posted
Book of Mormon (Alma 39), modern revelation, and deep, personal conviction of the truth and wisdom of the law of chastity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really do think this comes down to theological anthropology. Some of us believe that men and women are two essentially different things and that marriage is the union of these differences. Others of us believe that men and women are essentially the same, and that marriage is the joining of two of these same-things.
Bad analogy – It’s the difference between believing men are carbon atoms and women are oxygen atoms and the goal is carbon monoxide and believing that we’re all hydrogen atoms and the goal is <whatever you call it when two hydrogen atoms stick together>.
The carbon-monoxide folks don’t understand how anyone could think that two oxygen atoms or two carbon atoms could ever be carbon monoxide, and the H2 folks don’t understand why the CO folks insist that putting together a particular two hydrogen atoms would change the definition of H2.
[Note: I know CO has some negative connotations, I don’t mean it that way, it’s just the only two-element molecule I could think of right off hand. It’s been twelve years since my last chemistry class, so feel free to improve the analogy if yours is more current.]
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as it is not a sin to be black or white or male or female or have red hair or brown eyes, it is not a sin to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. One just is. Futhermore, it is not a sin for two consenting adults to practice their sexuality with one another.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was going to come back to this thread with a well written strawman argument talking about the poor life relocated to any Christian who finds themselves attracted to members of their own sex, and not to members of the oppisitte.
You can guess, is it a greater sin against the sacrament of marriage to marry a woman you do not love or to marry a man you do..etc etc.
What I came up with is I hope will be a very powerful short story. Its in the rough first draft at the moment, but when its done it will be great.
Not sure where I can sell it, its to controversial for some of the Church puplications and too Christian for some non church magazines, but I like it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, how does this sin thing work? Is it a cumulative score that looks like a restaurant bill at the end of days? One that can be paid up on as time goes on? Just wondering. The point? As noted, people pointed out that it is the act of actually one person having sex with another person of the same sex as being the sin, right? So, if gay marriages are like some stereotypical marriages, there might be a lot of "sinning" for a while, but as time goes on, maybe there is less "sinning." Unless they are, er, "sinning" all day and every day, isn't most of their time together not sinful? The loving friendship, shared hardships, sickness and health and all that stuff doesn't fit under many Christian definitions of "sin" so shouldn't that be publicly supported? Marriage on paper or even in a church never mentions sex. I have been to many marriage cermonies of many denominations where "faithful" and "honor one another" and so on and so on are mentioned, but it never really goes into the intercourse part, does it?
So why not gay marriages? Sure we assume that a married couple can and should have sex, but it isn't even implied in any ceremonies that I have heard. So the "sin" of homosexual sex isn't supported at all by such a ceremony.
Legal marriages, meaning one on paper registered with a courthouse has nothing mentioning sex between partners, either. In fact, I don't recall my marriage license saying much of anything beyond who it was and when it happened. And that I had my blood test, for whatever reason.
Are we over-interpreting the "to have and to hold?"
So why not gay marriage?
Live and let live. How Bob and John getting married down the street makes another family worse off in any way that can be calculated defies all logic. If you are Christian and male, don't marry another guy if you don't want to. Leave the rest of it up to everyone else and, as they say, "let God sort them out." If we gambled wrong and God does have a strong opinion on it still, then...well, for some at least it was a pleasant ride. I just don't see howing using an outdated 2000 year old text (and that is the Second Edition!) define some (but not all) of OTHER people's lives makes any sense. I mean, let's hope He has gotten over all that stuff in Lev. and such.
posted
'Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents. It doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. If there's money left when you subtract what you owe from what you've earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work. Sort of like reincarnation -- many nuns are Mafia guys working it off."
