Sword legion : I will reply to the entirety of your post. For the sake of clarity, each section will be under the titles (or similar one-liners) you provided to indicate which part I'm responding to in particular. With that out of the way, let's get started.


"The Problem With Gay Mariage [sic]"

You begin your argument with the assumption that being gay is "perverted, backwards, and mentally ill." Even among Christians, this is a radical belief, and you have much to demonstrate before anyone would accept this. Much of your argument is presented assuming that is is true, though, and very little of it actually goes into why you believe this is the case, much less why anybody else should.

After that, you make the claim that people who support equal rights want to put the rights of gay people before others, but the example you give does not show this at all. Even if you believe that being gay is a choice, why should gay people be not allowed to ride trolleys? If I were to own a trolley company, and if I believed that being Christian (which is definitely a choice) is wrong, should I be allowed to discriminate against Christians? If not, then isn't that putting the rights of Christians before others by your definition, which is prohibited by our government? What about with Muslims, Buddhists, or Jewish people?

You say that giving gay people rights takes away from "your" rights, but what rights would those be? When Rosa Parks successfully campaigned to end racial discrimination on buses, among many other things, did white people somehow lose rights when minority races gained some? If not, then why would straight people lose rights if discrimination against gay people ended? To give everyone equal rights, even people you don't like, is not the same thing as taking rights away from others, unless you consider the ability to oppress a right.


"God says that it's wrong."

Here, you cite Leviticus to say that being gay is an abomination in God's eyes. However, you neglect to mention all the other things that are an abomination to God. Let me list a few for you.

According to Leviticus 11:10-19, "Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you," and "these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat." Also, according to Leviticus 11:42, "Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination." Later, in Leviticus 19:19, "You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." Leviticus 20:9 makes it clear that "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head." These are all abominations according to God, but when it comes to slavery, Leviticus 25:44-45 states, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."

Simply put, Leviticus states that eating shellfish, birds (which includes bats, for some reason), bugs, etc., wearing polyester blends, trimming your beard, and cursing your parents are abominations as well as a man "laying with a man as he lies with a woman," yet it permits owning slaves as long as they aren't your own people. If God "decides what's right and what's wrong," and if God's "morals never change," don't all of these still apply? If so, then shouldn't all Christians follow these rules, lest they become as "perverted, backwards, and mentally ill" as a gay man? If not, then why is being gay any more of an abomination than those other things, and why is slavery an abomination now when it was expressly permitted by Leviticus? If you truly claim to be a Christian, you cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe and which parts you do not.


"It's not natural."

You open this argument by asking if there is any evidence that being gay is not a choice. Sure enough, the scientific community has done numerous studies on this, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that being gay is related to a number of factors outside of one's control, such as genetics and the number of biological older brothers one has. If you don't want to take my word for it, then I suggest reading some of these fascinating pieces. (Each word contains a link.) They explain both the natural processes that cause men to become gay as well as the biological advantages of it, such as how women who inherit the "gay gene" also become especially attracted to men, encouraging them to produce more offspring. Such trends are also observed in other species, so being gay is not limited to humans. On the other hand, these studies have produced no evidence to suggest that being gay is a choice, so the scientific community is fairly united in its position that one's sexuality is not a choice. Contrary to your claims, science strives to be as unbiased as possible, so these studies were not conducted with the conclusion already in mind. If you believe that science is biased against your position anyway, though, then what sort of evidence to the contrary would you accept if not scientific?

You present the argument that people have gone "from gay to straight," but that's not really evidence that being gay is a choice. If it is, then are people who dye their hair evidence that hair color is a choice? Is Michael Jackson evidence that being black or white is a choice? Are left-handed people who were forced to learn to write with their right hand evidence that being left or right handed is a choice? You can change the way you look, the way you act, and the things you say, but you can't change who you are. Indeed, numerous people, such as Günter Baum, Peterson Toscano, and Christine Bakke, once claimed that they had changed their sexual orientations but have since renounced that, saying that they were simply pressured into making that claim through conversion therapy, a process which is discouraged by The National Association of Social Workers, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Counseling Association, and The American Academy of Pediatrics, among others. In a society where it's acceptable to believe that being gay is "perverted, backwards, and mentally ill," it's no wonder why some feel like they can't accept their own sexuality, being forced and forcing themselves to lie to others and themselves about it.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that people who think that being gay is natural also believe that being gay is a mental illness, which is obviously your position, but that's certainly not the case. From our perspective, being gay is like being left-handed: it makes you different, but it doesn't make you ill or inferior in any way, and it in no way makes you unfit to serve in our government. You claim that some gay people act "very strange," but "strangeness" is entirely subjective, and allowing discrimination based on that quality opens up the possibility for discrimination against anybody or anything that's "different" from you. For example, to me, you act a lot stranger than any gay person I know, but that shouldn't give me the right to discriminate against you, right? If you're going to present the argument that people should discriminate against anybody, you'll have to do better than say that "they're just weird."

