Why is Homosexuality Still Wrong? (Moved from the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum)

Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Why is Homosexuality Still Wrong? (Moved from the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum)

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: You know, I

Spewn wrote:

You know, I really didn't think I'd need to do this.

razorphreak wrote:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/5543
"Spewn wrote:

So Hitler and Saddam could both be chillin' in heaven right now?

The same as Pharaoh in the story of the exodus. The same with Judas, the man who betrayed Jesus. If they are doing God's will, who are we to condemn?
"

"Spewn wrote:

Do we, as humans living on earth, have any means at all by which to judge whether or not a person is doing God's will?

No.
That however does not mean we cannot correct someone if we feel they are going against God's word. If I see a Christian group hating on anyone that is a homosexual, for me it's part of who I am to correct them in making sure they understand God will save or condemn that person. We cannot run around hating that person but we can attempt to tell that person that we do not agree with their sin and help correct it from that point. Do not mistake that to be to take them somewhere and start a conversation with "Did you know God said it was evil for you to be gay" kinda thing, but more so to live as an example and accept that individual as a friend; God will put the conversation in the proper context.

Spewn wrote:

Or is it safe to say that any person, anywhere, doing anything could be guaranteed a place in heaven as a result of their actions?

How people are judged by God first depends on their belief in Jesus first (and this is more than just saying you believe) and second based on their actions if belief is not in their heart. Romans 2 hits on this. "

 

I would LOVE for you to explain to me how this can be "interpreted" to mean something other than you believe hitler and saddam hussein could both be in heaven and that you concede this because we have no way of judging whether or not something is going with god's will.

 

this is really interesting. i'm curious how sadam and hitler could potentially be doing god's will by committing horrible acts of murderous violence when, according to razorphreak, god doesn't condone killing people and therefore didn't mean it when he told the israelites to do it in the OT. why would their acts of violence be god's will, but not the acts of the israelites, which god supposedly expressly asked them to perform?

 

and i'm still waiting to learn how you spiritually stone someone.

Rill


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
yea I know what the

yea I know what the dictionaries say...it's my opinion on it. Sorry should said that...

Reinforcing my position regarding the reliability of scripture in describing a consistent message.

Religions to me have always been the stuff that man puts into place over God.

The texts do, and then the interpreters of the text do it again. Without “stuff” you'd be a pantheist, or a at most deist.

Any organized dogma like Catholism, Baptist, Lutherian, that stuff, those are religions...know what I mean?

Nope. Sounds like an opinion, and not one commonly shared by believers themselves.

The reason my opinion Christanity is not a religion is because of the whole label thing; following the example of Jesus has been and is to me an action, a lifestyle, not what came from man but from God (not going to get into if God exists argument ok!)

You don't have “Jesus” telling you how to behave, you have a text that could have been written by anyone, editing by anyone, altered by anyone, and then your own (or your religious authority's) interpretation. Unless you think you talk to “god,” in which case I'm done here.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
To you I evade the

To you I evade the question; I have answered the questions in accordance to my faith and according to the bible.  If that is what was asked that is how I'll respond.   

You keep saying you've already explained things. Where? When? I've been tracking this thread, and you keep saying you're about to, or you've already addressed my questions.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 how long should I wait

 how long should I wait for sugarfree to catch and resolve this self contradiction?

"First, let me state that the OT message is not what I'm going to be referring to because, to a Christian, that law no longer applies thanks to Jesus."

 "See this is where you need understanding of the WHOLE message of the bible"

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: yea I

razorphreak wrote:

yea I know what the dictionaries say...it's my opinion on it. Sorry should said that...

Religions to me have always been the stuff that man puts into place over God. Any organized dogma like Catholism, Baptist, Lutherian, that stuff, those are religions...know what I mean?

The reason my opinion Christanity is not a religion is because of the whole label thing; following the example of Jesus has been and is to me an action, a lifestyle, not what came from man but from God (not going to get into if God exists argument ok!)

The Bible labels, doesn't it?  Whoremongers, murderers, homosexuals are all labels.

Imo, the biggest problem with the Bible is that everyone interprets it in their own way.  If the Bible is supposed to be god's word he should have said it a little more clearly because people base their lives and actions on that book.  I know you're going to say that it's not god's problem that people misinterpreted his word, by why isn't it?  If he is as all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., shouldn't he have to take responsibility for his word and the actions of his creation?  People have been killed for being gay.  I'm not necessarily blaming the Bible, I'm blaming the religious doctrine that comes from it (ok, I know that sounds like I'm still blaming the Bible). It's the religious dogma that is so pervasive and that allows the continued discrimination of homosexuals.  Hope that makes sense.  I'm doing this quickly, sorry. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
this is really interesting. i'm curious how sadam and hitler could potentially be doing god's will by committing horrible acts of murderous violence when, according to razorphreak, god doesn't condone killing people and therefore didn't mean it when he told the israelites to do it in the OT.

You are judging these men of history by human standards and not God's.

Romans 9:14-18 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

This goes to re-enforce what I've been saying in that we as humans are NOT the judges of who is saved and who is damned. 

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
why would their acts of violence be god's will, but not the acts of the israelites, which god supposedly expressly asked them to perform?

I've seen this question before and the short answer has always been a means to an end.

I've read a bunch of different views on the old testament verses that get into a more violent punishment for the sinners and there are two things I'd want to express:

  1. In the context of the time period, it is indeed speaking of man killing man in accordance to God's will of the time in order to instill a sense of justice and fear with men to basically teach them "obedience". While I approached this from the new testament idology in Jesus' teaching that we must not fear those who can destroy the body but fear the one who can destroy the soul (Matthew 10:28), the context in to which Leviticus was written was indeed for man to threaten death to the sinner so I apologize I was indeed incorrect.
  2. While this might not mean as much, I did want to put that it was based on the angle of a Christian, that is how Jesus approached sin and sinners that is what I did incorrectly to the time period.  Jesus' ministry when it comes to sin is very specific to not judging and in Romans Paul speaks highly of leaving condemnation to God.  Because of both of those, The NT replaces what the OT stated in terms of judging sin as not being for man to do.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
I know you're going to say that it's not god's problem that people misinterpreted his word, by why isn't it? If he is as all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., shouldn't he have to take responsibility for his word and the actions of his creation? People have been killed for being gay. I'm not necessarily blaming the Bible, I'm blaming the religious doctrine that comes from it (ok, I know that sounds like I'm still blaming the Bible). It's the religious dogma that is so pervasive and that allows the continued discrimination of homosexuals. Hope that makes sense. I'm doing this quickly, sorry.

What I believe, and this is my faith telling me this (though you might consider it an opinion), is God put ONE interpretation, ONE message, and ONE way to follow and that's the example of Jesus. These people that do what they will is the freedom that God gives us on this planet even though his message is very clear. I've seen it where the message is "not clear" or "misunderstood" however with the gift of faith that God gives it's anything but. Religious dogma perverts the message of God and has left confusion among "churches" but it is not God's fault that has happened (I almost see God hitting his forehead like Bull from the old show "Night Court" in disbelief). In the same breath however, God's will was for this to happen to find out who is obedient to his will and his word. It has to happen this way to find out who believes and who just follows. It's written this way in scripture from the NT and because some believe he doesn't do anything about does not mean his will isn't being done.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
I know you're going to say that it's not god's problem that people misinterpreted his word, by why isn't it? If he is as all-knowing, all-powerful, etc., shouldn't he have to take responsibility for his word and the actions of his creation? People have been killed for being gay. I'm not necessarily blaming the Bible, I'm blaming the religious doctrine that comes from it (ok, I know that sounds like I'm still blaming the Bible). It's the religious dogma that is so pervasive and that allows the continued discrimination of homosexuals. Hope that makes sense. I'm doing this quickly, sorry.

What I believe, and this is my faith telling me this (though you might consider it an opinion), is God put ONE interpretation, ONE message, and ONE way to follow and that's the example of Jesus. These people that do what they will is the freedom that God gives us on this planet even though his message is very clear. I've seen it where the message is "not clear" or "misunderstood" however with the gift of faith that God gives it's anything but. Religious dogma perverts the message of God and has left confusion among "churches" but it is not God's fault that has happened (I almost see God hitting his forehead like Bull from the old show "Night Court" in disbelief). In the same breath however, God's will was for this to happen to find out who is obedient to his will and his word. It has to happen this way to find out who believes and who just follows. It's written this way in scripture from the NT and because some believe he doesn't do anything about does not mean his will isn't being done.

I think we're coming precariously close to getting off topic (my fault, sorry 'bout that) so let me try to get back on course.  I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring your post.

Ok, can you agree that religious dogma creates animosity towards homosexuals, regardless of whether you believe it should or not? 

What can be done to change that?  Do you think this perception should be changed?

I think I asked you this before in the other thread but then you theists got the boot and you couldn't answer. Wink  Do you think that it's fair that because of religious beliefs in this country, there are people who are being denied their rights (i.e. homosexuals being allowed to marry)?  If so, why?  If not, why? 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Is it off topic to just

Is it off topic to just throw in right here that homosexuality is not morally wrong? 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote: Is

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
Is it off topic to just throw in right here that homosexuality is not morally wrong? 

Nope, that's completely on topic.  However, try convincing a theist of that.  If it weren't for the Bible, etc., homosexuality would not be considered immoral (or bad, or evil, or...)

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm glad I ...er,

Well, I'm glad I ...er, we settled it but just to re-cap: 

Homosexuality is not morally wrong, evil, un-natural or sinful.  Case closed.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
Ok, can you agree that religious dogma creates animosity towards homosexuals, regardless of whether you believe it should or not?

What can be done to change that? Do you think this perception should be changed?

I think I asked you this before in the other thread but then you theists got the boot and you couldn't answer. Wink Do you think that it's fair that because of religious beliefs in this country, there are people who are being denied their rights (i.e. homosexuals being allowed to marry)? If so, why? If not, why?


I think first off the fear and/or hatred of homosexuals comes from men that are not following God's word. Of all the civilzations that have existed in Earth, God's power remained consistant and yet people didn't follow. Society always seemed to want to do it's own thing, just as we see it today, and in every case, such as in Rome, Soddom, Persia, so on, they crumbled because they did not fear God.

Gay marriage is not about gay rights. It's about what marriage means and marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what marriage has been about since it's inception and saying it needs to "evolove" is not what marriage has done in the past (an example was given to me about the right for a black man and a white woman to marry was allowed in law is not a valid example because it was still in reference to a man and woman pairing).

As a Christian, my beliefs are clear from the NT in regard to homosexuality: it is wrong, it is immoral. It is also specific as to what a Christian should do towards a person who considers themself to be homosexual; do not judge. What this means is as a Christian, I do not agree with homosexuality nor do I believe it should be practiced. It also means that I will not hate a person because he/she is gay nor will I tell them they are going to hell because of it. Those who forget God, God will forget them.

