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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Fell deeds await. Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and a Red Dawn... -Theoden, TTT
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants!
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
"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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
A VERY self-destructive theology there.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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 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.
Except they're not 100% incompatible. 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. Certain other denominations would consider them not Christian because of the way that they act, but that's only because of their own interpretation of the bible.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
I think this is worth repeating.
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.
I'm thinking that she's trying to make a priest and choir-boy joke.
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.
I dunno. I figure that if you get rid of the whole crusade and convert mentality, get rid of the fun fire and brimstone epics, get rid of the smiting, flaming swords, and three-headed villains, and all the other fun stuff then whats the point? If you've washed it down to the point where you're indistinguishable from a New Ager, it seems kinda pointless. Its no longer fun to be Christian.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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...
Only I'm not the one saying gays should "change their habitual actions to more closely conform to the will of God for human life in general", so nyah. B)
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...
...gay marriages and incest are not comparable.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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?
Yes and no. I was only stating the point that insectous relationships affect more than the two people in that relationship and can cause direct harm to their offspring. Gay marriages dont affect anyone except the participating members.
I wasnt debating sterilization of procreation of those with birth defects, just pointing out that from a legal POV, it's not the same as gay marriage.
Besides, there's likely many psychological issues and complexes that go with insest that wouldnt be there in a nice normal gay relationship.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Bear in mind that I'm not actually saying that we should allow brothers and sisters to marry here. I'm just pointing out that there is a crossover in reasoning behind the two types of relationships. People would argue that having gay parents could damage a child, certainly through bullying at school, at least. And from a "brothers and sisters having sex is disgusting" point of view, there are lots of people who feel the same thing about homosexual intercourse.
It's not a "gay sex is like sleeping with your brother" argument, it's an examination on why different sorts of marriages are banned and whether they should remain banned.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Although both laws stem from christian morals and stigma, there are other, scientific, reasons for banning insestous relationships (and the law is flexable enough to allow for marriage of second cousins). There is however, no documentation that gay marriage could harm anyone so despite both laws having a dogmatic origin, one applies to society in general while the other is obsolete (and becoming moreso every year). Passing a constutional amendment would be a lasting (and extremely difficult to overturn) barrier to the ongoing relationships of millions of gay americans.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
First off, apologies to Tim, I mistyped. Matthew 19, not 18.
[Referring to plucking out of eyes, etc.] A VERY self-destructive theology there.
Not if you read what he's saying. The idea is to cut out parts of your life that are causing you to sin (like, say, sex drive). It's better to do without something you deem important than it is to damage yourself spiritually. The plucking out of eyes was probably to make a point, especially as it's difficult for an non-conscious part of your body to CAUSE you to do anything, it just facilitates.
The different denominations of Christianity all interpret the Bible in different ways.
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
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.".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic