I read the column in the paper, and it didn't have the revolutionary bent to it there (the parts toward the end about people overthrowing a government that doesn't support their marriage).
Still, I thought it an interesting take overall.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
First of all, I dont know how he as a person who doesn't agree with Freud or Jung can promote such evolutionary psychological bunk. People are more complicated than man the hunter, woman the gatherer. That's what homosexuality seems to illustrate in a way. Second of all, gay marriage isn't a threat to marriage. The real threats to marriage are abuse, drugs, alcoholism, things like that. Those are what folks should be addressing if they want to create strong marriages and families. Allowing gays to marry isn't going to make society fall apart. Folks in abusive marriages on the other hand raise children who grow up thinking abuse is normal and pass it on to their kids. Heck, there's a myriad of old school child raising methods that can totally shatter a child and make them pass it on to their kids. Just look at my family as an example. None of that stuff in the article is really going to happen. It's that ole, the sky is falling routine. It doesn't work like that. But, it would be nice if instead of focusing on gay people, most of which are good citizens we instead focused on something useful like reforming the foster care system are helping abused children. None of this fear mongering is helping anyone.
Plus, when folks talk of marriage like that, it really turns me off from the concept of it. I think that sort of thinking when it comes to marriage is waaaaaaay more damaging then gay marriage. Men and women are not alien species. They are people. Complicated people who cannot be define in such outmoded simple terms.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Right from the beginning of the article, OSC perpetuates the simplest, most obvious fallacy about our form of government. The court is doing its job, and the fact that it has struck down a law supported by popular vote is immaterial.
If OSC can't get off the ground with a simple high school understanding of constitutional law, why should anyone listen to him? Why should we labor to explain why his argument, whatever his beliefs, is ineffective?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America. ...
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote
Oh my god. This is breathlessly stupid.
I guess we've been marking the end of democracy in America every single decade since its inception. Remember in the 1960's when we were marking the end of democracy in America? Or in the 1970's? Or pretty much anytime since the day we founded the country as a republic with 'judicial courts?' I guess those activist judges have been furiously marking the end of democracy like it's their job as enshrined in the constitution.
quote: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage.
If that were true there would be no branch of government with the authority to define marriage what is wrong with this picture
quote:No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.
What does this even mean. Where is the expanded context that is not ridiculous. it's not like the gobbament is trying to normatize gay couples with magic. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage.
Wrong. The government can use the term marriage to refer to whatever it wants. "Marriage" is just a word. Just because other people want to use it for a different concept than you do does not make them wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
Words are separate from the concepts that they refer to. Changing the definition of marriage does not change the concept of a bond between a man and a woman. A bond between a man and a woman is conceptually distinct from a bond between a man and a man which is conceptually distinct from a bond between a woman and a woman. People can distinguish between these concepts even if an umbrella term such as marriage is used to refer to all of them. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples merely changes the hierarchy of words that can be used to describe human bonds at differing levels of accuracy. No concepts are lost and no meaning is lost. People will just learn to use the right granularity when discussing marriage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the sake of brevity, his column could have simply said "Blah blah blah," and had the exact same effect on me. Would've saved us both some time and effort.
Out of curiosity, what's his stance on civil unions? They're marriage in everything except name, which seems to be his biggest beef. I don't recall seeing it in the article.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why should we labor to explain why his argument, whatever his beliefs, is ineffective?
Because it's not ineffective.
quote:The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
I think that an argument can be made that the entire sytem of judges, juries, etc., in this country is specifically calibrated in order to offset the sometimes merciless rulings of legislation-by-popular-vote.
I think it evident that it was certainly legal for the CA court to do what they did. It's equally legal for CA residents to legislate a law into their constitution that defines marriage (thereby surpassing the court's ruling and making homosexual marriages void). And there is probably some way for the legislature to strike that law from their constitution.
These procedures aren't new; I don't think they've changed in a long time. The topics being generated for use by these procedures are new, though. The point being, the court did not destroy democracy with this ruling; in a sense (and thank goodness), America has never been a democracy. For a good reason, there are checks on the power of the people.
quote:it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years.
I don't think this is a valid argument. From what time period should we draw an understanding of civil customs, but our own? Our laws should reflect the understanding of culture and humanity that is currently being held (within reason).
Citizenship has not always been extended to all human beings, for example.
quote:It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.
I don't think that the overreach is obvious; I think that the judges were doing what they thought was right and legal within the powers granted them by the California constitution.
If the constitutional definition of marriage passes in November, it will be interesting to see how the legal system handles it. We may see some overreaching then. Or we may not.
quote:We already know where these decisions lead.
We really don't. It's useless to predict, except as an exercise in rabble-rousing.
I do not believe that the intent of the recent homeschooling laws passed in CA is to get kids into a place where they can be indoctrinated in the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.
quote:There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
This is quite true. But the cultural dialog of the past 50 years has changed what marriage may mean; and the government is responding to that. It's a natural process.
That's why the following rings hollow to me:
quote:when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
No-- those of us who support heterosexual marriages need to change society, not government. OSC's emphasis is completely backwards. It is society who is powering the acceptance of homosexual relationships, not the government. The government is enabling the desires of the culture-- change the desires of the culture, and you change government.
It's a lot more difficult to change society, though. In my opinion, for this particular topic, that is what is necessary.
Synesthesia apparently missed this:
quote:we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Perhaps But he still acts like it's part of a landslide effect where men wouldn't be men and women won't be women and everyone will decide to just shack up with each other.
I don't think he understands how a too conservative view of marriage repels people like me from the idea of tying the knot. It doesn't have to be like that, but the way they talk about marriage and men and women just makes my skin itch with frustration.
Plus, you seldom hear folks like OSC or other socal conservatives rail about child abuse or sposal abuse the way they rail about gay rights.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, in Syne's defense, OSC hasn't spent very many articles calling on people to "change government" to make no-fault divorce impossible. He might wish it weren't, but he's not standing on the barricades fomenting revolution over it.
And that's because, as you pointed out, he's trying to hold back a societal change by talking about it like it's a legal change. I think the perception is that the ship has left the dock on no-fault divorce, but there's still somehow time to persuade society that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. (Interestingly, I think this perception is precisely wrong; I believe it'd be much easier to persuade people to again ban no-fault divorce than to convince everyone that monogamous homosexual relationships are so inherently immoral that society should not recognize their value.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But he still acts like it's part of a landslide effect where men wouldn't be men and women won't be women and everyone will decide to just shack up with each other.
From a certain point of view, we ARE seeing that. People are more free with their sexual liasons-- or maybe they're just more public about it?
quote:I don't think he understands how a too conservative view of marriage repels people like me from the idea of tying the knot. It doesn't have to be like that, but the way they talk about marriage and men and women just makes my skin itch with frustration.
Okay. Can you explain to me the utility in letting OSC's POV influence your personal life?
quote: you seldom hear folks like OSC or other socal conservatives rail about child abuse or sposal abuse the way they rail about gay rights.
You seldom hear people advocating FOR spousal/child abuse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You seldom hear people advocating FOR spousal/child abuse.
And yet there's a lot more of it than there is gay marriage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That certainly doesn't mean that those who oppose both must perforce neglect to address the one that is less prevalent.
Within our culture, there's no dialog supporting spousal abuse. No one is actually holding up the original meaning of the rule of thumb (by which it was legal to beat your wife with a stick, as long as the stick was no wider than your thumb) as something that needs to be reinstituted. There is no attempted redefinition of the word "abuse."
Not so with marriage. It makes sense that there's dialog about the redefinition of marriage; it makes sense that there are efforts put into swaying people to one side or the other.
Culturally and legally, things are changing. Of course that is going to be the topic on folks' tongues.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Laying aside for the time being the ghastly notion of cookie-cutter, two-size-fits-all* roles for men and women that pervades OSC's writing on this topic, this idea always astounds me:
quote: Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.
The idea that marriage has always been this is silly. Marriage, throughout most of human history was a transfer of property between the groom and the father of the property. Or uncle or brother. In some cultures, this is still the case. That "permanent or semi-permanent bond" was a bill of sale.
In recent years, most people have adjusted to the idea that women are not property and that marriage is about more than procreation.
*Clearly, two-sizes do not fit all or we wouldn't have women who have aspirations other than being wives and mommies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:most people have adjusted to the idea that women are not property and that marriage is about more than procreation.
Marriage, in terms of state involvement, is STILL about the sharing of property and raising of children.
The contention of the pro-homosexual marriage camp is that homosexual unions deserve the same recognition as heterosexual ones because, presumably, they can manage resources and raise children just as well.
If this were just about FEELINGS, there'd be no argument at all. Or at least, not much of one, from my standpoint.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And yet the state does not dissolve marriage to people who can't or don't have children. Or even consider them "less married" than other people.
And homosexual couple can raise children - and, in some cases, bear children.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The contention of the pro-homosexual marriage camp is that homosexual unions deserve the same recognition as heterosexual ones because, presumably, they can manage resources and raise children just as well.
Is there any evidence out there to the contrary?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And yet the state does not dissolve marriage to people who can't or don't have children. Or even consider them "less married" than other people.
And homosexual couple can raise children - and, in some cases, bear children.
You'll notice that I didn't just mention children EDIT as a reason for state involvement in marriage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And yet the state does not dissolve marriage to people who can't or don't have children. Or even consider them "less married" than other people.
And homosexual couple can raise children - and, in some cases, bear children.
You'll notice that I didn't just mention children EDIT as a reason for state involvement in marriage.
So the concern is about whether homosexuals can manage property? I admit, that had not occurred to me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:But he still acts like it's part of a landslide effect where men wouldn't be men and women won't be women and everyone will decide to just shack up with each other.
From a certain point of view, we ARE seeing that. People are more free with their sexual liasons-- or maybe they're just more public about it?
quote:I don't think he understands how a too conservative view of marriage repels people like me from the idea of tying the knot. It doesn't have to be like that, but the way they talk about marriage and men and women just makes my skin itch with frustration.
Okay. Can you explain to me the utility in letting OSC's POV influence your personal life?
quote: you seldom hear folks like OSC or other socal conservatives rail about child abuse or sposal abuse the way they rail about gay rights.
You seldom hear people advocating FOR spousal/child abuse.
Folks have always been like that. In Mozart's era getting syphilis was the in thing to do, or at least before his era, the fact is, a lot of people had it and were sleeping around. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I doubt there was any era where EVERYONE was chaste and moral constantly. The ultra-conservative view on things only leads to more of that, not less, just as too much being a libertine leads to more conservatism and not less. It's a cycle. It's not just OSC that thinks like this, but dozens of other people believe in strict sex roles. I can't stand that concept and will NOT marry a man who thinks like that. It would be a torment to me.
Pearl is an example of a guy who advocates spousal abuse and child abuse. Many people follow him. He believes that women should stay with men who molested their children and force them to visit them in jail. He and his wife also believe that in order for a woman not to be abused she has to be totally submissive to him. There's others who share that view. So one can't say it doesn't exist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The contention of the pro-homosexual marriage camp is that homosexual unions deserve the same recognition as heterosexual ones because, presumably, they can manage resources and raise children just as well.
Is there any evidence out there to the contrary?
It depends on what you mean by "evidence." I don't feel comfortable enough with the data I've read and heard about (for both sides) to make a guess.
I think that children tend to grow up well when they're raised well.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The contention of the pro-homosexual marriage camp is that homosexual unions deserve the same recognition as heterosexual ones because, presumably, they can manage resources and raise children just as well.
Is there any evidence out there to the contrary?
It depends on what you mean by "evidence." I don't feel comfortable enough with the data I've read and heard about (for both sides) to make a guess.
I think that children tend to grow up well when they're raised well.
I agree. And I've seen no indication that homosexuals can't raise children well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We also have heterosexual couples who make lousy parents. Up to a point, the governement does not interfere with this and even after that point - where the government steps in to protect children from actual danger - the government does not consider the demonstrably lousy parents unmarried.
