Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Answer me this, PE: What do you think is wrong with homosexuality, if anything? Do you think it's morally wrong to be a homosexual or to act on your homosexuality? Do you think homosexual love is less valid than heterosexual love? I personally don't understand homosexuality. I have nothing against those who are. I do not think that it is a choice, why would someone choose that life? I'm not even really against gay marriage or unions. Since I have no emotional ties to either side of the debate, I can see that it's not a question about equal treatment, it's about special rights or changing the "definition" of marriage, which I don't really know how I feel about it. I just think it should be presented for what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't understand why you think it is so horrible that gay people should be allowed to marry and why you think it will be the fall of civilization if they do... Like I said before, it wouldn't be the first time we've done something one way for awhile, and then changed it after we've grown more intelligent on the matter as a society And as soon as you start referring to "the holy Bible" in your arguments, you pretty much lose right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I personally don't understand homosexuality. I have nothing against those who are. I do not think that it is a choice, why would someone choose that life? I'm not even really against gay marriage or unions. Since I have no emotional ties to either side of the debate, I can see that it's not a question about equal treatment, it's about special rights or changing the "definition" of marriage, which I don't really know how I feel about it. I just think it should be presented for what it really is. I'd agree with you that it's about changing the definition of marriage to include marriage between two homosexuals. I just don't care. I think it improves on our current system. But you keep saying they want special rights, rather than what they're clearly asking for, which is equal marriage rights. What "special rights" are they asking for? What goes above and beyond what heterosexuals enjoy? Since we're presenting it for what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 And as soon as you start referring to "the holy Bible" in your arguments, you pretty much lose right there Why? Have you even read anything I've written? It's clear that some people on here hate religion and are prejudiced about those who are religious, which makes you just as bad as a fundamentalist. Did I say it was horrible for gay people to get married? I said I didn't have a real opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why? Have you even read anything I've written? It's clear that some people on here hate religion and are prejudiced about those who are religious, which makes you just as bad as a fundamentalist. Did I say it was horrible for gay people to get married? I said I didn't have a real opinion on the matter. I just feel like we shouldn't be using a book that's hundreds of years old as justification for modern policy I don't see how letting gay people marry hurts anyone really... and I don't mean partnership of gay married or whatever... I mean actually married like everyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I just feel like we shouldn't be using a book that's hundreds of years old as justification for modern policy Yeah. By all means; use the hundreds of years old constitution ... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yeah. By all means; use the hundreds of years old constitution ... WSS I never said that either. But it would be a step up I think it is stupid to blindly follow either and throw away hundreds of years of history and science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Where does it say these practices are acceptable in the holy bible? Slavery: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. lol, here you go again, rationalizing the bible. What you're talking about is indentured servitude, which in most cases, is just as bad as slavery. Racism: James 2:4 describes those who discriminate as “judges with evil thoughts.” Instead, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8). In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two “racial” groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations. Instead, for the most part, the Jews became proud of their status and despised the Gentiles. Jesus Christ put an end to this, destroying the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14). All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross. This quote has nothing to do with racism. This quote is about respecting the poor. Women's rights: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NRSV, Genesis 2:27-28)When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." (NIV, Genesis 5:1-2) Lol, I think you're leaving out quite a bit of what the Bible says about women. Interracial marriage: The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). However, the reason for this was not primarily racial in nature. Rather, it was religious. The reason God commanded against interracial marriage was that people of other races were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. The Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry idolaters, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. To answer this question specifically, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong. There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1-10). When selecting a mate, a Christian should always first find out if the potential spouse is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer. And the end result is people being indoctrinated to only marry those who are like them. James 2:1-10 is NOT about race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'd agree with you that it's about changing the definition of marriage to include marriage between two homosexuals. I just don't care. I think it improves on our current system. But you keep saying they want special rights, rather than what they're clearly asking for, which is equal marriage rights. What "special rights" are they asking for? What goes above and beyond what heterosexuals enjoy? Since we're presenting it for what it really is. um....they want to be able to marry someone of the same sex, something that no one can do right now. It's not equal rights. They have the same marriage rights as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 lol, here you go again, rationalizing the bible. What you're talking about is indentured servitude, which in most cases, is just as bad as slavery. There you go again, bastardizing the bible. Tell me where--anywhere--that says anything like "And God said unto them, ye shall keep slaves, for slavery is good, and God wants ye to keep them" It doesn't. Over times, thousands of years, meanings change. Gay used to mean happy....what does it mean now? People VOLUNTARILY ENTERED into slavery at times back then. So good for the bible to instruct people to take good care of them and not treat them like animals. This quote has nothing to do with racism. This quote is about respecting the poor. According to you. You are wrong. So you shouldn't love your neighbor if they are of a different race? Again, tell me where--anywhere--it condones racism in the bible. Does it say anything like "And God instructed the Israelites to hate those of different color, for they are evil" If the Bible condoned racism, why did anyone ever try to convert people of different "races" all around the world to Christianity? Hmmm. Race, especially based on skin color, is a social construction. In biblical times people didn't view "race" based on skin color, but rather where they came from and who they worshiped. Lol, I think you're leaving out quite a bit of what the Bible says about women. Like? And the end result is people being indoctrinated to only marry those who are like them. James 2:1-10 is NOT about race. But, if the bible condemned interracial marriage, would it not be present in these instructions NOT to marry someone of a different "race?" As previously mentioned, the Old Testament divides people into two races. Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles worshiped false gods. Jews were not to marry Gentiles because it might corrupt them. It says nothing about skin color, but you can imagine it however you want. Seriously dude, your hatred of the bible is ridiculous. You attribute the actions of man to be those of God, when they are not. What's it like to live life holding a grudge against something you don't even deem to be real? That must really suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 James 2 The Sin of Partiality 1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your [a]assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you [c]pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil [d]motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor [e]of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and [f]personally drag you into [g]court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name [h]by which you have been called? 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the [j]law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole [k]law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the [l]law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy [m]triumphs over judgment. Can this be applied to racism? Sure. But it can be applied to a bunch of things. Let's look at the context, it's not explicitly about racism. Therefore, I'm not wrong. Seriously dude, your hatred of the bible is ridiculous. You attribute the actions of man to be those of God, when they are not. What's it like to live life holding a grudge against something you don't even deem to be real? That must really suck. I don't hate the Bible, no, it's just a fantasy book. I hate people that champion the screwed up virtues that the Bible spouts and insist that our legislation follow it. Exodus 21:2-6 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. I can't comprehend how you're saying this is a good thing. "It's telling people to treat their slaves better!" "See how they aren't treating them like animals!" If this isn't treating a human being like an animal, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Why should we even look to the Bible on matters like this? Honestly who cares what it says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think marriage was an institution meant to strenghten the family unit much as PE says. Gloria Steinem agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't hate the Bible, no, it's just a fantasy book. I hate people that champion the screwed up virtues that the Bible spouts and insist that our legislation follow it. Oh, I agree, in a sense. The "screwed up virtues" are simply somewhat vague passages that are twisted to fit a person's agenda. But not everyone who is a Christian does such things. Some people actually do love thy neighbor and judge not. Just because someone isn't championing gay marriage does not mean they are basing their views on passages from the bible, nor does it mean they are even really against gay marriage. All I'm saying is that it's not an equal rights issue. Think about it, actions based on emotion are not a right. If a cop catches you doing a burnout because you are pissed they will still most likely give you a ticket for reckless driving. Being mad is no excuse. Emotions cannot be legislated. So the argument that gay people can't marry the ones they love might be true, but it's not that they don't have equal rights. In the eyes of Government, marriage has nothing to do with love, it's simply a legal partnership between (currently) a man and a woman. Actually, now that I've thought about it, I don't have a problem with gay marriage, for the reasons stated above....marriage, in the eyes of government, is simply a legal partnership. Religion, nor emotion, has nothing to do with government recognized marriages. So no, I don't have a problem with it. It's not necessarily a religious institution. I can't comprehend how you're saying this is a good thing. "It's telling people to treat their slaves better!" "See how they aren't treating them like animals!" If this isn't treating a human being like an animal, I don't know what is. It's something that was ongoing at the time. The framers of the Constitution didn't outlaw it, either. It was an existing problem that a young fledgling nation (or in the biblical case, a fledgling band of Hebrews) didn't have the resources to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Also, would like to add that I actually do hate the Bible because some stupid covenant in it is the reason my penis was mutilated as a baby. But not everyone who is a Christian does such things. Some people actually do love thy neighbor and judge not. In my experience as a Catholic for about 18 years, those people were few and far in between. People seemed to care more about being seen in church than living a virtuous life. Hey assholes, remember the passage where you shouldn't go out to a corner with a trumpet to tout your faith? Let not your left hand see what your right hand is doing? Guess not. I mean, you figure they would seeing as it gets read on Ash Wednesday, you know one of those holy days that the church gets packed. I considered myself a better Catholic than those around me for the longest time. Then I started to question it, and I found that I didn't believe a word of it. All I'm saying is that it's not an equal rights issue. Think about it, actions based on emotion are not a right. If a cop catches you doing a burnout because you are pissed they will still most likely give you a ticket for reckless driving. Being mad is no excuse. Emotions cannot be legislated. So the argument that gay people can't marry the ones they love might be true, but it's not that they don't have equal rights. In the eyes of Government, marriage has nothing to do with love, it's simply a legal partnership between (currently) a man and a woman. Well, if our Declaration of Independence is going to include the "pursuit of happiness" I don't see why emotions can't come into play. If you're going to legislate emotions, however, then it becomes a philosophical argument, for example, what if raping women makes some guy happy, is he allowed to do that? Well no, because it infringes on the woman's human rights. So I think the question that legislators need to be asking themselves is this: if we allow gays to marry, will that infringe on the rights of others? I have not heard a single decent argument to say that it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 