equality blooms with spring - Page 50 - 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 11-15-2009, 12:41 AM   #981
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
No one here has fully explained it yet.
I did explain it. Whether you accept my reasons or not is up to you.
__________________

AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 12:46 AM   #982
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I did explain it. Whether you accept my reasons or not is up to you.


you still fail to address the actual people in this thread: myself and Melon.

we are both in long-term, committed relationships.

what is it about our relationships that makes it so that you see nothing worthwhile about offering us the same protections that you and your wife are entitled to (and, indeed, Britney Spears and Hugh Hefner are entitled to), and why do you feel it is necessary to maintain the distinction of "marriage" vs. "not a marriage"?

surely you can offer us more than the automaton "this is what my religion says," yes? you can at least distinguish between your religion and the secular government that offers atheists civil marriage (which has nothing to do with god).
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 12:48 AM   #983
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
would you accept a scientific reason? Would a scientist even dare try to do a neutral study on this in today's political climate? Would anyone even accept the outcome if it did point against gay marriage? I think these are fair questions.

but you and INDY (especially) like to point out that it's currently 32-0 when it comes to gay marriage at the ballot box. surely this is an immensely favorable climate for said "neutral" study about homosexuality.

also, what "outcome" are you talking about? what scientific "reason" could there be against gay marriage?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:03 AM   #984
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially. I concede that Melon's interpretations regarding the Bible's stance on homosexuality may be correct, and I always pray that the Holy Spirit will open my eyes and heart to the actual meaning of any passage, not just the ones concerning homosexuality.

As it stands now, it just seems that if the Bible genuinely wanted to make an exception for homosexuality (and as many have pointed out, there were certainly homosexuals in Biblical times) then there would be more written about it. Every instance of homosexuality written in the Bible is portrayed in a negative light. It would seem - that if God did intend to permit loving gay marriages - there would be at least one example and just a tad bit of wisdom thrown their way on how to be a good loving gay married couple.
Allan Bloom noted that if one were to look at all philosophy prior to the 18th century or so, it would all be pro-authoritarian. Likewise, all philosophy prior to the 20th century or so was generally written from a non-feminist POV. And this is only because these writings were all a product of the environment in which they were written. The Bible, in all critical analysis, is of no exception, and perfectly reflects both the progress and deficiencies of the times in which it was written. It should be remembered that the Bible does not, specifically, refer to "homosexuality," because, as a word and a concept, it does not exist until the mid-to-late 19th century. And if one looks at the etymology of all the ancient Hebrew and Greek words that have subsequently been translated as "homosexuality" in modern Bibles, all of them refer to archaic practices and taboos that have no relevance in the modern vernacular.

It cannot be expected for Plato to be an ardent defender of representative democracy nor for Aquinas to be a feminist, because such concepts were foreign to their timelines. It is also equally preposterous to expect the Bible to anticipate modern homosexuality, as a practice corresponding to modern heterosexual relationships, particularly when same sex acts of the era were typically done as a matter of rape as a weapon of humiliation (Sodom and Gomorrah; also committed against Iranian dissidents), as an act related to pagan temple prostitution rituals (Leviticus, Romans), or related to Greco-Roman pederasty (1 Corinthians). Morally speaking, rape, idolatry, prostitution, and pederasty/pedophilia are not tolerated in heterosexuality, and if were to see Biblical passages in which the above were heterosexual acts, we would not come to the immediate conclusion that all heterosexuality was to be banned--only those specific acts within heterosexuality. And yet, when it comes to homosexuality, we're all ready to be academically sloppy!

But returning to the fact that Plato will never be anything more than authoritarian, Aquinas as misogynist, and the Bible as permanently reflective of the c. 500 B.C. to A.D. 100 (setting aside, of course, inserted translation biases of the following two millennia) time period in which it was written down, we have two options: either we discard them as obsolete and irrelevant, in context of our "enlightened" present, or we accept their limitations, while still divining truths from them. I say this, knowing that the modernist/postmodernist response was mainly precisely to abandon them, at least in terms of Plato and Aquinas. The early church fathers also ran into a similar dilemma regarding the Old Testament, as it had been seen as equally irrelevant in light of the new truths created by Jesus and the New Testament. Ultimately, it was decided that the New Testament could not be understood without the Old, and I would counter that the same can be said about the ability to understand our modern world and the role of classical philosophy in leading up to it. That doesn't mean we embrace authoritarianism, misogyny, and perceived homophobia; it means that the important truths to be gleaned from Plato, Aquinas, and the Bible are greater than their flaws.

