Saturday, May 04, 2013

God Is Love, But Love Is Not God

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me." ~ Exodus 20:3

Neil Simpson, of Eternity Matters blog, often blogs opposition to gay marriage, or, as he calls it, "oxymoronic same sex marriage", a more accurate description. He correctly points out there are no verses or passages anywhere in the Bible that refer to homosexual relationships in an affirmative way. The only times the Bible mentions homosexuality is to call it sin.

  God is Love, but Love is not God. Neither should Love ever be confused with Lust.

Homosexual activists' (and their supporters) argue that God would somehow approve of the homosexual lifestyle as long as it is a "loving" relationship. And, they are right to say two people in love have every right to get married. 

The problem with that argument is this: Two men or two women cannot love each other in the way a heterosexual couple can. What they're doing is confusing love with lust. In Romans 1, Paul testifies that because men had iniquity in their hearts, and rejected God, "God gave them up unto vile affections: for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another."

Read that again. They burned in their lust.

Just as there is no verse or passage in the bible that refers to homosexuality favorably, there is no verse that equates lust and love. None.

Lust should never be confused with love. They are not the same.

But this is exactly what homosexuals and their enablers do. 

I have often said homosexuality violates seven of the ten Commandments. What is the first Commandment? 

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

When anyone places more importance on their own selfish desires than they do God, they have made those desires their God. That violates the first commandment. 

Homosexuals make lust their God.

 I have often said I don't care if homosexuals marry each other or not, as long as they don't insist I approve.

Why do I say that? Because, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is never a union between anything else. be it two men, two women, man and animal, more than two of any gender, etc, therefore, what homosexuals do is not a marriage, no matter how many times they insist it is.

All this is not to say I personally hate homosexuals. I don't. I don't even dislike them. In fact, the ones I know personally, I like very much. I consider them friends. I will go so far as to say I love them, as I should. With brotherly love. And, yes, Agape Love.

But I do not lust after them.

What person, if he sees his friend about to willfully commit an act of self destruction would not do whatever he can to prevent his friend from destroying himself? 

What kind of friend would encourage, and even help his friend destroy himself? 

Yet that is exactly what homosexual activists and their supporters are doing when they encourage homosexuals to continue to violate God's precepts. 

I'm sorry, but that is not the actions of a friend.

When I write these posts, I am not writing out of hate for homosexuals. I am under an obligation to God to reach homosexuals for Christ, and to save them from themselves.

God is, in fact, Love. But, Love is not God

Those who support the homosexual agenda need to understand that concept.


311 comments:

1 – 200 of 311   Newer›   Newest»
Jim said...

Man! What a load of manure to start the day!

You may be surprised to learn that marriage isn't only a religious institution. It MAY be a religious institution, but legal marriage is ALWAYS a civil institution according to the laws of the several states and the federal government.

It may also surprise you to learn that the Bible is not the only religious doctrine by which United States citizens and legal residents live by.

As a civil institution, what the Bible says or doesn't say about homosexuals, homosexuality, or same sex marriage is TOTALLY irrelevant.

TOTALLY. Not one bit. Nada (Happy Cinco de Mayo!)

they are right to say two people in love have every right to get married.

Thank you for saying so, but even that is not a legal requirement.

What they're doing is confusing love with lust.

No, it is you who does not know the difference.

Two men or two women cannot love each other in the way a heterosexual couple can.

Lust should never be confused with love. They are not the same...
But this is exactly what homosexuals and their enablers do.


This is absurd in the extreme. You do not have any idea what you are talking about.

Homosexuals throughout history have felt and expressed love (not lust) in the deepest, most beautiful, and passionate (not lust) ways imaginable. It's in literature, music, and more.

To deny this is simply delusional.

What person, if he sees his friend about to willfully commit an act of self destruction would not do whatever he can to prevent his friend from destroying himself?

Knock yourself out. Fewer and fewer people are hung up about this. That's a good thing.

Marshall Art said...

Lust is usually the first motivation for any two people coming together. Love is hopefully what develops before any marriage or sex takes place. But love doesn't always rule over lust, as Jim's position makes clear, in that so many come together when coming together isn't the best idea. Two of the same sex coming together is never a good idea.

Jim said...

Two of the same sex coming together is never a good idea.

In your (ahem) humble opinion.

Mark said...

It will not do those of you from the left any good to try commenting on this post. I simply do not have time to waste on stupidity.

Marshall Art said...

"In your (ahem) humble opinion."

In God's opinion, too.

Jim said...

How do you know what God's opinion is today?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Because God doesn't change His mind like man does.

Jim said...

How do you know that?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6

Mark said...

Jim incredibly asks, "How do you know that?"

But, the question is not "how do you know that", but instead, Why don't you know that, Jim?

It's in the Bible, Jim. You remember the Bible? You claim to be a worship leader in your church. Does your church study the Bible? Does your church even read the Bible? Apparently your church knows nothing of the Bible, unless, you're one of few in your church that doesn't know it.

Jim said...

Yeah, I remember the Bible. It's on the shelf 2 and a half feet from my shoulder, where I can easily reach it and read it. I also read it in church. I'm not an expert but I do know this:

That last words of the Bible were written about 1900 years ago. Leviticus was written about 3400 years ago. I'll grant you that God may have had an opinion about homosexuality 3400 years ago, but it's been 1900 years since he said anything about anything Bible-wise, so there is no guarantying that his opinion hasn't changed since then.

Marshall Art said...

Jim often ignored his mother's rule of no cookies before dinner if she had no reason to repeat that rule for several weeks. Jim needs to be told often or he will assume the rule is no longer in effect. For him, God must repeat Himself over and over again lest Jim presume that perhaps the rules have changed. Honest people of character would assume that without any hint to the contrary, the rule last stated must still be in effect, especially as concerns the Will of God.

Jim said...

Honest people of character would assume that without any hint to the contrary, the rule last stated must still be in effect

But there are numerous hints to the contrary.

Marshall Art said...

Such as...

Jim said...

Some hints here

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Soooooo,
A Wikipedia list of Christian denominations who are falling into apostasy is supposed to be a hint that God has changed his mind?!?!?!?!?

UM, NO - it just demonstrates man's focus more and more away from God as he tries to please man.

Jim said...

A Wikipedia list of Christian denominations who are falling into apostasy is supposed to be a hint that God has changed his mind?!?!?!?!?

Yes. Or do we burn them at the stake?

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, Jim. That's what we're saying. Burn them at the stake. Sure.

Your list demonstrates the ongoing conclusion you continue to support with most every comment you post: you are of the world and laws and polls dictate your morality.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

you are of the world and laws and polls dictate your morality.

That's a false conclusion. I am an observer of what is and a researcher of why. Morals exist outside the Christian Bible and therefore laws based on morals may give the Bible its due but no more than any other religious or non-religious doctrine.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Without God, there is no objective morality. It becomes everyone's opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.

Jim said...

Without God, there is no objective morality.

Not so.

Marshall Art said...

Absolutely so. Without God it is all subjective, based on the whims of whomever is in power, what the consensus opinion is or whatever little Jimmy wants it to be. Without God, there is no one to demand I not murder than can consign me to eternal anguish. YOU might say murder is wrong, but if I murder you, then my morality prevails. But with God, it doesn't matter what I think or believe. It doesn't matter if I live or not. Morality exists without me, but not without God. HE is the source of morality. YOU are simply applying the term "objective" to that which without God is totally subjective.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

So, smelly Marsha, you're saying that atheists are doing all the murdering, lying, and stealing in the world? If not how on EARTH are they managing to not kill everyone who pisses them off? Seems like it's the believers who are doing most of the killing.

Without God, there is no one to demand I not murder than can consign me to eternal anguish.

I'd say incarceration and death are more likely to be inhibitors. After all, "whosoever believeth in me shall be saved" doesn't exactly lend a lot of meat to the eternal anguish part.

Clearly, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just as much a matter of self preservation (an extremely strong instinct requiring no divine inspiration) as it might be a fear of eternal anguish.

Marshall Art said...

"Smelly Marsha"? Wow. Clever.

"...you're saying that atheists are doing all the murdering, lying, and stealing in the world?"

I don't think so. Perhaps you can find where I did.

"Seems like it's the believers who are doing most of the killing."

Really? And how do you score this, exactly? Are murderers prone to proclaiming their faith as they murder? Or are you conflating "killing" with "murder"?

"I'd say incarceration and death are more likely to be inhibitors."

Only if one who wants to murder either fears either of those or does not believe he won't get caught. Most people who commit crimes do not believe they will get caught, so any threat of incarceration and/or death holds no sway. Others simply don't care. Or are you suggesting that you would have murdered if not for the possibility of your incarceration or execution? Nice guy.

"Clearly, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just as much a matter of self preservation..."

Not so clearly considering how many people care little about this teaching and are only concerned with how people treat them as opposed to giving any thought to how they treat others. That is to say, adopting that code of ethics will only guarantee how YOU treat someone else, not how anyone might treat you.

"...you're saying that atheists are doing all the murdering, lying, and stealing in the world?"

What I will say is that true believers aren't likely to do such things.

Jim said...

Most people who commit crimes do not believe they will get caught, so any threat of incarceration and/or death holds no sway.

You are ignoring those who do NOT commit crimes because of the possible consequences.

Or are you suggesting that you would have murdered if not for the possibility of your incarceration or execution?

No, I would not murder because 1) I have no motive to murder, and 2) murder is wrong.

That is to say, adopting that code of ethics will only guarantee how YOU treat someone else, not how anyone might treat you.

"That code of ethics" is not just the golden rule. It is a social compact. Societies have an interest in mitigating chaos and mayhem. Society can and does place a stigma on crime quite apart from from the teachings of one God or another.

If you don't like names that are meant to diminish you, don't engage in it yourself. It's like, um I dunno...the Golden Rule?

Mark said...

"No, I would not murder because 1) I have no motive to murder, and 2) murder is wrong."

Who told you murder was wrong? Oh, that's right. God.

But why do you believe Him? You don't believe much else of what He says.

Jim said...

It doesn't take God to know that murder is wrong.

I can't recall anybody in my youth telling me that murder is wrong. But then I can't recall anybody telling me that love is good. And yet even as a child I knew that both were true.

Oh wait, I think the cowboy movies of my youth were pretty influential in knowing that murder was wrong. Gene Autry and Roy Rodgers made it pretty clear that murder was a bad thing. We knew what was wrong and who the bad guys were without a Bible to tell us.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Why is murder wrong? If we are just evolving animals, then murder is nothing but survival of the fittest. What moral standard do you have to say murder is wrong? And what about those who think some murder is wrong while other is okay (Nazis murdering Jews, e.g.)?

Jim said...

Oh, jeez. Here we go again with Godwin's law.

Why is murder wrong?

Because it ends the life of a person. Do you need God to know that? I don't.

If we are just evolving animals, then murder is nothing but survival of the fittest.

We aren't. We are long past survival of the fittest.

What moral standard do you have to say murder is wrong?

The standard that it is wrong to murder another person.

What moral standard do YOU have to say murder is wrong?

And what about those who think some murder is wrong while other is okay (Nazis murdering Jews, e.g.)?

They were Christians.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Nazis were not Christians, and you saying that demonstrates total ignorance.

The claim that murder is wrong because it ends the life of a person is just YOUR opinion. The Nazis had the opinion that murdering Jews was quite right and proper. Abortionists have the opinion that murdering the unborn is quite right and proper. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others saw murdering those who were dissidents to be quite right and proper. By what right do you say they were wrong and you are right?

Jim said...

Nazis were not Christians, and you saying that demonstrates total ignorance.

Which demonstrates your inability to understand complex issues.

The claim that murder is wrong because it ends the life of a person is just YOUR opinion.

I thought I'd already established that it is my standard.

The Nazis had the opinion that murdering Jews was quite right and proper.

Are you suggesting that the Nazis were a rational society?

Abortionists have the opinion that murdering the unborn is quite right and proper.

Doctors who perform abortions know that an abortion is not murder. That it IS murder is YOUR opinion.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others saw murdering those who were dissidents to be quite right and proper. By what right do you say they were wrong and you are right?

Haven't you used Joe, Mao, and Pol Pot as evidence that there is "evil" in this world? How would such "evil" be rational? How are they relevant to the conversation?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Call it YOUR standard then, but it is still arbitrary, because everyone can have a different standard.

So you now determine that by your standard Nazis weren't rational, nor were those other mass murderers. But what about their standard?

See, your standard is arbitrary.

And funny how the scientific facts demonstrate that life begins at conception. It is a baby being aborted. The taking of an innocent life, which is defined as murder.

Oh, but by your standard, life doesn't begin until the mother says it does. You are an example of evil in the world.

Jim said...

because everyone can have a different standard.

There are millions of atheists all over the world, and almost all of them don't murder people. I think that is most everyone's "standard".

As a society, the Nazis did not act in a rational manner. I think that's pretty evident.

My standard is not arbitrary. It is the same as that of most people in the world.

And funny how the scientific facts demonstrate that life begins at conception.

You think that's funny? Actually I'd say that sperm are living and that ova are living. But they not are a person, and neither is an embryo.

It is a baby being aborted.

Nope.

The taking of an innocent life, which is defined as murder.

It is a fetus, without innocence or guilt.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Rationalize away, Jim, rationalize away.

The fact that many people have a similar moral standard doesn't make it a right moral standard. Numbers of people with a belief do not make the belief a fact.

Your standards are arbitrary with no higher standard than your own.

Jim said...

The fact that many people have a similar moral standard doesn't make it a right moral standard.

But wait! I thought murder being wrong WAS the right moral standard.

Numbers of people with a belief do not make the belief a fact.

E.g. Christianity? Isn't that ironic?

Your standards are arbitrary with no higher standard than your own.

And yet the are the same as God's.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Murder being wrong isn't the moral standard. God saying murder is wrong is the moral standard. Not everyone agrees that murder is always wrong, so just saying murder is wrong cannot be a moral standard. The standard is the REASON why it is wrong. Since everyone can come up with their own arbitrary reason why murder is wrong, then everyone has their own moral standard as to why it is wrong, while Christians know it is wrong because God said it is wrong.

Christianity does not rely on numbers of believers to make the faith a fact. So there is nothing ironic about my statement.

Your standards are NOT the same as God's when it comes to murder, because you decide personally what is or is not murder, and you have your own reasons for calling it murder. As a perfect example, you don't consider aborting a preborn child to be murder, yet God does - because God considers it to be a human being!

Mark said...

Nor does God consider Homosexuality natural and normal, yet you do, so there, again, your standards do not comport with God's. Are you so arrogant that you consider your standards more moral than God's? If you do, you are no Christian.

Jim said...

Murder being wrong isn't the moral standard. God saying murder is wrong is the moral standard. Not everyone agrees that murder is always wrong, so just saying murder is wrong cannot be a moral standard. The standard is the REASON why it is wrong. Since everyone can come up with their own arbitrary reason why murder is wrong, then everyone has their own moral standard as to why it is wrong, while Christians know it is wrong because God said it is wrong.

What?



The length of a "yard" is a standard measurement. It doesn't matter who came up with it or why. What matters is that everyone agrees to it. That's what makes it a standard.

But without God, Christians would not know that murder is wrong? Really? What a sad state of affairs!

Christianity does not rely on numbers of believers to make the faith a fact.

"Faith a fact". Isn't that an oxymoron?

Your standards are NOT the same as God's when it comes to murder.

My standard is that murder is wrong. God's standard is that murder is wrong. Clearly, our standards are exactly the same.

because you decide personally what is or is not murder, and you have your own reasons for calling it murder.

It's really not that simple. Society decides what's murder. I'm pretty much fine with that.

As a perfect example, you don't consider aborting a preborn child to be murder

Most societies do not consider abortion murder, including our own.

yet God does

Verse?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Regardless of what motivates one to murder or not murder, the point is that murder is wrong because God says so. There is nothing in anything you've said that rebuts this point, no argument that suggests another source that determines what is or isn't moral.

You brought up a few poor ideas, but let's look at one of them: Consensus.

Let's assume that societies call murder bad because of the consequences of not doing so, thus all societies prohibit murder. Now remove the consequences. Is murder now OK?

God prohibited murder because He made us in His image, we are all an image of God. Murder is like killing God because we are all made in His image. Thus murder is sinful.

You have given one reason, that murder takes a life, but do not explain why that is a bad thing, except that you wouldn't want anyone taking yours. Remove that possibility. Now your own life is never at risk. Does that change anything?

That murder takes a life is merely a consequence of murder. That consequence might be unfortunate for the dead, but in and of itself does not constitute bad/sinful/immoral. God establishing murder as sinful does.

Nothing has existed longer than morality than God, because God dictated what constitutes moral and immoral behavior, good and evil, right and wrong. All you've done is presume that mankind has invented the concept that already existed.

Jim said...

the point is that murder is wrong because God says so.

Nonsense. By that logic atheists would not consider murder wrong, and yet they do.

no argument that suggests another source that determines what is or isn't moral.

What source is required besides rational thought?

Now remove the consequences. Is murder now OK?

The consequences of murder cannot be removed.

Murder is like killing God because we are all made in His image.

How about killing in battle? Is not the dead person still made in the image of God and therefore the victor has killed God?

That murder takes a life is merely a consequence of murder.

No, it is the very act of murder itself, not a consequence.

The Egyptians had no morals? The Greeks had no morals? Native Americans had no morals? Atheists have no morals?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim will never be convinced of the truth. It is a fruitless discussion.

Jim said...

I'm absolutely convinced of the truth.

Here is a great role model.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again, Jim doesn't know the meaning of truth. JESUS is the truth. And not a made up Jesus who think homosexuality is okay, either.

As to the "role model," I see nothing different from what he said than any Christian I know say. We all say the same thing. It is a sin. But we don't force anyone to follow our morals.

However, the homosexuals ARE forcing us to follow their lack of morals or else insure we are punished for not doing so. Tolerance is only one way.

Jim said...

homosexuals ARE forcing us to follow their lack of morals

When was the last time you were forced to perform a homosexual act?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
My typing got ahead of my brain.

They force us to SANCTION their lack of morals. Either we give them sanction - personal approval - or they seek to punish us. And that, sir, is a 100% fact!

Jim said...

You don't have to personally approve at all. You can be as nasty as you want. Just don't deny them the rights and services that everyone else gets. They can't sue you for sticking your nose up in the air.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you are being very disingenuous, or else outright lying.

Back we go again. First, they do not have a right to redefine marriage, but we've been all through that haven't we?

Again, they force people to violate personal moral beliefs when they force them to give sanction to their fake marriages or sue them instead of tolerating them as they demand tolerance! As has been demonstrated over and over, just in the U.S.A. people have lost thousands of dollars in lawsuits, lost jobs, etc just because they didn't want to participate in and sanction perversion. In other countries you go to jail for saying homosexual behavior is immoral.

I'm sick of people like you claiming you have the right to force everyone to agree or be punished.

Marshall Art said...

"By that logic atheists would not consider murder wrong, and yet they do."

This is the real nonsense, to suggest that atheists agreeing that murder is wrong has any bearing on the source of morality. If anything, it supports what I'm saying as regards morality being subjective if not an already existing truth.

"What source is required besides rational thought?"

This might work if what is rational wasn't so often subjective as well. The Nazi believed it was completely rational to murder Jews. The Klan believes their racist attitudes are completely rational. And for the selfish, it is rational to believe that what they want they should have. Rational thought can be cheap rationalization.

"The consequences of murder cannot be removed."

They can be by honest people wishing to discuss whether or not morality is a constant mandated by God. In other words, for the sake of any conversation, anything can be set aside in order to focus more deeply on a given issue or topic. But here, we see that doing so won't work for your position, so you pretend the consequences of murder cannot be put aside.

"How about killing in battle?"

Killing in battle isn't murder unless your side is the oppressive conqueror hoping to enslave a people or steal their resources. Weak sauce try.

"No, it is the very act of murder itself, not a consequence."

Irrelevant. Without God, that consequence does not define the morality of murder. Without God, that mandate is dependent upon who is doing the mandating. If it is the victim, it is wrong. Not necessarily the case for the perpetrator.

"The Egyptians had no morals? The Greeks had no morals? Native Americans had no morals? Atheists have no morals?"

Irrelevant because it is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not morality is fixed and then to determine what is moral. In each case of those you list, they determine their morality by something other than what God has mandated. They have based their determinations on subjective criteria.

Jim said...

Back we go again.

Yep. They do not want to "redefine" marriage. That's just a meaningless excuse on your part.

They want to be included. They want the definition to be what it was BEFORE it was redefined.

they force people to violate personal moral beliefs

I don't see how that's possible unless "people" are being forced to commit morally objectionable behavior. After all, it's not the homosexual you abhor; it's the homosexual behavior. Right? So if you are not being forced to perform homosexual sex acts, what's the problem. How are you violating your personal moral belief?

people have lost thousands of dollars in lawsuits, lost jobs, etc

Why do you think they consistently lose?

people like you claiming you have the right to force everyone to agree or be punished.

I've never claimed any such thing. People are punished for civil torts.

Jim said...

to suggest that atheists agreeing that murder is wrong has any bearing on the source of morality.

Who cares if the source of morality is from a lizard or a Venusian? I checked several online dictionaries for the definition of morality and not one said that God was the source of morality or even mention God for that matter.

I particularly like this one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which coincides with what I've said above:

"normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

The Nazi believed it was completely rational

The Nazis weren't rational.

The consequence of murder is death. The death of the victim. That consequence cannot be removed from the premise. Nevertheless, returning to the genesis of this particular theme:

"Remove that possibility [punishment or execution]. Now your own life is never at risk. Does that change anything?"

Nope.

Killing in battle isn't murder

True enough. But that wasn't the point. If by killing someone who is made in God's image is killing God, what difference does it make to God why you killed him?

Without God, that consequence does not define the morality of murder.

Not so. The morality of the murder can be defined by a society of rational persons.

they determine their morality by something other than what God has mandated. They have based their determinations on subjective criteria.

Why would their determination be any more subjective than yours?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I don't see how that's possible unless "people" are being forced to commit morally objectionable behavior.

Morally objectionable behavior would be forced attendance at a fake wedding, forced service of a fake wedding etc.

People are punished for civil torts.

People are punished for refusing to obey laws which were established by homosexualists for the sole purpose of forcing people to sanction homosexual behavior or be punished for it.

Jews in Germany were forced to agree with the Nazis and were also punished for civil torts.

Jim said...

Morally objectionable behavior would be forced attendance at a fake wedding

How in the world would attending a wedding be morally objectionable behavior? Even less so if you are not attending but are simply delivering decorations. Who would shun somebody for a flower delivery? And how could anyone be blamed if they were "forced"?

laws which were established by homosexualists

How many state legislatures have "homosexualist" majorities to pass such legislation?

Jews in Germany were forced to agree with the Nazis

I'm pretty sure not one Jew ever agreed with the Nazis, forced or not.

and were also punished for civil torts

No, they were led off for slave camps and eventual extermination. Not as punishment. As policy. Because they were Jews.

Marshall Art said...

"Who cares if the source of morality is from a lizard or a Venusian?"

As immoral people, like yourself, tend to question what constitutes morality, it would seem logical to determine what it is and whence it came. But determining such a thing would render your notion of morality void...though you'd likely pretend otherwise.

"I checked several online dictionaries for the definition of morality and not one said that God was the source of morality or even mention God for that matter."

I would not expect a dictionary definition to do more than define a word, not explain the source of the concept the word represents. More weak sauce.

"The Nazis weren't rational."

Not to us they weren't. But we're talking about what was rational to them. And because that particular group of people has a different notion of what it means to be rational, then obviously "rational" is subjective and not a solid criteria.

"That consequence cannot be removed from the premise."

Of course it can if you're trying to suggest that murder is immoral due to the death of the victim. The death of the victim is a given. To "remove the consequence" only means that we're dealing only with the act of murder itself and NOT the consequence as well. All killing results in a dead person. Not all killing is murder. Killing isn't immoral unless the killing is a murder, so the death of the victim isn't in question and therefore can be removed from consideration in a discussion of why murder would be immoral.

"If by killing someone who is made in God's image is killing God, what difference does it make to God why you killed him?"

Clearly, I was speaking about murdering someone. Not merely killing them. It would make a vast difference to God given that He instituted capital punishment, He had the Hebrews fight wars against people He intended to punish. This is all clear to someone whose Bible is within a mere reach and read so often, rather than for someone who merely makes the claim.

"The morality of the murder can be defined by a society of rational persons."

Thanks for agreeing. This constitutes a subjective choice on the part of the "rational" people in question. For Christians, the immorality of murder was already established long before any human beings even existed. That's the point. You're so helpful.

"Why would their determination be any more subjective than yours?"

I haven't made the determination. What's more, I never had to make that determination. It was made by God. I simply follow His lead.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

How in the world would attending a wedding be morally objectionable behavior?

If I go some place, that is behavior. I find it morally objectionable to even THINK of fake marriages, let alone being forced to attend one. The photographer had to be there the whole time.

How many state legislatures have "homosexualist" majorities to pass such legislation

All it took was money, and homosexuals have a lot more money per capita that the average person. Look it up. It was well-financed activists from out of state which got the judges in Iowa to redefine marriage.

Not as punishment. As policy. Because they were [Christians].
That is where we are going.

Jim said...

As immoral people... tend to question what constitutes morality

I doubt it. Why would they?

Not to us they weren't.

Not to anybody. That's why we had Nuremberg Trials.

To "remove the consequence" only means that we're dealing only with the act of murder itself and NOT the consequence as well.

If murder doesn't kill someone, then how is it immoral?

I say murder is immoral because it unjustly ends a person's life.

You say it doesn't matter whether or not murder ends a person's life. It's immoral because and only because God says it is. Didn't God also say it is immoral to wear clothing made of two different fabrics?

Clearly, I was speaking about murdering someone.

Doesn't matter. If killing someone who was made in God's image is the same as killing God, then murder, war, accident, whatever, is killing God. Why is murder different?

For Christians, the immorality of murder was already established long before any human beings even existed.

Then why the need for the Tablets from Mt. Sinai?

I simply follow His lead.

But you follow His lead because of your faith, right? And faith, by definition, is subjective, isn't it?

Jim said...

If I go some place, that is behavior.

Since when is simply going anywhere morally objectionable behavior? Again, I thought it was the homosexual sex act that is the morally repugnant behavior. Love the sinner; hate the sin, right? Wouldn't loving the sinner include celebrating the happiest day of their life?

And yet photography is not celebrating. It is providing a service. It is not engaging in a homosexual sex act.

homosexuals have a lot more money per capita that the average person.

Than the Catholic Church? Than the Mormons? Than Tony Perkins?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You are intentionally being obtuse or you really are that stupid.

Wouldn't loving the sinner include celebrating the happiest day of their life?

Morally repugnant behavior includes participating in any activity which gives approval to immoral behavior. Attending a "wedding" for perverts isn't loving the sinner, rather it is celebrating their sin! That is NOT love. It's like driving the get-away car for a murdering bank robber.

I stated that homosexuals have more money per capita than the average person. You asked about organizations, and then named a not so average person. Stupidity reigns supreme in your comments.

Jim said...

You are intentionally being obtuse or you really are that stupid.

Neither. I'm simply following your logic and questioning it.

There is a difference between participating in an activity and recording it. Would a photographer say vows? Give away the bride? Seat the mothers? Bless the ring? Kiss the groom?

You know, this WHOLE THING could have been avoided if the photographer just told the couple that he would be wearing a God Hates Fags T-shirt while on the job? Now THAT would be protected speech, wouldn't it? Sometimes all it takes is some creative thinking.

I stated that homosexuals have more money per capita than the average person.

Yes you did, but so what? Individual persons did not sway the court except with legal arguments.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Participating at a wedding is giving it tacit approval. Being forced to be there is forcing you to give tacit approval. Any outsider seeing you there would think you approved. Simple as that. The same goes for a fake wedding by two of the same sex. NO ONE should be force to give service to something they don't approve of.

And if you think money wasn't involved in swaying the judiciary to make up a constitutional right, then you are naive or self-deceived.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"I doubt it. Why would they?"

You doubt it? You're doing it now.

"Not to anybody. That's why we had Nuremberg Trials."

Not to anybody? It was to the Third Reich, as it is now to the islamists, the Klan and most of the Soviet controlled world. Rational is subjective.

"If murder doesn't kill someone, then how is it immoral?"

Never said it doesn't kill. But it is not immoral because it ends a life, but because God said it was immoral. For every murder, there is a murderer who claims a good reason for it. A reason that person finds completely rational. Rational is subjective.

"You say it doesn't matter whether or not murder ends a person's life."

I'm saying the ending of the life is not what makes murder wrong. We end life in war, in self-defense situations. Those aren't wrong. And once again, to the murderer, there was a good and rational reason to murder. Murder is wrong because God says it's wrong.

"Didn't God also say it is immoral to wear clothing made of two different fabrics?"

No.

"Doesn't matter. If killing someone who was made in God's image is the same as killing God, then murder, war, accident, whatever, is killing God. Why is murder different?"

It does matter given the morality of murder is the point in discussion. I also distinctly was speaking of murdering someone as being akin to "killing God", and you're being purposely deceitful in suggesting you can't see a difference between murder and war, accident, whatever. If you wish to posture yourself as an idiot, you're doing a great job.

"Then why the need for the Tablets from Mt. Sinai?"

Again, good job with that posturing. the Tablets described for the people what already was.

"And faith, by definition, is subjective, isn't it?"

No.

"And yet photography is not celebrating. It is providing a service. It is not engaging in a homosexual sex act."

No one said it is. It is however, complicity by participating in the celebration of the union of two who are engaged in sinful behavior. The photographer is forced by virtue of any law that states that the photographer cannot decline the request of her services on the basis of her firmly held belief (knowledge, actually) that homosexual unions are sinful. She is forced to participate in the celebration. This is blatantly obvious to any who are not in the bag for immorality.

Jim said...

You're doing it now.

But I'm not immoral.

most of the Soviet controlled world.

The "Soviet controlled world" hasn't existed since about 1989. Catch up.

Rational is subjective.

So what?

For every murder, there is a murderer who claims a good reason for it.

I think this is highly disputable.

I'm saying the ending of the life is not what makes murder wrong

Of course it is. Just because life is ended by other means or reasons doesn't mean that ending a life by murder isn't wrong. Unjustly ending the life of a person is wrong with or without God.

No. Deuteronomy 22:11?

you can't see a difference between murder and war, accident, whatever.

Of course there is a distinct difference. I'm suggesting the assertion and God says murder is immoral because it's like killing God himself is simply logic that hangs out there in nowhere land.

Tablets described for the people what already was.

Well, yeah, since Cain and Abel everybody knew that. So why the tablets?

No.

If faith is objective then it's not really "faith" is it?

Next time the photographer should wear a "God hates fags" T-shirt.

Marshall Art said...

"But I'm not immoral."

You support the legalization of immoral behaviors, like SSM and abortion. You see no reason why those things should not be illegal. Your support makes you complicit in the immoral behaviors. You are immoral.

"The "Soviet controlled world" hasn't existed since about 1989."

Irrelevant. The fact is that they did find their ideologies to be rational. Rational is subjective.

"Rational is subjective.

So what?"


So, what a given culture believes is rational does not constitute a sound basis for determining what is moral. It is subjective. Morality is not.

"I think this is highly disputable."

Find a murderer that does not rationalize his actions.

"Unjustly ending the life of a person is wrong with or without God."

That's YOUR opinion regardless of how many others also hold it. It's wrong primarily because God said it is.

"Deuteronomy 22:11?"

This only says not to do it. It doesn't say doing it is immoral. There's a difference a true student of the Bible can see.

"I'm suggesting the assertion and God says murder is immoral because it's like killing God himself is simply logic that hangs out there in nowhere land."

Only to you. Add to it the plain fact that only God can take away life and the act of murder sets up the murderer as his own god.

"Well, yeah, since Cain and Abel everybody knew that."

Really? You know this, how, exactly?

"If faith is objective then it's not really "faith" is it?"

Yes. It is.

"Next time the photographer should wear a "God hates fags" T-shirt."

Why should she? There's no evidence that she believes this heresy.

Jim said...

I am not immoral. SSM is a civil state, not a behavior. It is not immoral and is legal in 12 states and DC. Abortion is immoral in your opinion. Many if not most people disagree. In any case, it's a legal medical procedure in this country.

This only says not to do it. It doesn't say doing it is immoral.

Same with the 6th Commandment. It says "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say doing it is immoral.

the plain fact that only God can take away life and the act of murder sets up the murderer as his own god.

Plain fact? What?

You know this, how, exactly?

Well you said basically that murder has always been wrong because God said so. Otherwise, why wasn't everybody in Genesis killing everybody else? They must have known it was wrong or else had some rational reason not to do it, right?

Yes. It is.

Then it's not faith. It's objective reality. Like gravity.

Why should she?

Simple. She would solve the problem without being sued. Surely the couple would not hire her.

Mark said...

Jim, I certainly hope you're playing devil's advocate. Otherwise you are showing contempt and hatred for God and all things Godly. Odd behavior for someone who claims to be a worship leader in his church.

I think you must be lying about being a Christian because your attitude and commentary contradicts that position.

Also, "t is not immoral and is legal in 12 states and DC. Abortion is immoral in your opinion. Many if not most people disagree. In any case, it's a legal medical procedure in this country."

Just because something is legal, and/or accepted by a large percentage of the ppoulation doesn't make it moral. This is a big part of the point Art, Glenn, and I have been making.

The lawmakers are thumbing their nose at God and God's people by continuing to pass immoral laws. This is our objection, and my post explains partly how lawmakers are deluded. By confusing sex with love.

Jim said...

someone who claims to be a worship leader in his church

Do you want me to post the playlist we are rehearsing tonight to play this Sunday?

Just because something is legal, and/or accepted by a large percentage of the ppoulation doesn't make it moral.

Just because God has spoken to you doesn't mean he hasn't spoken to those who disagree with you.

The lawmakers are thumbing their nose at God and God's people by continuing to pass immoral laws.

That's what we pay them to do. It's called the First Amendment.

Marshall Art said...

"I am not immoral." Of course you are. Are you going to suggest that politicians that run on platforms supporting SSM and abortion aren't appealing to you? Are you going to suggest that if two politicians seem identical except that one supports SSM and abortion, then you'll support the one who doesn't support them?

"SSM is a civil state, not a behavior." One must act to be married. Once married it is a state of being. But that initial action, and then of course the ongoing choice to remain in the relationship, is a behavior. "It is not immoral and is legal in 12 states and DC." Legal isn't moral. It is immoral and would be if the whole world tolerated it. "Abortion is immoral in your opinion." Abortion is immoral in fact, not opinion. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to its immorality. "Many if not most people disagree." Morality isn't based on consensus. "In any case, it's a legal medical procedure in this country." Legal doesn't make something moral.

"Same with the 6th Commandment. It says "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say doing it is immoral."

This demonstrates your deceitfulness and immoral heart. To suggest that Scripture does not condemn murder (and you claim to have a Bible handy---try studying it)

"Plain fact? What?"

Again, try studying your Bible if the notion that only God has the authority to take life is foreign to you.

"Well you said basically that murder has always been wrong because God said so. Otherwise, why wasn't everybody in Genesis killing everybody else? They must have known it was wrong or else had some rational reason not to do it, right?"

So, you're suggesting that before God handed down the Law, everyone should have been busying themselves with murder? They'd have had no other aim in life but to murder? That without knowing it was wrong or without having a specific reason why they shouldn't, it makes sense to you that they'd just be killing with reckless abandon? Wow. That's pretty stupid.

"Simple. She would solve the problem without being sued. Surely the couple would not hire her."

A simple solution from a simple mind, I guess. She could participate in the celebration of a sinful practice or avoid that by spreading heresy. Perfect.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you want me to post the playlist we are rehearsing tonight to play this Sunday?"

I don't know what that would prove or help. One thing is certain: if you're a worship leader at your church, your church must be hard up for worship leaders.

"Just because God has spoken to you doesn't mean he hasn't spoken to those who disagree with you."

If what you're hearing doesn't align with Scripture, it ain't God speaking to you. Nonetheless, your statement is a poor response to the statement to which it is attached. The truth, however, is that God has spoken to all of us in exactly the same way. Some of us won't pretend the words He used mean something they don't.

"The lawmakers are thumbing their nose at God and God's people by continuing to pass immoral laws.

That's what we pay them to do. It's called the First Amendment."


How do you get that from this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you believe morality can be derived from some source other than God, then what's the point of pretending that there's a problem with Mark's statement? Or do you mean to suggest that the gov't doesn't have to concern itself with the moral quality of legislation?

Jim must be playing devil's advocate, Mark. Otherwise he's a total Parklife.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'd like to make a point about the 10 Commandments. KJV says "kill" but the Hebrew is "murder," which is why all modern English versions have "murder." Murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

But before the commandment, it was originally implicit because Cain knew he did wrong by killing Abel. And of course he was punished by God. When Noah stepped off the Ark he was told capital punishment would be the consequences for murder (Genesis 9:6). Noah was the federal head of all civilization to follow.

Jim said...

Are you going to suggest that politicians that run on platforms supporting SSM and abortion aren't appealing to you?

No, just the opposite. I volunteer for their campaigns.

One must act to be married.

Um, yeah. Don't tell me that saying wedding vows is a sinful behavior. I thought it was your position that it's the improper use of the pudenda that is the sinful behavior?

Legal doesn't make something moral.

Debatable. But one thing is for sure. It does make it legal.

To suggest that Scripture does not condemn murder (and you claim to have a Bible handy---try studying it)

Scripture says "do not kill" (or murder). What more do you need?

only God has the authority to take life

What about Rick Perry?

So, you're suggesting that before God handed down the Law, everyone should have been busying themselves with murder?

Not at all. For some curious reason they did not murder each other when they got mad. Why do you think that is?

your church must be hard up for worship leaders.

We have three different teams. I play every third Sunday.

The truth, however, is that God has spoken to all of us in exactly the same way.

Not really. Have you heard of Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Mormons, Methodists, and Lutherans?

How do you get that from this:

The law of the land is more that just the words of the Constitution. It is the culmination of decisions of Constitutional questions over two centuries.

you believe morality can be derived from some source other than God

I don't know about the word "source", but I do believe that morality can and does exist without God.

The Bible also says thou shalt not steal. Are we to believe that mankind needed God to tell them that because before the 10 commandments societies had no rules about stealing?

Murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Stipulated.

But before the commandment, it was originally implicit because Cain knew he did wrong by killing Abel.

There ya go.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The Bible says that God planted the moral law in everyone's heart (i.e., conscience). So morality came from God from the beginning, and without God there is no moral standard.

Marshall Art said...

"No, just the opposite. I volunteer for their campaigns."

Then you are indeed immoral, working campaigns because the candidate supports immorality. Thanks for validating my point.

"Um, yeah. Don't tell me that saying wedding vows is a sinful behavior. I thought it was your position that it's the improper use of the pudenda that is the sinful behavior?"

