Because their value represents the moral decline of nation.

Also, your signature is quite surprising, considering you a Christian supporting something the Bible most certainly denouncing and calls a sin. So I guess you disagree with the entire Bible, or just the parts that don't fit into your way of liberal thinking?

Here is something I do not believe has been brought up in this conversation.
As part of a radio commentary, I heard the phrase "G*D created the earth and mankind in his image.
Now if I am correct in following that, G*D created all creatures, great and little, small and large on this planet.
Now since more than one creature on this planet exhibits gay tendencies (look it up), and since G*D created this planet and all on it, does it not follow that G*D creatures include gays.

And unless you happen to be a Profit with the Fundamentalists, no one I know has spoken to her in awhile to ask.

And all the writings we have are not from her, but from men.

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SECdomination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

I think God can handle his relationship with mankind outside of my personal control. As long as someone isn't maliciously hurting me or others, I'm pretty confident that I can leave people to their own decisions. Supporting the right of a person to choose his/her own way is not equivalent to me personally condoning or engaging in the "sins" to which you are referring.

Nope.

If you got this from John 1:1, that "Word" is Jesus, not words on a page.

Hm...well supporting would be condoning.

And the Word he was talking about was the Law, which would the Bible. You can't take that out of context.

Religions and societies that aren't male-centric and sexist so their stories are not written from a male perspective.

I'm a Christian and I sometimes refer to God as a He (our Father, etc.) but in my heart of hearts I do not believe that God has a gender (or needs a gender). When I say "He" I am usually referring to Jesus.


Most importantly, the stories in the Bible are written from a societal perspective and many are not to be taken as historical accounts or literal how-tos. Was homosexuality in the Ten Commandments?

So this is becoming the gays in fraternities thread.

It was not, but are the ten commandments the only true part of the Bible?

And yes the stories are societal perspectives inspired by God, meaning I personally take them to truth.

Nate-A very close friend of mine is a Priest. And he says that G*D is a woman. When I asked a Rabbi about it, her reply was "could be".
In truth, do we really know if G*D is a man or woman? Both? Neither?
And that alone could explain things right there. After all, just were did Eve come from? From where did the image of woman come from?
As for the Prophets, could be. Still only the written record and words of men.
But after reading Under the Banner of Heaven, I really started to wonder.
And the author wrote about it as well. Was rather interesting and on its own rather thought provoking beyond what the book itself was about.

No it's turning into a Biblical theology thread.

The Ten Commandments exist because of what?

They were "divinely inspired men and women" but there are stories and scriptures left out of the Bible. I wonder why.

Can we just agree to disagree, cause I could go on for months arguing this.

Nope.

To clarify, in the Christian Bible, when you see the word "scripture," it's referring to the Hebrew Bible. If the "Word" you're referring to is the Law, then that is Hebrew Scripture. That "Word" is not God itself.

Yep - when we read the Bible today, we have to contexualize the messages in order for them to work within our modern worldview.

Only if people are prepared to do more than throw Scriptures around.

But this really is becoming the gays in fraternities thread.

I don't agree to disagree. ;) If you don't want to discuss (not argue) then don't.

I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.



I disagree, but that is a different thread.

Yes, general. :)

Other than that, I agree with you because the magnitude and social impact are both objective and subjective measures. They can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively.





It isn't a different thread because you said it in this thread. :)

You can't effectively compare the relocation of whites to the suburbs, because their neighborhood surpassed the racial tipping point, to saying that homosexuals should "get over it or go away" if they feel that they aren't afforded the same rights that heterosexual citizens are. Sure, homosexuals can technically choose to relocate if they want certain rights, as some homosexuals have done. But to act like that's the only other alternative is as silly as the Americans who became Canadian citizens when Bush got re-elected (which was still a choice versus telling Americans "you tax payers don't like where America's headed? It's a hopeless cause so move to Canada for all we care. This is how it is. Get over it. Tax payers.").

