There are currently 10 users and 212 guests online.
Traditional Marriage, Bible-Style
Submitted by gonzone on Thu, 2008/12/11 - 9:20am.
It's time to change our marriage laws again, Proposition 8 didn't go nearly far enough.
Lifted from a DailyKos comment:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
How can the Mormons and the Biblical literalists argue with the inerrant Word?
Submitted by Mr. JT (not verified) on Thu, 2008/12/11 - 11:09am.
Some of the quotes are WRONG and most are taken out of context. Like:
"G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36) ".
Gen. 19:31-36 states in the New International Version "One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the Earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father. That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. The next day the older daughter said to the younger daughter, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." There is more but I am running long and will summarize. This passage is in reference to Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and then to the blood line leading to King David and eventually to Jesus Christ. Lot offered his daughters to the Gay crowd that had gathered wanting to rape the angels sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The daughters hatched the plan to rape their father to secure their blood line after they fled the destruction.
Please, if you're going to quote the bible, do so correctly and in context.
Submitted by gonzone on Thu, 2008/12/11 - 11:37am.
Eating shrimp is an abomination and dooms one to hell. There should be laws prohibiting the eating of shrimp dammit! It ain't right, the Bible says so! Anyone who does eat shrimp is a pervert! And let's not forget about selling your daughter, like the Bible says. That's so cool to do, correct? Slavery is the new gay!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Christian conservatives usually cite a dream Paul had that seems to lift the dietary restrictions. While I can't remember the specific Biblical reference, I have read it, and its pretty reasonable to interpret it as saying "don't worry about dietary restrictions anymore."
However, that doesn't explain all of the other Old Testament prohibitions they ignore, like the ones about wearing blended fabrics, or approaching the altar of the Lord if you have a vision problem. (Know any fundamentalist pastors with glasses? They're SINNERS!)
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
What were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah guilty of?
Not gay sex. They were guilty of allowing prostitution and not keeping the dietary laws as set forth in the Torah. That's what it says in the Hebrew. (But, I know, God spoke to some English guys in 1611 and set all that straight.)
Anyhow, you are still saying that incest is Okie Dokie.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Actually, there's a passage in Ezekiel that says quite directly what the Sin of Sodom was, and it was not that they liked a little man-on-man lovin'.
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
In other words, the sin of Sodom was wealthy people not taking care of the poor.
I've heard Sodom's sin more generally described as "inhospitality." The significance of that can be lost to modern, Western readers, but remember that we're dealing with a desert culture. Refusing to aid travelers could be sentencing them to death in the desert.
And even if you buy into the notion that S&G were punished because for homosexuality, remember the story of Lot -- the men of Sodom wanted to gang-rape the angels (which is, of course, pretty inhospitable!) This isn't a case of a consensual, loving relationship between adults.
Of course, this is all moot. The fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that sex between two people of the same gender is the worst sin imaginable, and nothing can persuade them otherwise.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
oooooh, you are right. Good catch. Another nifty fact is that the term "sodomy" dates from the 13th century, though its popular English usage dates only from the 19th Century.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Thu, 2008/12/11 - 2:04pm.
The Old Testament belongs to the followers of Judaism and the Jews. It is due to Replacement Theology that Christianity may have adopted any of the rules and regulations of the Torah but they are not necessarily applicable to non-Jews. However, in light of the clear message taught by Christ about what defines marriage and other verses in the New Testament, there is little question that gay marriage is not something permitted by God. Also, taking the Scripture out of context is not something any side do, much less here, and the real question in regards to Prop 8 is that there was a ballot box issue, votes were cast, case closed.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sat, 2008/12/13 - 12:57am.
I won't question the election result as he won. However, what he actually does is different but I respect that he won the election and am NOT calling for another one, a recount, or screaming that he won unfairly and who knows what else with what we have witnessed from the incredibly sore losers in California.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 9:01am.
Let me add too that there was an issue, (gay marriage), it was put to vote of the people (versus the judiciary or legislature doing it), and there was a result after weeks of campaigning. One side won and one side lost, as with all elections throughout this nation. Yet, the sore loser side feels that they are entitled to run through churches, rant and protest, and basically bully their way about their losing side. It really is that simple and just as Obama won even though 46% did not want him to they are going to respect it. An election was held, the campaigning went on for weeks, one side won and the other lost, case closed but we are not seeing that in California. Instead, after a legal and appropriate manner to address a given issue of importance to Californian society one side is going to continue to harass and bully all they can simply because they lost and that, NOT GAY MARRIAGE, is the issue. They lost the vote, they should accept the results and deal with it like all of us do with an election result that we do not like BUT ACCEPT because that is how our American society is run.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 1:22pm.
Would you accept the repeal of the First Amendment by simple majority? The Second? The Fourth (gone though it already is)? The Fifth?
The founders set up the U.S. so that the rights of minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Is California's constitution framed in a similar way? That's what's at issue in court.
Constitutional democracy - republican democracy - doesn't put everything to majority vote. Nor should it.
However, in light of the clear message taught by Christ about what defines marriage
I challenge you to show me where Jesus Christ said one damn thing about the many forms of marriage, including gay marriage or polygamy. Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or whether it was wrong. Remember, in your Bible it's probably red letters = what Jesus said.
Also, Jesus said the Old Testament was good (I came to fulfill it, not destroy it) yet you deny it. Where's your Christ-like heart?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sat, 2008/12/13 - 12:55am.
Matthew 19:4-6, "Haven't you read," He replied, "that He who created then in the beginning made them male and female, and He also said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God hath joined together man must not separate.'"
Mark 10:6-9, "But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no loner two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate."
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 8:48am.
My logic is not the issue here, the words of Christ are and as such maybe you should take it up with him. There was nothing in my post that I wrote, only quoting what was from the Bible, as was asked of me.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 1:30pm.
Your citations ban divorce, not gay marriage. They say the heterosexual marriage is blessed. They are silent about homosexual marriage. It's illogical to suggest that saying A exists implies that B doesn't exist.
If the passages said, "and only two such as they will become one flesh," then you'd have made a logical scriptural argument. As it is, you don't even know what your own words mean, hence the relevance of your lack of logic.
I'd argue against a logical scriptural argument on other grounds, but at least we could have a reasoned argument. On the evidence so far, that's not likely.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 2:18pm.
Well then, your argument is with who actually wrote the Scripture in question, not me as I was citing it, not writing it. I suggest that you actually read the verses in question from the Bible before you start about any logical or reasoned argument. Furthermore, using logic then it is quite clear that with Christ referencing the verses he did that there is no question as to how he was defining marriage.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 9:48am.
I am not the one dense about anything. Your issue is with those Scriptures or who wrote them, not with me. The fact that you are unwilling to accept what was written has nothing to do with logic either, it has to do with your inability to read and understand those Scriptures. You want to have a reasoned argument with the God, go ahead, I am not stopping you as that is who you need to address your commentary to, not me.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 5:27pm.
The reason my argument is with you is that you've asserted a meaning that your citations do not support. And despite being told this repeatedly, you can't grasp it.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:59pm.
It is not I who has trouble grasping the subject matter here, it is you. I have not asserted anything as the citations are quite clear to what they are speaking of and it is you in need of grasping their meaning, not me. Tell you what though, you find me any number of Pastors or Priests that can illuminate what I am "not grasping" and you will win your argument.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 8:36am.
I was asked to quote any Bible verses that "clearly show" Jesus talking about marriage and I did that without commentary. The verses speak for themselves and make it clear that Jesus did, in fact, state the definition of marriage per what was asked by another poster. Your post is an attempt to distract from the only question asked concerning Jesus and marriage. However, your post also shows the confusion present when most people talk of "Biblical law" and "secular law."