You state, "I hardly believe that your taste in sex could be turned inside out without disastrously affecting other things in you [sic] mind," and I actually agree with you, but perhaps not in the way you think. Previously, I mentioned conversion therapy, which supposedly changes gay people to straight people, and all the professional organizations which oppose it. Indeed, this process attempts to turn one's sexuality "inside out," and all those organizations oppose it due to the negative psychological effects this "therapy" has been shown to produce. (You can read their official statements on the subject here.) Your suggestion that gay people can and should simply become straight goes against everything science and medicine supports, and it is as harmful as it is simply incorrect.


"Why should we encourage perverted thinking in our society?" & "Being gay is obviously perverted."

Your argument is that being gay is "perverted" because being gay is "gross," and that being gay is "gross" because being gay is "perverted." This is a perfect example of circular reasoning, so you have yet to demonstrate why being gay is either of these things. (Outside of invoking Leviticus, but I've already demonstrated that there are problems with that as well.)

With that said, let's assume that being gay is, indeed, "gross" for the sake of argument. Why should we discourage something simply because it's gross? Are straight women gross because they are "the exact OPPOSITE sexually" to men? Should we discriminate against people who fart because it's gross? If people enjoy a food you consider to be gross, do they have a "messed up" brain because they turned their eating desires "inside out"? As we talked about with the issue of "strangeness," how gross one finds something is entirely subjective anyway, and if it were an acceptable reason for discrimination, then what would be wrong with gay people discriminating against straight people because they find them "gross"? It's perfectly fine to find homosexuality unappealing on a personal level, but you need to show why it's actually harmful before you suggest that it's a problem that needs to be dealt with.


"How perverted can you get?"

Not long ago, Jim Crow laws were considered to be "normal," and interracial marriage was considered to be "perverted." After the coincidentally named Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967, however, interracial marriage was decided to be constitutional, overturning many bans on interracial marriage across the nation. "Why should I alter my mind and make it to where I accept the perverted and fight the normal," you ask? I think the answer is obvious. The world we live in is not perfect, but no matter what we try to make it a better place, somebody out there will call the change a "perversion."

If you honestly believe that anyone who supports gay marriage "doesn't even have a sound mind," then why waste your time arguing with them? If you don't listen to anything they have to say, you will learn nothing and remain ignorant of their beliefs, rendering yourself unfit to argue against them. Sure enough, you've reduced yourself to name-calling and other insults for this section. I could say that "your mind is so closed, it's suffocating" and call you stupid, but that doesn't really accomplish anything, let alone end the debate with me as the victor. The reason you don't resort to insults during serious debates isn't simply because you should be "politically correct;" it's because insults prove nothing at best, and they make you look like you don't have any legitimate arguments at worst. I'm sure you can do better.


"Do you do it?"

Your hypothetical argument here is irrelevant since there's no way 92% of the population would ever support something like "bacon marriage." To demonstrate my point: What if the Bible explicitly supported bacon marriage? Would you, as a Christian, support it? This is obviously a no-win scenario for you, but it doesn't matter because it would never happen, rendering this and your identical argument pointless. (Or maybe not, depending on what you have to say about all the other "abominations" of Leviticus.)

Besides, chances are, nobody you're arguing against actually believes in absolute majority rule anyway. Even if a super-majority of the population supported slavery, which has been true in the past, that doesn't mean it's right or should be legal, regardless of whether or not you get your morals from God. (Depending once again on what you have to say about Leviticus.) In fact, progressives in general tend to support causes supported by minorities, so, once again, this argument isn't relevant to anything.


"The Constitution"

Here, you implicitly equate being gay to stealing, calling them both "immoral." Let me ask you this: Why is stealing immoral? If you want to say that it's because God says it is, that's fine, but you surely don't need to be Christian to understand why it's considered a crime. At the root of the issue, stealing is immoral because it produces a victim. The same goes for all our other fundamental crimes, such as murder, slavery, abuse, etc. With that in mind, who is the victim of being gay? Whether you believe it's a choice or not, there is nothing inherently criminal or immoral about being gay, so there's no reason for it to be outlawed.

