This is topic Bush calls for new ammendment ... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1283.html

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
It's on CNN, he wants a new ammendment to "defend marriage."

Fuck this piece of shit ass wipe from Texas. What the fuck is his problem that he's going around restricting people's freedoms? LAND OF THE FREE, mother fucker, ever heard of it? Well, its no thanks to you and your pathetic attempts to control people's lives.

Why is it so wrong for two people, who love each other, to make a commitment to each other? Oh, right, because some religious assholes think that their religion gives them the right to dictate to other people how to live their lives. Isn't that what Bin Laden thinks, too?

President George W. Bush - vote for him if you hate freedom.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
You seem a bit stressed.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
No, just pissed at the freedom-hating asshole we have as a president.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Now, because you've probably violated the Patriot Act, you should sit by the door and wait for the visit from your friendly F.B.I.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Yes, we have to defend the world from the Axis of the Evil Agenda....

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Funny thing, Jay, the police were at my workplace last week. They confiscated a hard drive I was previously using. They were also asking strange questions about me. You wonder?
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I've always wondered about you.

Regarding the link, I particularly like the part where Dean disappears in a little puff of smoke.
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
It's no joke, Jay. The Police WERE at my workplace. They DID confiscate a hard drive I WAS using (which happened to contain an essay on Anti-Americanism, and how America brought 9-11 onto itself). And they DID ask questions about me.

Should I dissappear and end up in Guantanamo Bay, do not be surprised.

It's ironic however while Conservatives advertise on Government leaving its citizens alone, this is the one thing they go up in arms crying to their government about.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I rarely read Andrew Sullivan�s blog, but I read a piece that was linked from another blog I like, and well, a gay, fairly conservative person has to say this about the situation:

quote:

---

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

Andrew Sullivan

---

quote:

---

Let's hope this latest idiotic idea goes the way of that flag-burning amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saltah'na:
It's no joke, Jay. The Police WERE at my workplace. They DID confiscate a hard drive I WAS using (which happened to contain an essay on Anti-Americanism, and how America brought 9-11 onto itself). And they DID ask questions about me.

Should I dissappear and end up in Guantanamo Bay, do not be surprised.

It's ironic however while Conservatives advertise on Government leaving its citizens alone, this is the one thing they go up in arms crying to their government about.

---

Well blame that on the Echelon network... Anyway - if you you got to Camp X-ray - we'll have two prisoners! Beat THAT TrekBBS
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
They're trying to constitutionally define a particular word to mean a very small subset of its actual definition.

Well, those supporting the ammendment would claim that their definition IS the actual definition.

And since someone's going to insist on my stating my opinion, I really don't give a darn what the government does, and I don't see why gay couples would either. What does it matter to them if they can call living together a marriage or not? Titles are irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
 
If titles don't matter, then why all the fuss from the religious right?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I'm sorry, I should have said "Titles are irrelevant TO ME." Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm far more interested in the actual state of things than what they're called.
 

---

Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
 
It doesn't really bother me if people want gay marriages to be called a "union" or something else instead as long as it retains the same rights and privileges, even though as an English major I could never say that a word is just a word and has no bearings on the conception of something. On the other hand, when you have a law limiting who could be part of a "marriage", either you admit that the basis is religious dogma or you'd be legislating and enforcing the definition of a WORD. Does the government have the right to say you can't call a dog a cat? Would that be encroaching on free speech? Hey, I know. Gay couples could just use "union" on official papers and say "marriage" everywhere else. That'll piss people off.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
If the amendment were to pass, that's exactly what they would do, I've no doubt.

As for whether the fundies would claim their definition is right, it categorically is not. The term "marriage" doesn't even have to refer to a union of persons, far less that of any particular combination of genders.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Just for the sake of discussion, could someone list the rights and privileges that a marriage entails under US law? Since not all of us are familiar with US law in this area.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
I'm sorry, I should have said "Titles are irrelevant TO ME." Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm far more interested in the actual state of things than what they're called.

---

quote:

---

Besides, limiting a group's rights in any way is obviously not what America is all about.
America is about everyone's right to Life, Liberty and the presuit of Happiness.

---

*LOL*

Granted, that's what America is SUPPOSED to be about, but at the moment, it seems to be the exact opposite - at least that's how it looks to foreigners like myself - thanks to GWB...
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Not to mention the fact that the US Declaration of Independance was purely a propaganda exercise (one of the most successful in history, at that).

Bush's proposal of this amendment seems to me to be an attempt to rally the right wing of his supporters and of the US population to him, rather than a serious policy. Despite the high profile of the religious far-right in the US. does anyone actually think that this amendment would be ratified?

Personally, I have no opposition to civil unions for homosexuals. I view the love part of a relationship to be just as important as the procreation part. Also this may encourage a certain degree of social stability, as well as helping to dismiss the promiscuous homosexual stereotype.
 

---

Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
 
So, tell me if I understand correctly: Bush want's to call marriage, which is a union, "a union" when it is homoseksual marriage?

You guys sure have funny president
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
It's all very cunning really. Bush says he's going to do this, but it's all to get Kerry. If Kerry comes out (!) against this, then Bush can say to Middle America that Kerry is a Liberal, and an UnGodly one to boot. If Kerry supports it, then he's shown as weak, and it's one more point against him, up there with his voting record in the Senate. In the end it won't really matter if it gets ratified or not, so long as Bush is still in the White House next year.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
So you'd be okay with someone calling your marriage a "union"? Of course not: it would demean your relationship by limiting it in any way.

You don't know me as well as you seem to think. I'd be fine with people calling my hypothetical marriage anything they pleased. It is what it is. If they call it something inaccurate or incomplete, well, too bad for them.
 

---

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
 
I can see your way of thinking Omega. Personally, if I were in a relationship that constituted what I felt was a "marriage" then I could care less what others called it, especially if the same legal rights were given to my spouse and me as to those that are officially married.

However, I think the issue here is that if we as a society say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, are we basically trying to say that same sex couples can't have the same sort of bond that exists between a man and a woman?

I would like someone who is particularly against gay marriage to explain to me why. I'm curious.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
So you'd be okay with someone calling your marriage a "union"? Of course not: it would demean your relationship by limiting it in any way.

You don't know me as well as you seem to think. I'd be fine with people calling my hypothetical marriage anything they pleased. It is what it is. If they call it something inaccurate or incomplete, well, too bad for them.

---

hmmm....mabye it's a just personal bias: I think of goons in cheap suits with broken noses whenever I hear the word "union".
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
However, I think the issue here is that if we as a society say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, are we basically trying to say that same sex couples can't have the same sort of bond that exists between a man and a woman?

I would like someone who is particularly against gay marriage to explain to me why. I'm curious.

Okay.

If you're going for legal consistancy and no relgious implications whatsoever, then you have to ask what a marriage is from a strictly secular legal perspective. At the moment you seem to get some tax benefits, and I THINK you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. Your spouse automatically inherits your property if you die and have no will, I think. You can't marry multiple people, either. (Which, upon reflection, is an imposition of Christian morality on Mormons, but...) Anything else? Well, shoot, at that point why bother with government recognition at all? People living together, people married... with the ease of obtaining a divorce, from a legal perspective what's the difference? Shoot, some people only get married for the tax breaks, and that cheapens it even more.

That's my legal perspective.

Religiously, I believe life was intended to be lived a certain way, and that that way of life was revealed in many different ways, most perfectly in the life of Christ. That way of life excludes any sexual activity outside of marriage. Marriage is intended to be permanant and between a man and a woman, because only in that situation can one fully appreciate the gift of companionship, which sex psychologically helps build. Sex otherwise loses much of its intended meaning and can be quite damaging, and is thus at best squandering a precious gift, and at worst harmful to both parties.