Romans 1:21-25 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


Now, last thing I wanted to add here are the rights according to society and to human beings. Because I cannot nor should condemn a homosexual person, I do not agree with laws that make label you a deviant. The hatred that others show to someone who is gay should stop and harsher laws should be enacted to those who do "gay bashing" or other forms of violence.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Gay

razorphreak wrote:

Gay marriage is not about gay rights. It's about what marriage means and marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what marriage has been about since it's inception and saying it needs to "evolove" is not what marriage has done in the past (an example was given to me about the right for a black man and a white woman to marry was allowed in law is not a valid example because it was still in reference to a man and woman pairing).

The early church married gay couples for three centuries before eliminating the practice. Marriage (legal) documents in the US didn't start until the 1920's as an act of racism and the church wanted NOTHING to do with it. If you want to call it a marriage, fine, call it the hokey-pokey for all I care, but at least give two people access to a legal document if they so choose and call it a contract but don't deny that marriage was always about just a man and a woman because it wasn't. Maybe you think so in your religion NOW but in many other cultures and early christian tradition it was not.

 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: The

Lynette1977 wrote:
The early church married gay couples for three centuries before eliminating the practice. Marriage (legal) documents in the US didn't start until the 1920's as an act of racism and the church wanted NOTHING to do with it. If you want to call it a marriage, fine, call it the hokey-pokey for all I care, but at least give two people access to a legal document if they so choose and call it a contract but don't deny that marriage was always about just a man and a woman because it wasn't. Maybe you think so in your religion NOW but in many other cultures and early christian tradition it was not.

Hate to remind you Lynette but marriage was defined well before a "church" began doing it.  All over both the old and new testaments, including the accepted 10 commandments, speak of marriage and wives.  Even if you don't accept the bible as a gateway into history, Jewish texts as well as Greek and Roman documents also speak of marriage.  I'm not talking about it in a church but as it has been documentated throughout history - as man + woman.

Tell me, if society states its ok for civil unions, what then?  Won't be good enough?  If a gay couple can achieve all the rights except for the tax break of marriage, what would be the need to be married? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Yep, marriage was defined

Yep, marriage was defined WELL before churches stepped into it.

And in ancient Egypt, brothers and sisters could get married! Hmmm, since that tradition is even OLDER, and was "documentated(sic)" then I guess we should allow that too, huh?

Wink


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Lynette1977 wrote:
The early church married gay couples for three centuries before eliminating the practice. Marriage (legal) documents in the US didn't start until the 1920's as an act of racism and the church wanted NOTHING to do with it. If you want to call it a marriage, fine, call it the hokey-pokey for all I care, but at least give two people access to a legal document if they so choose and call it a contract but don't deny that marriage was always about just a man and a woman because it wasn't. Maybe you think so in your religion NOW but in many other cultures and early christian tradition it was not.

Hate to remind you Lynette but marriage was defined well before a "church" began doing it. All over both the old and new testaments, including the accepted 10 commandments, speak of marriage and wives. Even if you don't accept the bible as a gateway into history, Jewish texts as well as Greek and Roman documents also speak of marriage. I'm not talking about it in a church but as it has been documentated throughout history - as man + woman.

Tell me, if society states its ok for civil unions, what then? Won't be good enough? If a gay couple can achieve all the rights except for the tax break of marriage, what would be the need to be married?

You still have not addressed what I've been saying. Not all cultures subscribe to this but they haven't collapsed. In fact, cultures in which people are less religious and more equal fair better than cultures such as our own. Marriage, historically, wasn't about love or romance but about property hence the reason the early christian church willingly married gay couples without an issue. Our culture gives a child molester, a rapist, a child abuser the right to marry and marry as many times as they would like without question. Claiming that allowing two men or two women the opportunity to marry as societies once did will be the demise of American culture or marriage is an absolute farce. The slippery slope crap that theists use to exclude people is simply non-existent. 

"The ancient Hebrews, according to the Old Testament, were polygamous. Cleopatra's Ptolemaic dynasty practiced brother-sister marriage in homage to the Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis. And in some Native American cultures, transgendered women born as biological males — sometimes called berdache — were among the most prized of wives."

You can find a great deal of information here about where it came from. As you'll see, with our culture today, allowing everyone equal access to marriage will harm no one as marriages in our culture today have nothing to do with what they once were: History of Marriage in Western Civilization. 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Tell me, if society states its ok for civil unions, what then? Won't be good enough? If a gay couple can achieve all the rights except for the tax break of marriage, what would be the need to be married?

How about equality, plain and simple equality.

What is wrong with treating homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples? Why does it matter to you, there will not be a requirement for you engage in a homosexual marriage. Let your neighbor marry who they please, share benefits with who they please and lead their lives their own way.


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Tell

razorphreak wrote:

Tell me, if society states its ok for civil unions, what then? Won't be good enough? If a gay couple can achieve all the rights except for the tax break of marriage, what would be the need to be married?

 It's not going to be good enough until , same sex couples get every single right a hetro couple gets, if churchs dont want   to marry same sex couples thier choice, but their should be an alterntive system that gives them every right , including tax break.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Hate to

razorphreak wrote:

Hate to remind you Lynette but marriage was defined well before a "church" began doing it. All over both the old and new testaments, including the accepted 10 commandments, speak of marriage and wives. Even if you don't accept the bible as a gateway into history, Jewish texts as well as Greek and Roman documents also speak of marriage. I'm not talking about it in a church but as it has been documentated throughout history - as man + woman.

Ancient texts also speak of a marriage being man + numerous women. And, as someone already pointed out, man + sister, cousin, etc. Using ancient history to bolster your definition of marriage is a bad choice on your part. Many of our "traditions" concerning marriage date back to a time when a bride was kidnapped from a neighboring tribe and forced into matrimony.

 

Quote:
Tell me, if society states its ok for civil unions, what then? Won't be good enough? If a gay couple can achieve all the rights except for the tax break of marriage, what would be the need to be married?

