Answered Questions Re: Miss California [Archive]

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 12:08 AM

338

Finally. A straight answer. So, your opinion, which isn't even held by every member of your group, should be used to not only decide morality for the country, but restrict the rights of humans by writ of law.

If by deciding morality for the country you mean basing law on Judeo-Christian moral values, then yes I think that's how it should be. If by restricting the rights of humans by writ of law you mean denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, then yes I think gay marriage should be banned.

If you're talking about other rights too, then yes I think certain things should be banned on a moral basis. Some already are.

And not a single person has said "you are not allowed to have your opinion."

People do seem to have a problem with my advocating for my opinion however. I also think homosexuals have the right to their opinion and the democratic right to fight for their opinion to be the one that wins out.

Now that we have that out of the way, here's the thing: laws aren't supposed to be legislating morality, they're supposed to be used to prevent actions which are demonstrably detrimental to society.

The problem here is that I think there is a certain level of overlap between what harms society and what's considered immoral from a religious basis. For example stealing harms society, and is also considered to be immoral. I don't think there should be a religious government, but a secular government that doesn't go out of its way to condone immoral behavior.

So, do you have any ability to show that your position is correct, ie "Gay marriage will have a negative effect on the people this country"? Because that's the only standard by which laws are meant to be created, to deter behaviour which impinges on the right or lives of others.

I think that there will be many repercussions from it, but most of those would probably only bother my fellow conservatives. Of course gay marriage leads to more widespread gay adoption, and the teaching of homosexuality as normal in public schools. These are things that many conservatives find to be unacceptable. They don't want their children exposed to that stuff in school or to worry if they have a child up for adoption that it might go to a homosexual couple.

So, if you are unable to demonstrably prove that, why should your morals be imposed on society? Just to make you more comfortable? Just to defend your personal definition of a word?

It's not my personal definition of the word. Many people, including Miss California, see it the same way I do. As I've tried to say before, I don't think it's the conservatives who are trying to impose their morals on society. These morals were already the norm before the gays started to agitate and demonstrate. It is the gay movement which seeks to enforce its own morals on the rest of society by forcing us to acknowledge them as legitimate rather than abnormal.

Honestly, speaking from your brain, not your heart, please justify the imposition of a moral code not widely accepted, through the use of law.

I think that my position is widely accepted, at least where I live, so I don't see how this applies to gay marriage.

Use logic and reasoning, evidence if possible. Something more than "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." Because definitions change. Last generation's conservatives are this generation's liberals.

I believe that homosexuality causes general moral decay, simply by the fact that it's something immoral that's openly flaunted now instead of being discreet like it was in the past. Now parents have to try to explain to their children why that man is giggling and swinging a purse around, when parents didn't have that particular challenge a few decades ago quite so often. I think this is unfortunate.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 12:25 AM

345

I would like to point you to my above post which seems to have been posted while you were still writing yours.

I remember now. I think I was ignoring your posts because I didn't want to talk to someone who called me a nasty name. You did apologize later for it so I will respond to you now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statistically anal sex is far more frequent among Heterosexuals due to the loss of stigma around the act and increased education. Also throw into the pot that there's more options out there than anal sex for gay men, and I believe your argument is thin at best.

I think anal sex happens more often between straight people because there are just a heck of a lot more straights than gays.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about the government issuing statements saying that it's O.K. to be gay, because many already have, because it's true. We are talking about extending a basic and necessary right to a group of people who have been deprived of it.

My point is that if the government extends the right for gays to marry, then it might as well be saying "gay is OK".

P.S. Any type of sex carries risk, and every type of sex is perfectly safe if properly executed, with a few exceptions such as oxygen deprivation which are based on mortal danger.

I can't imagine why someone would be sexually aroused by not being able to breathe! :eek: Anyway to answer your point, yes all kinds of sex carry risk, but I do think that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That said, we all think of our opinions being correct, but aren't arrogant enough to believe that our opinions are the right opinions for our entire society. Furthermore, it's arrogant to think of yourself as correct when you admit that you have no proof of anything.

My point, even though stated a little too strongly and bluntly, was that we all think our opinions are correct. I fight for my opinion to prevail because I think it's right, and you fight for yours because you think yours is right.

I guess if it's not a basic right for people to marry the people they love, it's not necessary to have marriage at all. If it is, it's dictated by the constitution and our society that everyone is extended that right.

Marriage is for men and women, not for men and men or women and women.

If there is a basic right to marry, I think it would only apply to couples with opposite genders.

Maybe the government should get out of marriage altogether. That would help to solve some of these problems.

It's also unethical in the extreme to legislate against something you have no proof is a threat. If I were to create a billion-strong religion that believed aliens will smite us if we kiss someone somewhere other than the mouth, should that be made into legislation so as to protect us? of course not, there's no threat until proven otherwise. Furthermore, any system which does not extend equal rights is broken in this society and government.

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

I would also like to see something other than the 'but they can still marry women' argument. It's irrelevant because we aren't talking about the right to marry women, we're talking about the right to marry the person we want to marry regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. It used to be that blacks couldn't marry whites, which prevented people who love each other from marrying. How is that any different, Ruby?

I don't think a marriage to someone of the same sex is valid. A marriage like that woud be a marriage in name only, even if you have a slip of paper from the government. Men and women complement one another but homosexual relations are like trying to put two like poles of magnets together. It just doesn't work the same way.

Marriages where the man and woman are of different races can be called a marriage because it involved a man and a woman. That's what's different about it.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 12:26 AM

I'll do more a bit later.

Greenday

06-26-2009, 12:56 AM

I agree about the marriage thing. The government should have nothing to do with marriages. There should be ZERO benefits from the government for getting married.

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?

Cat

06-26-2009, 01:12 AM

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?

Fear of the unknown.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 01:37 AM

350

I had written this:

"Originally Posted by Rubystars
I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background. "

To which Wingates Hellsing replied:
I'm very sorry, but if you could please PROVE IT. As broom said, LALA IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG doesn't count as debate. No evidence? no validity

Well the Romans aren't around anymore. What I would consider harmful to society you probably wouldn't though. I consider homosexuality being accepted as normal as being harmful in its own right. However much of the damage may be yet to occur, so I guess you'll find my argument to be invalid, because it's hard to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

the_std

06-26-2009, 01:40 AM

However much of the damage may be yet to occur, so I guess you'll find my argument to be invalid, because it's hard to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

That is a very valid reason to consider it invalid. If you cannot prove that something is harmful, there should be no law against it. Period. How is that even a debatable point?

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 01:48 AM

356

so in answer to an assertion that christ never said anything about homosexuality, you give us paul's epistle to the corinthians? sorry, doesn't fly. these are paul's words, not christ's.

I already answered this in post 358. However let me try again as my answer apparently wasn't satisfactory.

Try Mark 10:6 to Mark 10:9

Jesus says marriage is between a male and a female.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 01:51 AM

359

AGAIN, you are avoiding the question. Why are you quoting PAUL when we said that CHRIST never talked about homosexuality?

I thought Paul's words were relevant too because they are accepted as Scripture by Christians.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 01:52 AM

360

Which decade? (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm) Looks like in 2005, the rate is nearly back to the 50s....

Any decade prior to the 1960s.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 01:56 AM

369

you mean like there isn't a majority of indigenous peoples here?

If by "here" you mean the Western hemisphere, yes.

besides, there hasn't been a majority of indigenous europeans in thousands of years. the last vestiges of the true indigenous europeans (the euskarans) can only be found in a small area bordering france and spain. everyone else came later, beginning with the indo-european migration out of the indian subcontinent and the middle east beginning in approximately 4000 bc.

I answered this part in post 370. There are Caucasian people in India, the Middle East, and North Africa, but the peoples of Europe I still consider to be indigenous to Europe because that's where they developed into distinct peoples such as French, German, Irish, etc.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 02:02 AM

372

nevermind that they came from the middle east and indian subcontinent and pushed out the truly indigenous people, the proto-vasconic people (of whom the euskarans are the last surviving group).

It depends on how far you want to go back in time. Before then, the earliest European modern humans drove the Neanderthals to extinction. They were human too, just cold adapted.

since you seem fond of defining things, let me define indigenous for you: the people who originally settled the area. modern europeans may be native, but certainly not indigenous.

You could say the same thing for "Native Americans", because there were successive waves of people there too.

and once again, you sidestepped a question. what about indigenous americans? you don't seem so sad about them being overwhelmed by immigrants.

That's over and done with. Would you like me to revive the dead? There were some very sad things that happened in that situation, but now there's nothing that can be done about that at this point.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 02:07 AM

I agree about the marriage thing. The government should have nothing to do with marriages. There should be ZERO benefits from the government for getting married.

I think it might be in society's interest to promote stable, heterosexual marriages. However I'd rather have the government just give up acknowledging marriage altogether if it means including gay marriage.

The only thing I REALLY want to know, is what is immoral about being gay? What part of being gay is so immoral that people feel the need to keep other people down?

I don't want to keep other people down. I just don't want the government to officiall acknowledge gay marriage as something legitimate.

Gay marriage is immoral in my belief because that's what my faith teaches me.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 02:08 AM

Did I miss anything?

linguist

06-26-2009, 02:19 AM

360

Any decade prior to the 1960s.
but you're ignoring the fact that, while there was an upswing in violent crime for some time, it's been on a downward trend in the last 20 years, and now is almost identical to what it was in the 50s

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 02:25 AM

but you're ignoring the fact that, while there was an upswing in violent crime for some time, it's been on a downward trend in the last 20 years, and now is almost identical to what it was in the 50s

I don't believe that's accurate at all.

I think it has to differ regionally. Crime in my area is actually pretty high, crime in other areas may have gone down, so that could affect the average.

linguist

06-26-2009, 02:35 AM

I don't believe that's accurate at all.

I think it has to differ regionally. Crime in my area is actually pretty high, crime in other areas may have gone down, so that could affect the average.

do honestly believe it wasn't that way in the 50s? crime was rampant in the large urban areas like new york, chicago, and l.a. there are always going to be some areas that have higher crime than others no matter what decade you look in, even within the same city. i grew up in houston, in the pasadena area to be exact. i know how high crime was there. then i moved to katy. not so much crime.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 02:38 AM

linguist

06-26-2009, 02:39 AM

356

I already answered this in post 358. However let me try again as my answer apparently wasn't satisfactory.

Try Mark 10:6 to Mark 10:9

Jesus says marriage is between a male and a female.

#1, you're still not answering the question. once again: where in the bible does jesus specifically condemn homosexuality, because it's not at all mentioned in those passages.

#2, you're taking the passages out of context. the pharisees asked jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. of course jesus is going to answer in the same context as the question was asked.

blas87

06-26-2009, 02:51 AM

I would just like to chime in here and say I admire you very much for taking these debates seriously and going well above and beyond to answer questions and prove your points.

While I may not agree with you, I know all to well what it feels like to have the minority opinion, and to feel like everyone is ganged up on you.

Props to you for doing what you've done.

JuniorMintz

06-26-2009, 02:59 AM

Wait a minute, back up. Did you actually just say that you would rather the government stop acknowledging ALL marriages than give gay marriages any recognition?

...

Yup, you did. You have said some SERIOUSLY whack stuff in the last few days but that just about takes the cake. Kind of reminds me of when King Solomon was approached by the two women, each claiming that the baby in question was hers. When he announced he would cut the baby in half, one cried out in fear and the other didn't care.

You may claim to be a Christian, but you don't appear to follow the same Christ that I do. The Lord that I follow came to earth not only to die for it's sins but to show us how to love one another. Did you miss that part, or did you cut straight to the fire and brimstone? Don't worry, if that's the case you're not alone, a lot of Christians make that mistake.

And stop quoting Paul already, I know his letters are an important part of the scriptures but we are talking about JESUS. What did JESUS have to say on the matter? Nothing, well, nothing you didn't take out of context anyway. Try again?

Wingates_Hellsing

06-26-2009, 03:32 AM

The Government doesn't really give bonuses for married couples, but rather treats a married couple as a combined entity which is advantageous for those involved and caries certain legal ramifications.

Personally, and, I think this goes for most everyone arguing for the pro-gay marriage side, I really don't care if it's called 'marriage' in the legal language used. As long as the Homosexual unions and Heterosexual unions are treated exactly the same from a legal and governmental perspective, I'm happy.

The only reason I myself continue to use the term 'marriage' to refer to such unions is that I don't see any intrinsic difference between the two that would warrant the fuss over nomenclature.

Back to the debate for a moment, I would like to point out that the fall of the Romans was a purely militant affair.
It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest. A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

Public school does in most cases do only what it should do, which is to teach the scientific facts, which show no superiority whatsoever between races, sexual orientations etc. Teaching moral beliefs is a primary function of other organizations including churches, if you want your beliefs taught that's fine so long as it's outside of public school. Never mind that the only possible place to actually teach that being homosexual is okay is a sex ed class, so it's not unreasonable for you to take comfort in that parents may opt their children out of those classes in most cases, and in the rest: it's likely only going to be something like 'there's no scientific reason for homosexuality to be bad' which is a scientific truth separate from morality and religion.

AdminAssistant

06-26-2009, 03:34 AM

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 07:51 AM

...

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

Ditto. Though I would say that I am pro-everyone's rights.

As to sexuality I'm the most hetero guy I know. I prefered to be around girls only when I was two. I even wanted to touch them then.
Even before my sex drive kicked in early I simply didn't like dudes in any way shape or form.
Maybe that's why I find the idea of guys liking guys silly rather than offensive. Women liking women seems like a really good idea that must be kept quiet before every chick realizes that we guys are icky. :)

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 07:55 AM

..
It depends on how far you want to go back in time. Before then, the earliest European modern humans drove the Neanderthals to extinction. They were human too, just cold adapted.
....

That's getting to be a minority opinion. Genetics have shown the modern man shares very little in common with neanderthals. Their complete lack of symbolic representations and art suggests that they were fundamentally different and less sapient than us.

Also there's no evidence that we did anything actively to push them to exinction. It could have been the extreme climate change to which they couldn't adapt rather than the age old killer ape theory of human development.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:13 AM

#1, you're still not answering the question. once again: where in the bible does jesus specifically condemn homosexuality, because it's not at all mentioned in those passages.

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, but Paul does. Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

#2, you're taking the passages out of context. the pharisees asked jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. of course jesus is going to answer in the same context as the question was asked.

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

I think I've done enough to demonstrate that Christianity (at least if it's following the Bible) forbids homosexuality. I've now answered this question 3 times.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:14 AM

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:18 AM

Wait a minute, back up. Did you actually just say that you would rather the government stop acknowledging ALL marriages than give gay marriages any recognition?

...

Yes I did.

Yup, you did. You have said some SERIOUSLY whack stuff in the last few days but that just about takes the cake.

I can see why you would feel that way.

Kind of reminds me of when King Solomon was approached by the two women, each claiming that the baby in question was hers. When he announced he would cut the baby in half, one cried out in fear and the other didn't care.

He was so smart.

You may claim to be a Christian, but you don't appear to follow the same Christ that I do.

Obviously not, if you think gay is ok.

The Lord that I follow came to earth not only to die for it's sins but to show us how to love one another.

I don't believe that meant gays and lesbians forming relationships.

Did you miss that part, or did you cut straight to the fire and brimstone? Don't worry, if that's the case you're not alone, a lot of Christians make that mistake.

I don't think loving people includes being gay. lol

And stop quoting Paul already, I know his letters are an important part of the scriptures but we are talking about JESUS. What did JESUS have to say on the matter? Nothing, well, nothing you didn't take out of context anyway. Try again?

It's your opinion that things were taken out of context. I think it's a real shame that you try to say Jesus was pro-gay. You accuse me of twisting Scripture? That's rich. Jesus didn't specifically address the topic but did affirm man/woman marriage.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:24 AM

The Government doesn't really give bonuses for married couples, but rather treats a married couple as a combined entity which is advantageous for those involved and caries certain legal ramifications.

Personally, and, I think this goes for most everyone arguing for the pro-gay marriage side, I really don't care if it's called 'marriage' in the legal language used. As long as the Homosexual unions and Heterosexual unions are treated exactly the same from a legal and governmental perspective, I'm happy.

The only reason I myself continue to use the term 'marriage' to refer to such unions is that I don't see any intrinsic difference between the two that would warrant the fuss over nomenclature.

Because that's not a marriage.

Back to the debate for a moment, I would like to point out that the fall of the Romans was a purely militant affair.

I still think they were being judged for a variety of reasons regardless of what ultimately caused their demise.

It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest.

Of course.

A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

They might 'get along' but they're still engaged in something that's perverting what marriage is really supposed to be.

Public school does in most cases do only what it should do, which is to teach the scientific facts, which show no superiority whatsoever between races, sexual orientations etc. Teaching moral beliefs is a primary function of other organizations including churches, if you want your beliefs taught that's fine so long as it's outside of public school.

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.

Never mind that the only possible place to actually teach that being homosexual is okay is a sex ed class, so it's not unreasonable for you to take comfort in that parents may opt their children out of those classes in most cases, and in the rest: it's likely only going to be something like 'there's no scientific reason for homosexuality to be bad' which is a scientific truth separate from morality and religion.

That's not the only place it will be taught. You know better than that. It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 08:33 AM

Because that's not a marriage.

...

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.

That's not the only place it will be taught. You know better than that. It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

They are normal in every sense of the word.
Marriage has changed defintions throughout the english language history. There is no reason other than bigotry to stop it now.

I'm not sure you know what normal means. It occurs in every adult human population and harms no one. That sounds normal to me. Please debate against that defintion.

I would herald the giving back of human rights to any group as a victory.. yes even to those horrible sinners, oops you don't disagree with them because of religion, or do you.
I don't know if you've ever come up with a non-religious reason to hate gays... that stands up to rational scrutiny that is.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:33 AM

Well, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. Anytime a group of priests sits around a document and decides which parts get left in and which parts get taken out, I have a serious problem with that document's accuracy. Not to mention the various translations it's gone through over the years. But perhaps that should be a different thread.

There are still a lot of the books around that got rejected, if people want to read them for their own knowledge.

As far as children go...yes, parents these days have more to explain to their children. So? I'm really tired of the "we shouldn't have X thing because it might confuse the children...or corrupt the children....or influence the chiiilllldreeeeennnnn" Sorry, don't care. You have kids, you have to teach them stuff. End of story. Quit asking society to do your job as a parent. It may take a village, but I never signed up to be part of that village.

I just get annoyed by the fact that kids these days can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.

I agree with Blas, this has been a good, fair debate, even though I vehemently disagree with Rubystars.

thank you and that's ok. I actually decided to enter the thread to do this board a little bit of a favor. I didn't see anyone who disagreed with homosexuality, so the thread was a little boring. I thought I'd step in and get a real debate started. I don't expect to change anyone's minds. I just wanted to spice up the thread a little. :)

But it's important to know the opposition's mindset, so that those of us fighting for equal rights for everyone* can develop a plan of attack against it. At this point, I want nothing less than sexual orientation to be included in the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Hey, a girl can dream, right?

The way things are going now, you will most likely get your way.

*In case there's confusion, I am straight, but very pro-gay rights.

But it doesn't really matter, right?
;):D

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 08:37 AM

... can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.
...
;):D

Why is ignorance about reality automatically good?
How about teach them at the age many will ask about it?

Also I hope no one, even you ;) takes offense at my other posts of this thread.
I just can't think of your opinions without coming back to bigotry. Please tell me your views and how they don't mean that.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 08:39 AM

...

They might 'get along' but they're still engaged in something that's perverting what marriage is really supposed to be.
....

Perversion is a religious view and as such has not right to be in laws.
It is far to indivual of an opinion to serve any function.
I find some of your views perverse. See did that solve anything?
No, only rational evidence based beliefs should be enshrined in law.

Nyoibo

06-26-2009, 08:51 AM

I can't imagine why someone would be sexually aroused by not being able to breathe! :eek:

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Maybe the government should get out of marriage altogether. That would help to solve some of these problems.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well. :p

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:58 AM

It's a physiological thing, the lack of oxygen intensifies senations, it's not so much being aroused by it, but it enhancing the arousal.

Thanks for explaining that. It still sounds pretty scary though.

I'd agree with that, provided religion gets out of civil unions.

I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

Pfft, society is already immoral, hell people break the comandments all the time, I'm already going to hell, might as well throw it in a guy as well. :p

lol

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 09:40 AM

...
I wouldn't try to stop gays from getting together. My main problem with the gay marriage stuff is that I don't want official legitimacy granted by the government.

lol

How do you define legitimate?
Two people decide to form a semi-permanent bond seems like a legitimate marriage to me.
How is two women wanting to get married for love less legitimate than my brother that initially married to help finance a house?
If you say it isn't, then why do you want only the first to not be legal?

Rapscallion

06-26-2009, 09:56 AM

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful :D

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

Ever worn cloth made from more than one fabric? Husband ever cut his hair? Eaten pork or shrimp? The laws that Jesus came to fulfill the law include those aspects (I may be paraphrasing).

When it says homosexuals are normal, then it has crossed the line into moral teachings.

Who says it's a moral situation? Ah, a bronze-age tribal history translated many times and adhered to by people in another country as if it's fact. In short, the religious say that only they can define morals, that only their morals are correct, and therefore that they are the only authorities.

As you said, this should be a wider democratic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue. I don't believe that a religious text should be used to deny a segment of the population the same rights as everyone else.

Rapscallion

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 10:10 AM

Greenday

06-26-2009, 12:27 PM

Ok, so to sum it up, your religion says homosexuality is wrong. Right?

Now what about this question: are you ok with people forcing their religions on other people?

linguist

06-26-2009, 12:43 PM

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality,

until this point, no you had not. the question was about jesus, you gave an answer from paul. twice. now you confirmed that jesus never condemned homosexuality, and you've answered the question.

but Paul does.

have you ever read paul, really? he was one misogynistic bastard. he didn't think anyone should get married, really. if you're going to use his words as justification, then i'd expect you're also going to remain silent in church, and live in a role of subservience to your husband?

Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

a single out of context quote doesn't reinforce anything. you didn't address my assertion that since he was asked a question about man/woman marriage, he of course answered in those same terms. if you ask someone a question about pizza, would you expect an answer about penguins?

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

I think I've done enough to demonstrate that Christianity (at least if it's following the Bible) forbids homosexuality. I've now answered this question 3 times.

have you ever read the bible? i mean, really read it? as in, read something that hasn't gone through millennia of translations, each one taking it further from its original meaning as translators either made mistakes or used the populace's ignorance of the original languages to translate it in such a way as to push their own agenda?

Nyoibo

06-26-2009, 02:10 PM

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

Following all the laws laid down in Leviticus would get you arrested these days.

JuniorMintz

06-26-2009, 03:05 PM

1. Jesus wanted us to love one another as we do ourselves, and that is the point I was trying to make. He shunned the Pharisees and broke bread with those that society shunned, which I'm sure included a homosexual or two (although as it's been said, Jesus never came out and was quoted *in the Bible* as mentioning the gays specifically).

2. Not even the 10 Commandments mention homosexuality. (Maybe Moses *did* drop the tablet with rules 11-15?)

3. The Old Testament Rules of Leveticus (among others) were voided after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. (Which is nice, because now I don't have to sacrifice doves or sheep to atone for my sins.)

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again here. It is up to my husband and I to uphold the sanctity of our *own* marriage, same as it is with everyone else's. I am not threatened by what my neighbors do in their bedrooms, gay OR straight, and you shouldn't be either.

There, I've said my piece, and now I'm going away for the weekend. Have fun, everybody.

Peppergirl

06-26-2009, 04:14 PM

Ruby - I have to take a second to echo what Blas has said here.

While I STRONGLY disagree with your stance on gay marriage, I am in absolute awe of your ability to debate this issue to this extent, and your attempt to explain yourself on each issue, even if you're explanations (to me) don't hold water.

I, too, know how it feels to be in the minority on this board, and I truly wish I had the ability to stand up for myself and my beliefs as calmly as you have.

My hat is off to you, seriously.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 04:18 PM

...

I, too, know how it feels to be in the minority on this board, and I truly wish I had the ability to stand up for myself and my beliefs as calmly as you have.
...

Tease. Now I'm going to wonder in what way you are in minority.

I'm in one for being a born atheist.

Wingates_Hellsing

06-26-2009, 04:34 PM

To start off, I too will salute you Ruby for sticking with it, most people would have given up a long time ago.

That said, teaching that there are no scientific facts proving that homosexuality is bad isn't a moral issue. Just because you don't like something doesn't change the fact that scientifically speaking, there's no difference whatsoever between people of different orientations. This doesn't in any way contradict a religious belief that said orientation is immoral except where people decide to put scientific facts before religion, a decision no one has the right to meddle with by preaching ignorance.

If/when the gay marriage issue is won, that event will be history. Again, the only lesson taught would be that the sexual orientations are all now scientifically (physiologically) and legally identical which again doesn't effect moral beliefs except for those who place science and law before religion, again something that no one has the right to meddle in by suppressing the facts.

To say nothing at all on the matter would be preaching ignorance which has only ever hurt people and is a giant step backwards in society.

To say that homosexuality is bad because some people think it's immoral would be a lie because homosexuality isn't bad from any facts-based angle, it's just immoral.

Therefore it's only right for the following sentence to be uttered by a teacher in public school to their students:

"While homosexuality and heterosexuality are no different from a scientific and legal perspective, (some/many, whichever) believe that it is immoral"

It's not like a bunch of people are going to suddenly decide to be gay because they know that it's not scientifically or legally bad.

blas87

06-26-2009, 04:35 PM

Peppergirl was speaking of how posters like us are oftentimes in the minority on the other threads, specifically the ones regarding sex offenders, rapists, etc etc etc.

She even said it better. I couldn't even defend myself in another thread as well as Rubystars can. I didn't have the energy or the patience to keep dealing with it.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 04:36 PM

until this point, no you had not. the question was about jesus, you gave an answer from paul. twice. now you confirmed that jesus never condemned homosexuality, and you've answered the question.

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

have you ever read paul, really? he was one misogynistic bastard. he didn't think anyone should get married, really. if you're going to use his words as justification, then i'd expect you're also going to remain silent in church, and live in a role of subservience to your husband?

There's a lot of debate among conservative Christians about what those exactly mean. Some people say the being silent in church part applied to that time period but was valid then, and doesn't apply today. Others say that it has to do with women being there to learn Scripture, but not to lead. Most leadership roles are supposed to be for men in a church setting according to traditional Christianity. I'm not really sure what I think about this topic but I'd be willing to listen to different sides of it.

As far as subservience to the husband, the husband provides a spiritual covering for the household, and is supposed to love his wife like God loves the church. A woman is supposed to be supportive and comforting for her husband and isn't supposed to try to manipulate him in a devious manner. Ephesians 5:21 is a balance to that though, because it says the husband and wife should also submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

a single out of context quote doesn't reinforce anything. you didn't address my assertion that since he was asked a question about man/woman marriage, he of course answered in those same terms. if you ask someone a question about pizza, would you expect an answer about penguins?

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

i suppose you still follow all the laws as laid down in leviticus?

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law. I think the only Christians who do that are Messianics. Most Christians believe that following Jesus and accepting him as Savior covers a lot of that. I think it's important to understand the Jewish parts of the Bible but I don't think every rule in that applies to Christians. I'm not a theologian so it would be difficult for me to get into a lot of details about it.

have you ever read the bible? i mean, really read it? as in, read something that hasn't gone through millennia of translations, each one taking it further from its original meaning as translators either made mistakes or used the populace's ignorance of the original languages to translate it in such a way as to push their own agenda?

I would love to learn the original languages. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read it in those languages because I haven't learned those languages.

It's interesting you bring this up though. That happens to be one of my pet peeves when it comes to preachers. You see when I was growing up, I thought all pastors of churches knew those languages. When I realized they didn't, I was angry, because they were basically making it their career to teach something they had never read in the original language. I think the majority of information was translated accurately, but some of the more finessed arguments need the original text to understand. I can't imagine why seminaries don't require those languages as part of their criteria for passing.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 04:41 PM

...
While I STRONGLY disagree with your stance on gay marriage, I am in absolute awe of your ability to debate this issue to this extent, and your attempt to explain yourself on each issue, even if you're explanations (to me) don't hold water.
....

I've got to say ditto. I couldn't have written it better... really I would have written something that came off offensive and not quite in the way I meant.

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 04:41 PM

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law.

So... you get... to pick and choose which to follow? So you've picked the parts which appeal to you, and discarded that which doesn't, since you don't need to follow every letter?

Pedersen

06-26-2009, 04:50 PM

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

Actually, something to point out: The books of the bible are titled "The Gospel According To Mark" (for example). Every single book in there was written by someone. What's interesting to me is the lack of a book entitled "The Gospel According To Jesus".

Something else to consider: We have no idea if Jesus ever actually said anything about homosexuality. What we do know is that no one ever wrote down that he said anything about it. To me, that's a curious omission.

What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to write down what Jesus said? He spent about two decades talking about the love of his father, telling everybody to listen, arguing against the rulers of the time, etc. And never once did he address this question? I find that hard to believe.

I have to wonder if, maybe, the people who actually wrote the Bible were hiding something.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 04:55 PM

How do you define legitimate?
Two people decide to form a semi-permanent bond seems like a legitimate marriage to me.
How is two women wanting to get married for love less legitimate than my brother that initially married to help finance a house?
If you say it isn't, then why do you want only the first to not be legal?

I don't think it's right to get married for selfish reasons only. Both people should want to get married because they want to have a life-long bond with the other person.

So to answer your question (which is the point of this thread after all), I would consider both of those situations to be wrong.

Of course the second one has the potential to become a better marriage, because they could develop a stronger bond with one another after getting married. In societies with arranged marriages (which I don't think are fair, but that's a topic for another board), the people often say that they get married first and then fall in love with one another. Maybe the same thing could happen for your brother.

Legitimate in the sense of marriage would foremost mean that both partners are adults, and of opposite genders. Other factors play in as you pointed out, but those are the two most important.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 04:58 PM

Actually, something to point out: The books of the bible are titled "The Gospel According To Mark" (for example). Every single book in there was written by someone. What's interesting to me is the lack of a book entitled "The Gospel According To Jesus".

Something else to consider: We have no idea if Jesus ever actually said anything about homosexuality. What we do know is that no one ever wrote down that he said anything about it. To me, that's a curious omission.

What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to write down what Jesus said? He spent about two decades talking about the love of his father, telling everybody to listen, arguing against the rulers of the time, etc. And never once did he address this question? I find that hard to believe.

I have to wonder if, maybe, the people who actually wrote the Bible were hiding something.

That is interesting but even though we don't have Jesus' direct words on the matter, both the OT and NT have scriptures against it. We don't have a gospel according to Jesus, but we do have a lot of information about his life and many of the things he said as written by others.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 05:02 PM

...
Legitimate in the sense of marriage would foremost mean that both partners are adults, and of opposite genders. Other factors play in as you pointed out, but those are the two most important.

But why is it important? If all you say is because god said so, then why do you keep trying to argue anything else?

linguist

06-26-2009, 05:14 PM

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

i never said he was pro-gay. just that he never claimed to be anti-gay. it seems he didn't care one way or another.

Jesus does talk about marriage but never mentions homosexuality. If he was so pro-homosexual it seems like he would have mentioned it at some point.

covered above

Christians aren't required to follow every letter of the law. I think the only Christians who do that are Messianics. Most Christians believe that following Jesus and accepting him as Savior covers a lot of that. I think it's important to understand the Jewish parts of the Bible but I don't think every rule in that applies to Christians. I'm not a theologian so it would be difficult for me to get into a lot of details about it.

covered by broomjockey. although i will add that if you're going to insist on a literal interpretation, you really should go all or nothing. picking and choosing invalidates the whole system.

I would love to learn the original languages. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read it in those languages because I haven't learned those languages.

It's interesting you bring this up though. That happens to be one of my pet peeves when it comes to preachers. You see when I was growing up, I thought all pastors of churches knew those languages. When I realized they didn't, I was angry, because they were basically making it their career to teach something they had never read in the original language. I think the majority of information was translated accurately, but some of the more finessed arguments need the original text to understand. I can't imagine why seminaries don't require those languages as part of their criteria for passing.

some do study it. many of those i've met who've been through catholic seminary were required to study greek and hebrew in addition to latin. not too many required to study aramaic, though, oddly enough, since that was most likely the language jesus spoke.

i can't claim to have read the whole thing, but i have read bits in the original languages, and there is a fair amount of ambiguity that was capitalized on by later translators.

most modern english translations (at least the ones i've read) are based on the king james version, which while very pretty and poetic, is a horrible translation.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 05:15 PM

They are normal in every sense of the word.
Marriage has changed defintions throughout the english language history. There is no reason other than bigotry to stop it now.

If I think homosexuality is something bad, then you probably do consider that to just be bigotry. If so, then fair enough.

I'm not sure you know what normal means. It occurs in every adult human population and harms no one. That sounds normal to me. Please debate against that defintion.

A lot of disorders happen in every population. As for "harms no one", that may not be true if you're talking about the participants themselves. Of course a lot of what I might consider to be harmful you wouldn't consider to be harmful. I think it's harmful for things like homosexuality to be accepted as normal even if it doesn't cause other problems.

I would herald the giving back of human rights to any group as a victory.. yes even to those horrible sinners, oops you don't disagree with them because of religion, or do you.

People aren't horrible because they commit a sin. I don't consider homosexual marriage to be an undeniable human right, but you know that.

I don't know if you've ever come up with a non-religious reason to hate gays... that stands up to rational scrutiny that is.

Have I ever said I hated gays? I disagree with what they're involved in, and their lifestyle, and I do think it's sinful. Homosexuality itself is abnormal. I don't hate the people involved though or think that's their entire makeup as a person. I just think they have a problem (of course they won't see it that way, and will probably think I am the one who has a problem).

Why is ignorance about reality automatically good?
How about teach them at the age many will ask about it?

I didn't know about gays until I was around 13 and some silly kid used "lesbian" as an insult toward me. I had to go find out what that meant. They called me that because I didn't have a boyfriend at that time. Nowadays you'd have to teach kids younger because they would hear about it elsewhere. There would be no choice. It's all over tv. I think it's important for kids to understand how things normally are before they learn about the variations, if at all possible. It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc.

Also I hope no one, even you ;) takes offense at my other posts of this thread.
I just can't think of your opinions without coming back to bigotry. Please tell me your views and how they don't mean that.

I'm not offended because I know it seems like bigotry from your viewpoint. I hope you know that I don't want to hurt anybody though, but I can't change my viewpoint on this either. I don't really think that I'm a bigot because I have worked with homosexuals at my jobs and I would help someone I knew was homosexual if they were hurt, etc. I just disagree with the behavior they're involved in. I know that in itself is enough to get me labeled a bigot, but if that's how you feel about it, then I really can't change your mind.

Perversion is a religious view and as such has not right to be in laws.
It is far to indivual of an opinion to serve any function.

I'm not looking for laws that target homosxuality for punishment. I think that would be wrong in a democratic society. All I want to prevent is the government giving the nod of approval to homosexuality.

I find some of your views perverse. See did that solve anything?

I understand why you do. If you think so then you have the same right I do to fight for your views. Saying something is perverse doesn't solve anything, but advocating for your viewpoint does.

No, only rational evidence based beliefs should be enshrined in law.

You can't legislate morality, but you can hold back from openly condoning immorality. That's the distinction that I make, but I'm having a hard time explaining it.

Pedersen

06-26-2009, 05:19 PM

That is interesting but even though we don't have Jesus' direct words on the matter, both the OT and NT have scriptures against it.

The examples that I have seen brought forth from the NT come from Paul, who was formerly Saul, of Tarsus. A Mithra worshipper who brought many Mithraic traditions into Christianity. Quite frankly, when you learn a little bit about Paul/Saul, his whole testimony becomes suspect, and it begins to look like he was trying to subvert Christianity by turning it into Mithra worship.

Look into it, it's quite disturbing. I'd advise against using him as a source, since the people who have learned about him will tend to discount your arguments.

We don't have a gospel according to Jesus, but we do have a lot of information about his life and many of the things he said as written by others.

Quite frankly, that's a laughable statement. We don't even have 1% of what he said and taught in a written form. For my proof, I invite you to read the NT aloud. You will finish in less than a week (going slow, too). That's 7 days. Considering that the accepted age of Jesus at the time of his "Ascension" is about 32 years old, that would mean that he lived for 11688 days. Drop all time before he was 13 (since that was when he supposedly received his gifts from Dad), and we find he was teaching for 6939.75 days (with each year being 365.25 days long, according to our modern calendar).

In other words, you can read aloud everything that was written about Jesus's life in less then 0.1% of the time that he was teaching. You may not like it, but you might as well have zero information about what Jesus said.

Which brings us back to my original statement / question: What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to mention any of what Jesus said about homosexuality?

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 05:21 PM

If I think homosexuality is something bad, then you probably do consider that to just be bigotry. If so, then fair enough.
....

You have yet to give a real reason religious or otherwise why homosexuality is anything other than a non-issue.
You seem to imply religion as your motiviation for hating gays.
And however you phrase it, you are hating them by denying them rights you enjoy.

Peppergirl

06-26-2009, 05:23 PM

Have I ever said I hated gays?

No, you didn't but (all due respect) much of what you say about them and their actions are intolerant, so I can understand why people would assume you hate them. Intolerance is just a hairs-breath from hatred, IMO.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 05:24 PM

What about those of us that don't even believe your Jesus guy even existed? He was most likely a compilation of several people with miracle retroactively attributed to him in the style that was quite common at the time to give to famous figures.

...
I didn't know about gays until I was around 13 and some silly kid used "lesbian" as an insult toward me. I had to go find out what that meant. They called me that because I didn't have a boyfriend at that time. Nowadays you'd have to teach kids younger because they would hear about it elsewhere. There would be no choice. It's all over tv. I think it's important for kids to understand how things normally are before they learn about the variations, if at all possible. It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc..

Since gays are born that way you are espousing ignorance for them as well as about them. Why can't they hear about others like themselves early?
Since most kids come from hetero couples I would say that they learned about hetero couples from birth.

...I'm not offended because I know it seems like bigotry from your viewpoint. I hope you know that I don't want to hurt anybody though, but I can't change my viewpoint on this either. ....

You do want to hurt them by denying them rights that we enjoy. Bigotry isn't always direct violence. It is also about refusals to accept others as deserving to be different.

linguist

06-26-2009, 05:39 PM

What about those of us that don't even believe your Jesus guy even existed? He was most likely a compilation of several people with miracle retroactively attributed to him in the style that was quite common at the time to give to famous figures.

or those of us who may accept his existence, even believing that he was a great teacher with a lot of important things to say, a man of love and of peace, but still just a man.

to quote a song, "what a man was 2000 years ago means nothing at all to me today."

the_std

06-26-2009, 05:42 PM

I don't know why Jesus or any kind of religion was brought up here. Your religion has no place in the law. Period. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. If your religion is your motivation for your feelings against gays, it has no place in the law whatsoever.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 05:42 PM

I've got to admit I'm with Blas on this - I admire the fact that you're sticking to your guns. I admre this for two reasons.

Thank you.

I don't like pick'n'mix religions where people choose bits from established religions that they like and discard the ones they dislike.

You're creating more atheists, for which I am truly grateful :D

I'm probably not completely innocent of the first one. I do try to not go off on a limb too much though. As for the second one, I do believe in free choice and free will. I'm not going to force people to follow my religion.

Ever worn cloth made from more than one fabric? Husband ever cut his hair? Eaten pork or shrimp? The laws that Jesus came to fulfill the law include those aspects (I may be paraphrasing).

I think what most Christians believe is that Jesus himself fulfills it for us. Most Christians that I've heard say that because it's very difficult for people to follow all the commands of the Bible (I think there are around 613), that Jesus fulfilled most of those for us. Some Christians disagree with this (Messianics) but the majority don't follow the law letter for letter anymore.

Galatians 3:13-14

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Who says it's a moral situation? Ah, a bronze-age tribal history translated many times and adhered to by people in another country as if it's fact. In short, the religious say that only they can define morals, that only their morals are correct, and therefore that they are the only authorities.

As you said, this should be a wider democratic issue, but it's also a civil rights issue. I don't believe that a religious text should be used to deny a segment of the population the same rights as everyone else.

Rapscallion

I would like to make clear that I don't want there to be laws prohibiting homosexuality itself. That would be against democratic principles. I don't want to legislate morality in the sense of forcing everyone to conform to my moral standards. I would like to keep the government from openly condoning immoral things though. That's a fine distinction perhaps but one that I think is important, because when the government does something, it is in part representing me as well as those other people.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 05:45 PM

...
I would like to make clear that I don't want there to be laws prohibiting homosexuality itself. That would be against democratic principles. I don't want to legislate morality in the sense of forcing everyone to conform to my moral standards. I would like to keep the government from openly condoning immoral things though. That's a fine distinction perhaps but one that I think is important, because when the government does something, it is in part representing me as well as those other people.

I'm sorry but that sounds too much like the old separate but equal nonsense told by those who don't hate blacks, but simply don't want to condone things like interracial marriage.
Again, religiously defined morality has no place in law.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 05:49 PM

Funny. Though I don't think atheists can be created.
They are either born like me, or come to that conclusion after educations.

Most of the atheists I've spoken to were former Christians who were exposed to some really wacky people growing up that turned them off to religion for good. I don't really blame them for feeling that way, considering the kind of weird stuff that I heard people saying when I have attempted to go to church.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 05:51 PM

I'm trying to get to everyone's posts so if I don't reply right away then don't think I'm ignoring anything. There's just a lot to reply to.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 05:59 PM

Most of the atheists I've spoken to were former Christians who were exposed to some really wacky people growing up that turned them off to religion for good. I don't really blame them for feeling that way, considering the kind of weird stuff that I heard people saying when I have attempted to go to church.

That's belittling thier beliefs.
To most of us atheists ALL those religious beliefs are wacky.

I was a born atheist born to two loving liberal christians. My atheism has nothing to do with what I was told about religion. It comes from a complete inability to believe those fanciful stories. I was six when I realized that adults actually believed all the stuff they told me in sunday school. It wasn't just a game of make up silly stuff.

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 06:03 PM

Most of the atheists I've spoken to were former Christians who were exposed to some really wacky people growing up that turned them off to religion for good..

I stopped being Christian when no one could ever give me straight answers. Absolutely no wackiness at all. Just a belief system that seemed patently absurd at the most basic level.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 06:30 PM

So... you get... to pick and choose which to follow? So you've picked the parts which appeal to you, and discarded that which doesn't, since you don't need to follow every letter?

I'm probably not completely innocent of it, but I try to be consistent for the most part. I don't think that Gentiles are under the restrictions of halacha (Jewish law). I explained some of this in another reply I did on this thread with a scripture. I think it was my reply to Rapscallion.

I stopped being Christian when no one could ever give me straight answers. Absolutely no wackiness at all. Just a belief system that seemed patently absurd at the most basic level.

I've heard of that happening a lot too. I've even had trouble getting answers for my questions. Ironically enough sometimes it was non-Christians that I got more information from. I like to ask questions on some Jewish message boards because they often have very deep knowledge of their parts of the Bible. For NT of course I have to try to find Christian sources and that's not always easy for the kinds of questions I ask.

blas87

06-26-2009, 06:36 PM

I pick and choose. Some years, I observe Lent. Others, I don't.

I couldn't pick what to give up this year, so I said F it.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 07:01 PM

That is a very valid reason to consider it invalid. If you cannot prove that something is harmful, there should be no law against it. Period. How is that even a debatable point?

Conservatives would consider wide acceptance of homosexuality as being harmful in its own right. However what we're really debating here is whether gay marriage ought to be made official by government recognition. I'm not looking to "outlaw" gay marriage ceremonies, although I don't agree with them.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 07:06 PM

do honestly believe it wasn't that way in the 50s? crime was rampant in the large urban areas like new york, chicago, and l.a. there are always going to be some areas that have higher crime than others no matter what decade you look in, even within the same city. i grew up in houston, in the pasadena area to be exact. i know how high crime was there. then i moved to katy. not so much crime.

I answered this one but I don't think I answered the actual questions in the post. I just responded to the part about Katy vs. Pasadena. Sorry. I'm actually getting an Excel spreadsheet to list each post and the post numbers I responded to them with so that I can try to make sure I've covered all my bases here.

Yes I believe that the 50s were in general a safer time than decades after the 50s. However if crime is going down again, then that's of course a good thing. I hope it stays that way and goes even further down. I don't really trust the idea that it is just as safe now as it was then though.

the_std

06-26-2009, 07:11 PM

Conservatives would consider wide acceptance of homosexuality as being harmful in its own right. However what we're really debating here is whether gay marriage ought to be made official by government recognition. I'm not looking to "outlaw" gay marriage ceremonies, although I don't agree with them.

You missed a word. I said "prove". You offer no proof.

Wingates_Hellsing

06-26-2009, 07:26 PM

The distinction between the two sides which I think is quite important is that Ruby sees gay marriage as a condoning of homosexual behavior and therefore an immoral thing to do.

The fact of the matter is that not only have politicians and other influential people already weighed in on the matter by both condemning and condoning homosexuality, but Ruby and the rest of us don't see the current situation the same way.

Ruby sees it as neutral because Ruby doesn't believe there is inequality.

We see the deprivation of the, while not essential per-se, perfectly justified right for people to marry whomever they love enough to wish to. The current system oppresses and condemns gays by placing them at a legal disadvantage.

What we seek is a system that neither condemns nor condones anything, but rather allows for people to live their lives as they see fit on equal footing.

I'm going to go back to semantics for a moment, to point out that should we use the 'different phrase or word' for gay marriage, there would need to be a massive overhaul of any an all laws that take marriage into account so that they also take homosexual unions into account. And since separation is inherently unequal, it only makes sense to redefine legal marriages as being between two consenting adults and not necessarily two opposite genders.

You have every right to refer to homosexual unions differently, and to teach other people to follow your example. But using a definition-based argument to justify depriving homosexuals is incredibly nonsensical. Definitions change just as culture has changed which must in the natural course of history has brought religion to change with it.

IMO most Christians feel deprived lately not because they're losing equality, but because the judeo/christian belief system is losing absolute dominance, something that is incredibly bad for equality (the dominance, that is)

This country needs to be from a legal standpoint totally blind to as many arbitrary things like race, and sexual orientation as possible. There's no reason to stop gays from marrying unless you think that they, either inherently or through their actions are less human than heterosexuals. The kind of persecution and bigotry this country has waged wars to end.

Flyndaran

06-26-2009, 07:30 PM

I believe it was a supreme court justice that said marriage is a civil right. He may have been talking about old laws forbidding interractial marriage, but it is perfectly aplicable to gay marriage.

Rapscallion

06-26-2009, 08:14 PM

I'm probably not completely innocent of the first one. I do try to not go off on a limb too much though. As for the second one, I do believe in free choice and free will. I'm not going to force people to follow my religion.

The bit that interests me is that you say you're not completely innocent of the first bit - the pick'n'mix religion part I mentioned. You said that elsewhere in this thread as well.

Why should you choose the gay-prohibition laws instead of the non-shrimp-eating laws (or whichever ones you don't follow)? What's the difference?

Rapscallion

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 08:47 PM

That's getting to be a minority opinion.

I'd consider anything Homo erectus and later to be human in the sense of being intelligent and able to communicate ideas through speech. I guess it really depends on where you draw the line, and yes, it's an arbitrary one really. You could easily make an argument for saying Australopithecines were human because they walked upright.

Genetics have shown the modern man shares very little in common with neanderthals. Their complete lack of symbolic representations and art suggests that they were fundamentally different and less sapient than us.

Different in many ways, yes. Less sapient? I don't know if I believe that. I guess we'll never know for sure unless we find a population of them somewhere still alive.

There was this "flute" though that was found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe

I think there was also evidence that they did begin to make ornaments, but this was after the arrival of modern humans into Europe, so they may have been copying them after they saw it and liked it.

Also there's no evidence that we did anything actively to push them to exinction. It could have been the extreme climate change to which they couldn't adapt rather than the age old killer ape theory of human development.

They were outcompeted, at least I think that's what happened. I don't think there was any real active genocide. It's sad they're not around anymore though. I think it would be neat to have more than one species of human around.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:11 PM

Ok, so to sum it up, your religion says homosexuality is wrong. Right?

Right

Now what about this question: are you ok with people forcing their religions on other people?

I don't believe in forced conversions of anyone. In the context of this conversation you probably mean something different though. If you mean to say that I'm forcing my religion on other people by wanting to keep gay "marriages" from being officially recognized, then I would counter that by saying that I'm not saying for gay marriages to be banned. I just don't want official recognition of them. I don't see how that's forcing anyone to follow my moral codes. It's just saying that I don't want my government to reflect the moral codes of the homosexual lobby.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:18 PM

1. Jesus wanted us to love one another as we do ourselves, and that is the point I was trying to make. He shunned the Pharisees and broke bread with those that society shunned, which I'm sure included a homosexual or two (although as it's been said, Jesus never came out and was quoted *in the Bible* as mentioning the gays specifically).

He loved people regardless of their sins.

2. Not even the 10 Commandments mention homosexuality. (Maybe Moses *did* drop the tablet with rules 11-15?)

It does say to honor your mother and father, not your mother and mother, or father and father. However you're right that it doesn't mention homosexuals in those 10 in any direct fashion.

3. The Old Testament Rules of Leveticus (among others) were voided after Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. (Which is nice, because now I don't have to sacrifice doves or sheep to atone for my sins.)

Or follow 613 mitzvot.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again here. It is up to my husband and I to uphold the sanctity of our *own* marriage, same as it is with everyone else's. I am not threatened by what my neighbors do in their bedrooms, gay OR straight, and you shouldn't be either.

If only they would keep it in the bedroom!

There, I've said my piece, and now I'm going away for the weekend. Have fun, everybody.

Have a nice weekend.

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 09:20 PM

I just don't want official recognition of them. I don't see how that's forcing anyone to follow my moral codes. It's just saying that I don't want my government to reflect the moral codes of the homosexual lobby.

This is where there's a disconnect, I think. You're asserting your moral code to be superior to the "homosexual lobby," but with nothing to actually back that up. Further, it is forcing your moral code by imposing a double-standard on society. Either you've got "separate but equal" in same-sex marriage, only not called that, with government bonuses for heterosexual marriages being applied to the same-sex marriages, or you have unequal in that same-sex couples don't have analogous rights in that there's no government recognition at all. If your only basis for disagreeing with homosexuality is religion, and you want the government to disagree with homosexuality, you want the government to disagree with homosexuality based on religion. It's officially codifying a religious point of view, with the force of law behind it. That is *exactly* forcing people to have your moral code.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:21 PM

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 09:25 PM

It does say to honor your mother and father, not your mother and mother, or father and father. However you're right that it doesn't mention homosexuals in those 10 in any direct fashion.

<snip>
If only they would keep it in the bedroom!

Referring to your biological parents, supposedly. So in effect, I can go tell my aunt to fuck herself when she asks me to not slide down the bannister? After all, she's neither my mother nor father.

That last part, are you referring to only gays keeping it in the bedroom, or straights as well? Because I gotta tell you, if you mean both, I'm right there with you. I'm sick of these teenaged girls playing tosil-hockey with grope-fest intermissions while they're out in public with their boyfriends.

I assume I'd feel the same way about a gay couple. If I'd ever actually seen one do anything like that...

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:31 PM

To start off, I too will salute you Ruby for sticking with it, most people would have given up a long time ago.

Thanks

That said, teaching that there are no scientific facts proving that homosexuality is bad isn't a moral issue. Just because you don't like something doesn't change the fact that scientifically speaking, there's no difference whatsoever between people of different orientations. This doesn't in any way contradict a religious belief that said orientation is immoral except where people decide to put scientific facts before religion, a decision no one has the right to meddle with by preaching ignorance.

Science doesn't speak to whether something is moral or immoral. Science studies the observable universe, and is amoral, not moral or immoral.

As for differences, I thought that some studies had been done showing brain differences. I think there was an article I read one time saying that a transsexual man had the physical shape of his brain being more like that of a woman, so that could have been what led to his feeling like a woman trapped in a male body. There might be hormonal or other differences. A tendency toward homosexuality could very well be partly genetic.

If/when the gay marriage issue is won, that event will be history.

I don't think it'll be long now. I don't have to agree with it though.

Again, the only lesson taught would be that the sexual orientations are all now scientifically (physiologically) and legally identical which again doesn't effect moral beliefs except for those who place science and law before religion, again something that no one has the right to meddle in by suppressing the facts.

I'm not interested in supressing any facts. Some anti-gay speakers are, but I'm not.

To say nothing at all on the matter would be preaching ignorance which has only ever hurt people and is a giant step backwards in society.

I might be wrong, but how am I ignorant?

To say that homosexuality is bad because some people think it's immoral would be a lie because homosexuality isn't bad from any facts-based angle, it's just immoral.

Maybe I should just stick to calling it immoral then, if you want to get that specific with defining the words like that. I might have used bad and immoral as synonyms at some point in one of my posts.

Therefore it's only right for the following sentence to be uttered by a teacher in public school to their students:

"While homosexuality and heterosexuality are no different from a scientific and legal perspective, (some/many, whichever) believe that it is immoral"

It's not like a bunch of people are going to suddenly decide to be gay because they know that it's not scientifically or legally bad.

I don't think most people would suddenly be gay anyway despite what they're exposed to, unless they already had that tendency.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:43 PM

But why is it important? If all you say is because god said so, then why do you keep trying to argue anything else?

I think the fact that both partners in a marriage need to be adults is self-explanatory, unless we have anyone who advocates adult/minor sex on here, and I don't even think I'd have the stomach to debate someone who thought that way. That's just too gross. Even most atheists would be against that if they're moral people, which most of them are.

As for the fact that the partners in a marriage need to be of opposite genders, yes I do base that mostly in religious teachings, but I know people here don't believe the way I do. That's why I was sometimes bringing up other points.

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 09:43 PM

I might be wrong, but how am I ignorant?

Well, preaching ignorance is different from actually being ignorant. I believe you stated at one point that homosexuality should not be part of education, and that it should be left until a child is older before it is explained. That's saying to withhold information from people, when it would be better to get everything upfront.

Would it be better for a parent to be put on the spot when he/she sees something while out and about?

Would it be better for the views of those less level-headed than you to be the first introduction to homosexuality, where instead of telling them it is against your moral code, the children are told "Hey, that's evil. They're in league with Satan, and should be shunned at the least, and reviled if possible." While I may not agree with your views, they're light-years beyond the open gay-bashing of previous decades.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:49 PM

i never said he was pro-gay. just that he never claimed to be anti-gay. it seems he didn't care one way or another.

It might seem that way to you but if you look at the context of his life and his religious background I could just about guarantee you that Jesus would be against homosexual behavior.

covered by broomjockey. although i will add that if you're going to insist on a literal interpretation, you really should go all or nothing. picking and choosing invalidates the whole system.

I don't think that all the rules that were meant for the nation of Israel apply to Gentiles, and I've already posted the relevant Scripture to back that up.

some do study it. many of those i've met who've been through catholic seminary were required to study greek and hebrew in addition to latin. not too many required to study aramaic, though, oddly enough, since that was most likely the language jesus spoke.

Greek and Hebrew covers most of it though. I'd be thrilled if most preachers would just know those two.

i can't claim to have read the whole thing, but i have read bits in the original languages, and there is a fair amount of ambiguity that was capitalized on by later translators.

most modern english translations (at least the ones i've read) are based on the king james version, which while very pretty and poetic, is a horrible translation.

I've heard of some different translation errors that were made before. A lot of people say it's best to read from different translations if you can't read the originals to get a better idea of what it said. The good thing is that you can find a lot of different ones online now.

When I post verses I usually do it from the KJV just because that's the one I'm used to, but I don't think that's necessarily the best version. I'm not sure what the best one is.

Wingates_Hellsing

06-26-2009, 09:50 PM

Uh yeah, that's what I was saying too. Science doesn't have any bearing on morality except for people who specifically choose to base their own morality on science. So if you're only beef about homosexual mention in public school is that it would be a mention of something immoral, that doesn't matter because schools don't teach morality.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the science showed that the average differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals to be statistically of no consequence outside what is to be expected from the sheer individuality of the human species as a whole.

The point I'm getting at is that there aren't 'gay diseases' that effect only homosexuals or people who pursue homosexual behavior and there aren't 'gay' physical defects that only effect gays. Science tells us that there is nothing scientifically negative to being gay as opposed to being straight. So it's only right that the fact that there's nothing intrinsically scientifically positive or negative in being gay.

If you don't teach that in public schools you are failing to undo the very real ignorance that can result if children are left to think that gays might just be physiologically inferior.

Everyone needs to remember that their moral codes need to be kept separate from scientific fact. If teaching scientific fact means mentioning homosexuality without condemning it, then tough. I don't think it's moral to get stoned all day every day, but the scientific fact is that cannabis is healthier than alcoholic and tobacco products.

P.S. To clarify myself please treat each of my own uses of the word 'bad' in the post of my own above to mean 'scientifically negative' which is the wording I will use from now on.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 09:55 PM

The examples that I have seen brought forth from the NT come from Paul, who was formerly Saul, of Tarsus. A Mithra worshipper who brought many Mithraic traditions into Christianity. Quite frankly, when you learn a little bit about Paul/Saul, his whole testimony becomes suspect, and it begins to look like he was trying to subvert Christianity by turning it into Mithra worship.

Look into it, it's quite disturbing. I'd advise against using him as a source, since the people who have learned about him will tend to discount your arguments.

I've heard about that before and read into it some. Probably not as much as you have. If I threw out Paul though, I would be throwing out a large chunk of Christian teachings, so then I really would be guilty of pick n mix.

Quite frankly, that's a laughable statement. We don't even have 1% of what he said and taught in a written form. For my proof, I invite you to read the NT aloud. You will finish in less than a week (going slow, too). That's 7 days. Considering that the accepted age of Jesus at the time of his "Ascension" is about 32 years old, that would mean that he lived for 11688 days. Drop all time before he was 13 (since that was when he supposedly received his gifts from Dad), and we find he was teaching for 6939.75 days (with each year being 365.25 days long, according to our modern calendar).

In other words, you can read aloud everything that was written about Jesus's life in less then 0.1% of the time that he was teaching. You may not like it, but you might as well have zero information about what Jesus said.

Which brings us back to my original statement / question: What were the authors of the Bible hiding by refusing to mention any of what Jesus said about homosexuality?

Maybe they felt they didn't need to mention it because it was standard Jewish teaching. Maybe they thought that they should focus more on how Jesus was different from other teachers and that's one reason it's so short.

Pedersen

06-26-2009, 10:07 PM

I've heard about that before and read into it some. Probably not as much as you have. If I threw out Paul though, I would be throwing out a large chunk of Christian teachings, so then I really would be guilty of pick n mix.

You're right. However, here's something for you to try as an experiment. Categorize what you have been taught. Put it all into two categories: Came from Paul, and Did not come from Paul.

You're going to find some major disparities there. And in a number of ways, you're going to find Paul as the source of many of the negative teachings in the New Testament.

Maybe they felt they didn't need to mention it because it was standard Jewish teaching. Maybe they thought that they should focus more on how Jesus was different from other teachers and that's one reason it's so short.

Or they chose not to mention it because they didn't like the idea. Of course, I've already shown that what is written in the bible doesn't even manage to cover 0.1% of his life. What happened to the other 99.9%? Why is none of it mentioned? This man is the reason for your faith being the way it is. By any account, he spent a significant chunk of his time teaching. Far more than one measly little percent of his time.

And yet, even if only 1% of his time was spent teaching, we have less then 0.1% of his total time alive. That leaves out over 90% of his teachings. Are you seriously claiming that God came down, got a virgin pregnant, had his son grow up, go around teaching what he wanted people to know, and over 90% of what he taught was "Oh, yeah, same as the Old Testament"?

Really? Is that the best you can say? That he spent 90% of his teaching time focusing on reinforcing what everybody already knew?

Because, to me, that seems somewhat suspicious. I kinda think stuff got left out by his biographers. And I have to wonder how much of it was left out because they disagreed with what was being taught.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 10:21 PM

You have yet to give a real reason religious or otherwise why homosexuality is anything other than a non-issue.
You seem to imply religion as your motiviation for hating gays.
And however you phrase it, you are hating them by denying them rights you enjoy.

You think they have the right to legally marry. I don't, so I don't feel that I'm denying them any rights they should have. I don't hate people for being gay though.

I believe homosexuality is immoral, or sinful. Of course I don't want to grant them official acknowledgement or approval for engaging in it.

No, you didn't but (all due respect) much of what you say about them and their actions are intolerant, so I can understand why people would assume you hate them. Intolerance is just a hairs-breath from hatred, IMO.

I can tolerate them but that doesn't mean I think the government should officially recognize their behaviors.

or those of us who may accept his existence, even believing that he was a great teacher with a lot of important things to say, a man of love and of peace, but still just a man.

to quote a song, "what a man was 2000 years ago means nothing at all to me today."

I believe in freedom of religion.

I don't know why Jesus or any kind of religion was brought up here. Your religion has no place in the law. Period. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. If your religion is your motivation for your feelings against gays, it has no place in the law whatsoever.

It was brought up because people wanted to know why I was against homosexuality. I'm not in favor of banning homosexuality (not that it would work, anyway) because this is a democratic society. However I don't want to give them special acknowledgement in an official manner.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 10:28 PM

What about those of us that don't even believe your Jesus guy even existed? He was most likely a compilation of several people with miracle retroactively attributed to him in the style that was quite common at the time to give to famous figures.

If you believe that then I won't stop you from it.

Since gays are born that way you are espousing ignorance for them as well as about them. Why can't they hear about others like themselves early?
Since most kids come from hetero couples I would say that they learned about hetero couples from birth.

I think gays may be born with a tendency toward homosexuality but I don't think people are necessarily born gay.

You do want to hurt them by denying them rights that we enjoy. Bigotry isn't always direct violence. It is also about refusals to accept others as deserving to be different.

If they want me to accept their lifestyle as normal, then they will be waiting a very long time. If that's bigotry in your opinion, then in your eyes I will always be a bigot. I guess I think of bigots as being the kinds of people that would go around shooting gays or beating them up though, or hurling insults like "fag" and "queer" at them. To me that's real bigotry, so I guess we see that word a little differently.

I'm sorry but that sounds too much like the old separate but equal nonsense told by those who don't hate blacks, but simply don't want to condone things like interracial marriage.
Again, religiously defined morality has no place in law.

I don't believe that homosexual "marriage" is equal to heterosexual marriage, so it's not exactly separate but equal.

That's belittling thier beliefs.
To most of us atheists ALL those religious beliefs are wacky.

I was a born atheist born to two loving liberal christians. My atheism has nothing to do with what I was told about religion. It comes from a complete inability to believe those fanciful stories. I was six when I realized that adults actually believed all the stuff they told me in sunday school. It wasn't just a game of make up silly stuff.

That actually made me grin, believe it or not, because I can picture that. lol

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 10:39 PM

I'll continue everything after #68 later.

the_std

06-26-2009, 10:51 PM

You missed one. #62. How do you justify having your religion being made into law?

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 10:58 PM

You missed one. #62. How do you justify having your religion being made into law?

My spreadsheet says #62 was answered by #91. I don't remember advocating for a theocracy. I think I've been pretty clear that I just don't want official recognition of the gay lifestyle by the government as a legitimate or normal thing.

Now, how do I justify that? I think there are two competing ideas. There is the idea that homosexuality is not normal and that homosexual marriages are not real marriages, and shouldn't be recognized as such. Then there is the left-wing ideas of the homosexual activists. Which one do you think I would rather see be reflected in official life?

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 11:03 PM

You missed a word. I said "prove". You offer no proof.

I can't demonstrate potential harm that hasn't yet occurred. How do you want me to prove that? I don't think I can.

I do believe that it is harmful that homosexuality is accepted as normal. To conservatives, that is the harm, along with this idea being taught to children. These things are considered harmful by conservatives regardless of whatever other harm could potentially happen.

The distinction between the two sides which I think is quite important is that Ruby sees gay marriage as a condoning of homosexual behavior and therefore an immoral thing to do.

The fact of the matter is that not only have politicians and other influential people already weighed in on the matter by both condemning and condoning homosexuality, but Ruby and the rest of us don't see the current situation the same way.

Ruby sees it as neutral because Ruby doesn't believe there is inequality.

We see the deprivation of the, while not essential per-se, perfectly justified right for people to marry whomever they love enough to wish to. The current system oppresses and condemns gays by placing them at a legal disadvantage.

What we seek is a system that neither condemns nor condones anything, but rather allows for people to live their lives as they see fit on equal footing.

One solution that might make both of us happy is if marriage weren't given government recognition at all.

I'm going to go back to semantics for a moment, to point out that should we use the 'different phrase or word' for gay marriage, there would need to be a massive overhaul of any an all laws that take marriage into account so that they also take homosexual unions into account. And since separation is inherently unequal, it only makes sense to redefine legal marriages as being between two consenting adults and not necessarily two opposite genders.

You have every right to refer to homosexual unions differently, and to teach other people to follow your example. But using a definition-based argument to justify depriving homosexuals is incredibly nonsensical. Definitions change just as culture has changed which must in the natural course of history has brought religion to change with it.

I don't think they should have the right to get "married" officially anyway, so I don't feel that I'm depriving them of something they have a right to.
I do think the definition of marriage is important to keep between a man and a woman because I believe that anything else is perverted.

IMO most Christians feel deprived lately not because they're losing equality, but because the judeo/christian belief system is losing absolute dominance, something that is incredibly bad for equality (the dominance, that is)

You're right that Christians are losing dominance.

This country needs to be from a legal standpoint totally blind to as many arbitrary things like race, and sexual orientation as possible. There's no reason to stop gays from marrying unless you think that they, either inherently or through their actions are less human than heterosexuals. The kind of persecution and bigotry this country has waged wars to end.

They're not less human, but homosexuality is abnormal and I don't want the government to recognize it as if it were just the same as heterosexual marriage.

I believe it was a supreme court justice that said marriage is a civil right. He may have been talking about old laws forbidding interractial marriage, but it is perfectly aplicable to gay marriage.

I understand that you think it's the same, but interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman, and therefore fits the criteria of a marriage.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 11:14 PM

The bit that interests me is that you say you're not completely innocent of the first bit - the pick'n'mix religion part I mentioned. You said that elsewhere in this thread as well.

Why should you choose the gay-prohibition laws instead of the non-shrimp-eating laws (or whichever ones you don't follow)? What's the difference?

Rapscallion

I don't know exactly where I'm guilty of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I found out later I'd been inconsistent on something. I don't believe that Christians are under the law of Moses and I posted the relevant Scripture earlier in the thread.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 11:18 PM

This is where there's a disconnect, I think. You're asserting your moral code to be superior to the "homosexual lobby," but with nothing to actually back that up.

The morals of both groups are in opposition. I consider mine to be right and they consider theirs to be right. I don't see what there is to back up. I've already explained why I feel the way I do.

Further, it is forcing your moral code by imposing a double-standard on society. Either you've got "separate but equal" in same-sex marriage, only not called that, with government bonuses for heterosexual marriages being applied to the same-sex marriages, or you have unequal in that same-sex couples don't have analogous rights in that there's no government recognition at all.

I think homosexual "marriage" is unequal by its very nature.

If your only basis for disagreeing with homosexuality is religion, and you want the government to disagree with homosexuality, you want the government to disagree with homosexuality based on religion. It's officially codifying a religious point of view, with the force of law behind it. That is *exactly* forcing people to have your moral code.

I didn't ask the government to actively disagree with homosexuality. I'm not out to ban homosexuality. I just don't want it to condone homosexuality by giving out marriage certificates to gays.

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 11:23 PM

Random hypothetical question: Imagine a homosexual couple. They follow Christianity exactly as you do, except they're gay. That is exactly the only difference. To make this even better, they display absolutely no affection towards each other except when they're completely alone. This means that there's no influence they have on anyone towards homosexuality. For all anyone can tell, they're simply roommates.

Now, they want to adopt a child. Except single people rarely are approved for adoption. This household would fit your ideal, except for the lack of one gender. Do you think it's right to deny a child a healthy, happy home simply because they're not married? Remember, these two wouldn't do a single thing in front of the child to indicate they were gay. They would raise the child as a Christian. They'd love the child very much. But because they're not married, they're rejected, and they can't get married because you believe it's immoral. Isn't providing a secure, happy, healthy home to a child better than to get caught up on an issue of plumbing?

Second random question: There's many pointers that homosexuality is genetic. That's predestined from birth. That means, following a religious argument, God made them that way. Why would God predestine someone to be immoral? They're genetically incapable of being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. To enter in to a heterosexual marriage would be an affront to marriage itself by basing it on a lie. How is that even remotely fair?

BroomJockey

06-26-2009, 11:25 PM

I didn't ask the government to actively disagree with homosexuality. I'm not out to ban homosexuality. I just don't want it to condone homosexuality by giving out marriage certificates to gays.

By endorsing one thing over the other, that's disagreeing with the other. That is not a debatable point.

Rubystars

06-26-2009, 11:25 PM

Referring to your biological parents, supposedly. So in effect, I can go tell my aunt to fuck herself when she asks me to not slide down the bannister? After all, she's neither my mother nor father.

It didn't say "honor your father and mother AND NOBODY ELSE". That would just be probably the most silly way I've ever heard of for someone to read it.

Imagine a kid going to school, walking up to their teacher, and saying "Mr. Smith", the Bible says to honor my mother and my father, and you're not either, so I'm not going to do anything you tell me anymore, and you can shove this homework where the sun doesn't shine!" Yeah I dont' think that would go over too well.

I think in this sense it could be a mother and a father that were adoptive parents. I do think it's interesting however that it specifies a mother and a father, and not two fathers or two mothers. It acknowledges that children will generally have a mother and a father.

That last part, are you referring to only gays keeping it in the bedroom, or straights as well? Because I gotta tell you, if you mean both, I'm right there with you. I'm sick of these teenaged girls playing tosil-hockey with grope-fest intermissions while they're out in public with their boyfriends.

I assume I'd feel the same way about a gay couple. If I'd ever actually seen one do anything like that...

I think more modesty would be better all around. I don't like to see people playing tonsil hockey regardless of their orientation.

the_std

06-26-2009, 11:29 PM

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 02:39 AM

Well, preaching ignorance is different from actually being ignorant. I believe you stated at one point that homosexuality should not be part of education, and that it should be left until a child is older before it is explained. That's saying to withhold information from people, when it would be better to get everything upfront.

Would it be better for a parent to be put on the spot when he/she sees something while out and about?

Would it be better for the views of those less level-headed than you to be the first introduction to homosexuality, where instead of telling them it is against your moral code, the children are told "Hey, that's evil. They're in league with Satan, and should be shunned at the least, and reviled if possible." While I may not agree with your views, they're light-years beyond the open gay-bashing of previous decades.

I've been thinking about this and I think that you're right that a parent should teach their kids about this stuff being out there a lot earlier now than they used to have to. Otherwise they'll find out about it anyway.

I do think it's unfortunate that this has become such a prominent issue, but I suppose there's no going back now.

I wouldn't want someone truly hateful and abusive to try to teach kids that homosexuals are all a bunch of devil spawn or something, because I don't feel that way.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 02:47 AM

Uh yeah, that's what I was saying too. Science doesn't have any bearing on morality except for people who specifically choose to base their own morality on science. So if you're only beef about homosexual mention in public school is that it would be a mention of something immoral, that doesn't matter because schools don't teach morality.

They're not supposed to, but they did try to push left wing stuff on us when I was in school. You might not have noticed it as much if you lean that way anyway.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the science showed that the average differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals to be statistically of no consequence outside what is to be expected from the sheer individuality of the human species as a whole.

I thought gay activists were trying to say they were all born that way and couldn't help it a few years ago.

The point I'm getting at is that there aren't 'gay diseases' that effect only homosexuals or people who pursue homosexual behavior and there aren't 'gay' physical defects that only effect gays. Science tells us that there is nothing scientifically negative to being gay as opposed to being straight. So it's only right that the fact that there's nothing intrinsically scientifically positive or negative in being gay.

I think they are at higher risk for some diseases than the general population, but you're right that there aren't exclusively gay diseases.

If you don't teach that in public schools you are failing to undo the very real ignorance that can result if children are left to think that gays might just be physiologically inferior.

They're at higher risk for some things because of behavior, not because of a different physiology.

Everyone needs to remember that their moral codes need to be kept separate from scientific fact. If teaching scientific fact means mentioning homosexuality without condemning it, then tough. I don't think it's moral to get stoned all day every day, but the scientific fact is that cannabis is healthier than alcoholic and tobacco products.

I don't want homosexuality promoted as acceptable in schools. That goes beyond the facts and into promoting a particular moral stance.

P.S. To clarify myself please treat each of my own uses of the word 'bad' in the post of my own above to mean 'scientifically negative' which is the wording I will use from now on.

Ok

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 02:52 AM

You're right. However, here's something for you to try as an experiment. Categorize what you have been taught. Put it all into two categories: Came from Paul, and Did not come from Paul.

You're going to find some major disparities there. And in a number of ways, you're going to find Paul as the source of many of the negative teachings in the New Testament.

I don't have a problem with what Paul taught and I don't consider it to be negative.

Or they chose not to mention it because they didn't like the idea. Of course, I've already shown that what is written in the bible doesn't even manage to cover 0.1% of his life. What happened to the other 99.9%? Why is none of it mentioned? This man is the reason for your faith being the way it is. By any account, he spent a significant chunk of his time teaching. Far more than one measly little percent of his time.

And yet, even if only 1% of his time was spent teaching, we have less then 0.1% of his total time alive. That leaves out over 90% of his teachings. Are you seriously claiming that God came down, got a virgin pregnant, had his son grow up, go around teaching what he wanted people to know, and over 90% of what he taught was "Oh, yeah, same as the Old Testament"?

Really? Is that the best you can say? That he spent 90% of his teaching time focusing on reinforcing what everybody already knew?

Because, to me, that seems somewhat suspicious. I kinda think stuff got left out by his biographers. And I have to wonder how much of it was left out because they disagreed with what was being taught.

I just don't see the basis for a conspiracy theory here. It's possible that more was written down but lost. I think the books we have now were actually written a good deal after Jesus had died. I forget how many years. I don't see any indication that Jesus ever condoned immoral behavior.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 02:57 AM

Random hypothetical question: Imagine a homosexual couple. They follow Christianity exactly as you do, except they're gay. That is exactly the only difference. To make this even better, they display absolutely no affection towards each other except when they're completely alone. This means that there's no influence they have on anyone towards homosexuality. For all anyone can tell, they're simply roommates.

Now, they want to adopt a child. Except single people rarely are approved for adoption. This household would fit your ideal, except for the lack of one gender. Do you think it's right to deny a child a healthy, happy home simply because they're not married? Remember, these two wouldn't do a single thing in front of the child to indicate they were gay. They would raise the child as a Christian. They'd love the child very much. But because they're not married, they're rejected, and they can't get married because you believe it's immoral. Isn't providing a secure, happy, healthy home to a child better than to get caught up on an issue of plumbing?

If they were moral, they would be single. I also wouldn't consider a gay couple, even heavily repressed, to be a healthy couple. I don't blame people for their feelings but they shouldn't act on them by being in a homosexual relationship. They should just be single. Would you place a child into a home with so much pent up sexual frustration as you described?

Second random question: There's many pointers that homosexuality is genetic. That's predestined from birth. That means, following a religious argument, God made them that way. Why would God predestine someone to be immoral? They're genetically incapable of being attracted to someone of the opposite gender. To enter in to a heterosexual marriage would be an affront to marriage itself by basing it on a lie. How is that even remotely fair?

There are other people who can explain this a lot better than I can. I think everyone has certain challenges they need to face though. They have the choice to remain single.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 02:58 AM

By endorsing one thing over the other, that's disagreeing with the other. That is not a debatable point.

I was clarifying my position not trying to start a new debate.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 03:01 AM

So it's basically come down to this: you consider homosexuality harmful, no ifs ands or buts. Simply being gay harms both the gay person and the community at large. By calling them perverse, deviant and sinful, you've made this abundantly clear. And yet you have no method of proving this. And you want the law to reflect this groundless belief (groundless because religion has no place in the law) by not allowing gays to marry.

It is impossible to debate against your belief that homosexuality is harmful. So essentially, that's the argument ended right there. There is no way to convince you that homosexuality is not harmful. And there is no way to convince you that, by the government not allowing gays to marry, that it is a bigoted and unequal advocacy.

Being gay as in having same sex attractions isn't the problem, but acting on it does harm the person. Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful. I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

the_std

06-27-2009, 03:08 AM

I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?

I just don't understand how you could justify basing legislature (or lack thereof) on something that is not provable. That's why I keep bringing it up. And you haven't explained how you can do this well enough for it not to still be a valid point.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I was here to provide a debate partner because everyone was on the same side of the issue here.

Yes, I realize that, but it has gotten to the point where you are repeating yourself and that hardly makes for a good debate. I'm not blaming you, I'm just wondering if we've reached the end of this road.

Wingates_Hellsing

06-27-2009, 03:09 AM

Meh, I'm a libertarian, always have been. Maybe it's just my schools but there were as many conservatives are liberals and not one of them altered the curriculum to show their views, itself not being particularly liberal.

The only instance in which morality was ever broached was with personal questions asked of the teachers about their opinions. Most refused to talk politics during class time and the rest kept it to 'I think this'.

Let me reiterate something I fear you may not be getting from what I've been saying that I've meant to be there. I'm not talking about "Hey being gay is great it's the greatest thing in the world" I'm saying that outside the morality of the issue that religions or social perspectives create there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, it's just something you ARE.

If you want to teach people that being gay is immoral, that's fine. But to teach anything other than the fact that there's nothing wrong with you if you are gay in public schools is nothing short of the worst type of bigotry. It's basically reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with gays that makes them evil, diseased, inferior human beings.

Let me put it this way, there are 4 options:
1: Don't mention homosexuality ever, which is just plain impossible because the subject is important.
2: Teach that being gay is inherently good which would infringe on your morals, something I don't want
3: Teach that being gay is inherently bad something which is not only dangerous, but infringing on my and many other people's morals
4: Teach that homosexuality is just another thing that people are. Not better or worse than being heterosexual, it just is.

Which one would you choose, Ruby?

I do believe that people are born the way they are when it comes to sexual orientation. That sort of thing is wired into our brains in a way that modern science has yet to grasp or even really look into successfully. My point is that gay people don't have 12% smaller brains, 8% smaller cheeks etc.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 03:40 AM

I just don't understand how you could justify basing legislature (or lack thereof) on something that is not provable. That's why I keep bringing it up. And you haven't explained how you can do this well enough for it not to still be a valid point.

I think the real problem is that things I would see as being detrimental you would see as being progressive. That's why I'm having a hard time with this question. I don't think I could demonstrate something that you or other pro-homosexual people on this board would consider to be harmful.

Yes, I realize that, but it has gotten to the point where you are repeating yourself and that hardly makes for a good debate. I'm not blaming you, I'm just wondering if we've reached the end of this road.

I was repeating myself a lot because I felt I was being asked a lot of similar questions. This thread and the other one did go on for several pages so maybe there really isn't that much more to say. I'll still try to answer everything if anyone has anything else to add though.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 03:46 AM

Meh, I'm a libertarian, always have been. Maybe it's just my schools but there were as many conservatives are liberals and not one of them altered the curriculum to show their views, itself not being particularly liberal.

The only instance in which morality was ever broached was with personal questions asked of the teachers about their opinions. Most refused to talk politics during class time and the rest kept it to 'I think this'.

That's good.

Let me reiterate something I fear you may not be getting from what I've been saying that I've meant to be there. I'm not talking about "Hey being gay is great it's the greatest thing in the world" I'm saying that outside the morality of the issue that religions or social perspectives create there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, it's just something you ARE.

Without morality being a factor, or social perspectives just about any action someone can take could be justified.

If you want to teach people that being gay is immoral, that's fine. But to teach anything other than the fact that there's nothing wrong with you if you are gay in public schools is nothing short of the worst type of bigotry. It's basically reinforcing the belief that there is something wrong with gays that makes them evil, diseased, inferior human beings.

I think there is something wrong if someone is sexually attracted to their own sex.

Let me put it this way, there are 4 options:
1: Don't mention homosexuality ever, which is just plain impossible because the subject is important.
2: Teach that being gay is inherently good which would infringe on your morals, something I don't want
3: Teach that being gay is inherently bad something which is not only dangerous, but infringing on my and many other people's morals
4: Teach that homosexuality is just another thing that people are. Not better or worse than being heterosexual, it just is.

Which one would you choose, Ruby?

It is worse than being heterosexual. Why can't it just be said that it's a controversial topic and leave it at that? Saying it's no better or worse than being heterosexual is automatically giving it a nod of approval.

I do believe that people are born the way they are when it comes to sexual orientation. That sort of thing is wired into our brains in a way that modern science has yet to grasp or even really look into successfully. My point is that gay people don't have 12% smaller brains, 8% smaller cheeks etc.

If there are differences in the structure of the brain or in hormones, etc. then how is that really different from having other physical differences?

Pedersen

06-27-2009, 03:54 AM

I don't have a problem with what Paul taught and I don't consider it to be negative.

I have two issues with your statement here.

1: Re-read what I stated for the experiment (quoted here for your convenience):

You're right. However, here's something for you to try as an experiment. Categorize what you have been taught. Put it all into two categories: Came from Paul, and Did not come from Paul.

You're going to find some major disparities there. And in a number of ways, you're going to find Paul as the source of many of the negative teachings in the New Testament.

I did not ask how you felt about Paul and his teachings. I did state that you would find major disparities between Paul's teachings and the rest of the NT. I also stated my feeling that many of the negative teachings in the NT came from Paul.

2. I'm surprised you have no problem with his teachings. I assume, then, that you are in agreement with these verses from Paul?

8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This verse claims that all people are predestined to Heaven or to Hell.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

This verse claims that Christ is the end of the law. And yet, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And thus, we see Paul teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Perhaps you get along very well with these verses:

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I do hope that, since you agree with his teachings, you are silent on the occasions that you attend church, and only ask questions of your husband when you have gotten home.

