Same sex marraige resumes in California

[Retro Rob]

I'm not playing games here. I'm asking legitimate, non-rhetorical questions.

So you're relying on other references such as Romans I take it? That's fine, but do you disagree with Leviticus regarding the death penalty or not?

I don't disagree with Leviticus because the punishment was sanctioned by God himself and not arbitrarily by men/people. Romans ends with the same punishment "receiving the full recompense which is due". God didn't change from the Hebrew text to the Greek text.

In other words, God makes a decree, who are we to argue with it and tell him he's wrong? The principle, however, doesn't change with time -- laws DO, however.

To answer the crux of your question, I am not ignoring the prohibitions of Leviticus. As many do not know, Jesus Apostles didn't observe the Mosaic Law after his death because it was invalidated by a "New Covenant" consisting of really two commandments.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are some verses that say that some gay sex is wrong.

But it's a lot more complicated than that.

For one thing, if a huge percent of men behave as gay, if men 'switch' their orientation to gay in some situation, that can be a different issue that normal homosexuality.

You could argue that for a heterosexual man to perform homosexual acts is wrong.

Thing is, like so many issues, on this the bible doens't completely address the topic. I've used the example before, what should an impotent person do about 'go forth and multiply'?

Clearly, the religion does not make a large issue of the general issue of homosexuality - in fact, it doesnt really even mention the general issue, just some anecdotes of straight men.

Lesbianism I don't recall any mention, either. Just as things like impotent people are not addressed specifically.

Another issue is how many things the bible does have rules for that people think are obsolete now. Lebiticus is famous for it, and there are many others.

Ive also mentioned the example of the law that if a man rapes a woman in the field, the punishment shall be that he marry her and pay her family 50 silver, IIRC.

So, let's follow that rule today! Really cute girl you're stalking? Rape her and she has to marry you for some silver. Not bad!

Again and again, Jesus taught to apply the laws with some common sense and love.

He was attacked over and over for not respecting them while He actually was following the real spirit of the law by violating the literal.

And homosexuality seems to fall squarely into that category. The bible doesn't acknowledge some people have a different orientation and state specific rules for them. It does not mention homosexuality in the ten commandments, and Jesus spent a lot more time on heterosexual issues while barely mentioning homosexuality (like one sentence, indirectly).

Meanwhile all these millions of gay bigots are happy to ignore His very specific teachings on things like divorce being wrong. Who cares about that? Stop the gays!

In fact, the bible also teaches that it's not really right to even get married - it says the best thing is for man to not get married, but if he is too weak to do that, it's tolerated.

Don't hear a lot about that from the bible bigot crowd, either.

Admittedly, it takes some thinking on their part to correctly interpret the bible, as it does on many topics - slavery used to be justified with the bible also (it calls for it, in fact).

So, the topic is more complicated than 'the bible is against it', and IMO, it actually supports it. Just don't have heterosexual men go around having gay sex - not usually a problem.

Wonder how the bible bigots would explain the golden rule as it applies to homosexual equal rights? They violate it, not treating gays how they would like to be treated if gay.

The Bible doesn't mention orientation because it isn't a scientific textbook.

Jesus taught love, but he didn't mention a whole host of things, like child molestation, smoking cigarettes, smoking weed, so I guess by not mentioning them, those are OK? 🙄

This is a bad argument -- just because he didn't say anything specifically about it, that means he ok'd it? How can you come to that conclusion? So that means he OK'd everything I mentioned above, correct?

No. A mature reader knows principles -- they don't need to be told everything. What Jesus did say, in Matthew, was that marriage was between and man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5). He didn't say between "consenting adults", or "people". He quoted Genesis 2:24.

He was talking the Jews, who observed the Mosaic Law, and the prohibition of same sex relation in Leviticus. To say he approved of such behavior means you simply don't understand the Bible at all, or read what you want to read.

But to your point, Jesus said nothing affirming or prohibiting homosexuality, so that means he ok'd it?

What proof do you have?

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob M. it is expected to see support for positions, and when incapable of doing so, to concede the position rather than argue into frustrating ad nauseum...What entity have you chose to be a part of? Evidently, you are quite ignorant of your own religion, as here to declare the Christian religion to be homogenously intolerant against homosexuals. It is not.

It is your free choice to accept and be part of a bigoted Church or congregation or not. It is your free will to marginalise and be bigoted towards homosexuals, and you may pass fault away and upon the society you choose to be part and aware of.