What was known as the "law" in the time of Christ and what he was referring to was specifically Jewish religious law, which served as both religious law and secular law for them. There was no distinction even if they recognized Roman law which is also another matter altogether. Thus, when a person in 2008, speaks of "outlawing divorce" after reading those two Bible verses they are ignoring that the law in Tennessee and America, for that matter, are not based upon Jewish religious law but a secular civil society. This is why many if not most churches (Protestant or Catholic) will have such an issue with divorce because they are applying something to an issue that was never meant for it. Divorce in Tennessee is based on ending what is basically a contract that is acknowledged as valid in the eyes of the State, not a covenant made in the eyes of Almighty God.
The Bible is clear, and I mean clear throughout the whole thing, that marriage was to be a specially designated covenant between a human male and a human female. Recognized as a union of two to become one in the eyes of God and to last until one of you died. The fact that government entities over the centuries have invaded what is the purview of God is another matter for discussion.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 2:24pm.
First, ask those in Canada about what the government is forcing churches to do concerning gay marriage.
Second, the issue in California was not about Scripture but about a ballot issue. A straight forward proposal was put to vote for the citizens of California to decide and they did, and once again, it really is that simple. A serious issue was dealt with in the acceptable and legitimate matter that has been acceptable for American society for two centuries. The voters of California have spoken, just have the voters in 33 other States. Contrary to what the liberal crowd will argue about how this all about the religious right what this is truly about is of an electoral nature. No one is voting on the use of Scripture for marriage but the definition of marriage and how it is to be applied in civil law. What any constituent group uses for its campaign purposes is like any other campaign were almost anything will be said but what matters is the actual Proposition and the vote results.
Are you saying this means that Jesus EXCLUDED any other types of marital unions? I'm not seeing it. Also, is this an accurate translation or is it someone's idea of what the ancient letters meant? We're gonna need to dig a lot deeper before you can convince me Jesus was hating on others and if you do then I will gladly give up the faith.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Submitted by cooperhawk on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 1:38am.
Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 & 2:24. It reads practically the same in about any translation you can find. He said how we were created and said for this reason how we should be married. I'm curious as to what that has to do with Jesus "hating on others" or what your faith is based on that you would be giving up.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 8:46am.
You will find what was written in the following translations and if these are not enough then I suggest you contact the publishers of every last of them and tell them that you question their work.
1. King James Version.
2. New International Version.
3. Revised Standard Version.
4. Revised English Bible.
5. New American Standard Bible.
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible.
7. New King James Version.
8. New American Bible-Catholic.
9. The Message.
10. Contemporary English Version.
11. The Living Bible (this is a paraphrased translation though).
12. Wycliffe New Testament.
Many Protestant Christians in 2008, at least in this area and most of America, often use the New International Version but the Contemporary English Version is heavily used too and we all know that East Tennessee probably has a high percentage still using the KJV. All of these translations come from the Latin Vulgate and before that the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. So, I guess in truth, if you question all of them build a time machine and go back in time to ask Christ directly what he said.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 2:28pm.
Have you ever read a Bible? Specifically, what is recorded as what Christ said? I'm not saying anything, I was citing directly from two different books of the Bible. I would like to know what in the world you mean by "accurate translation" as well as "someone's idea of what the ancient letters mean." Those were direct quotes, are you clear on that or are you thinking I wrote them?
You still didn't say whether you think divorce should be illegal. From those citations you posted, and from your attitude about the word of Jesus, I'm supposing you do.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 6:00pm.
Divorce is not the issue here so start another thread and I will give it to you then but again, my opinion is not the issue, what was cited is and I am not the author of those verses.
I used to work with a very Orthodox Jewish man, and I believe he did wear them. (Well, I never stopped to count them, but I think that's what they were. Despite the fact he was perfectly willing and happy to play what I've heard called "enlighten the goyim", I thought it would be presumptuous to ask.)
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Submitted by Nobody's Shadow (not verified) on Sun, 2008/12/14 - 1:48pm.
The problem with this discussion is that the a priori assumption that Jesus has anything to say about marriage policy of the United States government in the 21st century. I don't care what "Jesus" says about anything. I'm not a believer, but I am a citizen of these United States. Even if one were to buy into the mythology that the Bible is the preserved Word of God, it doesn't matter. The United States is a pluralistic society.
There is a simple solution, though, and one that most all countries in this hemisphere adopted in the 19th c. - take the authority to civilly marry people away from the churches. Have civil marriage, and religious marriage-- the latter of which should be totally optional and carry with it zero civil rights. This is a middle ground that everyone should be willing to meet upon. Make civil marriage a place of non-discrimination, and the location of the many rights and privileges associated with formalized unions, and let the churches continue their discriminatory practices. Heck, Bob Jones and his boys can go right back to not marrying blacks and whites, and continue to not marry two men or women- I wouldn't care because the ceremonies would carry zero state authority.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:11am.
Outside of your caustic remarks about religion this is an excellent point about what should be done. The problem is that you are automatically assuming that a religious marriage is somehow less than your emphasis upon a glorified civil union. In many ways, the whole thing goes back to what role do we want the State to have in the lives of the citizenry?
The best solution would be to have civil unions administered by the State, marriages administered by a religious authority, and if one chooses only a civil union then so be it. Also, in this entire "gay marriage" issue one should not underestimate the role being played by divorce lawyers. It is a serious one because if gays can "marry" then they can "divorce" and the ses of most gays are such that they would provide ample opportunity for divorce lawyers to basically have a new revenue stream. Add in that most gay males will never have only one sex partner, that traditionally gay men and women rejected marriage as a tool of oppression of the reigning hegemony concerning relationships, and it is almost laughable that there is such a crusade now for "gay marriage."
The gay marriage issue has never been about letting humans into gay sex get married but is instead an electoral issue. Only about 3% of the American population is homosexual and of those how many actually want to get married? Thus, what true percentage of citizens are we talking about accommodating and overturning the foundation of society as we know it? This is why it will always be an electoral issue and why the citizenry should vote on whether or not the foundational structure of society should be redefined because once it is redefined for homosexuals who will it then be further redefined for? I say that because what is it that makes a homosexual distinct from a heterosexual? Well, the answer is obvious and why does so much media and the like need to be centered on what kind of actually sexual activity one likes or needs? That is why it is about so much more than "just loving each other" and "why can't we all get along?" Who cares about the sex? It is the bigger issue at play here that forces this heated debate. Finding an acceptable solution to an issue that does impact all of American society in some way or another is more than "just letting gays marry."
Submitted by Bbeanster on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 11:14am.
if gays can "marry" then they can "divorce" and the ses of most gays are such that they would provide ample opportunity for divorce lawyers to basically have a new revenue stream. Add in that most gay males will never have only one sex partner, that traditionally gay men and women rejected marriage as a tool of oppression of the reigning hegemony concerning relationships, and it is almost laughable that there is such a crusade now for "gay marriage."
Not sure what "the ses of most gays" means, but few of the powerful men above the age of, say, 45-50 in this town are still married to their first wives.
And, expanding the issue to the state-at-large, any legislation dealing with expanding the definition of marriage in Tennessee has been brought by guys with R after their names, so it's weird you'd apply the word "crusade" to gay folks.
It's a good thing our traditional legislators are on the job, protecting the heck out of traditional marriage. They work hard at it, so who can begrudge them a little recreation at the establishments convenient to Capitol Hill?
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 1:46pm.
Socioeconomic Status as most gays are fairly well off financially. The crusade reference is to those in favor of gay marriage since most gay males have multiple sex partners over the course of their life.
So, your response to gay men's purported difficulty in forming committed relationships is to forbid them from taking the most concrete step towards such relationships.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Submitted by Nobody's Shadow (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 12:02pm.
My comments about religion aren't caustic, they are matter of fact. I automatically assume that religious marriage is less important that civil marriage because the issue is one of civil rights. As I'm sure you are aware, religious institutions in the United States carry zero civil authority- it is the state that is the guarantor of civil rights and equality. I'm also sure I don't need to remind anyone living in the South that this is the case.