Quote:
"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10
Amen!
melon is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:07 AM   #985
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Two non-related, mentally competent adults who love each other and are willing to enter into the commitment that makes a marriage.
who determines which people are "mentally competent"? Which standard will they use? IQ? SAT? CAT Scan? Do they have to love each other? What is they realy, realy like each other - can they marry then?

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?

Quote:
You tell me why my definition is inferior to yours.
Only if you can first tell me why your personal definition is superior to mine
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:08 AM   #986
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what scientific "reason" could there be against gay marriage?
My point exactly. Thank you.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:37 AM   #987
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Agreed, and I think you will find that the Catholic Church (the main church in this discussion) makes divorce much more difficult.
This is the perception, but the ugly truth is; it's just as political as any other realm of society. I have first hand knowledge...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I happen to agree with the Catholic Church's view that being a homosexual is not a sin, but acting it out is. I don't fully understand why God creates the desire - then forbids it.
Answer me this, why do you think THIS is the only sin that doesn't seem to have logic behind it? I've asked you this before, but I'm wondering if time has granted you an answer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
As it stands now, it just seems that if the Bible genuinely wanted to make an exception for homosexuality (and as many have pointed out, there were certainly homosexuals in Biblical times) then there would be more written about it. Every instance of homosexuality written in the Bible is portrayed in a negative light. It would seem - that if God did intend to permit loving gay marriages - there would be at least one example and just a tad bit of wisdom thrown their way on how to be a good loving gay married couple.
Really? I remember when you first start posting here, you said you were in seminary school but you were flat out wrong about a very important part of biblical history, and you were corrected by those who didn't agree with your stance and even those that did agree with your stance. At the time it shocked me that someone who was that far along didn't know this... I have to ask did you ever finish?

The reason I ask is that every person I know that went through seminary school, no matter if they are considered more conservative or liberal, they all agree that one of the first things they learn is that there isn't an example for every aspect of life or question that comes up. Almost every seminary student I've ever talked to tells me how this is something that is stressed from almost day one... So I find it odd that you of all people try and play this card.

I mean it seems obvious that Jesus didn't talk to his disciples at the time about the world being round because frankly they wouldn't understand, he didn't speak much on women's rights because they wouldn't have understood, he also didn't speak about interracial marriage but surely you don't think that is a sin, right?
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:44 AM   #988
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10 Amen!
Melon, I am glad to see that in your extensive Biblical research you found a passage that you still consider relevant in these modern and "enlightened" times. It would be very unfortunate to lose this passage to history because it seems so beautiful, universal , and timeless. It is no wonder to me why this is one of the most famous quotes in Western Civilization, and used quite often - even by those mocking Christianity.

Another great passage (not quite as "beautiful" perhaps - but certainly as universal and timeless) is this one:

Quote:
"You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes" - Deuteronomy 12:8
I also found it interesting that in the Catholic Catechism - the part addressing the problems with homosexuality are in the "Love Thy Neighbor" section, which is based on the quote you used above (which of course is based on other quotes in the Old and New Testament).

In the end, I think the greater problem is that many Christians (perhaps even some non-Christians) believe we are living in a time when every man is doing what is right in his own eyes...and in Biblical history , at least, that didn't work out too great.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:49 AM   #989
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:09 AM
I believe the same thing goes for hate, many Christians believe their hate is justified...
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 01:54 AM   #990
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Seriously, I do apologize. I do not mean to offend you by saying "homosexual behavior" instead of "homosexual". I happen to agree with the Catholic Church's view that being a homosexual is not a sin, but acting it out is. I don't fully understand why God creates the desire - then forbids it. But I can say that about a great many desires. It goes all the way to the beginning of mankind's relationship with God - desiring what is forbidden.

