Religious Absurdity Vol 1: "I'm not gay. Go ahead, measure my asshole." - Page 6

At birth, no. Modern medical science has made the answer debatable, however.

Obviously I'm talking about biological sex. But that brings up a good question. Do you support the marriage of a post-op transsexual to... well, to anyone?

Now... you can't choose your race, so it's necessary to change the definition of marriage in that case.

We did. We changed the definition of marriage because it was discriminatory.

You can't choose your sex either (biologically), so... it's necessary to change the definition of marriage in that case.

Now let's change the definition of marriage again, because it's discriminatory.

It's called sex reassignment for a reason. They legally change their sex. Courts would treat them as if they were born that way.


You can change your race because race has become mixed with ethnicity and both race and ethnicity are not at all scientific. They are societal constructs and ought not receive any consideration for anything. That is where we should be in the present and will be in the future. For now we have a bunch of people claiming to be forward looking and thinking while adding every more hyphenated titles to people.

However the reality is that people change their race all the time. There a very interesting story about Rosa Parks being "high yellow" (Which coincidentally relates to the Yellow Rose of Texas as well.)


The compelling state interest is still being debated and certainly throws the baby out with the bath water. You can support a compelling state interest and gay marriage. One makes good law, the other leads to terrible law when laws, words and legal concepts become arbitrary.

Again think about the reasoning here. If you can prove a genetic component then society can't regulate against it. That has some serious policy ramifications. I know you don't wish to discuss them or will dismiss them but genetic basis for rights is pretty terrible law in my opinion.

Again, debatable. One can change his or sex legally and anatomically (mostly).

Good points.

I never said it was "wrong." I said it didn't exist and shouldn't exist. As for choice, that matters quite a bit.

Getting back to the biblical thing for a moment...I don't want you to think I've ignored this, because I haven't (quite busy with other things today). All kidding aside, one reason I haven't answered specifically is that marriage is referred to as being between a man and woman on at least dozens of occasions. No, gay marriage is not addressed specifically, nor will you find a passage that specifically defines marriage. But this is because the concept of gay marriage is relatively new for most societies (as you noted, there are some where it was known previously. None of them have much to do with the majority of Western Civilization).

Secondly, I've been reluctant to start quoting the bible on homosexuality and marriage in general because my position is really not defined by my religion. In fact, I personally do not believe homosexuality is a sin while many other people of faith (Christian, Muslims, etc) do.

But since you brought it up:

Gen. 2:18, 21-24
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

Ephesians 5:2223
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

1 Corinthians 7
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

Now, that is certainly not even close to an exhaustive list. My point in posting it is the number references to man and wife. and even man and woman. And what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Timothy 1:9-10:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."



The point is this: The Bible does not allow gay marriage, and is not exactly complimentary of homosexuality. It refers to men and women in a union, not men and men or women and women. This is all sort of an aside, because again, I am not arguing that the Bible is the primary justification for disallowing gay marriage. I'm saying that marriage has been an institution between a man and woman for a long, long time in our society and that redefining it to the core may lead to the destruction of the institution itself. This will not happen by allowing gay marriage alone. Instead, it will open the flood gates to all sorts of other alternative definitions. If we allow gay marriage based on the reasons presented, we have to allow all sorts of other definitions, which we've previously discussed. I just think it's better to avoid all of those problems by simply allowing civil unions.

But you see, allowing marriage between two people based on love is not redefining it to the core at all. It doesn't even come close to redefining it to the core. It's no greater a change than redefining it to allow marriage between races.

So you're back to the same old slippery slope argument that has been debunked to you and others again and again. Allowing marriage between two loving adults does not suddenly mean the next step is allowing it with non consenting partners. To think it might is pretty dumb.

And such a change is recognized by States and nations in a legal context? How about churches?

Hello there.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Romans 14:

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no foodb is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

Exactly. And those are not the only passages that declare that in the mind of Jesus, and according to the New Testament, it is not necessary to follow the laws of Leviticus.

There are those who would argue with you though as well.

Your "examples" of biblically supported polygamy are nothing of the kind.


It's not a fallacy at all. You simply refuse to acknowledge the possibilities. I ask again: If we can change the definition of marriage to allow people to marry anyone they choose, then why can't we allow them to choose ANYONE and EVERYONE? Why, BR can we prevent polygamy? Should we? On what grounds? I will be quite interest to read your reply.

Yes, awesome. Because crustaceans are equal to humans. Excellent biblical refutation.

It's not equating crustaceans with humans. It's pointing out that even for the most devout Christians, the laws of the Old Testament are obsolete.

OK. We disagree there. But let's continue....is there any type of marriage you wouldn't support? Should there be any limit on the number of people you can marry?