And those quotes only took me a few minutes. I can find lots more for you. Shall I? Or will you now actually look at what Paul teaches, and ask if maybe Paul wasn't quite as wonderful as he's made out to be?

I just don't see the basis for a conspiracy theory here. It's possible that more was written down but lost.

And now you're deciding to add unknown texts to the debate to uphold your position? That's pretty impressive. We've gone from "Jesus never said one word that was written down about homosexuality" to "No, somebody wrote them down, then left it in their grandmother's attic and the house burned down, so we have forever lost these notes that we should have had to tell us more details of how to live our lives."

I dunno, sounds pretty preposterous to me. Especially since this, ya know, the word of God, you'd think that maybe he'd try to make sure we had a copy of it for more than a few decades after Jesus left. Guess we just pissed him off or something.

I think the books we have now were actually written a good deal after Jesus had died. I forget how many years.

Wait, I didn't think Jesus died? I thought he ascended to Heaven, to sit at the right hand of his father? Yes, a minor nitpick, but still had to be pointed out.

I don't see any indication that Jesus ever condoned immoral behavior.

Oh, really? You must read more of the Bible then, I think. Even me, someone who has read very little of it, has found Jesus okay with immoral behavior. Here, let me show you:

2 A centurion there had a slave who was ill and about to die, and he was valuable to him.
3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and save the life of his slave.
4 They approached Jesus and strongly urged him to come, saying, "He deserves to have you do this for him,
5 for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us."
6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was only a short distance from the house, the centurion sent friends to tell him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof.
7 Therefore, I did not consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word and let my servant be healed.
8 For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it."
9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."
10 When the messengers returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

Check it out: Jesus is okay with slavery!

22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.
23Whatever your task, work heartily

Again, slavery, but this time it comes from Paul, someone else whose teachings are a good thing. Oh, look here, more slavery according to Paul:

9 Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory,
10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.

I've got a clear example of Jesus being okay with slavery. Right there, we see Jesus condoning immoral behavior. If he condoned one, he might well have condoned others. Add in that so little of his life is actually chronicled, and we have no idea if he ever said anything (positive or negative) about homosexuality.

I've got multiple examples of Paul being a particularly negative influence within the NT, and I didn't even have to look hard. Are you absolutely certain you want to continue spouting a religious basis as the source of your belief that the homosexual lifestyle is "immoral" or "deviant"? I've barely gotten started. I can start taking apart the Bible for you in a lot more detail, if you like.

BroomJockey

06-27-2009, 04:35 AM

I was clarifying my position not trying to start a new debate.

I didn't say you were trying to start a new debate. I said that by endorsing hetero marriages but not same-sex marriages, the government would be giving preference to one group over another, even if they never said a word about gay people. Actively promoting one IS actively disagreeing with the other, which you said you didn't want the government to do.

Nyoibo

06-27-2009, 05:15 AM

I'm probably not completely innocent of it, but I try to be consistent for the most part. I don't think that Gentiles are under the restrictions of halacha (Jewish law). I explained some of this in another reply I did on this thread with a scripture. I think it was my reply to Rapscallion.

But then why bring up that the Jewish bibll explicitly forbids homosexual behaviour, you could have chosen to believe in not eating pork, instead you chose the option to discriminate agains a group of people?

It does say to honor your mother and father, not your mother and mother, or father and father. However you're right that it doesn't mention homosexuals in those 10 in any direct fashion.

Yes, you honour the people who were responsible for your entrance into this world, which kinda has to be a man and a woman at the moment, although not necesarily any more. But does that mean that a child should honour the person who left him in a dumpster and not the people who raised him?

I believe homosexuality is immoral, or sinful. Of course I don't want to grant them official acknowledgement or approval for engaging in it.

I can tolerate them but that doesn't mean I think the government should officially recognize their behaviors.

It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

Flyndaran

06-27-2009, 05:19 AM

...
It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

Right on! Keep your religion out of my government!

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 12:46 PM

I have two issues with your statement here.

1: Re-read what I stated for the experiment (quoted here for your convenience):

I did not ask how you felt about Paul and his teachings. I did state that you would find major disparities between Paul's teachings and the rest of the NT. I also stated my feeling that many of the negative teachings in the NT came from Paul.

I've had a lot of people try to draw a distinction between the two or to try to say they contradict each other, and I've read many of these so-called discrepancies. I just don't really feel that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, regarding the legal recognition of homosexual marriage. That may have been why I didn't really answer that part as well as you thought I should have. You're trying to make a claim that Jesus might have been pro-gay, but without any words of Jesus either way on the matter. People keep asking me to prove things but then you have absolutely no proof to demonstrate anything pro-homosexual in the Bible, especially when there are verses against homosexuality in the OT and NT.

2. I'm surprised you have no problem with his teachings. I assume, then, that you are in agreement with these verses from Paul?

This verse claims that all people are predestined to Heaven or to Hell.

This verse claims that Christ is the end of the law. And yet, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

I don't have any problem with Paul's teachings at all. The first one if I tried to explain it would get into a huge multi-page debate about free will vs. predestination, so I really don't want to get into that right now. I believe that just because God knows what you will choose beforehand doesn't take away your choice. It's really as simple as that, even though it could be debated for a long time about how exactly this could be possible.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He didn't destroy it, he fulfilled it. I don't see how this is in contradiction to what Paul taught about salvation being based on faith and not on following all aspects of the law that applied to Jewish people.

And thus, we see Paul teaching the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Perhaps you get along very well with these verses:

I do hope that, since you agree with his teachings, you are silent on the occasions that you attend church, and only ask questions of your husband when you have gotten home.

There are different ways people today look at these verses. Some say that it was meant for the time period they were in. In that case, it wouldn't apply today anyway.

Others believe it applies today. If it does apply today there are legitimate reasons for it. Men and women have different roles in a church setting, but that doesn't mean one sex is inferior to the other.

I'm not sure which way it's supposed to be viewed, personally. I'm not really a church type of person anyway.

And those quotes only took me a few minutes. I can find lots more for you. Shall I? Or will you now actually look at what Paul teaches, and ask if maybe Paul wasn't quite as wonderful as he's made out to be?

You haven't found anything I've had a problem with.

And now you're deciding to add unknown texts to the debate to uphold your position? That's pretty impressive. We've gone from "Jesus never said one word that was written down about homosexuality" to "No, somebody wrote them down, then left it in their grandmother's attic and the house burned down, so we have forever lost these notes that we should have had to tell us more details of how to live our lives."

I dunno, sounds pretty preposterous to me. Especially since this, ya know, the word of God, you'd think that maybe he'd try to make sure we had a copy of it for more than a few decades after Jesus left. Guess we just pissed him off or something.

Honestly you need to go back and reread the post. I said it's possible, not that it actually occurred. I think without evidence that Jesus contradicted the traditional teachings on homosexuality, it's more reasonable to assume that he likely agreed with other Jewish teachers about that topic than to say he disagreed with them. However as you said we don't have the documentation.

Wait, I didn't think Jesus died? I thought he ascended to Heaven, to sit at the right hand of his father? Yes, a minor nitpick, but still had to be pointed out.

Yes that was a minor nitpick. He did die, but wasn't supposed to have stayed that way.

Oh, really? You must read more of the Bible then, I think. Even me, someone who has read very little of it, has found Jesus okay with immoral behavior. Here, let me show you:

Check it out: Jesus is okay with slavery!

I don't want to start a 16+ page debate on this issue, but I will say that the slavery being discussed is not what you think it is. Jesus never promoted immorality or cruelty.

Again, slavery, but this time it comes from Paul, someone else whose teachings are a good thing. Oh, look here, more slavery according to Paul:

I've got a clear example of Jesus being okay with slavery. Right there, we see Jesus condoning immoral behavior. If he condoned one, he might well have condoned others. Add in that so little of his life is actually chronicled, and we have no idea if he ever said anything (positive or negative) about homosexuality.

What do you think of when you hear of slavery? The slavery they were discussing did not fit the brutal, murderous image that we've come to associate with the term. The excesses of slavery that we have learned about all too well would have been against Biblical morality.

I've got multiple examples of Paul being a particularly negative influence within the NT, and I didn't even have to look hard. Are you absolutely certain you want to continue spouting a religious basis as the source of your belief that the homosexual lifestyle is "immoral" or "deviant"? I've barely gotten started. I can start taking apart the Bible for you in a lot more detail, if you like.

I don't see what good that's going to do you because I don't have a problem with what the Bible teaches.

I can almost predict how you had this set up. You were going to throw out the slavery issue. If I said I was against it too, you were going to call me a pick n mix Christian, and/or a hypocrite, and say I should be pro-gay to be consistent.

If I said I was for it, I'm just curious, were you planning to call me a horrible, evil, pro-slavery person and go for all the shock value you could?

Were you going to say something like this: "Wait a minute, you didn't! Yes you did! :eek: How could you say that! You hater evil horrible person!"

Please... let's try to keep this logical.

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 01:01 PM

I didn't say you were trying to start a new debate. I said that by endorsing hetero marriages but not same-sex marriages, the government would be giving preference to one group over another, even if they never said a word about gay people. Actively promoting one IS actively disagreeing with the other, which you said you didn't want the government to do.

I don't want the government to ban homosexual sex or effeminate/butch behavior. I do think that there is a huge difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual "marriage". It may be stablizing for society if more people get married before they have kids (fewer single mothers needing welfare, etc.). Promoting marriage might be beneficial to society. However if it's a choice between the government not acknowledging marriage at all, and acknowledging homosexual marriage, I'd rather have it not acknowledge marriage at all.

Flyndaran

06-27-2009, 01:04 PM

If others get to enjoy what I do, then no one should?

Rubystars

06-27-2009, 01:06 PM

But then why bring up that the Jewish bibll explicitly forbids homosexual behaviour, you could have chosen to believe in not eating pork, instead you chose the option to discriminate agains a group of people?

I think that it's relevant to what Jesus was brought up in.

Yes, you honour the people who were responsible for your entrance into this world, which kinda has to be a man and a woman at the moment, although not necesarily any more. But does that mean that a child should honour the person who left him in a dumpster and not the people who raised him?

I think a child should honor anyone who cared for him or her. I think that commandment was referring however to the situation where a child grows up in a household with a mother and father. This is how this got started I think. Someone said not even the 10 commandments said anything about gays, and I just said well it does include a part about mother and father. It wasn't supposed to get into all this stuff about "honor this person and not that person".

It's not the governments job or responsibility to say what is immoral or sinful.

That's generally true.

Flyndaran

06-27-2009, 01:08 PM

Ick. Why did this nice discussion devolve into a talk about religion?
That leaves me completely out of it as a born atheist.

Pedersen

06-27-2009, 02:23 PM

I've had a lot of people try to draw a distinction between the two or to try to say they contradict each other, and I've read many of these so-called discrepancies. I just don't really feel that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, regarding the legal recognition of homosexual marriage.

You're correct. I'll drop that. I think you should read into it a bit more, because I see discrepancies easily, but that's as far as I will take it.

That may have been why I didn't really answer that part as well as you thought I should have. You're trying to make a claim that Jesus might have been pro-gay, but without any words of Jesus either way on the matter. People keep asking me to prove things but then you have absolutely no proof to demonstrate anything pro-homosexual in the Bible, especially when there are verses against homosexuality in the OT and NT.

And those verses were written by other people, not spoken by Jesus. An interesting discrepancy, especially since we already know that over 90% of everything he taught has been lost to the mists of time.

Honestly you need to go back and reread the post. I said it's possible, not that it actually occurred. I think without evidence that Jesus contradicted the traditional teachings on homosexuality, it's more reasonable to assume that he likely agreed with other Jewish teachers about that topic than to say he disagreed with them. However as you said we don't have the documentation.

Except for the little detail that you are basing your assumptions about what he said on three things:

Other people in the NT had problems with homosexuality, and wrote down those problems.
If he did not specifically speak against it in the NT, then he was okay with what was written in the OT.
Jesus did not approve of immoral behavior.

Now, I've shown verses where Jesus was okay with slavery, a decidedly immoral behavior. Your response to this was:

I don't want to start a 16+ page debate on this issue, but I will say that the slavery being discussed is not what you think it is. Jesus never promoted immorality or cruelty.

What do you think of when you hear of slavery? The slavery they were discussing did not fit the brutal, murderous image that we've come to associate with the term. The excesses of slavery that we have learned about all too well would have been against Biblical morality.

So, Biblical slavery wasn't brutal? Let's see what the Bible has to say about that, shall we?

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

How about that? The Bible says beating your slaves is just fine. How does this fit your three assumptions above? People (not Jesus) in the OT said so. Jesus didn't condemn it in the NT, so he approves of it. Those first two assumptions kind of break your third assumption, don't they? I've just shown that Jesus approves of immoral behavior. ETA: In fact, what Jesus approves of most about this immoral arrangement is the love given the master by the slave. If that's not an endorsement of love even in the face of immorality, I don't know what is!

I can almost predict how you had this set up.

Actually, no, you can't even come close. I'm trying to show you how you are already a pick-n-mix Christian who is in denial. I'm trying to show you your own inconsistencies. You're just refusing to see them.

Please... let's try to keep this logical.

I'm going straight for logic. I'm backing up my assertions, and what's more I'm using quotes from the Bible to show how you are being inconsistent. Good luck showing me how wrong I am.

Oh, one other minor note: I did do a divine free will thread a while back. No one managed to explain how free will can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient, all creator god then. Maybe you can. The thread is over here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679). Good luck with that one, too.

Nyoibo

06-27-2009, 04:05 PM

I think without evidence that Jesus contradicted the traditional teachings on homosexuality, it's more reasonable to assume that he likely agreed with other Jewish teachers about that topic than to say he disagreed with them. However as you said we don't have the documentation.

Why, he disagreed with them on so many other things, why would he agree with them on that?

Slytovhand

06-27-2009, 08:20 PM

122??? We're up to 122 posts in only a couple of days! What's going on here?? :p

Ok... obviously, I've got some catching up to do, so, firstly (cos I've got the link saved on ctrl-C)

Timeline of NT books (http://www.visitingpreacher.org/ntbooksdate.html), although this looks a bit more scholarly..although this looks a bit more scholarly (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html)

So, at best, the first Gospels were written about 40 years after JC's passing (and, recall, what we have is incredibly small). I'm sure there is an immense amount of stuff he said that we'll never know about. (Gospel of Thomas is a good but different view... and the other Non-Canonical Gospels...). As it says at the bottom of the first link, there is debate about the accuracy of those dates mentioned. I've seen stuff to indicate the first books were written even later. Well, the official stuff, at any rate. Some of the unofficial stuff was more contemporary. (On a side note, I will 'suggest' a book called 'Messengers', just as a completely different take on the Saul/Paul angle).

Secondly, staying on a similar path, we all know (hopefully) about the Nicean Council, and all the wheeling and dealing and paying off to have what is now the Bible - basically, a religion that was 'bought' by the ruling cities and nobles... not the sort of thing that an altruistic person would want to have handed over to...

But, back to other stuff...

I don't think you've adequately answered the question: Why should homosexuals be treated as homosexuals, rather than as human beings? You are passing a judgement (and wanting the government to endorse such a judgement) based on what a person does outside of its effects on the community (which is relatively small), rather than on the fact that the person is a human being who is entitled to be free to make choices that have no direct impact on other human beings.

Also, as you have expressed, you are coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective, claiming it is our Western heritage. Well, historically, that's a little blinkered. Our 'Western heritage' comes via Greece, and one of the cornerstones of our civilisation is the writings of Plato... who 'wrote' Phaedrus, in which is (paraphrases, cos I couldn't be bothered looking it up) "The love between a man and his boy is greater and deeper than the love between a man and a woman". Thus.. it can be suggested that the cornerstone of western civilisation not only condones homosexuality, but actually fully endorses it as a preference! Plato is not alone in this thinking!

Also on a vaguely similar line, what about those of a different religion? Will you automatically require them to have to submit to Judeo-Christian teaching and tradition as well? If my religion permits something, and your's doesn't - why should yours take precedence (in the eyes of the law)?

FTR one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
from when I did the google - "define: bigot". Doesn't mention a thing about hate, nor violence, nor anger.

Lastly - debating against Pedersen.... ooohhhhh.... courageous! :p (he's good at picking holes in arguments!) Oh, he's good at sarcasm too.

Btw - (ok, so the above wasn't lastly... even though I could have cut and pasted, or inserted this above it... instead of typing this sentence...) the original Miss California thread was about the decision of various people based on whether they should have condemned her based on the answer to a question, and whether the question should even have been asked. So, it wasn't as much about the actual answer, but more about the legitimacy of a question to the event itself. Glad this long (now over 300 posts on the subject) have since come out... (ooh! coming out... a pun!)

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 12:20 AM

Except for the little detail that you are basing your assumptions about what he said on three things:

Other people in the NT had problems with homosexuality, and wrote down those problems.
If he did not specifically speak against it in the NT, then he was okay with what was written in the OT.
Jesus did not approve of immoral behavior.

Now, I've shown verses where Jesus was okay with slavery, a decidedly immoral behavior. Your response to this was:

So, Biblical slavery wasn't brutal? Let's see what the Bible has to say about that, shall we?

How about that? The Bible says beating your slaves is just fine. How does this fit your three assumptions above? People (not Jesus) in the OT said so. Jesus didn't condemn it in the NT, so he approves of it. Those first two assumptions kind of break your third assumption, don't they? I've just shown that Jesus approves of immoral behavior. ETA: In fact, what Jesus approves of most about this immoral arrangement is the love given the master by the slave. If that's not an endorsement of love even in the face of immorality, I don't know what is!

I think you will find if you delve into the issue of Biblical slavery that there were many prohibitions about doing excessive harm to slaves. The verse you quoted here is one of them. You have to look at these things in the context of the time they were written. Would you rather see someone as a slave where they were performing household duties and being in a servile condition, or locked up in a modern penitentiary getting anally raped? I really don't have a problem with anything in the Bible. I think that you need to understand this issue better but I really don't have the time to get into another 100+ post thread about it.

Your original point was that Jesus was advocating something immoral. I don't agree with this. Traditional Christianity sees Jesus as having lived a life free of sin and that's what I believe too.

Actually, no, you can't even come close. I'm trying to show you how you are already a pick-n-mix Christian who is in denial. I'm trying to show you your own inconsistencies. You're just refusing to see them.

I may be hypocritical in some respects but I haven't seen anyone point anything out really yet that would demonstrate that.

I'm going straight for logic. I'm backing up my assertions, and what's more I'm using quotes from the Bible to show how you are being inconsistent. Good luck showing me how wrong I am.

Oh, one other minor note: I did do a divine free will thread a while back. No one managed to explain how free will can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient, all creator god then. Maybe you can. The thread is over here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679). Good luck with that one, too.

I usually avoid those threads not because I don't think I can argue in them, but because they go nowhere. If you don't understand it, it's hard to explain it.

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 12:24 AM

Why, he disagreed with them on so many other things, why would he agree with them on that?

Jesus had respect for the halacha. I hate to get into it too much because I don't want to offend any Jewish people who might be reading this. I really respect their religion and people. So I apologize if what I post is in any way offensive to them. Jesus saw some corruption in the Jewish leaders of his day which were going against what God really wanted. That's why he was so harsh in criticizing them. However Jesus never said he was opposed to the laws of Moses.

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 12:36 AM

122??? We're up to 122 posts in only a couple of days! What's going on here?? :p

Ok... obviously, I've got some catching up to do, so, firstly (cos I've got the link saved on ctrl-C)

I actually had to get a spreadsheet and mark all the post numbers I hadn't replied to yet and match them up with post numbers where I had replied to them on the next column just to try to keep up. No wonder I missed some posts in the last thread!

So, at best, the first Gospels were written about 40 years after JC's passing (and, recall, what we have is incredibly small). I'm sure there is an immense amount of stuff he said that we'll never know about. (Gospel of Thomas is a good but different view... and the other Non-Canonical Gospels...). As it says at the bottom of the first link, there is debate about the accuracy of those dates mentioned. I've seen stuff to indicate the first books were written even later. Well, the official stuff, at any rate. Some of the unofficial stuff was more contemporary. (On a side note, I will 'suggest' a book called 'Messengers', just as a completely different take on the Saul/Paul angle).

Secondly, staying on a similar path, we all know (hopefully) about the Nicean Council, and all the wheeling and dealing and paying off to have what is now the Bible - basically, a religion that was 'bought' by the ruling cities and nobles... not the sort of thing that an altruistic person would want to have handed over to...

But, back to other stuff...

There was a pretty good gap there, as you mentioned.

I don't think you've adequately answered the question: Why should homosexuals be treated as homosexuals, rather than as human beings?

I don't see the dichotomy there. Homosexuals are human beings.

You are passing a judgement (and wanting the government to endorse such a judgement) based on what a person does outside of its effects on the community (which is relatively small), rather than on the fact that the person is a human being who is entitled to be free to make choices that have no direct impact on other human beings.

I don't really care what they do as long as it involves consenting adults. I might not like it, but I'm not going to stop them. I keep repeating myself on this point but I suppose I have to say it again. I just don't want official approval of gay marriages because I don't believe that they're equivalent or equal to straight marriages.

Also, as you have expressed, you are coming from a Judeo-Christian perspective, claiming it is our Western heritage. Well, historically, that's a little blinkered. Our 'Western heritage' comes via Greece, and one of the cornerstones of our civilisation is the writings of Plato... who 'wrote' Phaedrus, in which is (paraphrases, cos I couldn't be bothered looking it up) "The love between a man and his boy is greater and deeper than the love between a man and a woman". Thus.. it can be suggested that the cornerstone of western civilisation not only condones homosexuality, but actually fully endorses it as a preference! Plato is not alone in this thinking!

Some of the earliest Christian churches were also in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that they weren't promoting pedophilia or homosexuality. There were good things and bad things from ancient Greek philosophers.

Also on a vaguely similar line, what about those of a different religion? Will you automatically require them to have to submit to Judeo-Christian teaching and tradition as well? If my religion permits something, and your's doesn't - why should yours take precedence (in the eyes of the law)?

I'm not going to force anyone to follow my religion. I don't agree with forced conversions or a religion-based state. I think homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are just different things altogether, so that's why they should be treated differently. Others on this board see them as being just the same, and that's why you feel that I'm not being fair.

FTR from when I did the google - "define: bigot". Doesn't mention a thing about hate, nor violence, nor anger.

Yet when most people use that word, it has those types of connotations. If I'm a bigot by strict definition, then I'm ok with that. It still won't mean that I hate people or want to do them harm though.

Lastly - debating against Pedersen.... ooohhhhh.... courageous! :p (he's good at picking holes in arguments!) Oh, he's good at sarcasm too.

It's good when I get someone who's more difficult to debate with because it helps me for the next time I debate with someone else or the same person.

Btw - (ok, so the above wasn't lastly... even though I could have cut and pasted, or inserted this above it... instead of typing this sentence...) the original Miss California thread was about the decision of various people based on whether they should have condemned her based on the answer to a question, and whether the question should even have been asked. So, it wasn't as much about the actual answer, but more about the legitimacy of a question to the event itself. Glad this long (now over 300 posts on the subject) have since come out... (ooh! coming out... a pun!)

LOL

They probably shouldn't have asked her that question or any other specific political question. It's a beauty contest, not a campaign for political office.

Pedersen

06-28-2009, 03:10 AM

Lastly - debating against Pedersen.... ooohhhhh.... courageous! :p (he's good at picking holes in arguments!) Oh, he's good at sarcasm too.

Heh. I'm not sure if this is good that I have that reputation or not. I've tried to tone down my sarcasm lately, since I have gone overboard with it at times.

I suppose it's good that I can pick apart many arguments, though.

I think you will find if you delve into the issue of Biblical slavery that there were many prohibitions about doing excessive harm to slaves.

Your original point was that Jesus was advocating something immoral. I don't agree with this. Traditional Christianity sees Jesus as having lived a life free of sin and that's what I believe too.

Now, I'm not going to quote the Bible at you, not for this. Please, seriously consider what you have just agreed to by stating just these two things. Here's a few of the implications:

Jesus is okay with slavery as ordered in the OT.
The buying and selling of people is an acceptable thing to do, according to Jesus.
The separation of families who happened to be slaves is also acceptable (okay, I haven't brought this in before, so Bible verse time in a moment).
It is okay to take someone away from a family member (fathers can be sold, and their sons kept, for instance), and sell that person to someone else, purely for the profit of the slave owner.
Beating of a slave is acceptable, as long as you do not do excessive harm. Going by Exodus 21:20, the only edict regarding excessive harm is that the slave must be able to get up after a day or two. If you know other citations to show further restriction on the level of harm, please do tell.

Are those really the sorts of things you want to say that Jesus was okay with? Is that seriously the image of Christ that you want people to have? To back up my statement about splitting apart families:

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Are you seriously telling me these are not immoral acts, because Jesus didn't condemn them in the NT?

The verse you quoted here is one of them. You have to look at these things in the context of the time they were written.

Interesting. We have to adjust how we interpret what the Bible said based on the time in which it was written, unless we are speaking about homosexual marriage, in which case the Bible is absolute.

That's a pretty convenient line you've got going there.

I may be hypocritical in some respects but I haven't seen anyone point anything out really yet that would demonstrate that.

In which case, I have to wonder whose been typing up your replies to my posts, because it hasn't been you. I've pointed out, so far, numerous contradictions in what you've said. To date, your best reply has amounted to "la-la-la! I can't hear you, and you're still wrong!"

I usually avoid those threads not because I don't think I can argue in them, but because they go nowhere. If you don't understand it, it's hard to explain it.

Actually, I do understand logic quite well. I'm a computer programmer by trade, training, and passion. Logic matters a great deal to me. Logic has shown me that any monotheistic religion with an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creator god can not allow for the possibility of free will. Go, check out that thread, I've proven it. Disprove it for me.

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 03:56 AM

Are those really the sorts of things you want to say that Jesus was okay with? Is that seriously the image of Christ that you want people to have? To back up my statement about splitting apart families:

I am aware of the Scriptures you posted but I don't have a problem with them. Hebrew slavery was not what you think it is, and many of these verses only make sense within that framework. I don't completely understand it all myself, but I have heard others explain it better than I could. No matter what I say, you're not going to accept this, and I don't know everything there is to know about it myself, so it would be difficult for me to explain it all to you.

Are you seriously telling me these are not immoral acts, because Jesus didn't condemn them in the NT?

We don't know everything that Jesus said, as you already discussed with me.

Interesting. We have to adjust how we interpret what the Bible said based on the time in which it was written, unless we are speaking about homosexual marriage, in which case the Bible is absolute.

That's a pretty convenient line you've got going there.

We don't have Hebrew slavery in this day and age but we do have homosexuality. That's the difference.

In which case, I have to wonder whose been typing up your replies to my posts, because it hasn't been you. I've pointed out, so far, numerous contradictions in what you've said. To date, your best reply has amounted to "la-la-la! I can't hear you, and you're still wrong!"

Answering questions is what this thread is all about. What do you think I missed? I'll try to revisit it.

Actually, I do understand logic quite well. I'm a computer programmer by trade, training, and passion. Logic matters a great deal to me. Logic has shown me that any monotheistic religion with an omnipotent, omniscient, all-creator god can not allow for the possibility of free will. Go, check out that thread, I've proven it. Disprove it for me

I used to get into threads about that topic but I don't do it anymore because people take something that seems so simple to me "God does not dictate what you choose" and try to complicate it so much that it doesn't make sense anymore. Therefore I'll just let you think what you want to on that. I've never had any luck explaining the topic so I'm probably not the best one to disprove your "proof".