They dont need to be married, in a church that is. They deserve every single civil right that everyone else gets, period. Anything else is contradictory to the principles the country claims it was founded on. That stupid argument that gay marriages would lead to people marrying furniture, or marrying all 5 of their daughters is tired and ridiculous. If two(or more, for that matter) people of consenting age both choose to agree to enter into a domestic partnership(what I think all marriages should be called according to the state) then they should be free to do so. Hetero, homo, whatever. However, a better idea would be for the government to remove itself from these matters entirely.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: You

Lynette1977 wrote:
You still have not addressed what I've been saying. Not all cultures subscribe to this but they haven't collapsed. In fact, cultures in which people are less religious and more equal fair better than cultures such as our own. Marriage, historically, wasn't about love or romance but about property hence the reason the early christian church willingly married gay couples without an issue.

And in accordance with being a Christian there IS issue...because they didn't follow what the bible states doesn't make it any more right in the eyes of God. 

As to the others who posted recently, I've stated before, if society deems it acceptable ON A LEGAL STANDPOINT that gay marriage is allowed, you won't hear any objection from me.  Gay couples have 99% of all rights that hetero couples have today; the only one missing really is the federal IRS designation of a married couple.  I found even various insurance companies will in fact cover your "mate".  So...other than the federal standpoint what is missing?  The title?  The paper that says you have the right to be as miserable as anyone else married (haha joke)?

You know and I know however that "equality" is based upon perception.  I can only speak for myself that I have and would treat anyone I meet as a brother or sister in God since this is what my faith and the bible say.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
this is really interesting. i'm curious how sadam and hitler could potentially be doing god's will by committing horrible acts of murderous violence when, according to razorphreak, god doesn't condone killing people and therefore didn't mean it when he told the israelites to do it in the OT.

You are judging these men of history by human standards and not God's.

 

no, i was judging them by yours.  

 


Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
why would their acts of violence be god's will, but not the acts of the israelites, which god supposedly expressly asked them to perform?

I've seen this question before and the short answer has always been a means to an end.

I've read a bunch of different views on the old testament verses that get into a more violent punishment for the sinners and there are two things I'd want to express:

  1. In the context of the time period, it is indeed speaking of man killing man in accordance to God's will of the time in order to instill a sense of justice and fear with men to basically teach them "obedience". While I approached this from the new testament idology in Jesus' teaching that we must not fear those who can destroy the body but fear the one who can destroy the soul (Matthew 10:28), the context in to which Leviticus was written was indeed for man to threaten death to the sinner so I apologize I was indeed incorrect.
  2. While this might not mean as much, I did want to put that it was based on the angle of a Christian, that is how Jesus approached sin and sinners that is what I did incorrectly to the time period. Jesus' ministry when it comes to sin is very specific to not judging and in Romans Paul speaks highly of leaving condemnation to God. Because of both of those, The NT replaces what the OT stated in terms of judging sin as not being for man to do.

 

why did god have to change his tactics? why did god have to cater to the time period? why did he use violence when he really didn't find violence to be a good thing? or is violence a good thing? why would a supreme being need to use violence and slavery and genocide to accomplish its ends? why would it need to use those means at all, especially if it preferred nonjudmental love as a means to an end?

Rill


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Gay

razorphreak wrote:

Gay couples have 99% of all rights that hetero couples have today; 

no no they dont , they ahve alot mroe rights than they used to but not 99% of them all. also some rights are given to them but that doesnt mean they wont be enforcerd such as  adoption they have the right to but alot of adoption agencies turn them down , the right to give blood *gays are appranlty filled withd diesase casue the bible says were bad*. and thats jsut afew

razorphreak wrote:

I found even various insurance companies will in fact cover your "mate".

a few not all , and i can bet you that its a very small few that do , so a lot of couples still cant get them. 

 

razorphreak wrote:

o...other than the federal standpoint what is missing? The title? The paper that says you have the right to be as miserable as anyone else married (haha joke)?

 

 all of the above and some.


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Gay

razorphreak wrote:


Gay marriage is not about gay rights. It's about what marriage means and marriage is between a man and a woman. It's what marriage has been about since it's inception and saying it needs to "evolove" is not what marriage has done in the past (an example was given to me about the right for a black man and a white woman to marry was allowed in law is not a valid example because it was still in reference to a man and woman pairing).

 

this is a cop out argument if you ask me. you realize that you have a definition of a civil institution that excludes a particular group for no good reason, and you say, "sorry, that's just how we define it, can't be helped, we can't change it." why not? why can't you change the definition of marriage to be inclusive rather than exclusive? and you've got it backwards. marriage hasn't been defined legally as a man and a woman, which is why states have been scrambling over themselves to define it as such in their constitutions. to say that we can't change the definition of marriage is ridiculous. and it's a deliberate exclusion.

Rill


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Lynette1977 wrote:
You still have not addressed what I've been saying. Not all cultures subscribe to this but they haven't collapsed. In fact, cultures in which people are less religious and more equal fair better than cultures such as our own. Marriage, historically, wasn't about love or romance but about property hence the reason the early christian church willingly married gay couples without an issue.

And in accordance with being a Christian there IS issue...because they didn't follow what the bible states doesn't make it any more right in the eyes of God.

As to the others who posted recently, I've stated before, if society deems it acceptable ON A LEGAL STANDPOINT that gay marriage is allowed, you won't hear any objection from me. Gay couples have 99% of all rights that hetero couples have today; the only one missing really is the federal IRS designation of a married couple. I found even various insurance companies will in fact cover your "mate". So...other than the federal standpoint what is missing? The title? The paper that says you have the right to be as miserable as anyone else married (haha joke)?

