Same sex marraige resumes in California

[Craig234]

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?

That's pretty weak and ignored most of the points I made.

I didn't say everything not mentioned is 'ok'; but there is a list to check if it's 'not ok', a list which not only does not include homosexuality, but does include things that most of the anti-gay bigots refuse to follow, adding hypocrisy to their wrongdoign on top of harming people by denying them rights.

Things 'not on the list', as I said, then go to the more general instruction - the golden rule - which the anti-gay bigots fail terribly. That rule SUPPORTS gay rights.

While you list things that are a bad idea to do that are not listed, many other things that are fine to do are also not listed. It's not as if you can say not being listed means it's ok to say they're not ok. Painting a picture isn't listed, but there's no reason to say that it's not ok for that reason. Things not listed - check the golden rule and common sense.

And gay rights fails neither the golden rule nor the common sense test. Anti-gay discrimination fails both.

 

[smackababy]

That's pretty weak and ignored most of the points I made.

I didn't say everything not mentioned is 'ok'; but there is a list to check if it's 'not ok', a list which not only does not include homosexuality, but does include things that most of the anti-gay bigots refuse to follow, adding hypocrisy to their wrongdoign on top of harming people by denying them rights.

Things 'not on the list', as I said, then go to the more general instruction - the golden rule - which the anti-gay bigots fail terribly. That rule SUPPORTS gay rights.

While you list things that are a bad idea to do that are not listed, many other things that are fine to do are also not listed. It's not as if you can say not being listed means it's ok to say they're not ok. Painting a picture isn't listed, but there's no reason to say that it's not ok for that reason. Things not listed - check the golden rule and common sense.

And gay rights fails neither the golden rule nor the common sense test. Anti-gay discrimination fails both.

Wasn't Jesus also notoriously against the wealthy? I don't see any of these bible thumpers giving away their money.

 

[Craig234]

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.

The one and only relevant quote I can come up with is the declaration that marriage is one man and one woman.

And as I said at some length, there are all kinds of things where 'details' are left out.

Hey, one man and one woman - so brother and sister, son and mother are ok, right?

I think the bible supports the rights of gays, when common sense is used. As I said, apply the golden rule. Apply that a small percent are homosexual so not mentioned.

 

[Craig234]

Wasn't Jesus also notoriously against the wealthy? I don't see any of these bible thumpers giving away their money.

He wasn't against the wealthy, He was against their caring too much about their wealth, and instructed a wealthy man to give it all away.

He said that it's harder for a wealthy person to enter heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.

If you take that to mean something that can't happen, it gives you an idea of the statement about wealth.

(And on another note regarding the 'details', I think it said a wealthy man - so presumably, wealthy women get into heaven no issue?

Unlikely - and another example, since there were no wealthy women then pretty much, where common sense is used to read it.

Just as the marriage between a man and a woman quote needs to be understood not to include the small percent of homosexuals not then recognized.)

I avoid discussing religion here usually, but some exception.

 

[Retro Rob]

He wasn't against the wealthy, He was against their caring too much about their wealth, and instructed a wealthy man to give it all away. You're right, not many follow that.

And right after he said that, the wealthy man refused to give it away, and Jesus said "how hard it will be for a rich man to inherent the kingdom God" further implying what place money should have in ones life.

Jesus wasn't telling people to give their money, all of it, away. Boy you guys have zero context, and are nearly totally clueless.

 

[Craig234]

And right after he said that, the wealthy man refused to give it away, and Jesus said "how hard it will be for a rich man to inherent the kingdom God" further implying what place money should have in ones life.

Jesus wasn't telling people to give their money, all of it, away. Boy you guys have zero context, and are nearly totally clueless.

See my edit. It supports my point.

 

[Retro Rob]

See my edit. It supports my point.

Yep my bad.

 

[smackababy]

And right after he said that, the wealthy man refused to give it away, and Jesus said "how hard it will be for a rich man to inherent the kingdom God" further implying what place money should have in ones life.

Jesus wasn't telling people to give their money, all of it, away. Boy you guys have zero context, and are nearly totally clueless.

When one says "It's harder for a wealthy person to enter heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle," you cannot argue he was against wealth. He was against wealthy people, go so far as to imply that being wealthy was worthy of not entering heaven. And, all of the outspoken anti-gay people are what exactly? If not wealthy, I don't know what. The pope lives in a palace, btw. Quite a few churches are the exact decadence Jesus preached against.

But, of course, when I say that, it is out of context and no longer valid or some other argument that won't be used for homosexuality being immoral. Which, was only stated in the Old Testament, that again, certain parts are allowed to be disculded from morality, and you are free to pick and choose which should remain.

But, then we get those that say "Oh, you can't take everything in the bible as literal; obviously nobody could live in a fish." Funny, how they get to choose which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't though.

 

[Retro Rob]

When one says "It's harder for a wealthy person to enter heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle," you cannot argue he was against wealth. He was against wealthy people, go so far as to imply that being wealthy was worthy of not entering heaven. And, all of the outspoken anti-gay people are what exactly? If not wealthy, I don't know what. The pope lives in a palace, btw. Quite a few churches are the exact decadence Jesus preached against.