Now to put myself in the shoes of the strong objectors for a moment. If the government legally recognizes a relationship of some kind, that can be perceived as saying that relationship is good, or at least not objectionable. Christians would disagree, obviously, in the case of gay marriage. Thus my proposal of eliminating legal aspects entirely. Which would, naturally, have its own massive drawbacks.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Two questions from me, Omega:

1) Why couldn't one "fully appreciate the gift of companionship, which sex psychologically helps build" in a permanent between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman?

2) Why would sex "lose much of its intended meaning" or be "quite damaging" in same-gender marriages and not in heterosexual ones? Most of us don't have it to procreate, after all, so I'm a little mystified as to how sex could ever be MORE "harmful" to gays, married or otherwise, than to straight people.

Oh, and a third: why should your way of life have preferential status over all others?

[ February 25, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Easy answer.
It shouldn't. I'm actually rather fond of Omega's idea. Strip all legal and financial recognition of all marriages, civil unions, common-law relationships, etc.
Let the government recognise everyone as independent and equal persons, married or otherwise.

Let the people and whatever organsations that want to deal with it, deal with it on their own.
I like it a lot
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Cartman's first two questions are basically the same: why would homosexual activity be wrong? Because that's not how life is designed to be lived. I can derrive pleasure from many things, but true meaning can only come from something greater than pleasure. Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.

As to why my way of life should have preferential status over all others, my answer is that this way of life was the one created by the author of life. You may not believe that, but the original quesiton was about my opinion, after all.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I'm awaiting Jeff storming into this thread and breathing his flames of anger everywhere...

But, I will offer my own answer to that last question: Omega believes that his way of life should have preferential treatment over others because he's human. We all believe it, to a certain extent. We all believe that our way of life is better than that of, say, a murderer. It's just that the boundaries start to blur when you get to "smaller" matters.

Society is about compromise. Everyone wants things done a way that pleases them. This obviously can't be done. So we elect people that agree with most of what we agree with. And ignore that which doesn't really affect us. Which is pretty much what Omega's done here. Marriage to him is a religious thing. He realises that to a lot of other people it isn't. So he suggests a compromise position which puts everyone on an equal footing. The sex stuff is largely irrelevent.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman.

---

Funny, I was under the impression that sex, by design, was intended to provide a more efficient way of spreading mutations (and thus driving evolutionary change) within a population of living organisms.

Actually, "by design" and "intended" may be omitted.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Sex is for making babies. That's pretty much it. The concept of monogamy is quite rare, even in the animal kingdom alone.
 

---

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm awaiting Jeff storming into this thread and breathing his flames of anger everywhere...

---

Didn't you see my opening post ...?
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.

Setting aside the point that sex has only one biological purpose (which is to ensure the survival of the species and nothing else), I again have to ask why it couldn't just as well form a psychological bond between one man and one man or between one woman and one woman, why it would cause emotional harm when used out of man-woman context, or why it would be cheapened by non penis-in-vagina activities. Don't say "it's not how life is intended to be lived", because that's a circular non-answer.

As to why my way of life should have preferential status over all others, my answer is that this way of life was the one created by the author of life.

But that author of life also created homosexuality, so yet again, why should your way of life be the preferred one?
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Oh, please, let him counter that homosexuality was obviously created by the other guy. . .
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
What really burns me is that I can not get my fiance covered on my insurance because we aren't married, or of the same sex.....

Some insurance companies and big businesses, are anti unmarried heteroseuxal couples and need to be sued....

I don't believe the government should limit the freedoms of anyone, but, then problem is where to draw the line on which freedoms are to be made illegal and which are, at minimum, tolerated.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Freedoms that dont harm anyone should be accepted: homosexual relationships and marriage stemming from those relationships are merely offensive to a large, influential group of religous people.
The seperation between church and state should insure the rights of gay people to marry and live as they want with equal protection and benifits under the law.

Buuut....the people in office are elected (fairly or not) and cater to the whims of both their party and what polls tell them he majority of voters want- regardless on the constitution's intent.

To make a diffrence we have to vote for he most likely candidate to oust Bush.
...but wait! Kerry said yesterday that he's against gay marriage!
So even if Bush takes a walk,the legislation might pass as Kerry mends fences with the religous right and the republican party.

Fucked, no?
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I may be wrong, but Omega's point seems to be that the religious and economical versions of "marriage" should be kept seperate.

There's no reason to seperate a man/man relationship from a man/woman relationship financially, so it should be treated the same. If relgious people don't believe in the concept of a homosexual marriage, then that's their right. But that should not be allowed into the constitution, and it should not have any bearing on how it is treated socially and economically.
 

---

Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
 
Sex, by design, is intended to form a psychological bond between one man and one woman. Properly, it does so. Used outside of that context, it can either cause emotional harm, or simply cheapen sex to the point that it can no longer form said bond. It's not about pleasure OR procreation. It's about fellowship.

You imply that such psychological bond is not possible between same sex couples, but I don't think it is possible for you to know unless you've experienced it, just as people may say that love doesn't last if they themselves are in a lackluster marriage. I mean, if sex between homosexual couples doesn't create a psychological (tho I prefer to say spiritual) bond, how do you explain the couples who have stay together for decades without legal or social benefits to do so? Or does "the other guy" work in mysterious ways as well?

While I agree that sex is about fellowship (which results in pleasure and procreation), I think that it cheapens sex more to regard it as shameful outside the marriage context. True, sex can be more easily abused outside of marriage, but I see so many Christians put shame around it that I find it difficult to believe a shame so engrained would disappear overnight (literally). And how are they to have the psychological bond if the glue is weak?
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
*rolls eyes* A spiritual bond? From just sex?
I'm sure humans derive as much spiriual benefit from sex as rabbits do.

quote:

---

I may be wrong, but Omega's point seems to be that the religious and economical versions of "marriage" should be kept seperate.

There's no reason to seperate a man/man relationship from a man/woman relationship financially, so it should be treated the same. If relgious people don't believe in the concept of a homosexual marriage, then that's their right. But that should not be allowed into the constitution, and it should not have any bearing on how it is treated socially and economically.

---

quote:

---

Funny, I was under the impression that sex, by design, was intended to provide a more efficient way of spreading mutations (and thus driving evolutionary change) within a population of living organisms.

---

Perfect, and thats why we don't reproduce asexually, boys and girls.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
*rolls eyes* A spiritual bond? From just sex?
I'm sure humans derive as much spiriual benefit from sex as rabbits do.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I'm being a bit extreme here, but practically any governmental definition we end up for marriage , whether we allow gay marriage or not, is likely to be logically full of holes and legal nightmares.

---

quote:

---

Perfect, and thats why we don't reproduce asexually, boys and girls.

---

Well, sort of. The advantage of sexual reproduction is the spreading of genetic variance through a population, but it's primary purpose is still producing offspring.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"Yes, I'm being a bit extreme here, but practically any governmental definition we end up for marriage , whether we allow gay marriage or not, is likely to be logically full of holes and legal nightmares."

Well, gay marriages were legalized two years ago in my neck of the woods, and yet none of the forecasted (fundie) doomsday scenarios have actually come to pass since then, so I really don't see why all social hell would break lose over them elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
I don't know... didn't ANYone learn ANYthing from "Legally Blonde 2: Red White and Blonde"??


 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
Yeah! The Philistines!

Um, so I have what ought to be a question to those who might possibly oppose this: How could allowing two people who love one another to be joined in a legal and spiritual sense possibly ever hurt you ever?

My sister lives in San Francisco with her girlfriend of 6 (7?) years. They haven't gone down to City Hall yet. But seriously, to discriminate against them if that was something they wanted to do just seems wrong, doesn't it? I mean like akin to saying that people of different races couldn't inter-marry. I think marriage ought to be sacred and precious and spiritual and a big deal�, but that's a personal belief and I would never presume to impose it on anyone. Last I checked there were plenty of adulterers, divorcees and even spousal abusers in the heterosexual world, so it's not exactly like it's some unblemished bastion of morality.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Agree. Wil Wheaton said it nicely. Whether two gay people can legally marry in no way threatens my relationship with Anne [his wife]. In fact, the only thing that can threaten our relationship... is us."

I really hate the conservitism trend of shoehorning their beliefs on others. I think the only way we're going to survive this is to somehow manage to beat the inertia and raise a generation of freethinkers -- kids whose first-grade education starts with the basics of the scientific method: testing the validity of an idea, be it theirs or someone elses. Logic and critical thinking are essential if you're to have someone who doesn't let others do their thinking for them.

Let all those who fear change go find a nice cave to hunker down in. And no sneaky using fire or tools. We'll have to take those clothes away, too. Plus glasses, contacts, fillings, crowns, dentures, or any other technological artefact.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
Um, so I have what ought to be a question to those who might possibly oppose this: How could allowing two people who love one another to be joined in a legal and spiritual sense possibly ever hurt you ever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
"Yes, I'm being a bit extreme here, but practically any governmental definition we end up for marriage , whether we allow gay marriage or not, is likely to be logically full of holes and legal nightmares."

Well, gay marriages were legalized two years ago in my neck of the woods, and yet none of the forecasted (fundie) doomsday scenarios have actually come to pass since then, so I really don't see why all social hell would break lose over them elsewhere.

---

I never predicted a thing.
Logic holes do not have to be resolved immediately. As a member of a forums that regularly discusses Enterprise, you should be painfully aware of this fact.
Its just that some of us appreciate and prefer some consistency in our laws and application of said laws.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Good luck rewriting most of them, then.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I again have to ask why it couldn't just as well form a psychological bond between one man and one man or between one woman and one woman, why it would cause emotional harm when used out of man-woman context, or why it would be cheapened by non penis-in-vagina activities.

The point is that such a bond is inherently unhealthy, because...

Don't say "it's not how life is intended to be lived", because that's a circular non-answer.

...it's not how life is intended to be lived. There is one specific way to live life, among quite a number of varities. That one way, due to the design and nature of life, is the only healthy and good way to live. Living life in any other way is therefore Not Good. It's not circular, you just disagree with my premises.

But that author of life also created homosexuality

No more than he created greed or pride or envy. He simply created humans with the capacity for anything they care to think or believe, and the free will to live life as they choose.

Oh, please, let him counter that homosexuality was obviously created by the other guy. . .

Well, you can't very well have homosexuality with just one...

I may be wrong, but Omega's point seems to be that the religious and economical versions of "marriage" should be kept seperate.

Slightly wrong on two counts. What I actually proposed was eliminating a legal concept of marriage all together. Further, I didn't advocate the idea, I simply proposed it.

a psychological (tho I prefer to say spiritual) bond

Looking at the reaction to the word, you can see why I used a different one.

how do you explain the couples who have stay together for decades without legal or social benefits to do so?

I didn't say such relationships couldn't possibly work. I said they weren't good for the people involved. They lack relationship with God.

While I agree that sex is about fellowship (which results in pleasure and procreation), I think that it cheapens sex more to regard it as shameful outside the marriage context. True, sex can be more easily abused outside of marriage, but I see so many Christians put shame around it that I find it difficult to believe a shame so engrained would disappear overnight (literally). And how are they to have the psychological bond if the glue is weak?

Regarding sex as shameful in and of itself is damaging, I certainly agree with that. However, that doesn't change my arguments about sex outside of marriage being harmful and/or cheapening its value.

What about incest? Yes, its "icky" to think about siblings marrying and having children but genetically its no worse than say two people who are guaranteed to have gentically defective children.

Well, again we have the same issue. Siblings may not be able to get married, but so far as I now they can still live together and have sex and even have babies if they're so inclined. Like homosexuals, why should they care?
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
...
You're joking right? Incest is legal in the states? What, is this some holdover from believing that everyone came out of Adam and Eve's children doing the nasty repeatedly?

At least in Canada:

quote:

---

Incest:
155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.
Punishment:
(2) Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
So (and I hate to do this), how does allowing two people who happen to be related but who also love each other (in that way) to be joined in a legal and spiritual sense possibly hurt you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
So (and I hate to do this), how does allowing two people who happen to be related but who also love each other (in that way) to be joined in a legal and spiritual sense possibly hurt you?

---

Well it wouldn't, probably. I mean unless they had a kid who came out violently malformed and it sunk its big, crooked single tusk through my infant's spine or something. No, I find it wrong and generally reprehensible and fucked up and weird, and probably so would most folks. But that's my (our) morality. And I don't know that my morality needs to be codified in constitutional law.

---

quote:

---

Cartman: People don't choose their sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Omega: People choose how they act, which is the main question at hand. You're going to respond that their actions are based on their innate attraction for their own gender. As above, people CAN choose what gender they're attracted to with sufficient motivation. There are documented cases of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
Hang on. Do you believe everybody is born straight or not? If the former, tell me why people would willingly "convert" to a homosexual lifestyle, because I really can't fathom a reason for it. If the latter, tell me why we are having this discussion, because changing a condition you're born with isn't just "not easy", it's IMPOSSIBLE.

---

Well, if I'm following Omega's arguments, it'd be the same as someone born with a predisposition towards comitting crimes. It is something they are born with, but in the eyes of society/certain relgious groups, it's something that the person should try and change.
 

---

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
 
I would like to point out that, appearances to the contrary, I am one of the most devout Christians alive. However, I do not presume to speak for my God when I declare something right or wrong, especially given the many forms that He has taken across the world. I will let Him judge everyone based on what He thinks is right and wrong, not what men think is right and wrong. I personally find the acts involved in homosexual sex quite disgusting, I am not a fan of the concept of anal sex or blowjobs. But I believe that interrupting and condemning a consensual act of love between adults is highly wrong.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I keep forgetting that oral sex is illegal in some US states. I really would like to hear the reasoning behind that.
 

---

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
 
Ooo...ick. That's it.

I said I didn't like it...I didn't say that it should be illegal.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
so for the third time, why should people conform to your way of life when theirs, for all anyone knows, are just as right?

And for at least the third time, my opinion was asked, and I've stated it. If you don't agree, fine, but please stop jumping down my throat for no other reason than that, GASP, I might just believe that something is WRONG and how DARE I believe in an objective moral framework, anyway?!

for certain narrow interpretations of the Bible. You don't think yours is the only valid one, do you?

On this subject, yes. There's not much interpretation to be done.

if I'm following Omega's arguments, it'd be the same as someone born with a predisposition towards comitting crimes. It is something they are born with, but in the eyes of society/certain relgious groups, it's something that the person should try and change.

Liam wins a cookie! Snickerdoodles okay?

I am one of the most devout Christians alive.

w00t! We actually have another Christian on the boards! That makes, what, four of us?