Most of the Founding Fathers were actually deists, believing that God played little to no part in their lives, and even the Christians tended to reject large portions of the Bible. Sure enough, the Constitution has little to do with the Bible, and this country was founded on the principle that no religion should be used to govern people, not even Christianity. Nothing in the Constitution even suggests that gay marriage or being gay is somehow not one of our rights, so even if all the founding fathers were devout Christians, it's irrelevant because Christian values are not reflected in the ultimately secular government they constructed.


"Who invented marriage?"

You still haven't demonstrated why being gay is actually bad at this point, so most of your arguments here are null and void, but there is one thing worth mentioning.

The Bible never explicitly defines what a marriage actually is, but it does seem to accept polygamy as marriage. In the Old Testament alone, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada all had multiple wives, and they were certainly men of God. The New Testament (1Timothy 3:2 and 1Timothy 3:12) doesn't have much to say about it, saying that only church leaders should be monogamous. If marriage should be defined as God intended it, then should polygamy be legal? If not, then how can you use the Bible to object to changing the legal definition of marriage when it already doesn't reflect the Biblical depiction of marriage?


"It's bad for society"

First of all, isn't it a good idea to not have children if you don't want them? Wouldn't the most loving and supportive families of children come from parents who wanted children in the first place? Would you really expect a child to have the same love and support from a family that didn't want children? In a world with overpopulation, limited resources, and orphanages filled with unwanted children, I see no reason to be concerned that some people have sex without wanting to have children.

That goes for straight couples too. Everything you mentioned here could just as easily apply to straight couples who have sex using contraceptives, which is to say, most straight couples. When used correctly, contraceptives have virtually no risk of pregnancy. Indeed, some straight couples never want to have children, yet they have sex anyway. Are they as "bad for society" as gay people? If so, then shouldn't these relationships be just as discouraged as gay ones? If not, then how are they different for society?

Also, I already established that being gay is, indeed, not a choice, so it's certainly not simply because gay people want to have sex without having children. In fact, many gay couples want to have children, and some have even adopted and raised children. Numerous studies such as this one have shown that children raised by same-sex parents are not worse off than any other children, so are gay couples really bad for society if they can provide a loving, supportive family for otherwise unwanted children? It seems to me that the only thing bad for society here is the discrimination against gay people.


"Objections"

Once again, being gay is not a choice, and even if it was, there's nothing wrong with being gay. Being gay is also not a sign of insanity, and any reputable psychologist would tell you that this claim has no foundation in reality. Being gay is also not harmful to one's well being, especially not as being on (presumably dangerous) drugs is. However, as I demonstrated earlier, attempting to change your sexuality certainly causes great harm to an individual, and it's completely toxic and irresponsible to tell gay people it can and should be done simply because you think they're "disgusting."

Also, aren't we all sinners according to Christianity? If so, what makes gay people any worse off spiritually than the rest of us? Not even all branches agree that simply being gay is a sin, and there are many gay Christians out there who have no reason to believe that they won't get into heaven. What makes them wrong and you right?


"You're being closed minded"

Once again, trading insults doesn't really accomplish anything, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am "so open minded that my brain fell out." Does that suddenly mean you aren't closed minded? Providing a "clever" response to an insult doesn't suddenly invalidate the first insult. If you'd like to convince people that you aren't closed minded, you'd have to try harder than that.


"You'd have us go back to the Dark Ages!"

I'm not sure what Catholics have to do with this, but okay. Once again, this doesn't really negate the claim made against you, this time simply pushing the blame onto others. Chances are, though, anybody who would make that objection against you has the same objections with you as they do with the Catholic Church anyway, so it's not a very good retort, even if it is a kind of silly statement.


"Your [sic] being hateful"

Disagreeing with people isn't the same as being hateful against those people. However, calling people "perverted, backwards, mentally ill, disgusting, lazy, regressive, gross, unnatural, ludicrous, lunatics, insane, immoral, and so open minded that they've let their brains fall out" absolutely reeks of hatred, and you are in no position to claim that you are not hateful, regardless whether or not I am "intolerant" of your beliefs. Any unbiased viewer would tell you that, and, sure enough, even those who have posted in here who share your bias recognize your overwhelming and irrational contempt for homosexuality.


So, why are Christians against gay marriage? Well, I have one idea...

Q : When I clicked on that bottom link, I swear I laughed for an hour. 

I really do like the points you made here Q. 

Ah, the never ending argument of gay marriage...

I have an open ended question for all of you... what language was the original catholic bible translated from?

From that language what language was translated to English?