Same for resources. A couple can go bankrupt, yet still be married.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
You said that there are other reasons for getting married besides property and progeny.
I said that the government (distinct from society and culture) has an investment in marriages SPECIFICALLY through the creation of laws governing the sharing of property and the raising of progeny.
Do you believe that's true?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
Progeny raising or stewardship of property is not a qualification for government sanctioning of marriage. We have marriages with neither of those things and non-marriages with both of those things.
So I don't think I understand where you are going. I would agree that the government does regulate merging of property (to some extent) in marriage and the division (to some extent) of that property in divorce. I also agree that the government does regulate the custody of children, though this also happens outside of marriage.
But, again, I don't know where you are going with this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Without property exchange and/or the raising of children, there is very little need for the government to endorse a marriage.
If two people across the street from one another, who cannot have any children, want to have a close friendship, and even sex, but neither exchange, nor use one another's property-- the government can't really say anything to that. (Barring laws regarding sex, which aren't enforced on adults any more anyway)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not really.
There are other things like health insurance benefits, making medical/final decisions for a spouse, joint tax filing and so forth.
Government sanctioning of a marriage creates legal relatonships that require the state to recognize two previously unrelated people as related.
I still don't understand your point.
ETA: Even with your edit. If the couple you mentioned could and did have a child the government still doesn't say they are married.
ETAA: If the couple didn't live in the same place or share property they could still get married. It would take some doing, but it can and has been done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Without property exchange and/or the raising of children, there is very little need for the government to endorse a marriage.
I don't get this. I don't understand it from OSC and I don't get it from you. I sort of get the feeling you don't value marriage for the same things I do.
To me, a healthy marriage is a wonderful thing that yields great benefits to the people in it, their families, and society as a whole. These benefits go far beyond children or property. It seems to me to be in any society's best interest to try to encourage its members to enter into healthy marriages.
When OSC writes his anti-gay marriage articles, he seems to me to be attacking the concept of marriage that I cherish and think is what we should be getting out there. I think that pushing the idea that marriage is an unnatural, unpleasant joining of mutually incomprehensible sexs that is all about progeny is exactly the wrong way to deal with the problems we have with marriage in our society.
I see marriage as something that, if people knew what they could get if it does right, nearly everyone would would really want to get into, not something that falls into the "close your eyes and think of England" realm of unpleasant necessity.
I don't really know if this is how OSC really sees things or if he's aware that acknowledging the host of social, financial, personal growth, security, and, you know, joy benefits that go along with a healthy marriage really undercuts the argument that we shouldn't allow gay people access to them.
[ July 25, 2008, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:I think that pushing the idea that marriage is an unnatural, unpleasant joining of mutually incomprehensible sexs that is all about progeny is exactly the wrong way to deal with the problems we have with marriage in our society.
That's exactly the sort of attitude that makes me want to run screaming into the night. I would not bother getting married if that is what getting married is about instead of love, partnership, mutual respect. That seems too much like the sort of marriages women in Women of the Silk were trying to avoid. Marriages like that would not create a healthy society, but a constant cycle of total misery. Just how many families in the world are disfunctional? Probably a depressing number.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There are other things like health insurance benefits, making medical/final decisions for a spouse, joint tax filing and so forth.
You're right, but I file these things under my "property" designations. I should have said.
The point is still that the government's concern with marriage is largely focus on property management and progeny.
Squicky, please note that I very specifically stated that I was speaking from a governmental/legislative view of things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So was I (although obviously I expanded it). Can you not see enormous benefits beyond that of children and property for the society (both the individual members and the whole) when the government strongly encourages healthy marriage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, leaving aside the intangibles, there is still this:
quote: Government sanctioning of a marriage creates legal relatonships that require the state to recognize two previously unrelated people as related.
And, again, the government does not require either children or shared property to sanction a marriage*. Nor does it require marriage to share property or raise children.
ETA: Are you arguing that the government should get out of the marriage business for everyone?
*In fact, people can share property and have children with one person while being legally married to someone else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No-- those of us who support heterosexual marriages need to change society, not government. OSC's emphasis is completely backwards. It is society who is powering the acceptance of homosexual relationships, not the government.
Do you think I don't support heterosexual marriages? Do you think that there is any significant number of people who support homosexual marriage who want to damage heterosexual marriage?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The idea that the government is principally involved in marriage through legislation involving property rights and progeny IS NOT inherently opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No-- those of us who support heterosexual marriages need to change society, not government. OSC's emphasis is completely backwards. It is society who is powering the acceptance of homosexual relationships, not the government.
Do you think I don't support heterosexual marriages? Do you think that there is any significant number of people who support homosexual marriage who want to damage heterosexual marriage?
I'm not sure why you ask. Have I implied anything of this sort?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.
Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.
I make a very nice living, but my girlfriend, whom I plan on marrying, is a very successful lawyer who makes twice what I do. I can also do what I do from home or at a reduced amount whereas she cannot. If/when we have kids, I expect for her to be the primary breadwinner. Would this marriage really be that much of an abomination?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:No-- those of us who support heterosexual marriages need to change society, not government. OSC's emphasis is completely backwards. It is society who is powering the acceptance of homosexual relationships, not the government.
Do you think I don't support heterosexual marriages? Do you think that there is any significant number of people who support homosexual marriage who want to damage heterosexual marriage?
I'm not sure why you ask. Have I implied anything of this sort?
Yes. You're linking those who "support heterosexual marriage" with those who oppose homosexual marriage. I think that is wrong in both directions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that necessarily implies that you (or those who subscribe to your beliefs) were out to damage anyone's marriage.
But for the sake of good will, let me clarify:
"Those who support heterosexual marriages but oppose homosexual marriage need to change society, not government."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think that necessarily implies that you (or those who subscribe to your beliefs) were out to damage anyone's marriage.
I think I, along with many other people who support homosexual marriage, are out to support marriage - including heterosexual marriage - not just "not damage" it.
---
quote:"Those who support heterosexual marriages but oppose homosexual marriage need to change society, not government."
I think that is more accurately stated "Those who oppose homosexual marriage need to change society, not government."
---
edit: I'm not sure if this got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:
Can you not see enormous benefits beyond that of children and property for the society (both the individual members and the whole) when the government strongly encourages healthy marriage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The idea that the government is principally involved in marriage through legislation involving property rights and progeny IS NOT inherently opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage.
No it isn't. Nor do I think that you have said it is. I still don't agree that legislation regarding progeny and property rights are the only - or even the only significant ways that government is involved in marriage.
quote: Government sanctioning of a marriage creates legal relatonships that require the state to recognize two previously unrelated people as related.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: "Those who support heterosexual marriages but oppose homosexual marriage need to change society, not government."
To be even more accurate, shouldn't that read "need to keep society from changing"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think I, along with many other people who support homosexual marriage, are out to support marriage - including heterosexual marriage - not just "not damage" it.
It's kind of silly to keep boostering yourself this way, Squicky. No one has implied that you're out to damage, slander, degrade, or irritate marriage.
quote:Can you not see enormous benefits beyond that of children and property for the society (both the individual members and the whole) when the government strongly encourages healthy marriage?
I believe the government can play a role in making married life easier; I'm not sure I want them legislating methods of marital living.
I'm done with this thread for now, I think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I still don't understand what point you were making. I did try to understand where the argument was going.
You do understand that, by sanctioning some marriages and not others, the government is already legislating a method of marital living. The "one man/one woman" method.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Great article. Good job.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
Maybe this is what OSC had in mind when he was writing Empire. Wonder if he's stockpiling mechs...
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Good for Card.... I am not gonna deny it....I am somewhat disppointed to get on this site and read what some of the posters have been writing on this thread....I was happy that I could get on here and most people on here were religious/moral people that held many of the same values that people like Card and I hold dear...this site has been different from other sites with forums in that respect....and hopefully most people on here still do....I mean i suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion but........part of what makes Card's books so awesome and unique are that many of them have religious overtones and good moral messages....and I thought/hoped that many of his readers/fans would think similarly ....My thing with homosexual marriage: I mean I absolutely do NOT think they should be able to raise children, but probably my biggest problem with it is that it just furthers the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality (and our kids don't need to grow up thinking that lifestyle is normal/natural/perfectly OK), which is something we don't need in this country; we are choked with tolerance and political correctness as it is in this country, and those two things I think are gonna evenyutally be the downfall of this country....people feeling like they have to accept whatever it is that people wanna do (even if it is an absolute defiance of God's Will and an abomination)and being too afraid to say or do something that might offend someone or get sued or get fired b/c of their comments/actions.... and we are too afraid to do what we need to do to protect ourselves and win this stinkin war on terror b/c liberals and weaklings try to tie our hands behind our back (they're terrorists not U.S. Citizens - give me a break)...sorry changed the subject there a little, but I am just fed up with political correctness and people calling for more tolerance and saying stop judging...my preacher recently had a sermon on the whole judging thing - the world takes that stuff way way out of context...someone calling homosexuality a sin and telling someone they're doing something wrong or immoral is not judging the way that some people try to say the Bible forbids....
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
And the people had already voted in California that they didn't want to legalize gay mariage....what happend to a government for the people, by the people?.....courts have vastly too much power in this country; if anyone can't see that, you're blind....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
About the only controversial idea in the article that I have any real sympathy for is this:
quote: A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?
I seriously dislike that term, along with Islamophobia. I prefer a way to denote people that oppose gay rights/marriage or Islam without implying that they irrationally fear those.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean I absolutely do NOT think they should be able to raise children, but probably my biggest problem with it is that it just furthers the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality
I will speak frankly: I am very, very glad that your point of view is in the minority on this site, and I eagerly await the day -- soon in coming -- when it will be held by a powerless minority in this country. It is a cruel and ugly thing, and it disappoints me that you don't realize it.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Sadly enough TomDavidson, I fear that you are right....the Bible says in Matthew 7:13-14....
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
....I don't want to sound mean-spirited in my comments. Please forgive me if I came across that way....I am just very strong in my beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, and the Bible confirms that it is. So, as far as being in a minority, if people are true Christians that accept God's Word as truth, I am not in the minority b/c the % of this country that claim to be Christians are upper 70, lower 80.....but alas, I know that all that claim Christianity do not live by the Bible....
...and it is not an ugly and cruel thing as you say....anybody who mistreats homosexuals is also in the wrong...the Bible teaches to despise the sin but to love the sinner....I reject the idea of homosexuality and denounce it as wrong and do not think we should be forced to tolerate the lifestyle and the idea that it is somehow OK, b/c it's not OK.....so the fact that you called it ugly and cruel that I don't think tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality should be furthered just reinforces my and Card's point that political correctness and tolerance are rampant in this country...and that if you speak out against something, you are called a homophobe or ugly and cruel or hateful or bigoted or so on and so on.....again....we are supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner.........I will pray for those on this thread that we will all seek God's truth and help to steer this nation in the right direction
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My goodness...where do I even begin? Sigh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:so the fact that you called it ugly and cruel that I don't think tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality should be furthered just reinforces my and Card's point that political correctness and tolerance are rampant in this country
Again, I'll be blunt: tolerance running rampant -- or as rampant as tolerance can run; I imagine it involves a lot of uncomfortable group hugs -- is among the least of America's problems.
You don't believe homosexuals should be permitted to raise children. On this board alone, there are at least two same-sex couples raising children and, IMO, doing a decent job of it. You don't think homosexuality should be tolerated; on this board alone, there are at least eight practicing homosexuals and/or bisexuals. So what form would your intolerance take? Would you post in every thread they start about their families, or how much they love their SOs, to tell them you disapprove? Would you shut them out, give them the silent treatment? Would you demand that the ones with children get rid of their children, for their sakes? Or would you just quietly disapprove of their decision to sleep with someone you consider unsuitable, but otherwise treat them like any other human being?