You know and I know however that "equality" is based upon perception. I can only speak for myself that I have and would treat anyone I meet as a brother or sister in God since this is what my faith and the bible say.

Until then you'll always vote to put your religion as law, correct? (Excluding people from a legal document because your religion says so)

And I'm sorry, but it's extremely offensive that you would first argue that I don't deserve the same rights... then say I shouldn't want it because it's not a big deal. Which is it?

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
     Interesting

 

 

 Interesting statistics here.

One highlight from the article: 

Family issues dominate the current discourse over equal rights for GLBT Americans, specifically whether gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and responsbilities afforded to heterosexual couples. According to a U.S. General Accounting Office report, there are over 1,000 federal benefits granted to heterosexual married couples. In 48 states, committed and loving gay and lesbian couples are currently denied access to the great majority of these benefits including, but not limited to, Social Security benefits upon the death of a partner, health care benefits, ability to petition for a partner to immigrate to the United States, the ability to take time off to care for an ill partner, and the ability to file joint tax returns as a married couple. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Some examples (from this

Some examples (from this article):

  • will not be eligible to share in each other’s social security;
  • will be treated as single in all tax matters (particularly consequential after a death) sometimes requiring people to pay high taxes on their own jointly owned homes;
  • will have to accept in a lump sum all inherited IRA’s and 401(k)’s, resulting in a huge tax burden;
  • will have no access to veteran’s benefits available to spouses of veterans;
  • will not have the ability to transfer property at divorce free of tax consequences, thus making it more difficult (and potentially depleting the couple’s assets) to achieve a fair balance of assets;
  • will be unable to freely transfer assets to a spouse with no loss of eligibility for public nursing home care.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote:

Malice wrote:
also some rights are given to them but that doesnt mean they wont be enforcerd such as adoption they have the right to but alot of adoption agencies turn them down , the right to give blood *gays are appranlty filled withd diesase casue the bible says were bad*. and thats jsut afew

As far as the giving blood that I haven't heard about. Adoption probably deserves it's own thread cause that's an issue onto itself...

Malice wrote:
a few not all , and i can bet you that its a very small few that do , so a lot of couples still cant get them.

But the point is they exist.

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
why did god have to change his tactics? why did god have to cater to the time period? why did he use violence when he really didn't find violence to be a good thing? or is violence a good thing? why would a supreme being need to use violence and slavery and genocide to accomplish its ends? why would it need to use those means at all, especially if it preferred nonjudmental love as a means to an end?

Different time, different culture, different rules for men to follow since he knew that was the only way.

Look at us now, we are supposed to use nonjudgemental love yet do we (as a society)? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: Until

Lynette1977 wrote:
Until then you'll always vote to put your religion as law, correct? (Excluding people from a legal document because your religion says so)

And I'm sorry, but it's extremely offensive that you would first argue that I don't deserve the same rights... then say I shouldn't want it because it's not a big deal. Which is it?

I will vote my conscious.  If I believe gay marriage to be immoral but vote for it to change the legal definition, that makes me a hypocrite.

And you didn't read what I wrote.  I didn't say you don't deserve the same rights because they exist now with the exception of above noted... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Gay

razorphreak wrote:

Gay couples have 99% of all rights that hetero couples have today; the only one missing really is the federal IRS designation of a married couple.

You're not gay and probably don't have a clue WHAT marriage rights  straight people get so I'll excuse your statement. But if you want to know what you're keeping people from receiving, Here's the list of over 1138 rights that gay couples are excluded from. Hardly as "trivial" as you make it out to be. Or is that "trivial but you don't need them because my religion says so?"

I was going to post them all here but there are far too many. Please just take the time to understand what you're keeping people from receiving. As you can see, taxes, health care, death benefits, insurance, military benefits, criminal protection, student education, social security, immigration and on and on don't have a damn thing to do with "god's love" that you're claiming. Keeping people from these rights is about self-righteousness, not religion.

 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: Or is

Lynette1977 wrote:
Or is that "trivial but you don't need them because my religion says so?"

Do you want me to respond or are you going to keep twisting my words to something hateful?  You swear up and down that I'm preventing you from something when I've told you time and time again if tomorrow they legalize the whole thing it'll be fine by me.  DO NOT mistake my faith for your ability to be considered equal under the law.

You want to make me out to be some monster fine you have that freedom to do so but I don't appreciate you saying things that I did not say or mean in the hurtful context you seem to WANT to antagonize me into...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: razorphreak

Malice wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Gay couples have 99% of all rights that hetero couples have today;

no no they dont , they ahve alot mroe rights than they used to but not 99% of them all. also some rights are given to them but that doesnt mean they wont be enforcerd such as adoption they have the right to but alot of adoption agencies turn them down , the right to give blood *gays are appranlty filled withd diesase casue the bible says were bad*. and thats jsut afew

 

i can't adopt children where i live, because i'm gay.


Rill


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I will make one comment to

I will make one comment to the issue of gay adoption and that's my opinion of the fear of it being a social/cultural statement.  Because also I am the product of a single parent family, I understand very well what was missing from the "other side".  There simply has not been enough time to show if two men or two women can effectively provide the man/woman influence that everyone needs for behavior growth.  For me this point is a "time will tell" to be honest...

For those of you who don't agree with me, my question would be this: do you think that today's children, products of 50%+ divorce rates, are better or worse than the generations past where divorce rates were half what they are today?  Has society progressed for the better or worse and can you not say that parenting had nothing to do with that? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
why did god have to change his tactics? why did god have to cater to the time period? why did he use violence when he really didn't find violence to be a good thing? or is violence a good thing? why would a supreme being need to use violence and slavery and genocide to accomplish its ends? why would it need to use those means at all, especially if it preferred nonjudmental love as a means to an end?