I do not presume to speak for my God when I declare something right or wrong, especially given the many forms that He has taken across the world. I will let Him judge everyone based on what He thinks is right and wrong, not what men think is right and wrong.

We're here for the same reason Christ came, so that they may have life and have it to the full. How can that be if we don't tell them how life is meant to be lived? Yes, God will eventually judge each person as only he is qualified to do, but that doesn't mean we can't make statements as to the moral value of certain actions, and in fact we must do so in many circumstances.

I keep forgetting that oral sex is illegal in some US states. I really would like to hear the reasoning behind that.

The reasoning behind the laws was, I believe, to prevent gays from having sex. If you outlaw all forms of sex except those that require one person of each gender, then you've effectively outlawed homosexuality without actually outlawing it. It'd be like requiring a one-year waiting period before you can have an abortion.
 

---

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

We're here for the same reason Christ came, so that they may have life and have it to the full. How can that be if we don't tell them how life is meant to be lived? Yes, God will eventually judge each person as only he is qualified to do, but that doesn't mean we can't make statements as to the moral value of certain actions, and in fact we must do so in many circumstances.

---

I believe that we should present them with the opportunity to follow Christ...but that we shouldn't condemn them if they don't. But given that God has (In my belief) appeared in many different forms to many different cultures, often with the same message, but with wildly different moral codes.

And then there's the fact that at least the US government (and other democracies ) has to represent a plurality, so it's better to adopt a secular morality for government. And a secular morality is the following: As long as something does not victimise someone else or kill them then it is acceptable. Does homosexuality hurt you in any way?

quote:

---

w00t! We actually have another Christian on the boards! That makes, what, four of us?

---

Come join the SCN forums, we have a nice population growing.

(Psst, thanks for giving me a chance to actually analyze my moral code so I could argue it with you...it let me sort out some of the inconsistencies in there )
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"However, if one happens to believe in the God of the Bible, then one DOES have a reason to try not to be attracted to members of the same sex."

And if one doesn't believe therein, why should secular law go and force them to do it anyway?

"I didn't say such relationships couldn't possibly work. I said they weren't good for the people involved. They lack relationship with God."

As an atheist, I lack relationship with your god. Does that mean it should be illegal for me to ever marry?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
God has (In my belief) appeared in many different forms to many different cultures, often with the same message, but with wildly different moral codes.

I'm not sure how wild a difference would be possible, given that the basic belief of Christianity is that the will of God for human life was revealed perfectly in the life of Christ. Can you give me an example?

And then there's the fact that at least the US government (and other democracies ) has to represent a plurality, so it's better to adopt a secular morality for government.

That gets into a running conundrum my cousin Bryan and I talk about occasionally. Governments can not be perfectly Christian. If all the Good Guys(TM) continually turned the other cheek, then some unpleasant group or another would currently be ruling most of the planet. Of course, that's where just war theory comes in, and the idea that it's perfectly okay for a Christian to fight under certain extremely limited circumstances. What's a Christian to do?

And a secular morality is the following: As long as something does not victimise someone else or kill them then it is acceptable.

Tell France that.

Psst, thanks for giving me a chance to actually analyze my moral code so I could argue it with you...it let me sort out some of the inconsistencies in there

Any time.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

"However, if one happens to believe in the God of the Bible, then one DOES have a reason to try not to be attracted to members of the same sex."

And if one doesn't believe therein, why should secular law go and force them to do it anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
And a secular morality is the following: As long as something does not victimise someone else or kill them then it is acceptable.

Tell France that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

I keep forgetting that oral sex is illegal in some US states. I really would like to hear the reasoning behind that.

The reasoning behind the laws was, I believe, to prevent gays from having sex. If you outlaw all forms of sex except those that require one person of each gender, then you've effectively outlawed homosexuality without actually outlawing it. It'd be like requiring a one-year waiting period before you can have an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
...(Incest stuff). Doesn't that seem a little bit hypocritical to you? Its ok for other people to be repressed, but when its your sister....whoa....watch out![/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Well, if I'm following Omega's arguments, it'd be the same as someone born with a predisposition towards comitting crimes. It is something they are born with, but in the eyes of society/certain relgious groups, it's something that the person should try and change.

---

But people aren't "predisposed" to homosexuality like they are (or might be, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms best left closed) to criminal behavior. Either they're straight or they're not. If it was just a predisposition, don't you think it would be easier for many of them to change?

And before anyone brings up bisexuality, it's still impossible to scrap one of the two orientations and continue a straight person, so don't argue that point, eh?

...how DARE I believe in an objective moral framework, anyway?!

What? How is it objective OR moral to "ask" people to change something that's akin to their skin color?

There's not much interpretation to be done.

Funny, then, that there is already one Christian in this thread who disagrees with you.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Also, Liam: vaginal insertion object.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
But people aren't "predisposed" to homosexuality like they are (or might be, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms best left closed) to criminal behavior. Either they're straight or they're not.

PROOF!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

"...the basic belief of Christianity is that the will of God for human life was revealed perfectly in the life of Christ."

---

But whenever I hang out with my religous radical freinds, I get dirty looks....and we wont even bring up the treatment I get at church when I consort with hookers...
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Careful. You're coming close to parroting the Catholic party line, set down by Paul, that Mary was a hooker and not Ieshua's (Jesus for the dogmatic) wife. That's what happens when you get a church founded by a jealous mysogynist.

Incidentally, U.S. states are loosening their consanguinity laws. Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14 (haven't conducted an exhaustive survey lately). Anti-consanguinity and incest are another thing largely carried forward unthinkingly -- at least in Caucasian circles -- by Catholics, due largely to fifteenth-century political expedience.

--Jonah (lest I be a hypocrite, Iona in Hebrew -- nice to share a name with a Scottish island )
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Now, the the homosexual people really wanted to raise a fuss they could let the adment get through, then arm themselves with machine guns and do the civil war thing....

Meaning that this is going to be as fun as the 'ban the gun' threads.....
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:
Ieshua's (Jesus for the dogmatic)

---

quote:

---

Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sol System:
What it is like is the 18th Amendment, which I put forward as a perfect example of what happens when the Constitution is mucked with in pursuit of ends that do not directly effect the foundational governing of the nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:

Incidentally, U.S. states are loosening their consanguinity laws. Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14 (haven't conducted an exhaustive survey lately).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Actually, they DONT have a point.
The laws on incest would stand because incest causes birth defects and possibly more Religous Right fanatics and both should be eliminated via selective breeding and education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
PROOF!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
One is a relationship between consenting adults. The other is abuse of someone immature / something that can't fight back. So, that's the insane arguement, not the incest one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
So you are saying that a Down's Syndrome couple shouldn't be allowed to have children? Or people who are born deaf? Or who have a low IQ?

---

No, what he's saying is that the genetics issue doesn't enter into it when discussing gay marriages.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
considering your arguments throughout the rest of this thread, do you think that [oral sex] should be made legal (in secular law)?

Hell yeah!

So, wouldn't that mean none of us should ever marry? Is that a holdover from St. Paul?

Actually, Christ said that non-marriage was optimal as well, Matthew 18:8-12, but that particular aspect seems to allow for human variation on that particular matter.

But whenever I hang out with my religous radical freinds, I get dirty looks....and we wont even bring up the treatment I get at church when I consort with hookers...

I'm not sure if that's a joke or not, but any Christian giving you dirty looks isn't doing a very good job of being a Christian.

You're coming close to parroting the Catholic party line, set down by Paul, that Mary was a hooker and not Ieshua's (Jesus for the dogmatic) wife.

Paul set down what now? I mean, it's certainly Catholic dogma not supported by scripture in any way, but I'm not sure what Paul has to do with it.

That's what happens when you get a church founded by a jealous mysogynist.

Which church is that? I'm confused.

Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14

I seem to recall a recent study which indicated that the chances of birth defects arising from a mating between first cousins were something like 4% higher than normal, which may be part of the reason for the change in the laws.

I have trouble understanding what types of relationships can "work" and not be good for the people involved.

A child could conceivably enjoy having sex with an older sibling. The relationship works for both, but few would argue that it's not damaging. The only reason it works is lack of understanding of the consequences of the actions being taken.

Obviously you wouldn't know how one could be gay and believe in God if you think God doesn't believe in gays.

I'm fully aware that gays can be religious, but they can not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God while continuing to live a lifestyle said Bible describes as sinful. They're 100% incompatable.

The burden of proof is on you, actually. B)

ACTUALLY, it's on both of us. You say sexual orientation is akin to skin color, I say it's changable like all aspects of the psyche with enough effort. We've both made claims that we haven't backed up, so until one of us does I think we've reached an impasse. Now if only I had a couple hours of free time...
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm fully aware that gays can be religious, but they can not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God while continuing to live a lifestyle said Bible describes as sinful. They're 100% incompatable.

---

quote:

---

So you are saying that a Down's Syndrome couple shouldn't be allowed to have children? Or people who are born deaf? Or who have a low IQ?

---

Interestingly, according to the House of Lords in Re F (Mental patient: Sterilisation) 1990 it is not unlawful to order the sterilisation of a person with serious mental disabilities. Lord Brandon: "In many cases... it will not only be lawful for doctors, on the grounds of necessity, to operate on or give medical treatment to adult patients disabled from giving their consent; it will be their duty to do so."


What this really comes down to is what is known in the UK as the Hart-Devlin debate; is the law there to enforce morality, or should a strictly liberal interpretation of its purpose be used, i.e. should the law merely be there to prevent citizens from causing harm to one another and infringing others rights?

Personally, I believe a certain amount of moral enforcement is necessary to maintain civilised and ordered society. But where should this morality be derived from? Commonly accepted norms? Religion? Or other sources? The position of homosexuality is difficult in countries with a strong Christian tradition (such as those most of the posters here come from). There is condemnation in the Old Testament but then there's the whole be tolerant thing later on.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Show me where God himself says that being gay is immoral.

Regardless of your opinion of inspiration, the actual definition means that something divinely inspired is in fact the word of God. Thus if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, that belief is completely incompatable with the practice of homosexuality, exactly as I stated.

Christianity does not welcome gays to be Christians

Sure we do, in the same sense that we welcome thieves to be Christians. To be a Christian you have to change your lifestyle to actually follow Christ. That's not easy, but it is required by the very definition of Christianity.

However, social and religious pressures have been against this for ages, so what reason does a straight person have to WANT to be gay and stay that way?

Was that intended to be a joke, or are you making a serious point? I'm lost.

The problem with this scenario is that one or both parties have a lack certain knowledge or teaching, the knowing of which would end the relationship.

Which is EXACTLY like homosexuality and the will of God as stated in the Bible. People may act in a self-destructive way without knowing or believing that that way of life is self destructive. The only difference between the scenarios is that you personally acknowledge the incestuous abusive relationship to be damaging, but you don't recognize a homosexual one as such. If you believe that they are, the two are perfectly analogous.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Show me where God himself says that being gay is immoral.

Regardless of your opinion of inspiration, the actual definition means that something divinely inspired is in fact the word of God. Thus if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, that belief is completely incompatable with the practice of homosexuality, exactly as I stated.

---

So if we start passing laws based on morals thought to have been "divinely inspired" are we not subverting the seperation of church and state and installing the basis for a theocracy?

I'm not a christian myself, so the laws shouldnt apply to me if I wanted to be gay and get hitched, right?

While off topic, some of the same books once thought to have been "divinely inspired" have been selected as canon (while are now considered apocriphal) by church leaders that we would consider wildly corrupt by today's standards.

So much for church morality as a basis for law.
 

---

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
 
How the heck is it self-destructive, there is no evidence pointing that way!

BTW, the bible, while inspired by God, was written by man, who is fallible and views inspiration through his own experiences and culture. What's more, it has been written and rewritten dozens of times. So while it's a good starting point, it's not perfect, frankly.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Incest can be a relationship between consenting adults too, though."

That's what I said. Bestiality and pedophilia, however, are not.

"Actually, Christ said that non-marriage was optimal as well, Matthew 18:8-12, but that particular aspect seems to allow for human variation on that particular matter."

Um... Exactly which version are you reading? Just to pick one, here's the New American Standard (the Catholic version):

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
["For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]
"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?"

Nothing about marriage. In fact, her says that children are good. And we can't get children without sex, and sex isn't supposed to be allowed without marriage. So wouldn't that make marriage good?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
In this context, if it can produce children, yes....

Sexual orientation, while not having the selector switch for homo - hetro, can have a on - off switch.


BTW, the bible, while inspired by God, was written by man, who is fallible and views inspiration through his own experiences and culture. What's more, it has been written and rewritten dozens of times. So while it's a good starting point, it's not perfect, frankly.

Except that with divine inspiration there aren't supposed to be errors, so to believe the Bible 100% you have to believe God wouldn't allow any errors at all.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
You're saying God doesnt proofread my posts?

quote:

---

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
So you are saying that a Down's Syndrome couple shouldn't be allowed to have children? Or people who are born deaf? Or who have a low IQ?

---

No, what he's saying is that the genetics issue doesn't enter into it when discussing gay marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tora Ziyal:
they can not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God while continuing to live a lifestyle said Bible describes as sinful. They're 100% incompatable.

My point exactly. Christianity does not welcome gays to be Christians, and that's why they turn to other belief systems in order to have a relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Omega: ACTUALLY, it's on both of us. You say sexual orientation is akin to skin color, I say it's changable like all aspects of the psyche with enough effort. We've both made claims that we haven't backed up, so until one of us does I think we've reached an impasse.

---

quote:

---

However, social and religious pressures have been against this for ages, so what reason does a straight person have to WANT to be gay and stay that way?

Was that intended to be a joke, or are you making a serious point? I'm lost.

---

quote:

---

The different denominations of Christianity all interpret the Bible in different ways. Even the "it's all true" people don't do all the especially crazy stuff (that escapes my recall at the moment). And there are some denominations that don't see homosexuality as bad. They consider themselves Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
ACTUALLY, it's on both of us. You say sexual orientation is akin to skin color, I say it's changable like all aspects of the psyche with enough effort. We've both made claims that we haven't backed up, so until one of us does I think we've reached an impasse. Now if only I had a couple hours of free time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Okay, he's saying that they are different because gay people can't have children. ()

THEREFORE, he is saying that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
So you are saying that a Down's Syndrome couple shouldn't be allowed to have children? Or people who are born deaf? Or who have a low IQ?

---

No, what he's saying is that the genetics issue doesn't enter into it when discussing gay marriages.

---

Okay, he's saying that they are different because gay people can't have children. He is saying that, in incestuous relationships, children can be produced. He is saying that such children are going to be genetically abnormal. He is saying that the poor, genetically-abnormal children that would be produced is the reason that related people should not be allowed to marry and have children.