If the latter, congratulations! You're tolerant and you didn't even know it! The only question left is to determine whether you're tolerant just because you're too embarrassed to be vocal about your disapproval, or because you really genuinely believe that decent people can be permitted to make mistakes without requiring your constant supervision and correction.
And if the latter, again, welcome to the club! Most decent people feel that way. Which is why gay marriage is pretty much inevitable.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Romans 1………. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
1 Corinthians 6………. 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 1…….. 9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, that certainly is the Bible.
I have to ask: do you believe that we should, in our laws and in our relationships with non-Christians, attempt to legislate "righteousness" as defined by a given interpretation of the Bible?
Look again at the specific questions I asked you in my post above. There are homosexuals raising children on this forum. How would you treat them, if you knew who they were?
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
I never said gay people could not do a good job of rasing children and in some cases a better job of raising them than some heterosexuals and I never said they couldn't stay married longer than many heterosexuals....in many cases, sadly enough, it is probably true.....I did say I don't think the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle should be furthered and impressed on kids growing up, because it is an immoral lifestule and a sinful one, as posted above....and as posted earlier, people take such comments and try to make me - or someone else who speaks about the Bible and the beliefs that what It says is Truth - into the bad guy..... Again, I apologize if my comments have been taken as mean-spirited....I want to just state the Biblical viewpoint on here and my belief that if gay marriage does come about, it just furthers the idea that homosexuality is OK, and I don't believe that it is, and neither should any Christian.....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I never said gay people could not do a good job of rasing children and in some cases a better job of raising them than some heterosexuals...
You said the following: "I mean I absolutely do NOT think they should be able to raise children..." Why do you not think that homosexuals should be able to raise children, if you think they're capable of doing a decent job at it?
quote:I did say I don't think the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle should be furthered and impressed on kids growing up, because it is an immoral lifestule and a sinful one...
Yes, this is your opinion. And you're welcome to teach your own children that homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful. There are people who do not share your opinion on what is moral or sinful, however, and your children are going to grow up in a world where what you tell them is not going to always match what the rest of the world tells them. That's going to happen a hundred thousand times, on a hundred thousand issues; homosexuality's just one thing that you're going to disagree with somebody about. (As an example: not every Christian you meet is going to accept your interpretation of the Bible, or accept your description of the Christian viewpoint.)
There are healthy ways to handle this sort of disagreement. Teach your children those, too, and you'll be teaching them something truly worthwhile.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We never should have printed Scripture in the vernacular...
volsamm,
For starters, the Apostles were not God. Inspired is not the same thing as perfect. Jesus (as far as we know) had nothing to say on the subject.
It might be helpful for you to understand the context in which Paul was writing. Remember, too, that Paul expected the world to end within his lifetime. Bear in mind also that Paul much prefered that no one have sex at all - even married people. The early church was heavily influenced by the Stoics whose philosophy divided spirit from the physical/emotional/sensory. To the people influenced by this philosophy, one needed to deny the physical as much as possible to focus on the spirit. You might have noticed that Paul writes a lot about focusing on the spirit.
He was also working hard to reconcile Christians who were from the Jewish tradition (which prohibits homosexuality) with Gentiles. The Greek practice of homosexuality, in addition to being physical/pleasure, would have made this reconciliation much more difficult.
Understanding at least a little context is going to be helpful to you if you are going to be arguing Scripture.
Also "effeminate" is not usually how that passage from 1 Cor is translated. What translation are you using?
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
-----------------------
Look again at the specific questions I asked you in my post above. There are homosexuals raising children on this forum. How would you treat them, if you knew who they were? [/QB][/QUOTE] ---------------------------------
9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
---------------------------
So I guess my answer would be... are they a brother/sister in Christ? If so, I would need to try and talk to them about sin, and if they didn't change their lifestyle, then I would be obligated to not "keep company" with them as the Bible says.....but if they are not a brother/sister in Christ, the Bible tells me differently.........
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
sorry about the CAPS at the end of the last post....I was copying and pasting from a Bible website and that was the format...not my doing...I apologize
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
kmbboots..... ...It is the New American Standard Bible, which to my understanding is one of the most closely translated versions.........my NKJV also says homosexuals in 1 Cor 6 though.......
I guess it comes down to your belief in whether the Scriptures are inspired by God or not....I believe they are.....
----------------- From 2 Peter 3.... 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. ----------- Here Peter calls Paul's Letters Scriptures.......
From 2 Peter 1......... 19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
---------- And this is Peter talking, to whom Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom....From Matthew 16:
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." -------- Jesus said whatever Peter bound or loosed on Earth shall have already been bound or loosed in Heaven.........sounds inspired to me.........
---------- And as far as Jesus' direct teachings....He did speak of marriage in Matthew 19....and in verse 4, He mentions that God made them male and female and He mentions wives....which is feminine....
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Look....
....Again, I don't want to cause trouble - although when you start discussing sensitive issues such as these, people get upset.... I apologize if I have offended anyone in my tone or spirit, but I do not apologize for the content of what I have said....I believe it to be the truth, and I believe more people should stand up for it..... And yes, Tom....I do understand that there gonna be many who disagree with me....it is just my hope that whoever is right or wrong, we learn to see it God's Way........
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't referring to the word "homosexual" I was refering to "effeminate" - usually I have seen that translated as "male prostitute."
I do believe that Scripture is inspired. That is not the same thing as believing that the apostles always got it right* or believing that one can lift Scripture out of its cultural context and apply it without some understanding. Paul was writing for a specific audience in a specific time and place.
*clearly they didn't. If they did, how could they have disagreed so often?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
volssam, welcome to Hatrack.
Some items of note:
1. When you registered, you agreed to certain Terms of Service. These constitute both a legal and ethical contract. It might be wise to go back and review them, in particular, this: "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
Now, quoting references in a debate is not the same thing as prosetylization or evangelism, but extensive block quoting without primary commentary, or with just frippery dressing of a few words, can be problematic for the TOS. Tone is also an issue. Expressing differing beliefs in an honest and genuinely respectful way is not a problem, but how you go about doing it may be in violation of your agreement with the operators of the site.
I am "whistling" your recent posts for review by the moderator, not to make you feel bad, but in order to get some balanced objective input from someone who does his job so well. He might find it appropriate to clarify the responsibilities we all share to all of us, as I might be wrong in assessing that you are walking close to some lines.
Regardless, I recommend you review the TOS you agreed to upon registration. To do so, log out and press the link to "register" again, and immediately you will be taken back to your original contract.
2. It is easy to edit one's posts if they do not come out as intended; i.e., you do not need to post separately an apology about unintended block use of capitals, as you can go back and change that if it is not what you intended. If you have trouble doing this, or figuring out the "quote" function, or anything else regarding how to use a forum, I daresay that there are many here who would be delighted to be of assistance.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
ClaudiaTherese....... I apologize to you and anyone if I violated the TOS...I really do feel bad if I did; I am not trying to be patronizing or anything....I was not aware of the religious bit on the TOS; I know I agreed to them, but I was not aware of that part...sorry...... It's just difficult for me to discuss what I view as a religious/spiritual issue without using the Bible.... ....and as far as my tone....I thought that was already addressed; I apologized if mine was offensive.... actually I felt that other's tone was worse than mine...but then again, that's the thing about posting in a forum...you can't interpret someone's tone....I didn't feel that mine was beligerant though.....
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
OK....I just looked over the TOS, and I didn't see any mention of religious material/religion at all.......maybe I missed it.... but if it isn't there, I didn't violate the TOS, did I?....
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
It's the second sentence in the second paragraph of the TOS.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
volssam, I don't think that your tone has been out of line*. Bear in mind, though, that you will be associating with all manner of folk here and it seemed from your posts as if that were only possible, according to the passages you quoted, if your association included trying to convert them to what you consider acceptable behaviour.
ETA: * I take that back. Actually, I do think your tone has been out of line. For goodness sake, you indicated your disappointment with us almost immediately on this thread! I think though, that it is a function of ignorance rather than malice.
[ July 28, 2008, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
OK ..... saw the line now....I apologize again......
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Actually, I am honestly surprised that OSC's official site would have that clause in there....
....I know that he is a religious man.... ...And I am not wanting to bully anybody with my comments...I guess I should be aware that some would take it that way....I am sorry about that...
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
I was wanting a discussion...as I have discussed similar issues on other sites....I guess I didn't see a problem...although I was not aware of the whole TOS thing.....please don't hate me.......
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stop groveling. If you will read the many, many other thread, you will see that it is (sometimes) possible to have a positive discussion on the topic. You might want to consider, though, whether that counts as associating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if they are not a brother/sister in Christ, the Bible tells me differently
Millions of the people in this country are not Christian. Is it your belief that those people should be able to marry individuals of the same sex?
By the way, I definitely don't hate you. But I want you to look closely at what you just wrote here:
quote:I am honestly surprised that OSC's official site would have that clause in there....
....I know that he is a religious man....
Think about what you're saying for a moment. You know he is a religious man; therefore you assume that he shares your opinion. This is a very dangerous assumption.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
No...that is not what I meant...
I was talking about the point that his site would exclude trying to talk about/convert people to religious ideas.....
I didn't mean that he agrees with me on everything....trust me, I am positive he doesn't agree with me on everything......
I am sorry you took it that way....this is why it's difficult to discuss things on a forum; people take things the wrong way....not trying to blame you; it's easy to do....
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
What do you mean when you keep saying associating kmb?
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
and you told me to stop grovelling.... I can hardly help it....if you only knew me...you see I have something called OCD, and I start obssessing over things, and one of those things that I obssess over is when I am afraid that I have sinned....which is why I kept apologizing for my tone and then when I unknowingly violated my TOS....I didn't want anyone to think that I had lied....b/c I consider myself an honest person who tries to do what God wants.....anyways, see here I go again; I try to over-explain myself...I know it's bothersome; you can ask my wife.......haha
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
responding to Tom's earlier post....no that is not my belief, but I mean...obviously I can't control people's actions....we were made with free will, thankfully, and it's up to each person how they live their life to a certain extent....as far as people in the world, it is my responsibility as I see it to try to tell others about the Bible (except apparently on this site from now on ) and it is up to them whether to accept it or not; I won't hate them for not agreeing with me and deciding to live their life that way; it's up to them....but as far as marriage, I believe it should be between a man and a woman.....I'm not going to go through many of my reasons again....as I don't want to get in trouble and /or upset my OCD-ness....
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Thank you Tom and kmb for discussing stuff with me....it's good to talk about important issues....and if everyone saw things the same way ....my way---haha......what fun would that be? j/k
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: ....as far as people in the world, it is my responsibility as I see it to try to tell others about the Bible (except apparently on this site from now on ) ....
I don't think you understand. It is permitted to discuss the Christian Bible, to reference it, and to acknowledge your own commitment to its principles. Same for any other holy text, so long as it is done appropriately. Same for any secular text, too, by the way, and with the same restrictions.
The crux is this (as I see it): this site is akin to a dinner party. It is a place for people of all faiths and backgrounds, even all ages, to get together and spend enjoyable, hopefully insightful and scintillatingly witty ( ) time together as guests. As guests, though, we commit in essence to "Speak with passion, and listen with respect."
Just as one might refer to religious matters or debate a point of interest with someone one disagrees with at a lively, engaging dinner party, so you can here. It is even encouraged, if not expected. But one wouldn't use one's host's dinner table as a specific podium from which to convert other guests to one's own religion -- or chastise them for not agreeing! -- especially not aggressively so.
There is a difference. It may be hard for some to see, but it is there, and it is taken seriously. If the difference is not apparent to you, I daresay we are not likely to be able to explain it in a way understandable to you. But some people can try, or maybe our moderator can clarify (even if you are nowhere near that line, or if you have been, too).
