h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>A person cannot CHOOSE homosexual desires or heterosexual desires, BUT a person can choose to engage in the acts that they so desire, e.g. sex, lust, etc, etc.<<

So a gay person can be gay, they just can't *be* gay. A gay person is fine in your eyes so long as they spend their lives alone, unloved and tortured by needs they refuse to meet.

If this is your love, I'd wouldn't want to see your hate.

Imagine the situation were reversed: would you? Could you? (I'm assuming) You're straight - do you think you could live a life of isolation, deprive yourself of companionship and family and deprive yourself of love. Do you think you could force yourself into a fraudulent marriage with another man, just to conform with this hypothetical society's expectations?

O, to the vegetarian point. I understand where you're coming from. You're right, I don't agree that eating meat is the equivalent to murder. Now, here's the crux of the matter.

Where do your personal beliefs come from? Are they religious? Naturalist? Arbitrary?

There is a difference between pushing my beliefs on other people and seeking to conform society to be morally in line with what God (not myself) has commanded.

In effect, you have said that it's ok for me to believe in a God that has created the Universe, a God that holds me (and the world) to a standard, a God that is above all, BUT I shouldn't be allowed to do MY part in seeking the conformity of society to the Moral Laws of the God that I'm certainly allowed to worship and obey.

Apparently, God can be as important to me insomuch that He's not SO important that His Will becomes my priority over the will of those who live in rebellion to Him.

Now, I understand this position. It's perfectly natural for an atheist or an agnostic to place society above religion, because that religion plays no part in their life. Really, it just becomes an argument of who is more important, my God or another (Man). I say that God is more important, another says that Man is more important. If I shouldn't be allowed to push that belief on others, why should others be able to push that belief on me.

But this really isn't the point. The point is this, homosexual marriage is now a political point. I have the option to vote for a candidate who seeks to legalize it, and I have the option to vote for a candidate who believes that marriage is an institution founded by God and that it's strictly for man and woman. Of course, I should vote for the candidate that best represents the morals that I strive to live by, just as anyone else would vote for their own candidate (be it for humanistic reasons, or any other).

Anyway, I feel that I've started to ramble...

On to the next point...

The Heist Goon...ok, a tricky issue.

I don't WANT anyone to live alone, deprived of love, etc. In an ideal world, these men and women would find their love and comfort in a Saviour that has known loneliness, that has known pain and suffering. I wish that they would know the ultimate Joy in delighting in a personal relationship with the Son of God, to know that everything else is second and that only He matters.

Looking from the outside in, this seems foolish, childish, or naive. But I tell you this, there is no greater joy to be found in this world than that joy that only Christ can give.

I have only had one serious relationship in my, so far, rather short life. I've never had sex. My experience in that area is almost negligible, but I CAN tell you this. I would continue alone, unloved, and never having experienced the joys of an intimate relationship with a woman, than to cast aside what Christ has given to me.

Perhaps that will mean nothing to you, I don't ask that it move you, I don't ask that you live as I, I only ask that you try to understand.

Ultimately, a homosexual relationship, a heterosexual relationship, ANY relationship will not satisfy us if that's where we search for our meaning or our happiness. There will always be a yearning for something more, even if that yearning is so buried by everything that we do to find happiness in this life. This life only offers a fleeting attempt at joy. God offers so much more. And the sacrifices the He desires of us, are nothing compared to the sacrifices that He has already made.

Anyway, I get that feeling that I am again rambling. Forgive me.

You know wwhen you've got old and been there done that and seen that when you can't be bothered to fisk to pieces the last post...

Mr E

Thank you. I think you get to the crux of the matter. I am an atheist. My parents were Hindu and I lost my faith, but after careful thought and reading of philosophy decided against eating meat.

I see where you are coming from. To you, God is more important than humans because God is all powerful and always right, and humans are fallible. I can't deny that, to a theist that's a very coherent world view. And you want to fight for a society which has values in line with your gods values. You have every right to do that, and I respect your right.

But I am going to fight against you, through the lawful democratic channels open to me. Because I don't believe in your god. I don't want to do something just because He tells *you* that I should. I am happy for you to have a faith. I am happy for Jewish people, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans and Zoroastrians to have a faith, and to practice it as long as it harms no one. But I don't want your faith to impose on my life.