THEREFORE, he is saying that people with genetic difficiencies (such as Down's Syndrome, or inhereted blindness) should not be allowed to marry and have children, otherwise genetically abnormal children will be produced. Correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
But the reasoning behind why they both are illegal stems from Christian morals. So if you are reevaluating one form that POV, then you have to evaluate everything, including polygomous relationships and incestuous ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

Show me a consistant interpretation of the Bible as the inspired word of God that still allows for homosexuality. Until then, I maintain that all such systems are self-contradictory.

---

Show me a consistent interpretation of the Bible as the inspired word of God that still allows for female equality. Until then, I maintain that all such systems are self-contradictory.

As a result, however, the Bible is accidentally consistent . . . it is consistently against any marriage based on equality of the two participants.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Matthew 19, eh? I see...

Honestly, Matthew 19:11-12 has got to be one of the most confusing lines in the whole book. It must have made more sense in the first century in Greek. Or Aramaic, which I seem to recall is believed to be the original language of Matthew.

Anyway, it'sthe disciples who say marriage is bad, not Jesus. As far as I can tell, Jesus just says that the Mosaic law was too lenient about divorce, and no man should divorce his wife unless she's an adulteress. Then the disciples say "Well, if you're not going to let us have divorces, we'd be better off not getting married in the first place.". So Jesus tells them "Well, if you think it's really that hard to marry one woman and stick with it, then, yeah, maybe you shouldn't get married.".
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
As a Catholic, I just want to state that in nearly 13 years of attending Catholic schools I was never taught that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, probably because the Catholic church no longer (and has not in a long time) proclaims such. Indeed, the first time I heard the theory that she was Jesus' wife was from a high school religious teacher.

Do I count as one of the four Christians on this board? Or maybe only half of one; fundamentalist, right-wing Christians only seem to count Catholics as such when they are trying to inflate the total number of Christians.
 

---

Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
 
Well, I'm worse than you, I'm a lapsed Catholic and just call myself Christian now.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I'm worse than that: My sister I were disowned for not subscribing to the Baptist faith.

So much for religion being a fundament of family values, huh?

Liam, while I see your point about reevaluating all those laws stemming from dogmatic principles, I dont think the laws regarding incest would falter...although I DO think that from a legal POV (and my own slightly liberal one as well) that there is no basis other than religon for excluding gays from marriage.

If the whole system needs to be examined to determine what laws shoud be changed, I'm all for it.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Which, in the end, would be an examination of christian morality itself. Which the fundies would be up in arms over.

Fun.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
-di?

I used to help teach Sunday school at my church. But the day they told me I had to tell them that the only path to salvation lay through the Presbyterian faith, and no other, I asked them how this could reconcile with an otherwise generally benevolent and forgiving philosophy. When they couldn't do this I left and decided maybe spirituality ought to be a more personal pursuit. Guess that makes me not-a-Christian.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I dunno. What on earth is the Prebyterian faith?

And isn't the technical definition of Christian "someone who belivies in God, Jesus, and that other thing"? It's only when you get into denominations that all the crazy rules start to apply.

Okay, here's a thought. Someone said that there are certain situations in which doctor's can forbid people from having children, presumably if they are going to be genetically abnormal (I'm not sure how they'd enforce such a thing, but there it is).

If this is true, what about if closely related siblings were allowed to marry, but not allowed to have children? Would there be anything fundamentally wrong with that? (Outside of "Ewwwwww, that's sick", obviously.)
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
As long as there wasnt some history of abuse leading to the siblings getting together....

Shit.

Why is it that not agreeing with Omega is leading to my supporting a potential incestous relationship?

Ug.

ANYway, it all comes down to the fundamentalistists not being secure enougth to re-examine their beliefs nad aso being unwilling to change a rule of their faith that excludes millions.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I am always amused when Protestants I know claim adamantly that Catholics are not Christians. Are they not the original Christians? Or at least the oldest denomintation that still exists? Wasn't the Catholic Church founded by some of Jesus' original disciples?

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Wasn't the Catholic Church founded by some of Jesus' original disciples?"

Well, not exactly. The Roman Catholic church claims that Simon Peter was the first pope, and that all subsequent popes are his direct successors. But I wouldn't think that the earliest Christians would have had so much organization.

"What on earth is the Prebyterian faith?"

Presbyterianism is a reformed protestant church derived from Calvinism. It was started by John Knox in Scotland.

Strictly speaking "presbyterian" refers to the organization of the church, where the power lies with groups of elders called "presbyters". The other form (used by Catholics, Anglicans, etc.) is episcopalian, which refers to a heirarchy of bishops. (Not to be confused with the proper noun "Episcopalian Church", which is just the American version of the Anglican Church.)
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
I'm worse than that: My sister I were disowned for not subscribing to the Baptist faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:

"Wasn't the Catholic Church founded by some of Jesus' original disciples?"

Well, not exactly. The Roman Catholic church claims that Simon Peter was the first pope, and that all subsequent popes are his direct successors. But I wouldn't think that the earliest Christians would have had so much organization.

---

quote:

---

I am always amused when Protestants I know claim adamantly that Catholics are not Christians

---

quote:

---

If this is true, what about if closely related siblings were allowed to marry, but not allowed to have children? Would there be anything fundamentally wrong with that? (Outside of "Ewwwwww, that's sick", obviously.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
I'm worse than that: My sister I were disowned for not subscribing to the Baptist faith.

---

How much does a subscription to the Baptist faith cost?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wraith:
. . . telling the king of England that affairs within his own realm were his problem, not the Pope's.

---

Pun intended?

quote:

---

I am always amused when Protestants I know claim adamantly that Catholics are not Christians

---

[/QUOTE]

If I may add and clarify, and I would have to check my Chatechism to be sure, I believe current Catholic teachings acknowledge salvation is only through the grace of God (thus, a faithful Catholic can accurately argue his or her faith allows for the salvation of all persons as salvation ultimately depends on God('s grace(not one's religion, etc.)). Where I believe (good) works comes in is with the often forgotten, but still "official," Catholic concept of purgatory. For those who are not familiar with purgatory, a simple explanation is this: it is the "place" one goes after death "where" one's soul is cleansed before "entering" heaven. If one has spent his or her life performing good works, for goodness sake, not for the purpose of passing Peter and the pearly gates faster, presumably such a soul requires less cleansing and will, indeed, reach heaven quicker than say one of those scam televangelists. Perhaps some of you have also heard of indulgences; purgatory is where they come in. If I am remembering correctly a few years ago the Pope offered indulgences, in simple terms, less time in purgatory, for smokers who gave up the habit.

I am sorry if I have bored anyone.

As a religious person I appreciate when the subject of religion can be discussed without (complete) contempt and ridicule. Thank you.

The letters of Paul are undoubtedly 100 percent divinely inspired; however, maybe he did not like hats. If God started inspiring me to write his word the Book of Raw Cadet might, in its final version, end up including things like "take your crying babies or whiny brats to the cryroom," and "turn your cell phone off during mass." Thus, I could be divinely inspired even if the resulting product includes some parts not of divine origin.

By the way, and, actually somewhat related to the original topic, today my hometown (or the county it is in, actually) became the latest government institution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As my state is one of the few that does not explicitly state marriage is only a union between one man and one woman the legality of the issuing is seemingly on much more solid ground than in San Francisco, so it could be interesting to see what happens.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"If God started inspiring me to write his word the Book of Raw Cadet might, in its final version, end up including things like 'take your crying babies or whiny brats to the cryroom,' and 'turn your cell phone off during mass.' Thus, I could be divinely inspired even if the resulting product includes some parts not of divine origin."