I'm not going to argue, if he was against wealth, then so be it.

But, of course, when I say that, it is out of context and no longer valid or some other argument that won't be used for homosexuality being immoral. Which, was only stated in the Old Testament, that again, certain parts are allowed to be disculded from morality, and you are free to pick and choose which should remain.

Believe what you wish, I gave you some information, you seem reluctant or unwilling to look it up and verify it because you don't want to look stupid. Well, you do because you're still wrong about the bold. The OT, or specifically, the Law Covenant hasn't been in force since around 33 C.E... check a few sources, and I am not providing you a link.

This way, it can become apparent to all reading that you're willingly staying wrong and ignorant.

So, go look it up, or just shut up.

 

[zsdersw]

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

Metaphysical is not a big word. You should know what it means.

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.

The universe and the 3 spacial dimensions we're aware of and that we occupy are probably discriminatory.. but this is not something we're able to change.

 

[futurefields]

It isn't fair for a child to end up with gay parents. It fundamentally changes their life story and makes it different than 99% of their peers, who are all growing up with a mom and dad (whether divorced, one or more deceased etc... the point is at some point they had a mom and dad)

Mom and dad.

Mom and dad. That's how it's meant to be.

Now, i'm sure ill get hated on....

 

[WelshBloke]

It isn't fair for a child to end up with gay parents. It fundamentally changes their life story and makes it different than 99% of their peers, who are all growing up with a mom and dad (whether divorced, one or more deceased etc... the point is at some point they had a mom and dad)

Mom and dad.

Mom and dad. That's how it's meant to be.

Now, i'm sure ill get hated on....

It's more important that they grow up with parents (or parent) who love them and look after them.

 

[Craig234]

It isn't fair for a child to end up with gay parents. It fundamentally changes their life story and makes it different than 99% of their peers, who are all growing up with a mom and dad (whether divorced, one or more deceased etc... the point is at some point they had a mom and dad)

Mom and dad.

Mom and dad. That's how it's meant to be.

Now, i'm sure ill get hated on....

You're not hated on, you're wrong and going to be told so, and you are harming children.

First, you are denying gay people the right to be parents. That is a big harm to them.

Now, if it were harmful to children - the way, say, being in a gang putting the children in danger is - you would have a point - protect the children.

But the only think you're protecting the children from is the imaginary harm done by the bigoted and incorrect view you have of gay parents.

Same-sex parents have been studies extensively and every credible study finds there are no harms to children. And no, it doesn't 'make the children gay'.

You in my opinion appear to be merely reacting out of your own shock at an idea you're not used to - not a rational or informed or correct position, just one of 'oh crap, no way'.

And that is the voice of bigotry - not so much 'gays are evil monsters who want to murder children' type nonsense, but 'oh the poor children need protection' they don't.

The question is, can you take a breath and think about the issue and learn the facts and correct your errors and reach the correct position?

That road is the road of truth, fairness, justice, equality, morality, progress.

 

[Vaux]

It isn't fair for a child to end up with gay parents. It fundamentally changes their life story and makes it different than 99% of their peers, who are all growing up with a mom and dad (whether divorced, one or more deceased etc... the point is at some point they had a mom and dad)

Mom and dad.

Mom and dad. That's how it's meant to be.

Now, i'm sure ill get hated on....

Yeah you will get hated on here, but not by me. I agree and I applaud you for standing up for how the human species was made to operate. People here have a tendency to reject that and just make up thier own rules.

 

[randomrogue]

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.

Wait one little second. You said the bible was what you used as your basis for being against homosexuality but that's in the old testament. Romans is sketchy at best. Natural laws was an idea first brought forth in the 1800's and not thousands of years ago. You just read what you want to read and try to justify you bigotry anyway you please. Taken in historical context you can't use Romans to back it up. Reading what people wrote in the early church about this passage it also doesn't support the modern interpretation. Today's interpretation of this passage is a new one and used to propagate the modern anti-homosexual movement.

Historical and cultural issues

Many commentators have argued that the references to homosexuality in the NT, or the Bible in general, have to be understood in their proper historical context. Indeed, most interpreters come to the text with a preconceived notion of what the Bible has to say about normative sexual behaviors, influencing subsequent interpretations.[52] For example, William Walker says that the very notion of “homosexuality” (or even “heterosexuality,” “bisexuality” and “sexual orientation&#8221😉 is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.[53] The word “homosexuality” and the concept of sexual orientation as being separate from one's perceived masculinity or femininity (i.e. gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century.[54] Moreover, although some ancient Romans (i.e. doctors, astrologers, etc.) discussed congenital inclinations to unconventional sexual activities such as homosexuality, this classification fails to correspond to a modern psychological, biological and genetic distinction between homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual orientations.[55] However, according to Gagnon, the concept of homosexual orientation was not wholly unknown in the Greco-Roman milieu. Moreover, he asserts that there is absolutely no evidence that modern orientation theory would have had any impact on Paul changing his strong negative valuation of homosexual practice.[56]
A statement by the Bishops of the Church of England (Issues in Human Sexuality) in 1991 illustrates a categorisation and understanding of homosexuality, claiming that in ancient times "society recognized the existence of those, predominantly male, who appeared to be attracted entirely to members of their own sex." (Issues in Human Sexuality para 2.16, lines 8-9) which almost parallels that of modern ideation. The same study is careful to point out that "the modern concept of orientation has been developed against a background of genetic and psychological theory which was not available to the ancient world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Historical_and_cultural_issues

