Yeah, I don't know why she keeps bringing this up.

Actually she and I hashed it out via pm where we, I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine. She has me on ignore.

The state doesn't REQUIRE men and women to have children because it is without a doubt unconstitutional. Your assertion is nonsensical, and you're well aware of it. We don't force people to give to charity (other than our ridiculous system of taxation), we give them benefits should they choose to do so. That is because the federal and state governments have a vested interest in helping the poor, the sick, etc. The government believes it has an interest in encouraging family-creation, and thus marriage incentives are provided.

I'm not using the procreation argument. I'm telling you that there will be resistance to gay marriage considering many of the incentives for marriage benefits are not present with gay relationships. This isn't me trying to argue the point, this is me telling you absolutely where the resistance will come from and why.

Marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation, but natural procreation has a lot to do with the government's interest in marriage. There are exceptions to the ability to bear children in straight relationships, but the RULE with gay relationships is that natural procreation ISN'T POSSIBLE inside that relationship.

I already know - she and I have a loooooooooonnnnggggg history here on GC. VERY LONG.

Ah! As much as some people on here rub me the wrong way, I've never put anyone on 'ignore'. It does interrupt the flow of the thread.

I've never heard anyone, except some Reform Jews, make a claim that any of the laws are "outdated." For 2000 years though, plenty of people have claimed that the ritual or purity laws -- dietary laws, clothing laws, laws regarding menstruation, and others that applied only to Jews and that separated Jew from Gentile -- are not binding on Christians. The beginnings of the discussion are actually documented in the Bible, you know -- Acts, chapters 10 and 15.

As for the ethical or moral laws -- such as laws prohibiting murder or stealing or regulating sexual beavior -- they have always been deemed to be universally binding, not just binding on Jews.

And what you seem to be forgetting is that a large chunk of the Jewish and Christian communities, if not the majority of them, would not agree with your statement. While they would agree that men wrote the Scriptures, they would claim that those men were divinely inspired and did not insert personal prejudices.

Again, you ignore the parts of history that disagree with your worldview. The First Amendment only kept the federal government from making laws establishing a national religion. It was almost 100 years before the states were similarly prohibited by the Constitution. So whatever the First Amendment was intended to accomplish, it simply cannot be argued with any credibility at all that it was intended to protect people from religion. That's a late 20th Century spin on it.

Yeah, she said she had me on ignore since I joined, no I'm not always nice to people, I don't always agree, but I thought I've always been fair enough to not have anyone ignore. Especially when I first joined and people weren't familiar with my style.

:p

Yeah...why overstate the obvious? I'd rather someone say "this bores me, move on" if they want to be dismissive and have the power to begin and end discussions.

Duly noted. I'll remember that.

I'll have to take your word on that. I beeez forge'in' 'n stuh.

Note the ":p" in my post.

Are preciousjeni and nate having a signature war right now?

I hate those.

I came in just to see what you were talking about. I can't be held responsible for what nate does (or says).

Um, no, my signature has nothing to do with her. I merely thought the lyrics of better than ezra were appropriately fitting given recent discussions.

And just thought I would give any newcomer liberals fair warning when they quote my text.

I've not had time to read the posts since last night and I'm heading off to class. I want to continue my debate with Nate (and Sigma for that matter)...tomorrow I shall return and discuss the New Testament and homosexuality.

It is an Achilles Heel because I'm not the one cherry picking. I'm reading the context of Leviticus as a whole, not pulling out a verse here or there.

Leviticus was ritual law of the Jews. So why pull *one* gay verse out and ignore the others? Why is one ritual worth a thousand anti gay words and dozens of other rituals totally ignored?

The primary reason is because it's really convenient and pretty much ignores the witness of the entire Bible.

So, in fact, my argument is a slam dunk.