...and thus, not 100% divinely inspired.
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
Well, I might have to grant you that, TSN, it just sounds funny (to me) to say "95% divinely inspired."
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
The Bible: "Not from concentrate"
90% real divinity!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
60% divinely inspired,
40% copped from older religions in the region.

How does the Pope offer purgatorial indulgences?
Didint Martin Luther have issue with just that kind of scam?

I recall some minor strife resulted.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 

quote:

---

How does the Pope offer purgatorial indulgences?
Didint Martin Luther have issue with just that kind of scam?

I recall some minor strife resulted

---

I suppose that's one way of putting it...

I think the main problem Luther & co. had with purgatory is that it isn't mentioned in the Bible and appears to have been made up at some point by a Pope. It was seen as a bit off that people could get X years off their soul's time in purgatory by donating money to the church (often in wills to have prayers said for their soul by monks). Luther himself wanted to reform the church rather than split with it but the Catholics cracked down and later generations of Protestants became rather more fractuous. Which is where you get Calvin and Knox and so on. Not to mention the French Wars of Religion. And, of course, the English reformation and Elizabethan Church Settlement(A work of genius, BTW). Which then led to the Council of Trent and the Catholic Reformation (aka Counter Reformation) and Mission England and all that. Wasn't the 16th century fun?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well...the Pope at the time was in need of cash to complete some gradndious building (the Bassilica?) and was offering paper notes of indulgence for sins (adultry being one of them) in exchange for church contributions.

This pissed off Martin Luther no end.
Thus began The Reformation....it "reformed" thousands right to death.
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
60% divinely inspired,
40% copped from older religions in the region.

---

Of course, if those older religions were divinely inspired the percentage increases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
How does the Pope offer purgatorial indulgences?
Didint Martin Luther have issue with just that kind of scam?

I recall some minor strife resulted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
[qb] 60% divinely inspired,
40% copped from older religions in the region.

---

Of course, if those older religions were divinely inspired the percentage increases.

---

Divine indeed: I think Rimat Ninsun Wildcow inspired the "Noah's Arc" story.
At least as far back as the epic of Gilgamesh, anyway.

I dont think current indulgences are a scam per se but I cant believe that the Pope had a vision of Christ explaining this great deal on quitting smoking either.

Of course the pontiff is rather old so....
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
"contemporary indulgence"?

Need more info, need a link!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Today's news:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3819/pope_forgives.html
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
Today's news? The date I see is 22 May 2002.

Here is a link to an online version of CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH regarding indulgences:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#INDULGENCES
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Like the Church, I live in the past.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."[81]
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."[82] Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.

---

So some church doctrine is supposed to dictate policy in the afterlife?
I like that "indulgences can be applied to the dead" part.
Mabye if I give the church enough cash I can do whatever I want and get a good seat next to Mother Theresa.
Does anybody really believe this stuff?
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Does anybody really believe this stuff?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Mabye if I give the church enough cash I can do whatever I want and get a good seat next to Mother Theresa.

---

No. I would like to believe if you gave the Pope a blank check in exchange for moral carte blanche he would refuse. And, if he did not, I do believe the big bank in the sky would refuse to cash your indulgences.

In over a dozen years of Catholic school I was never told my eternal salvation can be purchased (because it cannot). What I was told is that it has already been earned; my goal is to live a life worthy of it ("worthiness" being determined by a well developed conscience). It is about striving for perfection, not a ledger of how many wrongs you can do because you have done x amount of rights.

We Catholics have an important saying: it is the rite, not the minister. For example, if one is confirmed [a sacrament of the Church] by an altar boy abusing, collection basket bilking bishop, the confirmation is not any less valid than one performed by God him-/her-/it-self, provided the one confirmed is faithful and honest in his reasons for seeking confirmation. Likewise, on the flip side, a priest pure as the driven snow, in whose mouth butter would not melt, could not make cannot make valid a rite entered into for the wrong reasons on the part of the partaker.

I apologize if I have hijacked this thread; as a Catholic apologist I have a hard time resisting any bait.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
ANd yet, as a Catholic, you believe that the Pope (a failable man like any other) can somehow lessen the time you'll spend in Purgatory if you quit smoking?
I'm not baiting you: I just cant fathom it any more than I can the ralieans.
Divine power/wisdom in the hands of a single man is easily disproved by their own failings and frailties.

If the pontiff were really "in" with God that way (and thus infailable) it would at least explain why it took the church so long to aknowledge that the Earth revolves around the sun....
And that some of their priests are sexual predators.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"I just cant fathom it any more than I can the ralieans."

Can't spell it any better, either.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well..yeah.
That's been established for some time.

...not to offend your religion or anything, clone-baby.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
In case you were'ne already going to hell, try not to laugh at this!
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2015

You'll need some serious papal indulgences to explain your laughter to the Messiah.
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
ANd yet, as a Catholic, you believe that the Pope (a failable man like any other) can somehow lessen the time you'll spend in Purgatory if you quit smoking?
I'm not baiting you: I just cant fathom it any more than I can the ralieans.
Divine power/wisdom in the hands of a single man is easily disproved by their own failings and frailties.

If the pontiff were really "in" with God that way (and thus infailable) it would at least explain why it took the church so long to aknowledge that the Earth revolves around the sun....
And that some of their priests are sexual predators.

---

The Pope (himself, personally) cannot "lessen the time [I'll] spend in purgatory." Only God can do that. As a Catholic, what I believe is the Church and the Pope can act as agents of God. If you will indulge me, I elaborate. I believe heaven, whatever it is, is perfect. I am not perfect. Thus, before I enter perfection I believe I need to be "cleansed" of my imperfections. Now, if you will grant smoking is a harmful activity, and I hope you will, then whatever part of my soul that led me to smoke must be "cleansed" before entering heaven. However, what if I gave up smoking before I died because I realized it was wrong. Well, then, my soul will need that much less cleansing in purgatory. Thus, indulgences can be a given; you do not neccessarily need the middle man. However, if the Pope is so inspired, he may make what is a given indulgence explicit in order to inspire normally un-purgatory pondering Catholics (and others) to quite smoking. I hope I have made some sense.

It is also important for me to state the Church does not believe the Pope is divine, has divine power(s), or is completely infallible. As a Catholic I believe the Pope is (one of) God's representatives on Earth, chosen through a divinely inspired meeting of Church leaders [Cardinals]. I will be the first to grant that it is patently obvious the above described ideal has not always been the case; politics has obviously, unfortunately, played a part in the selection of past popes. After all, as I think we all agree, no man is perfect. Where the Pope is infallible is in matters regarding the Catholic Church, the faith. And that does not mean if he opens his mouth and what comes out includes something religious what he has just said is infallible. For example, the Church's official stance on homosexual-ity/-orientation is that it is not a choice. I believe the Pope has been quoted as saying he thinks homosexual-ity/-orientation is a sickness, that is, he views it in a negative light, but he still thinks it is not a choice. However, he has never said his (negative) opinion on homosexual-ity/-orientation is infallible. Thus, I agree with the Church and the Pope that homosexual-ity/-orientation is not a choice, however, I do not view it in a negative light, and there is nothing "wrong" in the eyes of the Church with my view. The Pope has to explicitly state when he is speaking as the infallible head of the Church. It rarely happens. Therefore, I do not think a pope's imperfections, if he is truly the divinely inspired head of the Church, are proof that he is not infallible in matters regarding the Church.

