Answers to prayers?

[floo]

Maybe god didn't say anything at all about homosexuals, or anything else for that matter, as it probably doesn't exist.

[torridon]

It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise.

This is just legislating to validate your own prejudices.  If you felt 'wronged' rather than disappointed, that is something for you to deal with.  But rather than deal with your own issues you would rather force the rest of humanity to accept your prejudices.  I think you should man up; live and let live.

[Brownie]

What you have said, Spud, goes some way towards explaining your attitudes.  You've been in a dark place and it is difficult for you to completely leave it behind.  You're not alone there, many have prejudices based on their own traumatic experiences, which doesn't make them right of course but a little more understandable.

I hope you have found happiness since.

[john]

I once had a chap working for me whose wife left him for another woman, he was gutted and felt this was far worse than if she had left for another man.

I think he felt that his colleagues would feel it was because he was an inadequate man. As it evolved his colleagues were supportive. And he got to keep the kids. Yes unusually perhaps his wife left the kids behind.

[Brownie]

I too know someone (not well), related to my husband, whose wife left him for another woman, actually kicked him out and stayed in the marital home.  She had brought her lover to live with her in the house while he was still there.  The woman was someone known to them both, a relative of hers by marriage.

He tried to commit suicide, the Samaritans intervened and stopped him before it was too late.  It was a cry for help really.

He left the house and managed to build a new life for himself.  They shared the children who grew up fine.  It was a very sad business at the time.  Same thing happens with heterosexual marriages of course though I doubt a man or a woman would bring their new partner to live with them in the home with their spouse.  At least not in recent times, it did happen in far gone days.

These things leave scars.  It's not unusual for someone who has had a traumatic experience with a member of a particular group, could be ethnic, to mistrust that group afterwards.  It can take a lot of time to rebuild trust.

[Hope]

Maybe god didn't say anything at all about homosexuals, or anything else for that matter, as it probably doesn't exist.

Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo.  He said that they are no less human than anyone else.   I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... .  Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.

[floo]

Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo.  He said that they are no less human than anyone else.   I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... .  Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.

As has been said so many times, there is no verifiable evidence god exists, let alone has ever said anything. Humans are good at putting words into its mouth.

[BeRational]

Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo.  He said that they are no less human than anyone else.   I realise that your pre-conceived ideas may suggest otherwise, he says much the same about those who quarrel, are jealous, are poor or rich, are fornicators or are philanthropists, ... .  Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.

He also says that a human can own another as a slave to be kept as property.
You can beat these slaves so badly that they die, as long as it's a few days after the beating.

So not all equal.

[Gordon]

Contrary to the view prevalent in some quarters, God states that a human being is a human being and all are of equal value.

Super - so if all humans all are of equal value there should be no problem with them having equal rights: yes?

[Hope]

Super - so if all humans all are of equal value there should be no problem with them having equal rights: yes?

All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions.  By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!!   

[Hope]

As has been said so many times, there is no verifiable evidence god exists, let alone has ever said anything. Humans are good at putting words into its mouth.

Oddly enough, you seem to be very good at doing just that, Floo - or the equivalent in terms of actions.

[Gordon]

All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions.  By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!!   

I didn't mention actions: you've added this condition, and then you added a further one involving value judgment.

You noted equality of value and I them noted that presumably this would extend to rights. For example, were I unmarried then here in the UK I'd have the right to marry an unmarried person of either gender and whether or not I acted to do so and irrespective of the opinions of others doesn't remove my rights.

So, in digressing you've avoided my question to you regarding whether equal value should mean equal rights - which you forgot to answer.

[Hope]

I didn't mention actions: you've added this condition, and then you added a further one involving value judgment.

Sorry, Gordon, but you did mention actions.  The concept of human rights includes actions and that is made very clear by the context of what Jesus taught in the Gospels.  So, a human being is of equal value to any other human being; however, not every action is of equal value.

[Gordon]

Sorry, Gordon, but you did mention actions.  The concept of human rights includes actions and that is made very clear by the context of what Jesus taught in the Gospels.  So, a human being is of equal value to any other human being; however, not every action is of equal value.