Your slight of hand shift on the concept of civil unions is a valiant effort at maintaining a second-class status for gay and lesbian unions. But, the last time my wife and I filed our taxes, she checked the box (Married-Filing-Jointly). Married is the recognized civil status that carries with it a series of legally defined rights and obligations. Churches have no place as gatekeepers or executors of said state authority. And as it stands now, many gay and lesbian couples do get religiously married in what are generally termed commitment ceremonies.
Any comments on your perceptions of gay vs. straight sexual practices are immaterial. Marriage isn't a question of sex- that's an issue for each couple to determine on their own. I personally prefer serial monogamy, but for others and to quote Marsellus Wallace's bartender, "My name's Paul, and this sh-t's between y'all." Finally, I would add that such statements as marriage being the "foundation of society as we know it" really amount to so much hyperbole and a serious lack of historical consciousness.
Submitted by Nobody's Shadow (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 4:18pm.
mythology: n. a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
myth: n. a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
It is a technical term. All religious beliefs are myths, and the collection of those myths is mythology. There is no value judgement in either of those terms. As to my respect or not of the beliefs of millions, this is again immaterial. I can and certainly do respect your right to believe in what every collection of traditional stories, especially those concerning the early history of a people involving supernatural beings or events, that you chose to believe. My problem comes when Christians, or Muslims or Hindus or Jewish believers don't respect the secularly defined space of government and civil equality defined in the Constitution of these United States.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:00pm.
Your right about the space of government but your post reeks of the arrogance of how you are so much better than any religious believer. The condescending attitude and mocking that you continue to engage in all because that you say that religious beliefs are mythology but hey, that's not accurate either. Your post is a great example of how liberals are often technically right about an issue but your arrogance rules over everything. Keeping the government OUT of our religion is the goal, not telling millions of people that their religious beliefs are nothing more than stories, what arrogance and extreme indifference is on display.
Have you ever read Job 38:4? If not, I recommend that you do and then contemplate why you can argue that God is not real. Also, the last time I read the Constitution, which was before the election, it does not seek to render religion obsolete as you may wish it too. It just seeks to keep the distance between government controlling our religion and of letting religion have too much say in the running of government.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:43pm.
For stupidest post ever!
Actually, "religion" isn't supposed to have ANY say in running our government.
The term "myth" has been devalued by those who want to use it as a disparaging term meaning "other people's religions".
I like this quote:(source)
It (Christianity) has been reinforced by the prestige of science, which leads us to make our own myths in scientific terms, and then to read the myths of others as if they were unsuccessful shots at the solution of scientific or metaphysical problems.
Myth's may have varying degrees of truth but who knows? The attempt at using a myth to prove its own veracity ("read Job 38:4) is absurd. To accept this a proving its validity is insane...
(As is the arrogance of accusing others of arrogance because they don't accept your arguments as to why yours is the one true myth)
The gay marriage issue has never been about letting humans into gay sex get married but is instead an electoral issue. Only about 3% of the American population is homosexual and of those how many actually want to get married? Thus, what true percentage of citizens are we talking about accommodating and overturning the foundation of society as we know it?
Geez, how many dumb things can you cram into one paragraph? Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Your second sentence contains an unsupported number - show me a reputable (note, I said reputable) study that supports this number (maybe you could start here - Link...). Your last sentence is your opinion - "overturning the foundation of society as we know it."
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 5:01pm.
My first sentence makes perfect sense for someone willing to read it without any ideological blinders on, I suggest that you try that and see what happens.
My "number" is from the Centers for Disease Control and if you are going to tell me or anyone that their numbers are no good then we are in a boatload of trouble for what they are responsible for doing for American public health.
My last sentence is not just my opinion because that, in essence, is what will be done if gay marriage is made a normal feature of society. What are unintended consequences? How would that impact other issues that seek legitimization? It is a serious question that is often neglected due to the passion of one side, those in favor of gay marriage because they are unwilling to sit down and examine the issue from top to bottom.
Finally, I have always found it quite interesting that so many heterosexuals are always willing to make homosexuality front and center and why is that? Almost all of those hetero's so passionate about homosexuality have never had the first homosexual experience so how can it be that important to them? Now you can window dress it all you want but the entire issue comes down to certain acts that define you as a person. So how can the number of hetero's who have never experienced their first homosexual activity promote it as normal, okay, legitimate, so forth? It's a paradox, can you explain why homosexuality is so important to heterosexuals who have never experienced it?
Almost all of those hetero's so passionate about homosexuality have never had the first homosexual experience so how can it be that important to them? Now you can window dress it all you want but the entire issue comes down to certain acts that define you as a person. So how can the number of hetero's who have never experienced their first homosexual activity promote it as normal, okay, legitimate, so forth? It's a paradox, can you explain why homosexuality is so important to heterosexuals who have never experienced it?
Homosexuality is not important to me, per se. Protecting the civil rights of all Americans is.
Pretty simple, eh?
P.S. Your first sentence still doesn't make any sense.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 5:55pm.
Give me a break, please. Saying that homosexuality is not important to you in this issue is like saying that skin color is not important about race. Are you serious? Why not tell blacks that their skin color is not important then? Homosexuality is the heart and soul of this issue for without homosexual activity there would be no gay marriage and thus no righteous calls of equality and civil rights. You cannot separate the two no matter how hard you try.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:47pm.
First, I recommend that you leave the liberal book on debate at the house and perhaps give the snippy little comments a rest. That means nothing to me and my feelings are never hurt and you will not distract me with such nonsense.
Second, many times the issue of gay marriage is portrayed as denying two homosexuals the opportunity to share their love, embrace their identity, so forth and how can one be denied one of life's great treasures just because they will have homosexual sex instead of hetero sex. However, none of that matters as what matters are how we are going to define our American society and that is something that can only be decided by the citizenry, not judges, not the legislature, only the citizenry as a whole. The ballot box is how that is done. There was an election on a very important issue and the results are in, as with 33 other States, and the message is clear: marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is NOT the union of two men, two women, one man and several women, one woman and several men, or any other form of marriage.
Marriage has been the foundation of society for thousands of years and it is one of the foundations of American society. The issue has been addressed now with 33 States and in every case one result came out of the vote. It is time to leave that definition of marriage alone as the citizenry does NOT want a redefinition of marriage.
Nah, I'm fond of my snippy little comments. And since they don't bother you, I think I'll just keep them up.
So... if a majority of Tennesseans voted to overturn free speech, that would be ok with you too?
what matters are how we are going to define our American society and that is something that can only be decided by the citizenry, not judges, not the legislature, only the citizenry as a whole.
Hmm. So just what IS the place of the judiciary and the legislature?
Just testing exactly what your logic is, and how far you would take majority rule.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:43am.
Apples and oranges, so stay on subject and as long as the judiciary is going to overstep their defined constitutional authority and a legislature fail to act to then it is left to the citizenry to act. However, we are not talking about other issues nor are we talking about majority rule. What we are talking about is the judiciary using its position to set law by stating that marriage is to redefined by them, not the legislature.
Should we set aside the Presidential election results too since that is about majority rule? I mean, what about those 46% who lost their vote, in effect, because their candidate did not win. How shall we remedy their loss? Also, is this not a democratic republic were most liberals will emphasize the "democratic" part (not referring to political party here)? Then when as issue goes against their agenda they suddenly pull out the "majority rule" concern?
Also, what about the Tenth Amendment? Seems to me that perhaps this is an exercise in the use of that hardly ever mentioned Amendment and the powers within it. Those rights were the People can act, hmmm, maybe this issue will shine some light on that Amendment. So to answer your question I would take majority rule as far the Constitution will let me.
And you're telling me to stay on subject? This entire post was one giant obfuscation.