Jason, I get the feeling this all strikes you as silly. However, I hope the length and way at which I have discussed this with you shows I truly believe in what I have written, and not just in a mindless sheep way, but in a way that shows at least some elementary, rudimentary understanding of what indeed I do believe. And if you do view Catholics and Raelians (and I am not saying you do) on the same level thank you at least for discussing in a and a manner, rather than in a manner.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:

Jason, I get the feeling this all strikes you as silly. However, I hope the length and way at which I have discussed this with you shows I truly believe in what I have written, and not just in a mindless sheep way, but in a way that shows at least some elementary, rudimentary understanding of what indeed I do believe. And if you do view Catholics and Raelians (and I am not saying you do) on the same level thank you at least for discussing in a and a manner, rather than in a manner.

---

I'm not equating Catholics with Ralieans, no....not directly.
The primal urge to be a part of a clan or group is the same though.
And I DO think the added ceremony and ritual the catholic church has added to the basic faith Jesus taught is silly, yes.

You make a good argument and the "soul cleansing" thing is a bit clearer now (simmlar to the Jewish faith but not exactly).
It's not so much the core belief system that I have diffuclty fathoming (after all, who wouldnt want a paradise to go to after death?) but rather the blind obediance to scriptures that stem from a far less enlightened time and the feverent refusal to re-examine one's own beliefs and their origins.

While I'm not calling you a sheep, I do believe the the theory "the masses are asses" : that the sense of self-rightousness that comes from millions of followers thinking alike is one of- if not the most- detremental factors in trying to eliminate strife in the world.

After all, millions of Islamist fundamerntalists cant be wrong, right?
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
While I'm not calling you a sheep, I do believe the the theory "the masses are asses" : that the sense of self-rightousness that comes from millions of followers thinking alike is one of- if not the most- detremental factors in trying to eliminate strife in the world.

---

Of course, "self-rightious belief in their own opinon" is a description that can be targetted at a lot of aethiests too.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
True....but athiests tend not to group together to further their own beliefs.

And athiests declaring a "holy war" would kinda defeat the purpose.

[ March 06, 2004, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I hate to tell you this, Jason, but Liam can't spell, either.

And of course atheists are self-righteous. It's because we're right, naturally.
 

---

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
I'm not equating Catholics with Ralieans, no....not directly.

---

Thank you. Though perhaps we Catholics should take a cue from the Raelians and use DNA from the Shroud Of Turin to clone whomever it belonged to in order to find out once and for all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
And I DO think the added ceremony and ritual the catholic church has added to the basic faith Jesus taught is silly, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
It's not so much the core belief system that I have diffuclty fathoming (after all, who wouldnt want a paradise to go to after death?) but rather the blind obediance to scriptures that stem from a far less enlightened time and the feverent refusal to re-examine one's own beliefs and their origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
While I'm not calling you a sheep, I do believe the the theory "the masses are asses" : that the sense of self-rightousness that comes from millions of followers thinking alike is one of- if not the most- detremental factors in trying to eliminate strife in the world

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
After all, millions of Islamist fundamerntalists cant be wrong, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
I hate to tell you this, Jason, but Liam can't spell, either.

---

LOL!
But at leat I'm still within my "edit window" so even gross spelling errors on my part can be overcome....if pointed out quickly, that is.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
I'm not equating Catholics with Ralieans, no....not directly.

---

Thank you. Though perhaps we Catholics should take a cue from the Raelians and use DNA from the Shroud Of Turin to clone whomever it belonged to in order to find out once and for all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
After all, millions of Islamist fundamerntalists cant be wrong, right?
Oh yes, they can. All fundamentalists are "wrong," Christian, Islamic, or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
I'm sure we were taught that it was a lie. Pretty sure. Fairly sure.

---

quote:

---

Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals

Associated Press

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

Link via Eschaton

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tora Ziyal:
Somebody ought to tell them about female bonobos.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)

Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.

---

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Maybe God's making them go extinct as a lesson for humanity.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Or it could have something to do with a little thing called deforestation, a human-driven phenomenon...
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Humanity was made in God's image.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
So you're saying that God is causing Man to destroy the Bonobos so that he can teach himself a lesson? And this makes sense to you?
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
God works in mysterious ways.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
You funny, man.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Humanity was made in God's image.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
And I'm sure you also heard that every time you loved yourself, you'd kill a KITTEN. Which is evil. So you did the right thing by stopping.

---

quote:

---

some did it normally, and some were given drugs to make them do it more often, and the ones that never did it lived the longest, while those who did it most died soonest.

---

quote:

---

The ones without any sex became violent, lost a lot of sleep and were total assholes....until their nuts exploded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokca:

quote:

---

The ones without any sex became violent, lost a lot of sleep and were total assholes....until their nuts exploded.

---

They also started to kitbash StarTrek models.

---

ZING!
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
This seems to have taken a twist....

Ejaculation
Worms too....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It'a biiiig leap from test results on worms to on people.
...although not in your case.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Well, not THAT big a leap: reproduction through meosis and churning out billions of little gametes non-stop IS an energy-intensive business, you know. Do not underestimate the biological requirements to keep your white wee wee coming. B)
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
If I have to sacrifice the last five years of my life in order to harness the pearl jam, then so be it.
I believe the hormonal activities and exercise the male body goes through normally is healthier than building yourself up to some sort of "Bruce Lee" anti-ejaculator.

I think of it in the same sense that blood donation keeps the bone marrow healthy and producing.
And I take every chinese age-old health tip with a pinch of salt, such as Never drink cold water (bad for the Chi), Never drink and eat at the same time and always Consume 2 lbs. of tiger penis each sunday in order to live forever.

Okay with the acupuncture/acupressure and the low-fat food, but drawing up iron-hard diets with sea urchin and sea grass and snakes 'n shit, believing that this is the sole reason you can preserve health and libido until you're 80 (along with aforementioned tiger penis), that's like sitting in a tree and yelling to keep the lions away.
"But there are no lions here!"
"-You see??? It works!!!"

Not that Bush's libido wouldn't be helped by a pinch of tiger penis now and then, though just as a placebo.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 
Am I the only one here that is mildly discomforted by the fact that Nim is concerned about Bush's libido...or heck, the fact that Nim even knows what state its in?
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
I believe that there may be a relationship between Bush's mojo and the war against terror.
I believe that this...libido holds for each and every one of us, the very meaning of our lives.

Or! , I might just be talking out of my behind. That's the thing with Nim, you never know for sure.
 

---

Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
 
but what of the relationship between Bush's mojo and Mojo's bush, hrm?
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
We do not speak of such things here.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
To make a bold leap back to the original topic...

I wonder what Bush is going to have to say, now that his own church has said it's okay to be gay, even if you're a church pastor.
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
Please be sure to read the entire article, including the third paragraph from the bottom. Most news sources completely miss that, and also miss the point of the jury thing in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
A Methodist clergy jury unanimously ruled that a lesbian minister can continue to be a minister and remain in a homosexual relationship

"We, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by the church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,"'

the church had argued that it also "regards the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings."

Buh? Regardless of your beliefs on the subject, isn't that totally contradictory? They rule that she can be a minister while in a lesbian relationship, because nothing she's done violates the teachings of the Methodist church, and yet the Methodist church teaches that homosexuality is incompatable with Christian teachings. Something's wrong with this picture...
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Unless they're saying that lesbians aren't homosexuals. Or something.

And "buh" is mine. Find your own expression of confusion.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

"...the church had argued that it also 'regards the practice of homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings.'"

Had. Past tense.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
And "buh" is mine.

Meh.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
And that.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Indeed....

I do note that they aren't listed as worthless...

The 'had' could also refer to the past occasions that they did so, but they were not argueing about it now, not that they have changed their minds....
 

---