And as we evolved as a society changes were made... Slavery bad Earth round Earth orbits sun Etc. Why would we want to blindly follow a document before these changes were made? Be it the Bible, Constitution, Magna Carta, whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 It's something that was ongoing at the time. The framers of the Constitution didn't outlaw it, either. It was an existing problem that a young fledgling nation (or in the biblical case, a fledgling band of Hebrews) didn't have the resources to deal with. I don't hold the Constitution to be infallible, and clearly, it is not given how many times it has been amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 well the Founders actually knew that documents become outdated. That's why they allow the constitution to be amended. Times change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 well the Founders actually knew that documents become outdated. That's why they allow the constitution to be amended. Times change. In stark contrast to believers in the Bible. For so many of them, what is written is the Divine, inspired word of God. It is infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 In my experience as a Catholic for about 18 years, those people were few and far in between. People seemed to care more about being seen in church than living a virtuous life. Hey assholes, remember the passage where you shouldn't go out to a corner with a trumpet to tout your faith? Let not your left hand see what your right hand is doing? Guess not. I mean, you figure they would seeing as it gets read on Ash Wednesday, you know one of those holy days that the church gets packed. I considered myself a better Catholic than those around me for the longest time. Then I started to question it, and I found that I didn't believe a word of it. Hey, Catholics scare me too. Much evil has been done by that organization. Fundamentalists suck too. Anything created by man can be corrupted. Organized religion is no exception. Well, if our Declaration of Independence is going to include the "pursuit of happiness" I don't see why emotions can't come into play. If you're going to legislate emotions, however, then it becomes a philosophical argument, for example, what if raping women makes some guy happy, is he allowed to do that? Well no, because it infringes on the woman's human rights. So I think the question that legislators need to be asking themselves is this: if we allow gays to marry, will that infringe on the rights of others? I have not heard a single decent argument to say that it would. It's too hard to legislate laws for emotional purposes. It doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't know why, I can't tell you at this time. it's certainly a problem that the bible is written in an ancient language. It leads to vagueness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 It's too hard to legislate laws for emotional purposes. It doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't know why, I can't tell you at this time. it's certainly a problem that the bible is written in an ancient language. It leads to vagueness. Okay, in that case, why shouldn't two men or two women be entitled to the legal benefits that a man and woman are entitled to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it. Like I said, I feel that since government recognizes marriage as a contract or a legal union between two people, nothing else should come into play. So, the thing proponents of gay marriage need to do is somehow clarify or change the legal definition of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I never said that either. But it would be a step up I think it is stupid to blindly follow either and throw away hundreds of years of history and science It's immensely misguided to compare the Bible and the Constitution simply because they're both old. They're two completely different things, written for completely different reasons, purporting to regulate or explain completely different subjects. I mean, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 >>It really comes down to whether or not you think homosexuals are normal and moral and capable of love just like everyone else, or you don't.>> That's a lot of 'ands', Heck. I cannot buy into that chained description. But who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 >>It really comes down to whether or not you think homosexuals are normal and moral and capable of love just like everyone else, or you don't.>> That's a lot of 'ands', Heck. I cannot buy into that chained description. But who cares. I do. Lots of people do. It's really a simple question, John: do you think homosexuality is somehow immoral, or is it completely normal for a small segment of the population to have same sex attractions? Which one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I do. Lots of people do. It's really a simple question, John: do you think homosexuality is somehow immoral, or is it completely normal for a small segment of the population to have same sex attractions?Which one? You provide a description with 3 components and then you ask for a reply on one of them. I'm not sure your question RE: morality is valid. Can somebody who is moral in terms of treating people with courtesy, abiding to laws, paying their bills on time be immoral on something else? I don't see this with one broad brush. Kind of like somebody being a sinner and one who practices sin. I see a distinction. Any way, to answer your first question I do not believe it is normal. That doesn't mean anything more or anything less. It was your definition / description, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I do. Lots of people do. It's really a simple question, John: do you think homosexuality is somehow immoral, or is it completely normal for a small segment of the population to have same sex attractions? Which one? As you probably knew when you tossed out the bait those 2 positions are not the polar opposite of each other. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 You provide a description with 3 components and then you ask for a reply on one of them. I'm not sure your question RE: morality is valid. Can somebody who is moral in terms of treating people with courtesy, abiding to laws, paying their bills on time be immoral on something else? I don't see this with one broad brush. Kind of like somebody being a sinner and one who practices sin. I see a distinction. Any way, to answer your first question I do not believe it is normal. That doesn't mean anything more or anything less. It was your definition / description, not mine. If sins were legislated, we'd all be in prison for coveting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 What do you mean by normal? An anthropologist would consider homosexuality normal behavior. But they would also consider murder as normal behavior. I think what you mean to ask is if homosexuality should be considered a taboo or deviant behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I meant normal as opposed to abnormal. My apologies for not being precise enough with my language. Or as Steve imagines, devilishly scheming to trick you all. If you want to stick with morality, you can use that if you like. Do you think homosexuality or homosexual acts are immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.