First, taking vows is a behavior. Taking vows to commit to a sinful union is a sinful behavior. See how that works?

Secondly, you have a problem following along. My position is that Jesus (you've heard of Him, right? He's in that Bible right next to you.) said that to lust is the same as adultery. Thus, to plan to unite in a sinful union and eventually consummate that sinful union is the same as having done it already.

"Legal doesn't make something moral.

Debatable. But one thing is for sure. It does make it legal."


Not at issue. But you do have a skill for stating the obvious.

"Scripture says "do not kill" (or murder). What more do you need?"

This statement might be clever if not for the unfortunate position you took suggesting that Scripture does not consider murder immoral.

"only God has the authority to take life

What about Rick Perry?"


Really, Jimmy. You must study that Bible you claim to own a bit more closely. I know you're trying to be clever, but you are only embarrassing yourself.

"Not at all. For some curious reason they did not murder each other when they got mad. Why do you think that is?"

Is this really a mystery to you?

"We have three different teams. I play every third Sunday."

Are the other two as ignorant of basic Biblical teachings as are you? (I realize you might not be qualified to answer)

"Not really. Have you heard of Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Mormons, Methodists, and Lutherans?"

Yes. Do you suppose they are differing on essential points or mostly ritual, polity and non-essential teachings? Do you suppose that in each of those denominations there might exist factions that differ for unChristian reasons? Keep in mind that there is only one Truth. It is spoken to everyone in the same way by the same God. How some might understand it, or choose to understand it, or claim to understand it does not counter the fact that the Truth is spoken to everyone in the same way by the same God.

Marshall Art said...

"The law of the land is more that just the words of the Constitution."

That's how we got in this mess.

"I don't know about the word "source", but I do believe that morality can and does exist without God."

Again, I can't believe anyone would let you be a worship leader, unless of course that just means you read from Scripture. I guess if one can read, wisdom and intelligence isn't required to be a worship leader, if that's all it means to be one. But as nothing exists without God, morality cannot exist without Him. He is the source of all things, morality included. This is basic stuff. Perhaps some time with the kids' Sunday school classes might be helpful for you as a refresher.

"Are we to believe that mankind needed God to tell them that because before the 10 commandments societies had no rules about stealing?"

And once again we see you are conflating law and morality. Stealing might be against the law, but being against the law doesn't make it immoral. It just means it isn't allowed.

"But before the commandment, it was originally implicit because Cain knew he did wrong by killing Abel.

There ya go."


Do you remember who Cain's parents were? Do you remember why they were driven out of the Garden of Paradise? If you ask your Sunday school teacher, you'll be reminded that they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What was good and evil before then was already established by God.

Jim said...

working campaigns because the candidate supports immorality

I know of no candidates that support immorality.

First, taking vows is a behavior.

In the same way as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thus, to plan to unite in a sinful union and eventually consummate that sinful union is the same as having done it already.


Thus the issue of the wedding ceremony is moot, right?

How some might understand it, or choose to understand it, or claim to understand it does not counter the fact that the Truth is spoken to everyone in the same way by the same God.

So who decides which understanding is correct?

That's how we got in this mess.

What mess?

morality cannot exist without Him.

So are you suggesting that people who have never heard of the Bible are not and cannot be moral or have morals?

but being against the law doesn't make it immoral. It just means it isn't allowed.

Like the 6th Commandment?

Marshall Art said...

"I know of no candidates that support immorality."

That's because being immoral yourself, you either don't recognize it or ignore it. Thanks for proving my point. You're a pip.

"In the same way as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."

Exactly, if one is sincere in taking vows or pledging allegiance. Thanks for proving my point. You're a pip.

"Thus the issue of the wedding ceremony is moot, right?"

Of course not. Especially for civil purposes.

"So who decides which understanding is correct?"

It is the duty of each of us to seek that correct understanding, which isn't that difficult when one is truly putting God's will first and not our own. Equally simple is determining when one is doing one and not the other. You fail by being of the latter group.

"What mess?"

I see your study of current events is no more serious than your study of Scripture.

"So are you suggesting that people who have never heard of the Bible are not and cannot be moral or have morals?"

They can have their own laws and rules of living they might label as morality, but it isn't morality. It's just rules and laws upon which they agree.

"but being against the law doesn't make it immoral. It just means it isn't allowed.

Like the 6th Commandment?"


Not sure I understand what you're trying to put forth anymore than you do.

Jim said...

It is the duty of each of us to seek that correct understanding, which isn't that difficult when one is truly putting God's will first and not our own.

Like these folks.

“The ELCA is a church that belongs to Christ, and in it there is a place for all,” said church spokeswoman Melissa Ramirez Cooper. “The election of Pastor Erwin illustrates what many in the 4 million-member church believe: that God calls each of us by name.”

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The ELCA long ago left any semblance of being a biblically-based organization. They are apostate - and heretical - by every definition of the words.

Jim said...

Says you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No, Jim. The Bible is what says the ELCA is apostate.
The Bible tells us that homosexual behavior is a sin, and yet the ELCA has fostered homosexuality for years, including the sanction of same-sex fake marriage and ordaining homosexuals as pastors. The Bible says women are not to be leaders in the church and yet the ELCA has women pastors. The Bible says abortion is killing the unborn - murder - yet the ELCA sanctions abortion. The ELCA developed a "gender-neutral" "Lutheran Book of Worship" to eliminate "Father" and other male terminology for God, and to eliminate "son" for Christ. Male terms in songs were gender-neutralized for humanity in general. The director of their Center for Biblical Preaching at their Luther Seminary states that Genesis is not to be taken literally.

These things demonstrate that the ELCA is not only apostate, but also heretical.

Mark said...

Jim, With your Dalmatian theology, how do you decide what spots in the Bible are true, and which are untrue? Here's the problem with Dalmatian theology:

If there are parts of the Bible that aren't true, who is the arbiter of which parts they are? You? Your pastor? Some famous theologian? Or, maybe just a consensus of people who want the Bible to say certain things so they don't have to feel guilty about their sins?

Fact is, if you can't trust some parts of the Bible to be true, how can you trust any of it to be true? You might as well toss your Bible in the garbage and live however you want to. What good is a Bible that is untrustworthy? If I say "Well, God says 'Do not murder' but I believe that verse to be wrong, or written by someone who has no authority, or that God was mistaken when He handed down that particular Commandment, what stops me fro murdering someone?"

Yes the law says I can't, but if God doesn't care, my eternal soul is safe, right? If my opinion of what God commands is the only thing that matters, then God doesn't matter, so what's the point in even having, reading, or following the Bible?

Can you see how that Humanist, ungodly kind of thinking corrupts your soul?

If you don't, you are in big trouble, my friend.

Jim said...

The Bible is what says the ELCA is apostate.

I did an online search of the Bible and couldn't find one instance of ELCA, so I don't see how that's possible.

The Bible also says that eating shellfish is a sin, but almost all Christians have been eating shellfish for centuries.

The Bible says abortion is killing the unborn - murder

Where?

The director of their Center for Biblical Preaching at their Luther Seminary states that Genesis is not to be taken literally.

Duh!

That's pretty much main stream Christianity since the fourth century CE.

how do you decide what spots in the Bible are true, and which are untrue?

True and untrue are only an issue if you are a literalist. Like most people, I'm not.

What good is a Bible that is untrustworthy?

Why would any Bible be untrustworthy? I find the following quote from American Catholic helpful:

"A literalist interpretation destroys the very nature of the Bible as a human expression of divine revelation."

If I say "Well, God says 'Do not murder' but I believe that verse to be wrong, or written by someone who has no authority, or that God was mistaken when He handed down that particular Commandment

What idiot would say that?

what stops me fro murdering someone?

The fact that you are supposedly a rational human being. Perhaps you have an innate sense of compassion.

if God doesn't care, my eternal soul is safe, right?

God says "don't do it" so apparently he cares.

If my opinion of what God commands is the only thing that matters, then God doesn't matter, so what's the point in even having, reading, or following the Bible?

That statement makes no sense. You get your opinion from your understanding of God's Word, so of course God matters. That's why you read the Bible.

Man you must REALLY be confused.

Can you see how that Humanist, ungodly kind of thinking corrupts your soul?

There is nothing "ungodly" about my thinking in this matter.

If you don't, you are in big trouble, my friend.

As are we all. But we work on it, don't we?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim has just proven again his abject ignorance of what the Bible actually says vs what liberals claim it says, as well as his abject ignorance of real biblical scholarship, and his totally immoral leopard theology.

He is unteachable and a tool of satan. Have a nice day.

Jim said...

his abject ignorance of real biblical scholarship

I've never claimed to be an expert in biblical scholarship. I've simply pointed out the failings of yours.

I like the "leopard theology" thing. I looked it up and found the source of the term and read the blog.

I would, as would most Christians, reject its premise. All parts of the Bible are inspired by God. I've never heard anyone say otherwise.

Have a nice day.

Marshall Art said...

"I did an online search of the Bible and couldn't find one instance of ELCA, so I don't see how that's possible."

If the Bible says something contradicted by the ELCA, THAT is what says it is apostate or heretical. You know this despite you weak attempt at humor.

"The Bible also says that eating shellfish is a sin..."

No it doesn't, though you say this as if you know it to be true. It says that God told the Hebrews to regard certain foods as an abomination. He didn't say it was an abomination. He said a male lying with a male as he would with a woman is an abomination. See the difference. The latter IS an abomination and the former was to be regarded as one by the Hebrews.

"That's pretty much main stream Christianity since the fourth century CE."

More evidence that Jim is of the world as opposed to merely being in it.

"True and untrue are only an issue if you are a literalist. Like most people, I'm not."

Lame dodge that doesn't answer the question. This notion of "literalism" gives those of the world the license to ignore what they don't like. But what exactly is being taken literally that should not be? "Four corners of the earth" type phrases? Try to find someone who is that literal in their interpretation. Even better, find someone on any of the blogs on which we have both posted who has been so literal. You won't find such a person. Even saying God created all things is six days can be taken literally because we can't know how creation took place. All we have from a scientific perspective is best guesses based on the tools and study of imperfect human beings. We can't even know if our abilities can determine things that far back. We can only make assumptions. So what is taken literally that CANNOT be without causing difficulty, and who does it? "I'm not a literalist" is really just a cowardly and spineless position.

"What idiot would say that?"

A non-literalist.

"God says "don't do it" so apparently he cares."

Oh. So that part you believe is true. Why? Why take that literally? You pick and choose what to take literally and what not to.

"I've never claimed to be an expert in biblical scholarship. I've simply pointed out the failings of yours."

Actually, you haven't.

Jim said...

The latter IS an abomination and the former was to be regarded as one by the Hebrews.

Seriously!? That's it? So God was lying to the Hebrews by telling them that eating shellfish was abominable when it really wasn't. Not really.

On the other hand Leviticus 20 begins, "The Lord said to Moses "Say to the Israelites:'Any Israelite or any alien'" etc. etc. etc.

The man on man thing 20:13 is a continuation of what the Lord said for Moses to tell the Israelites. So God didn't say that gay sex is detestable. He told Moses to tell the Israelites that it was, you know, just like 11:9.



Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Let‘s look at the first passage. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Lev. 18:22

Now, this is pretty strong in the verbiage used to describe how God sees the act of homosexual behavior - an abomination. Now let’s look at the context.

Chapter 18 starts with God saying, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. From this point God lists all sorts of sexual practices which were done in Egypt and Canaan, and which God found detestable. There are no other topics in this chapter; God just says don’t do any of these things because these are a reason why God is punishing the nations by having Israel drive the people out of the land. It was these practices which made the land unclean. The Scripture is very, very plain: God says all the listed sexual behaviors are an abomination to Him, and that those who practice these things are worthy of severe punishment.

Now here is the second passage: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20:13

Notice the same strong verbiage God uses to explain His revulsion to such behavior; it is an abomination. Again, let’s look at the context.

Beginning at 20:10, God again lists numerous sexual practices which He forbids. And again, God gives the reason why at verse 23: And you shall not walk in the customs of the nations that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things and therefore I detested them. God said that the pagan lands where he was bringing them were detested - another strong word - because of these sexual practices.

Leviticus has many ceremonial laws and social order laws which are meant only for Israel as a way to set the nation up as holy - separated - to himself. Scripture tells us these laws were just for Israel (Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps. 147:19-20, et al). However, in His discussion about sexual practices He found abhorrent, God says these are behaviors that those outside of Israel are even disallowed, and because they practice such abominations they are being destroyed.

The point is, that the Leviticus passages aren’t just relegated to some ancient prohibition for some people. These passages speak of these sexual practices as something that God detests among people no matter when or where.

Now, as Marshall Art pointed out, there is a major difference between God saying something is an abomination to HIM, while at the same time telling Israel that something is to be an abomination to THEM. But Jim's simple mind can't understand the difference. Well, Paul did say that unbelievers can't understand the things which are spiritual.

Jim said...

Why did God say something was to be considered an abomination by the Israelites if it wasn't an abomination to him? Was he jerking them around?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Such a question proves you know nothing about Scripture, and if you really have a position in a church as claimed, then your church is an apostate assembly full of goats.

And you are unteachable.

Jim said...

And you are unteachable.

Not at all. This whole discussion has led me to reread and understand better the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Romans.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Better understand how to twist them to YOUR agenda.

Marshall Art said...

Once again, Glen, if Jim is a "worship leader", that might only mean that he reads from Scripture during Sunday service. That's different from teaching. It's like when kids are chosen to lead the school in the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. They aren't teaching what it means, but only leading them in the recitation. I was a lay leader in my church and read Scripture during service.

But, there were many things, as you said, that God mandated for Israel that were specific to them, dietary restrictions being among them. Many of these things were to set them apart from the rest of the world. So, to get back to shellfish, mandating that they were to regard it as an abomination is really no different than tell someone "avoid it like the plague" or some such. But clearly, God wasn't saying eating shellfish was an abomination. Only that they were to regard it as such.

Marshall Art said...

And to the notion that God was somehow "lying" to the Israelites regarding that shellfish decree, Jim obviously doesn't think they were any smarter than he is. Not nice.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

My question is, what "god" is Jim and his assembly worshiping? Surely Jim has made up his own idol and called it "God," and if the assembly where he "worships" is of the same ideology, then they are idol worshipers. They certainly aren't worshiping the God of the Bible - you know, the God who said homosexual behavior was an abomination to Him.

Marshall Art said...

I prefer to leave one's congregation out of it, as we only have the word of whomever by which to go. We can't know that what is said about a congregation is an accurate reflection of reality.

Jim said...

God wasn't saying eating shellfish was an abomination. Only that they were to regard it as such.

So he was screwing around with them. Or do you mean they were smart enough to see through what Moses was telling them about shellfish and know that God didn't really mean it that eating shellfish is an abomination.

My church is a member in good standing of LCMS, so nya nya nya.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

LCMS is usually quite solid theologically. They do not support abortion, nor do they support homosexuality. So I guess you just go somewhere regardless of whether they agree with you? And if they knew your beliefs, the LCMS of the old days would excommunicate you.

Jim said...

They do not support abortion

Of course. Neither do I. I support a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. But this topic hasn't come up in the eight years I've been a member of this congregation.

nor do they support homosexuality.

True. We've never had a homosexual wedding in our church. It just hasn't come up as far as I know since I've been here.

I don't go to church to have anybody pass judgement on my beliefs. Nobody asks beyond the recitation of the Apostle's Creed.

We mostly spend our time spreading the Word that God gave his only Son to die for our sins. That's much more important than worrying about whether two particular people should love each other.

Marshall Art said...

"So he was screwing around with them. Or do you mean they were smart enough to see through what Moses was telling them about shellfish and know that God didn't really mean it that eating shellfish is an abomination."

So you really are this dense, aren't you? "God didn't really mean it that eating shellfish is an abomination" What aren't you getting about the clear explanation given here? God didn't mean it? He didn't say it. He said, once again, that they were to regard it as an abomination. Why would you think the Israelites would have difficulty understanding the distinction? Because you do? You really need to spend some time studying the Mosaic code. This first blog post of mine has info in the comment section that should help in this regard if you're serious about understanding. If you're just trying to find a way to trip up your blog opponents, you fail miserably.

A more issue specific alternative is Neil's post that also explains that there are two different words in the original language that are both translated as "abomination" or "detestable", depending upon which Bible is used.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

You support abortion. It is a lie to say it is a "right to decide what happens to her body" but it isn't the woman's body - it is a separate human being inside of her.

you wouldn't know the true gospel because you don't know the true God or Christ - you only know the God and Christ of your own making who support all that is evil.

You are a coward to hide your beliefs. If you told your pastor what you believed, you'd be excommunicate (that is, as long as he had the balls to do it). You are dishonest to "worship" at a place which condemns your beliefs.

You are a disgrace to the name of Christ, let alone the LCMS.

Jim said...

Judge not lest ye be judged.

My Bible says "detestable".

Why would God tell the Israelites that they should regard something as detestable when He doesn't regard them as detestable?

it isn't the woman's body - it is a separate human being inside of her.

Science and medicine would disagree.

you only know the God and Christ of your own making who support all that is evil.

Have a little hyperbole with breakfast?

If you told your pastor what you believed, you'd be excommunicate (that is, as long as he had the balls to do it).

Well see in our church if that subject came up for discussion (which it hasn't), our pastor would tell me that I am wrong and want me to continue to be a member of the congregation so that I might eventually see the light. Because seeing the light is the important thing, isn't it? How could I see the light if I were banished from the church?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

I love how you even abuse the "judge not" passage, which is another demonstration of your lack of understanding the scripture.

Your continued play with the shrimp being "detestable" or an abomination is another example of your ignorance of Scripture and refusal to learn.

Science and medicine actually are in agreement with me that the body inside the woman is not the woman's body, and that it is a separate human life. Your claim otherwise is another example of your rank ignorance.

The proper action for a pastor to take if someone is in sin or preaching sin (such as your preaching to us about homosexuality and abortion) would be to demonstrate that you are in sin and seek your repentance and leaving such sin. If you refuse to do so, then he is biblically mandated to excommunicate you and not keep you around hoping you will "eventually see the light." But then, you don't know your Bible on this subject either.

Jim said...

such as your preaching to us about homosexuality and abortion

I've never preached any such thing.

would be to demonstrate that you are in sin and seek your repentance

But I have never had an abortion nor had sex with another guy, much less married one.

then he is biblically mandated to excommunicate you

Maybe in your church but not in LCMS.

Marshall Art said...

"Why would God tell the Israelites that they should regard something as detestable when He doesn't regard them as detestable?"

A question like this demonstrates nicely just how woefully deficient you are in Biblical understanding (and I'm not a Biblical scholar myself). My links will give you some direction toward an answer, but the Reader's Digest version is that it is part of those mandates that God gave them that was meant to be an outward indication of their distinction from the rest of the world. The purity and dietary laws were very symbolic of the relationship between God and the rest of us, beginning with His chosen people. And again, He does not have to regard eating shellfish as detestable in order to mandate that the Hebrews regard eating it as detestable. It is a way for them to understand the importance of keeping the restriction in place. If one always regards a food as detestable, one is more likely to avoid eating it. It is really that simple.

Indeed, science and medicine do indeed agree with our position on the distinction between a woman's body and the child growing inside her during pregnancy. It never takes the position that they are one entity.

"But I have never had an abortion nor had sex with another guy, much less married one."

You support these things and have stated that a candidate who does is a more attractive candidate for you. Supporting and/or enabling wickedness is akin to engaging in the wickedness itself.

"then he is biblically mandated to excommunicate you

Maybe in your church but not in LCMS."


This is a silly response. It doesn't matter what one's church or denomination says. What matters is what Scripture says. If you can't read it to find the things of which we speak, then you need to find someone who can explain it to you. If your church is saying something contradictory, I encourage you to get a second opinion, for what we defend is clearly stated in Scripture. But your response once again suggests you find worldly positions to be more binding than Biblical positions. Not a good thing for your eternal plans.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You preach on this blog all the time that neither abortion nor homosexuality is sin. THAT preaching is sin.

And, yes, in the LCMS it is an ex-communicable offense to refuse to repent of sin.

My wife grew up in LCMS, we married in LCMS, and spent many, many years in that body until I was fed up with their teaching tradition more than the Bible. I know the LCMS quite well. Perhaps you have a wimpy pastor.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things [listed in Rom. 1:18-31] but also approve of those who practice them.
Rom. 1:32.

I think this sums up God's feeling towards Jim.

Jim said...

And, yes, in the LCMS it is an ex-communicable offense to refuse to repent of sin.

I repent all the time. But I have committed neither of these sins. Furthermore, being wrong is not a sin.

You preach on this blog all the time that neither abortion nor homosexuality is sin.

You are totally misrepresenting my stance. I have never said any such thing.

I do not "support" abortion. It is not my business to decide for a woman, her family, and her doctor what decisions should be made in the course of her pregnancy and how to reconcile those decisions with God.

I do not "support" homosexuality anymore than you "support" left-handedness. It exists. I can't make it go away, and neither can you. It is not my business to tell someone whom they can or can't love. It is not my business to tell the government to codify whom people should love without a compelling societal justification. As far as sin, I'll leave it to homosexuals to reconcile their love and their "behavior" with their God.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
You sanction and defend both abortion and homosexuality. You do it all the time. Sanctioning the sin is participating in that sin.

Stop lying about it.

Jim said...

You sanction and defend both abortion and homosexuality.

This is absolutely false. I have no capacity nor authority to sanction such things. I don't defend homosexuality. I acknowledge that homosexuals exist and that there is no compelling societal reason to keep them from marrying.

Marshall Art said...

What societal reason exists for treating their unions like normal marital unions? There is none. Thus, the state has no interest in doing so, it does nothing to benefit the state by doing so and they lose nothing by not having their demands met. In the meantime, they have all they need to "marry" each other now. They have not been denied any rights. They have no compelling argument.

Jim said...

What societal reason exists for treating their unions like normal marital unions?

You are thick as a brick, aren't you?


We've been over this many times over. It's called freedom or liberty or equality. Pick one or pick all three. They want to be married, they want all the privileges and advantages of marriage. They can't have those unless the state recognizes their marriage. Their marriage, like any freedom, does not have to "benefit" the state to be right. It has to be detrimental to the state to be denied.

It is not detrimental to the state or anybody else for them to be legally married in the eyes of the state. The only argument you can give is that God forbids it. This is not a valid reason.

Again, it doesn't matter. You will live to see same sex marriage recognized at the federal level. Don't stroke out when it happens.

Marshall Art said...

Sure, Jim. We've been over it many, many times and your side continues to ignore all that has been brought forth to show the detriment to society for state recognition of SSM. But primarily, they are not denied freedom or liberty or equality. They cannot, however, demand to be consider the same because they are not. Homosexual unions are nothing like hetero unions.

It is laughable, as well as an incredible lie (typical), to suggest that the only argument against SSM is religious. It shows just how corrupt activists and their enablers (like you, who thus are no different) are. Just as often, if not more often than not, the religious angle is brought up by the activists. Our side doesn't need religion to argue against this disorder. But as you insist on it, it is clear that God has given you over to your sin.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim you are a bald-faced liar!

You give personal sanction for abortion by claiming it is the woman's right to murder her baby, you give personal sanction for abortion by claiming it isn't murder.

You give personal sanction to homosexuality every time you defend them and their fake marriages, every time you defend them suing those who don't want to participate in their perversion, every time you support the laws which discriminate against those who don't want to support homosexuality, and every time you call it "discrimination" when people don't want to give personal sanction to them.

You are such a deceiver.

Jim said...

all that has been brought forth to show the detriment to society for state recognition of SSM.

What detriment to society have you
"shown"?

But primarily, they are not denied freedom or liberty or equality.

This is an absurd statement. They are US citizens who cannot get married and enjoy the legal benefits thereof because God says they're nasty.

Homosexual unions are nothing like hetero unions.

This is ANOTHER absurd statement. Homosexual unions are probably 90% like hetero unions.

Our side doesn't need religion to argue against this disorder.

Yes you do because for one thing it is not a disorder. You have no argument beyond religion.

You give personal sanction for abortion by claiming it is the woman's right to murder her baby, you give personal sanction for abortion by claiming it isn't murder.

To give "sanction" requires authority. I do not have it. The state sanctions abortion. The state does not regard abortion as murder.

you defend them and their fake marriages

Marshall is the one who defends "fake" marriages. Legal marriages are not fake.

you support the laws which discriminate against those who don't want to support homosexuality

I'm unaware of any such laws.

you call it "discrimination" when people don't want to give personal sanction to them.

The state calls it that.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you are being a complete jackass.

You give personal sanction to things based on your personal autonomy as to what you personal approve or disapprove. And you know this - or if you do not know this and truly think only governmental systems can give sanction, then you are even more ignorant than I though.

Your entire comment demonstrates your personal sanction of homosexuality!

Real marriages are those which meet the definition of marriage - i.e., the union of opposite sex individuals. Same-sex unions are fake marriages just as a circle claiming to be a square is a fake square.

There is nothing similar between homosexual and heterosexual unions. Biology 101. Homosexuals cannot mate nor produce children between themselves, nor can they provide a mother and father, etc, etc, etc.

Again you lie when you say you know of no laws discriminating against those who are against homosexuality having government sanction. Any law written given homosexuals special protection status based on their sexuality is a discriminatory law. Laws that punish people for not wanting to photograph homo weddings or provide cakes for weddings are discriminatory against those people. Laws which punish people for "hate speech" when they say homosexuality is wrong, are discriminatory.

It isn't just the state which calls it "discriminatory" when people don't want to give personal sanction to homosexuality, it is you and your ilk who also call it discriminatory. You are such a deceiver.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshal,

Good luck with Jim. I can't handle his lies any longer. Such a dishonest person would be banned from my blog for being a time-wasting, unteachable, heretic of a troll.

Jim said...

So it now comes (returns) to name-calling. How adult of you!

Sanction means official decree which I do not have the authority to do.

It also means to encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. I have never indicated approval so much as I have maintained a neutral stance. Homosexuality is. Homosexuals are citizens. Homosexuals have a right of equal access and due process under the law according to the Constitution.

How I personally feel about homosexuality is irrelevant. How I relate to my friends and associates as fellow Americans IS relevant. The Bible is not.

a circle claiming to be a square is a fake square

There you go with the circle thing again. Marriage is not geometry. Marriage has meant different things to different people, cultures, and tribes for millenia.

Real marriages are those which meet the definition of marriage

And something like 12 states allow same sex couples to fall within the definition.

There is nothing similar between homosexual and heterosexual unions.

I don't know about your (I assume) heterosexual union, but I'm betting you don't spend 100% of your time engaged in coitus. Neither do homosexual couples. Other than sex, their unions are exactly like yours.

Homosexuals cannot mate nor produce children between themselves

So what? Neither can octogenarians.

nor can they provide a mother and father

Nor can a single mother whose husband was killed in combat. Or a single father whose wife died in a car accident.

Any law written given homosexuals special protection status based on their sexuality is a discriminatory law.

This is absurd. The law is to PREVENT discrimination. Exactly like preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religious affiliation.

Laws which punish people for "hate speech" when they say homosexuality is wrong, are discriminatory.

Please link me to ANY law which punishes people when they say homosexuality is wrong.

it is you and your ilk who also call it discriminatory.

Of course. Because it is. And the state recognizes that it is.

Marshall Art said...

Glenn,

Dealing with Jim is an exercise. As I said, God has given him over to his sinfulness so that there is little chance we could convince him of anything, short of God giving us the right words that will have the definitive effect. Continued prayer on that score.

Marshall Art said...

"This is an absurd statement. They are US citizens who cannot get married and enjoy the legal benefits thereof because God says they're nasty."

The statement is accurate. Many people are "denied" many things. Being denied does not equal a loss of liberty or rights. Kids are denied all sorts of things. Those just shy of driving age, drinking age, voting age, legal consent for all sorts of things. They are not deprived of liberty or rights by failing to qualify for state recognition in any of those areas. Adult siblings are not given license to marry. Multiple partners are not given license to marry. They are also not deprived of rights or liberties, even though they cannot access the privileges normal married people can. But like homosexuals, they fail in some manner to meet the criteria the state has put in place for licensing their relationships. Indeed, the homosexual couple fails in a greater degree by in no way mirroring a normal marriage or in no way possessing the ability to procreate (as polygamous unions might). All they really have is their whine that squeals and bleats of denied rights and liberties, but no truth.

"This is ANOTHER absurd statement. Homosexual unions are probably 90% like hetero unions."

Honest people would use a more accurate measure. Lacking one gender puts it at 50% right there. Lacking the ability to procreate lowers the similarity even more. Providing one less gender influence for any kids unfortunate enough to be placed in the care of homosexuals further diminishes any perceived similarities. They DO, however, come fairly close to matching any set of best friends, despite the romantic aspect.

"Yes you do because for one thing it is not a disorder. You have no argument beyond religion."

For the first false statement, there has never been ANY definitive study or research that proves homosexual attraction is "normal" or not a disorder. Given the fact that we are each created to be biologically compatible and complimentary with a member of the opposite gender, attraction of one to another of the same gender is disordered. This is self-evidently true, but denied by those, like yourself, who support the move to pretend it is normal. The APA voted (with less than half the membership voting) to remove it from the list of disorders my activism within and without the APA. This is a fact that can be easily researched and proven if you have the guts. In addition, the APA could never nail down any particular cause as the issue is complex. In effect, many simply gave up and went with the flow, pretending it isn't a disorder.

Add all that to the fact that with issues of depression, substance abuse, "spousal" abuse, suicide, promiscuity, STDs being higher amongst homosexuals, even where acceptance of the perversion is great (according to the CDC, amongst others), one is hard pressed to pretend they are "just like us".

As to the second false statement, the above goes a long way toward disproving our only arguments are of the religious variety.

"To give "sanction" requires authority. I do not have it."

You have your vote. You have your opinion. You have your denial of the facts on both abortion and homosexual behaviors. You give personal sanction to these sinful practices. No need to lie about what you plainly believe.

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall is the one who defends "fake" marriages. Legal marriages are not fake."

Once again we see that for Jim, "legal" means moral/right/good/and OK with Jim. How pathetic and intellectually lazy to abdicate reason and righteousness when the law goes awry. But that's Jim and the left in general.

"What detriment to society have you
"shown"?"


To even dare ask this question demonstrates the deceitful nature, or complete stupidity, of Jim. So difficult to nail down which. This has been discussed so many times on so many blogs to which we both have visited regularly that to pretend there has been no evidence, ney, PROOFS of said detriment to society is the height deceit/stupidity.

Jim said...

Being denied does not equal a loss of liberty or rights.

It does if there is no compelling reason to deny equal access and due process under the law.

Kids are denied all sorts of things.

They are not adults.

Those just shy of driving age, drinking age, voting age, legal consent for all sorts of things.

There is a compelling societal reason for each one of those things. And all people shy of age are denied these things, not just some.

They are not deprived of liberty or rights by failing to qualify for state recognition in any of those areas.

Homosexual couples over the legal age to marry should have that right.

Adult siblings are not given license to marry.

There is a compelling reason for that.

Multiple partners are not given license to marry.

There is a compelling reason for that.

They are also not deprived of rights or liberties

Actually they are, but there is a compelling societal reason for that denial.

But like homosexuals, they fail in some manner to meet the criteria the state has put in place for licensing their relationships.

Homosexuals are not minors, siblings, or multiple partners. Twelve states and the DC say that they DO meet the criteria for marriage. More states will join them.

in no way possessing the ability to procreate

No body gives a s**t about that.

Add all that to the fact that with issues of depression, substance abuse, "spousal" abuse, suicide, promiscuity, STDs being higher amongst homosexuals,

Do you have a link for this? Not that it matters. Octogenarians have a higher incidence of depression and loss of cognitive powers. Do we deny them marriage?

You need to give it up. Gays will be allowed to marry legally whether you or God like it or not. Maybe you could move to Saudi Arabia, and then you won't have to worry about "homos" effing up your marriage.

This has been discussed so many times

Indeed, it has, and you have yet to come up with a compelling societal argument for denying due process and equal access of the laws to Americans.

Marshall Art said...

"No body gives a s**t about that."

Then there is no compelling reason to deny blood relations to marry.

"Indeed, it has, and you have yet to come up with a compelling societal argument for denying due process and equal access of the laws to Americans."

The constant denial by liars and the morally corrupt of arguments by honest, rational and objective people does not mean no argument is given, or that those arguments aren't solid.

More later...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Too funny. Jim claims there is a compelling reason to not let siblings marry, or father/daughter marry, or mother/son marry, or multiple partners marry, and yet he sees NO compelling reason to not let same-sex people marry. Oh the irony of it all! I wonder what compelling reasons apply to the others but not to homosexuals?

Let's see, homosexuality is a corruption of human sexuality, it does nothing good for society, it brings rampant rise in diseases, it brings rampant emotional instability, denies children a mother or father, teaches children a skewed understanding of human sexuality, and violates God's standards. Nope, no compelling reasons there.

Jim's moral code is the law. So when the law said slavery was permitted, Jim would agree with the law and not denounce slavery - if he was consistent.

What a total joke Jim is. Too bad he is serious, but seriously deceived.

Jim said...

objective people

You are not including yourself in that category, are you?

Then there is no compelling reason to deny blood relations to marry.

Not if they're over 80, no.

Oh the irony of it all! I wonder what compelling reasons apply to the others but not to homosexuals?

You know what compelling reasons there are that apply to "the others". Inbreeding, for the most part. The states recognize that. Can you show me one that doesn't? As you have pointed out many times, homosexuals cannot inbreed.

Let's see, homosexuality is a corruption of human sexuality

A "corruption"? Well, that's your opinion, but not the opinion of homosexuals whose opinion is the only one that really counts in this matter.

it does nothing good for society,

Good for society is not required. Bad for society is not shown.

it brings rampant rise in diseases

Let them get married and there will be less disease and promiscuity. Besides, you don't keep heteros from marrying even though they are susceptible to STDs. Rampant rise in diseases is due more to abstinence-only sex education than homosexuals who want to get married.

it brings rampant emotional instability

You can't show that. And there are lots of things that apply to heterosexuals that "brings rampant emotional instability".

denies children a mother or father

Lots of things deny children a mother or father.

teaches children a skewed understanding of human sexuality

Any more than a sado-masochist, swinger, or adulterer?

violates God's standards

Totally irrelevant.

no compelling reasons there.

Correctamundo.

So when the law said slavery was permitted, Jim would agree with the law and not denounce slavery

Jim was born a long time after 1863 so that's not relevant. But I don't agree with every law that ever was or is. And marriage is not slavery (except maybe in your case).

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If "inbreeding" is the only compelling interest, then how can you deny those who are unable to have children or get themselves fixed so they can't have children. How do you deny incestual marriages then?!?!?!

Such depravity from Jim as he denies the societal hazards of sanctioning homosexuality.

Jim said...

then how can you deny those who are unable to have children or get themselves fixed so they can't have children.

I don't deny them. But you've just made the argument that the ability to procreate has no relevance in the issue.

he denies the societal hazards of sanctioning

What societal hazards? You haven't shown any. You've thrown some pasta against the wall about depression, emotional instability, and disease but failed to demonstrate why 1)that is markedly different from heterosexuals and 2) why issues a homosexual individual may have (if such exist) present any reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

Jim said...

Such depravity from Jim

"I'm depraved on account a I'm deprived", Officer Kruptke.

Marshall Art said...

"I don't deny them. But you've just made the argument that the ability to procreate has no relevance in the issue."

No he hasn't. He's trying to get your to be consistent in your position. If kids don't matter in granting marital licensing to homosexuals, then you can't use the argument against anyone else.

Earlier, when I didn't have the time to respond to each of your childishly poor attempt at debate, you suggested that laws restricting children were universally applied to all children in an attempt to show the law did not discriminate. Two problems. It does discriminate against anyone younger than whatever age a given state decides is is too young to marry.

Secondly, traditional marriage also was equally applied to all. Whiny activists and their enablers pretend the difference lies in the choice of spouse one might have. But the law had not concerned itself with such things (or "love"), but only that a couple seeking license met the criteria of one man/one woman, not close blood relation, neither currently married to any one else and both of whatever age a given state decided was appropriate. These criteria were equally applied to all without discrimination. Note that these criteria say nothing about having children. There is no mandate that those marrying must have children. But the point is that those marrying were a couple, the type of which is likely to procreate. That would be one man/one woman. The state is not concerned with insuring that every couple of this type must or is able to conceive, but only that this type of couple, one man/one woman, is the type likely to procreate and the state has an interest in seeing such couples unite before a child is conceived and that they stay together for the benefit of each other AND the child they produce. Without that likelihood, the state would have no interest whatever in the union of a man and a woman, and without that likelihood, the state has no interest whatever in the union of two of the same gender.

As to societal hazards, they are many and have been listed and explained ad nauseum over and over again. The problem is not that they do not exist or are not compelling, either individually or without a doubt, collectively, but that immoral and dishonest people refuse to face them like adults and address them intelligently and objectively.

In the meantime, alleged "benefits" to society are non-existent and certainly unsupported by any data.

Jim said...

If kids don't matter in granting marital licensing to homosexuals, then you can't use the argument against anyone else.

I don't use the argument against anyone else. The state does.

Be that as it may, it is you who makes the argument about "the type of which is likely to procreate", not I.

It does discriminate against anyone younger than whatever age a given state decides is is too young to marry.

Indeed, and it "discriminates" against each and every person younger than that age, regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

but only that a couple seeking license met the criteria of one man/one woman

This was not a commonly codified criteria prior to the 1970s.

Without that likelihood, the state would have no interest whatever in the union of a man and a woman

But this assumes that the state has any interest whatsoever in the biological process or biological origin of the children which a couple's marriage will benefit.

The state has as much interest in the Brady children as the Waltons or any others even though none of the Bradys was conceived by the couple under whose roof they live.

As to societal hazards, they are many and have been listed and explained ad nauseum over and over again.

No. You've only listed what you claim to be a higher incidence of diseases or psychological conditions among homosexuals and that homosexuals are nasty according to the Bible. You've never explained how their marriages would create societal hazards at all, much less any that would be compelling enough to deprive them of due process and equal access of the law.

In the meantime, alleged "benefits" to society are non-existent and certainly unsupported by any data.

Again, benefits to society are not required to provide equal access and due process. A compelling harm is required to deny them.

After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Marshall Art said...

Quickly, since I have no time for full response, to maintain the traditional definition of marriage does in no way conflict with

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It has not been demonstrated, but only asserted, with focus on that which clearly is irrelevant.

Jim said...

to maintain the traditional definition of marriage

Is that the "tradition" where the woman becomes the chattel of the man who assumes all power over her and her assets?

It has not been demonstrated, but only asserted,

What has?

Marshall Art said...

"Is that the "tradition" where the woman becomes the chattel of the man who assumes all power over her and her assets?"

Why do you losers continue to bring up crap like this? It has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage in any way, shape or form.

"I don't use the argument against anyone else."