Nyoibo

06-28-2009, 05:06 AM

I really don't have a problem with anything in the Bible.

Then you really should re-read and re-evaluate some things, because there's a whole heap of nasty stuff in there that is illegal today yet advocated in the bible.

Pedersen

06-28-2009, 05:09 AM

I am aware of the Scriptures you posted but I don't have a problem with them. Hebrew slavery was not what you think it is, and many of these verses only make sense within that framework. I don't completely understand it all myself, but I have heard others explain it better than I could. No matter what I say, you're not going to accept this, and I don't know everything there is to know about it myself, so it would be difficult for me to explain it all to you.

In which case, don't explain it to me. I'll accept a simple link that explains to me what being a slave to a Hebrew really meant. I would recommend having that source tell the limits of the abuse that a good Jew would be allowed to inflict. In addition, it should discuss why Hebrew slavery was a moral thing, instead of what an atrocity, like many in the Western world consider it to be.

We don't know everything that Jesus said, as you already discussed with me.

Ah, but you're perfectly capable of inferring what he said when it matches what you want to believe. Here, allow me to quote you:

I've answered the question twice. Jesus doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, but Paul does. Jesus does, however, reinforce man/woman marriage.

Jesus believed in the Jewish Bible, which specifically forbids homosexuality. He said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul goes into more details about some of these different aspects later.

Turning it around, I think you'd have a real stretch trying to say that Jesus was pro-gay though.

So, when you hope that Jesus would have said what you want him to have said, then he probably said it.

However, when he is documented to have said something contrary to what you want him to have said, then we have to adjust for the times, plus not everything he said is written down.

Again, I say that this is a very convenient line for you. You basically get to tell everybody what Jesus said and believed on the grounds that you know what he said and believed better than everybody else. This even includes the people who did what they could for documenting his life.

They didn't write down "Gay is bad, and Jesus said so!" ? Oh well, they probably just left it out. Bob's copy of Word crashed that day, and he forgot to retype that segment up. They did write down about Jesus condoning slavery? This time, Zach's copy of Word crashed, and he didn't have any backup copies, so that time when Jesus opened up the can of whoopass on the slave trader just got left out of the final save.

This is extremely convenient for you. Unfortunately, for those of us who are aiming for a little bit of consistency, it tends to be a bit of a thorn, since the answer from you becomes "Jesus felt the way I would have wanted him to feel. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."

We don't have Hebrew slavery in this day and age but we do have homosexuality. That's the difference.

Interesting. I wonder, do we have anything in common from the time of Jesus, where Jesus specifically told us what to do, and we are ignoring it? Think... think... think...

Ah, yes, we do! Children disrespecting their parents, cursing them out, etc. Now, let's ask the Bible how Jesus feels about this, shall we?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Ouch. Looks like the child who fails to properly honor his father and mother is to be put to death according to Jesus. He is, after all, upset about failure to follow the law in that passage.

Now, I don't hear of a whole lot of people following that particular law. Kids still do it, though. Seems that, again, we are finding ourselves dealing with changing standards of behavior. Again, ignoring the documented words and instructions of Jesus himself. Oh, and just for good measure, again, Jesus condoning immoral behavior. Wait, condoning? That's a poor word choice here. He's not just condoning it, he's demanding it.

Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that the timeless, ineffable word of God must be evaluated in the context of the time in which man wrote down these words. Which leads us back on the merry go round of showing you the pick-n-mix you engage in every day. Me saying "Look, here's a direct contradiction!", and you saying "Nope, no contradiction. la-la-la" etc. Still, I'll try.

Answering questions is what this thread is all about. What do you think I missed? I'll try to revisit it.

I see you missed the note from Slytovhand: I'm very sarcastic. That entire line was meant to point out to you that I have shown numerous contradictions to you, and your answers have been stubbornly refusing to acknowledge them. For example, you defend the biblical buying and selling of people by stating that Hebrew slavery was different from what we call slavery, and therefore that's why it's okay with Jesus. All the while, you ignore that buying and selling people is, prima facie, an immoral act, and therefore should never have been condoned by Jesus, ever, under any circumstances. I fully expect your reply to this to amount to "You just don't understand".

Well, I'm here, I'm reading. I'm backing up my assertions. You are just telling me I don't understand. Show me why I'm wrong. Explain it to me. And if you can't, get someone else to do so. Because I'll tell you, right now, Jesus is sounding a lot less morally upright than he should have been.

I used to get into threads about that topic but I don't do it anymore because people take something that seems so simple to me "God does not dictate what you choose" and try to complicate it so much that it doesn't make sense anymore. Therefore I'll just let you think what you want to on that. I've never had any luck explaining the topic so I'm probably not the best one to disprove your "proof".

And by putting the word proof in quotes, you neatly show your contempt for something you have not even read. You also attempt to discredit it using the same notation. If you want to debate it, I've got the thread. I've given the link. Do so. Don't choose the cowardly option of trying to discredit something without any backing. At least pretend to have something other than "because I said so".

Rapscallion

06-28-2009, 11:54 AM

It is worse than being heterosexual. Why can't it just be said that it's a controversial topic and leave it at that? Saying it's no better or worse than being heterosexual is automatically giving it a nod of approval.

Try the word 'acceptance' instead of 'approval'.

I've sat back and I've watched with interest for the last two or three days. Ruby, I said I admired you for two things, one of them being that you weren't a pick'n'mix believer. It turns out that I can only now admire you for creating atheists.

It seems more and more to me that buttsex squicks you out and you're holding onto the biblical verses that support your views.

This leads me onto an internal debate that I'm going to vocalise in another thread.

Rapscallion

Slytovhand

06-28-2009, 03:13 PM

Oww... I warned you about Ped..:p

Ok, back to me (it's always about me, I hope you know! :D)

I don't see the dichotomy there. Homosexuals are human beings

The issue I'm suggesting is you're basing 'marriage' on what the people involved in the marriage do, not on the fact that they are just 2 human beings. In other words, on 'doingness' not 'beingness'.

I just don't want official approval of gay marriages because I don't believe that they're equivalent or equal to straight marriages. But that's only because you're choosing to make what they do more important than who they are. You see, the rest of the laws aren't based on such discriminations which don't actually have a negative impact on society - that's called 'discrimination', and people can get sued for it. Thus, the ultimate question is: if a black person goes into a shop and is refused service because they are black, they sue. If a muslim walks into a shop and gets refused service, they can sue. etc. If a black couple are refused marriage because they are black, they can sue. If a muslim couple are refused to marry for being muslim, then they can sue. So, what's the relevant significant difference here? Ok - it's not 'a man' and 'a woman' to 'each other'...it's still denying their basic right to marry a person of their choosing who is of legal age and consenting.. and that is a form of legal discrimination.

Some of the earliest Christian churches were also in Greece, and I'm pretty sure that they weren't promoting pedophilia or homosexuality. There were good things and bad things from ancient Greek philosophers.

Ah, well, you see - I'm not referencing back to any Christian churches. I'm disputing your influence of Judeo-Christian laws and traditions on current 'western' civilisation. We owe far to the Greeks and Romans than we do to the Jews and Christians... our form of government, our laws, legislature, judiciary, court system, philosophy, finances and banking, 'rights', obligations and responsibilities, etc. Judaism has had bugger all to do with our society now (other than a bit of a guilt trip from the last hundred years or so), and Christianity's influence has mainly been about killing people or converting them.. and being the cause of a stack of wars (and shaming and guilting people... and looking down on them). Our philosophy is Greek, our science is Greek, democracy is Greek. Our roads, our sewerage, our senate is Roman. Our language is a combination of Greek and Latin... extremely little is Hebrew (and Christianity doesn't even have it's own language!). Science?? Let's not even go there! (well, ok, let's... Christianity held the sciences back for almost 1000 years...because - perhaps not quite coincidentally - no-one was allowed to question Christian doctrine - on penalty of death or imprisonment).

Bibles... I have it on good authority that the KJB version was the one which introduced 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' crap... where all others have the translation as 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live amongst you'... bit of a difference!

I'm not going to force anyone to follow my religion.

But you are wanting the law to adhere to your religion's tenets! Your religion (apparently... I'll let Ped and the others argue that line) says that homosexuality is bad, and you want the law to say that legal marriages shouldn't be allowed.. and it's only on that basis. So, yes, you are forcing people to 'follow' your religion... certainly to get dragged along behind it. After all, in Wicca, they have handfastings between same sex couples, I don't see anywhere forcing people to make that into law.

Yet when most people use that word, it has those types of connotations.

Actually, no they don't. Anger, maybe. But in reality, bigots are labelled as such because of their attitudes as expressed verbally. A line here, a thought pattern there. A word of advice to someone which is clearly based on... well, nothing except ignorance. Bigots don't get violent.. unless they've got a violent personality. Totally stupid and ridiculous claims that have absolutely no bearing on reality (I had it recently by a couple of friends of mine in regards to going to China... ah, no, they aren't particularly backwards... take a look at where most of the stuff you own is made... you really think they're lacking technologically???)

They probably shouldn't have asked her that question or any other specific political question. It's a beauty contest, not a campaign for political office.

Absolutely right there with you on that one!!!

(and, damn, don't ya just hate it when you get a thought, and you forget it cos other stuff gets in the way??? grrr)

ETA: Ok, sorry if this has been covered in the previous 10 pages (this is the fastest growing thread I've seen... rivalled only by Ruby's other thread.. wow!!)

Anyway, I've seen written a couple of times: "Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage."

So, let's look at that...

Google - define: marriage (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+marriage&meta=&aq=f&oq=)

Nowhere on that page does it say anything about the gender of the people involved! Ergo, the definition of 'marriage' that you are using, Ruby, is not the standard definition, and is in fact a specific one that you are arguing against. This topic has also been brought up elsewhere, when looking back through history (which, I note has not yet been adequately addressed by yourself...).

So, if you wish to say - "Gay marriage would not be a Christian marriage" - ok, fine, you've got grounds for that - particularly if that religious breed happens to be Catholic. If you want to link to what definition you're referring to, that everyone can accept, and is therefore 'valid' in a broader context than your own milieu, please... we would need that!

BUT... you can't just adopt a particular word, use it your own way, and then expect everyone else to follow suit.

Also, if the government chooses to adopt same-sex marriages, yes that IS a marriage! Totally, absolutely and completely regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not. The world (or at least, the US) doesn't revolve around yours (or any other individual or groups) definitions. It's supposed to be about what is for the benefit of all human beings (granted, we know this isn't actually the way things go, but that's a different thread... ones I believe that have already been covered).

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 05:31 PM

Then you really should re-read and re-evaluate some things, because there's a whole heap of nasty stuff in there that is illegal today yet advocated in the bible.

So you want me to reject parts of the Bible because you find them offensive?

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 05:32 PM

Try the word 'acceptance' instead of 'approval'.

I can see the distinction you're trying to make, but to me acceptance would by default be a form of approval.

I've sat back and I've watched with interest for the last two or three days. Ruby, I said I admired you for two things, one of them being that you weren't a pick'n'mix believer. It turns out that I can only now admire you for creating atheists.

It seems more and more to me that buttsex squicks you out and you're holding onto the biblical verses that support your views.

Are there Bible verses that oppose my views?

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 05:39 PM

If others get to enjoy what I do, then no one should?

By acknowledging gay marriage the government would be taking the side of the gay activists against the conservatives. I suppose one could argue that by not acknowleging it, it's taking the side of the conservatives against the gay activists. That's why I'm saying if it comes down to it, then I'd rather see neither be recognized than to have gay marriages recognized.

Flyndaran

06-28-2009, 05:44 PM

I really don't get you Ruby. It seems as if this is the ony form of hate you have. I always thought bigots never hated only one group. Is this true, or do you dislike some other group of people?

Nyoibo

06-28-2009, 06:19 PM

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays. :p

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 06:30 PM

In which case, don't explain it to me. I'll accept a simple link that explains to me what being a slave to a Hebrew really meant. I would recommend having that source tell the limits of the abuse that a good Jew would be allowed to inflict. In addition, it should discuss why Hebrew slavery was a moral thing, instead of what an atrocity, like many in the Western world consider it to be.

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Ah, but you're perfectly capable of inferring what he said when it matches what you want to believe. Here, allow me to quote you:

So, when you hope that Jesus would have said what you want him to have said, then he probably said it.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

However, when he is documented to have said something contrary to what you want him to have said, then we have to adjust for the times, plus not everything he said is written down.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Again, I say that this is a very convenient line for you. You basically get to tell everybody what Jesus said and believed on the grounds that you know what he said and believed better than everybody else. This even includes the people who did what they could for documenting his life.

They didn't write down "Gay is bad, and Jesus said so!" ? Oh well, they probably just left it out. Bob's copy of Word crashed that day, and he forgot to retype that segment up. They did write down about Jesus condoning slavery? This time, Zach's copy of Word crashed, and he didn't have any backup copies, so that time when Jesus opened up the can of whoopass on the slave trader just got left out of the final save.

This is extremely convenient for you. Unfortunately, for those of us who are aiming for a little bit of consistency, it tends to be a bit of a thorn, since the answer from you becomes "Jesus felt the way I would have wanted him to feel. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Interesting. I wonder, do we have anything in common from the time of Jesus, where Jesus specifically told us what to do, and we are ignoring it? Think... think... think...

Ah, yes, we do! Children disrespecting their parents, cursing them out, etc. Now, let's ask the Bible how Jesus feels about this, shall we?

Ouch. Looks like the child who fails to properly honor his father and mother is to be put to death according to Jesus. He is, after all, upset about failure to follow the law in that passage.
Now, I don't hear of a whole lot of people following that particular law. Kids still do it, though. Seems that, again, we are finding ourselves dealing with changing standards of behavior. Again, ignoring the documented words and instructions of Jesus himself. Oh, and just
for good measure, again, Jesus condoning immoral behavior. Wait, condoning? That's a poor word choice here. He's not just condoning it, he's demanding it.

Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that the timeless, ineffable word of God must be evaluated in the context of the time in which man wrote down these words. Which leads us back on the merry go round of showing you the pick-n-mix you engage in every day. Me saying "Look, here's a direct contradiction!", and you saying "Nope, no contradiction. la-la-
la" etc. Still, I'll try.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

I see you missed the note from Slytovhand: I'm very sarcastic. That entire line was meant to point out to you that I have shown numerous contradictions to you, and your answers have been stubbornly refusing to acknowledge them. For example, you defend the biblical buying and selling of people by stating that Hebrew slavery was different from what we call slavery, and therefore that's why it's okay with Jesus. All the while, you ignore that buying and selling people is, prima facie, an immoral act, and therefore should never have been condoned by Jesus, ever, under any circumstances. I fully expect your reply to this to amount to "You just don't understand". Well, I'm here, I'm reading. I'm backing up my assertions. You are just telling me I don't understand. Show me why I'm wrong. Explain it to me. And if you can't, get someone else to do so. Because I'll tell you, right now, Jesus is sounding a lot less morally upright than he should have been.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

And by putting the word proof in quotes, you neatly show your contempt for something you have not even read. You also attempt to discredit it using the same notation. If you want to debate it, I've got the thread. I've given the link. Do so. Don't choose the cowardly option of trying to discredit something without any backing. At least pretend to have something other than "because I said so".

Basically I feel that just because God knows what you will choose, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice to make. There are certain debates I try to stay out of, that's one of them. Another is abortion. I try not to debate that anymore because arguments get way too heated and they go nowhere. Sorry if I seemed contemptuous.

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 07:36 PM

Oww... I warned you about Ped..:p
Ok, back to me (it's always about me, I hope you know! :D)

The issue I'm suggesting is you're basing 'marriage' on what the people involved in the marriage do, not on the fact that they are just 2 human beings. In other words, on 'doingness' not 'beingness'.

It's important who those human beings are. Unless they have a birth defect which gives them an intersex condition, humans are male or female. They're not just generic human beings.

But that's only because you're choosing to make what they do more important than who they are.

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are.

You see, the rest of the laws aren't based on such discriminations which don't actually have a negative impact on society - that's called 'discrimination', and people can get sued for it. Thus, the ultimate question is: if a black person goes into a shop and is refused service because they are black, they sue. If a muslim walks into a shop and gets refused service, they can sue. etc. If a black couple are refused marriage because they are black, they can sue. If a muslim couple are refused to marry for being muslim, then they can sue. So, what's the relevant significant difference here? Ok - it's not 'a man' and 'a woman' to 'each other'...it's still denying their basic right to marry a person of their choosing who is of legal age and consenting.. and that is a form of legal discrimination.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Ah, well, you see - I'm not referencing back to any Christian churches. I'm disputing your influence of Judeo-Christian laws and traditions on current 'western' civilisation. We owe far to the Greeks and Romans than we do to the Jews and Christians... our form of government, our laws, legislature, judiciary, court system, philosophy, finances and banking, 'rights', obligations and responsibilities, etc. Judaism has had bugger all to do with our society now (other than a bit of a guilt trip from the last hundred years or so), and Christianity's influence has mainly been about killing people or converting them.. and being the cause of a stack of wars (and shaming and guilting people... and looking down on them). Our philosophy is Greek, our science is Greek, democracy is Greek. Our roads, our sewerage, our senate is Roman. Our language is a combination of Greek and Latin... extremely little is Hebrew (and Christianity doesn't even have it's own language!). Science?? Let's not even go there! (well, ok, let's... Christianity held the sciences back for almost 1000 years...because - perhaps not quite coincidentally - no-one was allowed to question Christian doctrine - on penalty of death or imprisonment).

Bibles... I have it on good authority that the KJB version was the one which introduced 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' crap... where all others have the translation as 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live amongst you'... bit of a difference!

There were a lot of evil things done by medeival Christians which I can not and will not justify. It's my belief that people who murdered others for not following the same religion went to hell.

There were a lot of good things that came from Greek culture but there were some bad things too. Yes those ancient cultures had an influence on ours, but I don't think that erases the fact that Christianity has also been a prominent influence.

But you are wanting the law to adhere to your religion's tenets! Your religion (apparently... I'll let Ped and the others argue that line) says that homosexuality is bad, and you want the law to say that legal marriages shouldn't be allowed.. and it's only on that basis. So, yes, you are forcing people to 'follow' your religion... certainly to get dragged along behind it. After all, in Wicca, they have handfastings between same sex couples, I don't see anywhere forcing people to make that into law.

I think of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage as being completely different things, that is, not equivalent, not equal, not the same thing at all. Most people on this board just see two adults who want to get married in both situations and can't figure out why I'm so "bigoted". Like I stated in the last thread, to me it's like someone saying they want to marry any number of ridiculous things or people that would be inappropriate.

Actually, no they don't. Anger, maybe. But in reality, bigots are labelled as such because of their attitudes as expressed verbally. A line here, a thought pattern there. A word of advice to someone which is clearly based on... well, nothing except ignorance. Bigots don't get violent.. unless they've got a violent personality. Totally stupid and ridiculous claims that have absolutely no bearing on reality (I had it recently by a couple of friends of mine in regards to going to China... ah, no, they aren't particularly backwards... take a look at where most of the stuff you own is made... you really think they're lacking technologically???)

China isn't lacking in technology but it is lacking in regulation, so I would be careful about some things there too if you go there.

Absolutely right there with you on that one!!!

(and, damn, don't ya just hate it when you get a thought, and you forget it cos other stuff gets in the way??? grrr)

ETA: Ok, sorry if this has been covered in the previous 10 pages (this is the fastest growing thread I've seen... rivalled only by Ruby's other thread.. wow!!)

It was surprising to me too.

Anyway, I've seen written a couple of times: "Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage."

So, let's look at that...

Google - define: marriage (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+marriage&meta=&aq=f&oq=)

Nowhere on that page does it say anything about the gender of the people involved! Ergo, the definition of 'marriage' that you are using, Ruby, is not the standard definition, and is in fact a specific one that you are arguing against. This topic has also been brought up elsewhere, when looking back through history (which, I note has not yet been adequately addressed by yourself...).

So, if you wish to say - "Gay marriage would not be a Christian marriage" - ok, fine, you've got grounds for that - particularly if that religious breed happens to be Catholic. If you want to link to what definition you're referring to, that everyone can accept, and is therefore 'valid' in a broader context than your own milieu, please... we would need that!

BUT... you can't just adopt a particular word, use it your own way, and then expect everyone else to follow suit.

I'm not a Catholic, I'm non-denominational. In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Also, if the government chooses to adopt same-sex marriages, yes that IS a marriage! Totally, absolutely and completely regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not. The world (or at least, the US) doesn't revolve around yours (or any other individual or groups) definitions. It's supposed to be about what is for the benefit of all human beings (granted, we know this isn't actually the way things go, but that's a different thread... ones I believe that have already been covered).

You can call it that if you want to. I still won't consider it to be a marriage.

Rubystars

06-28-2009, 07:45 PM

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays. :p

I like the pretty trees though :D

Flyndaran

06-28-2009, 07:47 PM

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are..

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

Slytovhand

06-28-2009, 08:28 PM

In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world. I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family :D). Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

<snip>a basic right (emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

<snip>not equivalent, not equal,

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.

Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

Rapscallion

06-28-2009, 10:35 PM

Are there Bible verses that oppose my views?

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 02:00 AM

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

Try making this case to the transsexuals who are agonized over being born the "wrong" gender.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 02:01 AM

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

I already answered this question earlier in this thread. I already explained the New Testament teaching that those laws about pork, etc. do not apply to Gentile Christians.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 02:18 AM

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world.

Almost nobody in America or Europe before the last several decades would have thought of two men if you brought up the topic of marriage. The image that would have come to mind would have been a man and a woman.

I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family :D).

Good for him :D

Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

So you acknowledge that marriage has been basically between men and women for at least hundreds of years in Western culture, but you think conservatives are the ones trying to change the definition.

(emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

I think that everyone has certain rights by virtue of simply being human, regardless of what the greater society around them believes. Babies for example have the right not to be abused even if society believes in that. Of course, without society's consensus, those rights won't mean anything in practical terms.

I don't believe that the right to marry someone of the same sex is something that someone has as their natural rights, and I don't believe society should give that right either.

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.

You could train an ape to make a mark on a paper. Would that be a valid marriage? Not trying to dehumanize gays, just saying that there are those other than human that could potentially sign a document. A robot could also potentially leave a signature. Would either of those marriages be valid in your opinion?

Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I already said all I really want to say about it. That's a debate that goes nowhere.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than expecting a Christian to reject the writings of Paul. Paul's writings have been canonized, and they are part of the Christian Bible. I'm a Christian and therefore I believe what Paul wrote about homosexuality. The whole attempt to divide Paul and Jesus seems silly to me because obviously Christians believe Paul was inspired.

AdminAssistant

06-29-2009, 02:23 AM

Pedersen

06-29-2009, 02:56 AM

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era. So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 02:56 AM

Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. I haven't read or studied enough of Paul to make a solid decision, but I take much of what's in the Bible with many grains of salt.

There are a lot of people who feel the same way these days. It's not something that makes me happy, but it is your choice to believe how you're going to believe. I am a lot more conservative, obviously.

Ironically enough, I don't really fit in too well with other conservative Christians, because they often consider me to be a liberal. People like yourself consider me to be a fundy.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 03:16 AM

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era.

That's what I was trying to tell you before. I'm glad you understand that now.

So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

I don't think I've ever seen anything more twisted than what you just tried to throw together. I don't even think I'm going to try to argue with you on that one because you're obviously deliberately misreading things in order to raise debate points with me. I believe at some point in this thread we were talking about gay marriage being legalized. Now you're getting into Biblical criticism. I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

Nowhere in the entire Bible is homosexuality condoned, but both the Old and New testaments condemn it. Regardless of what Jesus actually said, or didn't say, I think that in itself makes a pretty clear case for the Christian faith opposing homosexual behavior.

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If you want another debate you might have to wait a while. I'm trying to finish up with this one.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Paul's words are part of the NT, so they are also considered to be Christian Scripture. Therefore they are relevant to demonstrate that the Christian faith would oppose homosexual behavior.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Sarcasm again?

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

I think treatment of the person has more to do with morality or immorality than the social status of the person.

Pedersen

06-29-2009, 03:40 AM

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

define:rationalization (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Arationalization): the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

define:sophistry (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asophistry): sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 04:28 AM

...
I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

So marriage isn't a basic right? Fortunately, your kind is becoming a minority. I hope you don't become a bitter old woman crying about how the world has all gone to hell.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 04:43 AM

define:rationalization (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Arationalization): the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I don't think homosexuals are healthy and normal. The desires they have are contrary to normal desires and while I don't blame them for having them, I do think to acknowledge and accept that as normal would also be doing them a disservice.

There's a movement out there now called Mad Pride, based, interestingly enough, on the gay movement's inspiration. They're trying to say that their mental diseases are normal too.

define:sophistry (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Asophistry): sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it. How many times in this thread and the other one have I had to start a sentence with "I never said"? It's impossible to debate with people properly if they don't read my posts and keep inserting convenient things in that I never actually said. I believe that's called setting up a strawman.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I have many names for people such as yourself. I'm sure you can guess what they are.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

A lot of things that I would see as benign you might see as misogynistic.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 04:55 AM

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it.

Please tell me I've misread that, because it sounds like you're saying slavery, as long as you're really nice to your slaves, is perfectly fine.

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 05:07 AM

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are.

The hell it is, no one I have had as a friend has known what my sexuality is, or who I have sex with before they've become a very close friend, but they become my friend, not for who I might want to fuck, but because I'm a nice (well sometimes) person

Almost nobody in America or Europe before the last several decades would have thought of two men if you brought up the topic of marriage. The image that would have come to mind would have been a man and a woman.

Oh no, not a few decades in millenia of human civilisation. :eek:

I think that everyone has certain rights by virtue of simply being human

I don't believe that the right to marry someone of the same sex is something that someone has as their natural rights, and I don't believe society should give that right either.

Funny, I don't believe anyone has any rights just because they're human, I believe they have to earn those rights, but I don't expect everyone else to believe that, or expect the government to put that into law.

Would make for an interesting place to live though.

No, I don't. Quite frankly, I'd rather have an intellectual debate with a monkey at the local zoo. At least then my opponent will maintain intellectual consistency.

Bananas?

iradney

06-29-2009, 05:10 AM

I don't think homosexuals are healthy and normal. The desires they have are contrary to normal desires and while I don't blame them for having them, I do think to acknowledge and accept that as normal would also be doing them a disservice.

Explain, then, the high number of homosexual relationships seen in the animal kingdom? After all, since everything was created by God...

I also fail to see how being attracted to another person, and loving another person (regardless of gender) is contrary to normal desires?

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 05:14 AM

Please tell me I've misread that, because it sounds like you're saying slavery, as long as you're really nice to your slaves, is perfectly fine.

There are a lot of bonded conditions in existence today. Some of them are moral and some of them are immoral. One of the moral ones would be putting criminals into prisons, where they are basically wards of the state. They can't leave, they have to do work, and their food is rationed to them. I'm ok with that.

On earth things will always be unequal, there will always be people at different social levels, with different levels of ability, etc.

When it comes to being subject to God, all people are equal though.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 05:16 AM

Explain, then, the high number of homosexual relationships seen in the animal kingdom? After all, since everything was created by God...

I also fail to see how being attracted to another person, and loving another person (regardless of gender) is contrary to normal desires?

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 05:20 AM

The hell it is, no one I have had as a friend has known what my sexuality is, or who I have sex with before they've become a very close friend, but they become my friend, not for who I might want to fuck, but because I'm a nice (well sometimes) person

What does this have to do with someone's sex being an important part of who they are?