I'm tired of playing with you. I'll just leave you with one observation: rights are not subject to the will of the majority; that's why they're rights.
Submitted by cooperhawk on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 11:28am.
It used to be (before the Supreme Court started legislating anyhow)that rights were rights because the majority, that voted, decided to make them rights.
If you knew the first thing about our history you'd never spout such nonsense. For example, one of our country's founders, in promoting the adoption of the Bill of Rights (that's the first 10 amendments to the Constitution to you who don't know history) explicitly said the purpose was "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority".
Worst examples of Supreme Court actions (or what you ignorantly repeat from your right wing puppet masters as "legislating") were:
1) Giving rights of person hood to corporations
2) Giving Bush the pResidency
3) approving of slavery and "separate but equal" laws
And none of these have anything to do with your pet issues.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
It used to be (before the Supreme Court started legislating anyhow)that rights were rights because the majority, that voted, decided to make them rights.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong a thousand times
The Founders believed that rights were something we are born with, as human beings, not something granted by a vote. Or. as people far wiser about the opinions of the Founding Fathers put it, because they were the Founding Fathers,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Submitted by Nobody's Shadow (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 6:16pm.
What's your point? Are you trying to insinuate that arguments over civil rights aren't arguments over equality because what...? Because you suspect heterosexuals who argue on behalf of gay civil rights secretly harbor homosexual desires? That appears to be the insinuation you're suggesting. Or are you suggesting that people argue for civil rights as an endorsement of homosexual sex? I'll tell you what, I certainly don't care what sex practices occur between consenting adults. It's none of my business. Discriminatory practices, on the other hand, I find antithetical to my patriotic values. Whether it is the 3-7% who self-identify as homosexual, or the 15-20% of people who have had same-sex partners in their past, if they want to marry another consenting adult and enjoy the civil status privileges that implies under Federal and State law, I can't think of a single rational reason they should be discriminated against. Certainly any individual's personal religious beliefs should have no bearing on such policy. I will remind you that segregationists explicitly used moral arguments against mixed-race marriage, replete with Bible passages, arguments against undermining the foundation of society as we know it, and the like. History has shown that they were wrong. So are you.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:37pm.
I'm not making any insinuation. I was asking a question. The idea that you can separate homosexuality from this issue and somehow elevate it to the lofty heights of only about civil rights ignores why it even exists in the first place. Saying that 15-20% of the population may have had homosexual sex does not translate into anywhere near that number seeking marriage. Thus, you have a very small number of the population seeking recognition for marriage because they prefer homosexuality to heterosexuality. Also, saying that there are unintended consequences is right, not wrong, as what are you going to do when the polygamists come calling? There is nothing that should prevent them from marrying using the logic that is now being employed about gay marriage. In fact, the only prohibition against any kind of marriage would be that of an adult marrying a minor in the logic now being used for gay marriage.
I recommend too that you read the post for what it says and perhaps leave the other remarks aside as your analysis about any "underlying meanings" ignores the fact that you should respond to what is written. Address what is written and try not to distract and change the subject.
It doesn't matter if homosexuals are 30% of the population, 3% or .3%. Read this slowly to make sure you get it - discrimination is wrong. Denying any Americans his or her civil rights is wrong.
Gay Americans deserve the same civil protections of marriage that straight Americans enjoy. End of story.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:56pm.
Interesting comment since the citizens of 33 States say otherwise. Are you saying that with almost all of those States defining marriage as one man and one woman upwards of 70% or more in the vote totals that so many are wrong? So, what is the basis that you would argue that 70% of more in most of those 33 States are wrong? What would make your right to say they are wrong greater than their right to decide by the ballot box better? I think here in Tennessee that in 2006, 76% of those voting for the definition of marriage voted for that one man/one woman definition. Are you arguing that 76% of the Tennessee electorate is not as informed about this issue as you? If so, why?
Especially since the ballot measure had to be first approved by the General Assembly of Tennessee, pass muster with the Attorney General of Tennessee, and then finally the electorate. So, after all of that and by such overwhelming numbers all of them are wrong and you are right on the issue, would that be a fair summation of your position?
I think the "end of story" is when it enters the state constitution by such an overwhelming majority of approval by the citizenry. Yes, that is a more fitting end to the "end of the story."
In order for something to be taken away it had to first be granted and we'll just have to wait and see about that 50 year prediction.
Geez, you're a giant doofus. The right to gay marriage WAS granted in California. It was guarnateed by the California Constitution. That's what the California Supreme Court said (and before you get all huffy about the judiciary, interpreting a state constitution is part of the job of a state supreme court).
For the first time ever, the voters of California decided to amend their Constitution to take away some citizens' Constitutional rights.
Submitted by gonzone on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 10:20am.
Jeremiah 10:1-5 (King James Version)
Jeremiah 10
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 1:53pm.
Tell you what, if you can find a statistic that refutes that number as the percentage of Americans who are homosexual then you do that and you will prove me wrong.
Submitted by lovable liberal on Mon, 2008/12/15 - 5:34pm.
Three percent is a fairly credible number. Wikipedia says 2 to 7% with numerous citations, not that I think that's the final word.
The traditional one in ten advocacy statistic was based on the sexual equivalent of the one-drop concept of race, rather than looking at long-term behavior.
Care to actually provide a web link to your CDC statistic?
I could decalre that the CDC says 75% of gay marriage opponents suffer from leprosy, the Bubonic Plague, Dreaded Rotting Mummy Disease, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, but until I actually provide documentation, you would be forgiven for being skeptical.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:02pm.
Start a new thread as this one is about marriage. Maybe you should start one on homosexuality and divorce as another member asked me about that too but I hope to see this thread keep its focus on the OP.
Submitted by R. Neal on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:08pm.
So you won't answer the question? I believe your answer, along with your other statements of belief, is most relevant in regard to your statements on this discussion.
Submitted by Nobody (not verified) on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:50pm.
Like I asked, start a new thread. The problem with these Internet discussions is that one thread gets started and it becomes who know what in the end. It would make more sense to start another thread and keep this one about the OP and what has been written in it.
Submitted by R. Neal on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 12:54pm.
Well, it's my site and I'll do what I want or not, especially not what some anonymous yahoo tells me to do. You are an unwelcome guest who is only here to float a big nasty turd in the punch bowl and make everyone else sick while you stand in the corner laughing at your own brilliant achievement.
Anyway, do you think homosexuality is a disease? It has a direct bearing on your point of view in regard to the topic at hand.
Submitted by Nobody's Shadow (not verified) on Tue, 2008/12/16 - 2:06pm.
Exactly the point. Whenever I hear arguments for state's rights, or to keep the federal government out of any and everything, or rants about the supremacy of small town values, or some Ron Paul fanboy, or the like, I know that what's going to come next is a bid to deny freedom and civil rights to someone in the name of a local majority. It leads one to believe that for real insight into the rise of the Republican Party in the 1970s and culture wars of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, we have to look to the failure of Reconstruction-- ie, that Reconstruction was stopped.
Some of the quotes are WRONG and most are taken out of context. Like:
"G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36) ".
Gen. 19:31-36 states in the New International Version "One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the Earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father. That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. The next day the older daughter said to the younger daughter, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." There is more but I am running long and will summarize. This passage is in reference to Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and then to the blood line leading to King David and eventually to Jesus Christ. Lot offered his daughters to the Gay crowd that had gathered wanting to rape the angels sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The daughters hatched the plan to rape their father to secure their blood line after they fled the destruction.
Please, if you're going to quote the bible, do so correctly and in context.
You mean this person I quoted should be held to a higher standard than those with whom he disagrees?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
So, I take it you find it commendable to offer upper up your daughters to rapists?
If an angry mob of gay rapists were at your door, you'd view it as proper and Biblical to say to them, "here, take my daughters"?
