Not just picking on you, RJ, but I think this idea about disapproval morphing into hate is way out of phase with reality. Look at the CFA controversy. Really, who did the hating there?
giddy, you are choosing to focus on something that is of secondary, tertiary or even less importance. Whether Christians or the owner of chick-fil-a hate gays isn't as important as the fact that they want the laws to discriminate against gays. The fact that you seem to cast blame at people who are the target of discrimination for hating those that want to discriminate against them seems miscast.
What I am having a problem with is this: after hundreds of years of the custom of marriage being in a certain form, suddenly we have discovered discrimination on the issue. I'm in favor of gay folks having the same government-sanctioned advantages as hetero folks when it comes to an "economic partnership" which derives benefits from the tax code, inheritance rights, medical privilege and visitation rights et al. I'm stuck in the whole battle of marriage, though. That is a hetero tradition and it seems like gay people are managing a PR campaign disaster by trying to crowd into it. Maybe they should just create their own institution. If it had equal footing on the above-referenced matters, what would be the difference? Wider acceptance perhaps.
The problem is, of course, that very few people are actually advocating this as an alternative. If a gay couple can get all the same benefits and advantages as a hetero couple, then I doubt this would be much of an issue with people, regardless of whether the gay couple could have "marriage" written on some certified document. Ultimately, the wealthy and powerful anti-gay-marriage folks have little interest in resolving this issue. They want to keep it as a plank in their platform because they can use it as a wedge. By grounding something like this in the language of religion/tradition, they can make it frightening enough to keep people voting for them on this so-called "moral" issue, while those same people continue being duped into voting against their own economic interests.
Conceding this kind of compromise would be fair and all of the in-fighting would go away. That would be "terrible" I suppose for the political landscape.
This nation has had the whole separate but equal argument before. The definition of marriage has already changed in many states in this nation to include interracial couples. Further changing it now, wouldn't seem to be more of a problem now than it was the last time it was changed. In both cases, I believe the change is for the better.
Not only do they fund anti-gay marriage laws but also fund anti gay groups. They're taking a wider stance than the argument you're applying it to
Obvious troll is obvious.... Once again sidesteps the questions to launch personal attack. Find a post where I've called a nation or group of people racists. Also Really? Resurrecting this weak straw man? How terribly sad. Is there a verse I the Bible old or new where it commands it's followers to attack Muslims? ( but i ask this, is there a verse or verses in another holy book, of a certain religion of peace instructing it's followers to kill Jews and Christians? I don't expect an answer to this question, just some more dodging and sidestepping) Whilst the soldiers fought in the crusades under the banner of the cross, there is nothing that Jesus said that can justify killing in the name of Jesus. As said by Giddyup, Unless its a really big Bible, falls from a shelf and hits you in the head. To Apps You don't have to hate a person or people to have a strong dislike for their beliefs or activities. I was recently in the Solomon Islands where at election time they like to kill each other. Some still practice canabalism and forms of witchcraft. Can't I still love the Solomon people but hate the practice of murder, canabalism and witchcraft? Tell me why should I have to like a religious dogma that instructs it's followers to hate (in some circumstances even kill) me?
A comedian, I see. You stopped talking about what the Bible says (or in your words, sidestepped the topic at hand), and instead started talking about what you personally believe it resulted in. I don't give a crap about that. I'm talking about what it actually says. The Crusades example was an intentional reductio ad absurdum to point out that your extrapolating abolition out of the Bible is just as absurd. Are you seriously so dim that you don't understand basic debating techniques, or are you being intentionally obtuse? Meanwhile, here's another thing you're sidestepping: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are." (Exodus 21:17)
We still have some separate but equal things in place, like bathrooms. It's not always a bad thing so I won't let you simply slur it. It is a valid concept. What is the objection you always hear? "Marriage is one man-one woman." Race has nothing to do with that. Gender everything.
You are a classic example Sidestepping at its best. Also the verse is Exodus 21:7 not 21:17 I never sidestepped your question, it was answered in the previous post in regards to the Bible supporting slavery... But if you would like to discuss every verse in the Bible... Once again it wasn't slavery in the generic term that westerners apply. This was more like an adoption, to provide for the girl of poverty stricken parents. Are you against adoption? The difference being that the adopted girl could become a wife, lesser wife or concubine ( not against her will) or usually be married off to a son or relative. Your argument is moot. Funny thing is, I'm blasted for bringing up islam when it is a 'Christianity and homosexuals thread, no one says boo when we start interjecting women and slavery from the Bible, even the crusades! I can't wait for the don't eat shrimp or pork if you're a christian posts. And yes I'm a comedian, life is way to short to get overheated in an argument in the D&D. There are much bigger issues that I am dealing with on a day to day basis. Would you like to answer some of the questions I posed now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I'll talk to you when you learn the difference between these two things. Toodles.
Historically speaking race has certainly had something to do with marriage. I'm sorry to rain on that parade. As far as the separate but equal with regards to restrooms, please compare notes with a female. The women's rooms and men's rooms are often not really equal. :grin:
This is digression but just wanted to point out that most building codes actually do allow for co-ed bathrooms.
First of all, there are lots of inconsistencies in Bible, which makes it highly suspect to begin with: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Secondly, there are the six Bible passages which supposedly condemn homosexuality. But there are many, many reasons why these passages themselves and the position that the Church has taken regarding their moral authority is suspect. First, the fact is that with only six passages that are *maybe* discussing homosexuality, it clearly wasn't a big concern for the Biblical authors. If it was, there would be a lot more material. They were much more concerned with the proper place of women as below men, the immorality of divorce, codes of proper diet, etc. Secondly, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality as an unchangeable psychological condition, a part of human identity. Such an identity is a modern discovery and a modern concept. The passages discussed refer only to the bare acts themselves, and not to a romantic inclination. Thirdly, and more specifically, five of the passages probably refer either to the rape of opposing soldiers after a victorious battle, or to male sexual fertility rituals performed in pagan temples, such as the worshippers of Ba'al. It is worth noting, however, that the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai, the two words now often translated as “homosexuals,” do not necessarily refer to homosexuality at all, but only to debauched people (in the general sense) and anal intercourse, which need not be with a man. And the most famous story, the Sodom and Gemorrah story, can only be seen as a parable against homosexuality on a very strained interpretation. While Sodom becomes a constant symbol of sinfulness in the Old Testament, Sodom's sin is *never* explicitly identified as homosexuality. In fact, it *is* identified explicitly in several places, most notably Ezekiel 16, that Sodom was morally and ethically lax, ignoring the poor and practicing the worst inhospitality. Further, none of the other passages traditionally understood as condemning homosexuality made any reference to the Sodom story. This is a big deal, since the Bible very often self-references relevant stories when giving a teaching. That there are no such links between homosexuality and Sodom speaks to its irrelevance to the topic. Fourthly, it has been widely noted that the Bible sanctions many practices which are ethically reprehensible nowadays, such as the selling of women and children into slavery (as we've already seen discussed ad nauseum), or in justly murdering your enemies (Samson Cycle, anyone?). There are other Biblical sanctions which we would regard as totally ethically neutral, such as the wearing of polyester clothing. Third, and most importantly, I myself and many others do not accept the Bible as authoritative. One may claim that revelation is infallible, but our human judgment *that some teaching or other is infallible* must always be suspect. The idea that a collection of 66 books that is over a thousand years old, and written in a wildly different cultural context, has settled everything for all time, strikes me as very odd indeed. It may be very comforting to some people to believe that they need not think for themselves, but merely need to crack open a book for answers to all their questions, but life just isn't that simple. No book contains all the correct answers. If it did, presumably the world would be in a better state than it is now. The problem with reliance on any kind of religious authority, whether it's the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Quran or whatever, is that it makes doctrinal disagreements between religions insoluble in principle. If both sides regard the authority of their text and/or religious leader as ultimately authoritative and self-authenticating, then both sides can do nothing but talk past each other. One group will insist that their sacred texts describe the ultimate truth, while the other side will insist with equal passion that the first group is mistaken, and propose different texts which they believe describe ultimate reality. Blind reliance on authority closes the door on conversation by providing no further reason for belief beyond the absurd non-reason of "it is true because we say so!" Yet claiming that a person or text is the infallible word of God does not make it so, and the fact that there is more than one group that makes this claim means that at most only one of them can be right (or more likely, none of them). And when we leave the discussion of what the Bible (supposedly) has to say about it, there really just aren't any good reasons to condemn it at all. Here are a few I've heard: 1) There is the notion that sanctioning homosexual relationships will cause/encourage others to become homosexuals. I think that, just perhaps, the true absurdity of this view is beginning to become apparent to Americans at large, although I do know people who believe this. The fact is that sexual orientation is never a conscious choice. That there is voluminous scientific evidence for this hardly matters, because there's a basic common-sense test which proves it, and that is the fact that if you really ask yourself whether you can *decide* who you are attracted to, you have to admit that such a choice is not possible. For instance, in the States we have an ideal body type that is very skinny (almost certainly too skinny from a strict health perspective), and yet many of us find ourselves hopelessly attracted to skinny people. We cannot arbitrarily choose to be attracted to very heavy people. How much harder to choose to be attracted to members of one's own sex? Of course, we can choose to *have sex* with anyone, regardless of whether we are attracted to the person or not. Rape in prisons is sufficient example. But men who rape other men in prison aren't gay... they're raping other men because they get off on dominance and violence. A homosexual orientation is quite different. The only manner in which the societal sanctioning of gay relationships will increase the gay population is in freeing people who are too afraid to admit their orientation to express who they really are. So yes, there will be more gays *apparently*, but only because more people are admitting it. And moreover, as I should hardly need to point out, the idea that "saying being gay is okay means there will be more gays! Oh no!" is a patently circular argument. You can't show the immorality of something by asserting that the behavior will lead to more of the same. You're just ignoring the original question! 2) There is the notion that sex must always be procreative. I take this to be patently silly. The fact is that many heterosexual couples engage in sex that is not procreative, sex that harms no one, and enhances their relationship. How exactly is sex between an infertile couple wrong? How about sex between a married man and a woman who is over 50 and can no longer have children? How about a BJ? Sex has many purposes; it is not always engaged in simply to produce children. In fact, I don't think I would be venturing out on a limb at all to say that most sex between even heterosexual married couples is not necessarily intended to produce children. The Catholic Church -- which is the Church I'm most familiar with, since my mother is Catholic -- itself sanctions "natural family planning." That alone is admission that sex need not always be procreative. And the fact is that procreation can never be the sole criteria for a morally correct sexual relationship... there are situations, for instance, when a woman may be forced to endure unwanted sexual advances by her husband. Procreation is, of course, a necessary part of human life -- but it need not be a decisive criteria for sexual morality. And the fact is that for most heterosexual couples, it already isn't. And again, I should hardly need to point out that the world is overpopulated already. From an ecological perspective, citizens who won't have children is a good thing! 3) There is the notion that allowing gay sex is a slippery slope, and will inevitably lead to the allowing of bestiality, pedophilia, etc. The reality is that it's much easier to come up with criteria that would prevent the "slippery slope" than these people would like to believe. The biggest one is that both parties be consenting adults. Animals and children aren't capable of giving consent; hence inflicting a sexual act on them is wrong. See how easy that was? I'll leave it at that for the moment. As I have stated, I find all of these arguments inadequate. The fact is, some people are gay. We still don't know exactly how or why homosexuality came to exist. But it does. And it seems very cruel to me, cruel and petty at the most basic level, to deny sexual closeness to anyone simply because it is not heterosexual sex. I can see no way in which there is any harm done to anyone by homosexual sex between consenting adults, but can see many ways in which the lives of both the partners themselves and the lives of those around them can be enriched by their devotion. If someone can tell me ways in which homosexual sex and homosexual relationships *are* harmful to other individuals or to society, I would like to hear them, because I certainly can't think of any.
IzakDavid13 you absoluetly don't know nothing about Islam. You're the kind of person that speaks on subject in which he has absolutely ZERO Knowledge. In Islam manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins. Prophete Muhammad (SAW). The Prophet (SAW) said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." So from now on, before engaging in a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about.
Slavery is no more a common pratice but it was when the Qu'ran was delivered. Saying Prophete Muhammad(SAW) was FOR slavery is absurd when you come from a country where MILLIONS of Slavs have been TAKEN from Africa to come in America to make the rich richer.