Different time, different culture, different rules for men to follow since he knew that was the only way.

Look at us now, we are supposed to use nonjudgemental love yet do we (as a society)?

 

doesn't sound very impressive for a god if it has to pander to the culture, and the "the only way" it could find to meet its ends was through violence, slavery and genocide. i'd expect more from a supreme being. maybe my standards are too high? when i think supreme, i think, well, supreme. 

Rill


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Lynette1977 wrote:
Or is that "trivial but you don't need them because my religion says so?"

Do you want me to respond or are you going to keep twisting my words to something hateful? You swear up and down that I'm preventing you from something when I've told you time and time again if tomorrow they legalize the whole thing it'll be fine by me.

 

but you personally would vote to keep that from happening. i'm not seeing how that can be spun positively. sorry.

Rill


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
doesn't sound very impressive for a god if it has to pander to the culture, and the "the only way" it could find to meet its ends was through violence, slavery and genocide. i'd expect more from a supreme being. maybe my standards are too high? when i think supreme, i think, well, supreme.

If everything is given to you on a silver platter, how realistic would it be that you will learn humility?  The value of what you've been given?  Because God gave us with such freedom over our Earthly actions the culture of the time was not aware of God as they should have been nor did the follow his laws.  But God still had love and compassion and that's the purpose for Jesus and making it easy to follow.  Before Jesus we had no relationship with God hence the extreme number of laws (and by today's standards, extreme in nature as well).  Jesus gave us (humans) the ability to restore that relationship which is how we say Christians are not under the old laws... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I will

razorphreak wrote:

I will make one comment to the issue of gay adoption and that's my opinion of the fear of it being a social/cultural statement. Because also I am the product of a single parent family, I understand very well what was missing from the "other side". There simply has not been enough time to show if two men or two women can effectively provide the man/woman influence that everyone needs for behavior growth. For me this point is a "time will tell" to be honest...

For those of you who don't agree with me, my question would be this: do you think that today's children, products of 50%+ divorce rates, are better or worse than the generations past where divorce rates were half what they are today? Has society progressed for the better or worse and can you not say that parenting had nothing to do with that?

 

 

what was missing from the "other side"? i'm not the product of divorce, so i don't know. and what does your second paragraph have to do with what kind of parent me and my future partner might be? 

Rill


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
doesn't sound very impressive for a god if it has to pander to the culture, and the "the only way" it could find to meet its ends was through violence, slavery and genocide. i'd expect more from a supreme being. maybe my standards are too high? when i think supreme, i think, well, supreme.

If everything is given to you on a silver platter, how realistic would it be that you will learn humility? The value of what you've been given? Because God gave us with such freedom over our Earthly actions the culture of the time was not aware of God as they should have been nor did the follow his laws. But God still had love and compassion and that's the purpose for Jesus and making it easy to follow. Before Jesus we had no relationship with God hence the extreme number of laws (and by today's standards, extreme in nature as well). Jesus gave us (humans) the ability to restore that relationship which is how we say Christians are not under the old laws...

 

the culture of the time was not aware of god as they should have been? he was on their doorstep. shape shifting from bushes to dust clouds to fire pillars. and, yeah, they followed his laws. or they'd be stoned to death. he used fear and intimidation and threat of death to keep the israelites in line. and the other cultures in the area? he just had the isarelites slaughter them all. or take them into slavery. according to your book, these were direct orders. these weren't just ideas the israelites came up with on their own. i'd be wary about having a relationship with such a sadist too. how much reading have you really done in the OT?

 

and how exactly does being slaughtered teach you humility?

Rill


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
  but you personally


 

but you personally would vote to keep that from happening. i'm not seeing how that can be spun positively. sorry.

I have to agree. When one says that "if the people allow it, I'm for it..." I would take that as saying "I'm for allowing gays to marry" but I'm more inclined to believe this is mere doublespeak.

The words "people" who "allow" it would require individuals INCLUDING RAZOR to "vote for it." If he's saying he'd be for it "if the people vote for it" but yet would vote against allowing all couples to enter into government licenses then I find it hard to differentiate between "the people" and YOU. Either you're for equal rights regardless of your religious persuasion or you are not. If you are not and it is based on your religious persuasion then I think one shouldn't make exuses for people when you are one of those very individuals.  

It's black and white. Either you are for equal rights or you aren't. "They legalize it" is very vague and I'm thinking that he's purposefully created this shadow to avoid it. Who is THEY? Does THEY include you? If you're OKAY with it if it's legalized then would you vote for or against it? If you're for it, you're for it and you'll vote for "gay" marriage. If you're against it you'll vote against it. I see no point in saying you're against it and you'll vote against it but you're okay if gays get those rights. Why beat around the bush? I'm not twisting words, I'm trying to understand the vagueness of it all. 

(I hate the term "gay" marriage because it makes it out to be like it's no longer "marriage" but not it's "gay" marriage. It's just marriage and everyone should have access to those rights).  

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Juvenile Narcissist

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
razorphreak wrote:

I will make one comment to the issue of gay adoption and that's my opinion of the fear of it being a social/cultural statement. Because also I am the product of a single parent family, I understand very well what was missing from the "other side". There simply has not been enough time to show if two men or two women can effectively provide the man/woman influence that everyone needs for behavior growth. For me this point is a "time will tell" to be honest...

For those of you who don't agree with me, my question would be this: do you think that today's children, products of 50%+ divorce rates, are better or worse than the generations past where divorce rates were half what they are today? Has society progressed for the better or worse and can you not say that parenting had nothing to do with that?