You use the argument every time you try to bring up elderly couples or couples unable to conceive. So you lie once again. In addition, bringing up "the type of which is likely to procreate" is relevant, and more so that trying to bring up the elderly or barren to dismiss the importance of both a mother and father in a child's upbringing.

"Indeed, and it "discriminates" against each and every person younger than that age, regardless of gender and sexual orientation."

Indeed, and the traditional marriage licensing "applied" to each and every person regardless of gender or sexual orientation. No discrimination took place.

"But this assumes that the state has any interest whatsoever in the biological process or biological origin of the children which a couple's marriage will benefit."

There is no assumption regarding the benefit the state realizes from a normal family (father, mother, child) that homosexual unions cannot provide.

"No. You've only listed what you claim to be a higher incidence of diseases or psychological conditions..."

Bullshit. You lie once again. Infringements on the rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs, rights of free association, speech have all occurred to one level or another wherever SSM has been passed. Parents have been denied input into the curriculum of their schools regarding how homosexual issues are taught.

What is legislated affects the overall perception of what the legislation addresses. And again, there is no argument that is used in support of SSM that isn't equally valid for polygamy, incestuous and/or any other arrangement of people.

The above are just the tip of the iceberg as regards compelling arguments detailing harm to society by legalizing SSM. Yet, conversely, absolutely no harm is caused to any homosexual or lesbian by maintaining the true definition of marriage in our laws. No rights are denied them. No liberty is infringed upon.

Jim said...

Why do you losers continue to bring up crap like this? It has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage in any way, shape or form.

Because "traditional" definition of marriage is a phony concept. "Traditional" marriage is not Ozzie and Harriett. Or the Bradys. Or the Tudors, or Liz and Dick, or Liza and what's his name.

I don't use that argument against anyone else. I use it to negate the argument that procreation is a necessary element of marriage.

dismiss the importance of both a mother and father in a child's upbringing.

It's important but emphasis on this assumes that two of one is somehow worse than ONLY one of one or the other.

Indeed, and the traditional marriage licensing "applied" to each and every person regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I've never heard of "traditional marriage licensing". But licensing DID apply to each and every person regardless of gender or sexual orientation, that is until the 1970s.

Infringements on the rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs, rights of free association, speech have all occurred to one level or another wherever SSM has been passed.

The same "infringements" apply regarding gender, religion, and race. And those infringements are in place even without legal SSM.

Parents have been denied input into the curriculum of their schools regarding how homosexual issues are taught.

Well, a lot of schools teach evolution, too. And most public schools and curricula are determined by a board of education elected by those parents.

there is no argument that is used in support of SSM that isn't equally valid for polygamy, incestuous and/or any other arrangement of people.

That is debatable, but those groups can create their own "agenda" if they want.

absolutely no harm is caused to any homosexual or lesbian by maintaining the true definition of marriage in our laws. No rights are denied them. No liberty is infringed upon.

This is so mind-bogglingly absurd it defies all reason.

If homosexuals are not denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if they are not denied due process and equal access of the law, then why is there a homosexual "agenda".

Marshall Art said...

"Because "traditional" definition of marriage is a phony concept."

Bullshit. It is an absolutely accurate reflection of what marriage has meant to billions of people throughout human history. There is no appeal to random and obscure exceptions, such as polygamous unions (which are always one man/one woman unions over and over again) and stellar people of high moral character such as Nero and the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, that can contradict this fact.

"I use it to negate the argument that procreation is a necessary element of marriage."

Good for you. Too bad no one is making that argument. What we are saying is that the state licenses traditional marriage because of the procreative possibility of heterosexual couplings and the benefit to the state of seeing such unions remaining united and caring for their offspring.

"It's important but emphasis on this assumes that two of one is somehow worse than ONLY one of one or the other."

Again, no one is making this argument, that it is worse than only one parent. What's more, I'm not sure you are winning any of the arguments with which you have no opponents. But our side argues that there is one scenario that is best for children and to enable unions that purposely deny what is best for the children is an egregious act. We don't sanction unwed mothers, and don't believe an intelligent person tries to argue that widows or widowers should have their children removed from them.

"I've never heard of "traditional marriage licensing"."

Of course you did, you liar, regardless of the fact that it was merely referred to as "marriage".

"But licensing DID apply to each and every person regardless of gender or sexual orientation, that is until the 1970s."

So you agree that there has never been any discrimination and that the marriage laws pre-1970 were already equally applied. What began to happen after 1970 was that immoral people began whining about being treated like the disordered people they are, demanding to be treated as identical to normal people.

"The same "infringements" apply regarding gender, religion, and race. And those infringements are in place even without legal SSM."

So your argument here is that because some infringements of the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens and business owners are tolerated, we should then allow more?

"Well, a lot of schools teach evolution, too. And most public schools and curricula are determined by a board of education elected by those parents."

Most people who disagree with the theory of evolution being taught as fact and without competing theories along side do not view evolution as a matter of sinfulness or mental disorder taught as goodness or normal.

Marshall Art said...

"That is debatable, but those groups can create their own "agenda" if they want."

It is NOT debatable and those groups have no need to create their own agenda as the homo agenda works for their preferred sexual behaviors just fine. That's the whole point.

"This is so mind-bogglingly absurd it defies all reason."

Nice dodge. Try supporting the contradictory position.

"If homosexuals are not denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if they are not denied due process and equal access of the law, then why is there a homosexual "agenda"."

Talk about "absurd". It's no more compelling or complex than the simple fact that they care only about their satisfying their disordered desires without the guilt it brings them by the constant reminder from the rest of society that it is disordered mentally and immoral spiritually. The whole agenda is about legitimizing their sexual desires. Since they cannot while moral and rational people still exist, they must force it down everyone's throats through judicial mandate. At this point in time, they've brainwashed enough of our young so that in another generation or so, they just might get their way. God have mercy on future generations.

Jim said...

such as polygamous unions (which are always one man/one woman unions over and over again)

This is SO bogus! We're not talking about Newt Gingrich here. We're talking one man BEING MARRIED to two or more women at the same time. That is NOT one man/one woman. Otherwise you are claiming that it's not the state of the marriage but the number of people in the ceremony that matters. Logically, then, you'd be OK with gays BEING married, just not GETTING married.

Too bad no one is making that argument.

Then why do you keep bringing up "the type likely to procreate"?

What we are saying is that the state licenses traditional marriage because of the procreative possibility of heterosexual couplings.

There you go making that argument.

the benefit to the state of seeing such unions remaining united and caring for their offspring.

Then why does the state permit divorce? And why can't a gay couple care for the offspring of one of them?

to enable unions that purposely deny what is best for the children is an egregious act.

That falsely assumes that the point of such a marriage is to deny anybody anything. It also accepts the premise that children of gay couples do worse than those of heterosexual couples.

Are we then to deny people the ability to marry if they will be unable to put their children through college? Will we deny marriage to people with genetic diseases? Will we deny alcoholics? Smokers? Allowing smokers to marry would deny a healthy living environment and good lifestyle example to their children.

don't believe an intelligent person tries to argue that widows or widowers should have their children removed from them.

But aren't they purposely denying their children what's best if they don't remarry?

the fact that it was merely referred to as "marriage".

Exactly, you slanderer.

So you agree that there has never been any discrimination and that the marriage laws pre-1970 were already equally applied.

Nope. There is a difference between what the law didn't say and how it was applied.

the disordered people they are

They are not disordered. And if they were, do we deny bi-polar people to marry? Manic-depressives? Paranoids?

So your argument here is that because some infringements of the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens and business owners are tolerated

So you are OK with those, I take it?

we should then allow more?

If the laws created by elected legislators and executives say that people are in a protected class, absolutely.

More...

Jim said...

theory of evolution being taught as fact

The theory of evolution IS FACT. Theory doesn't mean guess. "A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact." Wikipedia

without competing theories

There are no competing "theories", only competing "explanations".

taught as goodness or normal

I've never heard of a public school teaching anything about homosexuality in anything but a neutral approach, certainly not "goodness". Homosexuality exists. As in any sexual behavior, safety is extremely important whether students are straight or gay.

It is NOT debatable

Yet so many people do debate it.

the homo agenda works for their preferred sexual behaviors just fine.

I have yet to see any of them use it. Let them try. The courts are available.

Try supporting the contradictory position.

I have easily done so many times in this very thread.

the simple fact that they care only about their satisfying their disordered desires without the guilt it brings

Their supposed "guilt" has long ago gone the way of the closet.

the constant reminder from the rest of society that it is disordered mentally and immoral spiritually.

You say you have friends or neighbors or co-workers who are gay and that you like them. And yet you speak of them as if they were zombies, vampires, and werewolves.

The majority of society does NOT consider homosexuals "disordered mentally and immoral spiritually".

The whole agenda is about legitimizing their sexual desires.

They really don't care whether you think their sexual desires are legitimate or not. They really don't.

they must force it down everyone's throats through judicial mandate.

Actually same sex marriage is "forced" down YOUR throat by elected legislators and executives with the occasional help of courts who, you know, apply the Bill of Rights to deciding cases.

they've brainwashed enough of our young so that in another generation or so, they just might get their way.

It's not just our young who are "brainwashed". A majority of Americans believe SSM should be legal. They ARE "getting their way". You are (way) behind the curve.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Through Jim's ignorance and attempts at defending the indefensible practice of homosexuality, he claims behavior IN marriage is what defines marriage.

Marriage has traditionally, historically, and etymologically been defined as the union of opposite-sex people. Jim, as all left wing homosexualists, claim that definition has included treating women as property, abusing spouses, slavery, rape, and even divorce. Such ignorance or intentional stupidity would be laughable if they weren't so serious.

Jim said...

Through Jim's ignorance

I know you are but what am I?

attempts at defending the indefensible practice of homosexuality

I've never defended the "practice of homosexuality". I don't defend the "practice" of tides, either. Homosexuality is not a "practice". Homosexuality exists. Always has, always will.

he claims behavior IN marriage is what defines marriage.

Are you unable to understand simple English? I never said any such thing. Marriage is "defined" by many facets and attributes. What I DID imply was that "marriage" is not defined solely by a wedding ceremony as Marshall likes you to believe when he says that polygamous marriage is one man/one woman because of sequential ceremonies.

Marriage has traditionally, historically, and etymologically been defined as the union of opposite-sex people.

And "travel" has similarly been defined as chariot, carriage, and locomotive. Conception was traditionally defined as the result of sexual intercourse. Times change.

Marshall Art said...

And therein, Glenn, is the exercise for us: dealing with Jim's ignorance or intentional deceitfulness. Notice how he cannot even maintain context from one comment to the next, pretending a hole exists in my argument. You'll see this as I again correct his idiocy.

"We're talking one man BEING MARRIED to two or more women at the same time."

No. We're talking about each union being a separate marriage of one man and one woman. All the women the one man marries are not married to each other, but only to him. But such situations cannot be licensed in this country because no state allows a man to marry a woman if he's still married to another and thus fails to meet one criterion of marriage. So how you find logic from this to...

"...you'd be OK with gays BEING married, just not GETTING married."

...requires a twisted mind like your own.

"Too bad no one is making that argument.

Then why do you keep bringing up "the type likely to procreate"?"


The argument no one is making is that procreation is a necessary element of marriage. That's YOUR deceitful misinterpretation. You want that to be the argument so you can then point to childless couples to defend the defenseless homosexual agenda. Too bad for you you can't make that work.

"What we are saying is that the state licenses traditional marriage because of the procreative possibility of heterosexual couplings.

There you go making that argument."


Exactly. It's a different, but more accurate and legitimate argument than the one you're trying to pretend is being made. The state supports traditional marriage because of the potential for procreation, but doesn't demand procreation as a requirement of its support. Try to pay attention.

"Then why does the state permit divorce?"

Because it recognizes that there can be instances where either spouse, and/or children, can be harmed should they refuse to dissolve the union. Now, they went too far by legalizing "no-fault" divorces, but that's another issue altogether. What's more, you damned well know why divorces have always been "permitted" by the courts, but are too invested in immorality to acknowledge it.

"That falsely assumes that the point of such a marriage is to deny anybody anything."

No one makes this assumption. Yet the consequence of SSM is clear to honest people, which is why it is difficult for you to grasp.

"It also accepts the premise that children of gay couples do worse than those of heterosexual couples."

It's far more than a mere premise. It is supported by a number of studies, many of which exposed the flaws of earlier pro-homo parenting studies. You'd know this if you would have ever read and studied the links presented when these issues had arisen in the past.

"Are we then to deny people the ability to marry if...etc?"

Another weak argument exhaustively addressed in past discussions.

Marshall Art said...

"But aren't they purposely denying their children what's best if they don't remarry?"

Can you tell whether or not a widow/widower is intent on not remarrying? Do you expect the state to force them to marry on some kind of schedule to satisfy this stupid argument?

"the fact that it was merely referred to as "marriage".

Exactly, you slanderer."


"Slanderer???" Boy. You ARE desperate! What point to think you've made here? Traditional marriage has always been referred to as "marriage" because no one debated how marriage was defined.

"So you agree that there has never been any discrimination and that the marriage laws pre-1970 were already equally applied.

Nope. There is a difference between what the law didn't say and how it was applied."


Such as? And now it seems you are arguing from silence? The law doesn't say a billion other things. So what? We go by what laws actually say. When has it been otherwise?

"They are not disordered. And if they were, do we deny bi-polar people to marry? Manic-depressives? Paranoids?"

I don't know. Mental competency is a valid concern in entering any legal contract, but I don't know what individual states do in such cases. But I'm not making this case, either. The FACT that homosexual attraction is a disorder leads honest people to question any support for SSM by allegedly heterosexual allies. Why would anyone wish to support an agenda based on a disorder? Obviously, supporters don't put a whole lot of thought into it, and lefties never think beyond the superficial.

"So your argument here is that because some infringements of the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens and business owners are tolerated

So you are OK with those, I take it?"


More deceitful out-of-context crap. Clearly I was not defending ANY infringements. Just as clearly, there are no infringements by maintaining the traditional definition of marriage in law.

"If the laws created by elected legislators and executives say that people are in a protected class, absolutely."

So once again, we see that Jim equates law with morality as he defends bad law that leads to infringements upon the rights of others, as SSM laws cannot help but do.

So much more idiocy to point out, but dinner calls...

Jim said...

We're talking about each union being a separate marriage of one man and one woman.

In other words, one man and one woman...plus one woman plus one woman, etc. Your insistence that this somehow represents single, unrelated, one man/one woman marriage is simply laughable.

All the women the one man marries are not married to each other, but only to him.

Perhaps, but he's married to ALL OF THEM. Not just one woman.

The state supports traditional marriage because of the potential for procreation

"There you go again." - Ronald Reagan. The state supports
traditional marriage because...procreation.

you damned well know why divorces have always been "permitted" by the courts

But not in the Catholic church?

Yet the consequence of SSM is clear to honest people

Your "consequences" are made up.

You'd know this if you would have ever read and studied the links presented when these issues had arisen in the past.

I have read them. They are all from religious and/or anti-gay sources.

Another weak argument exhaustively addressed in past discussions.

I don't think so, Tim.

Marshall Art said...

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Evolution fails here. What experiments or observations confirm evolution? It is called a theory, but cannot be substantiated to any extent that render all alternative notions invalid. What is more the case is that some insist upon it while insisting nothing else provides explanations, similar to AlGore's "consensus" regarding global warming. However, at least one alternative that is certainly worth mentioning in schools as it has real scientific support: ID. The point, nonetheless, is that the disputes arising from the denial of ID being mentioned along side evolution, is that we aren't talking about a behavior that is clearly disordered and to most people, sinful. Parents are denied any input as to how leftist homosexual apologists intend to force their agenda into the minds of even more children. A far more important right and compelling argument than any given in support of SSM.

"I've never heard of a public school teaching anything about homosexuality in anything but a neutral approach, certainly not "goodness"."

This it outright bullshit from one who denies his own dishonesty. They are not merely teaching that it exists, but that it is comparable to heterosexual unions and desires. They teach AGAINST the fact of its disorder and sinfulness.

"I have yet to see any of them use it."

Again, you are an abject liar. Or incredibly stupid. I'm betting on most of the former with enough of the latter to explain your debating skills. One might say you just haven't been paying attention, and that person would get good odds, but this issue has been too much publicized for that notion to win out.

"I have easily done so many times in this very thread."

True to some extent. But putting forth stupidity isn't the type of support for which I was hoping. The fact is that nothing you put forth does support the contradictory position. What you've put forth only makes you look stupid, desperate, dishonest and a very poor wise ass.

"Their supposed "guilt" has long ago gone the way of the closet."

More's the pity, that they no longer feel guilt for their bad behavior, much like you defending it.

"You say you have friends or neighbors or co-workers who are gay and that you like them. And yet you speak of them as if they were zombies, vampires, and werewolves."

You'd like that, wouldn't you? The fact is, and this is plain to honest people who might read my comments, is that I regard them as disordered mentally and immoral spiritually. I've never said otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

"The majority of society does NOT consider homosexuals "disordered mentally and immoral spiritually"."

Even if this was true, and I don't believe it is, it wouldn't change the fact that they are indeed disordered mentally and immoral spiritually. Ignoring truth doesn't destroy it.

"They really don't care whether you think their sexual desires are legitimate or not. They really don't."

More blatant bullshit. They really do or else they wouldn't support hate crimes/hate speech initiatives and crap all over those who maintain truth about human sexuality.

"Actually same sex marriage is "forced" down YOUR throat by elected legislators and executives with the occasional help of courts who, you know, apply the Bill of Rights to deciding cases."

Yeah. Activists and enablers within the legislative and judicial system. What's your point?

"It's not just our young who are "brainwashed"."

Wow! The first bit of truth you've typed yet! How incredibly refreshing! And it is the reason they have been getting their way thus far. Thanks for acknowledging what we've been saying for some time.

Marshall Art said...

By the way..."behind the curve"? When the curve bends toward the immoral, I will always be behind the curve.

Marshall Art said...

"Your insistence that this somehow represents single, unrelated, one man/one woman marriage is simply laughable."

No. My insistence is that polygamy mirrors the real definition of marriage: one man/one woman. Obviously it does not comprise a single union, but it is comprised of multiple unions of one man/one woman. Thus, it is still one man/one woman despite the one man being married to other women. The point, again, though you refuse to accept it, is that it is not a redefinition of marriage at all. What is laughable is people like you trying to put up polygamous situations as a separate definition in order to justify the absolute nonsense of SSM.

"Perhaps, but he's married to ALL OF THEM. Not just one woman."

Duh! That doesn't mean that polygamy is more than one man/one woman as a definition of marriage. Another way to view it would be a collection of marriages by one man, each one of them one man/one woman. The women he married aren't married to each other, but to him only.

""There you go again." - Ronald Reagan. The state supports
traditional marriage because...procreation."


So what? If you continue to misrepresent the position, I have no choice to be reiterate what the position is. YOU want MY position to be that state sanctioning requires procreation. But you can't have it, since that isn't the case and I don't say that it is.

"But not in the Catholic church?"

More desperation. We're not talking about the Catholic Church. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

"Your "consequences" are made up."

And you're a liar. The consequences are real and have been shown to be so throughout many discussions on the subject.

"I have read them. They are all from religious and/or anti-gay sources."

And you're a liar. Many have not been by religious sources and to say that they are "anti-gay" is also a lie. Telling the truth about marriage, family, morality, human sexuality and the like is not "anti-gay", but pro-marriage/family/morality/human sexuality and the like.

No. Wait. You're right! Being pro-truth IS being "anti-gay". It can't be helped considering how little truth and honesty exists in the homosexual agenda and arguments in support of it.

"I don't think so, Tim."

