The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

OK, children isn't the sole reason God created marriage. Luther's catechism even says we should "consider sexuality to be a good gift of God." The reason why God made woman was because Adam was lonely. Speaking of marriage as between a man and woman is pretty much consistent throughout the Bible (never does the Bible mention a homosexual marriage, only husbands and wives in reference to each other). So while marriage doesn't solely exist for children, that's one of the reasons it exist ("one of the" meaning not the only one). Where do babies come from? Just kidding. Anyway, there are several possibilities: previous marriage (some homosexuals are open to both hetero- or homo-sexual relationships), adoption (most likely), or even the unexpected result of a heterosexual affair in rare cases.

Well first, I would contend that I'm not discriminating, but that's not my main point.
I'm sure you would light up like a fire if someone condemned a homosexual to hell, but yet you're the one who's condemning. Only God can condemn people to hell (well, there is the power of excommunication which God gives to the church, but even then excommunication means nothing without God's authority backing it up). You can condemn sins (as long as the Bible shows that it's a sin), but ultimately God is the one who condemns sinners.

OK, that post was to focus mainly on how you were being hypocritial in condemming people who don't agree with you, but moving on to your argument, let's remember one of the Forum Rules This argument is just basically a rehash of your Message 21 (edit: should be 15, my bad). I've introduced all kinds of counter-arguments and further discussion after you posted Message 21 (edit: 15), some focusing specifically on how this is not discrimination, and your only response has been to make accusations of oppressive and discriminative bigotry.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-04-2005 18:12 AM

You already brought those up in Message 50, and I replied in Message 54. Well, the same logic I used the previous four also applies here, but I also brought in some evidence relating to marriage and children in Message 31.Again, let me remind you of Forum Rule #2.

One of the biggest things I am doing here is trying to distinguish between the sin and the sinner. Jesus would not support homosexuality, but he would still love homosexuals. Likewise, even though I would sharply disagree with homosexuals, I would still try to remain respectful and friendly when talking to them. You, however, have not made this distinction. Every post you have used at least one of the following words to describe my arguments:
anti-Christ, bigot or bigotry, oppressive, discriminatory, anti-Christ, condemn (not in reference to condemning homosexuals, but condemning my stance), bull****.
Furthermore, you keep rehashing the discrimination rhetoric each time you respond to my post. Do you have any idea what it is like for me to have to put with all of that? I will simply refuse to debate you any longer unless you choose to act in a more colloquial and respectful manner. This would start with editing Message #74 substantially. I'm not asking you to change the content, but present it in a much more respectable manner, and continue to be respectful even after Message #74.

Well, I was trying to develop children (edit: and a healthy family) as a supplementary argument, but I'm getting spread on this one, so I'm going to drop this one and leave it untouched. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it just means that there is not sufficient evidence to prove my point right, and I would like to get the focus off of that argument and on to my main concern (so there's your response, Asgara). Basically, my main concern is that given the heritage of Judeo-Christian marriage in federal marriage, we should respect a fundamental concept of Judeo-Christian marriage. Now I'm not arguing for a strict enforcement of Judeo-Christian marriage for two reasons.
1. Federal marriage is a mix of both secular and Judeo-Christian marriage, so although it shouldn't be totally secular, at the same time it shouldn't be totally Judeo-Christian.
2. Separation of church and state becomes partly an issue, too, moreso on how strict you argue it should be.And since this topic is suppposed to be about blasphemy (the ultimate sin), the question becomes whether or not I can be guilty of the ultimate sin for maintaining these views?This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 16:37 AM

The response is buried in the middle of message 82. Just want to make sure you don't miss it.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 16:35 AM

The only thing it's done is anger and frustrate me. OK. I'm now guilty of denying Jesus Peter, I've been mocked with the "La-La-La-La" comment, and I'm acting anti-Christian and bigotrous. Thank you! Oh, really? Now I certainly don't think DOMA is discriminatory and oppressive, but you basically say here that any person (including me) that supports DOMA is a bigot and the anti-Christ. How friendly! You pretty much insuate the other side (which I'm a part of) with a discriminatory, bigotrous, oppressive behavior whenever. Any time I try to do that, no matter what I say, I still get the discrimination rhetoric thrown at me each time. "There is no other possible description." Even in this post it's coming in. Quite frankly, this is almost getting to the level of harassment.edit: It could also help if you didn't call half of my arguments "bull****" in Message #74 (I don't think that's very Christ-like), and repeating the same (except for adding the word "else") discrimination rethoric at the end that you had used in just the previous post.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-05-2005 20:06 AM

Let's look at that sentence.
"I say that the behavior says that you are a bigot."
And by the way, the last four words are "you are a bigot."
You basically say, "You have to agree with me or else 'behavior says that you are a bigot.' " Now that is in no way productive to debate or to discussion. Stop repeating that again and again and again. Especially twice in the same post. I made a response the first time you posted it. However, if you choose to continue acting in the way you do, repost this argument, call my arguments bull****, constantly characterize my arguments as bigotrous and oppressive, I will refuse to debate any of your content (which is why these posts are specifically focused on how you are treating me, not on your content). Notice the phrase "if you choose." That means my decision to debate or not debate, address or not address these questions, is contingent upon the way you will treat me.This is harassment.

I said that if you continued to treat me this way, I will simply not debate you anymore. After multiple posts, you have refused to change your behavior and treat me in a way which is more reflective of the love of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I will no longer respond to anything you say in this topic, unless you wish to talk of changing your attitude, or unless one of the administrators or moderators chooses to reconcile this conflict.

