the argument. Whether the logical steps lead to the conclusion. The truth of the beliefs and/or premises do not matter. What matters is that point leads to next point or premises lead to next premises.
In other words, here is an argument that counts as "valid":
If I were Superman, I'd be Kryptonian. I am Superman. Therefore, I am Kryptonian. = valid argument, because conclusion would be true if these premises were true.... Yet, I am not Superman and he doesn't exist, so the conclusion is false and the argument isn't sound. And still, the argument is valid.
Whether you believe in mouth germs, God, homosexuality, religion, evolution, Superman, tattoos, public displays of affection, etc. does not matter. Concerning validity, what matters is the existence of logical steps. And for refuting it, what matters is that you show there is a disconnect in the logical steps. Such as showing that a premise doesn't lead to another or the conclusion. But in context, validity is looked at when it is assumed or hypothesized that all the premises are true.
I don't justify Homosexuality. I understand that it's common and have been practiced from like forever but I believe that is just people's preferences. Now if you want to be gay good for you. We all have free will and it's your choice to do what you wanna do in your own privacy. Also, I don't believe people are born that way. I really don't, I just think it's a preference just like how some people prefer a coke over Pepsi. What is natural is the urge to have sex. We are born with these physical capabilities.But who and what we do with them is up to us as individuals.To say someone is wired to be gay is like saying, someone is wired to like a specific person Which is crazy if u ask me.That goes for straight people too. It's psychological. In my opinion.
It's unnatural. Homosexuality goes against nature. The physiology of the human body makes homosexuality illogical in the sense that biologically, we are supposed to have sex only with those of opposite gender to prolong the species.
Biologically, that is all we are here for. To have kids. And die.
Now if you are talking about homosexuality as a lifestyle, I don't have any problems with homosexuals as long as they don't make any advances in my direction. So I don't really have an argument against it other than the biological explanation.
What makes something natural and unnatural? Wouldn't anything that fits within the parameters of our "Physical Laws" be considered natural by definition?
In regards to biology, how do you know that homosexuality isn't a way to stabilize our population growth? In biology you learn about things called carry capacities which is the environment's capacity to carry a certain quantity of animals (or for the sake of the argument individuals), and when individuals arrive at the limit of that capacity "Nature" has certain ways in which it can regulation overpopulation in the environment.
Just because we are here to reproduce and expand our lineages doesn't mean that's all we ought to do.
@rainja: sooo uncountable numbers of teen and pre-teen boys and girls all around the world are choosing to be bullied, oppressed, hurt and even killed on a regular basis? Even if it was psychological statistically there would be a percentage that could be "cured" or choose not to be gay and that just isn't happening.
It is real easy to think it is a choice until you are around it and see that true homosexuality is not a choice, there is however a large percentage of people that are not truly gay, these people are in it for fun, status, wealth, attention or popularity, they are a growing percentage unfortunately but they are still in the minority in the community and they could never truly be considered real homosexuals.
Log in to comment