You don't think. Al.

Jim said...

Do you expect the state to force them to marry

Well, no, but they would be "purposely denying" their children what is best for them.

What point to think you've made here?

That you slander me when you call me a liar. Also that ad hominem attacks are childish.

We go by what laws actually say.

And traditionally what they said was that two people could get married.

The FACT that homosexual attraction is a disorder

It is not a fact, and I'm backed up on that by the American Psychiatric Association which has classified homosexuality as a normal and positive human sexual orientation for 40 years. This is also the consensus of the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization.

I'll take their word over yours.

Why would anyone wish to support an agenda based on a disorder?

Moot point. It's not a disorder.

lefties never think beyond the superficial.

Or the scientific or medical.

Just as clearly, there are no infringements by maintaining the traditional definition of marriage in law.

Traditionally the definition was two people.

we see that Jim equates law with morality

No, I don't, but in this case the law (and public sentiment) trumps what you consider morality.

SSM laws cannot help but do.

How can a marriage infringe on your rights? The poor baker and photographer were not infringed upon because two people got married. They were "infringed upon" because as a provider of services to the public they discriminated against a protected class.

Jim said...

Evolution fails here.

Not once.

What experiments or observations confirm evolution?

Millions of observations as hundreds of experiments.

ID is not a theory. It is not science. It is a philosophical or religious "explanation", not scientific. It cannot be empirically testable and has no potential to be falsified.

In science classes we teach science. If you want to teach ID, teach it at VBS.

we aren't talking about a behavior that is clearly disordered

See above. It is not a disorder.

Parents are denied any input as to how leftist homosexual apologists intend to force their agenda into the minds of even more children.

This is false. Or give us a link to prove it.

but that it is comparable to heterosexual unions and desires.

I don't think so, but if they did it would correspond to the findings of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the World Health Organization.

you are an abject liar.

And you are a gay prostitute.

Can you provide a link to the polygamy agenda or the incest agenda?

The fact is that nothing you put forth does support the contradictory position.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Done!

much like you defending it

I don't defend it. It's none of my business.

I regard them as disordered mentally and immoral spiritually. I've never said otherwise.

And you explain that to them each time you are in their presence? They know you feel this way? And they remain your friends?

Now THAT would be "disordered".

it wouldn't change the fact that they are indeed disordered mentally

It isn't a disorder.

They really do or else they wouldn't support hate crimes/hate speech initiatives

Hate speech crime has nothing to do with their sexual desires.

Activists and enablers within the legislative and judicial system.

Jeff Sessions, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz aren't "activists"? Elected members of the Tea Party aren't activists? If not, why are they there?

When the curve bends toward the immoral, I will always be behind the curve.

Suit yourself. How will you deal with national-wide legalized SSM?

Marshall Art said...

JIm,

Obviously you don't know jack about either ID OR evolution. "Millions of observations" confirm evolution? You can't even name one. Millions of observations that have been tested how, exactly? ID uses all the same data and comes to a different conclusion using the same methods used to develop every other theory.

More later.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hey everyone, Jim will side with psychobabblers and their claims to homosexual being normal. OF course until they were pressured by homosexual activists in 1973 even THEY said it was a "mental disease."

The problem with the psych industry is that there is no science behind it. It is all a bunch of various belief systems pretending to be medical or scientific, with absolutely no real data to back anything up. They argue among themselves as to what therapies are real or false, they have decided virtually everyone in the world has some sort of mental defect, etc.

And guess what - they invented "mental illness" to provide income. The mind cannot be ill because it is intangible! For those interested in the TRUTH about the psych field, I have written a series of articles.

Jim has been brainwashed in at least two unscientific fields now - evolutionism and psychobabble. No wonder he spews so much ignorance here.

Jim said...

OF course until they were pressured by homosexual activists in 1973

So these major mental health groups gave up their integrity and rolled over because a small minority of people were more powerful than the Catholic church and all the other churches who aren't satisfied with homosexuality being a sin? It has to be a mental disorder, too? Sometimes professional groups become enlightened by data and research.

The problem with the psych industry is that there is no science behind it

Horse manure!

It is all a bunch of various belief systems pretending to be medical or scientific, with absolutely no real data to back anything up.

And your expertise on this subject is what? Please link to your articles which I'm sure will include your bona fides.

Jim has been brainwashed in at least two unscientific fields now - evolutionism and psychobabble.

There is no such thing as "evolutionism". Every university in the world teaches the biological SCIENCES of which evolution is the cornerstone. The entire academic world is delusional?

As to psychobabble, you appear to be well versed in that.


Jim said...

You can't even name one.

I can easily name eight.

Millions of observations that have been tested how, exactly?

Check out #5 in the above citation as one example.

ID uses all the same data and comes to a different conclusion using the same methods used to develop every other theory.

The scientific method is to observe, hypothesize, predict, experiment (test) and invite peer review.

What is the observation? What is the hypothesis of ID? What does ID predict? How has ID been tested? What peers have reviewed the research and conclusions of ID?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim's list is the usual speculation nonsense, with assertions and no facts.

The very first claim is about the peppered moth, which has been debunked by real science decades ago. The evolutionists really need to get with current information and quit relying on fraudulent data:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-069/peppered-moth-fraud

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/03/peppered-moths-back

Just search here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=Peppered+moth&search=Go

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim wants my links to my articles. Try this link which points to all mentioning psychobabble.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/Psychology

The field is fraudulent, and yes they did cave in to the homosexual activists.

Jim needs to study real history.

Jim said...

The very first claim is about the peppered moth, which has been debunked by real science decades ago.

Speaking of "assertions and no facts" the above is untrue. The claim has never been debunked. The original research methodology was questioned (less than two decades ago) and flaws were discovered. However, research and testing which addressed the flaws was conducted and the original conclusions have been verified. The creationists need to get with the current information and actually read about the issue instead of accepting what the ID folks offer.

I almost wasn't going to check out your links because they are all from the domain answersingenesis.org, which means they are biased towards creationism and not science. The first link even mentions the "family" book, The Dinosaurs of Eden! But I decided to humor you.

The very first link cites the flawed methodology in the original research but neglects the more recent corrected methodology which supports the original conclusion.

THEN!!!! Mr. Ham freely admits that the research supports "natural selection" which is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution in Darwin's theory. WTF?

The second link does a little explanation of the flaws in the original methodology but again neglects later research which corrected those flaws and supported the original conclusion.

I'm not going to bother with your search link since the source is still the same and I can assume that more recent science has been omitted from any of the search results because it would repudiate your assertion.

I glanced over your bagpiper's blog. Talk about babble. I also failed to find any information that would make you an expert on the subject. Nor did I find any links to any reputable sources that provide more than a one-sided opinion on the subject.

Mark said...

Jim the "worship leader" admits he values the opinions of scientists and psychiatrists etc. more than he values the Word of God. Obviously, Jim, the "worship leader", worships the Created rather than the Creator.

That automatically discredits anything he has to say on this subject, which, I remind you, is that, homosexuals and their willing enablers such as Jim, don't know the difference between lust and love.

Therefore, Jim, the "worship leader" has lost all credibility, and anything he says has to be regarded in that light.

Jim said...

Jim the "worship leader" admits he values the opinions of scientists and psychiatrists etc. more than he values the Word of God.

I admit no such thing. As someone who is not a literalist, I don't find them to be contradictory.

That automatically discredits anything he has to say on this subject

Says you. Which means you are giving up.

homosexuals and their willing enablers don't know the difference between lust and love.

But this is absurd on its face. Further, you have not in any way made a decent argument that it's true. Everyone, EVERYONE above the age of 17 knows the difference between lust and love.

Therefore, Jim, the "worship leader" has lost all credibility

Admitting that you have lost the argument.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ah Jim,
The site you directed us to was biased towards evolutionism. The question becomes, which bias is the best bias to be biased by? Evolutionism is a fraud with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. I'm biased towards the truth.

Creationism and ID both include REAL natural selection, which isn't molecules to man evolution. Get with the program. And AIG DOES have the science up to date - nothing has changed in the research to prove evolution.

My articles on the psych industry are based on almost two decades of studying the field, so, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I don't have links in the articles, rather I cite the authors and publication referenced. If you are too lazy to read the article without links, then remain ignorant.

And I never claimed to be an "expert" on the subject, just that I'm a helluva lot more knowledgable about it than are you.

Jim said...

The site you directed us to was biased towards evolutionism.

I'm not sure which site you mean. The 8 examples of evolution?

Evolutionism is a word that is not used in the modern world except by Creationists who don't know any better.

Any site that I direct you to will be "biased" towards evolution because evolution is accepted science by the scientific community. You can't talk or teach biological science without being "biased" towards evolution.

The question becomes, which bias is the best bias to be biased by?

When talking about science it is best to be biased by science.

Evolutionism is a fraud with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it.

Again, "evolutionism" has no meaning in the 21st century. So let me substitute "evolution" for you: "[Evolution] is a fraud with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it."

You've written some wacko, crazy, idiotic shit on this blog, Glenn, but I think this takes the grand prize.

So the world according to Garp, uh Glenn:

Evolution? FRAUD.
Psychology? FRAUD.
Psychiatry? FRAUD.
Anthropogenic Global warming? FRAUD.
Big Bang Theory? FRAUD.

In short, Science? FRAUD. Glenn knows it all. The entire scientific community are charlatans.

Did man walk on the Moon?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
I don't know why I keep bothering to respond to your asininity.

Yes, you 8 examples was what I was referring to - what other link did you provide pretty much immediate to my response?!?!

Evolution is a process imagined by evolutionists whose philosophy is evolutionism.

Evolution is NOT needed to teach biology because is has no basis in fact and has never been proven in any way, shape or form. It is not science and to continue to claim as much demonstrates how ignorant you are of real science.

Your list of things which I call frauds are indeed frauds! (by psychology, the context has always been clinical psychology, since "psychology" actual covers quite a few fields). No science is behind any of them, and if you want to believe in all of them because of your brainwashing, then feel free to remain as ignorant as you are. For just one, try studying and researching these issues for yourself rather than spouting off talking points from all the liberal teachings you follow.

Jim said...

Evolution is a process imagined by evolutionists whose philosophy is evolutionism.

Idiotically false statement in all aspects.

Evolution is NOT needed to teach biology because [it] has no basis in fact

Mind-numbingly, absurdly false.

Perhaps it is time to step back and ask you what EXACTLY you mean by "evolution". Not "evolutionism" but what is evolution? I'd like to understand how you can make such wacko statements.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Darwinian evolution is the belief than something came from nothing, then developed into life, and all of life originated from the original cellular life form. Humans are just descendants of a primate, from which all apes also descended. Dinosaurs miraculously turned into birds. That is the type of nonsense which is taught under the evolutionist belief system. It is the foundational belief in the religious philosophy of evolutionism, or, if you prefer, Darwinism.


Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Your link provides examples of mutation. Few within the faith arena, nor any within the ID community, dispute the existence of mutations in nature. So if by "evolution" you mean "mutation", then we can agree that evolution is real. But none of the examples features one species mutating or evolving into another, which evolutionists maintain is how we got here. There is nothing that supports this notion and mutations don't either. Changes within a species, micro-evolution, is a far cry from changes from one species to another, macro-evolution. In other words, your moth turned into a...moth, and you call that proof?

You betray yourself (once more), by interchangeably using the terms "creationist" and "ID". If you wish to be regarded as anything more than deceitful, take the time to read about the difference from the ID people themselves here, and learn something. ID is not science? BS. It is helpful to remember that not all ID proponents are especially religious and some don't even reject evolution even a little. Unlike yourself and others of your ilk, real scientists are open minded.

"Well, no, but they would be "purposely denying" their children what is best for them."

Perhaps if you could prove what their intentions are, and then weigh that against the kids themselves and their ages and the amount of exposure to the deceased parent when that parent was still alive and a host of other issues. Are you really expecting our already intrusive government to be involved in such things just to justify your pro-homo position? Widows and widowers with children did not expect to be widows and widowers with children. Homos and lesbians intend to deprive children of either a mother or father. If you can't grasp this simple concept, you are even more simple.

"That you slander me when you call me a liar."

Really. How many falsehoods from you must I endure before the label fits? Here's a tip: speak only the truth.

"And traditionally what they said was that two people could get married."

You see, here you do not speak the truth because you intentionally leave out important criteria. Traditionally, what they said was that two people of the opposite gender, and not closely related, of legal age and not already married to anyone else could get married. And it used to be that witnesses would be asked whether or not there existed a valid reason why they should not be joined, which would satisfy your weak attempt regarding mentally ill people aside from homosexuals.

Marshall Art said...

"It is not a fact, and I'm backed up on that by..."

...those who were spineless in the face of activist pressure, not science in any way, shape or form.

"I'll take their word over yours."

Because it matches your position, not because it is based on fact.

Marshall Art said...

"
we see that Jim equates law with morality

No, I don't, but in this case the law (and public sentiment) trumps what you consider morality."


Nonsense. You constantly default to law over morality. Law NEVER trumps morality, and you say "what you consider morality", but you can't argue that what I consider morality, isn't.

"How can a marriage infringe on your rights?"

Typical bullshit homosexualist question. And you call me "slanderer"! The case of those business owners are exactly the types of infringements that must occur by laws that sanction this disorder as normal. By legally protecting this (low)class of people, there cannot help but be a conflict over whose rights are protected. The activists bank on this conflict and the cultural mood shifting to enable them to the detriment of righteous and honest people of faith. You wouldn't know about such people not being one of them.

"
Parents are denied any input as to how leftist homosexual apologists intend to force their agenda into the minds of even more children.

This is false. Or give us a link to prove it."


One fine source of such links is Wintery Knight's blog, which can be accessed from my "Right Ones" list on my blog. Find ANY post about homosexual issues and you'll find a list of keywords at the bottom of the post. If you see "homosexuality", click on it and you'll be able to go through a ton of posts where you'll find several speaking about schools and what they are forcing upon kids despite parental objection. Another site MassResistance.org will provide more.

"Can you provide a link to the polygamy agenda or the incest agenda?"

This was found by merely typing "poygamy movement" in a search engine. The consensual incest movement is just beginning, but come countries, like Switzerland and Romania are considering legalizing it.

"The fact is that nothing you put forth does support the contradictory position.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Done!"


The 14th is not ignored by maintaining traditional marriage since it already applies equally to everyone as has been stated in this very discussion already. Try paying attention.

"I don't defend it. It's none of my business."

Again you lie, or are too stupid to know what you've already typed. You just defended it (again) by pretending the 14th Amendment is relevant to their agenda. You defend it constantly by your weak attempts to find fault in our position against it (which you brilliantly fail to do with extreme prejudice).

Marshall Art said...

"I regard them as disordered mentally and immoral spiritually. I've never said otherwise.

And you explain that to them each time you are in their presence? They know you feel this way? And they remain your friends?"


First off, I think you have me confused with someone else. The homosexual I knew best is dead because he engaged in homosexual behavior. And yes, he was quite aware of my position and we remained good friends while I watched him wither and die. But no, idiot. Why would you think I would bring up my displeasure with any homo or dyke I know personally every time I'm in their presence? People I know are not as dense as you are and would only need to be made aware of my feelings once.

"Hate speech crime has nothing to do with their sexual desires."

You're kidding. Right? Are you really that dishonest? (rhetorical question---I know the answer)

"Jeff Sessions, Scott Walker, and Ted Cruz aren't "activists"?"

Now you're purposely being stupid (I'm giving you the benefit of the very real doubt). You damned well know I'm referring to homosexual activists and enablers. Why must you be such an asshole?

"Suit yourself. How will you deal with national-wide legalized SSM?"

Assuming this abomination occurs, the same way we deal with every other stupid legislative travesty: prayer and counter activism.

Jim said...

Darwinian evolution is the belief than something came from nothing

Like from a handful of dust?

Actually, Darwin had some ideas about how life began, but he did not include that discussion in his theory of evolution. He was concerned with change and variability. His explanation was natural selection.

Darwin never said that something came from nothing. Nobody says that.

Humans are just descendants of a primate

Humans ARE primates.

Dinosaurs miraculously turned into birds.

Well that's a pretty simplistic way of saying it, but yeah.

It is the foundational belief in the religious philosophy of evolutionism

Evolution is in no way a religious philosophy, yet the denial of evolution certainly is. Most scientists who acknowledge and accept the theory of evolution (and almost all do) are actually Christians and do not see a contradiction between evolution and belief in God.

Jim said...

Traditionally, what they said was that two people of the opposite gender,

Do you have an documentation that it ever said anything about "opposite gender"?

And it used to be that witnesses would be asked whether or not there existed a valid reason why they should not be joined, which would satisfy your weak attempt regarding mentally ill people aside from homosexuals.

Pffft!

you can't argue that what I consider morality, isn't.

I wouldn't even try.

laws that sanction this disorder as normal.

It is not a disorder. Glenn says there ARE no disorders. Psychology and psychiatry are psychobabble.

there cannot help but be a conflict over whose rights are protected.

Same for race, gender, or national origin.

I'm not going to browse something on your blogroll. If you have something for me to read, provide the link.

I read the MassResistance link and did some research. It's all bogus. Homosexuality is not part of the kindergarten curriculum in his son's school. He was insisting that the school stop any conversations between students regarding homosexuality. The school was unable to do that. Mr. Parker should put his kid in private school.

This was found

This seems to be about decriminalization. I don't see anything akin to the reasons used for SSM.

it already applies equally to everyone as has been stated in this very discussion already.

It's been stated but it is not true.

Why must you be such an asshole?

Are you talking to your mirror again?

species mutating or evolving into another,

Species don't "mutate" into another species. Over time segments of a species' population may differentiate from the others through the natural genetic process. That population may have a better ability to survive and therefore successfully compete against other segments to where those other segments may die off because they can't compete.

There is nothing that supports this notion and mutations don't either.

This is patently false. Biology, Anthropology and paleontology support this.

ID is not science?

Correct. ID observes and hypothesizes, but stops there. That is not science.

I know the difference between ID and Creationism.

Unlike yourself and others of your ilk, real scientists are open minded.

Real scientists use scientific method.

Are you really expecting our already intrusive government to be involved in such things just to justify your pro-homo position?

Of course not. I'm just showing how ridiculous it is to believe what's "best for the children" should be an overriding factor in marriage.

Homos and lesbians intend to deprive children of either a mother or father.

No they don't. Many don't even intend to have children. Many have had children before they even married their same sex spouse. And some provide two of one or the other.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you have an documentation that it ever said anything about "opposite gender"?"

What a bullshit expectation! Aside from DOMA, there was never a need for documentation about something that was commonly understood.

"you can't argue that what I consider morality, isn't.

I wouldn't even try."


That at least shows some level of sense on your part for a change.

"It is not a disorder. Glenn says there ARE no disorders. Psychology and psychiatry are psychobabble."

So it is when you're debating Glenn, but it isn't when debating me. More dishonesty. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to defend what you think the APA says about homosexual attraction, then you must accept the background that led to that position, particularly that there was no science behind it. It was a disorder before they took that position and if there was no science that compelled the change, then it must still be a disorder. And honest people considering the fact of two genders recognize that each gender is designed for the other, and thus, homosexual attraction is disordered.

"Same for race, gender, or national origin."

I don't disagree as civil rights laws improperly were applied to private citizens, when it is only the gov't that MUST treat all people equally under the law. But here, there is a distinct push to place the imagined rights of sexual deviates (homosexuals) above the already protected rights of people of faith.

"I'm not going to browse something on your blogroll. If you have something for me to read, provide the link."