OSC operates multiple sites. I know of this one, loosely characterized as his "living room," but also a forum geared directly toward people of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and one that is specifically geared to political discussion (The Ornery American).
The former is a site I would also like to participate in, as I am interested in many religious matters (and the ideas of my LDS friends in particular), but since registration at that site requires a pledge of commitment to the principles of the LDS Church, I do not. Like you, I take my commitments seriously, and so I could not register there. I am not LDS. But if you are, you might find it a place you find most amenable. I don't think we are supposed to link directly there, but a Google search on "Nauvoo Forum" would take you there. [Papa Janitor, please edit this as appropriate if needed.]
But whether or not you explore his other sites, you remain welcome here, I am sure. Just recall that this is a very diverse place, and it is set up to be open to a broad swath of people: the "guests" of our "host." You can disagree with other guests, you can talk about matters that are controversial and dear to your heart.
However, "speak with passion, and listen with respect." Treat your fellow posters as welcomed guests, too, and do honor to our esteemed host in that way as well.
My apologies that we have participated in your distress. Regardless of fault, that is a regrettable occurrence.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't think we are supposed to link directly there, but a Google search on "Nauvoo Forum" would take you there. (Papa Janitor, please edit this as appropriate, if needed.)
This may or may not have changed as policy. If you go to hatrack.com there is an image link at the top that leads to this http://www.orsonscottcard.com/ which provides the desired link.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Excellent, and thanks!
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Thanks Claudia Therese....I would like to keep posting in forums on this site....and I want to discuss religious issues and even use scripture. Hopefully, I can try to think about whether I am just using it as a reference or trying to convert others in the future.... ...Do you think I crossed the line earlier....as I said I don't think my tone was a problem...but maybe my intent....maybe....???? ...Anyway, I hope noone will shun me in the future. I do normally like to discuss issues, even though it almost always comes back to the Bible for me....... ...Hatrack is one of my fave sites to come to forums on.....and I hope to talk with many of you, if not all of you, in the future....OSC rocks!
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Sorry...another post....not that this needs clarifying necessarily....but I am a very conservative person (not an extremist, I don't think), both in political and religious views....but I don't feel like I am a rigid non-compassionate person that people with strict beliefs seem to often get the reputation of being....
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am not interested in commenting directly on your behavior myself. I am interested in drawing your eye to a potential conflict, noting it for moderation, and providing you with resources.
Again, welcome to Hatrack. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do normally like to discuss issues, even though it almost always comes back to the Bible for me...
May I ask why? What about the Bible makes it so useful to you in this respect?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
volssam, can I ask you a question?
What are you trying to convey with your frequent use of ellipses? I've taken one of your posts and changed them all to single periods (or deleted them if at the beginning of the line):
quote:Thanks Claudia Therese. I would like to keep posting in forums on this site. and I want to discuss religious issues and even use scripture. Hopefully, I can try to think about whether I am just using it as a reference or trying to convert others in the future.
Do you think I crossed the line earlier. as I said I don't think my tone was a problem. but maybe my intent. maybe. ????
Anyway, I hope noone will shun me in the future. I do normally like to discuss issues, even though it almost always comes back to the Bible for me.
Hatrack is one of my fave sites to come to forums on. and I hope to talk with many of you, if not all of you, in the future. OSC rocks!
I also double-spaced the paragraphs just for fun.
That's a decently-written post - a fact that surprised me after I removed the ellipses. Before I did that, my mind kept trying to come up with what words you had removed or adding terribly long pauses, neither of which helped me to understand your post. One simple change of removing all ellipses (other than in quotes from which you have excluded words) would, at least in my opinion, dramatically improve the comprehensibility and ease of reading of your posts.
Just a thought.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: What do you mean when you keep saying associating kmb?
quote: 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
You quoted that. I was wondering how literally you take it. I would consider conversing on the internet as "associating". You may not.
volssam, I don't think that you need to keep apologizing. This is tricky, but, to me, the aspect of your posts that offends is not your intention, but the underlying assumptions. You are probably a very nice, humble person. Your assumption that all religious people share your opinion on things, your disappointment that people and ideas that don't conform to your ideas are present on this site , your belief that tolerance of people and ideas that don't harm you is a bad thing - all these, I find troublesome. This is a diverse place and you might want to keep in mind that, when you rail about "those people" you are railing at many of us.
While it is not my place to "convert" you to my version of Christianity, I do feel free to argue the merits with you.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
CT, I do thank you for bringing this to my attention (sorry I was unavailable much of today).
Volssam, I also welcome you to Hatrack. Most of what I would say has been covered through the conversation, but I thought I'd poke my head in anyway. There's nothing in the terms of service (reviewable here if you feel like it) that says you can't use the Bible (or anything else) as your reason for a belief. There isn't anything saying that anyone else has to consider your reasoning authoritative or logical or compelling, either.
There's a fine line somewhere between explaining your belief with a religious basis, trying to convince another to switch to your belief which is based on religion, and trying to convince someone to convert to your religion (I use "convince" in a well-meaning rather than malicious manner here). Not always clear where that line is, but I don't think you've necessarily (or certainly intentionally) crossed it. I just ask that you endeavor to use your judgment to stay on the indicated side of that line, and if/when my judgment differs significantly from mine, I'll mention it.
As to tone, this seems to be regularly one of the most heated topics we ever have at Hatrack. Because it's so important to so many people, the tensions often get a little higher than the average. But precisely because so many people consider it vitally important, I try not to squelch conversation on it out of devotion to keeping order -- I just encourage people to keep it reasonable. If anything, I think I'm too lax (though you'll find people on nearly every point of the spectrum on that subject, too).
I'm not sure I have anything else I consider of crucial importance to say here, though I occasionally forget my original point. If you have any questions feel free to ask. And although I'm officially "the moderator," Hatrack is fairly self-moderating most times, so a good suggestion is a good suggestion whether it's from me or not. And if it's from ClaudiaTherese, it's probably even better.
--PJ
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Thanks PJ -Dagonee: Are you talking about my use of periods? like this .............. Sorry, that is just the way I write in forums and even on my text messages; someone has asked me about it before. I don't know that there is a good answer; it's just the way I write; I guess maybe I feel that it kinda separates my thoughts or something, and now it is a habit. I am trying to refrain from it right now; it's kinda hard.
-Tom: I am a very religious person, and I guess it always comes back to the Bible for me b/c I feel that is what our morals and ethics should be governed by, and that somewhere in the past, we - as humans have always done - have diverted from it for some reason and have started to trust in our own logic and reasoning above God's and decided what is right in our own eyes and what seems fair in our own eyes and so on. And I guess I have been writing on here about my relihious view on things, but I wish everyone could believe in the Bible and try to live as closely by it as they can, but I know this is America (or maybe other countries???) and that people are free to choose how to live their lives (which is a great thing); but for me, it always comes back to the Bible b/c it is how I view I should live and what I will be judged by in the end.
-kmb: Oh, I see; I was confused for a while when you kept saying associating. I suppose it could be considered associating by talking on a forum to others. This is a very complicated issue (We call it disfellowshipping) in the Church I attend and one that is not used very often. It comes from the New Testament (some of it from the verses above where it talks about not keeping company with a brother who is immoral) and it talks about going to a brother that is sinned and trying to correct their error and trying again with more people, but if they refuse to change their lifestyle, then they are to be "disfelowshipped" until they decide to repent and come back to the Lord. And when I mention Brother/ Sister in Christ, I am talking about a member of the Church - the Church being the one of which I am a member, the one we believe was started on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. ....(Sorry Dagonee - I did well for a while there ) As far as believing all religious people share my ideas, as I mentioned earlier about Card, trust me, I know that most people do not; even a lot of people that go to the same Church with me do not agree with me on some things. Our motto in the Church is to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent - meaning if the Bible tells us this is right and that is wrong; that is what we think is right and wrong; and if the Bible doesn't speak as to whether something is right or wrong, it's not up to us to do it (for example - in the New Testament, when speaking of worship, it tells us to sing and it never mentions using musical instruments to worship, so we sing a capella in our worship services ---- things like that). Anyways, I know there are a lot of people who do not agree with me on some of my views. There are some (like you talked about earlier) that think some issues were not meant for us in our culture and that the Bible - at least not all of it - is inspired. I believe it is inspired and I believe that God is unchanging and that even if we as a society change our cultural or collective views on what is right and wrong, He does not. So that is where we run into disagreements, I suppose.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
And when it says a brother who is immoral - I am not saying just homosexuals; I believe it is talking about anybody who decides to live in a continually sinning lifestyle - such as adultery, someone who is a drunkard, even someone who uses bad language all the time, etc... Basically, anyone who chooses to defy God's Word and decide to live contrary to it in their lifestyle. Does that make sense? Because we all sin and we all have our own struggles, but I believe that if we are trying to live as closely to God's Word as possible and that if we repent and try to do better when we find that we have sinned and we are living according to God's Will, then grace takes care of the rest, and without that grace, I think we'd all be in trouble.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Volssam, can you explain why the Bible declares homosexuality to be immoral?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Being a "Drunkard" is not exactly a moral issue. Most folks become alcoholics as a result of trauma.
But, I never understand HOW homosexuality can be considered immoral when there are things so much worse. Focus on the Family doesn't take out a 20,000 dollar ad announcing that child abusers can change, so why do they focus on homosexuality? Two people of the same sex being together? It really doesn't matter and it's not destroying society nearly as much as disfunctional families do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
volssam, let me explain about my view of the Bible. It is a view that is not uncommon among Christians.
In my faith, the Bible is one way that we understand God. We also use reason, experience, tradition, prayer, and of course, the Holy Spirit. The Bible is indeed inspired, but it is a collection of many different books and letters, histories and law and poetry written by different people at different times for different purposes. To understand it, we need to understand the context. We need to understand the literature conventions employed by the writers. It is not as simple as "the Bible says". We can't understand Scripture the way we would a modern newspaper or history book. This is why we have more than one Gospel and why they don't all agree in the particulars. They were written many years after the events they record.
I tell you this so that you are aware that the majority of Christians don't necessarily share your view of how the Scripture should be understood.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you talking about my use of periods? like this ..............
Exactly.
quote:I am trying to refrain from it right now; it's kinda hard.
As a reader, I appreciate that. The posts you have made with no/limited ellipses have been much easier to read. Thank you for taking that into account.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
This reminds me of a friend on another forum, who ends every sentence with ellipses.... It does make it hard to read, but I've never figured out how to say anything about it without hurting them - good job Dag!
Now I find them creeping into my own writing ... and I hate it!
/derail
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
-Dagonee: you are welcome. - Synesthesia and Threads: I will try to answer you in the same paragraph. The Bible does say that those who practice homosexuality AND those practice drunkenness, along with other things such as adultery, fornication, idolatry, hatred, thieves, and others will NOT inherit the kingdom of God(Heaven); so I guess I just consider people who do things contrary to the Bible immoral. I am sure that there are some people who drink a lot who would never rationally do many of the things that we as a society agree are immoral, but I guess I think the very act of drunkenness or at least living a lifestyle in such a manner is immoral. And homosexuality, as I said, is included in the list of those who, according to the Bible, will not enter the kingdom of God. And I have also never understood how a lot of people can think it is a moral or natural lifestyle. I agree Synesthesia that there are other things that are bad as well, child abuse being one obvious one, but that doesn't mean another issue should be ignored. And maybe (I don't know) they (Focus on the Family and other groups) see that society as a whole can and should and in many cases do carry the banner against child abuse b/c everybody I would think would understand that it is wrong and immoral to abuse a child. And so maybe they use their resources to carry the banner against an issue they see as a threat to the moral fiber of our country, a moral fiber that has already taken a beating in this country - drunkenness, fornication, language, divorce, violent crimes, etc... -kmb: I understand I guess what you are saying but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that the Old Testament is there for our learning. The N.T. says so. I don't think the O.T. is there to govern our lives the way it did the Jews. I believe we ARE to live by the N.T. and its teachings, both the ones by Jesus and the ones by the inspred writers of the N.T. But if you don't believe the same things, I don't guess you'll agree with my view on things. But whether someone looks at the O.T. or the N.T., I think it is clear that, according to the Bible, God does not condone homosexuality, and as such, would not condone gay marriage, which is the original issue of this thread. And I am sure there are many people who would agree with you about the Bible, that some issues are outdated, but I will say again, culture and society and people may change, but I don't believe God does, and in the book of Hebrews it says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Also, it says in the book of Proverbs: Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him. And He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil. This is where I think we as a society and we as humans so often go wrong. We try to impose our undertsanding and presume to be able to think for God (i.e. "that was just for that culture; times are different now" or "surely I won't go to hell for that" or "surely God understands this" or "if God would send me to hell for this, then I don't want to serve that kind of God") instead of just taking God at His Word and living how He says to live. That is my view. And I know it is probably not a popular view in some people's eyes, but I think it is just too convenient to live how we want and try to conform the Bible to our lives instead of the other way around. And I know I fail in some aspects sometimes, but as I said, I believe that as long as we try our best, and repent when needed, grace takes care of the rest.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:And homosexuality, as I said, is included in the list of those who, according to the Bible, will not enter the kingdom of God.