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Eating shrimp is an abomination and dooms one to hell. There should be laws prohibiting the eating of shrimp dammit! It ain't right, the Bible says so! Anyone who does eat shrimp is a pervert! And let's not forget about selling your daughter, like the Bible says. That's so cool to do, correct? Slavery is the new gay!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Christian conservatives usually cite a dream Paul had that seems to lift the dietary restrictions. While I can't remember the specific Biblical reference, I have read it, and its pretty reasonable to interpret it as saying "don't worry about dietary restrictions anymore."
However, that doesn't explain all of the other Old Testament prohibitions they ignore, like the ones about wearing blended fabrics, or approaching the altar of the Lord if you have a vision problem. (Know any fundamentalist pastors with glasses? They're SINNERS!)
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
It was Peter, not Paul, please read Acts 10:9-23, if you doubt it.
What were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah guilty of?
Not gay sex. They were guilty of allowing prostitution and not keeping the dietary laws as set forth in the Torah. That's what it says in the Hebrew. (But, I know, God spoke to some English guys in 1611 and set all that straight.)
Anyhow, you are still saying that incest is Okie Dokie.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Actually, there's a passage in Ezekiel that says quite directly what the Sin of Sodom was, and it was not that they liked a little man-on-man lovin'.
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
In other words, the sin of Sodom was wealthy people not taking care of the poor.
I've heard Sodom's sin more generally described as "inhospitality." The significance of that can be lost to modern, Western readers, but remember that we're dealing with a desert culture. Refusing to aid travelers could be sentencing them to death in the desert.
And even if you buy into the notion that S&G were punished because for homosexuality, remember the story of Lot -- the men of Sodom wanted to gang-rape the angels (which is, of course, pretty inhospitable!) This isn't a case of a consensual, loving relationship between adults.
Of course, this is all moot. The fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that sex between two people of the same gender is the worst sin imaginable, and nothing can persuade them otherwise.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
oooooh, you are right. Good catch. Another nifty fact is that the term "sodomy" dates from the 13th century, though its popular English usage dates only from the 19th Century.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I can thank several good Metropolitan Community Church pastors for teaching a lot about what the Bible says, and doesn't say, about homosexuality.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Sounds like they were compassionate conservatives to me.
And avoiding swine and shellfish in the lower Mediterranean, in Leviticus' days, was actually sorta practical advice.
____________________________
Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!
Well, that sounds so much better.
Et tu Mr. JT.
Visit us at
The Home
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Who said that the literalists were arguing with the Word?
The Old Testament belongs to the followers of Judaism and the Jews. It is due to Replacement Theology that Christianity may have adopted any of the rules and regulations of the Torah but they are not necessarily applicable to non-Jews. However, in light of the clear message taught by Christ about what defines marriage and other verses in the New Testament, there is little question that gay marriage is not something permitted by God. Also, taking the Scripture out of context is not something any side do, much less here, and the real question in regards to Prop 8 is that there was a ballot box issue, votes were cast, case closed.
I suppose you're not going to question anything President Obama does, since his election was a ballot box issue, and that case is, therefore, closed.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
I won't question the election result as he won. However, what he actually does is different but I respect that he won the election and am NOT calling for another one, a recount, or screaming that he won unfairly and who knows what else with what we have witnessed from the incredibly sore losers in California.
Let me add too that there was an issue, (gay marriage), it was put to vote of the people (versus the judiciary or legislature doing it), and there was a result after weeks of campaigning. One side won and one side lost, as with all elections throughout this nation. Yet, the sore loser side feels that they are entitled to run through churches, rant and protest, and basically bully their way about their losing side. It really is that simple and just as Obama won even though 46% did not want him to they are going to respect it. An election was held, the campaigning went on for weeks, one side won and the other lost, case closed but we are not seeing that in California. Instead, after a legal and appropriate manner to address a given issue of importance to Californian society one side is going to continue to harass and bully all they can simply because they lost and that, NOT GAY MARRIAGE, is the issue. They lost the vote, they should accept the results and deal with it like all of us do with an election result that we do not like BUT ACCEPT because that is how our American society is run.
Would you accept the repeal of the First Amendment by simple majority? The Second? The Fourth (gone though it already is)? The Fifth?
The founders set up the U.S. so that the rights of minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Is California's constitution framed in a similar way? That's what's at issue in court.
Constitutional democracy - republican democracy - doesn't put everything to majority vote. Nor should it.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
I wonder why those in favor of gay marriage then were so willing to put it in the ballot? Answer that for me.
The ballot initiatives were always put forth by marriage opponents.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
I challenge you to show me where Jesus Christ said one damn thing about the many forms of marriage, including gay marriage or polygamy. Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or whether it was wrong. Remember, in your Bible it's probably red letters = what Jesus said.
Also, Jesus said the Old Testament was good (I came to fulfill it, not destroy it) yet you deny it. Where's your Christ-like heart?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Matthew 19:4-6, "Haven't you read," He replied, "that He who created then in the beginning made them male and female, and He also said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God hath joined together man must not separate.'"
Mark 10:6-9, "But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no loner two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate."
So you think divorce should be outlawed?
That's only what logic would conclude from Nobody's citations. Bleeding logic don't enter into it.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
My logic is not the issue here, the words of Christ are and as such maybe you should take it up with him. There was nothing in my post that I wrote, only quoting what was from the Bible, as was asked of me.
Your citations ban divorce, not gay marriage. They say the heterosexual marriage is blessed. They are silent about homosexual marriage. It's illogical to suggest that saying A exists implies that B doesn't exist.
If the passages said, "and only two such as they will become one flesh," then you'd have made a logical scriptural argument. As it is, you don't even know what your own words mean, hence the relevance of your lack of logic.
I'd argue against a logical scriptural argument on other grounds, but at least we could have a reasoned argument. On the evidence so far, that's not likely.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
Well then, your argument is with who actually wrote the Scripture in question, not me as I was citing it, not writing it. I suggest that you actually read the verses in question from the Bible before you start about any logical or reasoned argument. Furthermore, using logic then it is quite clear that with Christ referencing the verses he did that there is no question as to how he was defining marriage.
You are pretty dense about this. 'X is A' does not imply 'X is not B' unless you say 'X is only A'.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
I am not the one dense about anything. Your issue is with those Scriptures or who wrote them, not with me. The fact that you are unwilling to accept what was written has nothing to do with logic either, it has to do with your inability to read and understand those Scriptures. You want to have a reasoned argument with the God, go ahead, I am not stopping you as that is who you need to address your commentary to, not me.
The reason my argument is with you is that you've asserted a meaning that your citations do not support. And despite being told this repeatedly, you can't grasp it.
I can argue with god on my own time.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
It is not I who has trouble grasping the subject matter here, it is you. I have not asserted anything as the citations are quite clear to what they are speaking of and it is you in need of grasping their meaning, not me. Tell you what though, you find me any number of Pastors or Priests that can illuminate what I am "not grasping" and you will win your argument.
... you don't even understand the structure of your own argument. But you're really good at the repetition of stupidity.
Just think, every time you write, you confirm my points.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
I was asked to quote any Bible verses that "clearly show" Jesus talking about marriage and I did that without commentary. The verses speak for themselves and make it clear that Jesus did, in fact, state the definition of marriage per what was asked by another poster. Your post is an attempt to distract from the only question asked concerning Jesus and marriage. However, your post also shows the confusion present when most people talk of "Biblical law" and "secular law."
What was known as the "law" in the time of Christ and what he was referring to was specifically Jewish religious law, which served as both religious law and secular law for them. There was no distinction even if they recognized Roman law which is also another matter altogether. Thus, when a person in 2008, speaks of "outlawing divorce" after reading those two Bible verses they are ignoring that the law in Tennessee and America, for that matter, are not based upon Jewish religious law but a secular civil society. This is why many if not most churches (Protestant or Catholic) will have such an issue with divorce because they are applying something to an issue that was never meant for it. Divorce in Tennessee is based on ending what is basically a contract that is acknowledged as valid in the eyes of the State, not a covenant made in the eyes of Almighty God.