To help you out, Rob, here is an easily found list of current Christian denominations, congregations, and individual Churches that recognise and oppose the intolerance while affirming lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered people:

There are likely plenty more Christians who follow the same religious text as yourself. Out of prejudicial hatred/marginalisation, is someone making something up, and in doing so violating some core tenants of their faith?

Just what type of Christian are you, and do you denounce the above fellow Christians as heretics? In caring love, condemn them all equally to hell, as homosexuals?

Fair questions.

[edit] I'll add this reference of over 7,100 'Affirming Christian Church Directory of Gay & Lesbian Welcoming Christian Churches Throughout the World.'

I do expect Rob M. to dismiss them all as being untrue to his faith, and therefore pseudo Christians. Or, Rob, you may surprise us all with your respectful tolerance.

Every religion is free to choose what they will accept/not accept at the end of the day.

Whether or not they're true in the eyes of God is for him to judge -- but both can't be true. He isn't for and against homosexuality at the same time, no more than he can be on both sides that are praying for his help during a conflict/war.

...but one thing is clear, someone's wrong. Whether its me or them, we will find out in time.

 

[Retro Rob]

What kind of response is that Rob? Do you not understand that there simply is NO excuse for discrimination? That's why I used the Japanese internment camp example above. No matter how good we thought our intentions were it was wrong.

You have a personal objection. It is wrong. If I was against black people I can't just waive my hands in the air and scream "IT'S MY PERSONAL OBJECTION THEREFORE IT'S OK!". You can't hold this position, ever, and be on the winning side of the argument. We're trying to make you see that. You're advocating the limiting of ones civil rights due to sexual orientation.

You're being a bigot and we're holding your feet to the coals. The sooner you admit you have a problem the sooner you can fix it.

This idea that once you have a position it's fixed needs to change Rob. I know change is scary but you can do it. I'm sure you've changed your position on other things before like maybe being for the Iraq war and then being against it.

Please, you're not holding my feet to the coals. My mind has always been, and always will be made up on this issue.

Sure, my compassion shows when I treat gays with respect, and uphold the law of the land by being in full support of anti-discrimination laws, and respecting the decision of the High Court by not fighting to have marriage laws changed on the Federal Level as well.

However, the behavior is something I cannot approve or be in support of. There is a difference.

 

[randomrogue]

Please, you're not holding my feet to the coals. My mind has always been, and always will be made up on this issue.

Sure, my compassion shows when I treat gays with respect, and uphold the law of the land by being in full support of anti-discrimination laws, and respecting the decision of the High Court by not fighting to have marriage laws changed on the Federal Level as well.

However, the behavior is something I cannot approve or be in support of. There is a difference.

In other words, God makes a decree, who are we to argue with it and tell him he's wrong? The principle, however, doesn't change with time -- laws DO, however.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. You are incapable of changing your mind?
2. You will respect the law but it's not the laws that truly matter - it's what the bible says?

So you're for slavery? Stoning of adulterers? Death for cursing your parents? Banishment for having sex while menstruating? Blind and handicapped people not being able to go to church? Death to anyone who tries to turn you from god? Stoning of stubborn children? Are you for the forced marriage in the bible? Death to those who work on Sunday? Death to women who have sex before marriage?

It's forbidden to get a tattoo. Getting remarried is against the bible and is punishable by death if I remember correctly. Women are forbidden from speaking in church.

 

[Retro Rob]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. You are incapable of changing your mind?
2. You will respect the law but it's not the laws that truly matter - it's what the bible says?

So you're for slavery? Stoning of adulterers? Death for cursing your parents? Banishment for having sex while menstruating? Blind and handicapped people not being able to go to church? Death to anyone who tries to turn you from god? Stoning of stubborn children? Are you for the forced marriage in the bible? Death to those who work on Sunday? Death to women who have sex before marriage?

It's forbidden to get a tattoo. Getting remarried is against the bible and is punishable by death if I remember correctly. Women are forbidden from speaking in church.

The owning of slaves was abolished when the Law Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus death as a faithful perfect man.

In fact, by you even mentioning the OT as some sort of law for christians to follow (the OT was for Jews and NOT Christians by the way, which didn't have its start unit mid first Century) it shows your rabid ignorance and blatant stupidity.

So before you go quoting the Bible to try and chastise persons like myself, do yourself a favor, UNDERSTAND what you're quoting and why it's there.

