Homosexuality and Christianity, Part 20075

[WC_lun]

So if a gay couple were not Christians, but some religion that had no issues with gays, why wouldn't it be okay for them to marry? I mean if they aren't hurting anyone and religion is not state doctrine. That's not the case though, Christian religion has become state doctrine in many instances and even people who would like to see the government stay out of the personal affairs of its' citizens think it is okay for the government to be involved in this.

I could understand if there was demonstratable harm of gay couples being recognized by the state. There just isn't. If anything having committed gay couples is a positive thing both for the gay community and society at large. It isn't really about what is good and right for society though. It is about one set of people forcing thier beliefs upon others.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

@ Bill

I agree that "The Bible Tells Me So" is sufficient justification for your personal moral beliefs. But since that attitude obviously affects policy in the United States -- policy that negatively affects the quality of life for citizens who aren't hurting anybody -- I think we're justified in asking for a little more.

You may be justified in asking, but you're not going to get it; and you certainly may not demand it or require it.

A qualified voter is a qualified voter. The current qualification to vote is being of age, being a citizen, and not being otherwise restricted by such things a prior felony conviction. You don't have to justify your vote to me and I don't have to justify mine to you.

If enough 'Christians' vote a certain way that their opinion becomes the law of the land, as long as it does not infringe on civil liberties (Constitutional issues), then it is the law, and that's pretty much that.

Fair? No. Even and just? No. It's our Representative Republic and that is how it works, though. You may not require of me that I justify my belief system before voting that way - nor may I require it of you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You are confusing two different issues. One is 'gay' and the other is 'marriage'.

So if a gay couple were not Christians, but some religion that had no issues with gays, why wouldn't it be okay for them to marry?

For a variety of reasons that have little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion at all, including the fact that the institution of marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman in the USA.

One can favor 'gay rights' and have no religious objection to gay marriage and still not support the idea of state recognition of same-sex marriages. They are not necessarily the same thing.

I mean if they aren't hurting anyone and religion is not state doctrine.

First; religion is not state doctrine, but religious people still vote, and they often vote based on their religious beliefs. That is not the same thing. A theocracy is rule by religion. A democracy that is made up of mostly Christians is not a theocracy, but it will have laws that are driven by Christian voters.

Second; you cannot assert they are not 'hurting anyone'. That would be your opinion. Others have other opinions, equally valid.

That's not the case though, Christian religion has become state doctrine in many instances and even people who would like to see the government stay out of the personal affairs of its' citizens think it is okay for the government to be involved in this.

Christian religion can become state doctrine anytime the majority vote for a law based on their Christian beliefs and it does not infringe on civil liberties. This is how our government works. I think a lot of people do not understand this. No, we are not a government run by religion. But we have voters who are allowed to vote as they will, and that means if they want to vote based on their religion, they do. You may not like it, especially if they are in the majority, but that is how our system of government works.

I could understand if there was demonstratable harm of gay couples being recognized by the state. There just isn't.

With all due repect, sez you. Others see it differently.

If anything having committed gay couples is a positive thing both for the gay community and society at large.

Again, no offense, but sez you. Others disagree.

It isn't really about what is good and right for society though. It is about one set of people forcing thier beliefs upon others.

All government is one set of people forcing their beliefs on others. It is either majority rule or minority rule. Which would you prefer? Either way, someone is going to feel they are being forced to live by someone else's rules.

 

[granfire]

You are confusing two different issues. One is 'gay' and the other is 'marriage'.

but both have huge overlapping issues

For a variety of reasons that have little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion at all, including the fact that the institution of marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman in the USA.

The only chink in your armor!
Considering the historic influence of the leading casts over the 400 years in the new world, the religious influence in these matters can not only be not denied, it is unmistakably obvious:
Inquisition and Puritans...owe...and religion has nothing to do with our traditions?

One can favor 'gay rights' and have no religious objection to gay marriage and still not support the idea of state recognition of same-sex marriages. They are not necessarily the same thing.

I suppose it is possible. But usually the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are those of religious nature.

First; religion is not state doctrine, but religious people still vote, and they often vote based on their religious beliefs. That is not the same thing. A theocracy is rule by religion. A democracy that is made up of mostly Christians is not a theocracy, but it will have laws that are driven by Christian voters.