The Bible is clear, and I mean clear throughout the whole thing, that marriage was to be a specially designated covenant between a human male and a human female. Recognized as a union of two to become one in the eyes of God and to last until one of you died. The fact that government entities over the centuries have invaded what is the purview of God is another matter for discussion.
the law in Tennessee and America, for that matter, are not based upon Jewish religious law but a secular civil society.
Well, yeah. Why should the civil law about who can marry be based on scripture?
You do know that no one is trying to force churches to marry gays against their doctrine, don't you?
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
First, ask those in Canada about what the government is forcing churches to do concerning gay marriage.
Second, the issue in California was not about Scripture but about a ballot issue. A straight forward proposal was put to vote for the citizens of California to decide and they did, and once again, it really is that simple. A serious issue was dealt with in the acceptable and legitimate matter that has been acceptable for American society for two centuries. The voters of California have spoken, just have the voters in 33 other States. Contrary to what the liberal crowd will argue about how this all about the religious right what this is truly about is of an electoral nature. No one is voting on the use of Scripture for marriage but the definition of marriage and how it is to be applied in civil law. What any constituent group uses for its campaign purposes is like any other campaign were almost anything will be said but what matters is the actual Proposition and the vote results.
Funny, Canada is not subject to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also, show a citation if you have one, which I doubt.
Here in the U.S., constitutions are usually not amended by simple majority. It's a legitimate question.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
Are you saying this means that Jesus EXCLUDED any other types of marital unions? I'm not seeing it. Also, is this an accurate translation or is it someone's idea of what the ancient letters meant? We're gonna need to dig a lot deeper before you can convince me Jesus was hating on others and if you do then I will gladly give up the faith.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 & 2:24. It reads practically the same in about any translation you can find. He said how we were created and said for this reason how we should be married. I'm curious as to what that has to do with Jesus "hating on others" or what your faith is based on that you would be giving up.
You will find what was written in the following translations and if these are not enough then I suggest you contact the publishers of every last of them and tell them that you question their work.
1. King James Version.
2. New International Version.
3. Revised Standard Version.
4. Revised English Bible.
5. New American Standard Bible.
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible.
7. New King James Version.
8. New American Bible-Catholic.
9. The Message.
10. Contemporary English Version.
11. The Living Bible (this is a paraphrased translation though).
12. Wycliffe New Testament.
Many Protestant Christians in 2008, at least in this area and most of America, often use the New International Version but the Contemporary English Version is heavily used too and we all know that East Tennessee probably has a high percentage still using the KJV. All of these translations come from the Latin Vulgate and before that the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. So, I guess in truth, if you question all of them build a time machine and go back in time to ask Christ directly what he said.
Have you ever read a Bible? Specifically, what is recorded as what Christ said? I'm not saying anything, I was citing directly from two different books of the Bible. I would like to know what in the world you mean by "accurate translation" as well as "someone's idea of what the ancient letters mean." Those were direct quotes, are you clear on that or are you thinking I wrote them?
You still didn't say whether you think divorce should be illegal. From those citations you posted, and from your attitude about the word of Jesus, I'm supposing you do.
Divorce is not the issue here so start another thread and I will give it to you then but again, my opinion is not the issue, what was cited is and I am not the author of those verses.
Near the part about giving up bacon and shrimp, the OT also says to wear 10 blue tassels at the ends of one's sleeves. I see NOBODY doing that.
I used to work with a very Orthodox Jewish man, and I believe he did wear them. (Well, I never stopped to count them, but I think that's what they were. Despite the fact he was perfectly willing and happy to play what I've heard called "enlighten the goyim", I thought it would be presumptuous to ask.)
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Visit us at
The Home
The problem with this discussion is that the a priori assumption that Jesus has anything to say about marriage policy of the United States government in the 21st century. I don't care what "Jesus" says about anything. I'm not a believer, but I am a citizen of these United States. Even if one were to buy into the mythology that the Bible is the preserved Word of God, it doesn't matter. The United States is a pluralistic society.
There is a simple solution, though, and one that most all countries in this hemisphere adopted in the 19th c. - take the authority to civilly marry people away from the churches. Have civil marriage, and religious marriage-- the latter of which should be totally optional and carry with it zero civil rights. This is a middle ground that everyone should be willing to meet upon. Make civil marriage a place of non-discrimination, and the location of the many rights and privileges associated with formalized unions, and let the churches continue their discriminatory practices. Heck, Bob Jones and his boys can go right back to not marrying blacks and whites, and continue to not marry two men or women- I wouldn't care because the ceremonies would carry zero state authority.
Outside of your caustic remarks about religion this is an excellent point about what should be done. The problem is that you are automatically assuming that a religious marriage is somehow less than your emphasis upon a glorified civil union. In many ways, the whole thing goes back to what role do we want the State to have in the lives of the citizenry?
The best solution would be to have civil unions administered by the State, marriages administered by a religious authority, and if one chooses only a civil union then so be it. Also, in this entire "gay marriage" issue one should not underestimate the role being played by divorce lawyers. It is a serious one because if gays can "marry" then they can "divorce" and the ses of most gays are such that they would provide ample opportunity for divorce lawyers to basically have a new revenue stream. Add in that most gay males will never have only one sex partner, that traditionally gay men and women rejected marriage as a tool of oppression of the reigning hegemony concerning relationships, and it is almost laughable that there is such a crusade now for "gay marriage."
The gay marriage issue has never been about letting humans into gay sex get married but is instead an electoral issue. Only about 3% of the American population is homosexual and of those how many actually want to get married? Thus, what true percentage of citizens are we talking about accommodating and overturning the foundation of society as we know it? This is why it will always be an electoral issue and why the citizenry should vote on whether or not the foundational structure of society should be redefined because once it is redefined for homosexuals who will it then be further redefined for? I say that because what is it that makes a homosexual distinct from a heterosexual? Well, the answer is obvious and why does so much media and the like need to be centered on what kind of actually sexual activity one likes or needs? That is why it is about so much more than "just loving each other" and "why can't we all get along?" Who cares about the sex? It is the bigger issue at play here that forces this heated debate. Finding an acceptable solution to an issue that does impact all of American society in some way or another is more than "just letting gays marry."
Not sure what "the ses of most gays" means, but few of the powerful men above the age of, say, 45-50 in this town are still married to their first wives.
And, expanding the issue to the state-at-large, any legislation dealing with expanding the definition of marriage in Tennessee has been brought by guys with R after their names, so it's weird you'd apply the word "crusade" to gay folks.
It's a good thing our traditional legislators are on the job, protecting the heck out of traditional marriage. They work hard at it, so who can begrudge them a little recreation at the establishments convenient to Capitol Hill?
Link...
Socioeconomic Status as most gays are fairly well off financially. The crusade reference is to those in favor of gay marriage since most gay males have multiple sex partners over the course of their life.
-or-
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
The point is that homosexual males will not stay married because lasting monogamy is not an ideal that they seek to hold dear.
So, your response to gay men's purported difficulty in forming committed relationships is to forbid them from taking the most concrete step towards such relationships.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
My comments about religion aren't caustic, they are matter of fact. I automatically assume that religious marriage is less important that civil marriage because the issue is one of civil rights. As I'm sure you are aware, religious institutions in the United States carry zero civil authority- it is the state that is the guarantor of civil rights and equality. I'm also sure I don't need to remind anyone living in the South that this is the case.