Sigmadive, you keep forgetting that it is actually: "Majority rule, with minority rights." You want to trample the rights of the minority.

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

I doubt you would say that if you were gay.

There are homosexuals who 1) disagree with gay marriage and 2) think that the plight of the homosexual is not of the same magnitude as that of racial and ethnic minorities and women.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass?

I don't think anyone said this.

People can debate these topics all day. It's just interesting to me because people will say "I'm a Christian" as if all Christians have to agree on stuff. And if people disagree with your interpretations of Scripture and what's acceptable, you assume they are liberals who are just trying to shape the Bible to fit their liberal stances. When, in fact, you don't have to be liberal (or of a particular political affiliation) to feel a particular way about this topic.

Ok. :p

And "intellectuals" and academicians aren't a monolithic group, either. So these types of social and political debates happen in academia everyday. :cool:

You mean your breed of Christianity dictates your views on everything.

She used the Dark side of the Force

Christianity dictates your views on everything? That's noble. :)

Most people who I disagree with on interpretations are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. It spans across social and political spectrums. When you attempt to categorize people, that's when you are often debating the categories rather than the positions. That's dangerous because your opinions of the categories shape how you approach that person and their viewpoints.

My mind operates based on generalizations. ;) What you consider to be an exception is simply a matter of your frame of reference. Mine is different.

It's fun. Discussions and debates aren't the end of the world as long as people on both sides have sound logic and can back up their points. :)

Put [ quote ] (without spaces) in front of the sentence and [ /quote ] (without spaces) behind the sentence.

I only gave the white flight example because in previous posts Leslie Anne made some comment that if people don't like what is happening in their community / area then why should they leave. (I think that is the point she was trying to make :confused:?). I gave her two examples of where people moved because they did not agree with the current social / economic situation they were in. The first example I used was an indication to the founding of the US. I said something to the effect that the Founding Fathers left England because they did not agree with British rule.

Leslie Anne then came back and re-stated the issue of why should people leave where they live. The second example I gave her was how Houston was founded - people from back east wanted to live in a more tropical "paradise". Note: paradise in quotes because Houston was a humid, roach and mosquito infested dock on the banks of the Buffalo bayou...:).

Leslie Anne continued to press the point about why should, or why do people leave then I gave her the white flight example.

Now, the connection Leslie Anne was trying to make between homosexuals getting married and people leaving an area I did not know.

Precious Jeni - that quote wasn't Aristotle it was Socrates.

I think this country lost its right to ban gay marriage when it allowed divorce. The idea of the "sanctity" of marriage is only being protected in terms of homosexual, not in the means of vegas quickies, or professional divorcees. How can you legitimately support a ban of marriage, and not push for a ban on divorce?

The murder rate in the country would go up exponentially.

touche!

First sentence: True.

Second sentence: One of the best comments/questions I've read on GC in a very long time.

First comment: I agree too. But, remember, the New Testament "replaced" the laws of the Old Testament. So, in a sense while people may read and study the Old Testament, we are to live under the New Testament. That is the way it is explained in my Church. We consider ourselves New Testament Christians.

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

Morality is the basis for a substantial portion of American law. Also, didn't CA already allow people to legally profess their love for each other via civil unions?

That's why I like Massachusetts' approach in that the prohibition on marriage flunks the rational basis test.

California's SC came off as being extremely activist in its decision. Not only did they say that sexual orientation discrimination was the same as race in the requirement that such classifications be subject to strict scrutiny (which would have been enough), they also said that the right to marry someone regardless of gender was a fundamental liberty interest, therefore protected by the 14th Amendment substantive due process doctrine.

I think the court has usurped the legislature here. I read most of the opinion (it's 170-something pages). While I don't really see why states are in the business of marriage in the first place, I do think these sorts of things ought to be left up to the legislative process, not the whims of four justices.

There are no words to express how circular this discussion is.

I wub you. :D

This is the right thread to express that feeling....hehehehehe