Oh no, not a few decades in millenia of human civilisation. :eek:

You're learning the sarcasm from Ped ;)

Funny, I don't believe anyone has any rights just because they're human, I believe they have to earn those rights, but I don't expect everyone else to believe that, or expect the government to put that into law.

Would make for an interesting place to live though.

I do consider human beings to be on a different spiritual level than other animals.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 05:21 AM

There are a lot of bonded conditions in existence today. Some of them are moral and some of them are immoral. One of the moral ones would be putting criminals into prisons, where they are basically wards of the state. They can't leave, they have to do work, and their food is rationed to them. I'm ok with that.

Remember all those conversations about "answering the question you want to, not the one that was put forward?" You did it again. The question was, rephrased to account for potiential "misunderstandings is; "It appears that your opinion is, as long as there isn't excessive cruelty, ownership of another human being is acceptable. Is this an accurate reading?"

Putting someone in to prison is not slavery. It is a temporary revocation of rights in punishment for a transgression against society's rules. Slavery is ostensibly permanent. A prisoner is not owned, they're still their own person. It is not analagous. Please answer with a clarification to the question at hand.

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 05:25 AM

On earth things will always be unequal, there will always be people at different social levels, with different levels of ability, etc.

Never thought I'd be one to invoke Godwins law but... Sieg Heil anyone?

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

And no one does that, I'm sure you have sex, basic animal instinct, procreation, hmm another basic animal instinct, having friends, guess what... also a basic animal instinct. Non-basic instincts like eating anything other than what you need to survive, guess what Gluttony a deadly sin. Wanting something you don't have, that's both basic animal instinct and Envy.

I could go on but I'm engaging in my favorite sin, Sloth. :p

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 05:43 AM

Remember all those conversations about "answering the question you want to, not the one that was put forward?" You did it again. The question was, rephrased to account for potiential "misunderstandings is; "It appears that your opinion is, as long as there isn't excessive cruelty, ownership of another human being is acceptable. Is this an accurate reading?"

Putting someone in to prison is not slavery. It is a temporary revocation of rights in punishment for a transgression against society's rules. Slavery is ostensibly permanent. A prisoner is not owned, they're still their own person. It is not analagous. Please answer with a clarification to the question at hand.

Slavery in the Bible was also often not permanent, though it sometimes was, depending on the circumstances. I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing. Even though slaves were, to a degree, treated as property, the masters did not have absolute control over them. For example, they were not allowed to kill them and they had to let them rest on Shabbat. If you want to know more, read the Wikipedia link I provided. I don't understand everything that's written in the Bible about it myself but I'm able to understand enough to know that it's not what comes to mind when we usually think of slavery.

In the ancient world slavery was a reality that wasn't going to disappear any time soon. Biblical regulations on it helped to keep it more humane than it would have been.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 05:45 AM

Never thought I'd be one to invoke Godwins law but... Sieg Heil anyone?

That really is being silly.

And no one does that, I'm sure you have sex, basic animal instinct, procreation, hmm another basic animal instinct, having friends, guess what... also a basic animal instinct. Non-basic instincts like eating anything other than what you need to survive, guess what Gluttony a deadly sin. Wanting something you don't have, that's both basic animal instinct and Envy.
I could go on but I'm engaging in my favorite sin, Sloth. :p

Again this seems to be that strawman problem I've been running into a lot. I didn't say that all instincts were bad. I said that a lot of avoiding sin involves supressing basic animal instincts. Not all animal instincts are bad though.

Wingates_Hellsing

06-29-2009, 05:49 AM

iradney

06-29-2009, 05:57 AM

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

Funnily enough, one of the "base animal instincts" is to either kill or runaway from something you don't know - sound familiar??

Again this seems to be that strawman problem I've been running into a lot. I didn't say that all instincts were bad. I said that a lot of avoiding sin involves supressing basic animal instincts. Not all animal instincts are bad though.

Elaborate then - which animal instincts are "good" or "bad"?

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 06:00 AM

I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing.

I'll take this as a "Yes, I would own another human if given the chance."

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 07:09 AM

That really is being silly.

That's what everyone thought in Germany once upon a time with a certain political partys agenda, they believed that not all poeple were equal due to religeous belief, sexual preference, mental of physical disability.

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 07:15 AM

Hmm, seems the board thought I'd already read a page when I hadn't, missed these.

What does this have to do with someone's sex being an important part of who they are?

I may have misunderstood, did you mean gender?

You're learning the sarcasm from Ped ;)

Nah, I've been doing this for years on my own.

I do consider human beings to be on a different spiritual level than other animals.

So do I, I consider them lower and less worthy than any other living thing on the planet.

Rapscallion

06-29-2009, 11:07 AM

I already answered this question earlier in this thread. I already explained the New Testament teaching that those laws about pork, etc. do not apply to Gentile Christians.

What I draw from this is that Jesus was the ultimate pick'n'mixer. See, he had a perfectly good set of religious biases presented to him on a plate, yet he became a charismatic leader of a splinter sect, along with the rules he found acceptable from judaism, added in some bits of his own devising, and people spent the next two thousand years arguing about it.

He was jewish, he didn't eat pork because of this, and if people want to follow his example then they shouldn't do they either. There was a quote some time back that he said he didn't come to break the law, but to fulfil it. Nothing in there about changing it.

I get Essenics phoning up at work from time to time - I work in wholefoods, and they want the exact grains Jesus would have eaten and so forth. I think it's a lunatic thing to do, but quite frankly I have to admire their commitment.

I think I'm falling into a trap here. As an atheist, I don't give any sort of credence to the views held in the bible on religious grounds. I fully accept that religious texts were written by humans and based on their personal prejudices.

Rapscallion

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:48 AM

At this point I think we need to nail down our definitions of 'normal'.

Ruby seems to think that normal means that which is most prevalent. So if something occurs 75% of the time that's normal and the rest of it is abnormal and bad because it's not the same as the normal stuff.

I myself as an evidence and therefore evolution kind of guy (because evolutions got craptonnes more proof than creation ever had) see that as a species we are wired to want those things that have made us successful. We eat at every opportunity, we screw at every opportunity, we want the things we don't have and want to keep the things we do have because these desires drive us to succeed.

In that line of thought I don't see it as anomalous at all that homosexuals want to have sex with people. If what they want just so happens to be someone who is the same gender as them, so what? Everyone likes different things so it's not surprising that this also applies to gender.

I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I agree that homosexuality is likely an inherited instinct from earlier ancestors that engaged in it. I still consider it to be disordered though in humans.

To me and many other people normal is any thing which occurs naturally. In the animal kingdom and throughout history we can see homosexual tendencies as naturally occurring, albeit in lesser quantities than heterosexual tendencies.

Furthermore Ruby, I haven't heard anything from you that doesn't fall in line with a person who is using the Bible in all of it's apparent 'glory' as backing to campaign against something you don't like. If the Bible's so great then thou shalt be stoning many a person to death each day for a great many things, if it's not, if it changes with the times than maybe it's time for you to accept that this is just the next out of date rule that needs to go.

Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality. I also think your premise that I should be stoning people to death every day to be consistent is absurd.

Funnily enough, one of the "base animal instincts" is to either kill or runaway from something you don't know - sound familiar??

Elaborate then - which animal instincts are "good" or "bad"?

If you get angry at someone because they have something you don't have that you want, then it's not a good idea to hurt them to get it and/or steal it. Instead you should work to earn that thing for yourself. An example of a good instinct would be the drive for a mother to care for her children.

I'll take this as a "Yes, I would own another human if given the chance."

I don't understand why you think that but you can think that if you want to.

That's what everyone thought in Germany once upon a time with a certain political partys agenda, they believed that not all poeple were equal due to religeous belief, sexual preference, mental of physical disability.

I don't agree with doing harm to anybody because of sexual preference or those other things. I think you're extremely out of line for trying to compare me to Nazi monsters when I haven't even said I want to ban homosexuality itself, and I've stated over and over again that I don't agree with hate crimes.

I may have misunderstood, did you mean gender?

When I was in left wing college classes, they told me sex is your physical sex and gender is your sexual self-identity. I always thought they had those terms backwards, but I've tried to stick to using them in that way.

So do I, I consider them lower and less worthy than any other living thing on the planet.

Typical left wing thought.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:59 AM

What I draw from this is that Jesus was the ultimate pick'n'mixer. See, he had a perfectly good set of religious biases presented to him on a plate, yet he became a charismatic leader of a splinter sect, along with the rules he found acceptable from judaism, added in some bits of his own devising, and people spent the next two thousand years arguing about it.

He was jewish, he didn't eat pork because of this, and if people want to follow his example then they shouldn't do they either. There was a quote some time back that he said he didn't come to break the law, but to fulfil it. Nothing in there about changing it.

I get Essenics phoning up at work from time to time - I work in wholefoods, and they want the exact grains Jesus would have eaten and so forth. I think it's a lunatic thing to do, but quite frankly I have to admire their commitment.

I think I'm falling into a trap here. As an atheist, I don't give any sort of credence to the views held in the bible on religious grounds. I fully accept that religious texts were written by humans and based on their personal prejudices.

Rapscallion

I've never heard of anyone needing to eat certain grains before. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I thought all plants were pretty much kosher anyway (except on Passover).

Rapscallion

06-29-2009, 12:47 PM

I've never heard of anyone needing to eat certain grains before. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I thought all plants were pretty much kosher anyway (except on Passover).

The Essenics I've spoken to want to eat the same grains that were around back then, and they want raw food (not heated over a certain temperature) so as not to kill the enzymes (they refer to a passage about living food). Usual stuff - trying to make science match with their holy text.

Very much a minority.

Rapscallion

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 01:17 PM

I don't understand why you think that but you can think that if you want to.

Because you absolutely refused to give a yes or a no, thus, with the things that you did say available, "I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing" and "I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it." If you "just don't seek to reinstate it," that reads like if it was around, you wouldn't mind. It's something you're leaving where it is, but if it was still wide-spread, you'd see it as something acceptable, and moral even.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 01:26 PM

Because you absolutely refused to give a yes or a no, thus, with the things that you did say available, "I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing" and "I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it." If you "just don't seek to reinstate it," that reads like if it was around, you wouldn't mind. It's something you're leaving where it is, but if it was still wide-spread, you'd see it as something acceptable, and moral even.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of someone owning someone else. A lot of this has to do with learning about slavery of the 19th century which truly was brutal, and to me the word slavery always conjurs up the excesses of that time.

I know I wouldn't want own anyone else. I have enough on my plate taking care of my own business.

I am trying to look at it from a historical perspective however. Through most of human history and even today this is a reality of the world. I think the person's quality of life is more important than their social status. Before God all people are equal, but I think we have to be honest here and say that there will always be social stratification as long as there are people on earth. With that in mind, it makes sense to focus more on how people in lower social strata are treated with dignity and with respect to their lives.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 01:32 PM

The Essenics I've spoken to want to eat the same grains that were around back then, and they want raw food (not heated over a certain temperature) so as not to kill the enzymes (they refer to a passage about living food). Usual stuff - trying to make science match with their holy text.

Very much a minority.

Rapscallion

That reminds me of the "raw vegans", who are overwhelmingly left wing (at least here in the United States). They don't want any of their food cooked and it all has to come from non-animal sources.

I think it's ok for adults to make dietary adjustments to suit their personal beliefs, even if it's unhealthy for them. However I do have a big problem with it when they try to drag children along with it to the point where it's harmful or deadly:

This topic always makes me think of poor Ice Swinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/24/ctv.swinton/

"Instead of breast milk or baby formula, Ice Swinton got herbal tea, flax seed oil, fruit juices and a homemade soy drink."

"Doctors diagnosed her with severe malnutrition and rickets, and the Queens district attorney said it was one of the worst cases of neglect he'd seen."

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 03:06 PM

I am trying to look at it from a historical perspective however. Through most of human history and even today this is a reality of the world. I think the person's quality of life is more important than their social status.

The problem I have is your argument seems to be thus, currently:

The Bible is not wrong, or changeable. What it says is what it says, and that's what you accept.

The Old Testament condemns homosexuality, and Jesus never spoke against it specifically, so that rule is still in effect. "Gay = wrong."

Slavery is specifically acceptable in the Old Testament, and Jesus specifically was seen to have no problem with it. "Slavery = okay."

But we have to look at slavery from a historical perspective. So it was okay then, but not as okay now, because things have changed. That's saying the Bible's morality has changed! Furthermore, you are admittedly uncomfortable with a practice condoned in the Bible, because it goes against something in more recent history. If one aspect has changed, why not the others? If you're uncomfortable with one practice the Bible condoned, and you're already admitted to picking and choosing practices as they appeal to you (most of Leviticus, after all, you've said Jesus supported anything he didn't condemn, you can't just weasel out of it by saying "that's for the OTHER group of people reading the Old Testament"), why are you so comfortable with something else that's never specifically addressed by Jesus?

So why not look at homosexuality from a historical perspective? It used to be that in order for a community to simply survive, every couple had to have as many children as possible, due to high infant mortality rates, short life expectancies, and the other realities of the day. None of those apply any more, so from a historical perspective, homosexuality had a reason to be condemned, but not any longer.

Continuing along that path, if quality of life is more important than social status, you're holding your social status to be more important than a gay person's quality of life. They believe they're being materially harmed by not being allowed to be married and have a firm, lasting ability to commit to each other in a publicly recognized fashion, and they're right. They don't have the same rights as a married couple (medical proxy, inheritance, and other things which you need to be married in order for them to automatically transfer to the partner). You think your social status would be harmed, because it degrades your religion and marriage as a concept. But you just said social status is less important than quality of life. Your quality of life is in no way affected by the actions of a couple in a committed relationship.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 03:34 PM

The problem I have is your argument seems to be thus, currently:

The Bible is not wrong, or changeable. What it says is what it says, and that's what you accept.

The Old Testament condemns homosexuality, and Jesus never spoke against it specifically, so that rule is still in effect. "Gay = wrong."

Slavery is specifically acceptable in the Old Testament, and Jesus specifically was seen to have no problem with it. "Slavery = okay."

It's not just the OT, it's the NT too.

But we have to look at slavery from a historical perspective. So it was okay then, but not as okay now, because things have changed.

No, things haven't changed. There were social stratifications including slavery then and there is now. When I said historical perspective I meant you have to look at human history. There have always been and will always be people who are on lower levels of the social ladder or who are subject to other human beings to various degrees. I think we should focus on humanitarian aspects and not on trying to do away with social stratification.

Furthermore, you are admittedly uncomfortable with a practice condoned in the Bible, because it goes against something in more recent history. If one aspect has changed, why not the others?

If you're uncomfortable with one practice the Bible condoned, and you're already admitted to picking and choosing practices as they appeal to you (most of Leviticus, after all, you've said Jesus supported anything he didn't condemn, you can't just weasel out of it by saying "that's for the OTHER group of people reading the Old Testament"), why are you so comfortable with something else that's never specifically addressed by Jesus?

I haven't admitted to anything like that. How many times do I have to post the same thing over and over again? Go and read the answer I gave to Rapscallion about Gentile Christians not having the law that was meant for Jews apply to them.

So why not look at homosexuality from a historical perspective? It used to be that in order for a community to simply survive, every couple had to have as many children as possible, due to high infant mortality rates, short life expectancies, and the other realities of the day. None of those apply any more, so from a historical perspective, homosexuality had a reason to be condemned, but not any longer.

It has always been wrong and it will always be wrong.

Continuing along that path, if quality of life is more important than social status, you're holding your social status to be more important than a gay person's quality of life. They believe they're being materially harmed by not being allowed to be married and have a firm, lasting ability to commit to each other in a publicly recognized fashion, and they're right. They don't have the same rights as a married couple (medical proxy, inheritance, and other things which you need to be married in order for them to automatically transfer to the partner). You think your social status would be harmed, because it degrades your religion and marriage as a concept. But you just said social status is less important than quality of life. Your quality of life is in no way affected by the actions of a couple in a committed relationship.

I don't want the government to condone something that's completely immoral. Homosexual couples aren't eligible for marriage anyway because they're not a man and a woman.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 03:55 PM

...
Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality....
....

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard of an atheist hombophobe.

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 04:06 PM

I don't agree with doing harm to anybody because of sexual preference or those other things. I think you're extremely out of line for trying to compare me to Nazi monsters when I haven't even said I want to ban homosexuality itself, and I've stated over and over again that I don't agree with hate crimes.

What I was trying to illustrate is that once you make one law that targets a specific group it becomes a slippery slope and becomes easier and easier to discriminate against others.

Typical left wing thought.

Typical right wing response.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 04:08 PM

...
Typical right wing response.

Come on, you're better than that. Don't sink to her level no matter how tempting it is.

AFPheonix

06-29-2009, 04:23 PM

I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I agree that homosexuality is likely an inherited instinct from earlier ancestors that engaged in it. I still consider it to be disordered though in humans.

So, wait. I don't really understand your reasoning here. You fully realize that there's an evolutionary reason for it being here, you've been shown the physiological reasons it manifests, I've even posted an article in the other thread that lists a lot of morphological differences that show up, and you still consider it to be disordered or abnormal? If it's been coming up for millions of years in a lot of different organisms without harming either the organism or the group it belongs to, how is it anymore of a abnormality than, say, people with blue eyes instead of brown?

Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality. I also think your premise that I should be stoning people to death every day to be consistent is absurd.
Yet you are using religious texts to justify your disapproval. If you want to follow that religion, that's fine. But realize that people will think that holding on to tenets from a book and not others is simply justifying your own bigotry. If you're going to keep one tenet, then it most certainly is not absurd for others to wonder why that particular tenet and not another that is just a chapters away.
If you think homosexuality is wrong DESPITE your religion, then you need to use non-religious arguments. I realize you have in previous posts and also have noticed you've abandoned them as they've been disproven.

When I was in left wing college classes, they told me sex is your physical sex and gender is your sexual self-identity. I always thought they had those terms backwards, but I've tried to stick to using them in that way.

Typical left wing thought.

What's with the "left-wing" hate? You of course realize Jesus was pretty socialist, and the first Acts church was a commune, yes? Typically "sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me" are not conservative ideals.
And no, that would be Naibo's thought, not a "typical left wing" thought.

AFPheonix

06-29-2009, 04:25 PM

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard of an atheist hombophobe.

I have, there were interviews with quite a few during the measure 8 aftermath. Bigotry doesn't necessarily need religious justification.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 04:26 PM

I have, there were interviews with quite a few during the measure 8 aftermath. Bigotry doesn't necessarily need religious justification.

Really. What was their supposed motivation for thier bigotry? I just can't imagine any reason other than god said it's icky.

Nyoibo

06-29-2009, 04:38 PM

Come on, you're better than that. Don't sink to her level no matter how tempting it is.

Well mine was meant to be sarcastic. :p

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 04:39 PM

Really. What was their supposed motivation for thier bigotry? I just can't imagine any reason other than god said it's icky.

They personally find it icky? Or how about they're afraid of being hit on, thus upsetting their self-image. After all, if a guy is hit on, why him? Is he giving off "gay" signals? Does he look feminine? etc etc. There's a number of justifications for homophobia.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 04:49 PM

...There's a number of justifications for homophobia.

None that make any bit of sense from a logical stand point.
Love is never wrong, and I think it sickly funny that it's the supposed followers of loving gods that hate love the most.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 04:57 PM

None that make any bit of sense from a logical stand point.

I knew as soon as I hit post I chose the wrong word. Not "justifications." "Rationalizations." There's a number of different rationalizations that people use on themselves, or that society uses to excuse the behaviour, or at least mitigate it, but really, you're right. Most of it is just people's own hang ups that they can't logically defend.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 04:59 PM

I knew as soon as I hit post I chose the wrong word. Not "justifications." "Rationalizations." There's a number of different rationalizations that people use on themselves, or that society uses to excuse the behaviour, or at least mitigate it, but really, you're right. Most of it is just people's own hang ups that they can't logically defend.

Then again I've read a study somewhere that showed self-delusions are necessary for mental health. Thinking yourself a little smarter, better looking, etc. than you really are is healthy.

But yeah, when it gets out to others is when that self defense mechanism needs to be clipped.

iradney

06-29-2009, 05:07 PM

You know what I find funny? Jesus said "love thy neighbour." He also said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." He accepted a prostitute into his followers - I'm pretty sure that says something.

I don't want the government to condone something that's completely immoral. Homosexual couples aren't eligible for marriage anyway because they're not a man and a woman.

I looked up the definition of marrige:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

It's not just about a man and a woman.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 05:19 PM

Then again I've read a study somewhere that showed self-delusions are necessary for mental health. Thinking yourself a little smarter, better looking, etc. than you really are is healthy.

I think there's a difference between not having a perfect view of your self vis-a-vis thinking you're smarter than you are, and wilful self-deception on a point of how the world works. Sort of like the difference between thinking you're a good basketball player because you can dunk the 9 foot net in your driveway, and thinking gravity doesn't apply to you and jumping off a roof because of it.

Slytovhand

06-29-2009, 05:20 PM

Firstly - yes, I'm pulling quotes from the other thread... I'm late!

I believe that sinful behavior brings judgment upon a society. No, I'm not expecting "fire and brimstone" to reign down, but I do think that society will suffer in the long run if we openly embrace things like homosexuality as being normal and acceptable. This view is based in my religious background.

Q: Do you believe that your God himself actually did the Sodom and Gomorrah thing? Or, (since you've indicated a belief in evolution, for one thing) that it was natural disasters that destroyed those cities...and had absolutely nothing to do with 'sin' or 'immorality'?

An individual gay couple or a few gay couples probably aren't going to impact society all that negatively. However, I'm concerned about what ramifactions redefining marriage and family will have for society in the future. I'm not sure what those would be, and I don't think evidence would be easy to come by to prove those outcomes because it hasn't happened yet. I wonder what kind of societies would result from family structures that aren't based on blood and man-woman marriage. I guess my main argument is this. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

Ah, well now, Rubes, you've got yourself into a bit of a bind there. You would like to say it will have a negative impact on society, but can't prove it. BUT...I can provide evidence that gay marriagedoesn't lead to a detrimental society. It's called 'Greece'. You may have heard of it. At the height of it's power, it was the controlling nation of most of the entire known world. As a specific example, Alexander the Great... pretty impressive history... ended up causing a bit of strife here and there... had a gay lover... So, no, gay marriages won't destroy society... we have the proof... what's your next argument?

You're still not answering the question. Again, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

This is not a difficult question. In a society where laws are created in order not to legislate morality, but prevent harm to the greatest number of people, why should your opinion be the one adopted in to law when it harms the rights of a group?

Please, let me rephrase the question...

"Should any personal opinion, shaped by any religious upbringing, be codified into law to restrict rights for any group of people?"

Now, taking this rephrasing into account, what is your opinion of Shari'a law? How do you feel about punishments such as stoning, canings, and the cutting off of hands that still continue in various Muslim countries? Obviously, the exact opinions and beliefs are different, but the principle is precisely the same. I presume, as you are still advocating that your beliefs dictate that a homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalised, that you in fact have absolutely no issues with any other country or government that bases it's laws on religion... at least, that would be logically consistent... (unless, all you are really advocating is that the whole planet should come under the rule of Christian laws... and all else should be thrown out... which would be the only other logical consistency).

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 05:22 PM

No one really knows how the world works. It's complexity is far beyond what any group let alone one person can comprehend.
But certain basics are definitely knowable.
People are flawed limited screw ups. Everyone is. There is no justice or kindness in this world that is not enforced by mankind.
We must all strive to increase the understanding and kindness in this world no matter how much individuals, and we each are part of that group at some time, try to screw things up.

Slytovhand

06-29-2009, 05:28 PM

WOOT!!! Hey everybody.. WE WON!! :d

Rubystars chose to post this: In a monogamous marriage, two people are married to each other and to no one else. back on p31 of the Miss Cali thread. See - it says "two people", not "a man and a woman".

:D

(yes, Ruby, I had to :D)

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 05:30 PM

We must all strive to increase the understanding and kindness in this world no matter how much individuals, and we each are part of that group at some time, try to screw things up.

Yep, and the fact that atheists and agnostics can be moral people means that kindness can exist outside of religious enforcement, and I trust someone a lot further when they choose to be good and kind for kindness's sake, rather either because they were told to do it, or because they fear retribution in the afterlife. (http://students.usm.maine.edu/bmcpha61/Kohlberg_stages_of_morality.htm)

Slytovhand

06-29-2009, 05:34 PM

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than expecting a Christian to reject the writings of Paul. Paul's writings have been canonized, and they are part of the Christian Bible. I'm a Christian and therefore I believe what Paul wrote about homosexuality. The whole attempt to divide Paul and Jesus seems silly to me because obviously Christians believe Paul was inspired.

Ah, well, now you see, I'm going to have to call you as others have done, on bypassing the actual question. The response you gave flagrantly disregards the actual question, which was: Why? And to provide Biblical citations. Your response was about Paul... my referencing to Paul (as anyone can clearly see) was to say that others on here will easily counter anything from Paul...

As you've asked elsewhere, I'm now pointing out where you haven't answered a question. (Remember, my question isn't about Paul...)

Greenday

06-29-2009, 05:37 PM

I'm still pretty sure my question of "Do you think it's ok to force your religion on other people?" was never answered either.

Flyndaran

06-29-2009, 05:39 PM

I'm still pretty sure my question of "Do you think it's ok to force your religion on other people?" was never answered either.

In a way, of course it is. That's what democracy is, forcing your beliefs no matter where they come from, onto other people.
That's why I prefer proper regulations on demcracy to prevent mob rules.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 05:44 PM

In a way, of course it is. That's what democracy is, forcing your beliefs no matter where they come from, onto other people.

Yeah. There's a fine line to walk between "Tyranny of the Majority" and "Tyranny of the Minority." That's why "blue laws" (morality-based legislation) so often turns out to be a bad idea. You're either forcing the minority's beliefs on the majority, or the majority's on the minority. It's usually best when laws are kept to ensuring those heavily disruptive to the lives of others or to the betterment of society are curtailed, and society as a group determines social mores which can be changed over time without an act of Parliament.

Slytovhand

06-29-2009, 05:52 PM

Biblical regulations on it helped to keep it more humane than it would have been.

Actually, Hammarabi did it first, so I don't think you can effectively go to the Bible for that one. Especially since, the Jews were very much an outcast group of the main Roman society for quite a while, and the Romans had slaves and slavery laws (such as not being too nasty to them...). You might make a case against the slave trade in Africa - such as Egypt - but that's not really going to have much intersection with the Hebraic laws...

Oh - and theological nitpick (but, it's actually relevant...), If Jesus was the Son of God (or possibly, an aspect of God himself anyway), then Jesus would be incapable of sin, or anything immoral by his very nature. Thus, if Jesus chose not to condemn slavery, and to condone it, then by his nature, slavery must perforce be moral... and trying to free slaves would, by counter, be immoral.

Similarly, if perchance Pedersen's extrapolations do indeed indicate that Jesus was homosexual, then it would, by definition, mean that homosexuality is indeed moral and right as well.

Now, Jesus hung out with society's outcasts, the lame, the sick, the undesirables, and He said to them "I love you, and I accept you. If you give me your love and your acceptance, you will gain entrance into Heaven and God's kingdom".... I don't immediately recall, other than a prayer, anywhere else where he said "Oh, also, you've got to change all these bits of your life as well to fit in". Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, acceptance and tolerance. That was Jesus' message... not intolerance, rejection and fear. Sorry, the case against homosexuality is thinning... (well, wasn't really there...)

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 07:48 PM

You know what I find funny? Jesus said "love thy neighbour." He also said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." He accepted a prostitute into his followers - I'm pretty sure that says something.