It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially. I concede that Melon's interpretations regarding the Bible's stance on homosexuality may be correct, and I always pray that the Holy Spirit will open my eyes and heart to the actual meaning of any passage, not just the ones concerning homosexuality.

As it stands now, it just seems that if the Bible genuinely wanted to make an exception for homosexuality (and as many have pointed out, there were certainly homosexuals in Biblical times) then there would be more written about it. Every instance of homosexuality written in the Bible is portrayed in a negative light. It would seem - that if God did intend to permit loving gay marriages - there would be at least one example and just a tad bit of wisdom thrown their way on how to be a good loving gay married couple.
To me it's fine and dandy for churches not to marry gay couples -- or any other couple for any other reason. I don't really care what churches allow or don't allow. But marriage in this country is a civil contract, so religious concerns should have no bearing whatsoever on that civil contract. I believe there are no valid religious reasons to deny civil marriage to any couple, gay or otherwise.
indra is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:07 AM   #991
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Really? I remember when you first start posting here, you said you were in seminary school but you were flat out wrong about a very important part of biblical history, and you were corrected by those who didn't agree with your stance and even those that did agree with your stance. At the time it shocked me that someone who was that far along didn't know this... I have to ask did you ever finish?
I can't recall being "flat out wrong" about a very important part of Biblical history. I'm not saying I wasn't - I just don't recall it. To answer your question about seminary - I have 42 of the semester units completed out of the 72 units required (45 units is typical of most Master's programs). I took time off from seminary for military duties, civilian work, and to finish my MBA.

Yes, you are correct - there isn't an example of every aspect of life. That being said - homosexuality presumably has been around for a very long time. It is an aspect of life that is addressed in the Bible - and it is never positive.

Quote:
I mean it seems obvious that Jesus didn't talk to his disciples at the time about the world being round because frankly they wouldn't understand...
Jesus didn't address heroine abuse or baseball players using HGH either - that doesn't make it right.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:17 AM   #992
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I also found it interesting that in the Catholic Catechism - the part addressing the problems with homosexuality are in the "Love Thy Neighbor" section, which is based on the quote you used above (which of course is based on other quotes in the Old and New Testament).
Except Roman Catholicism is, even by admission of the Vatican, not primarily centred around Biblical fundamentalism as many Protestant denominations are. I'd say that the Bible runs third in primacy; the first two being, in order, its own moral authority and then its philosophical traditions, primarily originating from Aquinas.

I've read the Vatican arguments against homosexuality, and it primarily comes down to its medieval traditions regarding "natural law" from Aquinas. My own opinion is that the Church took the wrong lessons from him. Aquinas wrote what he did in the spirit of inquiry and a desire to make Greek philosophical traditions compatible with Christianity, and many of his conclusions flat out come down to being wrong, because of a lack of sufficient data in the 12th century. But because of Aquinas, Western philosophy was able to mature into what it is today. Instead, the Vatican has fixated on his specific conclusions and ignored the methods he used to derive them that would likely come to different conclusions with a modern scientific understanding.

Quote:
In the end, I think the greater problem is that many Christians (perhaps even some non-Christians) believe we are living in a time when every man is doing what is right in his own eyes...and in Biblical history , at least, that didn't work out too great.
Is this not the end result of the Reformation--that is, a reliance on a personal relationship with God that can be achieved directly without intermediaries? A centralized religious power structure also is no guarantee of utopia or even universal agreement on doctrine; hence, why the Christian church has been divided from the start.

Morality has always benefited from good natured debate, and if there's one flaw I'd wish to point out it's that the Left has pretty much abandoned religious discourse to conservatives.
melon is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:35 AM   #993
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
as a word and a concept, it [homosexuality] does not exist until the mid-to-late 19th century
Just to clarify, are you seriously stating that homosexuality, as a concept, did not exist until the late 19th century?

Quote:
It is also equally preposterous to expect the Bible to anticipate modern homosexuality
Please explain "modern" homosexuality - considering that many here have asserted that homosexuality is "of nature" - meaning, it is a result of DNA, not upbringing.

