Continue.
The disagreement is not whether homosexuality (man on man sex) is mentioned in the Bible (as we can all look up passages that mention it), but whether or not the homosexual acts potrayed in the Bible were called out as sin because they involved rape and/or temple worship, thus leaving room for the possibility that consenting homosexual relationships were permissible.
Doing the best I can to address everyone. A little bit of a one man show here so cut me some slack. Also, if you look back, Melon has left some questions on the table...
This is wrong as well... and you've been show this several times as well. It may not be as obvious as the original commandment issue, but it's still a lack of understanding.
And I'm just saying what many are feeling:
You avoid these "easy" questions because you're afraid they will expose you.
Exposed as what? A childish, uneducated, right wing conspiracist, neo-nazi bigot? Is their some new evil label you can place on me that hasn't already been mentioned in here?
I think some of the questions that are being repeated have been answered in other posts - but people aren't satisfied with my original answers and they won't be satisfied unless I actually do say, "yes, I'm a bigot!"
Prostitution, rape, pedophillia between a man and a female/ or girl does not equal heterosexuality. So why would it be any different?
I'm saying rape and pedophilia has nothing to do with sexuality. And are both flat out wrong.Are you saying there is no difference in a homosexual prostitute encounter and heterosexual one? - that there is no difference in a homosexual rape and a heterosexual rape? Or are you just stating all are equally wrong (in that case - I agree).
I think one way of looking at it is this: the Bible contrasts those actions above by offering numerous examples and passages of positive heterosexual relationships. In the thousands of years of recorded history in the Bible (maybe only 1,000 for the skeptics) - there is not one example of a positive homosexual experience to offset the negative ones (assuming homosexual admonitions are confined to rape and temple worship).
melon said:I've read the Vatican arguments against homosexuality, and it primarily comes down to its medieval traditions regarding "natural law" from Aquinas
AEON said:You make several great points here, Melon. I always find your posts educational and enlightening. I appreciate that you have a strong sense of morality and are on the Christian walk. I am not someone that would question your walk with God or your relationship with Christ. We have discussed at length in the past what the Bible teaches about homosexuality – and you have made many astute observations. However, in the end, we have had to agree to disagree.
NO I think you're afraid of exposing the fact that you do not have a legal, secular state, consititutional reasoning behing your answer, and you're afraid of admitting that as you try hard to demean our definitions of marriage that in reality outside the individual you don't have a better answer than we do.
Exposed as what? A childish, uneducated, right wing conspiracist, neo-nazi bigot? Is their some new evil label you can place on me that hasn't already been mentioned in here?
I think some of the questions that are being repeated have been answered in other posts - but people aren't satisfied with my original answers and they won't be satisfied unless I actually do say, "yes, I'm a bigot!"
your post carries a clear implication that only someone that is on the Christian walk can have a clear sense of morality.
now, i'd be happy to hear some secular arguments against same-sex marriage. can someone create them? AEON?
i still want to know what is it about my relationship (and Melon's relationship) that makes it unworthy of state sanctioning and protections....
We did get off on the Christian/Biblical tangent for a couple of reasons: 1) much of this discussion has been about the Catholic Church charity work and the city of DC controversy, 2) eventually, when we dig deep enough to determine why we hold certain moral opinions - we will be asked the "source" of our opinions.
so you feel that atheists should be denied civil marriage as well?
No. Even though they do not believe it, I still believe their marriage is, at its very core, a spiritual act.
The conversation about cultural/societal norms and how they spring from religion is definitely an interesting one, but one I really have nothing worthwhile to contribute to, so I'm not going to be able to respond to your post from the last thread, AEON, that was directed to me in response to my own knee-jerk questions.
But I did want to acknowledge your response and thank you for it.
ever be what? A civil marriage? If the laws change/endorse a new definition of marriage - then you will have that.but mine cannot ever be?
Please describe how your definition of marriage, "Two non-related, mentally competent adults who love each other and are willing to enter into the commitment..." - is any different than an ordinary dating relationship?
Only if you can first tell me why your personal definition is superior to mine
ever be what? A civil marriage? If the laws change/endorse a new definition of marriage - then you will have that.
If you are referring to a "spiritual" act, then I fall in line with Barack Obama when he states that "God is in the mix" during this "union between a man and a woman."
No. Even though they do not believe it, I still believe their marriage is, at its very core, a spiritual act.
How can it be, when they themselves are not spiritual?
You are so lazy!! .
ever be what? A civil marriage? If the laws change/endorse a new definition of marriage - then you will have that.
If you are referring to a "spiritual" act, then I fall in line with Barack Obama when he states that "God is in the mix" during this "union between a man and a woman."
ever be what? A civil marriage? If the laws change/endorse a new definition of marriage - then you will have that.
If you are referring to a "spiritual" act, then I fall in line with Barack Obama when he states that "God is in the mix" during this "union between a man and a woman."