I looked up the definition of marrige:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

It's not just about a man and a woman.

First definition in your link:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

BroomJockey

06-29-2009, 07:55 PM

First definition in your link:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Psst. The words "not just" sorta make that the equivalent of my saying "Not all ice cream is vanilla." And then you reply "Ice cream comes in vanilla!"

Also, did you look at #10? Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

First word in that definition. Obsolete. As in "No longer used in such a fashion."

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:09 PM

So, wait. I don't really understand your reasoning here. You fully realize that there's an evolutionary reason for it being here, you've been shown the physiological reasons it manifests, I've even posted an article in the other thread that lists a lot of morphological differences that show up, and you still consider it to be disordered or abnormal? If it's been coming up for millions of years in a lot of different organisms without harming either the organism or the group it belongs to, how is it anymore of a abnormality than, say, people with blue eyes instead of brown?

Disorders also have a genetic basis most of the time and run in families.

Yet you are using religious texts to justify your disapproval. If you want to follow that religion, that's fine. But realize that people will think that holding on to tenets from a book and not others is simply justifying your own bigotry.

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.

If you're going to keep one tenet, then it most certainly is not absurd for others to wonder why that particular tenet and not another that is just a chapters away.

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.

If you think homosexuality is wrong DESPITE your religion, then you need to use non-religious arguments. I realize you have in previous posts and also have noticed you've abandoned them as they've been disproven.

Besides it being sinful I also believe it's a sickness. It fits all the criteria of a paraphilia, but it's not politically correct to think that way anymore.

What's with the "left-wing" hate? You of course realize Jesus was pretty socialist, and the first Acts church was a commune, yes? Typically "sell everything you own, give it to the poor and follow me" are not conservative ideals.
And no, that would be Naibo's thought, not a "typical left wing" thought.

Christians are supposed to take care of the poor people in their communities, but this is something they do as private citizens to help each other and the community around them.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:22 PM

Firstly - yes, I'm pulling quotes from the other thread... I'm late!

Q: Do you believe that your God himself actually did the Sodom and Gomorrah thing? Or, (since you've indicated a belief in evolution, for one thing) that it was natural disasters that destroyed those cities...and had absolutely nothing to do with 'sin' or 'immorality'?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. God's wrath could be poured out in the form of a natural disaster. I think most acts of God are done within the laws of nature.

Ah, well now, Rubes, you've got yourself into a bit of a bind there. You would like to say it will have a negative impact on society, but can't prove it. BUT...I can provide evidence that gay marriagedoesn't lead to a detrimental society. It's called 'Greece'. You may have heard of it. At the height of it's power, it was the controlling nation of most of the entire known world. As a specific example, Alexander the Great... pretty impressive history... ended up causing a bit of strife here and there... had a gay lover... So, no, gay marriages won't destroy society... we have the proof... what's your next argument?

I think gay marriage being accepted is detrimental in itself. There was one teacher who took her students on a field trip to her lesbian marriage. She tried to make the claim that this had educational merit. I say that's a bunch of bullcrap. Kids will be forced to accept the sickness of homosexuality as if it were normal in school. It'll be taught as some great triumph of the civil rights movement. All of these things are detrimental in their own right. Gays and lesbians take to the streets and do all kinds of shocking sex acts in the open during pride parades and the police do nothing about it. Parents can't even take their kids to Disney World without having to worry about the gay days that they aren't even warned about, when homosexual doms and submissives are walking around with leashes on.

Please, let me rephrase the question...

"Should any personal opinion, shaped by any religious upbringing, be codified into law to restrict rights for any group of people?"

If it's shaped by religious upbringing it's not exactly a personal opinion, especially when that religion is shared by a very large portion of society.

Now, taking this rephrasing into account, what is your opinion of Shari'a law? How do you feel about punishments such as stoning, canings, and the cutting off of hands that still continue in various Muslim countries?

I don't like it, but it's up to the people who live in those countries to overturn it, not us to approve or disapprove of it. I think the best we can hope for is to keep it from spreading outside where it already is.

Obviously, the exact opinions and beliefs are different, but the principle is precisely the same.

It's not the same at all. Sharia law is brutal and savage. I don't want to murder people for being raped, torture them with caning, or maim them by cutting off body parts. I just don't want gays to marry. Can't you at ALL see a difference there? Come on now you've got to see a difference there.

I presume, as you are still advocating that your beliefs dictate that a homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalised, that you in fact have absolutely no issues with any other country or government that bases it's laws on religion... at least, that would be logically consistent... (unless, all you are really advocating is that the whole planet should come under the rule of Christian laws... and all else should be thrown out... which would be the only other logical consistency).

It would be great if everybody in the world was Christian, but if Rapscallion is right and I'm making more atheists, then that probably won't happen any time soon anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian laws" though. I'm not interested in setting up a theocratic state, but I do want the government to reflect moral values of the people to an extent.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:26 PM

WOOT!!! Hey everybody.. WE WON!! :d

Rubystars chose to post this: back on p31 of the Miss Cali thread. See - it says "two people", not "a man and a woman".

:D

(yes, Ruby, I had to :D)

:D That was pretty funny.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:27 PM

Psst. The words "not just" sorta make that the equivalent of my saying "Not all ice cream is vanilla." And then you reply "Ice cream comes in vanilla!"

Also, did you look at #10? Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

First word in that definition. Obsolete. As in "No longer used in such a fashion."

Obviously I don't agree that it's obsolete, especially when most of the sources that list marriage as between a man and a woman being a valid deifnition don't mention its being obsolete.

Rubystars

06-29-2009, 11:29 PM

I think I'm caught up now. I've made a good effort to try to get to everyone's posts, but I seem to be repeating myself and repeating myself, so I think there's not a whole lot more I need to say. Just to make sure that I got to everyone though, I will take one more post from each person. If I've missed one, point out the post number and then ask your last question.

I've spent way too many hours on this thread already over the past week and I'm going back to work tomorrow, so that's why I'm trying to wrap things up.

Boozy

06-29-2009, 11:46 PM

Well, thank you for providing us with a very spirited debate this week! I hope you still have some time to post even after you return to work. :)

linguist

06-30-2009, 01:10 AM

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.
.

since you never answered me the first time i asked (back in the miss california thread), i'll ask again: what exactly are your clinical psychology credentials?

Rubystars

06-30-2009, 02:01 AM

Well, thank you for providing us with a very spirited debate this week! I hope you still have some time to post even after you return to work. :)

Thank you Boozy. I will probably get into some other threads when I have time to.

since you never answered me the first time i asked (back in the miss california thread), i'll ask again: what exactly are your clinical psychology credentials?

Sorry about that. I missed a lot of posts in that thread because I was one person replying to a lot of different people. That's why I started this thread though, so I could try to answer all the stuff I missed. I have zero psychology credentials, unless you count the psychology class I took earning my associate's degree, but that's not enough to be a mental health professional. All I can say is from a layman's point of view, homosexuality resembles paraphilias. In the past, it was considered to be one of them. Now, it's not, but I wonder if it was wise to take it off the list. I think the main reason it was taken off the list was that it involved consenting adults.

Rapscallion

06-30-2009, 07:24 AM

It's not the same at all. Sharia law is brutal and savage. I don't want to murder people for being raped, torture them with caning, or maim them by cutting off body parts. I just don't want gays to marry. Can't you at ALL see a difference there? Come on now you've got to see a difference there.

Only in extent. The basis of it is that it's allegedly the will of an infallible, omnipotent divine being who hasn't bothered to speak to anyone in millennia, let alone update it.

In fact, many of the punishments demanded in Sharia are very similar to the stuff in the christian bible.

Rapscallion

AFPheonix

06-30-2009, 07:49 AM

Disorders also have a genetic basis most of the time and run in families.

Why are you aligning homosexuality with disorders instead of harmless genetic variances like eye color and handedness?

I think it's really a sickness that anyone would want to marry someone of the same sex as themselves. I'm sorry they're messed up in the head like that but that doesn't give them the right to change the marriage laws to accommodate themselves and force themselves on innocent children by adopting them into that disordered way of life.
Prove that harm comes to children brought up by two members of the same sex. I want examples and studies to back it up.

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.
It's mentioned once in the NT, and that passage is often misinterpreted.
Further, it is written by a former pharisee who, as you view the progression of his contribution to the start of Christianity becomes more and more legalistic again as his sight faltered and other reformed Jews from pharasitic traditions came to assist.
Further, many churches ignore many of the direct commands set down in the New Testament by not breaking bread every week, allowing women to be in positions of instruction, allowing them to talk in church and have their heads be uncovered. Why are you more up in arms about one small aside than in these far more aggregious things?

Besides it being sinful I also believe it's a sickness. It fits all the criteria of a paraphilia, but it's not politically correct to think that way anymore.

We've already gone over the causes, it is not a mental illness. It is not a physical disease state. In order for it to be a paraphilia, it needs to be pathological. Because it is not the result of a physical or mental disorder, it does not fit the criteria and was correctly taken out of the books as such.

Christians are supposed to take care of the poor people in their communities, but this is something they do as private citizens to help each other and the community around them.
Also render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Jesus was no Libertarian.
The early church was very much a commune, in that everyone's possessions and wealth was pooled. Each was given to according to need. That's pretty liberal if you ask me. Actually more liberal that I am.

Nyoibo

06-30-2009, 08:11 AM

I've already demonstrated that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the New Testament.

And were I to try I'm sure that I could demonstrate that your life, or even just your behaviour in this thread is sinful according to the New Testament.

From the NT

"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

Rubystars

06-30-2009, 08:32 AM

Only in extent. The basis of it is that it's allegedly the will of an infallible, omnipotent divine being who hasn't bothered to speak to anyone in millennia, let alone update it.

In fact, many of the punishments demanded in Sharia are very similar to the stuff in the christian bible.

Rapscallion

It's my opinion that Islam took a lot of things from Judaism and Christianity and made them more extreme. The early Muslims lifted a lot of things from the Bible and then claimed the Bible was corrupt and that they had the true last testament.

In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

Rubystars

06-30-2009, 08:51 AM

Why are you aligning homosexuality with disorders instead of harmless genetic variances like eye color and handedness?

Eye color and handedness usually doesn't cause any kind of major social impact.

Prove that harm comes to children brought up by two members of the same sex. I want examples and studies to back it up.

What you would consider harm, I probably don't have anything that would satisfy you. I would consider putting a child into a situation like that would be harmful in itself.

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful, but other people wouldn't.

It's mentioned once in the NT, and that passage is often misinterpreted.
Further, it is written by a former pharisee who, as you view the progression of his contribution to the start of Christianity becomes more and more legalistic again as his sight faltered and other reformed Jews from pharasitic traditions came to assist.
Further, many churches ignore many of the direct commands set down in the New Testament by not breaking bread every week, allowing women to be in positions of instruction, allowing them to talk in church and have their heads be uncovered. Why are you more up in arms about one small aside than in these far more aggregious things?

If you really think that a lack of a head covering is equivalent to homosexual behavior then I really don't think I can explain it to you. The level of severity is completely different. Also some of those things might be different in a modern church. For one thing families sit together in a modern church, whereas in the earliest churches, men and women would have sat in separate sections and calling across the aisle to ask questions would have been disruptive.

We've already gone over the causes, it is not a mental illness. It is not a physical disease state. In order for it to be a paraphilia, it needs to be pathological. Because it is not the result of a physical or mental disorder, it does not fit the criteria and was correctly taken out of the books as such.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.

Also render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. Jesus was no Libertarian.
The early church was very much a commune, in that everyone's possessions and wealth was pooled. Each was given to according to need. That's pretty liberal if you ask me. Actually more liberal that I am.

It was very important that Christians helped each other out because they weren't going to be liked by anyone outside their community.

Rubystars

06-30-2009, 08:54 AM

And were I to try I'm sure that I could demonstrate that your life, or even just your behaviour in this thread is sinful according to the New Testament.

From the NT

"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

Nyoibo

06-30-2009, 09:47 AM

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

I invite you to read that article yourself as it seems you haven't.

Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

Nope, nothing about making them butch, but it does seem to make them want something more than being a homemaker.

In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

Nothing there about boys becoming pansies either, seems more that they're taught to respect and consider others more.

Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

This I did have to laugh at, in my experiance it's the total opposite.

And just because you were using this as an example that it harms children.
The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.

"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment"

And before you say it, the part at the bottom that actually mentions masculinisation and femininisation is from a member of NARTH, not the authors of the study.

and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves.

This one surprised me, every person who I've met who has explored homosexual activity has been from heterosexual family that has a mother and father.

Nyoibo

06-30-2009, 09:50 AM

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

That says nothing about loving thy neighbour, it says Love does no harm to its neighbor.

Amethyst Hunter

06-30-2009, 10:33 AM

I've been reading this thread out of morbid curiosity, so now I'm throwing in my copper coinage for the hell of it (no pun intended)...

(Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from Rubystars)

Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful.

How so? Prove it - with a NON-religious/Biblical-based answer. For my purposes I'm tossing out the religious stuff (mostly), because 1) I'm agnostic (which BTW is NOT the same thing as atheism), and 2) I've seen way too much abuse of *all* religions to take any of it seriously so religion in general frankly means squat to me.

I do believe that it is harmful that homosexuality is accepted as normal. To conservatives, that is the harm, along with this idea being taught to children. These things are considered harmful by conservatives regardless of whatever other harm could potentially happen.

How is it harmful? Are you afraid that by learning that gay people and gay feelings exist in this world, that children will suddenly decide they want to be gay? I seriously doubt this will happen. You are either attracted to one sex or the other (or even no sex at all!), and all the supposed "indoctrination" in the world isn't going to change the way you feel about sex with one person or another.

I was raised in a conservative environment and within the past decade I have learned to reject it, at least the kind that seems to be prevalent anymore. These words are but one of the many reasons I decided that modern conservatism is little more than ignorant, arrogant bullshit.

The fun part? I consider myself neither wholly liberal nor conservative. I do lean liberal more often than not because I decided the majority of liberal beliefs made much more sense; however, there are a few areas where I break rank with liberals (the main one being on the death penalty, which I support). Likewise, with conservatism, I have no problem with a strong military (so long as it is used *sensibly*, which it arguably has NOT been in the past decade).

I just don't want official recognition of them. I don't see how that's forcing anyone to follow my moral codes. It's just saying that I don't want my government to reflect the moral codes of the homosexual lobby.

You are aware that the so-called "homosexual agenda" does not exist, yes? This is but one of many myth-lies conservatives nowadays like to spread - they're playing on that fear factor.

The government is not going to suddenly decide that all heterosexual marriages are invalid by legalizing homosexual unions. Nor is it going to mandate that all heteros must "turn" gay. If it ever did decide to do such (which it wouldn't, for reasons I'll shortly explain), I would be fighting just as hard to keep your heterosexual marriage valid as I do in supporting my friends' gay friends' desire to set up shop with the person they love. I believe that love is love and it doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, and I believe that love is the only absolute mandate for any marriage (as long as the participants are of legal age and full informed consent, so don't try to pull the "but if we let gays marry then people will want to marry their dogs/pedophiles will want to marry kids" card)

If only they would keep it in the bedroom!

I don't know where you live that you'd be seeing a lot of gay people knocking boots in public, but where I come from, seeing heterosexual nooky out and about is a lot more common (and I ain't talking about the general kissy-kissing that couples normally do, I mean surgical explorations of the throat cavity that are better left to a dental office). About the only places I can think of where you'd see gay behavior out the ass (pun intended this time) are as thus:

1) TV. Easily remedied - turn it off! Or subscribe to one of those all-Xtian channels that plays nothing but bland inoffensiveness. (Bonus: it's a great sleep aid for insomnia) There are a gazillion and one different channels out there nowadays catering to just about every viewership imaginable; there has to be a couple of 'em that would be more suited to your palate.

2) Gay pride parades. Also easy - don't go to one (Which admittedly could still be difficult if you live in a city where the parade route runs right through downtown and clogs the traffic, but still, mostly avoidable if you know which streets to take). And as bizarre as this may sound to you, not every single gay person in the world feels the need or even the desire to attend every gay pride parade that's going on, much less perform any outrageous antics. (Just ask Smileyeagle, who is gay)

If by deciding morality for the country you mean basing law on Judeo-Christian moral values, then yes I think that's how it should be.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Judeo-Christian systems do NOT have the monopoly on morality, goodness and values. The system can work when it is applied in a benevolent manner, but too often it isn't, which is why we don't allow any one religion to take precedence in our government - the founders of America knew this only too well, and history has borne out that any time any one religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, or anything else is allowed to dictate government and law (aka theocracy), VERY BAD THINGS happen.

Case in point: We currently have over in Africa a very horrid situation wherein *children* are being tortured, exiled and murdered in horrific ways because they are "suspected" of practicing "witchcraft." Thanks in no small part to malignant "Christian" sects going over there to "preach the word," combine that with tribal views and traditions and it's a recipe for disaster. As a result, this abuse is on the rise, and they're not just limiting it to children, they're going after ANYbody, adult or child, male or female, anyone they think is a witch or even people they just don't like for whatever reason. And these accused are suffering in indescribably hellish ways for this ignorance and malignant manipulation of religion.

Of course gay marriage leads to more widespread gay adoption, and the teaching of homosexuality as normal in public schools. These are things that many conservatives find to be unacceptable. They don't want their children exposed to that stuff in school or to worry if they have a child up for adoption that it might go to a homosexual couple.

And how are these bad things? How will they hurt children?

The funny thing about isolating and insulating kids against the world: sooner or later reality is going to come crashing down on your head. And those kids that are "protected" from the "evils" of the world are going to be in for one hell of a rude awakening and will be at a serious disadvantage when that reality does come barging in. That's what I see in the conservative mindset that "kids must not be told anything about homosexuality other than that it's OMG BAD 'cuz we/this book/etc. said so".

No, I am not advocating that kindergartners be taught how to use a condom. I DO advocate for age-appropriate education, i.e., a kindergartner doesn't really need to know much beyond "Steve likes Roy, the same way Mommy likes Daddy." If the kid asks why, then you can play the "because" card. As they get older, you help them fill in the gaps. And because heterosexuality is currently the dominant genetic marker (and is probably always going to be so), odds are that Junior is still going to be straight when he matures - he'll just be informed and aware, and probably more likely to make sensible choices where sex is concerned.

And straight parents aren't exactly the most perfect on the planet, in case it escaped your notice. How many kids are tortured, neglected, beaten, starved, abused, raped and murdered by their OWN PARENTS EVERY YEAR? Fact: the MAJORITY of pedophiles are *straight males*.

It is the gay movement which seeks to enforce its own morals on the rest of society by forcing us to acknowledge them as legitimate rather than abnormal.

Nope, sorry, that fails. Gay people are not demanding that all straight marriages be invalidated. Nor are gay people demanding that all heterosexuals must partake of homosexual sex from now on. What gay people ARE demanding is the right to enjoy the legal benefits that heteros get to have. They ARE demanding that people treat them as decent human beings who just want to love and live like the rest of us do.

And this to me is one of the two real roots behind the anti-gay marriage crowd: they don't want to share their toys. See, the government is not going to "promote" gay marriage or discriminate against heterosexuals because technically, your average gay couple doesn't produce more good little taxpayers (barring in-vitro or surrogacy or something like that), wherein hetero marriage usually does. It's a vicious cycle. Married people get more benefits than do single people (who get screwed over in any system because of the cultural bullshit that singles are somehow inferior lonely losers), and if you're gay? Unless you live in a state where your union is legally recognized, you're outta luck. So if your loved one is dying in a hospital, guess what, you can't go pay your last respects because you're gay, since only spouses and immediate family members are allowed in ICUs. But straight married couples get to do that, just because they're straight.

If anything, I would think that the government would benefit from allowing gay marriages, because hey, gay people have to pay taxes too, and let's never forget that Uncle Sam's true love is m-o-n-e-y. And as much as people love to bitch about the government and spending, there ARE times when they DO get it right, and a lot of that money can go towards important services: social safety nets, infrastructure (like roads), public transport, public safety (police, fire, etc.) and so on.

The other is that pesky religion card: marriage must OMG produce children. Says who? (Religion doesn't count) Lots of straight couples out there who've chosen not to have any kids because they don't want to. Are their marriages any less valid because they decided not to reproduce? I don't think so. If you're married, you're married, and I am going to treat you as such regardless if you have kids or don't, are gay or straight. Because ultimately, I believe that getting married is about wanting to spend your life with the person you love, and I believe that how we treat others is what matters most to God (if there is one, which I can neither prove nor disprove, but I'm comfortable with that ambiguity/mystery).

I believe that homosexuality causes general moral decay, simply by the fact that it's something immoral that's openly flaunted now instead of being discreet like it was in the past. Now parents have to try to explain to their children why that man is giggling and swinging a purse around

The real threat as I see it is how society will change as homosexuality becomes more acceptable. When it moves from the fringes into the mainstream, then society itself will be less moral.

Would it be any less immoral to you if it was kept "discreet"? Somehow I don't think so. And keep in mind that being forced to keep it on the down-low, so to speak, is precisely the reason many gay people suffered/suffer stress - it's basically saying "You're not good enough to be with regular people, take your cooties away from us." There is also the threat of violence.

Parents have to explain to kids why some man is carrying a purse? For all you know he could just be holding it for his female partner who is in the restroom or something. (Excepting instances where it may be blatantly obvious that someone is gay, of course, and even then you might not know it unless you went up to the person and asked them flat-out - appearances CAN be deceiving at times) I feel sorry for the kids who will get told in response to that question some variant of "because he's an icky pervert", because those kids will grow up raised on a diet of ignorance and bigotry - and they are that much more likely to continue that ugliness. Did you know that kids who are gay are *relentlessly* bullied in school? Did you know that bullying does a LOT of damage to a person? (And I would know, having been bullied while growing up) I'm talking to the point of suicide here.

When I was growing up I knew a gay couple who were active on the local library board. I didn't know them well, but nobody I knew who knew them had anything bad to say about them. I remember my mom telling me when we were going to meet them for the first time (I think my mom was looking for a book or something) that they were "brothers." And I believed her. Of course, looking back now I know why that didn't quite jell with me, but at the time I thought nothing of it because as a kid my biggest concern was which Saturday morning cartoon to watch first; it was probably her way of sidestepping any potential discussions. Even so, I wish she had just leveled with me in the first place, it might have headed off some of my own ignorance on the matter (Yes, I used to believe that gay people were freaks of nature; told you that's one of the reasons I rejected conservatism - once you get to know somebody it's hard to view them as freaks, much less treat them as such even if they are in the minority "Abnormal" doesn't necessarily always mean "bad", it just means something different that's outside the norm).

Men and women complement one another but homosexual relations are like trying to put two like poles of magnets together. It just doesn't work the same way.

If by this you mean procreation, there's no rule that says every marriage *must* produce children. (And frankly, I wouldn't want to be a part of any institution that mandates forced birth, especially since I'm childfree) Besides, what about those straight couples who for whatever reason *can't* have kids? Oops, guess they must be sinning, ah well, they say all the cool people are going to hell anyway so they'll be in good company.

Men and women can complement one another, but with the straight marriage divorce rate at about 50% these days, straights obviously aren't doing a very good job at maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage. And it has nothing to do with gay people, but everything to do with lack of respect, shared ideals and trust.

(cont.)

Amethyst Hunter

06-30-2009, 10:37 AM

Case in point: Couple years ago my own parents came *thisclose* to splitting after 30-some years. I shit you not, if someone had so much as dared to insinuate to me that my parents were divorcing because of gay people wanting to get married, I would have punched that person out cold on the spot. It was lack of trust and respect that led to my parents' near-divorce (they since reconciled, but it's not been smooth going - long story), and nothing else even remotely related to immorality or homosexuality. (And I swear to whatever gods do exist that if someone DARES try to insinuate that outside forces are somehow responsible for influencing my parents' problems, I will reach through this computer screen and strangle the shit out of that person.)

Honestly, I get why some people are squicked out by homosexuality (especially of the male variety), I really do. I write slashfic for fun, after all :D but I have no problem with the fact that not everybody likes to read slashfic; I go where I know it will be appreciated. The human body is a pretty gross factory when you think about it and I'd rather not dwell on particular aspects any more than I have to. But why should I discriminate against somebody because of which type of hole they like to play around with? As long as you're not having sex with non-consenting adults, children, animals or dead bodies, I don't care what you do with your sex life because it's not harming me. (And trust me, the slippery slope argument that if we allow homosexuality then we'll move on to those things holds no water - gay groups have in fact come out (no pun, blah blah) against idiots like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, fyi for those not in the know) and anybody, gay or straight, with half a brain recognizes that doing any of the abovementioned categories is Just Plain Wrong, religion or no religion.) Whatever is a sin, God if there is one will deal with it in his own way; that's why the verse "pluck out the plank in your own eye before pointing to your neighbor's" exists.

Or do you not trust and believe that God is man enough (so to speak) to handle his own problems? If you believe that God is all-powerful, then God doesn't need humans to run the universe for him.

Gay marriage is immoral in my belief because that's what my faith teaches me.

Which is pretty much the equivalent of a parent telling a child "Because I said so" without further elaboration. (and it's kind of a childish response in itself!) Which is why non-religious and even some religious people discount it completely. We are adults, we demand adult reasoning and explanations. Fearmongering and myths might have had some impact when we were children, but that doesn't cut it anymore.

Someone elsewhere - and I wish I could remember who said it and where I found it - basically put it as thus: "You have the right to an opinion; you do NOT have the right to have that opinion taken seriously." Which is why I call bullshit on the conservatives screaming that they're the ones being "persecuted" every time their desire to discriminate via legislation gets shot down in flames. For one thing, you CANNOT be "persecuted" or discriminated against when YOU are the dominant mass, which, let's face it, America is still very much conservative (we did, after all, hail from a bunch of Puritans originally) in spite of liberal progression. Individually, yes, you can be discriminated against. But not the group as a whole, which gay people are because they're still the minority and probably always will be.

From Wingates_Hellsing: It's also important to remember that even conventional marriages are often unstable especially when not based on mutual respect, attraction and interest. A successful marriage has everything to do with the attitude, temperament, and lifestyle of the people involved. I don't see any logical reason why two people of the same gender who are compatible from that standpoint would have any harder a time getting along than a similar coupling of opposite genders.

I support this statement completely. See above for my mention of my parents' own marriage.

I don't think loving people includes being gay.

Why not? Who are you to say that love can be limited? (Again, don't try to pull the "pedos" card or the "beastiality" card - that doesn't wash.) If you love someone, it should be because you respect that person and have a lot in common with them, particularly important points that can be dealbreakers for people (like religion, interests, etc.), and you want to share your life with them. If homosexuality really is a sin - which I doubt it is - it's *God's* problem, not yours. Let God deal with it. Nobody has ever given me a good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed that isn't based on religion or fear of the unknown, so I see no reason not to prevent legal recognition of and conferrence of benefits to gay unions.

I asked my brother recently why he felt gay marriage was harmful to *him* (my exact words, too). He replied with "because it's demoralizing and confuses children." Nope, sorry, fail. I may not be gay, but I don't feel demoralized because Jenny and Susie are shacking up. And unless you failed basic biology in school, there's no confusion about where babies come from, and kids are not going to suddenly decide "ooh I wanna be gay when I grow up!" just because they see gay couples doing what any other hetero couple does in society.

It will be taught as an achievement of the ongoing "civil rights movement", and stories with homosexual characters will be read to children as if they were normal characters.

Because God forbid that we actually treat homosexuals like decent human beings instead of acting like they're somehow worth less than heterosexual members of society, which is pretty much the message we're sending by denying them access to what everyone else has.