OK, I was going to try to leave that argument alone and focus on what I thought were some better arguments (see Message #82), but if you insist, I'll get back to this.Marriage has a duel nature of sorts in relation to its heritage. It is part Judeo-Christian and part secular. As that report from the Heritage Foundation says, children in marriages will be much better off, and a report from Reuters Health (Click here for the actual article) talks about how marriage benefits your health. It is for reasons like this that the government will politically promote marriage with additional privileges. This is a reflection of the secular nature of marriage. But marriage also has a Judeo-Christian nature, so it becomes important to protect a fundamental aspect of Judeo-Christian marriage by keeping it heterosexual. The secular nature keeps marriage from being enforced very strictly according Christian guidelines, but the Judeo-Christian nature keeps marriage from becoming no more than a political tool and having no sanctity at all. You could see from this viewpoint how the sanctity of marriage could become very contingent upon one's view of separation of church and state. I'm not arguing for absolutely no separation, but at the same time I don't believe that complete separation should exist either. Certainly one could not be convicted of blasphemy and the ultimate sin for his views of separation of church and state!

These reports draw conclusions about the benefits of marriage. It does not clearly define what marriage is. That's where the dual nature of marriage comes in. The secular nature is concerned with the benefits of marriage and in my last post, I used this evidence to specifically refer to the secular nature. The secular nature promotes marriage with political privileges. The Judeo-Christian nature defines what marriage is. Of course how Judeo-Christian this nature is will be defined by church and state.To clarify:
The Judeo-Christian nature defines marriage.
The secular nature promotes the benefits of marriage (under its current definition) by granting political privileges to married people. It does not define marriage.Speaking of which, these reports probably refer to heterosexual marriage (gay marriage is starting to make gains, but for the longest time straight marriages was a de facto standard and still is by far the most prevalent form of marriage). I don't know of a single study that makes a direct comparision between gay and straight marriage, so you would probably have to find one to definitively prove your point (but gay marriage is very rare and few if any studies have been conducted at all, so it's not your fault if you can't find an example of a direct comparison).But getting back to my main point, it ultimately is an issue of church and state when you deal with how Judeo-Christian the definition of marriage should be, and you would thus have to argue that my position on church and state is blaphemy.

Well, you can't go around willy-nilly recognizing every possible form of marriage (homosexual, polygamous, own family). It's like making a gifted education class for everyone. You had to establish some sort of standard for marriage. This standard was largely borrowed from a Judeo-Christian (in the Middle East, it may have been borrowed off of Islam). It's not very strict Judeo-Christian because of separation of church and state (ie: you can't ban a believer from marrying an unbeliever under the federal definition of marriage). The fact that it is partially borrowed from Judeo-Christian tradition does give marriage some sanctity. Not as much sanctity as a marriage in a Christian church, but it still has sanctity (just like gifted classes are challenging). To remove the Judeo-Christian standard would take away the sanctity of marriage. I'm saying that, evidence-wise, this info would likely apply to only heterosexual marriages (just do to the sheer lack of gay marriages that exist, especially in the past). It's not known whether or not the results would hold true for homosexual marriages. But that's evidence-wise of course. The part of marriage where the government hands out marriage licenses and the associated political benefits does not discriminate. These licenses are handed out regardless of what the definition of marriage is. If marriage is heterosexual-only, then heterosexuals get the licenses. If marriage is hetero- and homosexual, then both get the licenses. The agencies that hand out just promote marriage through political benefits. They just check to see that you meet the standards. They don't make standards.Just like it's important to separate church and state (not completely, but to some degree), it's important to separate marriage into that which promotes it and that which defines it.edit: Defense of Marriage Act would be related to that which defines it, not that which promotes it. It defines marriage on the federal level as heterosexual. And even then, states can still also include homosexual marriage (if they want), but it will only apply in their state. But abortion and Roe v. Wade have shown that the option of leaving it to the states may only last so long on controversial moral issues.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-06-2005 17:44 AM

If you do that, you effectively abolish the Judeo-Christian standard and thus the sanctity of marriage. The problem is, without some sort of standard of sanctity, marriage loses its value. Abolishing this standard also opens marriage to all kinds of redefinition. Many have said that it is things like polygamy, but I have my own interesting take on this: While I am not against free expression and new ideas, I certainly don't think we need to go around accepting all of these ideas. And considering how increasingly globalized and postmodern our world is becoming, gay marriage will not be the last challenge to the definition of marriage. If gay marriage is passed, many people are going to come up and try to give persuasive rhetoric and extend the homosexual logic to the conclusion that their form of marriage should be recognized, too. And if their rhetoric and logic is simply an extension of the logic used for homosexual marriage, then marriage will constantly be redefined and its sanctity and specialness destroyed. Homosexuals have clearly defined what they're against, but they haven't as clearly defined what they're for. To a certain degree, homosexual marriage is just a pursuit of their interests. Well that's real civil. If you would carefully read and comprehend my argument, you would understand what I meant. The part which defines is considered with values. Since marriage should have sanctity, this part considers what values will uphold the sanctity of marriage. The part which promotes is that merely upholds the these values. Once marriage is defined, this part will promote marriage with some sort of policy (in this case political privileges) regardless of the definition of marriage. In that way, these two parts remain independent, because it is important not to mix values and policies.