MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-24-2004, 09:05 PM   #331
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Going by what melon said there is no secular reason why homosexuals should marry. Governments are secular and as such have no reason to deny homosexuals the rights conferrred by marriage. I've long been split over the issue of the state's involvement in marraiges at all. While weddings are a chance to present the Gospel to those who otherwise wouldn't set foot in a church, it is a in a lot of ways a farce to get married in a church if you aren't religious (and considering the divorce rate why complicate a broken legal contract further by lying to a God you already don't believe in). More and more I'm leaning toa system where you get a legal marriage licence at a courthouse and then anyother rituals, religious or secular you want are up to you. Leave teh religious aspects of marraige to relgious groups and the legal aspects to the state. And that's where I come down on this issue. This is a not a battle over religious marriage, it is a battle over legal rights, and it is writen into teh constitution of my country and the US that relgion does not impact up on legal rights. It is there in writing, that's in the Constitution and any such amendment would be cause the Constitution to contradict itself.

Religiously and spiritually I'm quite personally divided on this issue. While I think anyone who thinks the wrath of God will fall upon any nation who "defiles" marriage is off the mark (and sometimes I fear my own father falls into this category at times) and I believe completely that the way gays and lesbians are shamelessly persecuted and loose thier family is a virulent evil, I still don't quite know where I stand on the issue of homosexual intercourse (which is the only aspect of what is today called homsexuality, is dealt with in Scripture). I have devoted much time in study of scripture private reading on the matter going over the scientific research and in prayer and I'm still no closer to finding a position which works for me intellecually, morally or spiritually.
__________________

__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:16 PM   #332
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Blacksword...excellent post....thanks for sharing.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 10:54 PM   #333
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
I still don't quite know where I stand on the issue of homosexual intercourse (which is the only aspect of what is today called homsexuality, is dealt with in Scripture). I have devoted much time in study of scripture private reading on the matter going over the scientific research and in prayer and I'm still no closer to finding a position which works for me intellecually, morally or spiritually.
I won't try and argue until I'm blue in the face on the issue, but I believe that the sex is peripheral in all of the supposed "anti-gay" passages. The sin expressed isn't the sex; it's what's done with the sex. Sodom and Gomorrah is a great example, because all references to that passage in Genesis in the Bible, both OT and NT, refer to it as a violation against hospitality. The same goes with the rest of the passages: humiliation, idolatry, etc.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 11:32 PM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I agree with you that this isn't the America I was sold. I also agree with the notion that if something like this ammendment passes I would really have to question my place in this country, but I wouldn't let the hate consume you. You can't fight hate with hate.
. Exactly.

Regardless, melon....

At least sharky's right in saying that this is not likely to pass, which makes me wonder why in the hell they're even bothering with this-it's a waste of time that could be spent on something much more worthwhile.

Verte, that's a good idea: I should write to my senator, too. And I agree with your other post. It just infuriates me that Bush is willing to support something like this. I mean, I've made it quite clear that I was never a Bush supporter...but...I dunno...I guess I still had some hope that he'd never go this far, I guess I thought he wouldn't be cruel enough to support this. *Shrugs*

Also...

Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
and considering the divorce rate why complicate a broken legal contract further by lying to a God you already don't believe in
Seriously...that is an excellent point. .

As for the homosexual sex part...personally, I don't even think about it. To me, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about it-it's something I feel should remain a private matter.

But again, that's just me-well said with the rest of your post. .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 12:15 AM   #335
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 02:15 AM
I don't think this ammendment will pass, but it saddens me that we've even gotten to this point. When will people stop feeling so threatened by those who are different than them?

I THINK Bush knows that this isn't likely to pass, but he's hoping that it will help him out in the election. It's good for diverting the attention that he's been getting for Iraq/his service record etc.

Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:02 AM   #336
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Seriously...that is an excellent point. .

While I'd like to take credit for that, I got it from C. S. Lewis. It was really after reading his section on marriage in Mere Christianity that I began questioning the whole intermeshing of state and religion in marriage. A good sober view on that relationship (well aside from his chuvenist rationalization for wives submitting to husbands - ironically though still a bachelor when h wrote that book Lewis would go on to marry a very independent, brilliant woman).