Yes, but why? Just because the book says so, or is there an actual reason?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
volssam, I believe that that while God is eternal, our human understanding of God can increase. Just as we understand the world better through gains in science and knowledge, we can also grow in our understadning of God. While there are great stores of wisdom in Scripture, we can go beyond the understanding of the men of the first century and our children can go even further.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:people are free to choose how to live their lives (which is a great thing)
Why do you think people being free to choose how to live their lives is a great thing? There's nothing in the Bible that suggests this, as far as I can tell.
quote:This is where I think we as a society and we as humans so often go wrong. We try to impose our undertsanding...
For what it's worth, this particular attitude is what I consider the single most dangerous by-product of a religious worldview. It's very difficult to live this way, and also potentially very harmful to people who don't share the same premises. (As an example, look at your stated belief above: that it's good for people to be free to choose how to live, even if that leads them into what you consider immorality. Why do you feel that way? Is there a Biblical reason?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is where I think we as a society and we as humans so often go wrong. We try to impose our understanding...
For what it's worth, this particular attitude is what I consider the single most dangerous by-product of a religious worldview.
Erm...some religious worldviews.
volssam, as much as people may try to live by a literal reading of the bible, it is simply not possible to do this without adding our own understanding and interpretation. Even literalists are not absolutely literal. here is a classic example. Do you own more than one coat? What about jackets? Do they count a coats? Can we own a jacket and a coat without giving one away. What about winter coats and raincoats? Does this only apply to "coats" as they existed during the time of Jesus? Does it mean "tunic"? Or does it mean that, when we have more than we need, we should be charitable?
Even to answer these questions, we have to use our own judgment and understanding.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Erm...some religious worldviews.
The way I look at it, "I think hard about what's right and wrong based on what I see in the world around me" is not a religious worldview.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about "I think hard about what's right and wrong based on what I see in the world around me, the wisdom of others past and present, and what knowledge I gain from 'listening' to the Holy Spirit"? I would think that would count as a religious viewpoint, yet still leaves room for people to come to other conclusions about what is right.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I think my view of Scripture would fall in between kmb and volssam.
Volssam- I do believe in the usefulness of some literal interpretation of scripture, especially the epistolary literature of the New Testament.
But what you have to understand is- some information in Scripture is not necessarily for believers today, some of it was directed towards a particular group at a particular time. This is why he wrote his letter to the Romans.
For instance: we know the Paul really wanted to go to Rome, but was having a great deal of difficulty in actually going there, so he decided to write a letter to a church he had never been to.
Not everything in Scripture is necessarily applicable, but the best way of understanding it is: if it's not directly applicable is a result of some higher/deeper purpose that is timeless that we should be aware of.
Also, your idea that we can use Scripture without interpreting it on our own is simply dumb. We use the lens of theology in general that we develop from Scripture to help interpret the Bible for us, and there is nothing wrong with that- it would be impossible otherwise. Theology is most easily explained as our "philosophy of God". And I also think that God can reveal himself over time to the church at large over time. Because we have studied Scripture for longer time, more time to develop ideas, and more inspiration from God we understand much more about the Holy Spirit now than the first apostles really did. I mean think about, Jesus basically said- "Okay. Yeah. Stay in Jerusalem because I'm going to send down my spirit to help you guys." And that's basically it- but because of our systematic theologies and theories we are able to understand a lot more of the nature of God than they probably did.
Wow. That was a lot more than I meant to type. It's those dumb essays. (I'm a triple major in Religious Studies, Biblical Studies, and Psychology). And on another note about the forum in general- yeah we want to know your opinion more than just random Bible verses thrown at us, it's not just the idea but also people here like to get to know one another, we can't do that without your opinion.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
-kmb: you keep referring to the men who wrote the Scriptures in the first century as though they were just men who decided to write about their experiences and thoughts or whatever. But, as I have said above, this is where we differ. I believe they were inspired by God to write the things they wrote. And I understand that we have to interpret what things mean, but that is a far cry IMO from completely omitting certain things b/c they don't suit our lifestyle. The Bible plainly says that some things are wrong, and it plainly says some things we must do. In my belief, if we act contrary to this, we are in the wrong. -Javert: As I said earlier, it always comes back to the Bible for me, but if you don't believe in the Bible, it is more difficult to express my views. However, to me, as I had similarly posted on another site's forum recently, homosexuality is not a natural lifestyle. It seems obvious to me that we were created with two different sexes for a reason and we were made with only one way to reproduce in our species, and homosexuality is in outright opposition to both of those. -Tom: It is good that we have free will, because otherwise we would just be programmed people that all serve God because we're made to. But now, with free will, if we serve God, it's out of more personal reasons, and that is what I believe God wants. Also, I agree with you that it can be dangerous when we humans try to impose our understanding of the Bible and manipulate it to fit our views and omit certain parts of it and so on. That is why I think we would need to take the whole N.T. and live by its teachings. And as I said, there are things that the Bible clearly denotes as wrong, homosexuality being one of those.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
volssam, what exactly do you mean by "inspired"? I think that they were inspired as well, but we seem to mean different things ny this.
So how many coats do you have? Do you father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even your own life?
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Shawshank: I know there are a few passages that deal directly with specific people or a specific person (for example - as I think it was kmb that said it yesterday - Paul says I believe in 1 Cor. 7 that "I, not the Lord, says....." and he goes on to say how its best to live without marriage if you can (celibate as I think kmb said)but that if you cannot and you lust and so on, then go ahead and get married). Also, as I said, I know we have to interpret what certain passages mean (and in some cases that is extremely difficult - i.e. Revelation ), but as I also said that is much different than looking at a passage where it says this is immoral/sinful and if you do it you won't go to Heaven and then just ignoring it b/c you do do those things and you don't want to be told you're not going to Heaven. But if the Bible doesn't govern your lifem then I guess this point is moot in your view.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
I believe in the original language the word used in 2 Peter means "God-breathed" so I would take it to mean that the men wrote as directed/inspired by God, which would make the things they wrote about God's view onthings, which in my view make them very imoprtant to live by. Why the question about the coats?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:But if the Bible doesn't govern your lifem then I guess this point is moot in your view.
Oh it definitely does. But it's still a manner of interpretation. I personally do not think that woman should be silent in churches. I even think we need and should have female ministers. Paul specifically said that women should be silent during church meetings. Why though?
The two ideas are not contradictory- I do not believe that God gave every single word to the original authors of Scripture, that is not even how the Bible was written. Many other sources came together and recollided and were reshuffled. It is pretty evident that the book of John had extensive editing on it after a "first draft" was written by textual clues and things like that. And that one of the Corinthians (I or II- I can't remember which) is actually two different letters that were later combined. Or that the book of Mark had a big influence on Matthew and Luke, and probably so did document Q (a no longer extant text that contains material found in both Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark).
It's certainly not a matter of throwing things away simply because of my personal interests- I am probably one of the most conservative interpreters of Scripture on this forum in terms of more traditional denominations and things like that. (In other words, I don't know enough of Mormon hermeneutics to make a comparison between myself and them).
In other words- the Bible didn't come out the author's heads fully formed like Athena from Zeus. They were written and rewritten and combined and edited by later people even those who are different than the original author. This is simply historical fact- so your ideas of the inspiration of Scripture aren't even really based on anything, not even Scripture.
The idea of sola scriptura is not spelled out anywhere in Scripture, how then can it be right? Sola Scriptura is a viewpoint from which one can view scripture, but it is not necessarily laid out that simply by any means- so you consistently that you need not apply your own ideas of interpretation to the Bible has in essence been a type of interpretation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: I believe in the original language the word used in 2 Peter means "God-breathed" so I would take it to mean that the men wrote as directed/inspired by God, which would make the things they wrote about God's view onthings, which in my view make them very imoprtant to live by. Why the question about the coats?
That does not necessarily follow.
I asked about coats because Jesus was pretty specific about giving away any extra. He even said that we should give to anyone who asks us. Most of us don't. He also pretty specifically said that one couldn't be His disciple without hating your family. Which rather contradicts the whole "love" thing.
Don't fool yourself that you don't interpret. The best we can do is look at our motivations as to how and why we interpret the way we do. I wonder about the motivations of those who cling to a strict interpretation of Paul's words about homosexuality yet still manage to keep two coats.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is good that we have free will, because otherwise we would just be programmed people that all serve God because we're made to. But now, with free will, if we serve God, it's out of more personal reasons, and that is what I believe God wants.
Is it good that some people do not choose to serve God?
quote:Also, I agree with you that it can be dangerous when we humans try to impose our understanding of the Bible and manipulate it to fit our views and omit certain parts of it and so on.
That's not what I said was dangerous. What I said was dangerous was the idea that we should turn off our brains and our personal consciences and live according to arbitrary religious mandates. It's pretty much the opposite of what you think is dangerous. Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Why do people keep saying I don't interpret the Bible? I have said at least twice I understand that you have to determine what the scripture means. My beef comes when people pick and choose verses. I am going to assume, kmb, that you are referring the scripture in Matthew 5:40, where Jesus says "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also" This is not talking about giving away your cloak to those in need; this is talking about loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you etc... Either that or in Matthew 25 where Jesus goes through the whole stranger and you didn't take me in, naked and you didn't clothe me, hungry and thirsty and you didn't minister to me....when you did not do it to the least of these my brethren, you did not do it to me. Or maybe it's another verse. But I agree, we are supposed to help the less fortunate. And many, probably I myself, fail at this many times. I mean I do give to Church, who then in turn gives to others in need. And I have been on a mission trip to Costa Rica to help people down there. But as I said, I am sure I have failed at this many times. But as I have also said, as long as we try our best..... But even if I fail at some things (as I have admitted I have), that doesn't mean other aspects of Scripture are not important to live by. -Shawshank, how do you feel about homosexuality? I must admit that I do disagree with you on the women ministers issue. I do feel that the men should lead in worship, at least when men are present. I believe that women can lead in teaching other women. And before someone paints me with the chauvanistic brush, I believe that women are just as important in the Church as men are, just in different roles.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Tom: In my view it is not good that some people choose to serve God, but that is their choice, and they are the ones who will have to accept any consequences or lack therof that come from that choice. What arbitrary religious "mandates" from the Bible would you consider dangerous if we were to follow them?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
How do I feel about homosexuality? I think that Christians should stand up for truth and holy living, but we oftentimes get sidetracked by a single issue that just makes everyone happy and that we alienate people and show hatred towards them instead of loving people as Christ loves us. And that in the end, I think we need to get off our butts and do something more productive than just yelling at people.