Even the most basic Bible students and many scholars will tell you the OT is a history lesson for God's dealing with the Jews, and when Christ lived, he started Christianity, which was based on HIS life and HIS teachings -- not that old law covenant you idiots wave around like a "gotcha" trophy.

This is basic stuff. Learn it, then come back, and talk.

 

[smackababy]

The owning of slaves was abolished when the Law Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus death as a faithful perfect man.

In fact, by you even mentioning the OT as some sort of law for christians to follow (the OT was for Jews and NOT Christians by the way, which didn't have its start unit mid first Century) it shows your rabid ignorance and blatant stupidity.

So before you go quoting the Bible to try and chastise persons like myself, do yourself a favor, UNDERSTAND what you're quoting and why it's there.

Even the most basic Bible students and many scholars will tell you the OT is a history lesson for God's dealing with the Jews, and when Christ lived, he started Christianity, which was based on HIS life and HIS teachings -- not that old law covenant you idiots wave around like a "gotcha" trophy.

This is basic stuff. Learn it, then come back, and talk.

If I recall correctly, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That was all from the Old Testament you are quick to disregard parts of for your convenience.

 

[Retro Rob]

If I recall correctly, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That was all from the Old Testament you are quick to disregard parts of for your convenience.

He never condemned child molestation, heroin use, beastiality.... If we want to condone certain things based on what Jesus didn't say, then how can you condemn pedophiles? Jesus never condemned it. How can you condemn child marriage? Jesus never mentioned it. How can you condemn human and animal marriage? Jesus didn't condemn it. See how that works?

 

[nehalem256]

You are discriminating against a group of individuals due to their sexual orientation. I don't care what your reason is. You're wrong. Skin color, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, ethnicity, etc. If you feel that someone deserves less rights than you because of the above then you are discriminating against them and are a bigot.
.

So SSM activists added "sexual orientation" to the no-no discrimination list and then go SEE everyone who disagrees with us is a bigot. Excuse me for not considering that to be anymore of an argument then "Because I said so".

Also, I would like to point out that saying "sexual orientation" is a lie. SSM activists have no issue with discriminating against other sexual orientations such as object-sexuals. They just use "sexual orientation" to make it sound like they are defending an actual principle when in reality it is just "because they said so".

 

[zsdersw]

Also, I would like to point out that saying "sexual orientation" is a lie. SSM activists have no issue with discriminating against other sexual orientations such as object-sexuals. They just use "sexual orientation" to make it sound like they are defending an actual principle when in reality it is just "because they said so".

There are metaphysical reasons why object-sexuals cannot get legally married. Overcome those obstacles and you'll have a valid example of SSM advocates discriminating against other sexual orientations. Until then, your comments are piss in the wind... no matter how many times you make such comments. They're still bullshit.

 

[smackababy]

He never condemned child molestation, heroin use, beastiality.... If we want to condone certain things based on what Jesus didn't say, then how can you condemn pedophiles? Jesus never condemned it. How can you condemn child marriage? Jesus never mentioned it. How can you condemn human and animal marriage? Jesus didn't condemn it. See how that works?

My point isn't about what Jesus did not claim, but you holding onto certain values from the Old Testament, while rejecting others because they are in the Old Testament. See how that works?

Your opinion of homosexuality is based on a book whose parts pertaining to said opinion written like 3500 years ago. The same book that includes things such as a man living in a giant fish for 3 days and a talking snake.

And really, I don't care that you think homosexuality is wrong. I think putting ketchup on steak is wrong. But, what I do care about, is denying rights to people and those too coward to stand up for the rights of others.

 

[busydude]

He never condemned child molestation, heroin use, beastiality.... If we want to condone certain things based on what Jesus didn't say, then how can you condemn pedophiles? Jesus never condemned it. How can you condemn child marriage? Jesus never mentioned it. How can you condemn human and animal marriage? Jesus didn't condemn it. See how that works?

What you are saying is that is it more dependent on the law of the land than what the Bible says?

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't disagree with Leviticus because the punishment was sanctioned by God himself and not arbitrarily by men/people. Romans ends with the same punishment "receiving the full recompense which is due". God didn't change from the Hebrew text to the Greek text.

In other words, God makes a decree, who are we to argue with it and tell him he's wrong? The principle, however, doesn't change with time -- laws DO, however.

The bolded comment I find confusing. If God decrees a specific punishment, then we are to impose that punishment, right? How can we change our laws to provide a lesser punishment, or in the now modern context, no punishment at all, and still be in compliance? As you pointed out, Romans says nothing to contradict the edict in Leviticus.