From those two languages, the English language cannot be perfectly translated without error. So guess what??? The information about homosexuality has been warped from the continual editing and trying to find the correct translation. Also the non-denominational bible is completely different from the King James Bible...

Also there are many different books of the bible that have been left out of the current version.

If you want to argue your point personal message me, and I will pull quotes from Palestinians and Israeli translators on the actual translation of the bible!

have fun!

ender44:

Why do you think that you can just ignore what the Bible says?

We are not exempt from the law.

We are warned to not forsake the law.

Romans 11:17

And if some of the branches 
were broken off, and you, being a 
wild olive tree, were grafted in 
in among them, and with them became
a partaker of the root and fatness
of the olive tree,

     do not boast against the 
branches. But if you so boast,
remember that you do not support the 
root, but the root supports you.

     You will say then, "Branches
were broken off that I might be
grafted in."

     Well said. Because of unbelief
they were broken off, and you stand
by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.

     For if God did not spare the natural
branches, He may not spare you either.

     Therefore consider the goodness
and severity of God: on those who
fell, severity; but toward you,
goodness, if you continue in His
goodness. Otherwise you also will
be cut off.

Now, Here is what the new testament has to say about gay people.

Romans 1:21

     because, although they knew
God, they did not glorify Him as
God, not were thankful, but became
futile in their thoughts, and their
foolish hearts were darkened.

     Professing to be wise, they became fools.

it continues to verse 24

Therefore God also gave them
up to uncleanness, in the lusts of 
their hearts, to dishonor their bodies
among themselves,

     who exchanged the truth of God
for a the lie, and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the 
Creator, who is blessed forever.
Amen.

     For this reason God gave them
up to vile passions. For even their
woman exchanged the natural use
for what is against nature.

     Likewise also the men leaving
the natural use of the woman. . .

(now this is getting scary)

Burned in their lust for one another,
men with men, committing what is shameful, and
receiving in themselves the penalty of their error
which was due.

It goes even further:

     And even as they did not like to
retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a debased mind,
to do those things which are not fitting.

     being filled with all unrighteousness,
sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
evil-mindedness: they are whisperers,

     backbiters, haters of God, violent, 
proud, boasters, inventors of
evil things, disobedient to parents.

     undiscerning, untrustworthy,
unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful:

     who, knowing the righteous
judgment of God, that those who
practice such things are deserving
of death, not only do the same but
also approve of those who practice
them.

People are saying that my article was harsh, but look at
what the Bible says!

While on a fast , Jesus was tempted by Satan to command
some stones to become bread. But Jesus replied:

"A man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds
from the mouth of God."

We live by the whole Bible, we do not pick and choose what we want to obey.

Q :  

If I had a dime each time a nonchristian thought they found a contradiction, or anything in the Bible. . .

You do not understand the Bible, and I wonder if it would be
good use of my time to explain everything.

I will explain if you can prove to me that stealing is wrong without using the Bible, see the
bottom of the post for details.

I used to think that I could win a debate in the same manner that you have by over loading
my opponent with information, but I never went as far as to post, what? seven links?

I am not looking at seven different web pages trying to find out what you're saying.
As a rule when debating me, you get to post one link.

People have thought that they're so smart posting all of these studies for me to read.

they're always wrong.

I just don't waste my time with that any more.
I have never used links to help me with a debate anyways.

If you find something on the web then post it in your own words.

We all once knew that being gay is perverted, it was common sense.
People have claimed that the Bible is wrong yet when science catches up
with the Bible it turns out that science is wrong.

Today we know why the Bible has sanitary rules.

Now I will focus in on something here.

You claim that you can know right from wrong without God.

And you seem to think that the slavery in the Bible is wrong.

How do you know it's wrong? 

Let's just say that I think it's good to steal.

If you can prove it's wrong, without the Bible then we can discuss the other parts of the argument.

So. . . I think that stealing is good. . . can you prove me wrong?

"We do not pick and choose what we obey."
Thank you for the wisdom.
It can come in handy.
May help in another set of arguments well beyond.
Thanks for the tip.
The wicked must do what they want.
But the rest? Do what they have to do.
Thank you for this insight.
It helps.
In more ways than I am able to articulate.

Good luck to all.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

P.S. Nice work "Sword Legion."
Nice work indeed.

Sword legion : Q already explained the stealing part- It creates a victim. Specifically, the ones who are being stolen from. Gay Rights and Marriage inclusions, however, do not result in a victim. Did the inclusion of rights for African Americans create a victim? Or how about fixing women's rights?