That's pretty much how I feel about homosexuality.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think folks should leave gay people alone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, volssam, you are picking and choosing. You are choosing a more strictly literal (and out of context) interpretation of Paul's injunction regarding homosexuals and a less strictly literal interpretation of Jesus's instructions. Why is that?
The Scriptures I was referencing are Luke 3:11 and Luke 14:26. Lots of good stuff in Luke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What arbitrary religious "mandates" from the Bible would you consider dangerous if we were to follow them?
Have you suffered any witches to live lately?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What arbitrary religious "mandates" from the Bible would you consider dangerous if we were to follow them?
Have you suffered any witches to live lately?
Stoned any disobedient children, perhaps?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gouged out our own eyes or cut off our own hands...
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
-Javert: the stoning disobedient children was in the O.T. and as I said I don't believe it governs our lives anymore. I am not sure where the suffered any witches to live comes from, but I would assume the O.T. as well. -kmb: I do not see what I am doing as picking and choosing. I am sorry if you feel this way. The way I see it, if God is against homosexuality (and He is, as we have already discussed - if you look at the O.T. and the N.T. - both are against homosexuality. And you only need to recall the story of Sodom and Gommorrah to bring to mind how strongly He felt about it (and I know that homosexuality was not the only thing going on there, but it was a major part of it - hence the word Sodomy)) if He is against it, then whether Paul was writing just to people about their own culture or not (and I don't believe the passages that mention homosexuality fall into that category [he specifically says mentions them in the list that will not enter the kingdom of God; I don't think that would change with culture]) is moot. Shawshank: you didn't really answer my question. I think you believe homosexuality is wrong -Synesthesia and Shawshank: I don't know if you read all the convos from yesterday, but I have said - I believe we are to be against the act, not the people. I believe God loves everyone and expects us to. But He also wants people in sin to repent (whether that's me or you or anyone who needs to). And although He is a loving God, He is also a just God, and the Bible says He is not slack concerning His promises. Having said all this, I cannot answer for those who mistreat homosexuals and treat them violently; they are also in the wrong in my belief. But I don't think that means we should still condone the act. You can all be against what I say, but it doesn't change what the Bible says. If you don't want to take the Bible as literal or don't want to accept it as truth, that is your choice. But pointing to other things that other religious groups or people or I may also do wrong doesn't change what the Bible says about this issue or others. I have admitted I fail at times.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
Oh yeah, the part about hating mother, father, sister/brother more than me is in reference to we must put the Lord above everyone and everything else, not actually hating them. Don't be silly.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
As far as interpretation goes: - I don't see how when there is a list of sins and the Bible says that people who do these will enter Heaven. I don't see how there is much room for interpretation there. But if you take the view that that was to a certain culture, and thus meaningless, again that is your choice. - And there are certain verses that do require interpretation, but as I have said a few times on here, not as much interpretation as picking and choosing where there are problems. But as far as interpreting, the verse about cutting out eyes and/or hands and/or feet I believe refers to how we must be willing to sacrifice things in order to get to Heaven, even if those things are important to us.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If I remember correctly, the NT doesn't say anything about gay men. Effemenite(sp?) men, yes, but that doesn't cover all gay man, or even exclusively gay men.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Re-edited: initially edited because there are already enough people in the conversation , but re-edited to re-include the part responded to. I thought I had changed it before there were any replies. My apologies for the confusion.]
There is this:
quote: Originally posted by volssam: -Javert: the stoning disobedient children was in the O.T. and as I said I don't believe it governs our lives anymore.
Which seems inconsistent with this:
quote:... if you look at the O.T. and the N.T. - both are against homosexuality. And you only need to recall the story of Sodom and Gommorrah to bring to mind how strongly He felt about it (and I know that homosexuality was not the only thing going on there, but it was a major part of it - hence the word Sodomy)) ...
I don't understand why you are taking guidance about homosexuality from the Old Testament section if you "don't believe it governs our lives anymore."
Is the Old Testament relevant, or isn't it? One or the other, or else it does look like cherry-picking.
[ July 29, 2008, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
No. I am not cherry-picking. I don't think the O.T. governs how we are as Christians to live and how we will be judged. I was bringing up the O.T. to show I think God feels about homosexuality and that that has not changed. But, it doesn't really matter b/c the N.T. condemns it as well. In my belief, The O.T. is relevant for learning (as it says in Romans 15:4) but when Christ died on the cross, it took the Old Law away and now we have a new law (you can see this in the book of Hebrews and in Galatians 3). So, I believe we are to now live by the New Law aka the New Testament. Then, you run into whether to take all the books or part of them or whatever which is what the discussion above was partly about I think. -Javert: I posted the verses yesterday- one from Rom 1 and one from 1 Cor 6. Both mention homosexuality, and one ALSO mentions effeminate. There is also a verse in Galatians 5 that mentions fornication, which I think also includes homosexuality. In all three places, homosexuality is considered wrong by the writer.
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
And as also mentioned yesterday, Jesus talks about marriage in Matthew 19 and he quotes the verse from Genesis how in the beginning God made them MALE and FEMALE....hence male and female are supposed to be together and no other way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As I have been down this road before with no Godot in sight, I'll take a pass on continuing. (In a better world with a better me, I would have refrained from the start, but alas! What I am is what I have to work with.) I re-edited my post above to include the part responded to, in order to preserve continuity, but I'll leave it at that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: I don't think the O.T. governs how we are as Christians to live and how we will be judged.
Now I'm a little more confused. Earlier you states that your god didn't change. If that's true, then what was good in the OT must still be good now, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: Oh yeah, the part about hating mother, father, sister/brother more than me is in reference to we must put the Lord above everyone and everything else, not actually hating them. Don't be silly.
Ah! See that interpretation you are doing there? You are using your judgment to decide that it would be silly to interpret it literally and out of context. (I agree with that interpretation.)
So why is it different for me to interpret Paul according to what I know about the context in which he was writing?
Or are you picking and choosing according to your judgment?
There is a great book that I think you would enjoy. It is titled The Good Book by Peter Gomes, a noted biblical scholar.
You might also want to read Garry Wills's books What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant .
ETA: Slavery. Clearly acceptable throughout Scripture. Should slaves follow Paul's instruction literally or can we bear in mind that Paul was a man who lived in a certain culture and his ideas (though inspired) are colored by that culture?
[ July 29, 2008, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
kmb: I knew you would say that about my interpretation, which is why I said it's not so much interpretation that is the problem as it is picking and choosing. It is obvious that Jesus doesn't want us to hate our families only to love Him more. Whereas when Paul says that those who practice homosexuality will not enter Heaven, I do not see any other way to interpret that. And I do not see how that could change with culture. If those who practiced homosexuality then were not going to enter Heaven without repentance, then now all of a sudden since our culture is more accepting of it, now they will be allowed to enter Heaven. I'm sorry but I don't see that being the case. And if you don't see the difference, I guess I won't be able to help you see it. -Javert: I don't believe God changes. If you were to read the entire Bible, perhaps you would understand better my statements. But it explains that the O.T. was used as a tutor (as it is called in Galatians 3), a kind of temporary solution until Christ came and brought a more perfect law, a more perfect way of living for God, a more perfect way to encounter Salvation. The Old Law could not bring about permanent forgiveness of sins, which is why they had to have a sacrifice every year. But Christ died once for all for the remission of sins. So the New Law replaced the Old Law as far as how we are supposed to live.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is obvious that Jesus doesn't want us to hate our families only to love Him more.
Why is that obvious?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is obvious to me, Tom. But then it is also pretty obvious to me that Paul should be read with an eye to cultural context.
How about slavery, volssam?
We pick and choose how we interpret Scripture. Using our judgement, tradition, and our own inspiration, we pick and choose how literally we interpret specific passages in Scripture. In this case, you are choosing to read Paul literally and Jesus metaphorically. You might not notice that you are choosing, but you are. You may not think that there are other possible legitimate interpretations, but you would be wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is obvious to me, Tom.
Sure. But why? What makes it obvious?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Read in the contect of the rest of what Jesus had to say, it makes sense. He is recorded to have a lot to say about love, very little to say about hate, and a great deal to say about not letting things (possessions, work, even relationships) get in the way of one's relationship with God. It is "in character".
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
:And you only need to recall the story of Sodom and Gommorrah to bring to mind how strongly He felt about it (and I know that homosexuality was not the only thing going on there, but it was a major part of it - hence the word Sodomy)) if He is against it,..."
Actually the word wasn't used to refer to sexual practices until around 500 A.D.. From Wikipedia:
quote:It was Byzantine Emperor Justinian I who in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis was the first to declare that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them in order to create homosexual scapegoats for recent earthquakes and other disasters of his time (see Extreme weather events of 535-536), but most of all to enact anti-homosexual laws that he used upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else.
The Bible fairly clearly states that Sodom's primary sin was inhospitality and arrogance:
quote:" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekial 16:49-50 (NIV)
Previous to Justinian, "Sodomite" referred to a resident of Sodom, and was used as a general purpose condemnation. Had the homosexuals of Sodom been fine and upstanding people instead of rapists, would the town have been fireballed? We'll never know, but I don't think we can assume it.
And a personal pet peeve: The guy who offered up his own virgin daughters to a mob to protect his guests, he's the good man the city might have been spared for? There's some screwed up values, here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly right, Chris.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, Chris, that's totally WARPED.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In a culture where daughters were property and hospitality (even to strangers) was a high obligation, it would have made sense.
Today, we know better. Future generations (it is to be hoped) will know even better than we do.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Which would make it another scriptural event that has to be understood in context, if you don't want to think of Lot as a total jerk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bingo!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: And as also mentioned yesterday, Jesus talks about marriage in Matthew 19 and he quotes the verse from Genesis how in the beginning God made them MALE and FEMALE....hence male and female are supposed to be together and no other way.
How do you feel about fish? God created them on Day 5 (I'm assuming you are a 7-day literalist at this point)
Did this only start happening after The Fall?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: And as also mentioned yesterday, Jesus talks about marriage in Matthew 19 and he quotes the verse from Genesis how in the beginning God made them MALE and FEMALE....hence male and female are supposed to be together and no other way.
I wonder...
What if he meant, "he made them Male-And-Female." As in, in both of them, there were male and female spirits/elements? This would jibe nicely with the Kinsey Scale which says we all fall on a bisexual spectrum.
Ahh, Hatrack with your 15 page long threads...
Posted by CraigB (Member # 11701) on :
I am a gay man, a writer and filmmaker now living in Alabama. My partner is a professional, we have been together since 1975. Our new neighbors in Alabama have been very friendly and welcoming.
Orson Scott Card, if you do a little research, has a long history of fear and loathing of gay men and lesbians. His rant against gay marriage reaches into hysteria when he suggests overthrowing the government. After reading this column, I certainly am glad that Mr. Card is not my neighbor. His column clearly shows that he harbors more than dislike for me, my partner and gay men and lesbians in general.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think he has a clear understanding of gay people, what it means to be gay, what folks who are gay and lesbian have historically gone through and he probably would not read a book like Stranger at the Gate or Stone Butch Blues, which is rather sad as they are good books. Folks just can't go around throwing around statements like all of civilization will collapse because a handful of gay people are able to get benefits and tax breaks for staying together. It isn't right. The sky is NOT falling in that case, and it doesn't show much compassion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Orson Scott Card, if you do a little research, has a long history of fear and loathing of gay men and lesbians.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. As far as I can tell, Card doesn't fear or loathe homosexuals. He fears and loathes the public acceptance of homosexual behavior and believes homosexuals should be pressured into struggling to redirect their desires.
I have noticed that he tends to be very displeased with anything that depicts someone suddenly realizing (or announcing) he or she is gay. Something about the suddenness bothers him a great deal. (In this article, he seems to suggest that he considers it disrespectful -- but perhaps that's only in situations where it's being clumsily used for lazy "comedy.")
