MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 9 - 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 02-07-2004, 11:02 PM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:30 AM
I just threw something at the TV....Pat Robertson just said marriage was to have children.

i give up....why do they always go to this guy?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 11:05 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Because he's a freakshow that gets people to watch TV.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 12:13 AM   #123
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Hey Melon,

Thanks for the history behind the bible. Its all foreign to me. Your post has assisted this little black duck understand the bible side of this argument a little better. Ta.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 12:34 AM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
And we have just as much of a tendency to stick with tradition, no matter what, even if that tradition is wrong. The Pharisees are a classic example of Biblical fundamentalists, and look where they ended up with the first coming of Christ?

The Bible does not mention homosexuality. Period. The term originated out of Germany in 1874, and sufficiently shocked people. For that reason alone, supposed condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are incorrect. Prior to 1874, homosexual acts were viewed within three mindsets: acts performed by rebellious heterosexuals under the influence of "evil," acts performed to humiliate rivals, and acts performed in idolatry. In all three cases, the acts were performed by heterosexuals.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the oft-mentioned anti-gay passages, was not even interpreted that way until the rise of an apocryphal text from c. 200 B.C. called "The Book of Jubilees." This book was known amongst the people of the day, and was found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. All Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah are in the context of inhospitality towards strangers.

All mentions of supposed "homosexuals" in the Bible are really references to male temple prostitutes. In most "pagan" religions of the day, it was believed that sex brought one closer to the gods, and, thus, followers of these religions would engage in mass bisexual orgies in temples. The fact that people translate the "male temple prostitutes" as being homosexual is due to prejudice. A woman is not seen as being a patron to a prostitute, so it is thus inferred that men must be the patrons; thus declaring the prostitutes as "homosexual." That, however, is incorrect. The prostitutes were bisexual, and, thus, slept with men and women. Thus, the outrage was against this practice that we have no name for, as the temple prostitutes have not existed for nearly 2000 years, not "homosexuality" as discovered in 1874.

Melon
King James Bible was written in 1611, before the German invented the word "homosexulaity." And yet, looking back at it, the King James Bible does mention homosexuality, though the subject is not encapsulated in the word "homosexuality."

I'm not trying to pass judgment or pick a fight. I'm just stating an observation of fact.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 01:27 AM   #125
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:30 AM
So, then.

What exactly are these people marching for? Or against? Can someone tell me, clearly and precisely, what threatens them so? Why are they so frightened to extend a civil right to a group of people that holds no physical or financial threat to them? Marriage, in a courthouse, in a church that recognises gay marriage (not your church, God forbid), on a beach, anywhere, with the full legal rights that any other courthouse, church, or beach wedding bestows...what is the threat to my marriage and yours? How does this change heterosexual marriage?


Give me real reasons that make sense in a democracy, not a theocracy, please.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 01:52 AM   #126
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: 19,256
Local Time: 08:30 AM
Dreadsox, I don't know why people listen to Pat either. It boggles my mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
But, to pose a different question, if God views homosexuality as a sin, what does that have to do with the right of homosexuals to marry in a democracy where church and state are Constitutionally separated?
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I guess if I am going to compare my wisdom with God's Wisdom, I will go with God.
God's never actually talked to any of us, though, and told us what he wanted. Men wrote the Bible, and they went based on what they thought God wanted. At least, that's how I see it.

And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?

Also, ditto your post, LivLuv.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 02:45 AM   #127
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?
Nowhere in the Bible does God or anyone say "homosexuality is wrong". But it's certainly NOT encouraged or blessed anywhere in the Bible either. There are passages from which we can infer that God intended for marriage to be between man and woman ("You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh." etc, there are more but it's late). So both sides of this debate can argue for eternity b/c the people for it can always say "it doesn't state explicitly that blah blah blah is wrong" and those against it can continue to throw out verses in which it should be pretty obvious that it is meant to be wrong. The same thing goes for premarrital sex. The Bible doesn't say "premarrital sex is wrong" but there are enough verses on the subject to infer that that's what God means.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 03:04 AM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
Nowhere in the Bible does God or anyone say "homosexuality is wrong". But it's certainly NOT encouraged or blessed anywhere in the Bible either. There are passages from which we can infer that God intended for marriage to be between man and woman ("You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh." etc, there are more but it's late). So both sides of this debate can argue for eternity b/c the people for it can always say "it doesn't state explicitly that blah blah blah is wrong" and those against it can continue to throw out verses in which it should be pretty obvious that it is meant to be wrong. The same thing goes for premarrital sex. The Bible doesn't say "premarrital sex is wrong" but there are enough verses on the subject to infer that that's what God means.
You know, as much as I've refuted that passage in Leviticus...

(It is NOT that. If it were really "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination," the underlying Hebrew would be "'Ish' shall not lie with 'Ish' as with 'Ishah': it is 'to'evah'"; instead, that second "Ish" is really "Zakar," an obscure word thought to refer to the, yes, male temple prostitutes in pagan temples, as it was common then for people to take part in Baal fertility rituals (mass temple orgies), to guarantee good crops and healthy livestock. And "abomination" is not correct. At all. "To'evah" is a ritual condemnation. Eating shellfish and wearing multi-fibered clothing is "to'evah." That's because "to'evah" is part of the purity codes of the Mosaic Law, meaning that a big light should pop in your head saying, "Idolatry!" "Uncleanliness!" People with zits and menstruating women are "to'evah" too, which is why I think that the bigots who translated this passage have a clear, anti-gay agenda behind them to strip that passage out of all its historical context.)

...I've come to realize how frustrating it is when no one listens.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 03:29 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You know, as much as I've refuted that passage in Leviticus...

(It is NOT that. If it were really "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination," the underlying Hebrew would be "'Ish' shall not lie with 'Ish' as with 'Ishah': it is 'to'evah'"; instead, that second "Ish" is really "Zakar," an obscure word thought to refer to the, yes, male temple prostitutes in pagan temples, as it was common then for people to take part in Baal fertility rituals (mass temple orgies), to guarantee good crops and healthy livestock. And "abomination" is not correct. At all. "To'evah" is a ritual condemnation. Eating shellfish and wearing multi-fibered clothing is "to'evah." That's because "to'evah" is part of the purity codes of the Mosaic Law, meaning that a big light should pop in your head saying, "Idolatry!" "Uncleanliness!" People with zits and menstruating women are "to'evah" too, which is why I think that the bigots who translated this passage have a clear, anti-gay agenda behind them to strip that passage out of all its historical context.)

...I've come to realize how frustrating it is when no one listens.

Melon
I'm not placing my beliefs on a single passage in Leviticus. I did a quick Google search "homosexuality Bible" and that's the first thing that popped up. I don't know what translation of the Bible it even came from, nor do I care. Your post only proves my point that this debate will go back and forth forever b/c there is no clearly stated answer anywhere, that's all I was trying to say.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 08:11 AM   #130
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
God's never actually talked to any of us, though, and told us what he wanted. Men wrote the Bible, and they went based on what they thought God wanted. At least, that's how I see it.
That is your opinion. Others do not share this opinion. This is a matter of FAITH for people who believe that the bible is the WORD of God. You are never going to make any headway arguing your points with them because it is a matter of FAITH.


This is why I figured it is easier to say fine, you can say it is sin. I am not going to argue if it is or it isn't. But can you tell me how granting marriage rights is going to change what two people do behind closed doors? Can you tell me why two people who love each other for twenty years cannot have the same rights as my wife and I? Being married has NOT prevented either of us from being human beings and SINNING. Being married has given us rights that others who love each other deserve to have.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 08:22 AM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Why is the state performing marriages in a democracy anyways? I still say the state should not be doing that.

