posted
Dagonee – No. It’s occasionally disputed, but modern scholars are virtually unanimous in agreeing that Hebrews was not written by Paul. His name is no where in the text and the style and vocabulary are very different from his. My textbooks/commentaries don’t even class it among the “disputed” letters.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But WHY do you think they don't apply to our era anymore? And why did they apply to previous eras? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very simply, because the world has too many people who are virtually assured of living 60 plus years. Up until the last couple hundred years or so, this was not the case. Anything that diverts the desires of people away from having children (which is not the same thing as not valuing children, mmmmk?) and slows the rate of population growth is a good thing.
Hadn't seen this aspect of homosexuality discussed before, so thought I'd bring it up.
posted
Attitudes have changed... At once time marriage wasn't so much as about love, it was about commerce and continuality. Globally arranged marriages were the norm. It's true. In parts of Africa, in Europe and in Asia. Romantic love was considered outside of marriage for the most part. But then things changed. Things are different. Marriage is about romance to a lot of people. Many people get married and don't have children or even have children outside of marriage. Which is not nessasarily good, but it happens. That aside, certain biblical rules and norms are outmoded. And, quite frankly, this is a good thing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly those changes create an atmosphere in which gay marriages and homosexuality in general are more likely to be accepted. That is true 'nuff.
Not quite sure how that effects God's point of view though, bringing it back as a religious issue.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like a variable in an equation... It's impossible to dispute and using a certain argument can be considered rude...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Storm, you're saying that the acceptability of homosexuality is entirely dependent on world population and life expectancy? Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary? Especially since opinions on world population differ so widely?
Synesthesia, "attitudes have changed" is not a logical argument. Attitudes change about lots of things, but that doesn't make them acceptible.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me.
That's too freaking bad. Marriage has jack squat to do with God when the people don't belong to that church. The fact that those who feel the need to impose their religious views on people who don't have to do with their church is what makes this bigotry.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia: I am sorry if I cause offense. I do not wish to argue. I have always felt that arguing about opinions is kinda silly. "I like blue." "NO! You're wrong!" Experience and time may shape and alter our opinions, but arguing seldom does.
Let me take this opportunity to say I love your writing style, it is so much like poetry. Reading your words, I picture you as an ethereal, oracle-like being.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But neither does dragging out the bible. There were a lot of things in the bible that were considered acceptable that would be wrong now... The attitudes towards women for example. It's a relief that things have changed in that respect... This is not much different
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I always thought that marriage was supposed to make someone's relationship (emotional and sexual) acceptable before society, not just before God.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, you have every right to hold to your faith and not think it is morally right according to your faith to be part of a homosexual marriage. What is totally unconstitutional is allowing that religious faith to dictate the rights of people who don't belong to that faith. And if they change the constitution to make it okay to deny rights to individuals according to this religious faith, then that is equal to the same codes and and laws passed by a bigoted Democratic (Party) South in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Those who advocate such legislation are bigots. Plain and simple.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Look, you have every right to hold to your faith and not think it is morally right according to your faith to be part of a homosexual marriage. What is totally unconstitutional is allowing that religious faith to dictate the rights of people who don't belong to that faith. And if they change the constitution to make it okay to deny rights to individuals according to this religious faith, then that is equal to the same codes and and laws passed by a bigoted Democratic (Party) South in the last quarter of the 19th Century. Those who advocate such legislation are bigots. Plain and simple.
Leto, so is outlawing polygamy bigoted also?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you ask the leaders of the Mormon Church, since they support it.
Are we really going to get back into the "what about polygamists, incest, and bestiality?" straw man argument again, are we? Straw Man: arguing against something by arguing against a different, unrelated, and weaker argument as if it were the original.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not disagrees with me. That disagrees with me to the point that it should not be allowed by law. There is a difference. I don't believe in God, either, but I would fight to support people's right to believe it.
And I'm not comparing it to racism, I'm comparing it to bigotry and legislating intolerance.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said: But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me.
Leto said: That's too freaking bad.
Sounds like it is NOT ok with you that I feel this way. And if you paid attention, you may notice I have never spoken in favor of legislation on the matter. Your issue is clearly not with my feelings on legislation, it is with my right to hold an opinion.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when is homosexuality illegal? Because if it is, unlike the spineless twerps who like to use it as a weak chest-beating ploy, I will leave this country.
And since our friend beverly is using slippery slopes, how long before activities not endorsed by some church are made illegal if homosexual marriage is allowed to be outlawed?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said: But for them to get married, using a word that is supposed to make their sexual relations acceptable before God, that is deeply disturbing to me.
Leto said: That's too freaking bad.
Sounds like it is NOT ok with you that I feel this way.
I'll repeat what I've already said a bunch of times: the word "marriage" does not belong to the Christian church, and has not for a long time. This misconception is used to argue that homosexual marriage should be illegal. That is not OK.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to give that straw man any credence, Jon Boy. You know they are not the same, and you know it's a straw man.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And since our friend beverly is using slippery slopes, how long before activities not endorsed by some church are made illegal if homosexual marriage is allowed to be outlawed?
Whaa? What is this imaginary conversation and who are you having it with?
Personally I think gay marriage will become lawful no matter what any of us do. The floodgates have been opened and there's no going back. Don't worry, Leto, for better or worse, you will get your wish.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Beverly, do you support laws that would outlaw homosexual marriage? If you are still pondering the subject, let us know which way you are leaning. If you have personal objections against homosexual marriage but have no intentions of outlawing it, then you and John are on the same page (different corners of the page, perhaps, but the same page).
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whaa? What is this imaginary conversation and who are you having it with?
YOU are the one who used the polygamy straw man / slippery slope, and I countered with one that follows the same flawed logic. If you can do it, why can't I? If I can't do it, why can you?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the way I feel about it is that as stated at the beginning of this thread, I don't like the idea of gay marriage. But that does not mean I support outlawing it. I'm not sure that is my right. I wish Leto would read more carefully and respect people more.
Leto, I find it very interesting that you refuse to answer questions about polygamy. I think they are remarkably similar issues.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polygamy does not equal homosexuality. I repeat: polygamy does not equal homosexuality. Homosexual marriage = two people (not four, not six, not fourteen). Polygamy = more than two people. Different situations altogether. Trying to equate them is done either by people who are for legislation against homosexual marriage or bitter Mormons who aren't allowed to have men with six wives.
They are not the same, and you're not going to convince me otherwise by bringing up religion.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, I did read your first post and I do respect your position. The reason I asked you to restate your position again is just to emphasize the point that you and John are in agreement.
John has stated many times that he does not care what you personally believe about gay marriage as long as you do not seek to legally deprive that right from homosexuals.
Somewhere along this thread, lines got crossed and created what is, IMHO, an unnecessary argument.
Can't we go back to arguing about why lesbians are so hot? Please. For the children.
quote:I'm not going to give that straw man any credence, Jon Boy. You know they are not the same, and you know it's a straw man.
Of course they're not the same. I'm just honestly wondering what your feelings are. I'm trying to figure out what criteria you and others are using to judge the acceptability of homosexual marriages.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polygamy does not equal homosexuality. I repeat: polygamy does not equal homosexuality. Homosexual marriage = two people (not four, not six, not fourteen). Polygamy = more than two people. Different situations altogether.
Homosexuality does not equal heterosexuality. I repeat: homosexuality does not equal heterosexuality. Homosexual marriage = same genders. Heterosexual marriage = different genders. Different situations altogether.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Trying to equate them is done either by people who are for legislation against homosexual marriage or bitter Mormons who aren't allowed to have men with six wives.
It's nice to know that John is so open-minded. Of course, he doens't have to be open-minded because he automatically knows what sort of person you are by the questions you ask.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Trying to equate them is done either by people who are for legislation against homosexual marriage or bitter Mormons who aren't allowed to have men with six wives
Actually, there is quite movement of Christians out there (men and women alike) who would very much like polygamy to be legalized. They live it illegally now. Just google Christian and Polygamy. Plenty-o Muslims too, and African-Americans.
Beren, I cannot honestly say I am against legislation either, so I guess a fence-sitter like me is still deemed unworthy. No protection from Leto's verbal abuse there.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is where you're wrong Jon Boy. It's the same thing in a way... Hardly a whole lot of difference except one man or woman too many...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy has a good point. Polygamist marriages in many ways are much closer to traditional marriages than homosexual marriages are. Depending on which tradition you look at, it's a *lot* closer.
It seems that all of the arguments that people use to argue for homosexual marriage would be equally valid for polygamist marriage.
And, despite what John says, while I *am* a Mormon, I do *not* want polygamy to come back. I have no interest in such a thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*suddenly wonders if they are posting at the same time on the same computer. If so, How cute!*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Jonny, but marriage is marriage between two people. Heterosexuals claiming it as their own is where the bigotry begins. Homosexualist is not the same as heterosexuality, because they are different sexual preferences. Polygamy is not homosexuality because polygamy isn't a sexual preference. You're digging your own fallacious grave.
And go ahead and say I'm not "open-minded" about it, and that I'm automatically assuming I know everyone's motives. The truth is that every one of these arguments has been used over and over, and the same ones by the same people, and the motives given were clear. Using them again and claiming new, unrelated motives requires you to descibe these incredibly intelligent, completely new and breakthrough reasons. If not, you are following the same characteristics as your predecessors.
I'm plenty open minded about it. I'll even defend your right to a faith that doesn't want anything to do with homosexuality. That does not make it at all, in any way acceptable to endorse misconceptions like "marriage is religion's" and "polygamy is the same as homosexuality."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't use the same computer. I am down in my office right now. I didn't even know my wife was online.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody ever said "polygamy is the same as homosexuality." What was said was that the arguments used to change marriage laws to include homosexuality can also be used in favor of changing them to include polygamy.
Why don't you address that issue instead of this other non-existent one?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, Jonny, but marriage is marriage between two people.
First of all, don't call me Jonny.
Second of all: Since when?
So you feel it's okay to be intolerant and bigoted on the basis of the number of people in a marriage, right? Why? What makes homosexuals more deserving of marriage than polygamists? Why do you feel it is okay to deny polygamists that right?
[ March 08, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, if you're going to behave like I'm insulting you, then I'll stop responding to your continuing insistence on this straw man.
quote:Second of all: Since when?
So you feel it's okay to be intolerant and bigoted on the basis of the number of people in a marriage, right? Why? What makes homosexuals more deserving of marriage than polygamists? Why do you feel it is okay to deny polygamists that right?
Second of all, since insurance, taxes, and other non-religious and non-census organizations began to give special privileges to couples. Since the whole of the free world has taken the word and defined it as such. Since polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept, and religion has not "owned" marriage for a very long time.
I'm not saying it's okay to be intolerant of polygamy as a theory, I'm saying that in the United States, every instance of polygamy has been a situation that was based on unequal rights of women (even though the religions themselves were not). I'm against allowing inequality to be endorsed by the government. In any form. If you can give an example of a polygamous society where women weren't denied the same rights of men, I'm all ears.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept
I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
