equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Diemen]

Continue.

 

[BVS]

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.

Prostitution, rape, pedophillia between a man and a female/ or girl does not equal heterosexuality. So why would it be any different?

 

[BVS]

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...

Look, I'm not trying to pin you in a corner, it's just that sometimes you avoid the "easy" questions that should be a very cut and dry answer in order to answer others...

And I'm just saying what many are feeling:

You avoid these "easy" questions because you're afraid they will expose you.

 

[AEON]

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.

BVS, I can see that you have pointed out, more than once, this presumed mistake I made regarding a certain "original commandment issue" some five years ago. I'll make your job easy - I believe there is much I still have learn about the Bible and I by no means consider myself a Biblical Scholar. Can we now move on?

 

[AEON]

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!"

 

[BVS]

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!"

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.

 

[AEON]

Prostitution, rape, pedophillia between a man and a female/ or girl does not equal heterosexuality. So why would it be any different?

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).

 

[BVS]

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'm saying rape and pedophilia has nothing to do with sexuality. And are both flat out wrong.

And prostitution has nothing to do with relationships.

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).

How many examples of positive interracial relationships were there? There were positive polygamists weren't there? How many positive unarranged relationships were there? And it's these questions, for I know we've been here before, that make you seem a little short sighted.

 

[AEON]

I've read the Vatican arguments against homosexuality, and it primarily comes down to its medieval traditions regarding "natural law" from Aquinas

I'm just curious - you said the Catholic Church gets its stance against homosexuality from Aquinas (who wrote in the 1200's) - yet according to you - homosexuality wasn't even conceived by then (and wouldn't be for another 600+ years).

 

[financeguy]

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.

Quoted from the previous thread. I don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage myself, my attitude is there are few valid grounds against legalisation, so why not legalise it, but I don't really see it as a fundamental human right to be honest.

That said, I find it intellectually lazy to tie together Christianity with a strong sense of morality in the manner you seem to be doing, and correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, your post carries a clear implication that only someone that is on the Christian walk can have a clear sense of morality.

It goes without saying, or at leas ought to, that what a religious text has to say about the subject is really of no import in adjudging whether or not it should be legalised.

 

[financeguy]

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.

Exactly. The laws of modern secular states should not be based on some old book of fairy stories, so I don't even know why we're talking about the Bible here. BTW, it is possible to construct arguments against gay marriage on purely secular grounds, just as it's possible to construct arguments against, say, legalised divorce or pornography on purely secular grounds - though I don't necessarily agree with them.

 

[Irvine511]

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!"

i still want to know what is it about my relationship (and Melon's relationship) that makes it unworthy of state sanctioning and protections. i want to know why heterosexual couples -- always, and in all ways -- are superior to homosexual couples.

what is the danger, as you see it, to legitimizing a same-sex relationship by giving it the same civil status -- not religious -- as an opposite-sex relationship.

 

[Irvine511]

your post carries a clear implication that only someone that is on the Christian walk can have a clear sense of morality.

i would also add that there's the implication that only someone on the Christian walk can have a right and proper marriage, as Christ would have intended.

and in the context of whatever church AEON goes to, that's all fair and fine. but in the eyes of the state of California (where AEON lives)? considering pagans, atheists, jews, etc., can get married so long as they have opposing genitalia, it really does seem as if there's no religious argument that can be applied to the state's recognition of a marriage.

it seems to me that if we are going to be theologically consistent, and point to the Bible as our source of understanding for marriage and this is where we get our opposition to same-sex marriage, then we ought to tell the jews, the atheists, the hindus, the buddhists, etc., that their marriage is not ordained by god.

now, i'd be happy to hear some secular arguments against same-sex marriage. can someone create them? AEON?

 

[Irvine511]

any chance we can change this gay-assed thread title?

 

[AEON]

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 government 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.

 

[AEON]

now, i'd be happy to hear some secular arguments against same-sex marriage. can someone create them? AEON?

I think it is impossible to have any argument on any society based discussed that is 100 percent "secular". Eventually, as I mentioned above, the discussion rolls into areas of philosophy and/or theology - which is at the root of all social discussions.

 

[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....

I believe I've answered this at least a few times. If I accept the definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I do - then that automatically excludes a marriage between a man and another man or between a woman and another woman. They cannot exist by the very definition of the word, therefore there is nothing to deny or protect.

The discussion that naturally follows is concerning the "why" I accept this definition, which is NOT an extreme position as indicated by current votes and the a the very liberal President, Barack Obama.

 

[Irvine511]

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?

 

[corianderstem]

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.

 

[AEON]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

No. Even though they do not believe it, I still believe their marriage is, at its very core, a spiritual act.

but mine cannot ever be?

 

[AEON]

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.

Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

 

[AEON]

but mine cannot ever be?

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."

 

[martha]

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

I'm too lazy to fix these quotes up properly (damn lazy non-Christians), but I answered your question just fine. I gave my definition. I could give some long-winded answer, couched in oh-so-civilized terms, talking about why a theocratic state should exist when it comes to marriage, giving some apologetic, yet incredibly insulting answer about how I don't really believe that Irvine's relationship is inferior to mine, then bring up some subject that has nothing really to do with the rights of gays and lesbians to have equal access to the Constitution, but I just don't want to.

My definition is superior to yours, AEON, because it is. It doesn't hide behind Jesus, it includes people who love each other, and it answered the damn question. Unlike yours.

 

[martha]

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."

You are so lazy!! You never really give him a real answer. You just quote Obama all the time.

Man up and admit to him and the rest of us that you really do think he is somehow inferior. Maybe we'd all have a little more respect for you if you'd just admit it. Sheesh.

 

[martha]

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?

 

[Se7en]

How can it be, when they themselves are not spiritual?

as far as i can tell, marriage is basically a u2 concert - god enters the room whether or not you invited him.

 

[AEON]

You are so lazy!! .

You really think so? I think I've racked up quite a word count the last 2 days, but okay

 

[phillyfan26]

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, this is lazy because you switch from your opinion to, "Well, if the government ever does anything, I guess!"

 

[Irvine511]

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."

are you surprised, then, when people call the position you've advocated a bigoted one? that because you cannot defend your position in a secular manner, you have to resort to notions of "God" and what may or may have not been said -- itself very shaky theology, as you have pointed out in response to Melon's posts -- and so you are using that which cannot be logically challenged "God says it's so" in order to defend a position that cannot be logically sustained. and subsequently, since bigotry itself defies logic, how can we not arrive at the conclusion that your position is bigoted, most likely because it is rooted in your own professed ignorance?

you have no secular argument, AEON, nor have you tried to make one. doesn't this underscore the fundamental weakness of your position? shouldn't your own experience, your own critical faculties, your own assessment of what's real here and now trump whatever fundamentalist abstractions you're able to concoct when in the company of people who wish to believe the same thing you do? aren't we correct when we say that religion is (as ever) being used as the vehicle by which to justify that which by any other name we would call discrimination and bigotry?