Nonsense - I have the right to legally marry by default without taking any action, so what Jesus allegedly 'taught' is wrong, and in any event is irrelevant since what the gospels 'teach', or more accurately say, isn't relevant or binding. Sounds like you have added the argument from authority to your list of go to fallacies.

[torridon]

All human beings are equal; all actions aren't - otherwise we wouldn't have a differentiation between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions.  By the way, Gordon, you are so transparent!!   

Being a homosexual is a state of being, as in 'human being', it is not a state of doing. If we have a notion of universal human rights then it should apply universally and not discriminate on fault lines such as gender, race or sexual orientation.

[Hope]

Being a homosexual is a state of being, as in 'human being', it is not a state of doing. If we have a notion of universal human rights then it should apply universally and not discriminate on fault lines such as gender, race or sexual orientation.

Sorry torri, its both.  In exactly the same way that people have the potential to be jealous, to lie, to get angry, to defraud, to murder,  etc.; everyone is also in a position to hold back from the commission of that potential.

[Hope]

Nonsense - I have the right to legally marry by default without taking any action, so what Jesus allegedly 'taught' is wrong, and in any event is irrelevant since what the gospels 'teach', or more accurately say, isn't relevant or binding. Sounds like you have added the argument from authority to your list of go to fallacies.

Sorry, Gordon, there are generally a whole host of actions that precede marriage.

[Hope]

He also says that a human can own another as a slave to be kept as property.

The context of this is within that of hostilities - which is very different from the 'kidnapping' of individuals for the purpose of putting them to work.

You can beat these slaves so badly that they die, as long as it's a few days after the beating.

Reference, please.

[BeRational]

The context of this is within that of hostilities - which is very different from the 'kidnapping' of individuals for the purpose of putting them to work.
Reference, please.

Exodus 20:21
20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…
Exodus 21:21

[Gordon]

Sorry, Gordon, there are generally a whole host of actions that precede marriage.

More downright nonsense, or you aren't thinking this through: the right to be legally married is a given (here in the UK) and exists independently of any actions an individual takes towards marriage.

Therefore anyone who meets the legal requirements to marry (here in the UK) has the right to do so even if, like my younger daughter,  they have no current intentions to marry and are taking no current actions whatsoever directed towards becoming married.

You are, quite simply, wrong again.     

[ippy]

It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise.

Ever heard that saying that ends, time to stop digging?

ippy

PS that saying would go for Hope as well as you Spud, your regressive views reflect the long obsolete and spiteful beliefs of those ignorant bronze age peasants, probably no more than sheep herders, that wrote that most unpleasant and distasteful book you insist on quoting from.

Where's the humanity gone in this nonsense the pair of you keep on belching out of your mouths, it's a very good job these beliefs are, at least here in the UK,  well on their way out and hopefully people like you two as well.

ippy

[ippy]

Smooth, streamlined, strong, secure and stable - hmmmmmmmmmm.  Stop boasting ippy, you'll cause me to be unhinged.

Silly old sod syndrome.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Actually, he did say a lot about homosexuals, Floo....

Just to note that you made a string of logical errors earlier in this thread that I took the time to rebut. You just ignored those rebuttals, went quiet for a bit, and have now returned to repeat one of them - the reification fallacy - with presumably the others to follow.

What exactly is your point in being here if you refuse point blank to learn from your mistakes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Sorry torri, its both.  In exactly the same way that people have the potential to be jealous, to lie, to get angry, to defraud, to murder,  etc.; everyone is also in a position to hold back from the commission of that potential.

But in the example of what some consenting adults do together in private, why the fuck should they?

What possible business is it of yours or anyone else to presume to sit in judgment on such activities?

The only "sin" here is your bigotry. Contemptible. Utterly contemptible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

A while back I posted this in reply to Stephen:

Nope, but nor do I expect to for a bit. The Hope playbook goes something like:

1. Make some logically bad arguments.

2. Be corrected on them.

3. Ignore the corrections for a while.

4. Reappear later on to claim that you've addressed the corrections even though no-one can find where you did that.

5. Repeat Step 1.

And so it goes 

Is there anything about that that's not the case?

How do you feel about that?