California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by doogur

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.

Hardly a slam dunk. Leviticus is ritual and ethical law. You say you're reading Levitivus as a whole, but you are not reading it in the context of the rest of Scripture, which for Christians, includes the New Testament.

And just so we're clear, I haven't cited Leviticus as the warrant for current Christian views toward homosexuality. I think reasonable arguments can be made that Scripture does not prohibit a monogomous, faithful same-sex relationship.

You, however, are not making that argument. You are instead creating a straw man and then patting yourself on the back for knocking it down. Sorry, no slam dunk.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by doogur

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.

Announcements are lame.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hardly a slam dunk. Leviticus is ritual and ethical law. You say you're reading Levitivus as a whole, but you are not reading it in the context of the rest of Scripture, which for Christians, includes the New Testament.

Agreed. I was using the entire Bible as reference but you fail to see that. Therefore, your argument is flawed, and thus fails.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

OH MY, IT IS A BOOK... just a book. Let's not argue about what it says! I don't care what it says! If you believe in what the book believes in great... but if you believe it, then just speak for yourself and not from a book! do YOU believe gays should have civil unions? do YOU believe that these civil unions should bare the name of "marriage"? If you have to look up in a book to know what exactly you believe, well then, I don't think you truly believe it, but merely fear of disobeying God or the Bible. AND if your stance is fear of disobeying, that is valid, because it is a truth from you. But "I believe this because the Bible or God says..." crap... thats not a belief, and so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

If you believe in what the book believes in great... but if you believe it, then just speak for yourself and not from a book! do YOU believe gays should have civil unions? do YOU believe that these civil unions should bare the name of "marriage"? If you have to look up in a book to know what exactly you believe, well then, . . . But "I believe this because the Bible or God says..." crap... thats not a belief, and so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

Wow. That's a rather simplistic and naive approach that ignores the fundamental question -- why do you believe what you believe.

It's simple enough to say "do YOU believe gays should have civil unions" or "do YOU believe these civil unions should bear the name of 'marriage,'" but whether the answer is "yes" or "no," the next question is "why?"

Why is it crap to answer the "why" with "because the Bible/Scripture/my religion teach me so and I accept that teaching"? Why is it not a belief if there's reliance on the Bible?

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who take the Bible -- or any other "source" -- at face value and merely parrot it when stating their own views. There are people who reject any religious teaching as superstition. But there are also plenty of people who ask the tough questions, who doubt and who {gasp} think who come to the reasoned conclusion that they, in your words, "believe in what the book believes in" because they believe the book. For those people, making a distinction between speaking for yourself and speaking from the book is nonsense.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Wow. That's a rather simplistic and naive approach that ignores the fundamental question -- why do you believe what you believe.

It's simple enough to say "do YOU believe gays should have civil unions" or "do YOU believe these civil unions should bear the name of 'marriage,'" but whether the answer is "yes" or "no," the next question is "why?"

Why is it crap to answer the "why" with "because the Bible/Scripture/my religion teach me so and I accept that teaching"? Why is it not a belief if there's reliance on the Bible?

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who take the Bible -- or any other "source" -- at face value and merely parrot it when stating their own views. There are people who reject any religious teaching as superstition. But there are also plenty of people who ask the tough questions, who doubt and who {gasp} think who come to the reasoned conclusion that they, in your words, "believe in what the book believes in" because they believe the book. For those people, making a distinction between speaking for yourself and speaking from the book is nonsense.

yes, but if you believe in the book, you should be aware of it, and therefor state your beliefs based on that. Not rely on what the book says, but your own beliefs. For example, if you believe in the bible, you believe that gay marriage is immoral and not right. THAT IS A BELIEF, one based on the bible. You would not say you do not believe in gay marriage because of this quote here in the bible that tells me to not believe in it.

This discussion is based on individual beliefs, and if christianity plays into it, great! but quoting the bible and building a defense on a quote from a book is irrelevant. This tatic is an overused defense for people who are a) not sure what they believe in, b) merely fear the bible or God, or c) do not know how to articulate why they believe it.

I think religious beliefs are great, and shape who we are, but if you truly believe in the Bible or God, you should be able to explain your beliefs on something such as on gay marriage without quoting the bible.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Thanks for responding; I think I understand better now what you're trying to say. And I think I'd agree if quoting the verse is all that the quoter could do; that is, if he can quote the verse but has no real understanding (and ownership, perhaps) of it.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

yes, but if you believe in the book, you should be aware of it, and therefor state your beliefs based on that. Not rely on what the book says, but your own beliefs. For example, if you believe in the bible, you believe that gay marriage is immoral and not right. THAT IS A BELIEF, one based on the bible. You would not say you do not believe in gay marriage because of this quote here in the bible that tells me to not believe in it.

This discussion is based on individual beliefs, and if christianity plays into it, great! but quoting the bible and building a defense on a quote from a book is irrelevant. This tatic is an overused defense for people who are a) not sure what they believe in, b) merely fear the bible or God, or c) do not know how to articulate why they believe it.

I think religious beliefs are great, and shape who we are, but if you truly believe in the Bible or God, you should be able to explain your beliefs on something such as on gay marriage without quoting the bible.

But also, if you say I believe this because the bible says this, people want to know where in the Bible you got it from. While my beliefs are based off of the Bible and my Christianity, there are many various other factors as to why I oppose gay marriage.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

But also, if you say I believe this because the bible says this, people want to know where in the Bible you got it from. While my beliefs are based off of the Bible and my Christianity, there are many various other factors as to why I oppose gay marriage.

GREAT, I AM SOOO GLAD, literally, not sarcastic. What are they? Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them, and I respect your right to have an opinion, when it is YOUR opinion.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

so don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining.

do YOU believe it's not raining or is it really not raining?

hehe

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

do YOU believe it's not raining or is it really not raining?

hehe

Oh, now we are getting philosophical, I can go there, but I feel, again, we will be getting off topic.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them,....

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Oh, now we are getting philosophical, I can go there, but I feel, again, we will be getting off topic.

No, piss is the topic.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

I TOTALLY accept that as a non-Biblical answer because you did not cite the bible to make that answer or reference it, although there are biblical influences... so, thank you

So, on that basis, do you think that people who can not have children, should they be able to get married, i.e. people with medical conditions or women post-menopause? I am not trying to be a prick, but the basis of marriage for the purpose of having children denotes a lot of valid loving marriages out there that are man-and-woman.

Secondly, and at a less substantial point and more controversial point, a Gay marriage can provide a loving home and family for children who need it, no?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

GREAT, I AM SOOO GLAD, literally, not sarcastic. What are they? Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them, and I respect your right to have an opinion, when it is YOUR opinion.

Personally, I think it is unnatural. In such a way, that it serves no purpose. Where as male/female relationships serves purposes, it allows procreation, it allows prosperity, and even in relationships where the female cannot have a baby, adoption is acceptable because there is once again, a natural home that the child can grow up into. I believe a child that grows up in a home and has two mothers, or two fathers, is going to have a very distorted perception on life. I don't think it is fair for the child to be forced to grow up in that situation that is quite unnatural. So in closing, once again, I believe there is no purpose, and therefore unnatural. I feel cheapens and diminished natural heterosexuality, marriage, and true love.


Disagree if you will, but this is how I see it, not from a biblical view, but from a real view.

ETA: I promise I didn't read sigmadivas post before this.