Not only a liar are you, but a cowardly one as well. I provided you with a source for a myriad of links to support my statement regarding activism within the educational system. You're not required to read it all now, but you now can't say nothing exists to back me up. The MassResistance site provides more than one article on the subject. And your understanding of the highlighted case is incomplete, if not totally wrong.

"This seems to be about decriminalization. I don't see anything akin to the reasons used for SSM."

I won't do all your work for you. Their push was prompted by the SSM movement and they are using the same arguments. IF you weren't so invested in the perversion of homosexuality, you'd have the courage to do more than skim.

"It's been stated but it is not true."

It IS true. Where has any demand for sexual orientation been a part of the application of marriage laws? In other words, one does not have to insist that they are heterosexual in order to get a marriage license. Homosexuals aren't denied a license if they are attempting to marry according to the criterion of opposite gender. Thus, it is fairly applied to everyone.

"Species don't "mutate" into another species."

The point is that nothing shows one animal becoming an entirely different animal. All "evolving" has been within a species at best. But I'm not concerned with arguing evolution in a discussion on homosexuality.

"Correct. ID observes and hypothesizes, but stops there."

Then you haven't looked any more deeply into ID than you have the plethora of arguments and evidences against supporting the homosexual agenda.

"Of course not. I'm just showing how ridiculous it is to believe what's "best for the children" should be an overriding factor in marriage."

Keep trying, because you haven't succeeded. You've only shown yourself to be an asshole.

"No they don't."

Try again. I'm only speaking of those who intend to have children and it cannot be determined who will and who won't, any more than you can do with that "type" of union likely to have them. Again, you try to have it both ways. You're probably bi-sexual.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It takes more faith to believe in evolutionism than it does for Creationism. That makes it a religious philosophy. Deny that truth all you want, but it won't change the facts that evolution is a fraud.

but then, you never seem to let facts get in the way of anything you believe.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hey Jim,

Read what I say and don't misrepresent me.

There is no such thing as a "mental illness" or "mental disease" because the mind cannot be ill or diseased - it is intangible.

The brain can have a defect which prevents rational thought - defective either genetically or by injury or damage from birth.

However, homosexuality is a disordered and perverted way of thinking and behaving. That is a matter of fact from human design and basic biology, let alone due to what God has told us. We don't need psychobabblers to tell us that.

The point is that even psychobabblers called it a disorder until they were pressured by the perverts to change their claims.

Jim said...

never a need for documentation about something that was commonly understood.

But how can you have a "criteria" or "qualification", as you like to say, that isn't actually enumerated in the law or application for a license?

So it is when you're debating Glenn, but it isn't when debating me.

No. It isn't a disorder either way. I'm pointing out that Glenn can't have it both ways.

It was a disorder before they took that position and if there was no science that compelled the change, then it must still be a disorder.

What was the "science" that placed homosexuality on the list of disorders in the first place? Interpretation of data can change over time without the data itself changing. It's true that the removal from the list was "instigated" by activists. That doesn't mean that the APA didn't consider all factors in coming to their conclusion.

homosexual attraction is disordered.

What is a disorder? Glenn says there are none.

I don't disagree as civil rights laws improperly were applied to private citizens, when it is only the gov't that MUST treat all people equally under the law.

As a private citizen you can keep "homos" and Negroes out of your house, but as a provider of goods and services to the public you may not refuse to serve people on the basis of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has been settled law since the 1960s, and everyone knows that except maybe Rand Paul.

the already protected rights of people of faith.

The "right" of a person of faith who provides goods or services to the public to discriminate is imaginary.

I provided you with a source for a myriad of links to support my statement regarding activism within the educational system.

Clearly I'm not a coward when comes to addressing your baloney. I'm not going to browse around your pages and links to FIND something that purportedly supports your position. You have a particularly good one, give it your best shot and link to it. Two even if they're good.

Their push was prompted by the SSM movement

According to whom?

they are using the same arguments.

Why would they? They are not asking for anything that homosexuals are asking for. They are only asking to not be arrested for having more than one wife.

It IS true. Where has any demand for sexual orientation been a part of the application of marriage laws?

That's what I've been asking.

Homosexuals aren't denied a license if they are attempting to marry according to the criterion of opposite gender.

OMG your logic is as twisted as your panties! The requirement (where it is actually stated) of opposite gender ITSELF denies them the license.

The point is that nothing shows one animal becoming an entirely different animal.

You mean a pig evolving into a dove? Probably not. But there are myriad examples of species evolving into completely different species that can no longer breed with each other, and fossil records that show the gradual differentiation resulting in striking changes from ancestors. The horse is a good example.

So your assertion is clearly false.

Then you haven't looked any more deeply into ID

Then point me to the testing, the experimental studies, and the predictions of ID.

Again, you try to have it both ways.

No, you do. You say that legal marriage based on traditional marriage is intended to foster procreation and should therefore be limited to those who could procreate, then you say the state can't determine who will or who won't so it doesn't matter who gets married...unless the are gay.

You're probably bi-sexual.

Hmmm. Interesting thought.

Jim said...

It takes more faith to believe in evolutionism than it does for Creationism.

Another amazingly stunning assertion. Evolution has empirical evidence. Creationism has one source.

evolution is a fraud.

Of course! It's science. Science is a hoax.

The brain can have a defect which prevents rational thought - defective either genetically or by injury or damage from birth.

So your expert conclusion is that gays have had the gay gene passed down from generation to generation, or that they had some sort of brain injury during birth or later on that caused them to be gay?

That about it?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim, you’re still lying. I never said there were no disorders. I said there were no MENTAL illnesses or diseases. Homosexual attraction is certainly a disorder from natural sexual relations.

There goes Jim again, comparing skin color with sexual behavior. That’s the same old canard these homosexualists use all the time. They refuse to accept the illogic of their claims.

I’m not even going to bother answering the rest of your merry-go-round which has been refuted dozens and dozens of times already.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim Jackass, who is either really stupid or just likes to intentionally misrepresent people.

How many times do you have to have facts before you admit there is absolutely NOTHING, no empirical evidence for evolution? Assumptions, speculations, and assertions is all they have. NO FACTS.

So your expert conclusion is that gays have had the gay gene passed down from generation to generation, or that they had some sort of brain injury during birth or later on that caused them to be gay?

I never even intimated such nonsense. My statement was about psychobabble claims of mental illness or disease for anything.

IF there ever is anything genetically found in the brain of those who like homosexual activity, it would have to be a mutation. But no such gene has been found, nor will it ever be. Nor is there anything which causes people to be unable to not have sex.

Those with homosexual desires have been trained that way in some form or another. It is not from a defect in the brain. Every homosexual person decides to have homosexual sex. Just having a desire for something which is immoral does not give the person the moral right to act on it. A person could have sexual attractions to corpses, but that doesn’t mean he has to act on it.

There is no evidence, NONE, NADA, which says homosexuals are born with homosexual desires.

Jim said...

Homosexual attraction is certainly a disorder from natural sexual relations.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, so by definition it is natural.

There goes Jim again, comparing skin color with sexual behavior.

I'm not comparing anything here. I'm telling you what the law says and the law includes sexual orientation the same as race or religion-whether you like it or not.

Jim Jackass

Ad hominem attacks are so useful and mature.

there is absolutely NOTHING, no empirical evidence for evolution?

Yes, there is plenty.

Nor is there anything which causes people to be unable to not have sex.

Are you SURE about that???

Those with homosexual desires have been trained that way in some form or another.

That must come as a surprise to their parents and friends. Who trained them and what was the curriculum? How is one "trained" to have desires? Marketing?

Every homosexual person decides to have homosexual sex.

At last, a true and logical statement. And every heterosexual decides to have heterosexual sex. What's your point?

Just having a desire for something which is immoral does not give the person the moral right to act on it.

What is a "moral right"?

A person could have sexual attractions to corpses, but that doesn’t mean he has to act on it.

Some do. I believe it's called necrophilia. But it's illegal. Consensual sex between (living) adults is not.

But there goes Glenn again, comparing a human being to a corpse.

There is no evidence, NONE, NADA, which says homosexuals are born with homosexual desires.

Much less any evidence that they aren't. Do you have any evidence that heterosexuals are born with heterosexual desires?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Humans aren’t animals. If you want to justify homosexuality because it is found in nature, then justify eating one’s young or killing one’s mate.

Calling you a Jackass wasn’t an ad hominem attack, because it was not reply to any argument, rather it was describing your demonstrated character on this post.

Your link showed no factual evidence of evolution. Nice try, but no cigar. What is claimed is evidence of common descent, when the evidence is actually of common designer.

Yes, I’m sure there is nothing which causes people to be unable to not to have sex. There is nothing which compels people to have sex - they really can control themselves, contrary to what libs like you suggest.

Training comes in many forms, whether it is from childhood abuse, brainwashing by homosexuals, or brainwashing in the media or schools.

My point is that no one HAS TO HAVE SEX! Even if they desire homosexual sex, they have a free-will choice to abstain. yet they demand special rights based on sexual proclivities.

Again you default to what is legal vs what is right and moral. Slavery was legal, killing Jews was legal in Germany, etc. Legal doesn’t make right.

They are the ones claiming homosexuality is from birth - ergo they are the ones who need to prove something different from design. We prove it isn’t from birth by the pure lack of any such evidence being found in all the research done.

Heterosexual desires is the default for humans. Don’t be so intentionally stupid.

Have a nice queer life. It’s all you seem to love.

Jim said...

Humans aren’t animals.

See? You have no clue about science.

If you want to justify homosexuality because it is found in nature, then justify eating one’s young or killing one’s mate.

I don't justify homosexuality. I acknowledge it.

Calling you a Jackass wasn’t an ad hominem attack

Of course it was: ad hominem - An attack on the person, not the person's argument.

Your link showed no factual evidence of evolution.

The link summarizes a host of existing factual evidence of evolution. Here's more. Ignore them, though, because they are science.

the evidence is actually of common designer.

What evidence would that be? Other than the Bible, what is the evidence of a "common designer"?

Yes, I’m sure there is nothing which causes people to be unable to not to have sex. There is nothing which compels people to have sex - they really can control themselves, contrary to what libs like you suggest.

Two sentences, zero accuracy, zero relevance.

Training comes in many forms, whether it is from childhood abuse, brainwashing by homosexuals, or brainwashing in the media or schools.

One sentence, three claims, zero facts.

My point is that no one HAS TO HAVE SEX!

That is not a point. It's a totally irrelevant truism.

Even if they desire homosexual sex, they have a free-will choice to abstain.

Why would they? Why should they?

they demand special rights based on sexual proclivities.

They demand no special rights whatsoever, sexual proclivities or otherwise. They demand the same rights as others.

Slavery was legal

It isn't anymore. The federal and state governments GAVE rights to former slaves. You want to deny rights.

killing Jews was legal in Germany

I don't live in Germany, never have. You don't either, I assume. I was not alive during the Third Reich. This continues to be a meaningless, irrelevant "argument".

They are the ones claiming homosexuality is from birth - ergo they are the ones who need to prove something different from design.

They don't have to prove anything. Those who would deny rights have the burden of proof.

We prove it isn’t from birth by the pure lack of any such evidence being found in all the research done.

There you go with your ignorance of science (and logic). You CANNOT prove something from lack of evidence.

Heterosexual desires is the default for humans.

No. It is the most common occurrence, but that doesn't preclude the naturalness of alternatives. "Default" doesn't apply.

Have a nice queer life.

Reduced to calling me a "queer" now? Proves you've lost.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Humans aren’t animals.
See? You have no clue about science
Sorry Jim, just because man classifies humans as animals, that doesn’t make it so. After all, man calls two men or two women a marriage. God created humans distinct from the animals, but then if you were really a Christian you would know that.

You don’t justify homosexuality?!??! You liar. All you do is defend it on every single blog where it is mentioned. You defend the laws supporting their perversion, you stick up for same sex fake marriage, etc. That is justifying it.

My calling you a jackass was not an ad hominem because I didn’t attack your argument with it, I called you by what your behavior demonstrates.

No, the link did NOT show any factual evidence, nor did your other one. They show speculation, assumption, and assertion. Asserting something doesn’t make it factual.

If you don’t see evidence of common design, then you are hopeless.

The relevance to the subject, re; that sentence, is that those with homosexual desires do not have to act on them. No one is forcing them to have sex. And if they don’t have homosexual sex, then there is no distinction between them and the rest of society. It is their perversion which sets them apart, and for which they want sanction and special rights.

My claims of areas of training homosexuals are 100% factual, as anyone studying the subject would know. I have studied the subject for almost two decades. Apparently the only thing you have studied is the homosexual agenda.

Again, they already have the same rights as everyone else. The only right they want is the right to have homosexual behavior sanctioned by the government and forced acceptance by weight of the government against dissenters.

It is you who are ignorant of science and research. Scads of research has been done to examine whether homosexuality is genetic. Their research is conclusive - nothing supports such a claim. If I search a mine for gold and don’t find any, by your claim I haven’t proved there isn’t any there. If I look in a bank vault for money and can’t find any, by your claim I haven’t proved there isn’t any there. The queers claim that it is from birth, so it is on THEM to prove their claim.

Humans are designed to be heterosexual. That is therefore the default design. Which is why God - you know, the one who created humans - said for humans to participate in homosexual behavior was an abomination to him, and a perversion and unnatural.

I haven’t lost. You have proven you are queer - i.e. “strange” - in all your beliefs. And your are an advocate for queers - i.e., those who practice homosexual behavior. I’m sick of PC words to sanitize their perversion. Homosexual is an adjective or adverb - it never was a noun until queers decided they wanted something more sanitary. They absconded with “gay,” but I’ve never met a happy queer.

I haven’t lost anything. I have stood for truth. It is you who have lost your soul by supporting homosexuality and evolutionism and abortion, etc.

I really need to stop arguing with a fool such as you. It is a total waste of time.

Mark said...

Jim, you said, in your own words, " I'm backed up on that by the American Psychiatric Association which has classified homosexuality as a normal and positive human sexual orientation for 40 years. This is also the consensus of the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization.

I'll take their word over yours.
"

Art and Glenn are merely repeating what God, The Creator, said in His Word. The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the World Health Organization are comprised of mortal men. They are God's Creation. Thus, you have taken the word of the Created over the Creator.

Therefore, you worship the creation rather than the Creator. Not to mention the other apostate things you have said throughout this thread which demonstrate beyond all doubt that you believe yourself to be smarter and more righteous than God Himself, including the outrageous question you asked, inquiring how do we know He hasn't changed His mind (yes, I remember that). In addition, you contend that Homosexuality is normal and natural, because people you consider intelligent have said so, yet God has called it an abomination.

Even someone who is not a "literalist" can hardly deny that God said a man who lies with a man as he does with a women is an abomination. That is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

You insult God and you insult me by continuing to posit such heretical positions.

You, sir, are no Christian. You bear the fruit of an apostle of Hell.

Jim said...

What the heck is "common design"?

Jim said...

just because man classifies humans as animals, that doesn’t make it so.

Man makes words. Man makes taxonomies (classifies organisms). Man uses words to communicate with man. What man calls something does indeed make it so.

God created humans distinct from the animals

You mean from other animals.

You don’t justify homosexuality?

Correctamundo. I acknowledge it. Huge difference.

you stick up for same sex fake marriage,

I suppose you could say I "stick up" for it, but it's not fake, at least not where it's legal.

I didn’t attack your argument

No you didn't. You attacked me instead. That by definition is an ad hominem attack, "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

No, the link did NOT show any factual evidence

Well, no. I do not have the evidence at hand, and since you can't put fossils on a web page, do lab experiments on a web page, I guess you could say that my first link didn't "show" evidence per se. However, my second link did show and explain phylogenics and the evidence to support it, though it might be a little over the head of the average person (much less of one who does not believe in science)

If you don’t see evidence of common design, then you are hopeless.

I've never even HEARD of "common design", so maybe I am hopeless on that subject.

homosexual desires do not have to act on them.

They want to. Why shouldn't they?

No one is forcing them to have sex.

I hope not. So what?

And if they don’t have homosexual sex, then there is no distinction between them and the rest of society.

Another face-palm statement. They would still be homosexuals (not like the "rest" of society) and they would not be having sex (not like the "rest" of society).

for which they want sanction and special rights.

They want no special rights. They want the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution to all Americans.

My claims of areas of training homosexuals are 100% factual

Every single homosexual "became" homosexual by being abused, brainwashed by a homosexual, or brainwashed by the media? Every one of them? Every single one.
You have the evidence for this?

they already have the same rights as everyone else.

No they don't. You are aware that in most states they cannot be legally married to their spouse of choice, right?

The only right they want is the right to have homosexual behavior sanctioned by the government

The government already "sanctions" their behavior. See Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

acceptance by weight of the government against dissenters.

Most states already regard homosexuals as a protected class. Catch up.

Scads of research has been done to examine whether homosexuality is genetic.

Indeed.

Their research is conclusive - nothing supports such a claim.

No it isn't. You can't prove anything for lack of evidence. If you look in a vault for gold and you don't find any, you have performed an exhaustive search, eliminating all possibilities that there is gold in the vault. The fact that you eliminated ALL possibilities and found none IS evidence and proof. Such rigorous investigation has not been done on homosexuality at birth. Just because the proof hasn't been found yet doesn't mean all possibilities have been eliminated.

Humans are designed to be heterosexual.

Designed?

That is therefore the default design.

Most common occurrence, not "default".

Homosexual is an adjective or adverb - it never was a noun until queers decided they wanted something more sanitary.

That's just horse shit.

Jim said...

Thus, you have taken the word of the Created over the Creator.

I wouldn't put it that way but God said that homosexuality was detestable but he didn't say anything about a disorder. And I assume God created the created for a reason.

Therefore, you worship the creation rather than the Creator.

I don't worship the APA. I just read about them on the web.

you believe yourself to be smarter and more righteous than God Himself

Uh, no. I don't.

the outrageous question you asked

The ones that you can't answer?

because people you consider intelligent have said so

People that God created. For some reason.

Even someone who is not a "literalist" can hardly deny that God said a man who lies with a man as he does with a women is an abomination.

Yes, the Bible does say that, but we also know that some things that God said in some parts of the Old Testament did not apply later on. The shellfish thing, as we all know, was a way of differentiating the Israelites from other peoples at that time. Nobody cares about the shellfish anymore because there is no longer a need to differentiate the Israelites. How do we know that homosexuality may no longer be an abomination?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

What the heck is "common design"?

It's what just proved your total ignorance of Creationism as well as ID.

You have been beaten

Jim said...

It's what just proved your total ignorance of Creationism as well as ID.

Uh, no.

I Googled and I Binged common design. The first result was a criminology term.

From there I looked at the first ten results on each search engine and searched for the term "common design" and I found one, count 'em, one page supporting "common design" and a video that debunked it.

So now I get it: Common Design implies Common Designer, right? Or are you open to the possibility that multiple intelligent designers are in play. Like Vegans or Arcturians. Otherwise it's just plain old Creationism.

So like common design: Ferrari, Maserati, Porsche, Mercedes are common designs, ergo common designer. Oh, wait. They aren't designed by the same designer.

Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, Airbus, Lockheed. Common design, common designer. Oh, wait.

Versace, Doony & Burke, Louis Vitton, Coach. Common design, common designer. Oh, wait.

Insect eyes, human eyes, fish eyes, cat eyes. Different designs performing the same function. Why did the "common designer" pick different designs to produce the same results?

If you're so smart about what "common design" is, you must realized I've just shot it down.

You lose.

Marshall Art said...

"The "right" of a person of faith who provides goods or services to the public to discriminate is imaginary."

It wasn't to the founders who never spent time dictating how a private individual could live his life or run his business. What is imaginary is that the gov't should have such authority as to dictate in such a way to the private sector.