Posted by volssam (Member # 11673) on :
I thought about not even posting again on this thread as the last three or so posts had finally redirected focus. But I thought I'd get on here and just say this is likely to be my last post on this thread. My wife and I had a short devotional last night as we went to bed, and amazingly enough, one of the subjects that we went over from one of the books we use was "Agree to Disagree" and how we need to accept when we aren't going to change each other's minds. And so I thought I would get on here and say that: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....) 2. I seem to be the only one on my side of the discussion. 3. As I said, I tend to obssess over things, and this has been kinda stressing me out the last few days, and it has been taking up too much of my time. 4. It is also kind of depressing to me. I pray often for this country, that we'll move closer to God and not farther away, as it seems to me we are often doing. It seems to go that way for many nations/empires (not saying America is an empire but we are a superpower)....I forgot what it's called but there is something that was written that goes back and looks at all kingdoms/empires that rose and fell in the past and the writer notes a cycle that all of them go through - and when I look at it, it seems that we are on the downward slide b/c I feel that we are growing more apatheitc (apathy was one of the stages on the back end of the empire's lifespan) towards many important values - God, Security, Strong military presence, etc... Anyways, if yall will, I guess I'll probably talk with many of you in the future on different threads.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
volssam, I am sorry that this has been difficult for you. I am also sorry that I have been unable to convince you that it is possible for someone to try to live according to the NT, just as much and as sincerely as you do, and yet disagree with you about what that means.
I hope you feel better soon.
Posted by InVitroVertas (Member # 11703) on :
"It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions."
This is both untrue and silly. There's no law against picketing an abortion clinic. There are, however, laws against trespassing on private property, and this was true long before Roe vs. Wade.
"Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal."
Please to provide me with the titles of these text books, because I do not believe they exist. Because of the way text books for use in the public schools are sold (often presented to educators in large, southern states such as Texas first) text publisher are generally very wary of such context.
Of course there are picture books that present homosexual families to young children, but that's hardly the same thing. And there are college text books geared toward Queer Studies, but that doesn't really count as "the earliest grades."
"...back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage."
All proponents of gay rights said that? Every last one? And you talked to all these gay rights proponents, and read all the literature they printed, and that's how you know this?
Huh.
"It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken."
Ladies and gentleman, exactly 15 minutes have past between now and the 1970s!
"Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality."
I would like to suggest that Mr. Card goggle the word "Bonobo." Add to that the terms "G-G rubbing" and "penis fencing." He might learn something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions."
This is both untrue and silly. There's no law against picketing an abortion clinic. There are, however, laws against trespassing on private property, and this was true long before Roe vs. Wade.
A quick check shows that there are laws restricting protests in front of abortion clinics that go beyond enforcement of private property rights. Here's one:
quote: (b) No person shall knowingly enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent to a reproductive health care facility within a radius of 35 feet of any portion of an entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility or within the area within a rectangle created by extending the outside boundaries of any entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility in straight lines to the point where such lines intersect the sideline of the street in front of such entrance, exit or driveway. This subsection shall not apply to the following:--
(1) persons entering or leaving such facility;
(2) employees or agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment;
(3) law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other municipal agents acting within the scope of their employment; and
(4) persons using the public sidewalk or street right-of-way adjacent to such facility solely for the purpose of reaching a destination other than such facility.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) shall only take effect during a facility's business hours and if the area contained within the radius and rectangle described in said subsection (b) is clearly marked and posted.
(d) Whoever knowingly violates this section shall be punished, for the first offense, by a fine of not more than $500 or not more than three months in a jail or house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for each subsequent offense, by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $5,000 or not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, or both such fine and imprisonment. A person who knowingly violates this section may be arrested without a warrant by a sheriff, deputy sheriff or police officer if that sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer observes that person violating this section.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't see how it's polite to pile up in front of Planned Parenthood protesting, especially since it's sort of...well, a hospital, and it's not helpful to their cause. The last time I was near PP, I saw a small group of people praying. They also have a security guard and a metal detector.
Posted by InVitroVertas (Member # 11703) on :
35 feet isn't much personal space to ask for, and again, there's nothing to stop them from praying or whatever 12 yards away.
Posted by InVitroVertas (Member # 11703) on :
But I do stand corrected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm pretty sure I could go inside a Planned Parenthood clinic and pray. I'm sure there is a lot of praying that goes on in and around such clinics. Or any medical facility.
I don't really think that prayer is the issue.
Using prayer as a tool to harass people and create a public nuisance is another story.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yep. Nothing like being prayed at/for as a tool of, well, some other agenda.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The larger argument about the so-called "bubble laws" isn't limited to prayer. It includes all types of expression.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. Which is part of the reason why I think it is disingenuous of Card to imply that it is the prayer part of the equation that is prohibited.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Right. Which is part of the reason why I think it is disingenuous of Card to imply that it is the prayer part of the equation that is prohibited.
I don't think that was his intent. I think he purposely used what many would be perceive to be the most innocent and least trouble-making of the behaviors that pro-life people engage in outside abortion clinics.
Edit: I think his use of "even" makes it pretty clear:
quote:Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.
[ July 31, 2008, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think that was his intent. I think he purposely used what many would be perceive to be the most innocent and least trouble-making of the behaviors that pro-life people engage in outside abortion clinics.
I agree with Dag's interpretation. I still think OSC was being disingenious with this statement, but not for the reason that boots does.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yep. Nothing like being prayed at/for as a tool of, well, some other agenda.
I'm curious about this. My initial reaction was like a "Yeah!" of agreement, but thinking about it, what differentiates at least some of these people from those who hold candle light vigils for criminals who are going to get the death penalty? I'm not sure what I think about it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think we may have in mind different agendas. *smile
My "some other" was exclusive, not inclusive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)
I think there are several others who agree that homosexual activity (not simply being gay, but acting on it) is immoral. Probably also others who think that it's unnatural, too. I just don't think they're using the same definitions of 'immoral' and 'unnatural' as you are. I know I'm not, and I'm glad of that.
If you're depressed by the state of the world, I'd advise tolerance; not prayer. Of course, I know dozens of good people here who practice both. Whatever combination works for you. Posted by juladd (Member # 11709) on :
Up here in Canada, gay marriage is equal in the eyes of the government and law. A few years have gone by and nothing has changed otherwise. End of the world and democracy did not happen, but our ecnomy certainly improved. heheh. A few thousand couples tied the knot. No church is required to marry them or recognise them as such in the context of their faith. I hope you'll appreciate how mystified some of us up here are that OSC would be so against it. Volssam has quoted the bible, but the bible also indicates that eating shellfish, wearing blended threads of different textiles, so much as looking at a woman during her time of the month is just as wrong, but the punishment for those things dire indeed. (leviticus). It also states in the revelations of John that none shall add or remove from the bible under any circumstances, or else.
The bible was edited 600 years ago and the removed sections put into a book called the Apocrypha.
It wasn't that long ago that churches refused any form of mixed marriages between visible minorities and whites. The government stepped in and....!!!
What can I say. Canada and other countries that have OK'd gay marriages outside of church weddings are still the same as they were before.
It's probably a good idea to look at these other places, my Canada included, before pressing the panic button. What I'm reading on some of these posts is that a democracy is majority rule in every single circumstance. Really? So that means if the majority decide that child abuse is OK, even if 48 percent of us scream no it's not, it's going to be OK anyway? The courts and governments are able to prevent just this sort of nonsense. Thank God.
Seeing as how a biblical theme has been introduced, here's another. A famous Man said in there, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these..."
Posted by Boxcard (Member # 11717) on :
Now there's a smart person who knows what she's talking about. Marriage has changed over the last several centuries and I think in some ways it has improved.
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
quote:Originally posted by volssam: and you told me to stop grovelling....
volssam, there is another way to see TOS, which I wholeheartedly embrace: TOS is a list of what may not be tolerated by people in charge. That has nothing to do with what you should or should not do. You should always do what you think is right and be prepared to face the consequences. In case of this forum, you can be permanently banned for a sequence of heavy violations. Is that a reason to not do what is right? Certainly not!
I know that many people do not share this sentiment and believe that the word of the proprietor of a web site must be obeyed. I think that that is wrong.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)"
I don't follow. Jesus' main point was that love trumps the law of the OT. Jesus never even mentions homosexuality. The OT says it is a killing offense. Why, if homosexuality was some kind of exception to the general idea of "love trumps the law", would he not have mentioned that somewhere?
I've brought this up several times over the years on Hatrack in these diccussions. All I ever get in response is silence. I'm starting to think that's all I'll ever get from the "homosexuality is evil/wrong" crowd. Seriously, though, you're either pro-Jesus or pro-absolute-moral-laws.
I hate to say this, but it really is funny how often the biggest crusaders against gays are often secret lovers-of-men themselves. The list is long, and we all know the many names on it. Not that I'm implying anything about anyone here...LOL
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "1. We obviously aren't going to agree on some issues (I think homosexuality is immoral and unnatural; many of you don't. I think we should live by the N.T.; many of you don't think we should live by all or any or some of it,etc....)"
I don't follow. Jesus' main point was that love trumps the law of the OT. Jesus never even mentions homosexuality. The OT says it is a killing offense. Why, if homosexuality was some kind of exception to the general idea of "love trumps the law", would he not have mentioned that somewhere?
I don't think that's what Jesus' main point was at all. He never says to ignore the old testament because of love. Many of the old testament ritual and laws were abolished through His death, but the teachings of the old testmaent weren't invalidated. What Jesus does say is that He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.
Matthew 5 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill
And He did speak clearly about marriage and divorce.
Matthew 19 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female, 5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The way I choose to see it is that his thoughts on killing people for being gay were probably roughly equal to his thoughts on stoning the adulterous woman, or killing people over various extremely obscure points of OT law. He certainly did manage to rail against
1. people who harm children 2. the money-changers in the temple
but not one word about gay people.
By that logic, it would maybe make more sense for all the gay-bashers to stop bashing gays, and start finding ways to stop child abuse and neglect. Of course, those who bash gays tend not to realize that many of us who are quite straight are laughing at them for their own self-hate over their own closeted gayness. They reveal more about themselves than they realize through their gay-bashing. LOL
[ August 10, 2008, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar:
quote:Originally posted by volssam: and you told me to stop grovelling....
volssam, there is another way to see TOS, which I wholeheartedly embrace: TOS is a list of what may not be tolerated by people in charge. That has nothing to do with what you should or should not do. You should always do what you think is right and be prepared to face the consequences. In case of this forum, you can be permanently banned for a sequence of heavy violations. Is that a reason to not do what is right? Certainly not!
I know that many people do not share this sentiment and believe that the word of the proprietor of a web site must be obeyed. I think that that is wrong.
Is it also wrong to enter into a contract if one does not intend to honor it?
(I'll freely grant that if one entered into a contract intending to honor it, there might be circumstances under which it would NOT be wrong to break the contract. However, that's not quite what I'm asking you. I'm asking you to distinguish between obedience to arbitrary rules and fulfilling a promise. )
Posted by Jarhead (Member # 11631) on :
Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Posted by Jarhead (Member # 11631) on :
quote: - posted August 09, 2008 05:36 PM Profile for Synesthesia Email Synesthesia Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Now there's a smart person who knows what she's talking about. Marriage has changed over the last several centuries and I think in some ways it has improved.
She does describe what has happened to marriage in the last 40 years, but she doesn't really have any true analysis of how these changes are affecting society (for good or for bad). Kind of a pointless article really.
Posted by Jarhead (Member # 11631) on :
quote: quote:I do normally like to discuss issues, even though it almost always comes back to the Bible for me...
quote: May I ask why? What about the Bible makes it so useful to you in this respect?
Probably because he considers the Bible to be the word of God, and that you can be inspired to better understand God's will by studying it's pages.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You don't get bonus combo points for posting chains, you know
Posted by Jarhead (Member # 11631) on :
Maybe you don't...