True enough

Second; you cannot assert they are not 'hurting anyone'. That would be your opinion. Others have other opinions, equally valid.

No more or less than a hetero couple.
State the damage they do. I am sure we can find enough examples of the opposite, along with the damage done by tradition couples.

Christian religion can become state doctrine anytime the majority vote for a law based on their Christian beliefs and it does not infringe on civil liberties. This is how our government works. I think a lot of people do not understand this. No, we are not a government run by religion. But we have voters who are allowed to vote as they will, and that means if they want to vote based on their religion, they do. You may not like it, especially if they are in the majority, but that is how our system of government works.

True enough, but usually when state doctrine is crafted after the ideas of an ideology driven group, civil liberties of those not in the group are generally infringed upon.
That's what we have safeguards in place for thankfully. But some are slow to catch on.

With all due repect, sez you. Others see it differently.

Again, no offense, but sez you. Others disagree.

I know, I should have snipped that....

All government is one set of people forcing their beliefs on others. It is either majority rule or minority rule. Which would you prefer? Either way, someone is going to feel they are being forced to live by someone else's rules.

Ahhh, but again safeguards! So the minority is not thrown under the bus in favor of the majority. Ingenius frame work that constitution is!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

but both have huge overlapping issues

Of course they do. So does nearly everything.

The only chink in your armor!
Considering the historic influence of the leading casts over the 400 years in the new world, the religious influence in these matters can not only be not denied, it is unmistakably obvious:
Inquisition and Puritans...owe...and religion has nothing to do with our traditions?

First, I did not say that religion has nothing to do with our current traditions. I agree with you that it does. However, you say that as if that fact makes it incompatible with disagreeing about the traditional definition of marriage. Long before there were Jews and Christians, there were marriages. And they were one male and one female to the largest extent. The fact that we can find evidence of tiny fractions of populations where some other arrangement was the norm only shows that the norm itself was indeed one male and one female. So by 'tradition', I do in fact mean pretty much all of human history to the extent that we can determine.

Second, regardless of how we came to our current definition of marriage - whether by recent religious influence or simply by the tradition of all of human history - here we are. Marriage in the USA has meant one man and one woman since we began as a nation. Some argue (and I am one of them) that asking for same-sex marriage is not about the rights of homosexuals to be together, but about the redefinition of a traditional union, one which is at the core of our society.

I suppose it is possible. But usually the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are those of religious nature.

Again, I agree with you that quite often they probably are. I would follow that up with 'so what'? Again, people have the right to make voting decisions based upon anything they like, including their religious beliefs.

State the damage they do. I am sure we can find enough examples of the opposite, along with the damage done by tradition couples.

I won't state the damage they do, because that would be silly. I have an opinion and a vote, and so do you. I believe that same-sex marriage does damage to society. I don't have to prove it, it's not up for debate, and there is no trial by which if I lose, I don't get to feel that way or vote that way anymore. Again; you seem to want my opinions and my vote to be based on some standard you set - for example, if I state the reason I feel that same-sex marriage damages society and you scoff at it, then I lose and can't vote that way anymore. It doesn't work that way, so I won't engage in that sort of thing.

True enough, but usually when state doctrine is crafted after the ideas of an ideology driven group, civil liberties of those not in the group are generally infringed upon.
That's what we have safeguards in place for thankfully. But some are slow to catch on.

That is why we have a Supreme Court. That is their job. The people vote without concern for whose rights they are infringing on - why should they care? I mean anyone, not just on this issue. If I think pot-smoking is a bad thing, I'll vote against it. If that's violating someone's inalienable right to blow a doobie, too bad, so sad. I don't know and I do not care. Nor should I have to. My responsibility is to vote for the society I want, not the one you want or the one that is fair, righteous and just. The Supreme Court's job is to ensure that the laws my vote helps create don't infringe on the rights of others, and I, as a citizen of this nation, have agreed that this is proper. If I vote against pot, and the Supreme Court says people have a civil right to toke away, then there it is. But it is not prior restraint on me. I vote for what I want. I do not care what you or anyone else wants. Why would it be any other way?

Ahhh, but again safeguards! So the minority is not thrown under the bus in favor of the majority. Ingenius frame work that constitution is!

