It's necessary because when for a vast majority of people today, any opinion held against a minority group is automatically hatred and bigotry. Sadly, anyone who has a legitimate argument against a certain aspect that involves a minority group needs to preface it with that in order to have the argument considered. The fault here isn't with Chance but with those who would have automatically dismissed his opinion.
Yes and Yes. Unlike the prohibition from mixing types of cloth, the immorality of homosexuality is discussed apart from the Law. I suppose there are some folks who would say it went away. But, it really is tangental and we probably shouldn't go down that road. Besides, whether you understand homosexuality to be unBiblical or not won't make a drop of difference to the theological convictions of someone else, so I don't see what it matters to Prop 2 what the ultimate Truth of it is. If your own vote would be swayed by the answer to this question, you'd need to answer it yourself.
Yes, it is. But I don't usually like to use the Bible for any argument. There's also a lot of kooky stuff in the Bible that doesn't really represent what we consider Christian beliefs. that said this is the only passage that directly and indesputedly addresses homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." There are others (like I Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10) that refer to "for them that defile themselves with mankind" which, given the context in which the phrase is written, seems to indicate homosexuality. But there are many who argue the interpretation of the phrase.
Written by Paul as a letter to a congregation. At risk of going waaaaaay off topic, I think this may fall into your "kooky stuff" category.
Hah! No way. It's gets WAY kookier than that. Did you know that the Bible says (in both old and new testament, including a quote from Jesus) that we, as Christians, are to do the following: If I marry, and later die without having a child, it is the duty of my brothers to marry my widow and have children with her for me. (Oh, and they have to name the first son after me). Now THAT's an example of some kooky stuff. And it's stuff like that that makes me leave the Bible out of political discussions.
i'm not seeing what you're seeing from Jesus in the NT on that topic: Luke 20 Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 34Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'[c] 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." 39Some of the teachers of the law responded, "Well said, teacher!" 40And no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Mark 12 19"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 24Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[d]? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
Long story short: I do not think Paul's letters should be in the bible. They are simply letters to his church's. They impart an ideology based strictly on societal norms of his time and are completely irrelevant to the gospel. Good theological discussions, but not god's word - if you believe in it as espoused by christian teachings. I have a lot more I could say about this... Which I guess is typical, huh.
Jesus might have said something like, "Hey, guys... That was all a bunch of old-covenant stuff from hundreds of years ago. It doesn't really apply any more. We don't really expect that of Christians in these modern times." But he didn't say that. Instead he said, "In heaven, there is no marriage. That ain't how things work up there." By that statement, he is, essentially indirectly supporting the "marry the widow" policy. (that may be slightly speculative, but he certainly didn't shoot down the policy)
sorry..i don't see that at all. thats' not even the question they're asking him, droxford. old covenant/new covenant.
Well, you're right about the old/new covenant thing. The reason I mention it is because whenever I talk about the Bible containing kooky stuff, frequently people try to use the excuse of "that stuff is all part of the old-covenant and isn't part of the new covenant that Jesus brought us." I hate it when people say that.
I just googled "homosexuality bible". There are several websites devoted to the topic of homosexuality and the bible and at least a few get very in-depth on every single mention in the bible, the exact translation of specific greek and hebrew words, and modern day interpretations of the texts. I recommend taking a look at some.
OK I have no position on gay marriage, but I am against Civil Union due to the oddity of its name. Imagine you hear someone saying "hey I just got united civicly with my long time lover last Saturday!"
Rhester/anyone else voting 'YES': I really don't understand how some are making such a big deal out of something so trivial. If it doesn't affect you, then vote 'NO.' Like I'm seriously trying to understand why there is such an uproar over homosexuals getting married. Even if you do feel that it's immoral or against Christianity, the state has absolutely no right to be making that distinction. Quite frankly it scares me that government has the power to infringe upon these matters. Although I heartily disagree with you, I respect your opinion that you feel that sodomy is immoral. However, wouldn't a more appropriate measure be teaching against the practice in your church? To take action against gay marriage legally is pure hypocrisy considering the religious freedoms upon which this nation was founded on and the religious opression in Europe which the settlers sought refuge from. I'm no Biblical scholar, but I would guess that Jesus condemned economic opression, exploitation and neglect of the poor considerably more than he did sodomy, in the Bible. If your basis for voting "YES" is your belief in the Bible as law as you have implied, does that also mean you will never vote Republican? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
This one wasn't even close. This election result simply goes to show how one-sided this D&D forum is tilted towards the left.