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jarhead: Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Indeed, Mr. Davidson. Fear the majority, of which you may or may not be a part! In case you were wondering...
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Why am I having reminisces of some Henrik Ibsen play?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I think we have all turned our pampered backsides to the real threat to marraige in America, the personally affordable automobile. Divorce, out of wed-lock births, sex outside of marraige, and narcotics use have all been on the rise since a man as young as twenty-one could afford his very own transportation.
Spousal abuse and alcaholism remain unperturbed by the social upheaval.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Jarhead: Tom Davidson. You are probably wrong if you think that you are in the majority on this site. In case you were wondering....
Indeed, Mr. Davidson. Fear the majority, of which you may or may not be a part! In case you were wondering...
Indeed, Mr. Anderson.
Posted by Tsinya (Member # 11724) on :
does anyone else have the feeling that hundreds of years from now, kids will be studying this in history class and think the same things when we studied slavery? I mean think about it. You're essentially denying the rights to a group of people for being born different.
No one had ever challenged slavery before, but when it happened, the pro-slavery people kept whining about how the abolitionist were trying to change their way of life.
I can just picture myself telling my grandchildren how gays used to not have the same rights as straights; just like when your parents told you about how they didn't used to have microwaves and cellphones.
Anyone else see the similarities?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do. Gays are not exactly slaves, but they get treated so harshly. Many get rejected by their families, their friends, their churches. Not to mention how many get beat up and abused JUST FOR BEING GAY. That's why I get so annoyed at these sort of articles. I'm sure OSC doesn't agree with the concept of beating up gay people, but calling them dysfunctional just leads to the sort of mentality that makes people think it's OK to torment gay people and bother them. Homosexuality is the final frontier of prejudice. Along with religious discrimination, all of these things folks don't need.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
It is not just for being gay. It is for engaging in a certain type of sexual behavior. The rights being lobbied for are not identical to straights though they are extremely similar. Therefore, I would classify this more as religious discrimination then racial (though that is not quite analagous as there is a genetic component to the desire to engage in this type of behavior which does not exist with religion). The desire is not the issue- the subsequent action resulting from the desire is. Actions are different from desires.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
In any case, it's far more annoying to see something as highly complex as human sexuality reduced to black and white. We have a spectrum of light, a spectrum of sound, and a spectrum of species, geology, cosmology etc etc etc etc, but by god, you're either this or that.
I'm not even sure I like the words "gay" or "lesbian" because it implies such a narrow view, when in reality, or at least some studies have suggested, is that we're all bisexual to various degrees. The bell-curve graph comes to mind.
It was blasphemy to say the world was round, and now it's blasphemy to say human sexual expression is more varied and fluid than rigid Bronze Age roles.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I can just picture myself telling my grandchildren how gays used to not have the same rights as straights; just like when your parents told you about how they didn't used to have microwaves and cellphones.
Anyone else see the similarities?
Yeah when I'm an old wrinkly sot I'll be telling my kids what it was like to be alive back when we were so afraid of gays that we didn't even let them marry each other.
And then my grandchildren will say "but granddad wasn't it letting the gays have their way what destabilized the family unit and collapsed civilization?"
and I will say "Yes. if only we had listened. If only we had listened."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: It is not just for being gay. The desire is not the issue- the subsequent action resulting from the desire is. Actions are different from desires.
So when a lesbian is prevented from marrying the love of her life, who is a parapalegic woman, exactly what "action" is being singled out as unacceptable?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If its the fault of sexual "debauchery" that every last great society or empire in human history has fallen... wait a minute, hasnt every empire fallen except the British empire, and even then theyve simply given up on teaching all of us savages the Queens english and receded back into thier own country to develop a rich culture. You know, one where rugby players say its perfectly heterosexual to open mouth kiss your team mates, or my favorite comedian Alan Cummings, now thats real ladies man right there. So congratulations to Great Britain, due to your zero tolerance of anything other than church sanctifyed man-woman pairings, you are the only surving ancient power still alive, and the sun still never sets on the British empire if you sit in a windowless room for twenty-four hours!
Sarcasm aside, its not very educated to say that homosexuals keep on destroying the greatest of human civilization over and over. Was there a rainbow parade in the Ottoman empire before it fell? did Ceaser have an impressionable young pool boy at his beck and call? no. We are human, we destroy ourselves, I see this as no more intelligent than when the Europeans sorrounded by the black plague killed all the Jews that owned bussines' and banks proclaiming that God had set wrath upon them for accepting heretics against Jesus Christ.
FYI, to anyone who says that being gay is a choice, have you ever thought that things too graphic to post would be so momentusly enjoyable as to defy your religion, and hate yourself to the point of cutting yourself everyday to atone for looking a poster that you shouldnt? If you battle this "choice" on a daily basis, please tell your family and a psychiatrist (or maybe even a born again Christian pastor so he can brain wa-- I mean cure you!), if not, you are straight and are attracted to the oppisite gender alone. See? now wasnt that simple?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
FYI, AchillesHeel, it's not just gays that suffer from choices like that. Since you were nice enough to use generalizations and broad statements, I'll add that suffering like this is not exclusive to homosexuality.
The same crowd that opposes homosexuality is the one that tends to encourage battling temptations and urges to pornography or drinking or extramarital sex; which are desires that can affect heterosexuals just as easily as anyone else. The people who encourage homosexuals to battle their urges are of an upbringing that instructs them to stand up to temptation, that submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil, and that love is more than a response to hormonal pressures that can prompt some, from the perspective of a practical bystander, can seem irrational. From this philosophy, homosexuality is not a very special case among natural sins, and is alongside hatred, lust, and violence in the list of natural functions that are not to be condoned.
Just to make sure we're not misinterpreting my post here, I'm not pardoning the crowd that flatly opposes gay marriage because it's something that gays want and the Bible says gays are evil; I'm explaining the position, which I hold, of the group that believes it is possible to overcome homosexual desires.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But why should a person overcome homosexual desires? It's not at all like looking at porn too much or having an affair (which happens at times with gay men or women who married someone of the opposite sex.) Why should they bother when there are real problems that need to be addressed and overcome. Like spousal abuse?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Because some people find it evil. I don't know. I don't think it's a problem really, except when it takes talented, smart, (oh, and attractive) men out of the gene pool. Then it seriously stinks!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
On the other hand - I want to say that I am firmly against promiscuity in ANY type of relationship. I think sex is mainly for the purpose of making children... which unfortunately homosexuality skews. I don't like children being brought into such chaotic relationships, and I think any type of promiscuity (hetero or homo) will just increase social instability. Just because homosexual promiscuity can't produce an unwanted child doesn't mean that allowing it to run rampant wouldn't increase the acceptability of promiscuity in general.
However, I firmly believe (or maybe hope) that extending marriage rights to homosexuals would actually encourage committed relationships and decrease promiscuity. I was also horrified when my beloved (though often backwards) state decided to make it illegal for gay couples to become foster parents or adopt from social services!
Here is my view on adoption. Preferably children should be adopted into a home with a mother and father, giving them the closest thing to a "normal" nuclear family. If that isn't available, then other households should be considered. In my opinion, ANY two parent household is preferable to a single parent household. This could be made of an old maid sister bachelor brother (as in Anne of Green Gables) or a Grandmother/mother combo, or a homosexual couple. Any of those give the kids more parental resources than a single parent home. (BTW, I AM a single mother - though not by choice.) Still, even single parents are better than the "state homes" many foster kids languish in.
However, I've come to the conclusion that Card simply will never see the issue through non-church glasses. I really don't think he CAN see the other side of the issue. It's like our great-grandparents truly understanding full equality of the races. Many of them just couldn't believe that other people thought color meant NOTHING. It was plain as day that they looked different!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
C3PO, you say that the groups that oppose homosexuality are against the sin and not the sinners, and yet somehow every religious leader has, can, and will fallout through debaucherious drug ridden scandals of thier own fault? If I were to referance a specific case, I would be answered "that was a singular event, you cannot blame a whole ideal for one who missused it". That is true to a degree, but I cannot ignore that the ones rabble-rousing to oppress any culture aside from middle-class white protestant falls to thier own religious sinfull enemy.
I did not say pain and undo suffering is exclusive to gays, I do say now that growing up in a religion that instructs you to hate gay people, only to have "unclean" thoughts as a pre-teen makes you hate yourself. Not the church, not the parents, but how is it okay to ever make a child hate themself?
To the adoption issue, if we can tell a gay couple that they cannot adopt and raise a child because they are socially perverted and will not teach said child proper social behavior, why are people who drink allowed to adopt? Surely alcahol is much more common in relation to crime than homosexuality.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Just to make sure we're not misinterpreting my post here, I'm not pardoning the crowd that flatly opposes gay marriage because it's something that gays want and the Bible says gays are evil; I'm explaining the position, which I hold, of the group that believes it is possible to overcome homosexual desires.
Well of course it's possible.
No one denies that. Plenty of straight people have overcome their heterosexual desires, and lived lives of chastity.
But the same people who tell gay people that they are going to have to spend their entire llives denying their feelings get to go home and indulge in their own sexual desire as much as the partner they chose to share their desire with will let them.
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QUOTE]Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
It is not that submitting to natural desires is evil, it is submitting to them under certain conditions.
ETA- swbarnes- I did read your hypothetical, I am actually in favor of ssm and so continuing to argue that point is not something I would enjoy doing. I do, however, think that people don't really understand the anti-ssm side and they argue points that will not change anyone's minds. The genetic argument for example does not matter to people who are opposed to ssm. Even if it was 100% proven to be genetic, that would not change their minds. And saying it is just racism will not convince them- because the action part makes it more then genes. Of course, the genetic argument could be used to reassure people that cultural acceptance will not actually increase the percent of the population which is homosexual.
[ September 08, 2008, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
If "submitting to natural desires for the sake of doing what one wants is inherently evil", then why isn't it inherantly evil for straight people to do the exact same thing?
It is not that submitting to natural desires is evil, it is submitting to them under certain conditions.
Take it up with the person who wrote that, not me.
But the "conditions" for some people are "pick one person at a time, and get a one-time $50 licence that will last as long as you like", and those people set the conditions for other people as "never, ever, under any circumstances, for the whole length of your life". And of the people telling others "never, ever, there are no acceptable conditions for you to indulge your desires", a great many of them aren't even going to bother satisfying the comparativly trivial "conditions" that are required of them before they set about indulging their own desires.
quote:I do, however, think that people don't really understand the anti-ssm side and they argue points that will not change anyone's minds. The genetic argument for example does not matter to people who are opposed to ssm.
No, but the reason that such things are worth pointing out is 1) to make those people who are amendable to reason see which side is supported by reason and 2) to make anti-ssm arguers put out the arguments they really think are controlling, not arguments that they think sound more appealing, but that they really aren't basing their thinking on, like facts of biology.
Sure, almost no ssm opposers are going to have their minds changed by the results of twin studies. But if some of them bring up the facts of biology to support their arguments, and then the facts of biology are shown to go against their case, and they don't change their mind, then it shows that the original argument was dishonest, and there's no reason to refrain from pointing that out.
Its the same with this "controlling desires" bit. Sure, the whole "not everything you feel an urge to do is a good idea" is obviously true, but the people who are telling gay people that they should spend their whole lives practicing chastity because obeying those urges are bad have arranged it so they can indulge those same desires perfectly legitimately, with only a tiny bit of inconvenience. So really, the argument is "I get to gratify my desire with no penalty, but you don't, because I say so".
quote:because the action part makes it more then genes.
Are there anti-ssm folks out there who think that allowing to parapalgic lesbains marry is okay?, because they won't be engaging in any scandalous "actions"?
Nope.
So much for the "action" argument. That's not the real reason, anymore then "it's not genetic", or "I'm controlling my desires just as much as I think gay people must" is the reason behind anti-ssm beliefs.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) .... ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)