I think you misunderstand the Constitution. The Constitution does not care one whit about the rights of the minority. It only cares about the civil rights of citizens. Majority, minority, it doesn't matter. If the majority vote to make it mandatory that everyone pull up their damned pants, and the Supreme Court does not find a civil liberty right being infringed, then that's the law. There will be a minority that is upset by this - and that is just too darned bad. Minority does not mean you get special rights. Minority means you get the same rights everybody else gets. If you do not have a 'civil right' to do thus and so, then too bad if you're the minority.

I really think a lot of people in the USA think that the job of our government is to make things fair for everyone. It's not. Our laws are not fair and they're not supposed to be fair. They are supposed to be applied to everyone regardless of majority or minority status, and they can't infringe on our civil liberties. That is all. If the minority gets it's panties in a bunch, well, it sucks to be them. That is how it works. No fair at all; too bad.

 

[granfire]

I won't state the damage they do, because that would be silly. I have an opinion and a vote, and so do you. I believe that same-sex marriage does damage to society. I don't have to prove it, it's not up for debate, and there is no trial by which if I lose, I don't get to feel that way or vote that way anymore. Again; you seem to want my opinions and my vote to be based on some standard you set - for example, if I state the reason I feel that same-sex marriage damages society and you scoff at it, then I lose and can't vote that way anymore. It doesn't work that way, so I won't engage in that sort of thing.

ah, the chinc in your armor is showing again.
Well, it is your opinion, true enough. And it is your porogative to vote according to this.

However, I demand that law makers base their decisions on facts. and as such there has to be proof that there is damage done to our society by establishing a legal framework for a life union between same sex couples.
Society has probably taken a bigger hit by single parents.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

ah, the chinc in your armor is showing again.
Well, it is your opinion, true enough. And it is your porogative to vote according to this.

It would be a chink in my armor if I were attempting to convince others to vote the way I do or to feel the way I do. If I can't explain my reasoning, if it can't stand up to debate, then I don't have much hope of getting others to vote the way I'd vote.

But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I vote the way I vote. As you said, it's my prerogative. As yours is to you.

However, I demand that law makers base their decisions on facts. and as such there has to be proof that there is damage done to our society by establishing a legal framework for a life union between same sex couples.

You can demand that all you like. Let me know how that works out for you. About all any of us can do is vote for the people we think will best represent our desires, and to directly vote for those things put before us according to our own principles and beliefs.

Let me put it this way; what will you do if your elected law makers refuse to base their decisions on facts? Not vote for them again?

Besides, you use the word 'facts' when you should be saying 'the opinions I prefer and refer to as facts'. There are no provable facts on either side of the same-sex marriage debate with regard to the damage or non-damage it would do to society. There are only opinions. I don't choose to debate the topic, but I also don't capitulate that you have facts on your side and I don't. We simply have different opinions. What you regard as fact, I see as your opinion, and vice-versa.

Society has probably taken a bigger hit by single parents.

Again, sez you. :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ignoring the Old Test for a moment here.

"It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality."

I'll focus on this bit.

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

26 above says that -women- started performing 'unnatural sex acts'.
But, what does this mean? Does it mean they started screwing sheep? Went lesbian?
Or just decided that 'missionary' was boring and wanted to do some 'cowgirl' and 'doggie'? It's not specific.

AH! A clue
27 hints that it was girl on girl action. But again, it says 'shameful acts', without specifics. Was it 2 guys hugging, or bear banging? What eas the 'due penalty' they 'received in themselves'? Is this the first reference to AIDS? Anal tearing? Hemorrhoids? It's not specific.


Well, lets try another translation:

Worldwide English (New Testament)

26That is why God left them to do the wrong things they wanted to do. Their women left the right way for women and did things that are wrong for women to do. 27Their men also left the right way with women. They wanted to have sex with one another. They did wrong things with other men. Their own bodies were punished because of the wrong things they did.

26 is only about sex if you think it. It could be about women wearing pants and getting jobs as CEO's. Or it could be condemning dominant women in control in the bedroom.
27 This is clearer, but in what way were their bodies punished? Again it doesn't say, and the following text doesn't either.