 

[Craig234]

Yeah you will get hated on here, but not by me. I agree and I applaud you for standing up for how the human species was made to operate. People here have a tendency to reject that and just make up thier own rules.

No, that's mother nature. You're the one making up your own rules based on bigotry.

 

[Retro Rob]

Wait one little second. You said the bible was what you used as your basis for being against homosexuality but that's in the old testament. Romans is sketchy at best. Natural laws was an idea first brought forth in the 1800's and not thousands of years ago. You just read what you want to read and try to justify you bigotry anyway you please. Taken in historical context you can't use Romans to back it up. Reading what people wrote in the early church about this passage it also doesn't support the modern interpretation. Today's interpretation of this passage is a new one and used to propagate the modern anti-homosexual movement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Historical_and_cultural_issues

This is over one word... "homosexuality"... a word coined in the 19th Century, but same sex, sex had been around even before Alexander The Great's time being alive here on Earth.

This argument is probably based on the premise that God didn't inspire Bible writers and provide them information not "intelligible" had they been on their own, so sure, if that is the case, then historical context matters.

But same sex relationships are stated three separate times in Scripture as condemned (Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6).

The "science" behind why same-sex, sex is condemned or not (according to your link) in the Bible doesn't matter, its all about the "act", or "behavior".

Why? Well, because ex-"homosexuals" (those who no longer have same sex, sex, or date same sex persons among other changes people made) have changed as evident in 1 Cor 6:11 where Paul says "this is what you once were".

So, the behavior is the important thing, and that's the point being made, because bad behaviors can cease.

 

[Vaux]

No, that's mother nature. You're the one making up your own rules based on bigotry.

It certainly wasn't my rules that dictate how humans are supposed to procreate and what sex parents were made to be. If that's bigotry, well I guess mother nature is a bigot. I am sure she cares just about that just about as much as I do.

 

[zsdersw]

So, the behavior is the important thing, and that's the point being made, because bad behaviors can cease.

I'm sure you disagree, but you should know that homosexual sex is not necessarily a "bad behavior" that can or should cease.

 

[zsdersw]

It isn't fair for a child to end up with gay parents. It fundamentally changes their life story and makes it different than 99% of their peers, who are all growing up with a mom and dad (whether divorced, one or more deceased etc... the point is at some point they had a mom and dad)

Mom and dad.

Mom and dad. That's how it's meant to be.

Now, i'm sure ill get hated on....

Lots of things in life aren't fair. It is not up to you to decide that someone else's children should end up with what you determine to be a "fair" parenting situation.

As for what's meant to be, again, you have no eminent domain over what that is and isn't.

 

[zsdersw]

It certainly wasn't my rules that dictate how humans are supposed to procreate and what sex parents were made to be. If that's bigotry, well I guess mother nature is a bigot. I am sure she cares just about that just about as much as I do.

If mother nature is the arbiter of how things are "supposed to" be, then monogamy isn't how things are supposed to be.. yet many people (including, probably, you) think it is.

 

[Vaux]

I'm sure you disagree, but you should know that homosexual sex is not necessarily a "bad behavior" that can or should cease.

To me, bad behavior wouldn't be a proper description for homosexual sex. I don't think it's right, but people have the freedom to do as they choose. I'd say it's frowned upon, and unnatural, but "bad" just doesn't seem like the right description. Inappropriate, that would be my description. That is how I view it.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm sure you disagree, but you should know that homosexual sex is not necessarily a "bad behavior" that can or should cease.

It's not just behavior, I know that.

Whether or not its bad or should cease wasn't the point I was trying to make -- I was only saying it "can" cease. Wether or not it should or is bad, is up to the individual(s).

 

[Vaux]

If mother nature is the arbiter of how things are "supposed to" be, then monogamy isn't how things are supposed to be.. yet many people (including, probably, you) think it is.

I don't see a problem with monogamy. I am unaware of a rule that says humans have to be with multiple partners. Any animal can procreate multiple times with one partner, or many partners. Monogamy seems to be irrelevant in that sense.

How many people have only been with one person in their life, anyways? Does that actually happen?

 

[zsdersw]

To me, bad behavior wouldn't be a proper description for homosexual sex. I don't think it's right, but people have the freedom to do as they choose. I'd say it's frowned upon, and unnatural, but "bad" just doesn't seem like the right description. Inappropriate, that would be my description. That is how I view it.

By what measure do you determine it to be "unnatural" and "inappropriate"?