To answer the crux of your question, I am not ignoring the prohibitions of Leviticus. As many do not know, Jesus Apostles didn't observe the Mosaic Law after his death because it was invalidated by a "New Covenant" consisting of really two commandments.

I've heard this before, that the new testament supersedes the old on questions of law and morality. Yet Christians still trot out the Ten Commandments and other moral proclamations from the Old Testament. It seems to me that either the Old Testament is binding or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. Or maybe you can, but I haven't heard a good explanation of why.

 

[smackababy]

I've heard this before, that the new testament supersedes the old on questions of law and morality. Yet Christians still trot out the Ten Commandments and other moral proclamations from the Old Testament. It seems to me that either the Old Testament is binding or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. Or maybe you can, but I haven't heard a good explanation of why.

It is more of a buffet style moral code. You just pick and choose what fits your views, and the rest are left behind.

 

[nehalem256]

There are metaphysical reasons why object-sexuals cannot get legally married. Overcome those obstacles and you'll have a valid example of SSM advocates discriminating against other sexual orientations. Until then, your comments are piss in the wind... no matter how many times you make such comments. They're still bullshit.

Using big words to cover up your bigotry does not make you not a bigot.

If discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, with respect to marriage, is bigotry than discriminating against object-sexuals is bigotry. It is pretty simple.

But, what I do care about, is denying rights to people and those too coward to stand up for the rights of others.

Your argument for SSM appears to basically be. I makeup a "right" to SSM. Therefore anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot who is violating people's rights.

The fallaciousness of your reasoning should be obvious.

 

[nehalem256]

It is more of a buffet style moral code. You just pick and choose what fits your views, and the rest are left behind.

Sound an awful lot like how SSM activists pick and choose which sexual orientations they have a problem with discriminating against.

 

[smackababy]

Sound an awful lot like how SSM activists pick and choose which sexual orientations they have a problem with discriminating against.

You sound an awful lot like someone who has nothing valid to add after losing an argument, so you are making up whatever nonsense you can to continue being a part of the discussion.

So, go back to P&N where this type of garbage is allowed.

 

[nehalem256]

You sound an awful lot like someone who has nothing valid to add after losing an argument, so you are making up whatever nonsense you can to continue being a part of the discussion.

So, go back to P&N where this type of garbage is allowed.

If you want to have a valid discussion you might want to stop saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Calling you out on your hypocrisy is not "making up nonsense".

 

[smackababy]

If you want to have a valid discussion you might want to stop saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Calling you out on your hypocrisy is not "making up nonsense".

I never said everyone who disagrees is a bigot. You, however, are a bigot. So, unless you have a valid reason for discrimination against homosexuals, we have nothing to discuss.

Continue you're garbage spew about SSM supporters discriminating against object-sexuals as much as you'd like; it doesn't make it any less nonsense. In fact, I'd wager, SSM supporters would be the first to support the rights of those object-sexuals. And you'd be in here again with another nonsense argument about how marriage doesn't include objects or whatever.

So, all in all, 1/10. Try again please.

 

[Retro Rob]

The bolded comment I find confusing. If God decrees a specific punishment, then we are to impose that punishment, right? How can we change our laws to provide a lesser punishment, or in the now modern context, no punishment at all, and still be in compliance? As you pointed out, Romans says nothing to contradict the edict in Leviticus.

You have to remember the Law covenant is no longer enforceable, nor even remotely a requirement anymore. Its not about a modern context, the law covenant hasn't been mandated for about 2000 years. It has nothing to do with "modern context".

So, this simply means than God himself will deal with issues at...Wait.... Armageddon! So we aren't mandated to do anything but warn people and preach as Jesus did. Why do you think Jesus didn't kill sinners? Evidently, if you'd bother to study this on your own, he always talked about the "last days" to his disciples, well, at times he did. Love and future promises would draw people to his message so they could be saved. He also warned people.

You don't have to believe any of this, but if you really want to know, there are ways of finding this stuff out.

You just keep insisting that people "pick and choose to not follow the OT", when this is clearly a false and uneducated statement.

I've heard this before, that the new testament supersedes the old on questions of law and morality. Yet Christians still trot out the Ten Commandments and other moral proclamations from the Old Testament. It seems to me that either the Old Testament is binding or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. Or maybe you can, but I haven't heard a good explanation of why.