I don't want to be compelled by law to follow someone else's religious practices. I don't want to have to cover my head because Zoroastrians believe it essential, I don't want to have to sacrifice animals at Eid because Muslims tell me I have to, I don't want to have to circumcise my son because the Jewish people do. And if you think about it, I don't think you want to live in a society where people are compelled to follow a religion by force either do you? The Roman's threw Christians to the lions for refused to sacrifice to the Emperor, Catholics were banned from public office in the UK just a few hundred year, by well-meaning, righteous people who believed what god intended.

>>There will always be a yearning for something more, even if that yearning is so buried by everything that we do to find happiness in this life. This life only offers a fleeting attempt at joy. God offers so much more.<<

So, alongside gay marriages, would you seek to ban marriages between atheists and marriages between adherents of religions other than yours? After all, they're not seeking joy from God either, or if they are, they're seeking it from the wrong God. Surely their relationships are doomed and empty too, since they lack the right God.

You'd say you'd choose a life of absence, of no love. Forgive me if I'm being patronising, but I don't think you understand the enormity of that choice. You're currently choosing to not have sex but you know that at some point you're going to find the right person, settle down and have it all: the Bible is pretty clear on the importance of marriage and family - a marriage/family without God is still preferable to singledom.

Imagine you knew that was never going to happen, that you were never going to be able to have the family everyone else gets and imagine how distressing and how damaging that would be. I used to be religious and for a while I tried to square that circle, to be gay and to be a good Catholic and it was soul-destroying - something had to give. The thing that gave way was the thing I had a choice over: my religion. I have no choice over being gay (and being gay means having relationships/sex with other guys) but I had a choice over taking the colossal leaps of faith needed to believe there was a God who didn't like the way he made me.

Glad to see that this discussion is staying civil
and considerate of everyone's right to have a say!

Let us further unravel this Mister E...

>> If I shouldn't be allowed to push that belief on others,
why should others be able to push that belief on me.
But this really isn't the point. <<

Ah, but that is the point. Even a Catholic has to recognise
the concept of Free Will. So, what God has given unto us let
no Man try to take away, even in the name of God, especially
NOT in the name of God.


~jwf~

>>Even a Catholic has to recognise
the concept of Free Will. So, what God has given unto us let
no Man try to take away, even in the name of God, especially
NOT in the name of God. <<

In its 2000 year history this argument has been debated away.
The crux of the present day issue is a struggle for the meaning of the word "marriage".

On a separate note some churches are reforming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_LGBT_Christian_clergy

Ok, it seems we've started to cover the same ground over and over, which tells me that this conversation is about to become stagnant and finished. I'm glad that it's remained civil. I've been on some forums where it wasn't so. I thank you all.

The question was brought up whether or not I thought marriages between non-believers (my paraphrase) should also be illegal.

It IS a good question.

I don't know that there is a simple answer to that (though, perhaps it isn't the answer that's not simple but the explanation). I would say no, they shouldn't be illegal.

I don't think marriage was intended for only Christians, or only Jews, or only etc, etc, etc. However, I believe that the basic requirements set forth by God for a 'legal' marriage is universal. It wasn't instituted as a religious rite, but that doesn't mean that it is wholly without significance in a non-religious world.

In my opinion (which is based on my understanding of Scripture), a proper Marriage is a foundational necessity for a proper, well brought up family. A proper family, I believe, is a foundational necessity for a proper community, and so on. Ideally, the family would be a microcosm of a well functioning community which, in turn, would be a microcosm of a good society.

However, any family ideal (marriage, discipline, divorce, etc) that is set apart from what God requires of the family, will soon degrade the family to the point that it, in turn, degrades the community which then degrades the society.

Now, I do NOT intend to place this all at the feet of the homosexuals! As has already been discussed, heterosexuals share a very large portion of the blame in the degradation of marriage and family values. I'm not convinced that there AREN'T homosexuals the could raise a family better than many heterosexuals. However, I do not believe the proper course of action is to broaden the 'prerequisites' for a family. What I mean by this is, "There are many homosexuals that would do a better job of raising a family than many heterosexuals. Thus, we should open up marriage so that they would have that opportunity."

Rather, I believe that we should seek to remedy the ailments of the MANY heterosexuals that degrade marriage and the family.

In summary: I believe that Marriage, as instituted by God, was meant to be between a Man and a Woman as representative of His love towards the Bride (the Church). I believe that homosexual marriage is a degradation of the God-ordained institution of Marriage. I believe that heterosexuals who commit adultery, needless divorces, or who are hopeless, lazy layabouts do the same degradation to a worse extent.

