re: Same sex marriages

quote:

---

I believe in the concept of original sin, which means that our original representative's disobedience led to sinfulness innate in all his posterity. Therefore, what seems natural for us is not always good.

God created man good, but then he fell into sin. We suffer the consequences of that today, and yet we sin willingly (God isn't forcing us to sin).

---

I don't care if you are married or not - a man does not get an erection without feeling lust for the female form. So how were people supposed to procreate if lust was not part of our creation?

quote:

---

Because there is a defined authority - the US court system.

---

Great, a literal "appeal to authority". Was the authority correct when it decided Roe or when they struck it down?

Why do you think having an "authority" makes one set of rules more valid than another set? Authorities get it wrong.

quote:

---

Which do you think the majority of women would prefer?

---

Are you suggesting that we determine morality by asking various sub-groups what they think of a certain arrangement? Why not ask some 30 year old snackbar males what they would think of this? That's as valid as asking the women.

Usually Husband/Husband and wife/wife.

Adam was the first Christian. Gen 3 prophesies of Christ and those ancients were saved through their faith in the messiah to come.

quote:

---

From a legal standpoint Civil Unions could serve the same porpoise

---

quote:

---

The first humans were not homosexual.

---

They were banging their siblings, which is worse than being gay outside of Alabama.

quote:

---

I don't understand your confusion.

---

I could be misunderstanding you but I'm not confused.

quote:

---

You admit that the Bible cannot be amended. Frozen in time from the year 300 AD or thereabouts.

---

Correct-ish. When the writings were written, it was God's word, not when it was acknowledged to be what it was, but sure. I won't nitpick.

quote:

---

The Constitution is the culmination of the wisdom of man up until and beyond 1789. It is a living document that can be amended at any time.

---

Man's wisdom is not greater than God's wisdom.

Even so, the Constitution can certainly be changed...for the worse.

Imagine if the US continued its decline into a godless paradise like most of Europe, where free speech is not free, where the right to keep and bear arms is non-existent, and where the right to not be offended trumps the right to religious expression. Now imagine if the Constitution were changed to reflect those values.

Would you say that the "culmination of wisdom of man" is growing, maturing, and even being perfected over time and is being reflected in an amended Constitution? Or, how about you realize that the Constitution was written to codify what the founders thought were objective, inalienable rights that came from an unchanging God?

I don't look around and seeing man's wisdom improving matters these days. I see cultures across 3rd world nations actually devolving as the foundation of biblical principles is rejected for secular humanism and moral relativism.

But let's not deviate too far from why I said what I said about the Constitution: you criticized biblical understanding because it is "based upon words written by a bunch of men 1700+ years ago that are attributed to an imaginary being have been translated into multiple languages, and to where their believers can't even agree on what they actually say or mean." I responded that the secular document of the Constitution is very similar to what you just said in criticism of the Bible. You then pivoted from old, crusty words of men to something else, namely that the Constitution can be amended. That's a different claim of comparison than what you started with, and it still doesn't hold up for the reasons I just gave.

quote:

---

There are multiple Bible versions, denominations, translations, interpretations, with no defined authority.

There is one Constitution. The defined authority is the US court system. And it is open to amendment.

---

The Bible is the defined authority. The different version and translations do not change what the Bible teaches fundamentally, so those aren't issues. The denominations and interpretations are just highlighting disagreements that Christians have about what the Bible means, not the authority it has. It is the same with the Constitution. The Constitution is the final, defined authority in America, and it is interpreted by all sorts of people in different ways, but especially judges, who have the responsibility to interpret laws in light of the Constitution as well as interpret the Constitution, itself. Instead of denominations, we have political parties, but the result is the same in a lot of ways.

Must suck to have deal with the mentally ill as clients.