The secular argument against homosexuality. Assuming you are against gay marriage (I don't know if you are or not, but just for the hypothetical...) and following your above logic, you should be against any infertile person getting married. After all, the only thing that matters is that the laws of reproduction are obeyed.
Gay men aren't fighting to get wombs and gay women aren't fighting for the ability to produce sperm. They want needless discrimination and marginalization to cease. It's a reasonable request and a worthy fight.
If God meant it that way, did He simply screw up making his creatures? We see gay behavior in both humans and all sorts of animals that don't have "emotional choice" built into them the way we think of it. So it has nothing to do with society or socialization or anything of that sort.
I don't think He screwed up, just presented some extra challenges for some people. And expects us to be able to not just follow animal instincts. Though I would argue that you're wrong about socialization when it comes to animals. There's quite a bit of evidence supporting animals changing their behaviors based on the influence of those around them. It may not be a conscious "choice" but it is an influenced behavior. .
Sure, but two things: 1. If "gayness" is an animal instinct, how can we say it's not natural? It seems to fit the very definition in that scenario. 2. Certainly there is socialization in animals, but gay behavior occurs spontaneously - even though a group of animals has no past homosexuality, it will still occur, so it can't be through socialization.
just a note... My roomate is a writer like I am, but being Israeli, hebrew is the language he writes in. He says that the Hebrew in the Old Testament (ain't no Greek in the OT, Nolen ) is really rich but is very straightforward. Even in the Stone Edition Tanach (supposedly a very straightforward translation of the bible into English, used by Orthodox Jewish in the US) interjects a great deal of religious themes in parts of the bible that have jack to do with god. There's a poem about King David and Yonatan (Jonathan) that is pretty much a love poem, about how David's "loves Jonathan far greater than he could ever love a woman." My friend said there's nothing ambiguous about it, like in many parts of the bible, the effort is to artfully reflect the times of a troubled tribe rather than dictate dogma. The Stone Edition has hebrew on one page and english on the other, and often the English version is twice is the size and full of instructions about the right way to make God happy, while the hebrew might very well be simply a poem about the joys of flowers in the Spring. But anyway, he and many of my hebrew-literate friends said King David was a switch hitter and it's all there to see...in meter. My own hebrew is barely advanced enough to order lunch or to cuss, so I can't vouch for what I'm told, but I think any serious biblical scholar that knows hebrew probably would. I'm sure King James, Martin Luther, and the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages all translated to suit their own worldview and need to not rock the boat too much. But I'm not pointing the finger at Christians. Ultra-orthodox Jews stab people marching in the Gay Pride parades in Jerusalem because they thing it "defiles" the holiness of the city, so go figure. It also warrants mentioning that the passage in Leviticus doesn't forbid women to have sex with each other, just men. So I hope anyone that would use Leviticus to promote their anti-gay agenda exercises some consistency and ignores lesbians. As a Texan I will probably teach my children they will go to Willie's house when they die: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1u4CXlIYjyE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1u4CXlIYjyE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I understand what you mean. I don't even understand what it means to say it's inerrant. Inspired, for sure. I have no doubt of it. I'm frustrated by the operator's manual or playbook approach that some ascribe to it. It's an ancient narrative...it tells a story through all different forms of writing. And in the end, love wins.
Hey, I think all of us like to get down with some backdoor action now and again. If a dude wants that as his only venue, hey, more power to him. I like the variety of options provided by women.
How is it that school allowing a function like DOS is tantamount to an endorsement of the lifestyle? If anything it is an allowance of democracy and self expression to stress your political views. I would go as far to suggest that any public school allowing a meet me at the pole or a bible study is endorsing a religion and is going against seperation of church and state? Does anyone else see this distinction?
the distinction is the prayer at the pole is on a public space, outdoors and BEFORE school hours. attendance is not mandatory while it is happening.
The only thing I see is that a Bible study isin't as public and not very well attended (personal expirience...XD) But yeah, the reason why I replied so harshly deals with the tone this Catholic group is setting out. "Homosexual agenda"? Catholics should know better. Yes, you have the right to counter-protest, but this goes to the point of slander. Kinda've like how you would oppose a meeting of Jews due to a "Zionist agenda". This stuff is just dumb; there's no valid point to it. Pointless moral grandstanding with a "conspiracy" feel to it.
I hadn't thought of that. However, these events are posted on school calenders and sometimes advertised on blackboards and flyers. The school is in no way endorsing the religion by allowing this to happen; it is just providing kids a convenient venue if they choose to participate. Personally I think that it is a great thing for kids to have at school just as I believe that the day of silence is a positive thing for kids. I understand that some parents do not want their children to exposed to a political or perhaps moral ideology represented by the day of silence but, they are not penalized for not agreeing with the students who do agree participate. How are they at all harmed by allowing this to happen? If you are going to be so protective of sheilding your children from ideas that you do not agree with; you are fighting a loosing battle. There is no way to can grow them up in your own personal vaccum of ideology. Not only that you are not allowing them to develop the ability to differentiate viewpoints. Blind belief in anything is the same as not believing in it in the first place.
I love this post and agree competely. Life is messy. People have different points of view. If your model is Christ, it's a model that engaged that world...not isolated itself from it.
And I agree with both of those last two posts. I believe homosexual relationships are wrong, but I don't believe I can or should try to bully people into adopting my point of view, any more than I believe the opposing side should. I will teach my son right and wrong, and shelter him from things I don't think he's yet prepared to handle, but ultimately he will face many things that I have no control over, and all I can do as a father is teach him my beliefs and pray that he will come to wise judgements in time. .