Are you quoting and/or paraphrasing Allan Bloom? I am trying to determine which are your thoughts and which are his. I don't expect APA format, and I am not accusing you of plagiarism, it is just difficult in this post to distinguish your points from his.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:48 AM   #994
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
I can't recall being "flat out wrong" about a very important part of Biblical history. I'm not saying I wasn't - I just don't recall it. To answer your question about seminary - I have 42 of the semester units completed out of the 72 units required (45 units is typical of most Master's programs). I took time off from seminary for military duties, civilian work, and to finish my MBA.
It happen to be about the original commandment... and nbcrusader, myself and others had to correct you.


Quote:
Yes, you are correct - there isn't an example of every aspect of life. That being said - homosexuality presumably has been around for a very long time. It is an aspect of life that is addressed in the Bible - and it is never positive.
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.



Quote:
Jesus didn't address heroine abuse or baseball players using HGH either - that doesn't make it right.
Well excess was addressed, but this does help prove my point. We do assign a lot of rights and wrongs that were never talked about in the Bible.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:48 AM   #995
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:53 AM   #996
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what is it about our relationships that makes it so that you see nothing worthwhile about offering us the same protections that you and your wife are entitled to (and, indeed, Britney Spears and Hugh Hefner are entitled to), and why do you feel it is necessary to maintain the distinction of "marriage" vs. "not a marriage"?
This. This is the question I keep coming back to in this whole debate. So far it's gone unanswered. Why deny two consenting adults the protections of the state afforded to others who also want to join into a monogamous, committed relationship?

AEON?

Indy?

Bueller?
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:54 AM   #997
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?
Before asking the same question just in a different form, why don't you answer some of the questions asked of you? You keep getting called out on avoiding certain questions, why do you think that is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What meaning does it have now, when anyone can get meet tonight and get married by Elvis an hour later?

What meaning does it have when 50+-% ends in divorce?

What meaning does it have now, that can possibly be taken away from even more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Answer me this, why do you think THIS is the only sin that doesn't seem to have logic behind it? I've asked you this before, but I'm wondering if time has granted you an answer.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:56 AM   #998
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you believe there is any social benefit to marriage (gay or straight)? Or is it simply an act between two people and only two people?
I see one large social benefit being the promotion of monogamous, committed relationships between two consenting adults.

I also see that this thread is just about at the 1000 post mark. Time to start up a new one, folks!
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:57 AM   #999
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Just to clarify, are you seriously stating that homosexuality, as a concept, did not exist until the late 19th century?
Yes. Please read the background of Karl-Maria Kertbeny, the 19th century German writer responsible for coining both the word "homosexual" and the concept of "homosexuality" as sexual orientation. Prior to that, the common view was that same sex acts were committed by otherwise heterosexual men out of "wickedness."

Quote:
Please explain "modern" homosexuality - considering that many here have asserted that homosexuality is "of nature" - meaning, it is a result of DNA, not upbringing.
"Modern" homosexuality is what you see possible today: individuals of same-sex orientations having sex and/or forming loving relationships with one another to the exclusion of the opposite sex. Biblical "homosexuality" did not conceive this, primarily because these types of relationships did not exist in Antiquity. Greco-Roman mores involved having an often loveless marriage, while the man was permitted to engage in any number of affairs, with same sex acts generally occurring in the context of societally sanctioned pederasty, upon which the sexual relationships were to end once the boy was of age and to be married off to a woman, or mass temple orgies of a bisexual nature, reflecting beliefs that sex brought one closer to the gods (reminiscent of ancient fertility cults).

Quote:
Are you quoting and/or paraphrasing Allan Bloom? I am trying to determine which are your thoughts and which are his. I don't expect APA format, and I am not accusing you of plagiarism, it is just difficult in this post to distinguish your points from his.
I paraphrased him, and he directly made those comments regarding classical philosophy being non-democratic and incompatible with modern notions feminism/equality, plus he advanced the idea of classical philosophy having value in spite of being written in an authoritarian, misogynist, etc. time.--i.e., a direct challenge to liberal modern philosophers, who would argue that they were outdated and unnecessary to the present.
melon is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:57 AM   #1000
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post

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.

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.
__________________

AEON 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 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×