That's a different take on the passages on homosexulaity than I've read before. The interpretation sI've come across were that it had to do with the ritual purity laws (as sodomy is described as abomination - the violation of purity laws), and the pre-modern view that the entire creative force of live existed in the sperm (to "waste" sperm in any way, was thus killing a potential life, my personal view is that this antiquated view is the basis behing the Vatican's condemnation of birth control). But is the identification between anal sex and Sodom a nuance of English or Chritianized Latin or something that goes back to the original Hebrew and Greek? Most material I've read on teh matter disregards the passages in Sodom as having nothign to do with the issue of homosexuality, rather to be an issue of rape and male humiliation rather than anything sexual. Though it is clear that homosexuality in the modern sense was not concieved of by the writers of either OT or NT cannon. Personally I find the Leviticus references rather unhelpful in my dilema as their context doesn't really help (bracketed on one side by bestiality and incest, things most people today would consider wrong while bracketed on the other side with sexual intercourse during menstruation which is a matter no one tosay would think to call a sin). So I'm really left with Paul's references against against the context of the "one flesh" for life view of sexual matters from the Gospels.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:03 AM   #337
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
I don't think this ammendment will pass, but it saddens me that we've even gotten to this point. When will people stop feeling so threatened by those who are different than them?
I don't know. But see...this is what offends me. Right here. This whole thing with Bush flat out supporting denying people equal rights. I can't believe our president, a man who is supposed to lead people, is supporting that.

Somebody had recently shared an essay from a homosexual in regards to all this, and one part that stood out to me was where they said that they wanted to go ask people, "Why me? What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much?"

I so wished every single homophobe out there could've read that.

Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
I THINK Bush knows that this isn't likely to pass, but he's hoping that it will help him out in the election. It's good for diverting the attention that he's been getting for Iraq/his service record etc.
Oh, definitely. It's an election year, he wants to win the election, therefore, he'll do whatever he can to help himself (and every politician does that, we're not saying Bush is the only one).

Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)
Ooh...yeah, I recall that, too-wasn't that on the same show where he gave a whole speech in support of gay marriage as part of the "New Rules" thing (and it was a damn good speech, too)?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:28 AM   #338
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword

So I'm really left with Paul's references against against the context of the "one flesh" for life view of sexual matters from the Gospels.

Personally, I would disregard anything found in the OT that might have the slightest bit to do with homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus' life on earth voided the laws of the OT. Therefore, I can't pick and choose which verses I want to use a proof for this or that. Even if I was against homosexuality, I wouldn't try and manipulate verses in the OT in an attempt to prove homosexuality as a sin because I find little use for the OT other than some really interesting reading and loose moral guidlines on how to live. The REAL message and "laws" for Christians are those of the gospel and the REAL purpose is to emulate Christ.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:50 AM   #339
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)
Quote:
And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 06:59 AM   #340
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic



Personally, I would disregard anything found in the OT that might have the slightest bit to do with homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus' life on earth voided the laws of the OT. Therefore, I can't pick and choose which verses I want to use a proof for this or that. Even if I was against homosexuality, I wouldn't try and manipulate verses in the OT in an attempt to prove homosexuality as a sin because I find little use for the OT other than some really interesting reading and loose moral guidlines on how to live. The REAL message and "laws" for Christians are those of the gospel and the REAL purpose is to emulate Christ.
I've never seen how the "disregard the OT" argument works.

1) In teh Gospels Jesus is called teh end/fulfillmentof the law (the word in Greek means both), but even end can mean completion as in the Law accomplishes no salvation without Christ as it's only the first half of the equation. This is basically Paul's argument. The Lwa brings knowledge of sin thus the Law still has a purpose, for one cannot accpet a Savior if you do not believe you need to be saved. As a final note Paul remained a Jew to his death. He kept the full extent of the Law (as he had reinterpreted it in the new context of Christ) even practicing sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, and in all things he stated that Jews should continue to keep the Law as Christ believers.