Father Guido Sarducci, Saturday Night LivePosts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point is that the Mafia guys wracked up so much debt (by doing all that extra big sinning, like whacking someone, which, on the scale of things, probably is more than the 100 bucks for stealing a hubcap) that they have to spend a lifetime or two as nuns, committing few, if any sins, just to get out of debt.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Added: Oh, good grief, if anything, my life is slating me for several lifetimes as a kindergarten teacher for special needs kids who volunteers at an orphanage and moonlights as a crime-fighting street nurse.
posted
Xavier, that's only if you don't do anything else wrong that day. I guess you wouldn't have much free time anyway, so...
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't believe in God or a creation, does it follow that you believe in evolution or natural law of some kind? Where is there volitional homosexuality in the animal kingdom?
There actually are tranvestite lizards. But their strategy of looking like females is to get access to the females. (in the same species there are bull lizards with herds of females).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka - yes, there is. You can find just about anything in the animal kingdom. The most commonly cited example are the bonobos - primates that spend more time on sex than the NBA. There is a great deal of sex for pleasure purposes, and much of it is homosexual.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: We define it that way because that's how God defined it. He specifically condemns homosexuality so I assume that we have the right idea there.
Bok: We are not legislating against it, merely holding up the current definition. I would legislate against it because I think everything should be done to keep somone from sin.
Christians: The thing is I believe homosexuality is like any other sin i.e. pride. It can be restrained. The problem is that the culture now accepts it. That is why we have this issue.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan Hart, the problem is that people who are homosexual can't help that they are that way any more than they can help what their skin color is, hair color, sex, etc. And as homosexuality was illegal in most of the US and is still illegal in many places, why would anyone engage in homosexuality if they could decide not to be, hmmm? Furthermore, no amount of legislation is going to make those people not be homosexual.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was always under the impression that the primary Christian position was that people must choose to follow the right path, not be legislated onto it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are studies now showing that the size of your hippocampus is malleable into adulthood and may be dependent upon your occupation. I saw one about London cab drivers on National Geographic.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. I have many friends who have admitted to me (privately) that they have homosexual urges. I believe it is possible to supress them as you could a lustful urge.
Fugu: If it was already a part of our culture I guess I wouldn't try to outlaw it. However it is not. I will not condone a course of action that would leed the the futher incorporation of homosexuality to society.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what? I'm just gonna quit speaking up. Screw my ideas, not gonna even open my mouth. Nobody's ever going to change anything based on these discussions. Not one proudly gay-hating christian is going to change that stance based on one damn thing said on this forum. You know why? 'Cause noone cares. There's no logic in the counter argument, but noone cares. You make points, the other guy makes counterpoints, we all get all mad and superior...for WHAT? Why do we bother?
I'm not going to bother anymore. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of hate and killing and crap in the name of God. I'm sick of not being able to do a damn thing about it. I'm sick of being passionate and half-way knowledgable about something, and getting countered by the fact that there's some half-baked line about hating homosexuals in the bible and that half of the country is too closeminded or apathetic to bother to question it! So...screw it, I can't change it. Shutting up.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's okay to legislate morality if it's been legislated before, and not okay if it hasn't? That seems like it's vesting a disturbing power of divine agency in governments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it's the fact that now it's not to late to keep it out of the culture. It would be impossible to legislate against it later. If you wanted it out of the culture you would have to take a different route.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about that whole "blacks marrying whites" thing? That was certainly legislated against, and was most definitely frowned upon by the then-current society. Was that a mistake?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting to think of how this period will be looked back upon historically. I have a suspicion, given the very consistent way humanity has dealt with such issues in the past, that negative attitudes towards homosexual marriages will be looked upon similarly to how negative attitudes towards interracial marriages are today.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't anything wrong with that. There is not specific scripture against inter-racial marriage. The thing is you did have a lot of the church against it, but most still thougt it was fine. It was only legislated against in the South which was consumed with a markedly un-christian racial hatred. That's where the issue stems from not the church.
Fugu: Yeah I've thougt the same thing. If only it wasn't so scripturally inconsistent. That's where you run into the problem.