I believe that proper Marriage is a foundational necessity for a proper family, and so on until it filters throughout society.

I hope that some of that made sense. I'm afraid at this point that we are beating a dead horse. Perhaps it would be prudent to agree to disagree?

I do understand the several counter points that were raised against my argument. I appreciate the civility and the good discussion that it brought! I hope I have attained a place on H2G2. Here's a beer on me

Mr E:



Well then, I would suggest you believe wrongly, marriage was originally a secular arrangement either as a 'business' proposition between families or different villiages etc.

This started to change once the Roman Empire 'converted' its religion to just Christianity. At this point, due to Rome having taken over large parts of 'Europe' religion started to become all Christian and secular marriage in countries was replaced by Christian marriage.



Divorce has been around for centuries and society is still going strong. There is no evidence that homosexual marriages are more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriage.

Why is the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus a 'Law of Sin' but the other stuff is 'Laws of Separation'? It's inconsistent (not to mention hugely presumptuous) to make that distinction, surely?That said it's the only time I've seen anyone even attempt to address the problem of cherry picking one bit from Leviticus and ignoring the rest, so you score points for that.

As a deist I have no issue with the idea of God, but I have huge problems with the idea that a being that powerful would even condescend to notice us and what we do, much less that there is any 'natural order' Sie* 'designed'.

*gender neutral pronoun.

>> *gender neutral pronoun. <<

Gender neutrality is an abomination unto Nature.
A uselessly non-reproductive evolutionary dead end.

When the grammatical gender of an antecedent is
unknown or variable, the proper form is to use the
third person plural 'they' or 'them'.

See Goldilocks and the Three Bears:

"Someone has been eating my porridge too
and THEY have eaten it all up."

Poor Baby Bear did not know that his/her
porridge thief was a little girl and quite
rightly used the gender neutral THEY.


~jwf~

If I choose to use gender neutral pronouns and my doing so harms nobody else I'll continue to do it so stop oppressing me!

Actually jwf, the majority of living organisms on Earth are gender neutral. (I'm no fan of made up pronouns though, sorry Mr D)

What does The Guide have to say on The Matter A770960 ?

(I should also point out at this stage that 'they' is a PLURAL pronoun and is thus incorrect when specifically referring to a single entity, it is correct in Goldilocks not because the bears are unware of the gender of the thief, but because they didn't know how many thieves there were)

And no need to apologise HD, to each their own and all that... all that matters is that I can use them if I so wish.

Indeed when either the number or gender are unknown
it is always correct to use the third person plural.

The Bear rightly assumed that any porridge eating thief
would be acting alone, considering the relatively small
quantity of porridge a Baby Bear's bowl might hold.

And yet, young as he/she might be, the Baby Bear did not
commit the unforgivable faux pas of using the male singular
third person HE to describe the singular, and statistically
most probably male, perp.


~jwf~

For use of "they" see http://xkcd.com/145/

I've always heard of xe as the specific pronoun for gender neutral, but never used it - I use they, even if as its original form it's incorrect, the language changes by usage

I just spent twenty minutes writing a post only to navigate away before posting it...

Needless to say, this will be a summary of what I was going to write.

I do not draw my understanding of what marriage has been down the through the ages, but, rather, I appeal to what the Bible makes of it, and base what I believe upon that.

As to the 'cherry picking', some are guilty of that.

However, certain laws WERE done away with (unclean animals now being edible, not being restricted to certain fabrics, not having to wear our beards a certain way), homosexuality was not one of them.

Homosexuality (the active or passive role in homosexual acts) is still condemned under the New Testament as are other types of sexual immorality. 1 Timothy 1:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, Romans 1.

If you take anything away from what I write, let it be this: I Cor 6:11...And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Would you prefer to be called a zealot, Mr. E.?

Mr. E.



It's happened to all of us: best advice is if it's a complicated biggy write it as a Word document and then cut and paste it into hootoo...then if hooto crashes or you prees the wrong buton you will no of lost it...

anyway



Well,

a) that's a shame reliable history can tell us a lot about the world
b) just 'believing in what the Bible says' and having a cognitive dissonance about anything that contradicts it is typical of the blinkered believer or the believer who *needs* to believe in a certain thing no matter what things say to the contrary.

Are you someone who believes there is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Ceasar?