American Standard Version (ASV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

26 could be lesbianism, it could mean girl on top wearing spurs.
27 again more emphasis on guy-guy action, still vague as to what the received punishment was.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

26 again, same
27 again same

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;
27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

To me, this is just gibberish.

Reading this and in fact all of Romans 1 it's vague as to what this punishment received was.

 

[granfire]

It would be a chink in my armor if I were attempting to convince others to vote the way I do or to feel the way I do. If I can't explain my reasoning, if it can't stand up to debate, then I don't have much hope of getting others to vote the way I'd vote.

But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I vote the way I vote. As you said, it's my prerogative. As yours is to you.



You can demand that all you like. Let me know how that works out for you. About all any of us can do is vote for the people we think will best represent our desires, and to directly vote for those things put before us according to our own principles and beliefs.

Let me put it this way; what will you do if your elected law makers refuse to base their decisions on facts? Not vote for them again?

Besides, you use the word 'facts' when you should be saying 'the opinions I prefer and refer to as facts'. There are no provable facts on either side of the same-sex marriage debate with regard to the damage or non-damage it would do to society. There are only opinions. I don't choose to debate the topic, but I also don't capitulate that you have facts on your side and I don't. We simply have different opinions. What you regard as fact, I see as your opinion, and vice-versa.



Again, sez you. :asian:

LOL the chink being that any other subject matter your mind is laser sharp, arguments on point.

When it comes to matters of religious tradition, such as abortion and same sex marriage/homosexuality, you resort to 'opinions', your argument becomes non exist.

Where you normally find facts, you don't in this case.

It's your achilles heel.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

You may be justified in asking, but you're not going to get it; and you certainly may not demand it or require it.

A qualified voter is a qualified voter. The current qualification to vote is being of age, being a citizen, and not being otherwise restricted by such things a prior felony conviction. You don't have to justify your vote to me and I don't have to justify mine to you.

If enough 'Christians' vote a certain way that their opinion becomes the law of the land, as long as it does not infringe on civil liberties (Constitutional issues), then it is the law, and that's pretty much that.

Fair? No. Even and just? No. It's our Representative Republic and that is how it works, though. You may not require of me that I justify my belief system before voting that way - nor may I require it of you.

On the other hand, legislation due to religious beliefs alone is routinely struck down when called into legal question. For a law enacted because of those beliefs to be valid, you have to show harm to something other than your own sensibilities.

 

[Big Don]

The Bible also says murder and theft are wrong, should we feel free to murder and steal because some people eat shellfish and wear clothes of two different threads?

 

[fangjian]

The Bible also says murder and theft are wrong, should we feel free to murder and steal because some people eat shellfish and wear clothes of two different threads?

What do you mean?

 

[Big Don]

What do you mean?

Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Actually in all cultures recorded in history murder was considered a serious offence. Even when isolated human societies, for the most part but with some exceptions, develop, quite similar moral codes emerge: murder – wrong, adultery – wrong, protect the family/tribe – good, helping others- good, Disco – wrong.

It’s in our genes

But as we gave our morality to religion, it’s only logical it would be written down in our ancient religious texts. We don’t need it written down in a book to know right from wrong.

 

[fangjian]

Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?

Morality is rooted in our biological evolution.

 

[Big Don]

Morality is rooted in our biological evolution.

Uh, no.

 

[fangjian]

Uh, no.

Where are you suggesting it comes from then?

Homosexuality also comes from our biological evolution. Everything does. I know I was making a blanket statement, and not talking also about other factors, but...

 

[Ken Morgan]

Uh, no.

So we get our morality from religion?

So does that mean without religion we'd be all be savages?

Christianity is about 1/3 of the population of the world, so the other 2/3's are savages?

The Hebrew religion has been around for maybe 3000 years, Christians for 2000 islam for 1300 or so.

Modern humans have been on the earth for 150 000 years, maybe longer, does that mean until modern religions were formed we were not capable of morality, it took a religious text to tell us right from wrong?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Science and morality.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Shouldn't all laws against murder be thrown out because they are rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition?

Just the laws that aren't also supported by the reasonable working of a just society. Murder and theft are wrong because they hurt people. Not keeping kosher isn't illegal here because if you eat bacon, the only person you hurt is yourself...unless you count the pig.