If you are going to try and argue your point, yet COMPLETELY ignore and dismiss any information provided, then you do not deserve having your own opinions and ideals heard at all. It's extremely ignorant, too.

Also, as they have said, the USA was NOT founded on Christianity or other religions, so why should your books stand above documents such as the constitution when it comes to the rights of others? We fled from Europe because of this reason exactly. Take a bit of History lessons, it alone can show you where we end up heading if we let ignorance such as yours overflow, Nya~.

Also, "we live by the whole Bible. We do not pick and choose what we obey." Yeah, if you did thoroughly follow it, then literally 99.9999% of the Earth's population would have been executed already, quite unfairly too.

Also, keep in mind that not everyone follows your religion and beliefs, so why should we all be forced to, Nya~?

Also, I truly had contemplated on REPORTING this thread when I first saw it, but decided against it, mostly due to the fact that hate like yours will only show up again and again. So I'll turn my SpeedRun forum into an LGBT forum once the offer gets opened back up again instead.
:3

Sword legion : Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Excuse me? You're saying that you're ignoring Q's arguments BECAUSE of her overwhelming evidence? Not only that, but you demand that she writes all the info in her own words?
Okay then, ALLLLL those Bible quotes you posted? They're invalid until you hand-type them out in your own words.
You obviously want to use the easiest arguments possible, while putting severe limits on how other people argue against you. You're trying to stack the cards in your favor. That's unacceptable.

Sword legion : Alright. You want a short post to respond to, here you go. You claim you don't choose what to obey in the Bible. Bull crap.

Then according to your logic that everything in the Bible must be followed, why aren't you making a thread hating farmers who breed more than one type of cattle? Why not make a thread hating on farmers who grow more than one crop in their field? Why not make a thread hating on every person who wears clothes of mixed materials? Why not make a thread hating on everyone who does not trim their beard? How can you possibly let all of these abominations happen all around you? Leviticus says these are abominations.

Why don't you make a thread demanding rights to own slaves as long as they are not from your homeland? Why don't you make a thread demanding the death penalty for everyone who has ever cursed at their parents? After all, it IS your Christian duty to make sure everyone around you follows the rules set in the Bible.

Every one of those things listed were stated in Leviticus, the same location as the law stating that man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman. You preach so strong against homosexuality, but don't say a word about all of these other "abominations".

You claim you don't pick and choose. But  until you can tell me that you openly preach everything that Leviticus says (mentioned above), you are picking what you want to obey. DO NOT DENY IT!!! You have simply grown up accepting all the other abominations in Leviticus that are in our everyday lives as okay. So you have chosen to ignore those and single out homosexuality. you saying that you don't pick which laws to follow makes you the hypocrite of this thread.

orionfoxgibson : Shouldn't thank someone for wisdom that they don't follow themselves. (refer to my previous post if you need a reference)

Sword Legion (I won't bother summoning you, seeing as it's your thread), I can respond to every single thing you have posted in this thread with a single image:



Nothing I could possibly say fits more perfectly than this.

EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS IS JUST SO
As an afterthought . . . did I just witness an American Christian try to claim slavery might not be bad? "And you seem to think that the slavery in the Bible is wrong. How do you know it's wrong? " BIBLICAL MORALITY, FOLKS. SURE IS GREAT.

This thread is screaming spam now. And a crapton of controversy that isn't needed at all. It's pretty ridiculous, even for CC. (no offense)

Yeah, I'm going to shut it down now.

Sword legion : Well, just when I was about to make a more lengthy response to your article after reading through it, people went all over what you said and this thread became a flame fest. Since it was starting to get out of control, I concur with pacman's decision to close the thread (I was out for dinner when this happened), but I would also like to add my comments and I'm just gonna keep this short. I think that there are theological and logical problems in your arguments. Some of them are quite irrelevant to the main issue and I don't think it should be done like this apologetics-wise. I think other Christians have mentioned this already, that you didn't treat this issue as sensitive as it should have been treated, especially when you isolate this to look more like a worse sin than other sins. This issue is already a tough and hurtful issue, especially when there are different groups who unjustly oppress the homosexual community, even those who claim to be Christians. When you talk about sexual sins, homosexuality is only part of the list, for there are also heterosexual sins that are no greater or smaller than the homosexual sin. I think you need to work on being able to talk about these issues in a loving and understanding manner as well as being able to address all responses. To speak truth graciously. Just because we don't agree with their lifestyle does not mean that we can't love them either. And the same goes for them.

I would recommend taking a look at how this pastor's (also known as the One Minute Apologist on YouTube) response to the homosexuality question compared to the approach that you took.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y_lQlAXN-I