One thing, todays march has grown now to include the local Catholic Bishop and former Ambassador Ray Flynn.

There is no longer any mention of the woman's group on the news.

Since I am not marching...lol I am not answering. I am not with them on this issue.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 08:37 AM   #132
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:30 AM
[Q]SAME-SEX SUPPORT VARIES DEPENDING ON PROPOSED POLICY

When asked to consider issues related to legal reforms and court decisions regarding unions between same-sex individuals, the level of support varied significantly depending on the type of policy considered.

For example: Only 28.7% agreed that the Catholic Church should make the sacrament of marriage available to same-sex couples. However, when asked about allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, that support increased to 38.7%.

Importantly, when asked about civil unions in which same-sex couples receive all of the legal protections of marriage, but the term “marriage” is NOT used, support increased with a majority of Catholics (56.4%) agreeing with this proposal.

Compared to other national surveys, Catholics in the CCT survey appear to be more conservative on the issue of religious marriage, about the same as other Americans on the question of civil marriage and more liberal than other Americans on t he issue of civil unions.

Turning to recent Vatican teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, respondents generally agreed with the Vatican position that homosexual behavior is against natural law (63.2%), while significantly smaller majorities agreed with the Church’s positions that Catholics should oppose civil laws allowing same-sex marriages (54.3%) and that Catholic public officials should oppose such laws (53.8%).[/Q]

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=804
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 11:14 AM   #133
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Quote:
You Do Your Job Let Us Do Ours Gay Marriage Judge Tells Lawmakers

by Rich Peters

Posted: February 8, 2004 12:02 a.m. ET

(Regina, Saskatchewan) The Canadian judge who who decreed marriage cannot be limited to opposite-sex couples had some tough words on the weekend for lawmakers seeking to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians on both sides of the border.

Roy McMurtry, the Chief Justice of Ontario, said the courts are obligated to intervene when society "is not faithful to its basic values."

McMurty headed the Ontario Court of Appeals tribunal that last year threw out the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman and ruled that same-sex couples could immediately begin to marry.

The ruling was followed by a similar judgment in British Columbia.

Speaking on the weekend to the Saskatchewan chapter of the Canadian Bar Association in Regina, McMurtry said that judges have to be guided by basic and fundamental values rather than public opinion.

"While a judge should often be guided by public consensus, there are times when the court should lead the way and be a crusader for a new consensus," he said.

His comments are a slap at politicians in both Canada and the US who are using the argument that judges are overstepping their bounds.

Both conservative members of the Canadian Parliament and the Congress use the argument that it is the prerogative of the elected legislature to enact laws. In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush warned that if "activist judges" continue to rewrite marriage law he would support a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage.

But McMurtry said they need to be reminded of the difference between the roles of the judiciary and elected politicians.

"As elected representatives, they have practical obligations to advance the interests of the majority. When this obligation conflicts with the rights of groups or individuals in society, it is not necessarily the duty of elected representatives to protect the minority," he said.

"In stark contrast, it can be said that the judicial function may well be anti-majoritarian in the sense it is often charged with the responsibility of protecting the minority."

A lifelong Conservative, McMurtry was Ontario's attorney-general from 1975 to 1985 and was one of the key architects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's bill of rights.

He was appointed to the bench by former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 05:06 PM   #134
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by theSoulfulMofo


King James Bible was written in 1611, before the German invented the word "homosexulaity." And yet, looking back at it, the King James Bible does mention homosexuality, though the subject is not encapsulated in the word "homosexuality."

I'm not trying to pass judgment or pick a fight. I'm just stating an observation of fact.
This is correct. The word "homosexuality"' is not use, but multiple passages in the Old and New testament do speak to homosexual acts.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-08-2004, 05:06 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
And besides, if God does happen to have such a problem with homosexuals, why did he create them to begin with?
God has a problem with sin, so why did he create any of us.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader 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 09:30 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