"Clearly I'm not a coward when comes to addressing your baloney. I'm not going to browse around your pages and links to FIND something that purportedly supports your position."

No. You're indeed a coward. The steps I provided would have limited your search to only that which is relevant. Thus, you would have little trouble finding the types of posts to which I referred. I'm sure you're hope is that I provide a specific link that you feel you could easily rebut (not likely--but then, you often feel as if you have successfully rebutted positions in the past), which would compel another link, and another, which would be further compounded by your penchant for focusing on minor and less relevant details...needless to say, you're a coward. Find some spine and read that which I provided and then at least you'll know what is out there instead of pretending nothing exists.

"Their push was prompted by the SSM movement

According to whom?"


More dishonesty. Aside from themselves, according to anyone who listens to their argument, which is the same as that used for SSM.

"They are not asking for anything that homosexuals are asking for."

Clearly this is bullshit (not surprisingly). They, like the homosexuals, are demanding that their version of what constitutes a marriage is equal to normal marriages. They are demanding the same recognition legally.

"It IS true. Where has any demand for sexual orientation been a part of the application of marriage laws?

That's what I've been asking."


No. You haven't been asking the same thing. You've been asking why one's orientation should make a difference in being granted licensing for marriage, but that ANY combination of people should have recognition. I'm saying that as the laws have always stood, a homosexual could get married to a woman and his orientation was not a factor. So once again, we see either a clear intent to deceive on your part, or wholesale idiocy.

"OMG your logic is as twisted as your panties! The requirement (where it is actually stated) of opposite gender ITSELF denies them the license."

No twisting of logic here, but only an accurate representation of the law and the fact that it is equally applied. YOU want to insist that because a homosexual cannot get licensing to marry another of the same gender, that this indicates discrimination or unequal application of the law. But you must go by how the law stands and to whom it applies, which is that it applies to all. You can't say that it is discriminatory simply because one tiny segment of society all of a sudden demands what the standing law does not provide.

Marshall Art said...

" You say that legal marriage based on traditional marriage is intended to foster procreation and should therefore be limited to those who could procreate, then you say the state can't determine who will or who won't so it doesn't matter who gets married...unless the are gay."

I'm not saying this at all. The intent is to bind the couple to each other for the sake of the children their union produces. That's a major distinction from saying it is intended to foster procreation. Try paying attention. Homosexuals cannot produce children so there is no interest by the state in whether or not their unions succeed or fail. I have also stated that it is not necessary or practical for the state to try to determine who will or won't have children, or who can or can't have children, in order to satisfy stupid and selfish arguments by activists and enablers regarding the "childless couple" angle. The hetero union is the only "type" that can produce offspring and on that basis alone, the decision to sanction their unions makes sense. The homo union is a "type" that will never produce offspring and on that basis the state has no interest in sanctioning their unions any more than they would to sanction two best friends becoming roommates.

"So your expert conclusion is that gays have had the gay gene passed down from generation to generation, or that they had some sort of brain injury during birth or later on that caused them to be gay?"

This is stupid AND dishonest. Whatever factors exist do not have to be a result of specific trauma in order to have an effect on brain function. This isn't big news.

"Homosexuality occurs in nature, so by definition it is natural."

A common, but incredibly stupid argument by activists and their enablers. That it seems to occur in nature only shows that the disorder is not restricted to human beings. It is hardly an argument to support legitimizing bad behaviors...unless you're Jim.

"That must come as a surprise to their parents and friends. Who trained them and what was the curriculum? How is one "trained" to have desires? Marketing?"

How fortunate for you that Glenn spoke poorly here. "Training" in this sense is not as one taking a class in how to become homosexual. But it is an effect of influences in one's life, be it a biological episode in fetal development or the effect of one's early childhood development. It is these types of responses that lead others to see you as an asshole.

"And every heterosexual decides to have heterosexual sex. What's your point?"

The point is obvious. Choice, not an uncontrollable compulsion or unchangeable condition as with race.

"Some do. I believe it's called necrophilia. But it's illegal."

And once again, morality based upon legality. If you continue to bring up legality in discussions of right and wrong, there is no other conclusion that makes any sense other than that you equate legality with morality and base your own sense of morality on civil law.

"Do you have any evidence that heterosexuals are born with heterosexual desires?"

Biology. Two complimentary genders biologically compatible with each other. To pretend that they would not be born with hetero desires requires dishonesty. I'm shocked.

Marshall Art said...

"You have no clue about science."

As with law, you look to science to validate bad positions you prefer to hold. God did not create all creatures in His image and likeness. But that science refers to humans as animals is more a matter of convenience of classification than anything else. And considering those in the scientific community that deny God, such classification is expected.

"I don't justify homosexuality. I acknowledge it."

No. We acknowledge it and our arguments do not do anything else. YOUR arguments seek to justify it, as well as to justify legal changes that benefit those who choose to identify in that manner.

"The link summarizes a host of existing factual evidence of evolution."

More bad word choices on Glenn's part. Dealing with dishonest debaters like Jim requires weighing words carefully, lest some idiotic tangential diversion be taken by him. The evidence for evolution is factual, in that it is actual evidence. Whether it proves evolution is another thing. ID proponents look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions about what it means. Thus, there is no evidence that proves evolution is true, while there exists evidence used to support the hypothesis.

"Other than the Bible, what is the evidence of a "common designer"?"

This isn't such a difficult concept as you wish it would be. Common components make up most of creation. Common components make up all living beings. Evolutionists have decided that this commonality suggests all came from a common beginning. Aside from all things being created by one Creator, it only shows that all creatures share commonalities. I don't know how it could be possible not to. In other words, that Jim and a chimp have very similar DNA only means that Jim and the chimp have similar DNA. But Jim would insist it means a common ancestor. While in his case that is most certainly true, it isn't necessarily the case for all human beings...assuming Jim is human.

"Two sentences, zero accuracy, zero relevance."

This is difficult. Jim cannot control himself. To suggest that anyone should elicits charges of being a "sex nazi".

But it is relevant to a discussion about a group of people who insist that they are like those of another race. Either one has the ability to choose how to act and live or one doesn't. But, in this case, if one cannot choose or lacks the ability to control one's desires, there must be something really wrong with them and changing laws to accommodate them do not seem to be the best course of action.

more later. Jim lies so often that this takes time.

Marshall Art said...

"One sentence, three claims, zero facts."

This is a common falsehood by the left. The next generation is always influenced by the current generation and the culture in which it exists.

"My point is that no one HAS TO HAVE SEX!

That is not a point. It's a totally irrelevant truism."


It's entirely relevant to the claim that homosexuality is immutable and therefore worthy of being considered a protected class.

"Even if they desire homosexual sex, they have a free-will choice to abstain.

Why would they? Why should they?"


Why should anyone refrain from acting on that which is compelled by their "orientation"? If I am oriented toward violence, sloth, gluttony or any of a host of other character flaws, why should I bother changing? Those who seek to be better people overcome their character flaws, they control their desires and discipline their lives. Lefties don't. Jim supports this.

"They demand no special rights whatsoever, sexual proclivities or otherwise. They demand the same rights as others."

They already had the same rights as others. They could already marry anyone they wanted provided that their choice aligned with the criteria the law designated. And they demand special consideration for their "orientation" that states marrying one of the same gender is a right due them. It is not and never has been. To say they don't demand special rights is a lie. Typical.

"It isn't anymore. The federal and state governments GAVE rights to former slaves. You want to deny rights."

Wrong. The rights of blacks were denied. No rights are denied homosexuals. Ironically, by acquiescing to the false claim of rights denied to homosexuals, you must infringe upon the rights of others. It can't be helped and homosexual activists acknowledge this as well. They simply feel these imaginary rights of theirs are more worthy of governmental respect than already Constitutionally established rights of others.

"They don't have to prove anything. Those who would deny rights have the burden of proof."

First of all, to make a claim isn't enough for anything else in law. Why must this false claim be proven so by those who can plainly see the falsehood? Secondly, and this can't be said enough to liars, no rights have been denied homosexuals.

"There you go with your ignorance of science (and logic). You CANNOT prove something from lack of evidence."

The point here is that there has never been anything that can be used to support the notion that they are born that way and their compulsion is immutable. As a result, their claims, upon which they base their demand for "rights", are baseless. For one who demands proofs for ID, you are far less demanding for claims of the immutable nature of homosexuality. What's more, no one demands that they change, though change would be in their best interest, but only that because their claims are baseless and without proofs of any kind, altering thousands of years of understanding and law makes no sense and is impractical.

Marshall Art said...

"That by definition is an ad hominem attack, "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.""

I think you are a bit mistaken here. To simply attack one's character instead of his argument is indeed an ad hom. But to conclude by the manner in which one argues that one is an asshole is not an ad hom. Your arguments have been countered quite a bit.

"I've never even HEARD of "common design", so maybe I am hopeless on that subject."

I believe it is more accurate to speak of a "common designER", but you are hopeless on any number of subjects.

"And if they don’t have homosexual sex, then there is no distinction between them and the rest of society.

Another face-palm statement. They would still be homosexuals (not like the "rest" of society) and they would not be having sex (not like the "rest" of society)."


A minor point that even amongst righteous and honest people can be a poser. It requires knowing fully a man's mind, and that is impossible. If a man has homosexual desires but rejects them, can he truly be called a homosexual? If a man has homosexual desires, doesn't act on them but wants to, can he not be called a homosexual? All we can do is go by actual behaviors.

"The government already "sanctions" their behavior. See Lawrence v. Texas (2003)"

Not even close. L v T only denied the outlawing of sexual behavior between consenting adults. It didn't sanction OR "sanction" their behavior.

"Just because the proof hasn't been found yet doesn't mean all possibilities have been eliminated."

Typical how this "rule" is used by lefties. They didn't find any WMDs, either. They haven't found proof of God, either. The point here is that as far as research has found THUS FAR, there is no proof that homosexuality is immutable or that any are "born that way". Yet, we are to enact law based upon the claim nonetheless? That's what happens when lefties have a say.

"Humans are designed to be heterosexual.

Designed?

That is therefore the default design.

Most common occurrence, not "default"."


"Default" isn't really the appropriate word. But "normal" is and yes, we are designed to be paired up with one of the opposite gender. Only a lefty needs this proven with more than simple observation. This obvious and self-evident FACT makes homosexual desire a disorder.

"I wouldn't put it that way but God said that homosexuality was detestable but he didn't say anything about a disorder. And I assume God created the created for a reason."

Typical reprobate response. Honest people can easily conclude that what God calls an abomination is disordered as it is counter to His design. But what He created was tainted by Adam's sin so that all that came after cannot be called a result of God having designed it that way. But yes, He did say why He created us man and woman, and liars like the activists and their enablers ignore it.

"How do we know that homosexuality may no longer be an abomination?"

This has been answered exhaustively. Only Jim would demonstrate such low class as to continue to bring it up. This is a guy who claims to have a Bible at the ready. Some day, he'll have to actually study it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

How fortunate for you that Glenn spoke poorly here

Glenn didn't speak poorly - Glenn used the proper meaning of the word. How unfortunate that idiots like Jim know only one meaning of the word.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

More bad word choices on Glenn's part. Dealing with dishonest debaters like Jim requires weighing words carefully, lest some idiotic tangential diversion be taken by him. The evidence for evolution is factual, in that it is actual evidence.

Again, I did not have a poor choice of verbiage, rather Jim just demonstrates his dishonesty and/or ignorance. The evidence is factual in that it exists. But it is NOT factual evidence for evolution. It is not evidence FOR evolution, it is just raw data. It takes evolutionism bias to assume it supports evolution.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I believe it is more accurate to speak of a "common designER"

IT depends on the context. I was pointing out that there is obviously common design behind all of creation. At that point I wasn’t discussing the Designer, just that common design is obvious.

Jim said...

It wasn't to the founders who never spent time dictating how a private individual could live his life or run his business.

It should come as no surprise to you that the founders were not alive when the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed. And yet the founders did write the Constitution to allow for changes to the it.

What is imaginary is that the gov't should have such authority as to dictate in such a way to the private sector.

The Fourteenth Amendment as well as the American voting citizenry in fact grant that authority.

read that which I provided

You didn't provide. When I cite something I give you a link to something specific. I don't give you a page of search results or a link to a list of links. Pick your best one or two and link to it. I'll read it.

which is the same as that used for SSM.

Why would they use an argument for something which they do not seek? They don't want legal marriage. They want decriminalized multiple marriage. There is a big difference.

They, like the homosexuals, are demanding that their version of what constitutes a marriage is equal to normal marriages.

No, they want to be left to themselves and not be prosecuted. There is a big difference.

They, like the homosexuals, are demanding that their version of what constitutes a marriage is equal to normal marriages.

No they are not. You are mistaken.

They are demanding the same recognition legally.

No they are not. You are mistaken.

but that ANY combination of people should have recognition.

I've never asked anything about "any combination".

I'm saying that as the laws have always stood, a homosexual could get married to a woman and his orientation was not a factor.

Pure idiocy. Homosexuals do not have any desire nor reason to marry a person of the opposite gender.

YOU want to insist that because a homosexual cannot get licensing to marry another of the same gender, that this indicates discrimination or unequal application of the law.

Clearly it does. If a person of legal age wishes to marry another of legal age of the same sex, there is no compelling legal nor societal reason why they should not be allowed to. That is the essence of equal access and due process.

one tiny segment of society all of a sudden

Forty or more years is "all of a sudden"?

You can't say that it is discriminatory

I can and the federal government, many states, and many municipalities say that it IS discriminatory to treat homosexuals different from heterosexuals.

Marshall Art said...

Forgive me, Glenn. Poor words choices on MY part. I should have said that your word choices were poor considering your opponent. Honest people aren't so ready to play semantic games.

Marshall Art said...

"It should come as no surprise to you that the founders were not alive when the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed."

I'm sure it comes as a surprise to you to find that the authors of the 14th did not have the same intention for it as it is so abused today. But then, the left often abuses meaning to get their way. Typical. The 14th, in addition, does not demand that private citizens do anything that has to do with how they run their businesses.

"You didn't provide."

What you were lacking was anything akin to knowledge (so you claimed) of a variety of related subjects connected to this discussion. You said you had never heard, seen or read of anything regarding things like parental interference by school systems as regards the teaching of homosexuality. What I provided was a source for you to investigate the many stories related to such things. So instead of accepting the options for study, you dodge like the cowardly supporter of sexual perversion that you are. I am very much unsurprised. It is for you to educate yourself before daring to defend your baseless position. I provided a good source for doing so. You refuse it. You don't care about truth, but only about supporting the homosexual agenda.

"Why would they use an argument for something which they do not seek? They don't want legal marriage. They want decriminalized multiple marriage. There is a big difference."

No difference to honest people who aren't playing semantic games in a weak attempt to score rhetorical points. Not being honest yourself, you deny the truth, which is that like homosexuals, they want legal and cultural recognition and legitimization of their immoral relationships.

"Pure idiocy. Homosexuals do not have any desire nor reason to marry a person of the opposite gender."

It's pure idiocy to pretend I'm suggesting that they do. That they don't doesn't detract from the FACT that the law was applied equally, which was the point here. Is there discrimination? Not if the law is applied equally, which it has always been. That homosexuals don't like the way the law is written, that it doesn't accommodate their disorder...none of that means the law is unequally applied or discriminatory.

"Clearly it does. If a person of legal age wishes to marry another of legal age of the same sex, there is no compelling legal nor societal reason why they should not be allowed to."

But no one is denying them their ability to marry and commit to each other. They do NOT have the "right" to demand that the state (the people) accept their improper definition of the word and that the state (the people) sanction that union and treat it as if identical to real marriages.

"Forty or more years is "all of a sudden"?"

In the grand scheme of things, yes. In the history of this country, yes. In the history of mankind, absolutely.

"I can and the federal government, many states, and many municipalities say that it IS discriminatory to treat homosexuals different from heterosexuals."

And still again we see Jim defer to law as determining his morality. To that end, I now ask the following....

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Do you regard homosexual behavior as sinful?

Do you regard abortion as sinful?

These are yes/no questions and have nothing to do with what is or isn't legal. Show some spine and answer them directly.

Jim said...

The intent is to bind the couple to each other for the sake of the children their union produces.

Why can't they bind the couple who adopts a child or who have children by previous marriages?

Homosexuals cannot produce children so there is no interest by the state in whether or not their unions succeed or fail.

Actually they can and do produce children by previous marriages or by artificial means, or by adoption. So the state WOULD indeed have an interest in the success of their unions.

The hetero union is the only "type" that can produce offspring

Clearly false as I have shown above. It is not necessary to "produce" offspring to have and care for offspring.

It is hardly an argument to support legitimizing bad behaviors

"Bad" according to whom?

be it a biological episode in fetal development

So they CAN be "born that way", then? What kind of "biological episode" would produce gayness?

not an uncontrollable compulsion

What makes this different for uncontrollable compulsions that heterosexuals may have?

To pretend that they would not be born with hetero desires requires dishonesty. I'm shocked.

So they come out of the womb with "hetero desires"?

to validate bad positions you prefer

"Bad" positions? What bad positions?

But that science refers to humans as animals is more a matter of convenience of classification than anything else.

Actually it's a matter taxonomy.

And considering those in the scientific community that deny God

Who would "those" be? Most scientists do believe in God. Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

We acknowledge it and our arguments do not do anything else.

This is the joke of the year. You claim the exhibit bad behavior. You claim they are a societal evil. You claim they have a disorder.

ID proponents look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions about what it means.

Of course. However, they don't experiment and test their hypothesis, they don't make predictions based on their hypotheses and experimentation, and they don't expose their non-existent testing and predictions to scientific peers to review.

Thus, there is no evidence that proves evolution is true, while there exists evidence used to support the hypothesis.

Not beyond all doubt. This is true. But there is abundant evidence, experimentation and predictions that support the theory (evolution is more than a hypothesis).

Common components make up most of creation.

For instance? I can't further this part of it the discussion without what are the common components you are talking about.

Jim would insist it means

Jim doesn't insist anything. Biologists insist.

Either one has the ability to choose how to act and live or one doesn't.

Yes they do. So what? They have no reason to "control their desires".

But, in this case, if one cannot choose or lacks the ability to control one's desires, there must be something really wrong

Why must they control their desires? Why is that "really" wrong? Why is their ability or inability to "control their desires" make them lesser that heterosexuals?

changing laws to accommodate them do not seem to be the best course of action.

But it hurts no one to do so and so "best course of action" isn't really relevant.

Jim said...

It's entirely relevant to the claim that homosexuality is immutable and therefore worthy of being considered a protected class.

As far as homosexuality not being immutable, you might want to catch up with the times.

If I am oriented toward violence

You would be hurting other people and likely go to jail.

a host of other character flaws

This assumes that homosexuality is a "character flaw" which it isn't.

They already had the same rights as others.

No, they don't. You are mistaken.

It is not and never has been.

Ask the people of the twelve states that have legalized SSM about that?

No. You are mistaken.

you must infringe upon the rights of others.

Discrimination is not a right.

this can't be said enough

This cannot be said enough. You are mistaken.

there has never been anything that can be used to support the notion that they are born that way

I'm not sure of that, but there is nothing to support the notion that they aren't.

and their compulsion is immutable.

Except that the attempts to cure that "immutability" have failed.

For one who demands proofs for ID

I don't demand proof for ID. I can't, because there is no proof. I simply say that it is not science.

But to conclude by the manner in which one argues that one is an asshole is not an ad hom.

No. You are mistaken.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall,

When all they have is semantics, they just prove they lost the debate.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 311   Newer› Newest»