 

 

what was missing from the "other side"? i'm not the product of divorce, so i don't know. and what does your second paragraph have to do with what kind of parent me and my future partner might be?

Opinions can't say whether or not kids are better off or not. The fact of the matter is that two parents no matter their gender are always better than one, obviously. If children have done worse because of the divorce rate, that's because STRAIGHT parents aren't doing their jobs but bringing their failures into this argument does absolutely nothing to do with allowing gay couples the right to marry. I see this as nothing more than an attempt at saying STRAIGHTS mess up kids bad enough, why let gay people do it, too? (Statistics in previous posts point out that gay families put more time and money into their kids than straight couples do...I think proportionally it's actually not going to benefit the appearance of straight families by pointing that out)

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
  Juvenile Narcissist

 

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:
how much reading have you really done in the OT? and how exactly does being slaughtered teach you humility?

OK is this about rights of homosexuals or a bible study? 

Lynette1977 wrote:
I have to agree. When one says that "if the people allow it, I'm for it..." I would take that as saying "I'm for allowing gays to marry" but I'm more inclined to believe this is mere doublespeak.

Of course you'd say that when you are twisting and attacking what I'm saying without listening.  I'm not the DJ here...and your tone in your writing is obviously going to be against anything I say and twisting it into putting me against human rights.

Lynette1977 wrote:
It's black and white. Either you are for equal rights or you aren't.

If you don't think I care about this issue just say so and turn your back.  I happen to care very much as to what happens.  My faith in God is number one, above that of my family, and it does drive me in my decisions.  If I believe being an active homosexual is immoral, can I in right mind endorse an activity that promotes immoral activity?  Would you support a law that would allow thief to keep the possessions they stole? 

Lynette1977 wrote:
The fact of the matter is that two parents no matter their gender are always better than one, obviously.

Stats have been proven to be bias.  Hell they can say standardized testing is good for public education but we know that's not the case.  Being raised only by my mom I understand there are things I didn't get because I didn't have a male figure to teach me that side (male issues).  If you were raised only by your dad, it would be the same thing.  Now double that, two females or two males, and one has to scratch their head and wonder, would it have a positive effect on the child?  I asked questions regarding children, you didn't answer.  Psychologists state that the sexual preference of children are not affected by the sexual preference of their parents yet it has been proven that environmental issues affect if a person wishes to be gay or straight.  Would two gay parents give equal time to being straight over homosexual?  I'm not asking these questions because I know the answer; I'm asking them because, not being gay or knowing a gay couple that has kids, I honestly don't know the answers.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Razorphreak, 40 years ago

Razorphreak,

40 years ago you'd be defending Jim Crow saying that 'seperate but equal' was not based on hate ... and that full citizenship (indeed, legal personhood) was traditionally reserved for white men and could not be extended towards people of color.  To suggest that 'seperate but equal' institutions are not based on hate, or more technically, an antequaited in-group mentality/out-group hostility, is intellectually dishonest and also shows your lack of understanding for 'equal protection under the law' (codified in the 14th Amendment).

 Also, I'd suggest that since people argue that marraige is religiously significant (i.e. a sacrament), the states have no business ... being in the business of it.  I say civil unions for all and if you want to get married, do it in your church ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Razor, do you understand

Razor, do you understand that because of your beliefs and those who share your beliefs many people are not being afforded equal rights?  You can't compare homosexuality to thievery because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, they are not taking something away from anyone else.  If you vote against gay marriage, you're essentially voting against equal rights.  It's really as simple as that. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Razor, do

pariahjane wrote:
Razor, do you understand that because of your beliefs and those who share your beliefs many people are not being afforded equal rights?  You can't compare homosexuality to thievery because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, they are not taking something away from anyone else.  If you vote against gay marriage, you're essentially voting against equal rights.  It's really as simple as that. 

Or, put another way, if you're actively prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married (by your vote, lobbying, preaching, etc.), you're denying them constitutional rights and protections ... so I'l ask, realizing its a bit hyperbolic, why do you hate America?  And if you hate our system of equality, our constitution and our freedoms, why don't you move to a theocracy like Iran?  or El Salvador?

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Up to this point I've tried

Up to this point I've tried from keeping it an "all or nothing" issue in that I do not believe gay marriage is tied to the rights of an individual. Because those of you who do not agree with me are making it, then I have to state it in your terms....

When I've said in the past that you hate the sin but not the sinner, I've made it plain that I do not agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual. In the example of Jesus when men brought to him a woman caught in the act of adultery, he did not condemn her as a man when the others sought to stone her. He did make it very plain to her not to sin again. It is by my faith that I believe I cannot allow any law that would promote a lifestyle which I believe to be a sin but that does not mean I would stand by and watch that individual be beaten or attacked for that lifestyle. If you believe that I am denying that person their rights then it is what it is although I do not believe I am denying that person any individual rights to live in peace irregardless of their choice.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Up to

razorphreak wrote:

Up to this point I've tried from keeping it an "all or nothing" issue in that I do not believe gay marriage is tied to the rights of an individual. Because those of you who do not agree with me are making it, then I have to state it in your terms....

When I've said in the past that you hate the sin but not the sinner, I've made it plain that I do not agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual. In the example of Jesus when men brought to him a woman caught in the act of adultery, he did not condemn her as a man when the others sought to stone her. He did make it very plain to her not to sin again. It is by my faith that I believe I cannot allow any law that would promote a lifestyle which I believe to be a sin but that does not mean I would stand by and watch that individual be beaten or attacked for that lifestyle. If you believe that I am denying that person their rights then it is what it is although I do not believe I am denying that person any individual rights to live in peace irregardless of their choice.