Gay characters in stories read to kids isn't 'normal'? So gay people don't eat breakfast? They don't put their pants on one leg at a time like straight people? Gay people don't work, don't like to read books or play card games? Gay people don't use public transport or drive their own vehicles? Gay people don't worry about how they're going to pay for college or help out a struggling family member? Gay people don't suffer from domestic violence?

A story's a story; kids are not going to care about a character's sexuality unless it's specifically made the focus of a story, and even then, depending on the story and the kid's age, they'll probably gloss over it. Again, it's all about age-appropriate education.

I just get annoyed by the fact that kids these days can't be innocent about that stuff and have to learn it earlier than they used to.

There's no need to go into explicit detail when explaining any part of sex to young children. Just give them the basics on an age-appropriate basis and they'll be fine. If you make a huge stink out of it they're going to pick up the message that something's wrong, and if they should be gay, that's going to make them feel like shit, which in turn leads to coping mechanisms like drugs and such, because they'll believe they can't trust you not to treat them like crap if they tell you they're gay. (Many a teenager has been booted out of the house and cut off from all contact by parents angry that their son or daughter is gay; this is why homeless shelters for gay teens exist) If you keep calm and explain things in a non-biased way, inasmuch as their age can handle, they'll be okay and will likely grow up with a sane view of sexuality and behave in a responsible way in regards to sex (i.e., not getting into it prematurely and risking disease or unwanted pregnancy in an effort to "prove" their hetero standing).

And hey, even though I don't have kids, I get where parents are coming from on the sexualization of children, gay or straight. I firmly believe that kids should be allowed their innocence - kids should not be wearing thongs or makeup at age seven, they should be out picking dandelions and figuring out the best way to blow up watermelons to make the biggest mess possible. But I do think that kids need to be taught that stuff exists, that Shit Happens, and explaining how to make sensible choices regarding either of these things is a necessary part of being a parent, or else the world's going to kick them in the teeth right when they least expect it.

Both people should want to get married because they want to have a life-long bond with the other person.

And that, aside from legal age of consent, should be the only basic requirement for ANY marriage - gay or straight. Gay people don't love any less or any differently (excepting the physical part) than straight people do.

I think it's harmful for things like homosexuality to be accepted as normal even if it doesn't cause other problems.

Why? How does it harm you *personally*? Are there bands of gay people roaming your streets looking to shotgun-wed any straight person they can get their mitts on?

It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc.

Keep in mind that some of these prince-and-princess stories can be quite harmful given the cultural obsession with them. Take the whole Cinderella/Snow White/Sleeping Beauty deal, for instance. Girls are already manipulated into following the "life script" that society thinks is acceptable for females; if they're taught to believe that being "beautiful" is the only thing in life that matters and that a man will "rescue" them and take care of every problem they have, it's a recipe for bad self-esteem and inability to cope with life. (We won't even get into the whole virgin/whore dichotomy - that's another messed-up can 'o worms)

No, I don't think that these fairytales should be banned or anything like that. But I do believe that parents need to emphasize reality, and teach their kids that this is JUST that, a fairytale, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Kids will already have a good dose of hetero-based coupleship from what they see in the world and the media they're exposed to, so it's unlikely that they'll grow up lacking for hetero examples.

You can't legislate morality, but you can hold back from openly condoning immorality.

The government is not and should not be in the business of deciding what is and isn't immoral. The government's job is to ensure a fully functioning civilized society. All letting gay people marry means is that there's some more paperwork to process.

Church marriage and court marriage are two different things, actually. The former is more of a personal thing in regards to religion, which as you know varies wildly among people; court marriage is the one that counts as far as legal status goes, and this is what gay people want. True, some gay people are religious and would like to conduct a religious-based ceremony in the church of their choice, so as far as church marriage goes, I see this as a self-correcting problem. Those churches that will do gay marriages will do them, and those churches that won't should be allowed to reject requests for marriage ceremonies involving homosexual couples. I don't see where gay people are demanding that non-gay churches do this, from what I'm seeing they either opt to go to another church that is gay-friendly, or they go the court route and ignore the religious stuff altogether. In time, the churches that refuse to change will probably die out as more people go to the churches that are inclusive.

(cont. in final post)

Amethyst Hunter

06-30-2009, 10:47 AM

Gay people aren't lobbying to change the definition of marriage to mean "homos only," they want it to be *inclusive* of all consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. I fail to see why this is immoral or a threat to myself, much less society at large. To date, no gay person has ever come up to me and threatened to attack me if I didn't have sex with another woman, or marry a woman on the spot. No gay person has ever suggested or espouse that I should lose or be denied particular rights for not being gay.

I HAVE, however, been given the stinkeye treatment by so-called Xtians because I don't share their misinformed and prejudiced views, or support regulations that would unduly infringe upon the lives of people they don't like/disagree with. You can guess which side I'm more likely to take seriously.

From Flyndaran: You do want to hurt them by denying them rights that we enjoy. Bigotry isn't always direct violence. It is also about refusals to accept others as deserving to be different.

From the_std: Your religion has no place in the law. Period. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or did not say. If your religion is your motivation for your feelings against gays, it has no place in the law whatsoever.

Both of these statements I agree with.

It's my opinion that Islam took a lot of things from Judaism and Christianity and made them more extreme. The early Muslims lifted a lot of things from the Bible and then claimed the Bible was corrupt and that they had the true last testament.

In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things

O RLY? Where have you been for the past 8 years? We might not have had a bunch of suicide bombers running around, but we sure did come dangerously close to having our democratic republic shift into the early stages of a Biblical-cult-based theocracy, thanks to all the fundy crap that bunch was trying to implement. Look up dominionism or reconstructionist Christianity, it's pretty enlightening (and terrifying).

And Christianity stole plenty from all the pagan religions it trampled over in its bloody (literally) rise to power. Easter? Comes from Oestre (sp?), a pagan celebration of spring. Christmas comes from the Yule, another pagan holiday. So none of the Big Three religions are entirely pure, given that religion changes as the years pass. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all related, you might call them cousins of a sort since they all have common denominators (even the Bible bears this out since it mentions just how the split between Christianity and Islam got started, and the Koran mentions Jesus in a favorable light even though it doesn't name him as the son of God). The *warped interpretations* of Islam (indeed, of any religion) are responsible for the damage done; it's unfair to put all the blame on Islam in general especially when the *majority* of Muslims are peaceful - there's probably something like 1 billion Muslims in the world, and if they really all did hate America, don't you think we'd be seeing a helluva lot more terrorism than we are?

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls...I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful

Define what you think masculinity and femininity should be. You think men who cry are sissies? You think women who climb trees are tomboys? Sexist crap like that is a big reason why both genders have major issues. Frankly, I am going to like what I like and do what I want, and I don't give a flying F whether or not it's considered "masculine" or "feminine", because those rigid constructs are just another way to keep people down in their "place."

And finally: I post not because I'm going to change anybody's mind - I know I won't, just as they won't change mine - I post because I'm sick and tired of seeing people excuse ignorance and bigotry as "protecting" someone from something (i.e., the BS "it's for the chilllllldren!") while ignoring the real abuse going on, and I don't want to be counted among those who claim to speak for me in the name of so-called "values". I post to help those who have little to no voice be heard. I post because I have known or seen far too many people who do have personal experience with something like this, and the emotional ramifications have nothing to do with "sickness" or "disorder"; these are REAL people and they ARE getting hurt by groups that would rather pretend they're invisible and didn't exist.

And if there's one thing on this earth that spikes my blood pressure through the roof into insta-kill mode, it's BULLYING. Which is really what the heart of the anti-gay stance is, even if no actual violence is taking place. You don't always need weapons to damage or destroy someone's life.

Nyoibo

06-30-2009, 10:52 AM

One last thing I've been meaning to say for a while which I heard someone say a few days ago, unless they were trying to be true to themselves why would someone choose to be gay, with all the persecution, hatred and violence directed to them, why would anyone choose that willingly?

Flyndaran

06-30-2009, 12:50 PM

...
In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part, at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

It has nothing to do with the religion. It has to do with the facts that islam is the youngest of of the three. Judaism and christianity were just as grotesquely violent when they were this young.
It also has to do with the fact that most of the muslims that we hear about are the extremists and poverty stricken. Poverty leads to religious extremism.
There are many gentile muslims. We just don't hear about them, because americans don't give a crap about anyone that isn't trying to attack us.

Eye color and handedness usually doesn't cause any kind of major social impact.
....

You do realize that throughout history left handed people were persecuted? Up until the 70s in the U.S., children were beaten to force them to use their right hands?
Even today in many cultures using the left hand to eat or greet others is considered a horrible insult?
I didn't choose to be left-handed and live in a world built for the righties.
I didn't choose to be hetero. I was born this way, and find offense in anyone saying I had a choice.

...
We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.
....

Wow. So not only is being gay wrong and diseased, but dancing and articles of clothing are too?
Crap on a cracker, you live in a very religiously strict world.

I dressed up as a woman for my 6th grade halloween day. I even used my friend's makeup, because my mom's didn't match my skin tone. Nope, still like the ladies. Clothing does not have a sex. I find the idea silly.

In my opinion loving your neighbor doesn't mean engaging in homosexual acts with them. It also doesn't mean you have to approve of sinful things they engage in.

Loving your neighbor means finding those two neighbors loving eachother sinful? That's some really weird and jarring ideas.

linguist

06-30-2009, 01:27 PM

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality? nope, no bias there.:rolleyes:

care to try again? maybe with an actual unbiased source?

I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful, but other people wouldn't.

you seem to be consistently equating feminine behavior in men and masculine behavior in women with homosexuality. i've known plenty of gay men who are super-masculine and even more lesbians who are more feminine than most straight women i know. how would you account for them?

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.

it looks like it to you, but you've already admitted that you have no qualifications to make that call. why don't you leave it to those who are actually qualified who've already made the determination that it's not a mental illness? or is this a case of since they disagree with you you clearly know better, despite having no professional training or experience?

Flyndaran

06-30-2009, 01:32 PM

...
you seem to be consistently equating feminine behavior in men and masculine behavior in women with homosexuality. i've known plenty of gay men who are super-masculine and even more lesbians who are more feminine than most straight women i know. how would you account for them?
...

How about me? I'm a bit feminine but very very hetero. My girlfriend calls me the gayest straight man she's ever met.

Talon

06-30-2009, 02:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OegYyA94rs

The above video does a better job than I could of explaining why the bible (new and old testament) argument and the Jesus argument against homosexuality is complete rubbish. If the bible rejects homosexuality, then it also accepts incest, slavery, and pimping one's own daughters to be gang-raped as Lot did.

AFPheonix

06-30-2009, 05:20 PM

Eye color and handedness usually doesn't cause any kind of major social impact.
Flyn already beat me to it, but as a lefty, if I had been born earlier, I would have been forced to use my right hand even though I wasn't wired for it.

What you would consider harm, I probably don't have anything that would satisfy you. I would consider putting a child into a situation like that would be harmful in itself.

This article talks about how lesbian couples raising children have a feminizing effect on boys and a masculinizing effect on girls:
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

I don't think that's ok in the least bit, because I think boys should be masculine and girls should be feminine. That's the kind of thing that I would consider to be harmful, but other people wouldn't.

Again, others beat me to it, but actually read the article. Girls being empowered to do what they want regardless of their gender and boys feeling free to be more nurturing and compassionate is a GOOD thing.

If you really think that a lack of a head covering is equivalent to homosexual behavior then I really don't think I can explain it to you. The level of severity is completely different. Also some of those things might be different in a modern church. For one thing families sit together in a modern church, whereas in the earliest churches, men and women would have sat in separate sections and calling across the aisle to ask questions would have been disruptive.
You've missed my point. Romans 1:26-27 was not a direct command against homosexuality.
Paul very specifically commanded women to cover their heads and not speak in church.
I would say that ignoring a direct command over a non-command is worse than the other way around.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one, because it looks like one to me. It certainly seems pathological to me when an otherwise healthy man is flouncing around with a purse as if he were a woman.
Is that what you think gay men do? I can assure you that is not part and parcel of being gay. Maybe think of gays and lesbians as actual, normal people and not some oddball caricature.

It was very important that Christians helped each other out because they weren't going to be liked by anyone outside their community.
And yet, they were still a commune that lived in a very monetarily liberal way. There wasn't any boot-strappin' in the early church.

Rapscallion

06-30-2009, 05:46 PM

It's my opinion that Islam took a lot of things from Judaism and Christianity and made them more extreme. The early Muslims lifted a lot of things from the Bible and then claimed the Bible was corrupt and that they had the true last testament.

Opinion? There's probably some truth in what you say, since they all base themselves off Abraham/Ibrahim. However, as mentioned elsewhere, there's no shortage of elements that those Abrahamic religions borrowed from others. Try looking up mithraism and parallels with christianity.

In practice, Jews and Christians in the modern world don't engage in those types of brutal things for the most part,

If they don't partake of the instructions of the omnipotent deity they claim to worship, why do they still adhere to condemnations of homosexuality? If you cling to the condemnation of homosexuality, why won't you follow the other commands of the omnipotent deity you claim to believe in?

It's pick'n'mix religion without that much thought behind it.

at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

Mostly because the media focuses on the extremists - they want viewers or to sell copy. Same reason they concentrate on the posing pouches at gay pride parades, instead of conventially dressed people just walking down the road.

Rapscallion

Nyoibo

06-30-2009, 06:31 PM

at least not on a religious basis. You might hear the occasional story of a lunatic or strange cult though. Islam seems to have these things as part of its mainstream.

Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, Eric Robert Rudolph (fighting his war against the "homosexual agenda"), Bruce Edwards Ivins.

Guess what they all had in common?

iradney

07-02-2009, 10:14 AM

I know many gay people. If they want to get married (which is legal in my country), I say go ahead. Them being married has NO IMPACT on the status of my relationship. Them having children has NO IMPACT on how I will raise my children. I fail to see how a loving couple adopting a child, loving and educating them and raising them as well as they can, can be detrimental to them.

Gay people being allowed a legal marriage in my country has had no effect on any of the marriages that I personally know of. None. Whatsoever. This whole "OMG gay people can't get MARRIED!" smacks very much of a "it's OUR club! OURS! WE'RE the cool kids and YOU aren't ALLOWED! NYAH NYAH NYAH!" attitude. Honestly, it's terribly childish.

Saying that a completely external event is going to have an affect on your marriage is ridiculous. That's like saying because women are now allowed to wear trousers, they will all become sexually promiscuous. If your marriage is that deeply affected by non-personal external events, I would seriously recommend counselling.

I've heard too many stories about foster children being abused by their straight caretakers to believe that sexual orientation has anything to do with your parenting ability.

In fact, one of my cousins is gay. She is in a happy, stable relationship with her partner. Her ex-husband and her child see each other regularly. Her child is one of the happiest, outgoing kids I have ever met, and has all the makings of a great little artist.

How can you reliably make statements about that a subject that you have no first hand knowledge? As per your own admission, you have no medical or psychological background. I doubt you know any homosexuals, given your extreme reaction to them.

You say you are "taught" to think like this. Just as you are saying that by allowing homosexuals to adopt children, they are "forcing" their views on them, you are being "forced" to adopt certain views as well. You are also attempting to do the same to us.

I have always believed that God is a kind and loving God. He gave us free will for a reason. He made ALL of us in his own image - and that includes people with mental and physical disabilities.

I find it interesting that you seem to prefer concentrating on the "Don'ts" in the Bible. What about the "Dos"? Surely, the commandment "Love thy neighbour" doesn't have a footnote saying "Except for aethiests, homosexuals and penguins." It simply says - "Love thy neighbour."

It ALSO says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." That means giving false testimony, or lying. If you have no qualifications or experience about the subject you speak about, then anything you say could very well be construed as false testimony. You cannot say "I saw Bobby at the park at 10:00 am on the 1st of July" if you were at work the whole day. That is a lie.
So you cannot make sweeping assumptions about homosexuals, their lifestyles etc without having observed it.

Nyoibo

07-02-2009, 12:45 PM

"Except for aethiests, homosexuals and penguins."

Well of course except for them, you can't trust Penguins.

Rubystars

07-03-2009, 03:31 PM

iradney

07-03-2009, 04:25 PM

Nyoibo, it all goes back to the fact that I think feminizing boys and masculinizing girls is harmful in its own right. Other people don't see that as necessarily harmful. Also I don't think people "choose to be gay". I don't think gay people can help their feelings but I do think they can control behavior.

The sexual preferences of the parents have nothing to do with that. My parents raised me to believe that just because I'm a girl it doesn't mean I should settle for what society thinks is good enough for me. I was a helluva tomboy as a kid, and I preferred playing with my dinky cars to my Barbies. As an adult, I do not play into the societal role of "Good girl, type up this memo, good girl, don't get a degree etc etc." I know many children who were raised the exact same way - in fact, my BFF is a very highly respected *profession* in a male-dominated job sector.

In fact, 200 years ago, having any sort of education (beyond that of music, art and reading - to make you a good "companion) was seen as a purely male domain. You have at least a high school education, no? You did math and science and bio and all of that. 200 years ago, you would have been treated like a pariah for trying to be a man.

Your last sentence applies to EVERYONE: Male, female, gay, straight, black, white, religious, atheist, on the fence, pierced, non-pierced etc. NO-BODY can help their feelings, but EVERYBODY can CHOOSE to control behaviour (the idiots of Westboro "Church" are a great example of how not choosing to control your behaviour works)

Flyndaran

07-03-2009, 05:53 PM

That's an interesting point iradney.
As an atheist in many muslim chountries I would be forced to attend relgious services. I can't help how I feel, but I can help how I act.
As a christian, Ruby, do you believe I should be forced to attend christian services as well as not allow gays to live thier lives?

I am male, and my father made sure that his sons would be given toys normally given to girls to make us well rounded. He grew up with a homophobic, racist, macho obsessed, religious bigot of a father, and made damn sure his kids wouldn't suffer as he did.
Guess what? All three of us are completely hetero and happy in loving equal relationships.

smileyeagle1021

07-05-2009, 03:58 AM

There are other people who can explain this a lot better than I can. I think everyone has certain challenges they need to face though. They have the choice to remain single.

forgive me if this has been responded to already... but I'd like to point out... you too have the choice to remain single.
Could you do that? Stay single your whole life?
Do you want to know how I define hell? You probably don't, but I'll tell you anyway. Hell is a state of being where you must be eternally alone. Not having anyone to share your life with. Being only able to define yourself as what you do and not also as who you do it with (I personally think the second one is more important)
So, when you say that I have the choice to remain single, you are saying I have the choice to live in hell.

Being gay as in having same sex attractions isn't the problem, but acting on it does harm the person. Being openly gay affects others in the community to a degree. Their behavior is perverse, deviant, and sinful. I've already addressed this "proof of harm" thing in several posts. What else do you want me to say about it?
.

I'm going to have to call you on this one. In the other thread you had said that I was a good guy for caring for my family and doing volunteer work. Now you are telling me that I am perverse, deviant, and sinful. That I am harming the community. So which is it... am I the good guy who is helping out or the deviant harming the community, because I can't be both. Right now, I'd be willing to bet the person who gets the emergency aid kits that I assemble are going to say I'm harming them... if I were to volunteer in a food bank like I want to if my schedule ever allows it, I'm pretty sure the people I would help feed would say I'm not harming them. My boss definitely doesn't think I'm harming him and I'm out on the job. The only people who have been harmed by me being out is the LDS church... they've lost my tithing income.

After a while it's starting to look like your argument boils down to "for the Bible tells me so" and "I think it's icky"
To the first, this is a secular republic, the Bible has no place in law.
To the second, I could always point out that I think the idea of sticking my penis in a vagina to be 'icky'. Statistically roughly 10% of the population has same sex attractions... some of those are bisexual, for sake of conservative numbers I'll say up to 50% of the people who have same sex attraction are bisexual, meaning up to 5% of the population is purely homosexual. So, if you ask 100 people, 5 of them will say that they think the idea of a man and a woman is 'icky'. Extrapulate that to the national level, with 300million people, you will find 15million who agree with that stance... there are 12 million mormons in this country. I bring up mormons because a lot of people think what mormons do in the temple is 'weird'. If being 'icky' is enough to tell 15million people that they are deviants and sinful and shouldn't be granted the same government protections, why shouldn't the fact that they are 'weird' be enough to outlaw mormon temple practices? After all, according to strict Biblican interpretation the Mormon church doesn't have any grounds to exist anyway.
If I allow myself to slippery slope your argument it wouldn't take much to justify the forced disbanding of the Mormon church or at the very least the removal of their tax exempt status. After all, isn't giving them tax exempt status the government 'condoning' their beliefs and rituals?

Wingates_Hellsing

07-05-2009, 05:53 AM

I think we've basically run ourselves aground here.

Ruby has no proof backing up her position other than:

The bible says so, which has absolutely no place in law whatsoever. That's something we as citizens are required to accept from our constitution.

Ruby thinks it's harmful. Little more than an extrapolation on 'the bible says so' without any actual proof that homosexual behavior is harmful in any way.

And for the record, bothering people because they want to deny that something exists or offending them by being your own person does not count as harm. Everyone has a basic right to do and say as they wish in this country regardless of whether or not the people around them approve of it. The kind of harm we are talking about is physical, fiscal, or legal.

I don't see why you don't admit, Ruby, that what you want is a nation defined entirely by your morals at the expense of the 'sinful' or 'deviant'. We aren't on opposite sides of the coin here, or at least not in the way you choose to see it. You want to through the government impose your morality on the nation, we want a religiously, morally, and ethnically neutral government. You're not upset because your morals would be less pervasive than others, you're upset because your morals will no longer be more pervasive, something this country simply cannot allow.

Nyoibo

07-06-2009, 06:19 AM

forgive me if this has been responded to already... but I'd like to point out... you too have the choice to remain single.
Could you do that? Stay single your whole life?
Do you want to know how I define hell? You probably don't, but I'll tell you anyway. Hell is a state of being where you must be eternally alone. Not having anyone to share your life with. Being only able to define yourself as what you do and not also as who you do it with (I personally think the second one is more important)
So, when you say that I have the choice to remain single, you are saying I have the choice to live in hell.

It's not so bad once you accept that it's how it's going to be, if nothing else it's more incentive to improve what you do.

smileyeagle1021

07-06-2009, 07:42 AM

It's not so bad once you accept that it's how it's going to be, if nothing else it's more incentive to improve what you do.

well, that all depends on whether you believe is more important, what you do or who you do it with. If you believe that what you do is more important, then yes, it isn't a bad thing, because you have more time for what you do... if however you feel like I do that who you do it with is more important, then improving what you do is meaningless and that is still the definition of hell.

Slytovhand

07-06-2009, 02:34 PM

I find that when I get rejected, it helps me focus more on me and the things I should be doing... thus, improving my life. At those times, I actually feel better about being single....

Of course, this is now turning into the 'Single' thread :p

anriana

07-10-2009, 04:26 AM

I believe that homosexuality causes general moral decay, simply by the fact that it's something immoral that's openly flaunted now instead of being discreet like it was in the past. Now parents have to try to explain to their children why that man is giggling and swinging a purse around, when parents didn't have that particular challenge a few decades ago quite so often. I think this is unfortunate.

Why is a giggling man with a purse immoral? Are non-smiling women who wear pants immoral? What if they have short "dyke" hair and no make-up? A star tattoo (old-school marker for butch lesbians)? And what exactly do you think the exchange between the parents/child is going to be like? "Mommy, why doesn't daddy have a purse like that man does?" "Because daddy is not an evil hellbound sodomite." ?

Nyoibo, it all goes back to the fact that I think feminizing boys and masculinizing girls is harmful in its own right. Other people don't see that as necessarily harmful.

I am female. My parents are hardcore gender essentialist conservative Christians and I would like to know exactly what type of actions they must have done for me to turn out as masculine as I am. Was it when they told me not to giggle so loudly and didn't insist I carry a purse everywhere I went? You seem to think that women are naturally feminine and men are naturally masculine. We/they are not. That's why we have words like gender, or sex, or whatever term you want to use.

Is it harmful to society for me to wear men's pants because their sizing isn't arbitrary and I like their fit better? To wear shorts in public with visible leg hair? To change my car's tire by myself? To do _insert masculine activity here_? If so, please explain how. If not, please explain why it is harmful to allow children to express their natural gender instead of the narrow one you think everyone should naturally have.

I think anal sex happens more often between straight people because there are just a heck of a lot more straights than gays.

Not all gay people have anal sex.

Anyway to answer your point, yes all kinds of sex carry risk, but I do think that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex.

That depends on several things. Anal sex is riskier for the penetratee but less risky than vaginal for the penetrator. And of course, anal sex with a toy or finger is less risky than vaginal with a penis.

If there is a basic right to marry, I think it would only apply to couples with opposite genders.

Then you're okay with butch women marrying femme women?

Men and women complement one another but homosexual relations are like trying to put two like poles of magnets together. It just doesn't work the same way.

Then how do you explain successful same-sex relationship? It obviously isn't like putting two poles of a magnet together or those wouldn't exist.

350
Well the Romans aren't around anymore. What I would consider harmful to society you probably wouldn't though. I consider homosexuality being accepted as normal as being harmful in its own right. However much of the damage may be yet to occur, so I guess you'll find my argument to be invalid, because it's hard to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

I'm assuming you're using "society" to refer to "American society," in which case your argument only works if you don't include queer people as part of society. That may be what you want but it is not accurate. If not, then what society are you arguing for?

I think it's important for kids to understand how things normally are before they learn about the variations, if at all possible. It's not ignorance I'm promoting but just a chance for them to get an understanding of hetero couples first. Thus the prince and princess stories, etc.

And if those children are not strictly hetero- they shouldn't be allowed to encounter any characters who are actually like them because they're abnormal?

What do you mean by they should be exposed to prince and princess stories? That they should only encounter women who are weak and passive and wait for a man to show up on a white horse and rescue them?

Yes I believe that the 50s were in general a safer time than decades after the 50s. However if crime is going down again, then that's of course a good thing. I hope it stays that way and goes even further down. I don't really trust the idea that it is just as safe now as it was then though.

Who was it safe for? White housewives and businessmen?

I think in this sense it could be a mother and a father that were adoptive parents. I do think it's interesting however that it specifies a mother and a father, and not two fathers or two mothers. It acknowledges that children will generally have a mother and a father.

Probably because all of the practicing homosexuals were being stoned to death.

When I was in left wing college classes, they told me sex is your physical sex and gender is your sexual self-identity. I always thought they had those terms backwards, but I've tried to stick to using them in that way.

Curse those lefties and their definitions! They get their propaganda straight from Merriam-Webster!

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard of an atheist hombophobe.

I've heard of plenty. They are either "Omg butt sex is icky and if gay marriage was legal I would have to be anally raped!!!!" or "men and women are complementary."

Parents can't even take their kids to Disney World without having to worry about the gay days that they aren't even warned about, when homosexual doms and submissives are walking around with leashes on.

BDSM is by no means exclusive to the gay community nor are overt displays of it.

There is even a large number of people who practice it as a form of the heteronormalcy you've been advocating. (warning: the rest of this paragraph is another crazy left-wing definition) Heteronormativity is when people oppose same sex relationships and advocate for strict adherence to gender roles, especially in the interactions between the sexes, usually by saying things like "women are just naturally submissive!"

Links:

http://www.takeninhand.com/ They even have a testimony on the front page from someone praising them for the "focus that marriage is between one man and one woman."

http://www.christiandd.com/

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/home1.html.

TRICK QUESTION:

Do you have a problem with two men kissing each other?