2) The NT quotes the OT at length. There are both explict (as in direct) and implicit (along the lines of paraphrasing or subtle referencing) quotations of OT texts throughout the NT. Matthew is full of them, Jesus in all gospels is an authority on the Hebrew Bible and quotes heavily from it. Much of Jesus says can be found in the OT. A biblical scholar with the proper know how could probably turn up thousands of OT references in the NT. Paul again quotes heavily from the OT and the book of Revelation only becomes even remotely intelligible when you read it a long side the OT book of Daniel, the source of the imagery the writer uses to describe his vision. You cannot get the full significance of the NT without reading the OT.

3) The OT has been part of the Christian cannon fromt eh very beginning. Before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters and the writings of others were collected teh only texts the first belivers had were the Hebrew Bible. The first belivers the people who actually knew Jesus and/or the apostles knew the Hebrew Bible and read it.

There are more things I could say but to me to take the NT without the OT is absurd even in a strictly scholarly sense.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 07:10 AM   #341
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Actually, history supports the argument. If the Vatican is good for anything, it is document collection, and they have much of the documents surrounding the debate on the NT canon. Basically, St. Paul believes that "the law" is Jesus' commandment: love one another. He rejects the other "the law": Mosaic Law. But that's where it gets confusing for people, as I think many of us are accustomed to "the law" referring to the Mosaic Law, and, let's not fool ourselves, how many people actually read the entire book and not pick and choose verses? Even churches do that, sad to say. To add to the confusion, there was a competing church, founded by St. Peter and St. James, that was Jewish Christian: hence, they did follow all the Mosaic Law, down to the letter. However, St. Paul was vehemently against this sect, and some of his epistles are written directly to these Jewish Christians to get them to convert. In fact, Romans was written to them, if I remember correctly. By A.D. 200-ish, though, the Jewish Christian sect was destroyed, and St. Paul's church is our direct predecessor.

Back to the NT canon, since St. Paul and his church believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and, thus, it was no longer of any relevance to them, they pondered eliminating the OT altogether. However, they decided to keep the OT, as the NT made some references to it, but they did not look at the OT as a morality guide. It was, more or less, a historical reference guide, to them.

So, basically, I disagree with point #1.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 09:16 AM   #342
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Did anyone see Mayor Newsom last night on Larry King?

He is a practicing Catholic, and I admire him. I agreed w/ everything he said. And there are many Catholics, including myself, who feel the way he does.

And I am completely against a constitutional amendment. I agree w/ what Senator Kennedy said about it, I'd have to find the quotes..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 10:23 AM   #343
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Actually, history supports the argument. If the Vatican is good for anything, it is document collection, and they have much of the documents surrounding the debate on the NT canon. Basically, St. Paul believes that "the law" is Jesus' commandment: love one another. He rejects the other "the law": Mosaic Law. But that's where it gets confusing for people, as I think many of us are accustomed to "the law" referring to the Mosaic Law, and, let's not fool ourselves, how many people actually read the entire book and not pick and choose verses? Even churches do that, sad to say. To add to the confusion, there was a competing church, founded by St. Peter and St. James, that was Jewish Christian: hence, they did follow all the Mosaic Law, down to the letter. However, St. Paul was vehemently against this sect, and some of his epistles are written directly to these Jewish Christians to get them to convert. In fact, Romans was written to them, if I remember correctly. By A.D. 200-ish, though, the Jewish Christian sect was destroyed, and St. Paul's church is our direct predecessor.

Back to the NT canon, since St. Paul and his church believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and, thus, it was no longer of any relevance to them, they pondered eliminating the OT altogether. However, they decided to keep the OT, as the NT made some references to it, but they did not look at the OT as a morality guide. It was, more or less, a historical reference guide, to them.

So, basically, I disagree with point #1.

Melon
What Paul opposed was not the sect of James but rather radicals within that sect who demanded that Gentiles observe the entire Mosaic Law. Paul was vehemently against this. Yet he explicitly denied ever telling Jewish Christians not to keep the Mosaic Law. It was over this matter that the trouble in Jerusalem that eventually lead to him going to Rome to appeal to the Emperor. A group in the Jerusalem Church accused Paul of telling Jews to forsake the Mosaic Law. James came to Paul and basically said "I know you don't but you have to prove yourself." He asked Paul to go through the rite of Purification at the Temple which involved sacrifices among other things and it was while Paul was doing this that anti-Christian Jewish radicals nearly killed him, prompting the the Roman Tribune to put Paul in protective custody and sort the details out later. It's all in Acts.