Doesn't that logic open the door for legislation against any action or behavior that certain people in power consider "sinful"? Would it be easier for you to stand by and watch someone be beaten and attacked for that action/behavior if that was the mandated punishment (Keep in mind that the Bible gives such a mandate)?

Are you sure you want to open that box, Pandora? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Up to

razorphreak wrote:

Up to this point I've tried from keeping it an "all or nothing" issue in that I do not believe gay marriage is tied to the rights of an individual. Because those of you who do not agree with me are making it, then I have to state it in your terms....

When I've said in the past that you hate the sin but not the sinner, I've made it plain that I do not agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual. In the example of Jesus when men brought to him a woman caught in the act of adultery, he did not condemn her as a man when the others sought to stone her. He did make it very plain to her not to sin again. It is by my faith that I believe I cannot allow any law that would promote a lifestyle which I believe to be a sin but that does not mean I would stand by and watch that individual be beaten or attacked for that lifestyle. If you believe that I am denying that person their rights then it is what it is although I do not believe I am denying that person any individual rights to live in peace irregardless of their choice.

while i certainly appreciate that you wouldn't support having me killed (you're too kind, really), i just can't get thrilled that you'd support having me be less than equal to you. now if it makes you feel better to insist to yourself and others that by voting to deny gays the right to marry their partner, you are not denying anyone rights, then you go right ahead. i wouldn't want my rights to get in the way of you feeling warm and fuzzy about yourself.

Rill


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Up to

razorphreak wrote:

Up to this point I've tried from keeping it an "all or nothing" issue in that I do not believe gay marriage is tied to the rights of an individual. Because those of you who do not agree with me are making it, then I have to state it in your terms....

When I've said in the past that you hate the sin but not the sinner, I've made it plain that I do not agree with the lifestyle of a homosexual. In the example of Jesus when men brought to him a woman caught in the act of adultery, he did not condemn her as a man when the others sought to stone her. He did make it very plain to her not to sin again. It is by my faith that I believe I cannot allow any law that would promote a lifestyle which I believe to be a sin but that does not mean I would stand by and watch that individual be beaten or attacked for that lifestyle. If you believe that I am denying that person their rights then it is what it is although I do not believe I am denying that person any individual rights to live in peace irregardless of their choice.

Only a person who has never interrogated their privilege or the fact that they belong to a hegemonic community would put forth that their opposition to equal rights doesn't "[deny a] person any individual rigths to live in peace irregardless [sic] of their choice".

Like I said, replace same-sex marraige with interracial marraige, or integration ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Also, Razorphreak, do you

Also, Razorphreak, do you know anyone in the GLBT community?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
Also, Razorphreak, do you know anyone in the GLBT community?

 The classic set up for "I am not a bigot! Why, some of my best friends are..."

Wink

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: OK is

razorphreak wrote:

OK is this about rights of homosexuals or a bible study? 

neither. i was just interested to know how you justified the gratuitous violence of the OT, and why you feel that a supreme being would need to resort to such base tactics and then later change its strategy. if you aren't comfortable answering, that's fine. but i would take a good, long think about it. question what you take for granted.   

razorphreak wrote:

Of course you'd say that when you are twisting and attacking what I'm saying without listening.  I'm not the DJ here...and your tone in your writing is obviously going to be against anything I say and twisting it into putting me against human rights.

she doesn't have to twist anything. you've made it clear that you will not support the rights of gays to marry with your vote. that is the support that counts. any other declaration of your support is moot and, quite honestly, insulting.  

razorphreak wrote:
If you don't think I care about this issue just say so and turn your back.  I happen to care very much as to what happens.  My faith in God is number one, above that of my family, and it does drive me in my decisions.  If I believe being an active homosexual is immoral, can I in right mind endorse an activity that promotes immoral activity?  Would you support a law that would allow thief to keep the possessions they stole? 

first, i'd like to thank you for comparing me to a thief. nice touch. second, i would not support a law that would allow a thief to keep the possession he stole, because such a law would violate the 14th Amendment. now while you hold your faith in god to be number 1 in lawmaking, i hold the Constitution to be number 1. and i find it much more hypocritical to love and support the Constitution when it is protecting your right to exercise your religion, but turn your back on it when it protects the rights of a group you find immoral. you wish to deny me rights and force me to live according to the morals of your religion, and i'm sure you would scream bloody murder if another religion attempted to do that same to you. i find it offensive that you would be so disrespectful of the Constitution.

razorphreak wrote:
Stats have been proven to be bias.  Hell they can say standardized testing is good for public education but we know that's not the case.  Being raised only by my mom I understand there are things I didn't get because I didn't have a male figure to teach me that side (male issues).
 

Like what? what didn't you get? are you screwed up now because of it?irreparable damage upon your psyche? you've got to be less vague if you're going to use your personal experience as a supporting point.

razorphreak wrote:
If you were raised only by your dad, it would be the same thing.  Now double that, two females or two males, and one has to scratch their head and wonder, would it have a positive effect on the child? 

why wouldn't it? what negative effect would it have? you haven't given anything concrete. 

razorphreak wrote:
I asked questions regarding children, you didn't answer.  Psychologists state that the sexual preference of children are not affected by the sexual preference of their parents yet it has been proven that environmental issues affect if a person wishes to be gay or straight. 

first of all, wishing has nothing to do with being gay or straight. i could wish to be straight til i'm blue in the face, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. second, provide the supporting evidence for this assertion please.  

 

razorphreak wrote:
Would two gay parents give equal time to being straight over homosexual?

not sure what you mean by this. clarify please. 

Rill