The spirit of the Ten never dies. Just because they aren't enforceable anymore doesn't mean people can steal and murder, for instance. The principles are timeless as we still have laws against stealing and murdering down to this day, and religious people recognize this.

So it ain't so much about binding as it is about the information having usefulness.

The ten can't, biblically speaking, be enforced by anyone today.

 

[nehalem256]

I never said everyone who disagrees is a bigot. You, however, are a bigot. So, unless you have a valid reason for discrimination against homosexuals, we have nothing to discuss.

I am not discriminating against homosexuals. I am differentiating between homeosexual and heterosexual relationships which are inherently different. And this difference has been recognized for 1000s of years.

Continue you're garbage spew about SSM supporters discriminating against object-sexuals as much as you'd like; it doesn't make it any less nonsense. In fact, I'd wager, SSM supporters would be the first to support the rights of those object-sexuals.

Its not garbage its a fact. Unless you are claiming that SSM secretly support marrying objects and are just waiting to reveal it.

And you'd be in here again with another nonsense argument about how marriage doesn't include objects or whatever.

Sounds to me like maybe you are waiting to reveal your secret support for marrying objects.

I guess one-step at a time to turning marriage into nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

EDIT: As I have said. Every argument for SSM equally applies to object-marriage. SSM supporters just want to hide that fact because it makes their arguments look stupid. If you have no belief in what marriage is for then you can make no argument against anything anyone calls marriage.

 

[smackababy]

EDIT: As I have said. Every argument for SSM equally applies to object-marriage. SSM supporters just want to hide that fact because it makes their arguments look stupid. If you have no belief in what marriage is for then you can make no argument against anything anyone calls marriage.

Except it does not, and this has been explained to you multiple times, in multiple threads. Objects, property, cannot legally consent, and therefore, cannot enter into any form of contract (including marriage). Now, when my pet rock and give it's consent to marry you, I will gladly give you two my blessing.

I don't need a "belief" in what marriage is, because the government of the country I live in defines it. That is what the legal term marriage means, and when marriage is used in arguments for equal rights, that is what it means.

But, please do continue to argue silliness. It just highlights why certain groups are unreasonable to deal with.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Then Democracy isn't democracy, and it's very much a double-edged sword. This is what the people in California was complaining about -- SCOTUS just invalidated voters choice.

Discrmination should be overruled, but I just wanted to point out that either people have a voice, or they don't. Other than that, other people's morals are being forced on the entire country.

People have a voice AS LONG AS it does not discriminate against others or generate a second class where certain rights are granted.

I guess one-step at a time to turning marriage into nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

Every argument for SSM equally applies to object-marriage. SSM supporters just want to hide that fact because it makes their arguments look stupid. If you have no belief in what marriage is for then you can make no argument against anything anyone calls marriage.

A man/woman union does not allow equal rights elsewhere as a same sex union.

Equality overrides the democracy that is forcing an inequality.

Those that are against SSM are the ones that float the object scenario.

the law does not have to address every possible situation - it generates the outline for common sense to be used.

 

[busydude]

I am not discriminating against homosexuals. I am differentiating between homeosexual and heterosexual relationships which are inherently different. And this difference has been recognized for 1000s of years.



Its not garbage its a fact. Unless you are claiming that SSM secretly support marrying objects and are just waiting to reveal it.



Sounds to me like maybe you are waiting to reveal your secret support for marrying objects.

I guess one-step at a time to turning marriage into nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk.

EDIT: As I have said. Every argument for SSM equally applies to object-marriage. SSM supporters just want to hide that fact because it makes their arguments look stupid. If you have no belief in what marriage is for then you can make no argument against anything anyone calls marriage.

Just because you don't under the concept of consent(the bible also fails spectacularly in this regard) doesn't mean you have to paint a different picture than reality portrays.

 

[Whiskey16]

Every religion is free to choose what they will accept/not accept at the end of the day.

Whether or not they're true in the eyes of God is for him to judge -- but both can't be true. He isn't for and against homosexuality at the same time, no more than he can be on both sides that are praying for his help during a conflict/war.

...but one thing is clear, someone's wrong. Whether its me or them, we will find out in time.

Thank you, Rob. You are free to choose as you desire and may be fairly judged in the society that you inhabit.

The world can become quite a bit more dangerous a place when people absolve themselves to respectful and responsible manners where upon they consciously inhabit and interact. Prejudicial expectations of what's to be accepted in an afterlife are not a moral nor legal absolution for behaviour here in this living world.