Your slight of hand shift on the concept of civil unions is a valiant effort at maintaining a second-class status for gay and lesbian unions. But, the last time my wife and I filed our taxes, she checked the box (Married-Filing-Jointly). Married is the recognized civil status that carries with it a series of legally defined rights and obligations. Churches have no place as gatekeepers or executors of said state authority. And as it stands now, many gay and lesbian couples do get religiously married in what are generally termed commitment ceremonies.
Any comments on your perceptions of gay vs. straight sexual practices are immaterial. Marriage isn't a question of sex- that's an issue for each couple to determine on their own. I personally prefer serial monogamy, but for others and to quote Marsellus Wallace's bartender, "My name's Paul, and this sh-t's between y'all." Finally, I would add that such statements as marriage being the "foundation of society as we know it" really amount to so much hyperbole and a serious lack of historical consciousness.
No, when you refer to the beliefs of millions as "mythology" that is pretty clear that you have no respect for them.
mythology: n. a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
myth: n. a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
It is a technical term. All religious beliefs are myths, and the collection of those myths is mythology. There is no value judgement in either of those terms. As to my respect or not of the beliefs of millions, this is again immaterial. I can and certainly do respect your right to believe in what every collection of traditional stories, especially those concerning the early history of a people involving supernatural beings or events, that you chose to believe. My problem comes when Christians, or Muslims or Hindus or Jewish believers don't respect the secularly defined space of government and civil equality defined in the Constitution of these United States.
Your right about the space of government but your post reeks of the arrogance of how you are so much better than any religious believer. The condescending attitude and mocking that you continue to engage in all because that you say that religious beliefs are mythology but hey, that's not accurate either. Your post is a great example of how liberals are often technically right about an issue but your arrogance rules over everything. Keeping the government OUT of our religion is the goal, not telling millions of people that their religious beliefs are nothing more than stories, what arrogance and extreme indifference is on display.
Have you ever read Job 38:4? If not, I recommend that you do and then contemplate why you can argue that God is not real. Also, the last time I read the Constitution, which was before the election, it does not seek to render religion obsolete as you may wish it too. It just seeks to keep the distance between government controlling our religion and of letting religion have too much say in the running of government.
For stupidest post ever!
Actually, "religion" isn't supposed to have ANY say in running our government.
The term "myth" has been devalued by those who want to use it as a disparaging term meaning "other people's religions".
I like this quote:(source)
Myth's may have varying degrees of truth but who knows? The attempt at using a myth to prove its own veracity ("read Job 38:4) is absurd. To accept this a proving its validity is insane...
(As is the arrogance of accusing others of arrogance because they don't accept your arguments as to why yours is the one true myth)
Um, what he said.
The gay marriage issue has never been about letting humans into gay sex get married but is instead an electoral issue. Only about 3% of the American population is homosexual and of those how many actually want to get married? Thus, what true percentage of citizens are we talking about accommodating and overturning the foundation of society as we know it?
Geez, how many dumb things can you cram into one paragraph? Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Your second sentence contains an unsupported number - show me a reputable (note, I said reputable) study that supports this number (maybe you could start here - Link...). Your last sentence is your opinion - "overturning the foundation of society as we know it."
My first sentence makes perfect sense for someone willing to read it without any ideological blinders on, I suggest that you try that and see what happens.
My "number" is from the Centers for Disease Control and if you are going to tell me or anyone that their numbers are no good then we are in a boatload of trouble for what they are responsible for doing for American public health.
My last sentence is not just my opinion because that, in essence, is what will be done if gay marriage is made a normal feature of society. What are unintended consequences? How would that impact other issues that seek legitimization? It is a serious question that is often neglected due to the passion of one side, those in favor of gay marriage because they are unwilling to sit down and examine the issue from top to bottom.
Finally, I have always found it quite interesting that so many heterosexuals are always willing to make homosexuality front and center and why is that? Almost all of those hetero's so passionate about homosexuality have never had the first homosexual experience so how can it be that important to them? Now you can window dress it all you want but the entire issue comes down to certain acts that define you as a person. So how can the number of hetero's who have never experienced their first homosexual activity promote it as normal, okay, legitimate, so forth? It's a paradox, can you explain why homosexuality is so important to heterosexuals who have never experienced it?
Almost all of those hetero's so passionate about homosexuality have never had the first homosexual experience so how can it be that important to them? Now you can window dress it all you want but the entire issue comes down to certain acts that define you as a person. So how can the number of hetero's who have never experienced their first homosexual activity promote it as normal, okay, legitimate, so forth? It's a paradox, can you explain why homosexuality is so important to heterosexuals who have never experienced it?
Homosexuality is not important to me, per se. Protecting the civil rights of all Americans is.
Pretty simple, eh?
P.S. Your first sentence still doesn't make any sense.
Give me a break, please. Saying that homosexuality is not important to you in this issue is like saying that skin color is not important about race. Are you serious? Why not tell blacks that their skin color is not important then? Homosexuality is the heart and soul of this issue for without homosexual activity there would be no gay marriage and thus no righteous calls of equality and civil rights. You cannot separate the two no matter how hard you try.
Do you miss people's points on purposes or is your comprehension really that bad?
The gay marriage issue has never been about letting humans into gay sex get married but is instead an electoral issue.
Still waiting for an explanation of this one. The gay marriage issue isn't about gay people getting married?
Who knew?
First, I recommend that you leave the liberal book on debate at the house and perhaps give the snippy little comments a rest. That means nothing to me and my feelings are never hurt and you will not distract me with such nonsense.
Second, many times the issue of gay marriage is portrayed as denying two homosexuals the opportunity to share their love, embrace their identity, so forth and how can one be denied one of life's great treasures just because they will have homosexual sex instead of hetero sex. However, none of that matters as what matters are how we are going to define our American society and that is something that can only be decided by the citizenry, not judges, not the legislature, only the citizenry as a whole. The ballot box is how that is done. There was an election on a very important issue and the results are in, as with 33 other States, and the message is clear: marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is NOT the union of two men, two women, one man and several women, one woman and several men, or any other form of marriage.
Marriage has been the foundation of society for thousands of years and it is one of the foundations of American society. The issue has been addressed now with 33 States and in every case one result came out of the vote. It is time to leave that definition of marriage alone as the citizenry does NOT want a redefinition of marriage.
Nah, I'm fond of my snippy little comments. And since they don't bother you, I think I'll just keep them up.
So... if a majority of Tennesseans voted to overturn free speech, that would be ok with you too?
what matters are how we are going to define our American society and that is something that can only be decided by the citizenry, not judges, not the legislature, only the citizenry as a whole.
Hmm. So just what IS the place of the judiciary and the legislature?
Just testing exactly what your logic is, and how far you would take majority rule.
Apples and oranges, so stay on subject and as long as the judiciary is going to overstep their defined constitutional authority and a legislature fail to act to then it is left to the citizenry to act. However, we are not talking about other issues nor are we talking about majority rule. What we are talking about is the judiciary using its position to set law by stating that marriage is to redefined by them, not the legislature.
Should we set aside the Presidential election results too since that is about majority rule? I mean, what about those 46% who lost their vote, in effect, because their candidate did not win. How shall we remedy their loss? Also, is this not a democratic republic were most liberals will emphasize the "democratic" part (not referring to political party here)? Then when as issue goes against their agenda they suddenly pull out the "majority rule" concern?
Also, what about the Tenth Amendment? Seems to me that perhaps this is an exercise in the use of that hardly ever mentioned Amendment and the powers within it. Those rights were the People can act, hmmm, maybe this issue will shine some light on that Amendment. So to answer your question I would take majority rule as far the Constitution will let me.
And you're telling me to stay on subject? This entire post was one giant obfuscation.
I'm tired of playing with you. I'll just leave you with one observation: rights are not subject to the will of the majority; that's why they're rights.
Go play with yourself now.
It used to be (before the Supreme Court started legislating anyhow)that rights were rights because the majority, that voted, decided to make them rights.