[ September 10, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give you the bible being okay with interracial marriage (though i know people exist who would debate that), but what about interfaith marriage? It enjoins against it approximately as many times as it enjoins against homosexuality. Should that be legislated against? If it were currently legally outlawed in society would you oppose removing legislation banning it?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mosiah 29: 26-27 26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
This sounds like more than straight democracy than a republic--but the basic principle is that morality should be a basic consideration in your political process.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the bible has very specific injunctions against interracial marriage. When examined, it's obvious that it was forbidden because interfaith marriages were wrong, but those passages were used by many to keep interracial marriage illegal.
However, this point is moot. I don't believe in the absolute accuracy of the bible or its authority, so arguing the finer points of it is, at most, an exercise for me. I remain just as set against considering homosexuality a sin as you are for it. I have reason and observation, you have dogma and personal conviction. Maybe our votes will cancel out...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer #1: A lot of people tend to get pretty agitated that others keep posting things that have been posted a million times before, and yet no one gets anywhere. I can understand that this is annoying. I'll apologize now if that's what I'm doing. But I'm new and I still have questions. And in this particular instance I wasn't able to find if someone had already answered the question I am about to ask.
Disclaimer #2: My question isn't intended to offend anyone, especially anyone in the gay/lesbian community. It's just something I've been thinking about.
****
Okay. Most gay people I know have said they were born that way. I'm assuming that the current position is that it's genetic plus environmental, I do not think that it has been definitely decided on yet, is this wrong? Here's the deal. Not to be condescending, but aren't people also born with a strong genetic predisposition towards alcoholism or other addictions, etc.? Wouldn't an alcoholic be able to say "I can't help it" or "I'm born this way" and expect people to think it was cool? Yet we do expect these people to transcend their desires. I know that it seems very wrong of me to compare homosexuality with something that someone might argue is a form of brain damage (meaning addictions), but since we don't know where it came from yet, is there a chance that they might be similar in this way? No one's proven that it's entirely enviromental, and it's certainly doesn't seem so, but who's to say it's a normal variation in the genes? We don't know for sure yet. Anyone?
Please don't flame me. I tried very hard to be fair while asking this question, without losing the thread of my thoughts just to keep someone from being offended.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that you are making homosexuality equivalent to a chemical addiction of a substance that must be introduced into the person's environment for them to become addicted, and which subsequently damages them.
So, homosexuality is different from alchoholism in that it:
* Is going to express itself in the presence of men whether the person wills it or not. People are not naturally draw to alchohol but must imbibe it first. That is, cultures with very low tolerance for drinking have very low rates of alchoholism since drinking is never introduced into the environment.
* and is not known to be inherently damaging to a person.
So, I disagree with you.
But, I would like to ask you to ask yourself, what do you think your life would be like if you tried to deny that you liked men at all, or didn't act on your feelings towards me at all, nor would you ever, until the day you died? Don't you think that would be very hard, to say the least? To know that there would never be love in your life beyond that of your family?
posted
Ryan-I feel rather obligated to point out that the bible isn't god. It may contain the word of god-but it also contains the ideas and traditions of the MEN who wrote it. God inspired it, God didn't write it. And people do have rather a tradition of messing around with God's ideas to make those ideas suit themselves. Why would a God who loved us and wanted us to be happy condemn something that did no harm, and did a lot of good? Doesn't that kinda not fit in at all with the generally accepted idea of God?
and Belle
quote:"A MAN shall leave his mother and cling to his WIFE" That's pretty clear - marriage is man to woman and only man to woman as far as I'm concerned.
Belle, that isn't any sort of evidence. Just saying one thing is good-that doesn't deny another thing's goodness. By that argument, from that passage, catholics shouldn't become priests and all men should get married. You can't interpret that statement which says one thing is good to mean that an alternative to it is bad.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, one would think that those people who are against others who are homosexuals would instead be grateful to them for being candid about their sexuality. After all, the homosexuals who are openly homosexual remove themselves from the "available for heterosexual" marraige pool and thus reduces the competition for a mate of the opposite sex for the rest of us.
Furthermore, outlawing homosexual behavior will only drive those who are homosexual to practice their true nature in secret and some of them will marry members of the opposite sex to hide the fact that they are homosexual and thus compete with the rest of the heterosexual population.
Therefore, it is not only irrational to legislate against homosexuals and to brand them as sinners, but it also works against the heterosexual's best interest.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI- Not to flame, but how is homosexuality compared in any way to alcoholism? It isn't some sydrome that causes people to crash into telephone poles, hit their spouse or miss days of work. It just is a preference for who someone falls in love with.
Let's take an example that is outside of probably most Hatracker's culture. There was a story a couple of years back that blew me away, hitting on my Western parental sensibilities. I think it was in India or Pakistan, but it went like this.
There was this boy and girl who were in love and they did things that young kids in love do and apparently made little secret their love for one another. The result? Their parents, along with an irate community, dragged them to the top of a building and hung them until they died. Their parents. Hung their children. Together.
The reason? A caste system is in place over there that has very strict boundaries. I think the son's caste was a more religious caste while the young lady was a part of something totally different. This is a serious and extreme example (and illegal in their country, but it points to the extremes religious and cultural zeal can get) but it points to the fact that sometimes you fall in love with someone, even though every part of your cultural heritage or religious heritage tells you to do otherwise. It was only harmful to them because OTHER people couldn't accept it. In alcoholism it is harmful to you AND potentially to others. Intolerance only harms others.
So if Robert falls in love with Steve, even though everything culturally and religiously tells them not to, who cares if it is genetic or environmental or (gasp) God's will. It just is. It has always been that way and always will be. Just because there wasn't a show like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" running at the same time as the original run of "I Love Lucy" doesn't mean homosexuality is some new fad. Some of the originators of western thinking (Plato, Socrates, Sappho, etc.) preferred their own gender to that of the other. Sure they would need to procreate to populate the earth, but for a good time...well, read about it. So it ain't new. It just is.
I can see why it is frustrating. No one will honestly change their tune on this. Either you are for freedom of choice to live how you want to live (as long as it harms no one) or you want to legislate how YOU want the world to live. The Bible just makes it easier to do it. You can find just about anything in there to justify being nasty to some portion of humanity. There are so many things that we shouldn't be doing but have been "overlooked" as history changes. Demoninations pick and choose what they feel is important and go with it. People pick the demonination that fits their lifestyle, not the one that will change their lifestyle. If you grew up Catholic and stayed Catholic, it is because you fit it and it fit you. If you don't fit it, you leave and find one that does. Millions of ex-Catholics will agree. For every Christian denomination they can all find quotes to support one thing or another, even if it contrary to the Christian church next door.
My grandmother was what am told an "Old Regular Baptist" in Eastern Kentucky. She never cut her hair, because there is a passage in the Bible that says you shouldn't and so they didn't. Yet they are one of the few churches that still do that. It is in the Bible but, well, er...pick and choose.
posted
The no-hair-cut thing had to do with Samson and where he got his powers from, isn't it? (There were 2 other things he wasn't supposed to do, I forget what it is.) Anyway, it had a special name for it. Bet you dkw will know.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Skipping all the way from the first post, this lurker wonders why you (and others) feel the need keep on posting these thinly veiled "I need to justify why I think your religion sucks, especially if it is Christianity" threads. Can you explain what fuels your fury?
Krank
EDIT: BTW, Stormy, the thread title should have been "Episode 5,324 in Hatrack's continuing discussion on RELIGION" since that is what it really about.
posted
What fuels MY fury (and I AM a Christian) is how people hide behind God as their reason for hating a good percentage of the human race.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac, most of the Christian groups where women don't cut their hair base it on 1 Corinthians 11.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I have a stupid, slow dial-up connection and AIM takes forever to load. By the time it's up I've already checked e-mail and Hatrack and am logging off. Usually.
quote:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflectionof man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
One of Paul's more tortured bits of prose, it's been interpreted in lots of different ways. One of them is that women shouldn't cut their hair.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I get THAT joke. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