As another example Paul approves of Timothy's circumcision as his mother was Jewish making hima full Jew under Jewish custom. For the Jews the Law was still valid. For Gentiles who were not part of God's first covanant it was not an obligation. Paul in many ways considered the Law a burden which he did not want to lay upon Gentile believers.

But he still valued that Covanant. That's why he got so angry with the Galatians because many of them were becoming Jews only to escape persecution by the Roman authorities. Several decades before, Augustus had outlawed all new collegia (formal associations or groups) as a danger to the safety of the state. Old established collegia were allowed to continue as they had proven they could operate loyally within the Roman state. Under Roman Law the Jewish Synagogue was a collegium, one with very special rights which included being exempt from having to offer sacrifices to the cult of the Divine Emperor. However the only way to be protected under the umbrella of the Synagogue was to be a Jew, that is to be circumcised and live out the Mosaic Law. Otherwise you could be arrested for sedition and treason for not particpating in the Imprial cult, if the community didn't take to Christians. Thus Paul rebukes the Galatians for trivializing Jewish status and for cowardice. For Paul at least in the case of Jews the Law was still valid as it was part of the Covanent. And for non-Jews it served to bring knowlege of sin, though they were not required to attempt to follow it. Rather they were simply to emulate Chirst to the best of thier abilities. For Paul the Law still was in effect for Jews and still served the purpose that it always had served, however it could not provide salvation (that was the big point Paul made severl times in his letters, that's where for Paul Christainity differed from existing forms of Judaism, in that it denied that the Law had to power to save, it still had a function but it did not save). The only instructions given to Gentile believers were to refrain from fornication, eating blood and eating food offered to idols, and that came down from the Jerusalem Church in the person of James. Things weren't always cheery, Acts mentions at least one argument Paul and Peter had over the Jew-Gentile divide (where Paul rightly called Peter a hypocrite), but from where matters in Jerusalem are left off in Acts the formal leadership of the Church there never required Gentiles to become Jews (after the point where Acts breaks off I can't say). Why should they have been overly concerned with Gentiles when thier mission was to convert those already Jews, and to make Jesus centred Judaism the only form of Judaism.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 11:14 AM   #344
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Here's the link for a rush transcript of Larry King from Tuesday night, if anyone's interested in reading that

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/lkl.00.html

I have to say that Chad Allen amazed me in how dignified and respectful he was, considering some of the things that were being said. I don't know how he did it, but then again I don't know how homosexuals deal w/ that on a regular basis. I have much compassion and respect for the fact that they do.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 02:45 PM   #345
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:

MACARTHUR: And homosexuality...

KING: ... a sin to you.

MACARTHUR: Yes. And...

KING: Therefore, it's a choice.

MACARTHUR: It's a choice you make. It's a sinful choice.

KING: Did you make a choice to be heterosexual?

MACARTHUR: I don't think I had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I think that's a natural thing.

KING: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. In other words, one is a choice and one is not?

MACARTHUR: Yes.

KING: So he was unlucky and you're...

MACARTHUR: Because -- because you're not talking about -- because it's natural to be heterosexual. That's built...

KING: What do you mean by natural?

MACARTHUR: Well, I mean, that's the way God made us. That's the normal...

KING: But if he doesn't feel that way, what is he, then? He's not a sinner. It wasn't his decision.

MACARTHUR: Yes, I think it was his decision.

ALLEN: I would love, absolutely love for the pastor to point out for me when in my life I made that decision because I have to tell you, it caused a lot of pain in my family. It caused a lot of pain to me. It's a very, very tough thing that I had to go through. I don't remember making that decision. If I did, maybe can you point it out, but that wasn't the case for me.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLEN: It's who I am. You also said that it was in the fabric of the human being that -- to understand that marriage was between a man and a woman and that's what family was. It must not be because it's not in the fabric of what who I am. It's not the way I see it. I think families come in all shapes, sizes and colors.


__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com