If you knew the first thing about our history you'd never spout such nonsense. For example, one of our country's founders, in promoting the adoption of the Bill of Rights (that's the first 10 amendments to the Constitution to you who don't know history) explicitly said the purpose was "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority".
Worst examples of Supreme Court actions (or what you ignorantly repeat from your right wing puppet masters as "legislating") were:
1) Giving rights of person hood to corporations
2) Giving Bush the pResidency
3) approving of slavery and "separate but equal" laws
And none of these have anything to do with your pet issues.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
My bad, I thought the majority had to approve the amendments to the Bill of Rights. How silly of me.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong a thousand times
The Founders believed that rights were something we are born with, as human beings, not something granted by a vote. Or. as people far wiser about the opinions of the Founding Fathers put it, because they were the Founding Fathers,
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Was that a majority of the Founding Fathers, of just a couple of them?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
It's pathological among wingnuts.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
What's your point? Are you trying to insinuate that arguments over civil rights aren't arguments over equality because what...? Because you suspect heterosexuals who argue on behalf of gay civil rights secretly harbor homosexual desires? That appears to be the insinuation you're suggesting. Or are you suggesting that people argue for civil rights as an endorsement of homosexual sex? I'll tell you what, I certainly don't care what sex practices occur between consenting adults. It's none of my business. Discriminatory practices, on the other hand, I find antithetical to my patriotic values. Whether it is the 3-7% who self-identify as homosexual, or the 15-20% of people who have had same-sex partners in their past, if they want to marry another consenting adult and enjoy the civil status privileges that implies under Federal and State law, I can't think of a single rational reason they should be discriminated against. Certainly any individual's personal religious beliefs should have no bearing on such policy. I will remind you that segregationists explicitly used moral arguments against mixed-race marriage, replete with Bible passages, arguments against undermining the foundation of society as we know it, and the like. History has shown that they were wrong. So are you.
I'm not making any insinuation. I was asking a question. The idea that you can separate homosexuality from this issue and somehow elevate it to the lofty heights of only about civil rights ignores why it even exists in the first place. Saying that 15-20% of the population may have had homosexual sex does not translate into anywhere near that number seeking marriage. Thus, you have a very small number of the population seeking recognition for marriage because they prefer homosexuality to heterosexuality. Also, saying that there are unintended consequences is right, not wrong, as what are you going to do when the polygamists come calling? There is nothing that should prevent them from marrying using the logic that is now being employed about gay marriage. In fact, the only prohibition against any kind of marriage would be that of an adult marrying a minor in the logic now being used for gay marriage.
I recommend too that you read the post for what it says and perhaps leave the other remarks aside as your analysis about any "underlying meanings" ignores the fact that you should respond to what is written. Address what is written and try not to distract and change the subject.
It doesn't matter if homosexuals are 30% of the population, 3% or .3%. Read this slowly to make sure you get it - discrimination is wrong. Denying any Americans his or her civil rights is wrong.
Gay Americans deserve the same civil protections of marriage that straight Americans enjoy. End of story.
Interesting comment since the citizens of 33 States say otherwise. Are you saying that with almost all of those States defining marriage as one man and one woman upwards of 70% or more in the vote totals that so many are wrong? So, what is the basis that you would argue that 70% of more in most of those 33 States are wrong? What would make your right to say they are wrong greater than their right to decide by the ballot box better? I think here in Tennessee that in 2006, 76% of those voting for the definition of marriage voted for that one man/one woman definition. Are you arguing that 76% of the Tennessee electorate is not as informed about this issue as you? If so, why?
Especially since the ballot measure had to be first approved by the General Assembly of Tennessee, pass muster with the Attorney General of Tennessee, and then finally the electorate. So, after all of that and by such overwhelming numbers all of them are wrong and you are right on the issue, would that be a fair summation of your position?
I think the "end of story" is when it enters the state constitution by such an overwhelming majority of approval by the citizenry. Yes, that is a more fitting end to the "end of the story."
Yes. They're wrong. And in 50 years pretty much everybody will say so.
Civil rights should not be taken away by vote, majority or otherwise.
In order for something to be taken away it had to first be granted and we'll just have to wait and see about that 50 year prediction.
In order for something to be taken away it had to first be granted and we'll just have to wait and see about that 50 year prediction.
Geez, you're a giant doofus. The right to gay marriage WAS granted in California. It was guarnateed by the California Constitution. That's what the California Supreme Court said (and before you get all huffy about the judiciary, interpreting a state constitution is part of the job of a state supreme court).
For the first time ever, the voters of California decided to amend their Constitution to take away some citizens' Constitutional rights.
I think that's terribly sad.
Should we start referring to you as the Right Reverend Nobody?
I have an idea. Why don't you start another thread?
Visit us at
The Home
Jeremiah 10:1-5 (King James Version)
Jeremiah 10
1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
and tell him that the prophet Jeremiah has joined the War on Christmas!
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Where did you get that number?
You must have pulled it out of your . . er . . fondest dreams.
Visit us at
The Home
Tell you what, if you can find a statistic that refutes that number as the percentage of Americans who are homosexual then you do that and you will prove me wrong.
Sorry, Nobody, you're responsible for supporting your own assertions. Now I feel bad that I did it for you.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
Three percent is a fairly credible number. Wikipedia says 2 to 7% with numerous citations, not that I think that's the final word.
The traditional one in ten advocacy statistic was based on the sexual equivalent of the one-drop concept of race, rather than looking at long-term behavior.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
The CDC. Try to leave your personal attack tactics out of it next time.
So, you're now saying homosexuality is a disease?
You need to ask the CDC about that, I was only responding as to were I found my stat on 3%.
Care to actually provide a web link to your CDC statistic?
I could decalre that the CDC says 75% of gay marriage opponents suffer from leprosy, the Bubonic Plague, Dreaded Rotting Mummy Disease, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, but until I actually provide documentation, you would be forgiven for being skeptical.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
You need to ask the CDC about that, I was only responding as to were I found my stat on 3%.
No, I'm asking you. Do you think homosexuality is a disease?
Start a new thread as this one is about marriage. Maybe you should start one on homosexuality and divorce as another member asked me about that too but I hope to see this thread keep its focus on the OP.
Cluck. Cluck. Cluck.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
So you won't answer the question? I believe your answer, along with your other statements of belief, is most relevant in regard to your statements on this discussion.
So?
Like I asked, start a new thread. The problem with these Internet discussions is that one thread gets started and it becomes who know what in the end. It would make more sense to start another thread and keep this one about the OP and what has been written in it.
Well, it's my site and I'll do what I want or not, especially not what some anonymous yahoo tells me to do. You are an unwelcome guest who is only here to float a big nasty turd in the punch bowl and make everyone else sick while you stand in the corner laughing at your own brilliant achievement.
Anyway, do you think homosexuality is a disease? It has a direct bearing on your point of view in regard to the topic at hand.
Is there any way you could make that "Nobody@dsl.foo.net" in the code? Do it for all no login posters. Shine a light on a troll...
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Stir.
Enjoy. Not only easy; delicious, too. Had four of 'em last night.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
But I'd probably skip the ice cream (gotta watch the calories)
And the whipped cream.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
And maybe the coffee...
that Jim Crow cars were the norm on railroads in the south, too.
Visit us at
The Home
... and the majority wanted it that way, too.
Liberty and justice for all.
My home
Exactly the point. Whenever I hear arguments for state's rights, or to keep the federal government out of any and everything, or rants about the supremacy of small town values, or some Ron Paul fanboy, or the like, I know that what's going to come next is a bid to deny freedom and civil rights to someone in the name of a local majority. It leads one to believe that for real insight into the rise of the Republican Party in the 1970s and culture wars of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, we have to look to the failure of Reconstruction-- ie, that Reconstruction was stopped.
Stopped by a President who is truly the only real candidate beyond W for title of worst ever.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler