Abstinence Criticized

[CamEdwards]

Not abstinence education... abstinence itself.

hxxp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/7942316.htm


ORLANDO - Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it's Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates' casual sex talk.

So Millis, a public high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students around the nation are wearing white T-shirts to school today, the day before Valentine's Day, to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the ''Day of Purity,'' and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers.

''The way sex is talked about, it's so casual, like it's an everyday thing, like going to McDonald's,'' said Millis, 17, who goes to Milford High School in Highland, Mich.

The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs.

''Decisions children make now can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives,'' Bush said last month.

But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

'The word `purity' in this context is morally self-righteous,'' said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. ``It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda.''

Could someone please explain how practicing abstinence and telling others about its benefits is bigoted?

[HornedFrog Purple]

I believe this is the opposing stance:

This campaign is claiming the higher moral ground.

In particular, gays and lesbians cannot be married legally in some states. Therefore in this campaign's eyes they are impure and morally wrong.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that HFP gets it right. Some people feel that it is wrong to advocate abstinance outside of the commitment of marriage, but then to deny the right to that commitment to certain segments of the population.

If, however, you advocate abstinence outside of marriage for everyone and hold homosexuals to the same standard (recognize their unions as binding commitments in which sexual intercourse can morally occur), then there is no problem with your position.

I don't know if this is what the people obejcting believe, but if it is, it makes sense to me.

[John Galt]

Note too that they don't say that purity and abstitence are bigoted per se, but that this campaign is part of a bigoted agenda overall.

For gays, it seems like this:

They are being told there early lives that being normal is being straight. Other feelings are "sinful" or "abnormal."

When they discover they have "sinful" or "abnormal" feelings, they try to repress them, but most can't do that.

When they try to explore their "abnormal" feelings, they are told to be "pure" and wait.

Wait for what? They can't get married. They can't ever have sexual intimacy without being a deviant and sinful. Purity and abstinence become more ways to ensure gays don't have a place in our society. It just pushes them further underground.

[MrBug708]

Well in this case, unless she has a good deal amount of girls hitting on her, I doubt this is HER reason to do so. But coming from a family that believes this, they both go hand in hand and my parents are very adament about what I was "allowed" to watch growing up. IE no PG-13 movies til I was 13, R when I was 17, my mother would kick my ass if she knew some of the stuff I have done, and the like.

But to say the purity movement has a "hidden agenda" is really ridiculus because it's more the group of HS'ers and the like, then 35 year old's who are a alittle homophobe.

[rkmsuf]

And then Melissa went to college and let the good times roll...

[Ksyrup]

Whether you are gay or straight, "wait" should at least mean "wait until you get out of high school." The marriage issue doesn't even enter the picture - unless, of course, you've knocked up your high school sweetheart and get married. But that just takes us back to the original issue.

[rkmsuf]

It's only a day of purity so don't worry about it. There are 364 other days left in the year...

[John Galt]

Whether you are gay or straight, "wait" should at least mean "wait until you get out of high school." The marriage issue doesn't even enter the picture - unless, of course, you've knocked up your high school sweetheart and get married. But that just takes us back to the original issue.

The problem is for gays, what are you waiting for? Marriage is the logical answer for the straight purity movement. For gays? They don't have to worry about pregnancy and they don't know what the rest of their life has to offer in terms of being gay, so why not experiment? Waiting only makes sense if there is something better to wait for - and society has offered gays very little to wait for.

[sachmo71]

Casual sex is a sin. Only meaningful, love sex is pure. Or a really great night of shagging. Sometimes that can be divine. Even if it's casual.

[Ksyrup]

The problem is for gays, what are you waiting for? Marriage is the logical answer for the straight purity movement. For gays? They don't have to worry about pregnancy and they don't know what the rest of their life has to offer in terms of being gay, so why not experiment? Waiting only makes sense if there is something better to wait for - and society has offered gays very little to wait for.Well, let's see...how about waiting for the maturity to deal with the complications that come with having sex? Gays might not have pregnancy to worry about, but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about the issues dealing with intimacy and relationships that become extremely complex once you involve sex? Those are issues common to both straights and gays. And I, for one, don't think it hurts anyone to suggest that maybe kids should wait until they are at least out of high school before they make that kind of choice.

I fully understand that the "wait until you're married" mantra means very little to a gay person. But I think there's enough common sense involved in telling high school kids to wait, that it should, and does, apply equally to gays and straights.

[John Galt]

Well, let's see...how about waiting for the maturity to deal with the complications that come with having sex? Gays might not have pregnancy to worry about, but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about the issues dealing with intimacy and relationships that become extremely complex once you involve sex? Those are issues common to both straights and gays. And I, for one, don't think it hurts anyone to suggest that maybe kids should wait until they are at least out of high school before they make that kind of choice.

I fully understand that the "wait until you're married" mantra means vey little to a gay person. But I think there's enough common sense involved in telling high school kids to wait, that it should, and does, apply equally to gays and straights.

Note that your argument is very different than suggesting "purity." Gays are already "unpure" and can't redeem themselves according to the "purity" movement. As for maturity and STD's, they are both concerns, but that is a reason for teaching about sex rather than pretending that "purity" is the answer.

The "purity" movement is really a straights-only movement and presumes heterosexual normalcy - it pushes gays to the side and pretends they don't exist. The motives may be "pure," but the execution is poor, poor form.

[MrBug708]

Note that your argument is very different than suggesting "purity." Gays are already "unpure" and can't redeem themselves according to the "purity" movement. As for maturity and STD's, they are both concerns, but that is a reason for teaching about sex rather than pretending that "purity" is the answer.

The "purity" movement is really a straights-only movement and presumes heterosexual normalcy - it pushes gays to the side and pretends they don't exist. The motives may be "pure," but the execution is poor, poor form.


John, I'd imagine the "religious right" groups probably piss you off as much as the ACLU so we won't get into that really. Purity in the case of THESE high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Ksyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage or even after HS.

Like I said before, bringing homosexuality in was the article and your own doing's, not the 17 year old girl who wants to wait for marriage.

[MrBug708]

Dola,

If you are gonna stereotype what the conver's believe, gay's are sinful. Unpure is a synonym for it, but a difference instance.

[John Galt]

Purity in the case of THESE high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Ksyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage or even after HS.

Rewriting Bug's argument:

Purity in the case of THESE [Hetero] high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Kysyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage [which gays can't do] or even after HS.

These campaigns are made with only straight students in mind and they pretend gays are invisible. Worse, they use words like "purity" which necessarily exclude gays.

If you want to form an abstitence first campaign that doesn't use concepts like "purity" and actually addresses gays too, then go ahead. This campaign doesn't do that.

[rkmsuf]

Rewriting Bug's argument:

Purity in the case of THESE [Hetero] high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Kysyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage [which gays can't do] or even after HS.

These campaigns are made with only straight students in mind and they pretend gays are invisible. Worse, they use words like "purity" which necessarily exclude gays.

If you want to form an abstitence first campaign that doesn't use concepts like "purity" and actually addresses gays too, then go ahead. This campaign doesn't do that.

Coceptually sex before marriage is applicable to whatever preference you have. Take out the word marriage and replace it with life partner or something. The spirit is to treat sex more seriously --- look at the analogy "going to McDonalds.". Maybe marriage is a poor choice of words but I think the campaign speaks to lessening casual sex.

Take it as you will but gays can also abstaine from sex until they find the person they want to spend their life with regardless of semantics...

[MrBug708]

Where did the girl mention homosexuality once? Pure is a biblical term and I think you and I can both agree that this girl is most likely a Christian and if the term has been warped over the year, I'm sorry, but doesnt make this article pro or con about homosexuality until the author tied it in.

I guess the big issue is that homosexuality is tied into sex while heterosexuality isn't? That seems to be the case here.


Edit-forgot to finish the sentence

[Drake]

Meh. Not every message has to target every demographic. In fact, for decent signal-to-noise ratio communication, messages shouldn't target every demographic. Pick your audience, broadcast your message and hope to hit your group with the big points. When you select another audience, you change your message to suit them.

This isn't an argument about bigotry, but about information theory -- though it can academically be argued that any message which targets a demographic is exclusionary (and, I suppose, bigoted) by definition. You'll note that most feminine hygiene product commercials don't address issues of male hygiene. By suggesting that the feminine product can make only a woman feel "clean and fresh", it consequently argues that men cannot use the same product in the same way and feel equally clean and fresh. I have nothing to look forward to in choosing to use said product. On the other hand, if I want to feel clean and fresh, I can always watch a commercial for a product that is marketed to men.

I see this issue pretty much the same way.

[John Galt]

Coceptually sex before marriage is applicable to whatever preference you have. Take out the word marriage and replace it with life partner or something. The spirit is to treat sex more seriously --- look at the analogy "going to McDonalds.". Maybe marriage is a poor choice of words but I think the campaign speaks to lessening casual sex.

Take it as you will but gays can also abstaine from sex until they find the person they want to spend their life with regardless of semantics...

The problems are 1) Use of language like "purity" which screws gays , 2) The arguments for abstinence are very different for gays and straights (pregnancy being the core argument for straights + "wait for marriage"), and 3) The moral element of the campaign (related to "purity issue") - this isn't a sex education campaign, it is a moral one.

I'm not arguing that a gay friendly abstinence campaign can't exist. I'm just arguing that the one you and Ksyrup describe isn't the same as this one.

[MrBug708]

7 people reading this thread....

[Drake]

dola...

"Purity" is not a solely Biblical term. Let's not get into this argument again, please. :)

[MrBug708]

Dola, 13

[MrBug708]

dola...

"Purity" is not a solely Biblical term. Let's not get into this argument again, please. :)

No, but it's more then likely where the idea came from in this article

[John Galt]

Where did the girl mention homosexuality once? Pure is a biblical term and I think you and I can both agree that this girl is most likely a Christian and if the term has been warped over the year, I'm sorry, but doesnt make this article pro or con about homosexuality until the author tied it in.


That's my point. She doesn't mention homosexuality and presumes heterosexual normalcy while using words and arguments that exclude gays. This has nothing to do with her being (or not being) Christian. It has to do with the way the campaign is structured and the assumptions and arguments it makes.

[Drake]

... 1) Use of language like "purity" which screws gays ...

JG,

Isn't this really an example of false internalization rather than an actual fact? If we start worrying about what beliefs about themselves people may have internalized, there's no reason to attempt to communicate at all.

Edit: My problem with campaigns like this is that when we start harping on inclusiveness, we end up diluting the message to such an extent that it the nebulous platitudes apply to no one in any real way.

[John Galt]

Meh. Not every message has to target every demographic. In fact, for decent signal-to-noise ratio communication, messages shouldn't target every demographic. Pick your audience, broadcast your message and hope to hit your group with the big points. When you select another audience, you change your message to suit them.

This isn't an argument about bigotry, but about information theory -- though it can academically be argued that any message which targets a demographic is exclusionary (and, I suppose, bigoted) by definition. You'll note that most feminine hygiene product commercials don't address issues of male hygiene. By suggesting that the feminine product can make only a woman feel "clean and fresh", it consequently argues that men cannot use the same product in the same way and feel equally clean and fresh. I have nothing to look forward to in choosing to use said product. On the other hand, if I want to feel clean and fresh, I can always watch a commercial for a product that is marketed to men.

I see this issue pretty much the same way.

This is a fair argument, but I have a couple problems with it. First, sex discussions and campaigns at the high school level almost NEVER include gays. This is part of a pattern. Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

[MrBug708]

That's my point. She doesn't mention homosexuality and presumes heterosexual normalcy while using words and arguments that exclude gays. This has nothing to do with her being (or not being) Christian. It has to do with the way the campaign is structured and the assumptions and arguments it makes.

If I say let's go find some hot girls, am I excluding guys because I didn't mention them when there probably are some good looking men around too?

[John Galt]

JG,

Isn't this really an example of false internalization rather than an actual fact? If we start worrying about what beliefs about themselves people may have internalized, there's no reason to attempt to communicate at all.

I think the pattern is what is important here. No one is arguing the extreme, but this is not the first or last campaign which pretends gays don't exist and then uses language to reinforce that fact. And I think this has a lot more to do with internalization of "sin" - gays, especially at this age receive a constant barrage of messages to be straight. There is no diversity of messages for them and the internalization is inevitable.

[MrBug708]

This is a fair argument, but I have a couple problems with it. First, sex discussions and campaigns at the high school level almost NEVER include gays. This is part of a pattern. Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.


We MUST be in the 1950's then because when I was in HS, they talked about it. You always hear about schools having to update their ciriculum (sp) in order to include homosexuality as part of it and conservative groups fighting it to the bitter end.

[Drake]

Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

Ah, this may be the difference. Being a WASP male heterosexual, I'm not used to thinking in terms of people trying to specifically exclude me from their message/campaign. You may very well be right and I'm just not looking at this deeply enough.

[John Galt]

If I say let's go find some hot girls, am I excluding guys because I didn't mention them when there probably are some good looking men around too?

Come on - look at my argument - that is not what I'm saying. Invisibility is one of the three issues that bothers me. Alone it is not as significant, with the other two, it is part of a bad pattern.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I should have been an attorney... I guessed the opposition's argument. :D

If this was an abstinence campaign, it would say "don't have sex period" not "don't have sex until you are married".

There are no conditions to abstaining from something. You either do it or you don't. But somehow I don't think nuns and sisters of a faith are this campaign's target.

Go back to the 1930's and start a "purity by voting" campaign and see the results.

[MrBug708]

John, you are only giving one side. You keep mention the exclusion of homosexuals in a lot of life's aspect and how they hear about being straight, not gay from a lot of the religious groups, of which I agree, they are pretty relentless. But for every article chastising homosexuals, you could find one chastising conservatives. It's a two way street. One tells you that your whole belief structure is wrong, the other says that our belief structure is right. So which is it?

[MrBug708]

Come on - look at my argument - that is not what I'm saying. Invisibility is one of the three issues that bothers me. Alone it is not as significant, with the other two, it is part of a bad pattern.

The world is too PC IMO. Everyone thinks that everyone else has a hidden agenda. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I read in a lot of religious right magazines. Whether or not I believe what they believe or their conspiracy theories and what not, it's pretty out there.

[rkmsuf]

I should have been an attorney... I guessed the opposition's argument. :D

If this was an abstinence campaign, it would say "don't have sex period" not "don't have sex until you are married".

There are no conditions to abstaining from something. You either do it or you don't. But somehow I don't think nuns and sisters of a faith are this campaign's target.

Go back to the 1930's and start a "purity by voting" campaign and see the results.

That's why the core of the issue isn't tied to picking apart the verbage. I think it's a reaction to what's in the first sentence that refers to "messages of sexual promiscuity" and the main issue is to curtail irresponsible sex. You can argue semantics until your blue in the face but I think anyone can identify with treating sex in a morally responsible way...which by the way can mean different things to different people.

[John Galt]

John, you are only giving one side. You keep mention the exclusion of homosexuals in a lot of life's aspect and how they hear about being straight, not gay from a lot of the religious groups, of which I agree, they are pretty relentless. But for every article chastising homosexuals, you could find one chastising conservatives. It's a two way street. One tells you that your whole belief structure is wrong, the other says that our belief structure is right. So which is it?

To compare the persecution of gays to that of being conservative shows me that there is no way we can come to terms on this argument.

[Bubba Wheels]

The secular humanists just don't know when to quit. Bad enough they continually insult God's Word and those who actually believe in it by ridiculing and scorning both whenever they get a chance. But now they would even attempt to deny the difference between their own world view and those of Christians by not even allowing those who would like a 'choice' in what is appropriate and not.

Sorry, this one push's my buttons. The arrogance of the secular humanists always seems to come down to how much 'smarter' they are then those 'backwards fundamentalists' and how they push their beliefs in a self-righteous manner twice as bad as those they always claim are religiously self-righteous.

Perfect example, nothing on earth in more self-righteous and pious than a secular humanist who feels that his/her 'rights' have been violated by them having been subject to someone else's religious belief. (Like the sanctimonious folks all over the news shows talking about how that 'fanatical pilot' should be fired!) It was actually a gay columnist for some publication aboard the plane that stated what the Pilot said was not at all 'in your face' and that the passenger's reaction was way overblown.

By the way, Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that Secular Humanism IS a religion (of man) and holds all the same doctrine-types and mandates as any other religion. So all the phonies who like to hide behind some false claim of 'neutrality' and 'superiority of rationality, not religion", ect..., yes you can be every bit as self-righteous, pious, ect...as the backwards religious folks. Only the religious folks actually seem to know better.

[John Galt]

Go away, Bubba.

And I'm neither "secular" or a "humanist."

And it is always interesting to me that those who want their life choice (religion) actively protected by the law think that arguing being gay is a "choice" somehow denies their claim to even basic protections.

[Noble_Platypus]

Clearly.
Why does everyone feel the need to read into everything and look for non existant hidden meanings. All this girl is doing is try to motivate kids to not have sex at a young age. This cuts down on teenage pregnacy, disease and boosts self esteem. Yet because somebody out there doesnt like the word she uses to describe it theres a huge deal made about it. Its like a new version of the Kevin Bacon game. In every news story there a hidden anti gay agenda that can be linked to it in 6 moves or less. Doent be stupid, applaud her for what she is doing because everyone knows what she is trying to accomplish and if you sympathize with they gay movement turn your attention to people and organizations that are openly anti gay.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That's why the core of the issue isn't tied to picking apart the verbage. I think it's a reaction to what's in the first sentence that refers to "messages of sexual promiscuity" and the main issue is to curtail irresponsible sex. You can argue semantics until your blue in the face but I think anyone can identify with treating sex in a morally responsible way...which by the way can mean different things to different people.

right.... so I am guessing these pamphlets being passed out talk about homosexuals and their different situation also... I bet not.

What's the difference between saying "don't have sex before marriage" and "don't have sex until you have matured mentally as an adult"

Marriage doesn't automatically make you mature all of a sudden. That's conservative talk. errr no I'm messing with verbage...

[MrBug708]

To compare the persecution of gays to that of being conservative shows me that there is no way we can come to terms on this argument.

Because no one has ever been killed for being a Christian.... :(

[John Galt]

Because no one has ever been killed for being a Christian.... :(

This doesn't even deserve a response, but you said "conservative" not "christian."

[Bubba Wheels]

Homosexuality is hostile to the Christian World point of view. Doesn't mean that Christians want gays 'eliminated', all it means is that if you are not Christian be just as respectful of their rights and sensativities as you expect them to be of yours.

And anybody who thinks that no one has ever been killed for being a Christian, lol, you are historically lost without hope.

Example of the former. You don't want teacher's or school administrators telling you about Jesus Christ, don't expect them to shove anti-Christian messages about homosexuality and different forms of 'safe-sex' in your face either. Think this is possible?

[MrBug708]

This doesn't even deserve a response, but you said "conservative" not "christian."

Not too many liberal christians out there are there?

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Christ told us all to love one another.

Discuss.

Ronnie, He also talked quite abit about hell, unless your the kind that just likes to pick and choose.

[MrBug708]

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Christ told us all to love one another.

Discuss.

Original :)

Do you love your children even when they do something you don't like?

[timmynausea]

Alright, fellas. Good thread. Let's tally the votes.

Mark me down for John Galt. He seemed much more articulate than his opposition, and I feel he will ultimately come out the winner in this. (When all the votes are counted, of course.)
The one who has me stumped is MrBug708. What the shit? I can't figure out what the hell this guy is getting at. Part of me wants to say his whole strategy is to confuse his enemy and reduce the argument to merely typing random insane nonsense, which would be something of a feat, to be sure.
Anyway, get those votes in.

[MrBug708]

:rolleyes:

[MrBug708]

I just am amazed by how much religion (whether Christianity, Islam, etc.) is so often used as an excuse to hate and harm other people.

Nice generalization there

[John Galt]

Not too many liberal christians out there are there?

Huh? Look at the numbers - you will be suprised. And if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "christian" when making your argument then maybe you shouldn't assume you understand what "purity" means either.

[MrBug708]

Huh? Look at the numbers - you will be suprised. And if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "christian" when making your argument then maybe you shouldn't assume you understand what "purity" means either.

Oh, I'm not sauing they aren';t out there. I consider myself a moderate, I just don't like to see what I grew up knowing to be true be called hateful and bigoted.

I'm aware there is a difference between conservative and christian, but we are talking about the article correct?

[MrBug708]

Whoa whoa whoa. This is getting a bit out of hand here. I don't think I made any sort of generalization. It is a fact that religion is used by many people as a tool of hate. See 9/11. See "God Hates Fags"signs. To deny this is ridiculous. I am NOT saying all religious people do this; I'm a practicing Catholic myself. I just can never understand why people use something that is so good to try to accomplish hateful things.

Everyone uses something as hate. The crusades, the abortion doctor killers, the missionaries killed in other parts all use something to justify their means. Doesn't mean they were right to use it and also doesn't mean the ideal they used supported their actions.

[HornedFrog Purple]

As a child of God and believer in Jesus Christ, I did not know that the prohibition in the freedom of thought and attempting to understand the other side of a moral issue whether I agree with it or not was part of the deal.

I don't think it is.

[Bubba Wheels]

Whoa whoa whoa. This is getting a bit out of hand here. I don't think I made any sort of generalization. It is a fact that religion is used by many people as a tool of hate. See 9/11. See "God Hates Fags"signs. To deny this is ridiculous. I am NOT saying all religious people do this; I'm a practicing Catholic myself. I just can never understand why people use something that is so good to try to accomplish hateful things.

This is why the discussion needs to be kept in broad terms, more or less along the lines of points-of-view. To start taking extreme examples just shows your lack of insight in general. An easy response to your comment is the "In-Your-Face" Gay Parade in San Fransisco, not too mention a little organization called 'Queer Nation" that basically ambushes people. How many pedophile stories do you want regarding homosexual behavior? (Don't get on your Catholic Priest horse either, I'm not Catholic and your just proving my point...studies show many gay men become priests to deal with their problems)

[MrBug708]

Oy Vey BW

[MrBug708]

Dola

With that, I'm off to work

[rkmsuf]

Of course that's right. I guess I would just hope that religious people (like myself, I am not trying to generalize or pigeonhole) would rise above that. I guess it's the impossible dream though.

I'm a little touchy about this because for the past two days here in Boston I've walked past the gay marriage protests, and I am ashamed at the people who use their belief in God to spread hate to other human beings. In my opinion, this is the greater crime than homosexuality ever could be.

I'm with Dobbs.

[John Galt]

This is why the discussion needs to be kept in broad terms, more or less along the lines of points-of-view. To start taking extreme examples just shows your lack of insight in general. An easy response to your comment is the "In-Your-Face" Gay Parade in San Fransisco, not too mention a little organization called 'Queer Nation" that basically ambushes people. How many pedophile stories do you want regarding homosexual behavior? (Don't get on your Catholic Priest horse either, I'm not Catholic and your just proving my point...studies show many gay men become priests to deal with their problems)

Offensive Myth #1: Gays are pedophiles.

Facts: The large majority of pedophiles are straight. Conservative groups who support the myth that gays are pedophlies by saying a man who molests a boy is "gay" even if he is "straight" with adults. This distortion of statistics supports one of the most offensive myths against gays. Not surprisingly, Bubba uses it.


And you know what I hate - all those "in your face" straight events like homecoming, prom, and marriage. I mean, why don't those people do those things in private?

[Noble_Platypus]

How did an article about a girl organizing a group about waiting to have sex turn into a "prom oppresses gay people" thread?

[Bubba Wheels]

Offensive Myth #1: Gays are pedophiles.

Facts: The large majority of pedophiles are straight. Conservative groups who support the myth that gays are pedophlies by saying a man who molests a boy is "gay" even if he is "straight" with adults. This distortion of statistics supports one of the most offensive myths against gays. Not surprisingly, Bubba uses it.


And you know what I hate - all those "in your face" straight events like homecoming, prom, and marriage. I mean, why don't those people do those things in private?

We can agree on that! Decentralize the public school monopoly, allow vouchers to let parents send kids to schools that promote their own values and ethics, and your school can do away with whatever it wants. (Don't like the fact that you'd lose your largest vehicle of socialist indoctrination to the young that way, do you?) :D

[John Galt]

How did an article about a girl organizing a group about waiting to have sex turn into a "prom oppresses gay people" thread?

Just to point out - I was not arguing that - I was being sarcastic because Bubba complained gay parades were "in your face."

[John Galt]

We can agree on that! Decentralize the public school monopoly, allow vouchers to let parents send kids to schools that promote their own values and ethics, and your school can do away with whatever it wants. (Don't like the fact that you'd lose your largest vehicle of socialist indoctrination to the young that way, do you?) :D

Yeah, schools are "socialist." :rolleyes:

And I'm sure the solution is private schools with different values. Imagine that in 1950 - all the blacks go to school a, all the whites go to schools b,c, and d, hispanics and asians can share school e, etc. Yeah, that's a great idea.

[Bubba Wheels]

By the way, you claim pedophiles being homosexual is a myth, then state something else as fact: you need to site your source, otherwise your just parroting talking points for your point of view from others that support you even though they may not be correct.

[rkmsuf]

I'd say pedophiles come in all shapes and sizes.

[Bubba Wheels]

Yeah, schools are "socialist." :rolleyes:

And I'm sure the solution is private schools with different values. Imagine that in 1950 - all the blacks go to school a, all the whites go to schools b,c, and d, hispanics and asians can share school e, etc. Yeah, that's a great idea.

That's pretty much the way it is today under the public school system. And fact is, the most highly sought-after private Christian high school in our area (admission is very tough), is also one of the most highly intergrated and diversified schools in addition.

[John Galt]

By the way, you claim pedophiles being homosexual is a myth, then state something else as fact: you need to site your source, otherwise your just parroting talking points for your point of view from others that support you even though they may not be correct.

Since you will probably dismiss any gay group I cite, I will cite a Christian one (although you probably won't like the Unitarians either):

hxxp://www.uugroton.org/myths.htm

The evidence is easy to find if you look beyond the homophobe cites.

[John Galt]

That's pretty much the way it is today under the public school system. And fact is, the most highly sought-after private Christian high school in our area (admission is very tough), is also one of the most highly intergrated and diversified schools in addition.

I'm sorry, was there a cite? Or are you just "parroting talking points for your point of view?"

[Bubba Wheels]

Its a fact that can easily be checked out. Its not some myth/fact reference that can be anything the poster claims it to be.

[Bubba Wheels]

Since you will probably dismiss any gay group I cite, I will cite a Christian one (although you probably won't like the Unitarians either):

hxxp://www.uugroton.org/myths.htm

The evidence is easy to find if you look beyond the homophobe cites.

Now your ignorance is running rampant. Unitarians are not Christians, their whole existance as a 'church' is to take on the trappings and organization of a Christian denomination while remaining atheist. You either knew that and tried to pull a fast one, or your really behind the curve on the facts. :p

[John Galt]

Its a fact that can easily be checked out. Its not some myth/fact reference that can be anything the poster claims it to be.

It is a "fact that can easily be checked out" that modern American school systems are tools of socialist indoctrination?

[John Galt]

Now your ignorance is running rampant. Unitarians are not Christians, their whole existance as a 'church' is to take on the trappings and organization of a Christian denomination while remaining atheist. You either knew that and tried to pull a fast one, or your really behind the curve on the facts. :p

I knew you wouldn't like it, but my understanding is that Unitarians are Judeo-Christian faith that uses the Bible as the source of teachings. Maybe I am wrong on that - I don't know.

Either way, just look at crime stats or 1000 other cites to find the truth on this issue.

[Aardvark]

Now your ignorance is running rampant. Unitarians are not Christians, their whole existance as a 'church' is to take on the trappings and organization of a Christian denomination while remaining atheist. You either knew that and tried to pull a fast one, or your really behind the curve on the facts. :p

Unitarians are not atheists. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existance of a deity. Unitarians, many of them at least, do believe in the existance of a deity, or higher power, or spiritual dimension or whatever. Its just not important to them to have a doctrinaire view of what it is. You can ask ten Unitarians to define what the divine is to them, and you will get ten answers, but most of them will say that they think, or believe, that there is something there.

Put another way, Christians pray to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jews pray to Ha'shem. (Standard Jewish way of refering to God without actually stating his Hebrew name.)
Islamics pray to Allah
Shintoists pray to a variety of deities.
Members of the American Indian Church pray to the Great Spirit.
Unitarians pray to whatever is out there listening.

[Desnudo]

Not abstinence education... abstinence itself.

hxxp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/7942316.htm


Could someone please explain how practicing abstinence and telling others about its benefits is bigoted?

I predict that Melissa Millis will become known around the dorms as a crazed sex maniac after 6 months at college. As long as she doesn't go to Oral Roberts or become a lesbian.

I liken it to people who never had a drink in high school and are always the ones who turn into the uncontrollable drunks in college. The craziest person I met didn't lose her virginity until her sophomore year at college.

[rkmsuf]

I predict that Melissa Millis will become known around the dorms as a crazed sex maniac after 6 months at college. As long as she doesn't go to Oral Roberts or become a lesbian.

I liken it to people who never had a drink in high school and are always the ones who turn into the uncontrollable drunks in college. The craziest person I met didn't lose her virginity until her sophomore year at college.

That was my initial hypothesis that got buried in legitimate discussion...

[Desnudo]

Sorry, I didn't read the posts before I posted. I had that immediate reaction and wanted to post without polluting the beauty of the image. :)

[rkmsuf]

Sorry, I didn't read the posts before I posted. I had that immediate reaction and wanted to post without polluting the beauty of the image. :)

No actually I enjoyed revisiting it...I pretend she's hot and I'm back in college and...uh...uh...


gotta go.

[Subby]

Wake me up when it is National ButtFucking Lesbians Day...

[RendeR]

Homosexuality is hostile to the Christian World point of view. Doesn't mean that Christians want gays 'eliminated', all it means is that if you are not Christian be just as respectful of their rights and sensativities as you expect them to be of yours.

And anybody who thinks that no one has ever been killed for being a Christian, lol, you are historically lost without hope.

Example of the former. You don't want teacher's or school administrators telling you about Jesus Christ, don't expect them to shove anti-Christian messages about homosexuality and different forms of 'safe-sex' in your face either. Think this is possible?

Bubba, to begin with, there is nothing "anti-christian" about homosexuality, thousands if not tens of thousands of christians are gay. It happens, accept it. Secondly, there is nothing Anti-christian in teaching kids how to not get pregnant if they DO for whatever reason have sex. so frankly, your example is a load of horse shit, please shovel it back into your load where it came from.

People being killed because of their religion is historic, its happened for all time. From my own research and readings on the subject I can promise you that far more have died at the hands of christians than the other way around at this point. The very fact that you bring up this subject tells me just how closed your mind is to other points of view.

And as for the respecting of rights and sensitivities, when christian "bible thumpers" stop mid sermon and say "you know, I'm sorry, you obviously don't want to hear this, I'll leave you alone now" and do so, when they are trying their best to convert me. I'll give them the same respect and not tell them how completely assinine they're being. Religion is a PERSONAL spiritual journey, no single person in the world has the right to tell another person how they should believe. Enjoy your personal beliefs, but don't even think of projecting yours on to my way of life. Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.


*Edit* sorry i got a bit off track there:

The idea that they want to promote abstinence is fine, its not a bad thing for high school kids, they should grow up more before getting into sex. However, I can see the homosexuals point of view that the wording and perception of this campaign is biased against them. They can't marry, and using the word "until marriage" is something that will hit them straight in the face. Call it abstinance day, and suddenly they'll be being open and accepting to ALL people.

And just to add to this: Being abstinant does not define being pure. Their whole thought process is wrong there.

[RendeR]

Unitarians are not atheists. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existance of a deity. Unitarians, many of them at least, do believe in the existance of a deity, or higher power, or spiritual dimension or whatever. Its just not important to them to have a doctrinaire view of what it is. You can ask ten Unitarians to define what the divine is to them, and you will get ten answers, but most of them will say that they think, or believe, that there is something there.

Put another way, Christians pray to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jews pray to Ha'shem. (Standard Jewish way of refering to God without actually stating his Hebrew name.)
Islamics pray to Allah
Shintoists pray to a variety of deities.
Members of the American Indian Church pray to the Great Spirit.
Unitarians pray to whatever is out there listening.



Outstanding post Aardvark.

[Noble_Platypus]

Bubba, to begin with, there is nothing "anti-christian" about homosexuality, thousands if not tens of thousands of christians are gay. It happens, accept it. Secondly, there is nothing Anti-christian in teaching kids how to not get pregnant if they DO for whatever reason have sex. so frankly, your example is a load of horse shit, please shovel it back into your load where it came from.

People being killed because of their religion is historic, its happened for all time. From my own research and readings on the subject I can promise you that far more have died at the hands of christians than the other way around at this point. The very fact that you bring up this subject tells me just how closed your mind is to other points of view.

And as for the respecting of rights and sensitivities, when christian "bible thumpers" stop mid sermon and say "you know, I'm sorry, you obviously don't want to hear this, I'll leave you alone now" and do so, when they are trying their best to convert me. I'll give them the same respect and not tell them how completely assinine they're being. Religion is a PERSONAL spiritual journey, no single person in the world has the right to tell another person how they should believe. Enjoy your personal beliefs, but don't even think of projecting yours on to my way of life. Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.


*Edit* sorry i got a bit off track there:

The idea that they want to promote abstinence is fine, its not a bad thing for high school kids, they should grow up more before getting into sex. However, I can see the homosexuals point of view that the wording and perception of this campaign is biased against them. They can't marry, and using the word "until marriage" is something that will hit them straight in the face. Call it abstinance day, and suddenly they'll be being open and accepting to ALL people.

And just to add to this: Being abstinant does not define being pure. Their whole thought process is wrong there.
At the risk of blowing this thread wide open, I must disagree. The bible states homosexuality is an abomination. YOu cant be Christian and be gay. I fully accept the fact that about half a dozen people on here are going to go berzerk on me for saying that, but the bible doesnt leave much room for discussion on the subject.

[mckerney]

I'm sorry, was there a cite? Or are you just "parroting talking points for your point of view?"

You're missing the point. Only you need to cite things, anything he says has to be factually correct.

[John Galt]

At the risk of blowing this thread wide open, I must disagree. The bible states homosexuality is an abomination. YOu cant be Christian and be gay. I fully accept the fact that about half a dozen people on here are going to go berzerk on me for saying that, but the bible doesnt leave much room for discussion on the subject.

As I've said in many threads before, it is hardly a settled fact that the Bible condemns gays. There are several books on the subject and translations/interpretations make it quite possible for people to be gay and christian.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/002-6427233-1352062?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0943595789/002-6427233-1352062?v=glance

Also, there are plenty of websites on these issues (many that are balanced and go both ways):

hxxp://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm

hxxp://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html

hxxp://hem.passagen.se/nicb/bible.htm

hxxp://www.bridges-across.org/ba/herzog-brauch.htm

hxxp://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaybib.html

hxxp://www.ucc.org/theology/acton1.htm

This is far from an open and shut issue (even though the mainstream conception is like yours). I hope that people learn that there are many paths to christian faith and to wholly exclude gays is just not right.

[Noble_Platypus]

http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/chrhome/homo.htm

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10).

In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

[John Galt]

http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/chrhome/homo.htm

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10).

In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

My two favorite quotes so far from that cite:

"The word "gay" means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts."

"However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants."



And one key point in all of this: the key quotes that are used to condemn gays are in Leviticus, yet Chrisitians seem to have no trouble ignoring all the other different parts of Leviticus (especially the dietary ones). Look at the bibliography cite I listed. 100s of articles and books both ways have been written on this subject. It is far from settled and certainly not by the bigot who authored the cite you listed.

I'm more than willing to believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I think it is hardly clear and I don't pretend to know the answer.

[John Galt]

More "fun" quotes from Noble's cite:

"Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy."

"Studies" - sounds impressive.

"Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?
In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God's attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death."

Gays should be killed. That's nice.

"Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?
Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. "

This guy is just on crack now.

[Schmidty]

I often wish to bring my perspective to these types of threads, but then I remember the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 and go back to my corner.

[Noble_Platypus]

I see, since the author of the site I listed doesnt agree with you he/she is a bigot. Also, I hardly see how its the author who is a bigot, unless you mean the author of Leviticus.

[Noble_Platypus]

I chose the site I did for the scripture verses, not their spin. It came up first on google. Why not read the bible verses and take them for what they are instead of looking to discredit the author

[John Galt]

I see, since the author of the site I listed doesnt agree with you he/she is a bigot. Also, I hardly see how its the author who is a bigot, unless you mean the author of Leviticus.

Read the quotes I listed above. When asked how the church should deal with gays, he goes into a rant about how the bible says they should be killed. He later gives the platitudes of loving the sinner, but when asked a direct question on how to deal with gays, he says, "kill, kill, kill."

He also propogates every offensive myth about gays - seduction, molestation, promiscuous, etc. He bases them on "evidence" that is never producted. That is bigotry.

I'm not denying there are good arguments for why the bible condemns homosexuality (if you actually read my links, you'll see plenty of arguments both ways), but the cite you picked is from a bigot, plain and simple.

[John Galt]

I chose the site I did for the scripture verses, not their spin. It came up first on google. Why not read the bible verses and take them for what they are instead of looking to discredit the author

If you read my links, they discuss those versus and why they don't necessarily condemn gays and/or why they aren't important in the bible. I'm willing to say that the bible is a book of interpretation and that many people read it without finding homosexuality wrong (while others do). Acting like it is a settled issue without reading the other side just doesn't make sense to me.

[MJ4H]

Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.




:eek:

[John Galt]

Oh yeah - here is another site that is pretty comprehensive in favor of the gay christian position:

hxxp://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html

[Ben E Lou]

Why not read the bible verses and take them for what they are instead of looking to discredit the author
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal">http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 03-20-2003, 05:21 PM <!-- / status icon and date --></TD><TD class=thead style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal" align=right> #80 (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showpost.php?p=77310&postcount=80) </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 width=175>John Galt (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/member.php?u=220)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_77310", true); </SCRIPT>
Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,549



</TD><TD class=alt2><!-- message -->Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

:D

[The Afoci]

As I have said before, quoting the Bible on subjects such as homosexuality is very iffy. There is very solid evidence and many religous scholars agree that portions of the Bible were rewritten after originally put to paper. Who is to say that a person translating the Bible who was very homophobic didn't just rewrite portions of it.

[RendeR]

At the risk of blowing this thread wide open, I must disagree. The bible states homosexuality is an abomination. YOu cant be Christian and be gay. I fully accept the fact that about half a dozen people on here are going to go berzerk on me for saying that, but the bible doesnt leave much room for discussion on the subject.


The simplest response to this is this:

Christians believe in the diefication of christ through the crucifiction, that in its most basic form defines a christian.

There are untold numbers of versions of the bible, every sect of christianity uses its own preference for its services. The BIBLE does not make you christian. The bible used by your denomination simply gives you the reference works to build sermons on.

Christ and belief in him makes you christian, and you had better learn to accept that gays and lesbians have every right to believe in it just like you or any other christian does.

[RendeR]

:eek:


Sorry Matt, this didn't come across the way I was thinking it. Its supposed to read more along the line that the church says this is the only true way, and you actually believe it is the only true way, then perhaps your ignorant of the reality that is the fact that there is a true way for every single person and no-one can tell you what that is but you.

this sounds all nice n stuff. I apologize if I offended anyone with the previous.

[Bubba Wheels]

Sorry. Fact is, the Bible states early and often that the physical world we see around us is less important and real than the spiritual one behind it. "God is spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth."

The Bible details who God is, and just as importantly what God's relationship is to be with us (of our own choice), and how we are to be obediant to God's plan. The Bible is under the guidance and witness of God's presence on earth today, His Holy Spirit. You can find certain factual errors in certain verses (devil's myth about the horns comes from the horn representing political power on earth.) But the overall thread of the Bible will always remain consistant and without error. (New International Version is actually a more accurate translation than the King James, from what I understand.)

Homosexuality is always pointed out in the Bible as a consequence of individuals or even nations turning their backs on God and the consequence of their sin. History shows us that when homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in society then that society is nearer its end than its beginning. "God is not mocked."

The Bible also shows those who care to learn from it that homosexuality is actually spiritual in nature, and it results from the presence and even pocession of a person by unclean spirits. These spirits, like all other anti-Judeo-Christian forces in the world since ancient times seeks to raise the physical over the spiritual. But as God clearly tells us "There is a way seems right unto a man, but the ways therein are the ways of death." God refers to not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

[Chubby]

You're missing the point. Only you need to cite things, anything he says has to be factually correct.

YES! We have a winner!

[yabanci]

http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/chrhome/homo.htm

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10).


This is real convincing. I wonder why when people quote I Corinthians 6:9-10 to condemn homosexuality, they don't quote the rest of the verse. According to the King James Bible, that passage reads:

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolators, no adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inhereit the kingdom of god"

Okay, so let's go with your argument -- homosexuals are ineligible. But, let's also not forget that anyone who has committed fornication (consensual sex between a man and woman who are not married) or is covetous (one who desires the material posessions of another), just to name two easy groups, is also ineligible. My guess is that makes 90% or more of Americans ineligible, probably including everybody who as posted in this thread (have you ever fornicated or coveted? See you in hell).

Leviticus is another one. People reach way back to Leviticus to pull out verses to condemn homosexuals but never mention all the other wacky things found in Leviticus. Some of these things were pointed out in a clever "letter" ot Dr. Laura Schlessinger back when she used Leviticus to condemn homosexuals a few years ago:

"Dear Dr Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how best to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:&. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15: 19 - 24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev 25: 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6 - 8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves.

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24: 10 - 16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? Lev 20:14.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan..... "

[Drake]

Yabanci,

That is a beautiful, brilliant post.

[RendeR]

Sorry. Fact is, the Bible states early and often that the physical world we see around us is less important and real than the spiritual one behind it. "God is spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth."

Ok, so the spiritual world is more important, fine, Gays and Lesbians can believe this way if they see fit, no argument here.

The Bible details who God is, and just as importantly what God's relationship is to be with us (of our own choice), and how we are to be obediant to God's plan. The Bible is under the guidance and witness of God's presence on earth today, His Holy Spirit. You can find certain factual errors in certain verses (devil's myth about the horns comes from the horn representing political power on earth.) But the overall thread of the Bible will always remain consistant and without error. (New International Version is actually a more accurate translation than the King James, from what I understand.)

Yes, the Bible is the human interpretation of god's will, wishes, and works, sure, I can accept that too. Your reference to the obvious errors and fallacies within it provide more than enough support for that stance.

Homosexuality is always pointed out in the Bible as a consequence of individuals or even nations turning their backs on God and the consequence of their sin. History shows us that when homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in society then that society is nearer its end than its beginning. "God is not mocked."

Now here you're stretching it a bit. There are references to homosexuality throughout the bible, however neither do all of them call it a consequence of disbelief in god, NOR is there any proof what so ever that acceptance of it indicates a decline in society. Sorry bubba, your halo gets tarnished here, no facts, no validity.

The Bible also shows those who care to learn from it that homosexuality is actually spiritual in nature, and it results from the presence and even pocession of a person by unclean spirits. These spirits, like all other anti-Judeo-Christian forces in the world since ancient times seeks to raise the physical over the spiritual. But as God clearly tells us "There is a way seems right unto a man, but the ways therein are the ways of death." God refers to not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

Here you bring up my original point. There are untold numbers of divisions within the christian belief system. Not all Christians believe the same things you might for example. Not everyone will believe that homosexuality is spiritual in nature, many infact believe it may be a genetic tendancy, or even a learned behaviour. So this validates my point Christianity is a personal belief system, no matter what denomination you belong to, or if you simply follow it in your own way (GASP) it is not based on the bible, to be christian you could read martha stewarts cooking books if you wished, as long as you believe in the deification of christ. THAT is the basis of christianity. The bible is just the tool used to support that belief.

Now no where in any of this have you shown anything that says a gay or lesbian person could not believe in the crucifiction and martyrdom of christ. IF they believe in that, they are as christian as you or the next person. Wether YOU as a christian of another denomination or belief system accept that ir irrelevent, you don't have a right to tell them how to believe in god, now do you? ;)

[Drake]

dola...

I've never been able to figure out why Xians are so willing to give murderers and child molesters a pass on sin because they repent, but seem to view homosexuality as an unforgiveable offense. Look, I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, though I myself find the evidence something less than convincing. In any event, I don't know about you, but the God my parents taught me about said that sin is sin. There is no hierarchy, so I don't see any reason to condemn homosexuality more than something "minor" like treating my wife disrespectfully or provoking my children to wrath.

If it's a sin, let God sort it out, just like he'll sort out all the foul language users and the uncircumcised and any Canaanites that happen to still be lurking about after the Hebrew genocide program. And if it isn't a sin, aren't you going to look like a dumbass when you try to explain to God that you persecuted fellow believers because you thought that was what He wanted?

Bottom line is that God is either sovereign or He isn't. He's omnipotent and can take care of His own business, or He's a pussy and He needs the help of flunkies to strong arm pagans into submission. And frankly, if that's God, He's just a bully and doesn't really deserve our adoration in the first place.

[RendeR]

Well said Drake.

[Noble_Platypus]

I will not further engage in a battle over this. But as one last response to your posts, you ask why christians give murders a pass when they repent but not gays. You answered your own question. The murderer repented, while the gay continues to live a homosexual life. Had the murderer not repented he would not go to heaven either. I know anyone can twist anything into whatever they want, as evidenced by the fact that a teenage girl tries to help push waiting on sex and homosexuals turn into an anti gay movement.Say what you will, believe whatever you wish. If you think that you will be rewarded one day for the life you live so be it.I really dont care how you interpret things. Everyone on here post evidence from other sites. Some because it supports what they want to believe, others taht dont support your thoughts you attack their credibility. I choose to cut out the middleman and read the scripture. If you can read the verse about homosexuality is an abomination and still twist it so you believe its ok by God to be gay then its pointless to continue this banter, which is why I am quitting now.

[RendeR]

Noble, the only thing I'd like to say to that is this:

The Bible is only as good as your own interpretation of it. What I would hope all people would come to realize is that whatever your beliefs, they are yours and yours alone, and you have no right or priviledge to foist them on another person.

The beginning of the thread developed into a reaction to what some people Interpreted as another way that Christianity is attempting to persecute Homosexuals because of the difference in their beliefs. Wether that was the intent (which I doubt it was by the girl) or not, the fact remains that homosexuals ARE persecuted. I fail to understand or accept anyone's religion trying to tell me that that is acceptable behaviour.

I accept that I am not going to sway christians in this because they are told to believe what they believe and are threatened with "hell" if they go against it. They choose to follow that faith for whatever personal reasons. What I will never accept is the outright discrimination of a group of people for their beliefs. Christians ought to have a clue about that, but sometimes I think they've forgotten.

[Fonzie]

I promised myself that I wouldn't step into this muck, but here I am, breaking my promise to myself (and thereby making myself an abomination - see below). My intent here is to establish a line of reasoning, using direct Biblical quotations, that suggest a serious flaw in the literal Biblical proclomation that homosexuality is an "abomination" and those who practice it cannot be Christian, which seems to serve as the basis for the anti-gay marriage movement. At the very least I hope to provide a serious conundrum to those making the argument.

Let's start! The Bible is, for many, the definitive resource for determining how God wants his followers to live their lives. And it is easy to see how...

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she [is] thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.

18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.

18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she [is] thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she [is] thy father's near kinswoman.

18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she [is] thy mother's near kinswoman.

18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she [is] thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it [is] wickedness.

18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

...all make some general sense. If we assume that the "uncovering of nakedness" is a euphemism for "having sex with" then these are more or less reasonable restrictions. Making hearty, healthy babies is the name of the game here - ensuring that a wide variety of folks contribute to the gene pool and prohibiting incest seems like downright good ideas, especially given the times in which these were written. People weren't as healthy back then, living conditions were harsh, and survival was by no means guaranteed. These rules help to ensure successful procreation, allowing the clan and its culture to continue. Thus, violating any of these orders reduces the chances of clan survival, which makes that behavior abominable and results in doom (though I confess to not understanding why having sex with a menstruating woman is an abomination of this order). Okay.

It is within this context that the next listed prohibition:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

...needs to be interpreted. A man cannot fertilize another man - and wasting time on this effort reduces the overall survivability of the clan to some degree. This is, in my opinion, the real reason why the Bible forbade homosexuality - it posed a potential complication to procreation at a time when survival was much harder. Reading Lev 18:22 out of context can lead some to conclude that homosexuality is an abomination in its own right and automatically eliminates one from consideration as a member in good standing of the Christian faith. But such an unsophisticated reading of that individual passage misses the point: these rules are intended to ensure the survival of the group via procreation!

Now, given that the Christian sect is in no imminent danger of failing to produce lots of babies or having its culture fade into obscurity anytime soon it seems difficult to argue that there is a pressing need to ensure frequent fertilization of females (indeed, given the world's current population we could probably use a lot fewer people of every denomination). Thus, it would make sense to revisit some of these "abominations" and consider easing up a bit on the now-harmless abominations (like sex during her period or homosexual behavior) while retaining the clearly harmful prohibitions (incest, primarily).

Of course, there are those who would disagree with this logic, or even the whole premise of "reinterpretation grounded within a reasonable context" and argue that "if the Bible says its an abomination, then its an abomination, period." To them I'd say - hold onto your hat, for if you have:

- eaten clams ( Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you);

- worn polyblend fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together);

- told a lie of any kind (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight);

- committed adultery (Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her);

- trimmed your beard (Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.);

- gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD);

- charged interest on a loan (Psalms 15:5 [He that] putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things] shall never be moved);

- or paid interest on a loan (Jeremian 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; [yet] every one of them doth curse me)

...then you have committed an abominable act in God's eyes. If you have done any of these things you are in the same class of doomed souls as homosexuals, and are thus just as unviable a candidate for Christianity as they. Indeed, perhaps we should begin erecting laws to defend the pure morality of the non-polyblend-fabric-wearers from the encroachments of the heathen polyblend-fabricians. Unless, of course, it might just be worthwhile to revisit and reassess the utility of reinterpreting the intent of these behaviors prohibited by the Bible.

And one final thought - Jesus had this to say which might be relevant to this discussion, given the high probability that abomination-committers are among the those railing against the "abomination" of homosexuality:

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

[sabotai]

Some because it supports what they want to believe, others taht dont support your thoughts you attack their credibility.

Just one thing. Every source should have its credibility questioned. If the source is not credible, then the information from that source is completely useless. If you want to post sources after sources but never have their credibility questioned, then you obviously should not get into discussions about anything with anyone. The credibility of a source is one of the, is not the, most important factor in considering the information from that source.

Which is why you'll never see me take seriously a political source from Cam. :D

[korme]

WTF? Milford HS in Michigan? That's the fourth instance of Milford I've heard of now..

[korme]

In the quiet words of the virgin mary, come again?

[sabotai]

We've lost..Gorgeous George.

[Bubba Wheels]

I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but based on what passes for "logic' amongst those that insist on attacking my position, I am not alone in that. RendeR fails in insisting that the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. It cannot be. The Bible interprets itself. There is much latitude given to different styles (such as contemporary or traditional-style worship service) but the substance always remains the same (Jesus Christ is God, He died for our sins, and you MUST receive His forgiveness thru confession and repentace to be "born-again."

Homosexual behavior is sin in the Bible, same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, ect...this is irrefutable. But it is not up to me to be some kind of 'cop.' Do what you want. All I have attempted to do is to put forth the Point-of-View as stated in the Bible and that guides the vast majority of Judeo-Christian believers. All I have stated is that if you want your point of view respected, then you must respect the same from others even if you don't like it. There has to be some boundries, and one simple boundry that applies here is to realize that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians and so don't try to push it on them in public forums, like schools, under names like 'equality' or 'tolerance.' Keep your own lifestyle to yourself exactly as you would loudly (see all the above) would insist that Christians keep their convictions to themselves if you don't want to hear it. That is fair. I'm done.

[John Galt]

This is a cogent and irrefutable claim.

Or not. Name examples. How about all the societies that fervently repressed homosexuality before their collapse (ie Victorian England).

[John Galt]

I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but based on what passes for "logic' amongst those that insist on attacking my position, I am not alone in that. RendeR fails in insisting that the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. It cannot be. The Bible interprets itself. There is much latitude given to different styles (such as contemporary or traditional-style worship service) but the substance always remains the same (Jesus Christ is God, He died for our sins, and you MUST receive His forgiveness thru confession and repentace to be "born-again."

Homosexual behavior is sin in the Bible, same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, ect...this is irrefutable. But it is not up to me to be some kind of 'cop.' Do what you want. All I have attempted to do is to put forth the Point-of-View as stated in the Bible and that guides the vast majority of Judeo-Christian believers. All I have stated is that if you want your point of view respected, then you must respect the same from others even if you don't like it. There has to be some boundries, and one simple boundry that applies here is to realize that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians and so don't try to push it on them in public forums, like schools, under names like 'equality' or 'tolerance.' Keep your own lifestyle to yourself exactly as you would loudly (see all the above) would insist that Christians keep their convictions to themselves if you don't want to hear it. That is fair. I'm done.

Again, millions of Christians interpret the Bible differently than you and you don't "respect their view." And until "straights" keep their lifestyle private by not getting married it is hypocritical to ask gays to stay in the closet.

[yabanci]

This is a cogent and irrefutable claim.

I assumed this was pure sarcasm. If not, it's quite amusing.

[sabotai]

Or not. Name examples. How about all the societies that fervently repressed homosexuality before their collapse (ie Victorian England).

Or all of the societies that accepted homosexuality from day 1...

But like yabanci, I thought he was being sarcastic, so I didn't reply.

[Buddy Grant]

I often wish to bring my perspective to these types of threads, but then I remember the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 and go back to my corner.
When I first read your post I thought the wise Matthew 7:6 verse your were referring to was "Touch my pussy and die", then I realized that was your sig:). It is your sig right? That would be a kick ass Bible verse though...

[John Galt]

Yes, it was sarcastic. Blaming homosexuality for the downfall of a society (Rome, for instance?) is pretty ridiculous and shows one is not interested in historical fact, but dogma instead.

Sorry - I assumed because you pulled out one sentence, you agreed with Bubba. Otherwise, I thought you would have applied your response to his whole nonsense message.

[wig]

Who here thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories meant to teach various lessons?

*raises hand*

Seriously, I don't think this book was meant to be taken literally.

[Fonzie]

Who here thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories meant to teach various lessons?

*raises hand*

Seriously, I don't think this book was meant to be taken literally.

I agree with you - and that's one of the points I was trying to make with my long-winded diatribe above. But some "literalists" refuse to reinterpret the Bible's laws in a modern context (which is their right), but what they fail to realize is that they are implicity reinterpreting the Bible's laws by picking and choosing which ones to make a big stink about. Railing about homosexuality while ignoring the above-described prohibition on clam-eating or the charging of interest is just one example.

[Fonzie]

Dola-

yabanci, I didn't see your post when I submitted mine (I was working on it for a while), so I apologize for the redundancy!

[tucker342]

First off, teaching abstinence doesn't work... what they should do instead is have a box of condoms for kids. They should teach kids that sex is a thing that a couple should enjoy together when they're ready.


First and foremost, sex should not be a Taboo subject. Kids should be able to go to their parents about sex, without feeling embarrassed or judged.

[tucker342]

Bubba, to begin with, there is nothing "anti-christian" about homosexuality, thousands if not tens of thousands of christians are gay. It happens, accept it. Secondly, there is nothing Anti-christian in teaching kids how to not get pregnant if they DO for whatever reason have sex. so frankly, your example is a load of horse shit, please shovel it back into your load where it came from.

People being killed because of their religion is historic, its happened for all time. From my own research and readings on the subject I can promise you that far more have died at the hands of christians than the other way around at this point. The very fact that you bring up this subject tells me just how closed your mind is to other points of view.

And as for the respecting of rights and sensitivities, when christian "bible thumpers" stop mid sermon and say "you know, I'm sorry, you obviously don't want to hear this, I'll leave you alone now" and do so, when they are trying their best to convert me. I'll give them the same respect and not tell them how completely assinine they're being. Religion is a PERSONAL spiritual journey, no single person in the world has the right to tell another person how they should believe. Enjoy your personal beliefs, but don't even think of projecting yours on to my way of life. Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.


*Edit* sorry i got a bit off track there:

The idea that they want to promote abstinence is fine, its not a bad thing for high school kids, they should grow up more before getting into sex. However, I can see the homosexuals point of view that the wording and perception of this campaign is biased against them. They can't marry, and using the word "until marriage" is something that will hit them straight in the face. Call it abstinance day, and suddenly they'll be being open and accepting to ALL people.

And just to add to this: Being abstinant does not define being pure. Their whole thought process is wrong there.

VERY well said RendeR

[wig]

Sex is natural, sex is good...
Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Sex is natural, sex is fun....
Sex is best when it's one - on - one.

[Chubby]

Sex is natural, sex is good...
Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Sex is natural, sex is fun....
Sex is best when it's one - on - one.

actually, I always thought it was best two - on - one but whatever floats yer boat.

[CamEdwards]

I don't know if this has been brought up in the 130 posts here, but gay and lesbians can get married in plenty of churches. This isn't a government program, it's a spiritual program. Therefore, I fail to see how it's bigoted to suggest people wait until they get married until they have sex. Gay and lesbian teens could simply wait until they're an adult and then get married in a church that will marry them.

[stkelly52]

dola...

I've never been able to figure out why Xians are so willing to give murderers and child molesters a pass on sin because they repent, but seem to view homosexuality as an unforgiveable offense. Look, I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, though I myself find the evidence something less than convincing. In any event, I don't know about you, but the God my parents taught me about said that sin is sin. There is no hierarchy, so I don't see any reason to condemn homosexuality more than something "minor" like treating my wife disrespectfully or provoking my children to wrath.


This is a couple of days late, but I have kind of avoided this thread. The basic reason why christians are willing to forgive murderers etc. is that there is a change that is exspected of the person. Sure We will forgive a murder, but we then exspet them to no longer kill people. And (conservative) Christians will forgive homosexuals if they are willing to give up their homosexual lifestyle.

[AgPete]

And then Melissa went to college and let the good times roll...

ROFL! :p

Abstinence works great in theory but isn't practical. I'm sure we'd all love to think our kids are saving themselves for marriage but we were all young dumb and full of you know what at one time and know how it goes.

[mckerney]

Abstinence works great in theory but isn't practical.

Really? Care to explain why this isn't practical?

[AgPete]

Really? Care to explain why this isn't practical?

Because plenty of kids are going to have sex in high school and junior high regardless of how many lectures or rallies they go to promoting abstinence or how many times they tell mom and dad they're virgins. I know what happened when I was growing up, I assume it hasn't changed.

[mckerney]

Because plenty of kids are going to have sex in high school and junior high regardless of how many lectures or rallies they go to promoting abstinence or how many times they tell mom and dad they're virgins. I know what happened when I was growing up, I assume it hasn't changed.

Not all kids are going to practice it because it's taught, but that's how it is for most things. We tell kids that things like murder and rape are wrong, but some people still do these things. Obviously premarital sex is not on the same level as these things, but the fact that not everyone will listen to the message (and certianly some do listen) doesn't mean that it's not practical to teach to kids.

I don't think that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught, and kids should be told that if they do have sex to do so in a safer method, but I don't think it is pointless to teach abstinence.

[AgPete]

Not all kids are going to practice it because it's taught, but that's how it is for most things. We tell kids that things like murder and rape are wrong, but some people still do these things. Obviously premarital sex is not on the same level as these things, but the fact that not everyone will listen to the message (and certianly some do listen) doesn't mean that it's not practical to teach to kids.

I don't think that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught, and kids should be told that if they do have sex to do so in a safer method, but I don't think it is pointless to teach abstinence.

I have no problem with a section on abstinence during a safe sex course. I guess to me, abstinence is the obvious solution and really shouldn't even need to be taught. Everyone has the common sense to say no. Maybe abstinence needs to be taught because some kids feel that none of their peers practice it and it helps them feel like they fit in by saving it for marriage. I just hope our nation's educators are realistic about the effectiveness of telling some kid, "Don't do it!" It's awfully hard for a hormone crazy teenager to refrain from participating in a god-given pleasure, especially when a lot of their peers already seem to be experimenting with it.

[tabucko]

I just don't see all the "hidden agenda" crap. Some kids opinions are that there is too much talk of casual sex and they want to abstain and tell others. Big deal. Do you agree there is too much sex by our children or not enough? So they wear their t-shirts. Of all the high school kids there are in this country, what percentage wore these shirts? I highly doubt this is going to catch fire and everyone is doing it, especially if they tag this topic to anything religious, because we all know that any religious topic will offend someone, and we can't have that in this PC environment. Besides, there isn't one horny teenage guy that isn't going to wear this shirt. They will just see the girls to avoid or try to get in their pants because it is a challenge.

Although I don't have the answer, I disagree that throwing condoms at our youth and saying "well, if you're going to do it, at least be safe." To me that is an invitation. Not the same, but if a store owner in the inner city says "I'm going to get robbed, I might as well leave the door unlocked so they don't break the window" sounds just as absurd to me.

I really did enjoy the conversations regarding everyone trying to interpret the Bible to fit their own agenda, even though I did get pissed once in a while. Oh well, that is why I come here to read about your opinions. Thanks for the enjoyable thread.

tabucko

[RendeR]

I don't know if this has been brought up in the 130 posts here, but gay and lesbians can get married in plenty of churches. This isn't a government program, it's a spiritual program. Therefore, I fail to see how it's bigoted to suggest people wait until they get married until they have sex. Gay and lesbian teens could simply wait until they're an adult and then get married in a church that will marry them.


I think the point of discrimination here is that gays and lesbins can't be legally married anywhere in this country (I could be wrong, MA is actually wasting eons of time debating it even now)

If you don't have a marriage license, you can't be married even in a church/religious setting or program, this I think is what set the whole topic off to begin with, gays and lesbians are denied the right to legal protection through marriage for their significant others, children and loved ones. When they used the terminolgy "until marriage" the gay and lesbian community was being indirectly at least, put upon.

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to post something when I'm this tired and its this lat...err early in the morning....

night folks!

[Peregrine]

A co-worker of mine that went to my former church was gay. I saw him struggle with it day by day, he prayed for relief from it, we prayed for him in bible studies and in church, he asked advice of the pastor and the church elders, and it was never enough. He would always "fall back" into the homosexual lifestyle for a while, and then be too ashamed to come back to church for a while because people would make comments about it. It really shook me, I am telling you I've never seen a guy try harder to "not be gay" than he did, he just couldn't do it. He did everything possible but he always fell back into the same sin. I know many other people in churches that struggle with other sins like lust, greed, etc to the same degree. I would hope that they all would be able to go to heaven, assuming they have truly asked Jesus to be their savior.

That's the only problem I have with the "homosexuality as abomination" school of thought, I'd hate to see someone like my friend condemned to Hell for something he struggled so mightily against. Some of my Christian friends believe that he would be damned but those who fall in and out of "mere" lust, drunkenness or greed would be spared.

[CamEdwards]

I think the point of discrimination here is that gays and lesbins can't be legally married anywhere in this country (I could be wrong, MA is actually wasting eons of time debating it even now)

If you don't have a marriage license, you can't be married even in a church/religious setting or program, this I think is what set the whole topic off to begin with, gays and lesbians are denied the right to legal protection through marriage for their significant others, children and loved ones. When they used the terminolgy "until marriage" the gay and lesbian community was being indirectly at least, put upon.

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to post something when I'm this tired and its this lat...err early in the morning....

night folks!

I don't think "legal marriage" has a place in this debate. This is one religious group advocating abstinence until marriage, and religious marriage is already available to gays and lesbians. To put this into the debate over state-sanctioned marriage is wrong, IMO.

[Drake]

A co-worker of mine that went to my former church was gay. I saw him struggle with it day by day, he prayed for relief from it, we prayed for him in bible studies and in church, he asked advice of the pastor and the church elders, and it was never enough. He would always "fall back" into the homosexual lifestyle for a while, and then be too ashamed to come back to church for a while because people would make comments about it. It really shook me, I am telling you I've never seen a guy try harder to "not be gay" than he did, he just couldn't do it. He did everything possible but he always fell back into the same sin. I know many other people in churches that struggle with other sins like lust, greed, etc to the same degree. I would hope that they all would be able to go to heaven, assuming they have truly asked Jesus to be their savior.

That's the only problem I have with the "homosexuality as abomination" school of thought, I'd hate to see someone like my friend condemned to Hell for something he struggled so mightily against. Some of my Christian friends believe that he would be damned but those who fall in and out of "mere" lust, drunkenness or greed would be spared.


Great post, Peregrine. I think the reason most Xians are so willing to condemn homosexuality out of hand is simply because most Xians don't struggle with it. Because they can't understand it, it makes it easier to judge and condemn people who do. It seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm sure we've all got our blind spots.

[Drake]

This is a couple of days late, but I have kind of avoided this thread. The basic reason why christians are willing to forgive murderers etc. is that there is a change that is exspected of the person. Sure We will forgive a murder, but we then expect them to no longer kill people. And (conservative) Christians will forgive homosexuals if they are willing to give up their homosexual lifestyle.

You're right, stkelly. I picked a couple of poor examples. Please substitute: "alcoholics" and "fornicators". I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again here: people in churches are more willing to give people struggling with these issues (also identified as sin) a pass because we understand the temptations. Homosexuality "tempts" a smaller segment of the population (and, I'd be almost certain, statistically an even smaller set of the self-selected religious population), and isn't as readily sympathized with because it is a cultural other.

My point all along has been: I don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I just don't see any reason why Xians should treat it any differently than any of the other "struggles" of the Christian walk. If it is a sin, it's neither better nor worse than any other one. And even if it is a sin, the church's approach to it is flat out bigotry, and will continue to be bigotry until the church stops allowing alcoholics, pornographers, fornicators or other varieties of the sinful to attend church until they "get themselves cleaned up".

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

[Drake]

and dola again...

I don't want to suggest that most of the points in the message above were in any way direct responses to stkelly52's stated or implied theology. I started with his point and went off on my own tangent.

[MJ4H]

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

I'm so glad someone finally said what I've been thinking. Oh, except I would have actually typed out the word, "christian."

:)

[Drake]

Sorry. I started abbreviating "Xian" when I was taking notes in college, and the habit stuck.

[CamEdwards]

You're right, stkelly. I picked a couple of poor examples. Please substitute: "alcoholics" and "fornicators". I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again here: people in churches are more willing to give people struggling with these issues (also identified as sin) a pass because we understand the temptations. Homosexuality "tempts" a smaller segment of the population (and, I'd be almost certain, statistically an even smaller set of the self-selected religious population), and isn't as readily sympathized with because it is a cultural other.

My point all along has been: I don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I just don't see any reason why Xians should treat it any differently than any of the other "struggles" of the Christian walk. If it is a sin, it's neither better nor worse than any other one. And even if it is a sin, the church's approach to it is flat out bigotry, and will continue to be bigotry until the church stops allowing alcoholics, pornographers, fornicators or other varieties of the sinful to attend church until they "get themselves cleaned up".

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

Outside of wackos like Fred Phelps (who don't represent the views of mainstream Christians), I think you'd find that the vast majority of churches wouldn't condone ANY celebratory and continual acts of sin. It's kind of funny that you say that churches are more forgiving of fornication, considering the original subject of this thread was abstinence. :)

[RendeR]

I don't think "legal marriage" has a place in this debate. This is one religious group advocating abstinence until marriage, and religious marriage is already available to gays and lesbians. To put this into the debate over state-sanctioned marriage is wrong, IMO.

How and where are you seeing religious marriage for gays and lesbians? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a church or religious organization that will marry anyone without a state certified marriage license. Can you enlighten me a bit here Cam? While I understand that any organization, church or otherwise has the right to deny holding a marriage service if they so choose, I've never heard of one holding a service without "the power vested in me by the state of XX"

I'm intrigued to know where this might happen. It would offer some friends of mine an excellent repreive from the stodginess of MA.

[CamEdwards]

Render,

Tell them to come to Oklahoma. There are many churches in this state that will hold marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The one that comes to mind immediately is the Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City. They're a congregation of the United Church of Christ. The Unitarian Universalist churches might also marry same sex couples, but I can't be sure.

Again, it's a religious ceremony only: no civil benefits, but for the purposes of talking about abstinence, it's much more valid than a civil ceremony.

[Drake]

Outside of wackos like Fred Phelps (who don't represent the views of mainstream Christians), I think you'd find that the vast majority of churches wouldn't condone ANY celebratory and continual acts of sin. It's kind of funny that you say that churches are more forgiving of fornication, considering the original subject of this thread was abstinence. :)

I'm not asking the church to celebrate something they think is sinful. I'm just asking them to be consistent and bar the doors to, say, children who are not completely obedient to their parents or people who have gambling or substance addictions or any other sin the way they bar entrance to people who are both homosexual and long for a committed relationship to God. I don't particularly care of the church wants to define homosexuality as sin. I'm just saying that they need to be consistent in their exclusion of sinners, otherwise they're merely being bigoted.

[CamEdwards]

I'm not asking the church to celebrate something they think is sinful. I'm just asking them to be consistent and bar the doors to, say, children who are not completely obedient to their parents or people who have gambling or substance addictions or any other sin the way they bar entrance to people who are both homosexual and long for a committed relationship to God. I don't particularly care of the church wants to define homosexuality as sin. I'm just saying that they need to be consistent in their exclusion of sinners, otherwise they're merely being bigoted.

Drake,

I imagine if a homosexual went to a church and said "I know it's a sinful act and I'm struggling with homosexuality, please help me", they wouldn't be turned away. That's far different than those who would say "this is who I am and I'm not changing, so you better accept me."

I don't know how often you go to church, but in my experience those who are openly and willfully sinning without any remorse or repentence are probably going to get talked to by other members of the congregation and/or the clergy.

Yes, I speak from experience. No, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Bubba Wheels]

Noble, the only thing I'd like to say to that is this:

The Bible is only as good as your own interpretation of it. What I would hope all people would come to realize is that whatever your beliefs, they are yours and yours alone, and you have no right or priviledge to foist them on another person.

The beginning of the thread developed into a reaction to what some people Interpreted as another way that Christianity is attempting to persecute Homosexuals because of the difference in their beliefs. Wether that was the intent (which I doubt it was by the girl) or not, the fact remains that homosexuals ARE persecuted. I fail to understand or accept anyone's religion trying to tell me that that is acceptable behaviour.

I accept that I am not going to sway christians in this because they are told to believe what they believe and are threatened with "hell" if they go against it. They choose to follow that faith for whatever personal reasons. What I will never accept is the outright discrimination of a group of people for their beliefs. Christians ought to have a clue about that, but sometimes I think they've forgotten.

Rende, your self-absorbed arrogance needs a response. It is NOT up to YOU, Mr. Nazi, to determine WHO should believe in WHAT! (Among others that would agree with YOUR point of view, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, just to name a few!)
When you state that the church can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't discriminate against YOUR particular Sin-of-Choice, what your really saying is that you can believe anything you want as long as YOU YOURSELF are not offended by it.

Fact is, they very nature of the church IS TO (listen carefully here) DISCRIMNATE against SIN, but in the process offer a way OUT of sin thru Christ (Love the sinner, Hate the sin), really could not be much simpler, but really does show the depth of your own personal intolerance and bigotry towards people practicing their faith.

[Butter]

Hey, Bubba, WHY don't YOU give it a REST?

[Maple Leafs]

I actually find this sort of debate to be interesting. I find that when both sides know their stuff and stick to relevant arguments, I can learn a lot even though I may not agree with everything that's said. On that note... man, this has been a disappointing thread.

Two questions, one for each side:

To the relgious: could you go into more detail about how you'd answer the claim that Christians are selective in their interpretation of the bible, condeming homesexuality at every opportunity but ignoring other "sins"?

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

[Drake]

Drake,

I imagine if a homosexual went to a church and said "I know it's a sinful act and I'm struggling with homosexuality, please help me", they wouldn't be turned away. That's far different than those who would say "this is who I am and I'm not changing, so you better accept me."

I'd agree with that assessment, Cam, and would also go so far as to say that this would apply to any sin in any church.

I don't know how often you go to church, but in my experience those who are openly and willfully sinning without any remorse or repentence are probably going to get talked to by other members of the congregation and/or the clergy.

Agree here also, at least if the church is doing their job. :)

My concern is that when the church decides to be so vocally anti-homosexual that they practice an intimidating exclusion that doesn't even let people in the doors. That's the part that seems wrong to me. By today's church logic, Jesus should have excluded Matthew the Tax Collector from his circle of disciples -- and I fully suspect that Tax Collectors (as agents of Rome, essentially) were just as reviled in first century Palestine as homosexuals are by right-wing Xians today. Notice that the Bible doesn't state Tax Collecting was a sin, but I'm positive that most of the Jews would have told you that it was. :)

I think Jesus picked Matthew specifically as an argument for inclusion. The fact of the matter is that no one is worthy of salvation. I spend every day of my life screwing up and living within myself and generally doing things that God doesn't want me to do. I'm a sinner, and no matter how hard I try not to be, I still sin. I'm terribly thankful that even though I'm weak, Grace still abounds. It just sort of makes me feel foolish that I should ever attempt to deny that Grace to anyone else because I dare to deem them unworthy.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hey, Bubba, WHY don't YOU give it a REST?

LOL, is my excersize of free speech making lil Butter-boy unhappy? Poor lil Butter-boy, go see momma and she make it all better fo you :(

[Drake]

and yet another dola...

Cam -

As a side point, I would like to point out that I think a great number of individual Xians and even churches have the right approach to this issue. It's the vocal, bigoted minority who are more concerned about politics than saving souls who muck things up.

[Butter]

LOL, is my excersize of free speech making lil Butter-boy unhappy?

Not especially, but that spelling of "Exercise" is. Yikes.

[Drake]

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I'll tackle this one.

I believe there is an absolute moral standard, and that God is that standard...but that with some issues (like homosexuality), God was less explicit than He might have been. I think God intentionally left those issues obscure as Exercises for the Reader.

[Bubba Wheels]

Canadians in this thread should start identifying themselves, since as I understand it quoting the Bible in Canada may soon be illegal and interpreted as "hate speech', like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

[Bubba Wheels]

Not especially, but that spelling of "Exercise" is. Yikes.

Yes, thankyou for being the spelling police! ;)

[CamEdwards]

I'd agree with that assessment, Cam, and would also go so far as to say that this would apply to any sin in any church.



Agree here also, at least if the church is doing their job. :)

My concern is that when the church decides to be so vocally anti-homosexual that they practice an intimidating exclusion that doesn't even let people in the doors. That's the part that seems wrong to me. By today's church logic, Jesus should have excluded Matthew the Tax Collector from his circle of disciples -- and I fully suspect that Tax Collectors (as agents of Rome, essentially) were just as reviled in first century Palestine as homosexuals are by right-wing Xians today. Notice that the Bible doesn't state Tax Collecting was a sin, but I'm positive that most of the Jews would have told you that it was. :)

I think Jesus picked Matthew specifically as an argument for inclusion. The fact of the matter is that no one is worthy of salvation. I spend every day of my life screwing up and living within myself and generally doing things that God doesn't want me to do. I'm a sinner, and no matter how hard I try not to be, I still sin. I'm terribly thankful that even though I'm weak, Grace still abounds. It just sort of makes me feel foolish that I should ever attempt to deny that Grace to anyone else because I dare to deem them unworthy.

I'm glad we agree. :)

I think ultimately where the two sides diverge is in the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Those that believe it is should still love the person and work with them to lead a life that is as "godly" as possible.

Those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin aren't under that same obligation, but I would think that those same people would also have no religious objections to gay marriage, and would therefore still want homosexuals to have sex within the bounds of a religious marriage.

And then, of course, if you have religious people that don't believe pre-marital sex is a sin that's an entirely different argument. :)

[John Galt]

I actually find this sort of debate to be interesting. I find that when both sides know their stuff and stick to relevant arguments, I can learn a lot even though I may not agree with everything that's said. On that note... man, this has been a disappointing thread.

Two questions, one for each side:

To the relgious: could you go into more detail about how you'd answer the claim that Christians are selective in their interpretation of the bible, condeming homesexuality at every opportunity but ignoring other "sins"?

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I don't think the option is an either or choice. I do not believe in absolutes and I don't believe in moral relativity either. One can always approach a situation with tolerance and understanding while still rendering judgment and opinion. I believe both extremes are horrible choices, so I choose to try to understand the "other" while reaching my own value determinations.

[CamEdwards]

and yet another dola...

Cam -

As a side point, I would like to point out that I think a great number of individual Xians and even churches have the right approach to this issue. It's the vocal, bigoted minority who are more concerned about politics than saving souls who muck things up.

well, people do all kinds of things in the name of religion. I'd say anybody who says "God Hates Fags" a la Fred Phelps needs to go back and read the Bible. I don't believe God hates anyone, although He certainly frowns on bad behavior.

[Butter]

Yes, thankyou for being the spelling police! ;)

Well, thank you for being the thought police. :rolleyes:

[MikeVic]

like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

Am I missing something here? I thought I read that spanking your kid was allowed?

[Bubba Wheels]

Salvation makes you a child of God, a member of the family. Sin then will break your fellowship with God (thru the presence of His Holy Spirit) but will not get you cast out of the family. And not being saved by grace thru Christ at all means your out of the Kingdom regardless of how 'moral' a life you lead on your own. Isaiah 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

[Bubba Wheels]

Am I missing something here? I thought I read that spanking your kid was allowed?

Big court case in Toronto last year to determine this, missed the outcome. It is in Norway though, and Canada fancies itself as the North American Scandinavian Socialist Model.

[Butter]

Yes, BW, that supports what you said before. Spanking being outlawed in Norway! They might as well write it in our Constitution.

BTW, here's a little-known passage from The Book of Numbers:
"And they who bait without mercy on internet message boards will surely not be permitted entrance to the Kingdom of God."

[MikeVic]

Big court case in Toronto last year to determine this, missed the outcome. It is in Norway though, and Canada fancies itself as the North American Scandinavian Socialist Model.

hxxp://www.canadianlawnews.com/news4.htm

[Bubba Wheels]

Yes, BW, that supports what you said before. Spanking being outlawed in Norway! They might as well write it in our Constitution.

BTW, here's a little-known passage from The Book of Numbers:
"And they who bait without mercy on internet message boards will surely not be permitted entrance to the Kingdom of God."

Ok Butter, I'm not going to continue answering someone like you that just flies up with feelings and emotions. Its a losing cause, I spend time coming up with Biblical sources to support my statements and you respond with a little 2 liner about your 'feelings' on the issue. Shame is, most reading this wouldn't see the difference. Opinions are like toenails, everyone has them, those that would like to learn a little should look at those with some basis in some sort of source (like the Bible).

And in closing Butter, read what the Bible says in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Bible in general. ( I know, you 'feel' different.)

[Drake]

Salvation makes you a child of God, a member of the family. Sin then will break your fellowship with God (thru the presence of His Holy Spirit) but will not get you cast out of the family. And not being saved by grace thru Christ at all means your out of the Kingdom regardless of how 'moral' a life you lead on your own. Isaiah 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Just to clarify this point: So, anyone who accepts the gift of salvation--whether a practicing homosexual or not--is saved. The only issue after that is the quality of their walk with God, not their salvation. Homosexuality (if a sin) is only a barrier to a fully realized Xian walk.

You're not saying that gays can't be saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here, because if what I've just said is your belief, I think some people--myself included--have made incorrect assumptions about your underlying arguments.

[RendeR]

Ahh, thank you for the clarification. I still feel the major initial response from the pro-gay was reacting from a legitimate marriage standpoint. Honestly, if religious ceremonies were worth anything without a legal recognition and documentation, I doubt we'd hear about this at all.

I know our local UU churches will not perform ceremonies without license, but perhaps the ones farther west will.

How is Oklahoma BTW? I haven't been there in over 20 years. I used to visit family out in the panhandle (Tyrone, OK and up into Liberal KS)

Good discussion though! keep up the good work.

Ren

[Bubba Wheels]

Just to clarify this point: So, anyone who accepts the gift of salvation--whether a practicing homosexual or not--is saved. The only issue after that is the quality of their walk with God, not their salvation. Homosexuality (if a sin) is only a barrier to a fully realized Xian walk.

You're not saying that gays can't be saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here, because if what I've just said is your belief, I think some people--myself included--have made incorrect assumptions about your underlying arguments.

Yes, anyone can receive the gift of salvation, but you won't receive it unless you first repent of a sinful lifestyle. If you sin after receiving salvation (and we all do) you have an advocate in Christ for forgiveness when you confess it to Him. But if you do receive salvation and sin habitually afterwards, you run many risks. As far as losing one's salvation, though, is a point of difference within the Christian community.

Some say 'once saved, always saved', some say habitual sin is a sign that initial salvation never really took place, some say you can turn your back on God and walk out on salvation...I would say better safe than sorry. The Bible does teach us as Christians that sin in unacceptable in any form and that we are Christians are tasked to call it for what it is, sin. And the Bible does categorize homosexual behavior as sin. Hope this helped, but I know it will still offend some.

[Drake]

Yes, anyone can receive the gift of salvation, but you won't receive it unless you first repent of a sinful lifestyle. If you sin after receiving salvation (and we all do) you have an advocate in Christ for forgiveness when you confess it to Him. But if you do receive salvation and sin habitually afterwards, you run many risks. As far as losing one's salvation, though, is a point of difference within the Christian community.

I see what you're saying here, though I'd question the use of the term "sinful lifestyle". Most of us, when we repented and turned to God, didn't particularly understand the depths of our sin nature or what a sinful lifestyle fully entailed. We just knew something was wrong with our lives that only God could fix, received Grace and hammered out the details later. :)

I appreciate your clarifications. I may have unfairly characterized your position (in thought, if not in deed/writing), and I apologize for that.

Some say 'once saved, always saved', some say habitual sin is a sign that initial salvation never really took place, some say you can turn your back on God and walk out on salvation...I would say better safe than sorry.

I take it you're not Baptist, eh? ;)

(I say this with great respect and affection for Baptists. I went to a Baptist high school for a couple of years, though my church background was Charismatic/Evangelical in the early to mid '80's...which meant all sorts of things that make even modern Evangelicals tend to get all squinchy. I make no excuse for that. The movement was young and excited and just wanted to get as close to God as possible, as well as combine their excitement about God with an agenda for social change. Mistakes were made, but I think their hearts were in the right place. On the other hand, it's the children of that movement that concern me. Organized religion has an obligation to be conservative in some ways, and to teach people who have a vibrant connection to the Ineffable how to live in a society of human relationships that are decidedly secular. When churches fail to address that issue, children develop a warped consciousness of what it means to be a Xian in the world, or a Stranger in a Strange Land. But that's completely a tangent.)

The Bible does teach us as Christians that sin in unacceptable in any form and that we are Christians are tasked to call it for what it is, sin. And the Bible does categorize homosexual behavior as sin. Hope this helped, but I know it will still offend some.

I don't think you should worry so much about offending people with your opinions. I've known too many Christians who were excited about offending people and reaping the subsequent "persecution" because they were determined to practice an aggressive or toxic faith. (I assume you recognize those buzzwords). Unfortunately, my experience has been that people craved the persecution because they needed the validation for their own walk, and really weren't attempting to reach others with the Gospel at all. In fact, if they'd taken a moment to practice some discernment (perhaps the most underused term in the modern Xian's lectionary) about their audience and presented the Gospel in love, they would do a better job of touching lives than merely exposing sin. I'm not saying that Xians should hide their beliefs, just that they should avoid getting caught up in an all too typically American apocalyptic, persecutorial fervor for their own self-gratification and try to remember that they're supposed to be the light in a darkling land.

[RendeR]

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I personally am considered a "seeker". I do not currently hold to any religious dogma, however I am intriguied by all of them. I feel, at this point in time, that all religions were spawned by a desire for a morally higher ground for all people. I also believe that if one studies all religions and takes the best and most acceptable items for yourself from each of them, you can create a most outstanding moral structure for yourself.

Above all else I believe that spirituality is the single more intimate, personal thing to a human being. Its your soul we're talking about. No matter how many preachers thump their pulpits, or how many other leaders promulgate their views, it always comes back down to wether you choose to believe the way they believe. That being the case I cannot sit back and take the bible or the Qur'an or any other text as a hard and firm way that I must achieve spiritual contentment/salvation, whatever term you wish to choose. Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.

As for your specific question regarding right and wrong, I'm not convinced one way or the other yet. Sometimes I want to believe the universe is a battle between good and evil and that right and wrong are the battlefields we face daily. Other times I tend to feel that what is right and wrong to one person isn't necessarily the same as for the next. I don't think anyone else has the right to make that decision for me, so I have to keep traveling along the path I feel is best and right for me.

[Noble_Platypus]

[QUOTE=RendeR]Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.
That was my point, men ARE fallable. Thats why all of the web links where this guy thinks that and this guy thinks this is unimportant. The only man that should be listened to is the one who actually wrote the book, and was inspired by God. I am not willing to base my faith or fate on some guy who interprets the bible as to not offend anyone or to coincide with the lifestyle they want to live. As smart as some people on here claim to be it seems they need someone else to tell them what the bible means, and cant read the scripture and decide for themselves what it means.

[Maple Leafs]

Canadians in this thread should start identifying themselves, since as I understand it quoting the Bible in Canada may soon be illegal and interpreted as "hate speech', like spanking your kids is now child abuse.Bubba, without getting this discussion too far off track, you should really stick to areas that you feel you have some expertise in. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of Canadian laws, you're out of your element.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the existing spanking laws just two weeks ago. Parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

As far as the hate speech issue, the idea of those laws being used against people quoting the bible is fairly transparent fear-mongering by those who are opposed to homosexuals being considered a protected group. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, but the chances of seeing someone thrown in jail for reading the bible in Canada is essentially zero.

[Bubba Wheels]

Drake, I appreciate your input. Reading your early-mid 80's experience with the Charismatics, you basically just described my own path to salvation. I can appreciate the 'cringe' element to the word 'Charismatic' today, but I think your right on target about the sincere desire to get close to God and feel His presence. I would call myself a 'conservative Christian' today, and while I believe in the gifts of the spirit, I think the past movement put too much emphasis on them to the expense of the underlying message.

Again, the reason I got involved in this thread (and others like them) is I did not see anyone really putting forth a calm, rational (Maybe I fall short, but I try) Bible-based point of view to these subjects. The fact that we now live in a post-modernist society where the faith-based and the secular are diverging into extreme opposite courses shows that if we are to really get along then both sides will need to be respected ( and I mean not having sin legislated or enacted by activist judges into the lives of Christians under the guise of 'tolerance', ect...).

Again, its the double standards I'm going after, like the ones in public schools that allow teachers/administrators to push things like 'safe sex' onto kids under the justification that 'they all do it', and then ridicule the abstinence position as 'unrealistic'. I mean, just who in the firey inferno do they think they are to make those kind of judgements on kids from all walks/backgrounds/religious beliefs? Its just social engineering with a secular world view run amock. But glad to see your involvement.

[Drake]

Bubba, without getting this discussion too far off track, you should really stick to areas that you feel you have some expertise in. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of Canadian laws, you're out of your element.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the existing spanking laws just two weeks ago. Parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

As far as the hate speech issue, the idea of those laws being used against people quoting the bible is fairly transparent fear-mongering by those who are opposed to homosexuals being considered a protected group. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, but the chances of seeing someone thrown in jail for reading the bible in Canada is essentially zero.

Oddly enough, Maple Leafs, this is the third time the pending illegality of reading the Bible out loud in Canada has flashed across my radar in the last month (and in a widely, widely disparate variety of environments). It's creating that much of a ripple down here, even if none of us bother to read Canadian newspapers to get the real scoop. Americans aren't particularly interested in Canadian news in general, I think, or at least not enough to properly educate ourselves on your political issues. Most of us just assume we'll get those things straightened out when you folks are invaded as part of the Axis of Ice Cream.

[RendeR]

[QUOTE=RendeR]Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.
That was my point, men ARE fallable. Thats why all of the web links where this guy thinks that and this guy thinks this is unimportant. The only man that should be listened to is the one who actually wrote the book, and was inspired by God. I am not willing to base my faith or fate on some guy who interprets the bible as to not offend anyone or to coincide with the lifestyle they want to live. As smart as some people on here claim to be it seems they need someone else to tell them what the bible means, and cant read the scripture and decide for themselves what it means.

But my point is noble, that the bible and all holy tomes were and are written by men. God never lifted pen to parchment, jesus, depending on your belief, barely knew how to write at all. It was the followers and believers who wrote what "God spoke" and "God intended" and thus it is not God's will, but those men's perception and interpretation of those things that you are reading in the bible, making the bible as fallable and untrustworthy as any other tome. This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

[Maple Leafs]

This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.I guess this is the part I don't like. I can understand the argument that men are fallible, but that doesn't mean there is no right answer. It might mean that there's no easy answer, but I'm not comfortable with having everyone just choose whichever interpretation "works for them".

[Bubba Wheels]

But my point is noble, that the bible and all holy tomes were and are written by men. God never lifted pen to parchment, jesus, depending on your belief, barely knew how to write at all. It was the followers and believers who wrote what "God spoke" and "God intended" and thus it is not God's will, but those men's perception and interpretation of those things that you are reading in the bible, making the bible as fallable and untrustworthy as any other tome. This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

RendeR continues to insult those who believe that the creator of heaven and earth cannot through devine inspiration through men get written down what He actually means to say. Not to mention what RendeR must think of such a limited God Himself.

[Bubba Wheels]

I guess this is the part I don't like. I can understand the argument that men are fallible, but that doesn't mean there is no right answer. It might mean that there's no easy answer, but I'm not comfortable with having everyone just choose whichever interpretation "works for them".

Maple, read the Bible for yourself, get a good concordanance to help you tie the threads together. You'll see that despite being written over thousands of years through many different men of faith that there really are no contridictions in the Bible (this canard is always brought up by those looking for loopholes to justify a sin-loving lifestyle).

Matter-of-fact, computer programs today are amazing scientist with the mathmatical extactide in which the Books of the Bible are showing. But again, don't take my word for it, because unlike my critics here my opinions are based on multiple other sources including the Bible, not just my 'feelings'. :)

[RendeR]

Bubba, in deference to your obvious devotion to your faith, I am not going to retaliate. If you find my statements insulting, I'm sorry. My comments were, to myself, stating the obvious, men are fallable and simply not qualified, in MY opinion, to be trusted with translating "God's will" onto paper.

I would list off the thousands of times "God's will" have been revised, edited, changed, and completely redone to suit the needs of men in power(aka the King James bible and others) but the point is, you choose to ignore those things, and for you, that is fine.

I am not convinced there is a devine creator at this point, so my words and thoughts will probably continue to insult you. I in turn am insulted by your complete lack of interest in having an open mind to any other possibilities. There are no proof or facts either way that are conclusive.

I'm sorry you are insulted by my words, since they are simply another man's opinion they shouldn't be too damaging to you. I can only hope you elarn some day to have as open a mind about your world as I and others do, that is where you learn the most about yourself, by listening and accepting those arguements from others that make your blood boil. wether or not you choose to believe them and take them to heart. Acceptance of a view, and Faith in that view are two entirely different things.

[Drake]

Maple, read the Bible for yourself, get a good concordanance to help you tie the threads together. You'll see that despite being written over thousands of years through many different men of faith that there really are no contridictions in the Bible (this canard is always brought up by those looking for loopholes to justify a sin-loving lifestyle).

Matter-of-fact, computer programs today are amazing scientist with the mathmatical extactide in which the Books of the Bible are showing. But again, don't take my word for it, because unlike my critics here my opinions are based on multiple other sources including the Bible, not just my 'feelings'.

This is what I mean when I say that Xians need to learn better how to practice discernment. You can't insult people into heaven, BW. To the extent that you characterize all non-Xians as "sin-lov(ers)", they can fairly characterize Xians as close-minded, right-wing, irrational blowhards.

[Butter]

Ok Butter, I'm not going to continue answering someone like you that just flies up with feelings and emotions. Its a losing cause, I spend time coming up with Biblical sources to support my statements and you respond with a little 2 liner about your 'feelings' on the issue. Shame is, most reading this wouldn't see the difference. Opinions are like toenails, everyone has them, those that would like to learn a little should look at those with some basis in some sort of source (like the Bible).[/b]

The Bible being quoted as a source of fact is laughable. It is a source of fact insomuch as you believe in it. Many people do not believe in it. So, they'll burn for it (says you). Why not just let 'em go and STFU?

[b]And in closing Butter, read what the Bible says in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Bible in general. ( I know, you 'feel' different.)

I would read the Bible more carefully, but I pretty much can just get the gist of it from all of your rambling posts in this forum. Besides, you know exactly what God is trying to tell everyone at all times right? Why waste my energy when I can just ask you?

[dawgfan]

RendeR continues to insult those who believe that the creator of heaven and earth cannot through devine inspiration through men get written down what He actually means to say. Not to mention what RendeR must think of such a limited God Himself.

Hey Bubba, how long are you going to ignore the posts pointing out all the other things in the bible that seem to prohibit many actions that nearly everyone today finds acceptable and others that, while not acceptable, are fairly common? To refresh your memory:

Of course, there are those who would disagree with this logic, or even the whole premise of "reinterpretation grounded within a reasonable context" and argue that "if the Bible says its an abomination, then its an abomination, period." To them I'd say - hold onto your hat, for if you have:

- eaten clams ( Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you);

- worn polyblend fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together);

- told a lie of any kind (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight);

- committed adultery (Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her);

- trimmed your beard (Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.);

- gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD);

- charged interest on a loan (Psalms 15:5 [He that] putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things] shall never be moved);

- or paid interest on a loan (Jeremian 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; [yet] every one of them doth curse me)

...then you have committed an abominable act in God's eyes. If you have done any of these things you are in the same class of doomed souls as homosexuals, and are thus just as unviable a candidate for Christianity as they. Indeed, perhaps we should begin erecting laws to defend the pure morality of the non-polyblend-fabric-wearers from the encroachments of the heathen polyblend-fabricians. Unless, of course, it might just be worthwhile to revisit and reassess the utility of reinterpreting the intent of these behaviors prohibited by the Bible.

And one final thought - Jesus had this to say which might be relevant to this discussion, given the high probability that abomination-committers are among the those railing against the "abomination" of homosexuality:

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Well?

[Bubba Wheels]

This is what I mean when I say that Xians need to learn better how to practice discernment. You can't insult people into heaven, BW. To the extent that you characterize all non-Xians as "sin-lov(ers)", they can fairly characterize Xians as close-minded, right-wing, irrational blowhards.

Not what I was doing, Drake, simply pointing out that those who are quick to call the Bible 'fables' and 'fairy tales' almost always then go on to charactize believers in like-minded statements. To those I address the comments.

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

[Drake]

Not what I was doing, Drake, simply pointing out that those who are quick to call the Bible 'fables' and 'fairy tales' almost always then go on to charactize believers in like-minded statements. To those I address the comments.

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

And my point is that Jesus went 33 years without bludgeoning anyone into believing anything or attacking those He was trying to save. I suspect He did that for a good reason.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have less interest in reaching people for God than you do in reaching people for the Church.

[Bubba Wheels]

RendeR, I appreciate your comments. Again, just asking for the same respect for Bible-based folks as you would expect for any others. May go a little overboard to make the point some times, don't think I have engaged in any outright personal attacks on anyone (unlike my critics) but that's for others to decide.

There will be conflict between those with a secular humanist view of the world and people of faith. The Bible says this will always be the case before Christ returns. There is a very self-righteous tone and attitude that these secularists use in addressing Christians like myself. Ironic, since this is what they most often accuse Christians of being, self-righteous I mean.

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

[albionmoonlight]

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!
Why stop here? I'll grant you that the tone of these questions have been in the form of a challenge, but they appear like legitimate questions. If you can ignore the tone and provide a well-thought out answer supported by facts and logic, you will strengthen your position in the eyes of those who are open minded. You will also take the opportunity to spread God's word a little farther.

I can certainly understand stopping a debate when it becomes apparent that no one is listening. In this case, however, you continue to defend your position, but do not attempt to answer questions raised by that position.

Could you at least point someone who is interested in the proper direction?

[Bubba Wheels]

And my point is that Jesus went 33 years without bludgeoning anyone into believing anything or attacking those He was trying to save. I suspect He did that for a good reason.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have less interest in reaching people for God than you do in reaching people for the Church.

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

[Bubba Wheels]

Why stop here? I'll grant you that the tone of these questions have been in the form of a challenge, but they appear like legitimate questions. If you can ignore the tone and provide a well-thought out answer supported by facts and logic, you will strengthen your position in the eyes of those who are open minded. You will also take the opportunity to spread God's word a little farther.

I can certainly understand stopping a debate when it becomes apparent that no one is listening. In this case, however, you continue to defend your position, but do not attempt to answer questions raised by that position.

Could you at least point someone who is interested in the proper direction?

I'll give you the best Bible teacher's name I ever heard, he studied under an associate of Smith Wigglesworth and is the Pastor of one of the largest churches in Tulsa. Check out his website, read his articles, if I can get a link I will. Google it, Bob Yandian

[Butter]

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

Isn't that for God to decide?

[Butter]

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

I imagine your dog's gas is more coherent than you tend to be.

[mckerney]

Isn't that for God to decide?

No, God delegated that power to Bubba last week. Didn't you get the memo?

[Butter]

No, God delegated that power to Bubba last week. Didn't you get the memo?

Son of a bitch! My fax was down Friday. I knew I'd miss something!

[mckerney]

Son of a bitch! My fax was down Friday. I knew I'd miss something!

Damn, you're always missing the important stuff.

[dawgfan]

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

Nice way to dodge the question. And please, don't worry yourself on my account about me, God and the bible - that's for me to deal with.

[Bubba Wheels]

precepts.com (http://precepts.com)

[Bubba Wheels]

Check out the above and investigate to your heart's content! Even saw a "Ask the Pastor ANY question about the Bible!!!! I couldn't attempt to carry a glass of water to this man's Bible knowledge.

[dawgfan]

Check out the above and investigate to your heart's content! Even saw a "Ask the Pastor ANY question about the Bible!!!! I couldn't attempt to carry a glass of water to this man's Bible knowledge.

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

[Drake]

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

Church attendance is not a salvation level issue, anymore than homosexuality is a salvation level issue. Paul said "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" as an encouragement to believers--a reminder that it's difficult to maintain your faith on your own, not as a precept that required observance. It's that guideline leeway that allows the Church to not disinherit the homebound, aged and ill. Once again, we see the value of not taking Scripture literally in all cases.

And yes, by the way, I do go to church. I was actually in the ministry when I was younger, though it was youth ministry (which is why I have so much respect for SkyDog. I know how hard it is to handle even Xian teens), and it was before I had children of my own to manage.

[Drake]

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

*sigh*

In the interest of at least putting an answer out there for discussion, here's the theology in a nutshell (at least as I learned it):

Old Testament = Old Covenant
New Testament = New Covenant

New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Christian theologians have historically taught that anything having to do with the observance of Jewish Law (i.e. most of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, plus swaths of Exodus) was superceded by the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the Old Covenant, the only way to get to God and make repayment for human sin was through strict observance of the Law. Under the New Covenant, Jesus's death was the ultimate sacrifice that invalidated the Law and allowed all believers ready access to God. Most Xian theologians will tell you that it was actually impossible to observe the Law properly, and that God was using the Law as an extended metaphor to explain that without Jesus, there was no reconciliation possible between God and Man. (On the other hand, the Apostle Paul claims that he had blamelessly observed the Law his entire life and theoretically, at least, didn't need Jesus to save him...but theologians tend to treat that bit of scripture as hyperbole for the most part.)

Needless to say, this is part of what bugs the Jewish community. ("Oh, we're co-opting your history and your religious traditions and saying that you've had it wrong for the last two thousand years...and if you don't believe us, we'll kill you.) Anyway, the fallout is that the Church kept the bits that they wanted from the OT (stuff that seemed like good guidelines for buildng a Xian society) and tossed out all the rest. The bits that get reclaimed in various historic periods have to do with recursive theological justifications of current positions. I'm not saying this is good or bad--it's the same thing we do the the Constitution, part of the great niftiness of a Living Document.

Again, my argument is that it's tough to say on the one hand that the Divine Sacrifice obliterated the OT, and then on the other to say, "oh, except for the bits that we want to keep to bludgeon folks with". Either Jesus Saves, or Jesus Saves with Provisions. You can't have it both ways.

There are no easy answers here. This debate has been going on for a couple thousand years. The Apostles Peter and Paul actually squabbled over it for a good long time because Peter and the Church at Jerusalem wanted to make all Gentile converts also practice Judaism (because to them, early Christianity was Judaism). Paul, being shrewd, realized that most Gentiles were not going to go in for all the dietary restrictions, let alone the circumcision bit, and ultimately successfully argued that the Old Covenant (and Judaism) had been replaced by the message Jesus brought. The argument hasn't really ever gone away, though.

Please note, however, that one of the clever things Paul did was to actively amend early Christian theology to account for the culture and the mores of the society in which he lived. Since the Pauline letters made it into the Scriptures (i.e. God's Word) and the Scriptures are infallible, then we must assume (a posteriori, granted) that God that mandated scriptural interpretation should keep in step with social changes.

QED

[Butter]

Interesting, Drake. Thanks.

[clintl]

Since the Pauline letters made it into the Scriptures (i.e. God's Word) and the Scriptures are infallible, then we must assume that God that mandated scriptural interpretation should keep in step with social changes.

QED

Of course, you still have the nasty little problem of Christian denominations not agreeing completely on what constitutes "the Scriptures," so how would one tell whether any particular compilation is the "right" one?

[Bubba Wheels]

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

1. Funny, I distinctly see a 'free study materials' section listed right along with a 'contact us' section on the left of the screen.

2. So in your world, everyone else is worthy to get paid for their expertise, but not a Pastor? Bible clearly states that 'the workman is worthy of his hire.'
You think that producing materials someone might want to order from this site is free to produce? I don't think that there is a high profit margin on the stuff they do charge for because they are sending it to you.

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother? You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it. This is why I gave this site as a source. These articles (many are free) do this and are more in-depth than anything you have heard.

4. You don't get saved through your intellect. Matter of fact, Bible teaches us that man is composed of 3 parts: 1. Body 2. Soul (seat of intellect, emotions and conciousness) 3. Spirit (this is what the Bible refers to as your 'heart', your spiritual heart.) Those who sincerly seek God will be lead to Him (seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) those who just want to play endless mind-games will never find the answers, cause God Himself allows false anwers in the relm of the intellect (That they should believe a lie and be damned) Revelation

[Butter]

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother?

My dog farted out a thought:

Because you don't have any good answers?

[Drake]

Of course, you still have the nasty little problem of Christian denominations not agreeing completely on what constitutes "the Scriptures," so how would one tell whether any particular compilation is the "right" one?

Bah. Whichever one you happen to be using, silly. ;)
-------------------------

Seriously, if you're not reading it in Hebrew, Attic Greek and Aramaic, you're not reading the Scriptures -- you're reading Reader's Digest.

-------------------------

Edit for clarification: This really isn't a thorny problem in religious or theological circles these days. The Scriptures have been stable for several hundred years, and the only differences are really between the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant versions. My understanding is that the various Apocryphal books that are included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles that are not included in the Protestant one are largely considered useful, but not authoritative.

Now, if you're talking farther back in history, back to say, the Council at Hippo in 393 or Carthage in 397, then yes, it was a nasty issue for believers to resolve. These issues are not, however, troublesome to most Christians. If one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe that God is able to get His words in the right form for people to understand them. If one doesn't believe that, then the discussion isn't worth having in the first place.

Everybody has faith in something. Just because others don't believe it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Then again, just because I believe it doesn't mean that it's true, either. That's why they call it "faith" as opposed to "fact". :)

[Bubba Wheels]

But I praise God regardless, even for my critics, because some reading this may actually be sparked to investigate Biblical things further, and that is always good.

[Bubba Wheels]

Drake, the Apostle Paul claimed he was himself without sin? What Bible are YOU refering to. Paul identified himself as "Chief among sinners" before his conversion. Be carefull what you put out there as teaching, you are responsible for it. "None is blameless, no not one." Romans

[Drake]

But I praise God regardless, even for my critics, because some reading this may actually be sparked to investigate Biblical things further, and that is always good.

And if you hadn't actually have said that, you might have had a witness there, but instead, you're going to go to your wife or your pastor or your church and say, "Man, you ought to see how I'm getting persecuted on that Internet Bulletin Board, but I think God will work some good out of it, maybe reach a few of those sinners who have never heard the Gospel message before"...and then it all becomes about what you're trying to do for God rather than about what God might be trying to work through you in the lives of others.

[Bubba Wheels]

And if you hadn't actually have said that, you might have had a witness there, but instead, you're going to go to your wife or your pastor or your church and say, "Man, you ought to see how I'm getting persecuted on that Internet Bulletin Board, but I think God will work some good out of it, maybe reach a few of those sinners who have never heard the Gospel message before"...and then it all becomes about what you're trying to do for God rather than about what God might be trying to work through you in the lives of others.

Internet is just a time-killer for me, I wouldn't brag at all about anything on it (although through persistance God did allow me to site that website as a source for anyone really wanting to learn more.)

Also, glad you are such a mind-reader on motives, no wonder you no longer need to attend church except to grace it with your presence. ;)

[albionmoonlight]

You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it.Yes.

[Drake]

Drake, the Apostle Paul claimed he was himself without sin? What Bible are YOU refering to. Paul identified himself as "Chief among sinners" before his conversion. Be carefull what you put out there as teaching, you are responsible for it. "None is blameless, no not one." Romans

Philippians 3:5-6 (excerpted): "...circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless..."

Paul's whole point was that even though he had perfectly observed the Law, he was still a sinner, and that Man is only justified by Grace through faith. I'll admit that I left out that particular point as it wasn't cogent to the argument I was making.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

for instance, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God. However, I beleive that Jesus was a human being and that the Lamb thing was just a metaphor. It was not meant to be taken literally. If you consider yourself to be a pure literalist or a pure textualist, please let me know how you reconcile the fact that Jesus is a lamb, but that he was born of a human woman and was able to talk and use his hands. Or you can admit that some aspects of the Bible are metaphor.

So some things in the Bible are a metaphor; some things in the Bible are meant as literal instructions. The majority of Christain Biblical textual argument is nothing more than a matter of where people choose to draw the line.

[dawgfan]

Again, my argument is that it's tough to say on the one hand that the Divine Sacrifice obliterated the OT, and then on the other to say, "oh, except for the bits that we want to keep to bludgeon folks with". Either Jesus Saves, or Jesus Saves with Provisions. You can't have it both ways.

An outstanding reply - thanks. I agree with this statement, and it's the point I'm trying to make with Bubba.

I may not agree with other people's religious beliefs, and I certainly object to those that try to force their beliefs on me. That said, I have no problem with the idea that Christianity and the bible provide guidelines for how to live your life, but that ultimately it will be up to God (or whatever divine spirit you may believe in) to cast final judgement. I may not agree with all of those guidelines, and I may not believe in God (at least not in the Christian sense), but this way of thinking is consistent with Christian concepts.

[dawgfan]

1. Funny, I distinctly see a 'free study materials' section listed right along with a 'contact us' section on the left of the screen.

Funny, all I found there were a few selected articles, none of which seemed to be a direct or even semi-direct answer to the question I asked.

2. So in your world, everyone else is worthy to get paid for their expertise, but not a Pastor? Bible clearly states that 'the workman is worthy of his hire.'
You think that producing materials someone might want to order from this site is free to produce? I don't think that there is a high profit margin on the stuff they do charge for because they are sending it to you.

Please point out to me where I criticized the fact this minister is trying to earn money from his expertise?

What I did was point out this was a commercial website for a particular pastor, as opposed to a website that had any kind of specific replies or FAQ's directly related to the question I asked.

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother? You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it. This is why I gave this site as a source. These articles (many are free) do this and are more in-depth than anything you have heard.

How presumptuous of you to assume that I have a closed mind and would be unwilling to accept and valid response to my question. I believe in the scientific method - postulated theories based on the evidence at hand, be willing to adjust or completely rescind those theories in the face of conflicting evidence, or reinforce those theories with corroborating evidence. Don't be stuck on the theories, but rather the process and the underlying premise of seek the truth. If you are able to provide a cogent argument to support your positions, one that answers my question in a satisfactory manner, and I'm willing to adjust my opinions on the matter.

The articles you refer to don't appear to have anything to do with my question. I'm not interested enough in the matter to read them all to try and find relavence; if you find something that is a direct or even semi-direct response to my question, I'd be happy to review it.

The fact you still haven't addressed my questions directly leads me to believe that you'd really rather not face the sticky possibility that you literal and rigid belief system might not hold up to this kind of scrutiny. I challenge you to defend your position.

4. You don't get saved through your intellect. Matter of fact, Bible teaches us that man is composed of 3 parts: 1. Body 2. Soul (seat of intellect, emotions and conciousness) 3. Spirit (this is what the Bible refers to as your 'heart', your spiritual heart.) Those who sincerly seek God will be lead to Him (seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) those who just want to play endless mind-games will never find the answers, cause God Himself allows false anwers in the relm of the intellect (That they should believe a lie and be damned) Revelation

Problem is, my intellect lead me to strongly question much of these ideas. Like I said earlier, don't put yourself out worrying about my salvation - that's my business and none of yours.

[yabanci]

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

[Ben E Lou]

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).{Sticks nose in against better judgement to make small point}

Well, if one believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, then it seems that Christ's words would carry no more or no less weight than the rest of the Scripture.

That being said, Christ's words in Matthew 7:6 have come mind quite often in reading this thread...

[yabanci]

Well, if one believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, then it seems that Christ's words would carry no more or no less weight than the rest of the Scripture.

It doesn't seem that way to me. I would think if God sent Jesus to Earth as the savior of humankind, you might want to pay particular attention to his teachings.

[Ben E Lou]

It doesn't seem that way to me. I would think if God sent Jesus to Earth as the savior of humankind, you might want to pay particular attention to his teachings.I understand where you're coming from there. This is where and why this discussion is really at an impasse overall though--and lots of people seem to fail to see where any ability to discuss this breaks down right here. Some people believe that the entirety of the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God--making it therefore the final and supreme authority on all matters of faith and practice. Therefore, all parts of this discussion are seen through that filter. On the other hand, others vary somewhere on a continuum from "book of lies" to "almost the Word of God, but Jesus' words are most important." For some reason (and I really can't fathom why), a lot of folks on both sides of that fence seem to have no clue where the other side is coming from, and no understanding of why the other side thinks and reacts the way they do.

Maybe it is because I'm a Bible-believin', fire-baptized, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-Lamb guy (;)) who spends the majority of his time with those who openly say that they want nothing to do with Christ that this seems like such a bizarre discussion to me...

Can y'all really not see the other side's perspective???

(I'm talking to both sides with that question, by the way.)

[Drake]

I though that breakdown was sort of implicit, SD. Maybe I've been spending too much time around Bible-thumpers. :)

But, of course, I will point out that I did say:

If one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe that God is able to get His words in the right form for people to understand them. If one doesn't believe that, then the discussion isn't worth having in the first place.

That's also why I've found in-your-face evangelism to never be very successful in practice. It's like trying to argue String theory with committed Einsteinian physicists (which, I swear, is a discussion for another thread).

[Ben E Lou]

Drake:

I missed that. Good insight.

[Buccaneer]

Ben, it seems that the hard sayings of our Savior are the ones that trip up a lot of folks, believers and unbelievers. One of my favorites is Matt. 10:34, "Don't believe that I came to bring peace on earth. No! but rather a sword." It is the division of those accepting that He is the way, the truth and the life, and those not accepting that.

[Bubba Wheels]

dola--

for instance, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God. However, I beleive that Jesus was a human being and that the Lamb thing was just a metaphor. It was not meant to be taken literally. If you consider yourself to be a pure literalist or a pure textualist, please let me know how you reconcile the fact that Jesus is a lamb, but that he was born of a human woman and was able to talk and use his hands. Or you can admit that some aspects of the Bible are metaphor.

So some things in the Bible are a metaphor; some things in the Bible are meant as literal instructions. The majority of Christain Biblical textual argument is nothing more than a matter of where people choose to draw the line.

Jews in the old testament were commanded of God to sacrafice an unblemished (free of sin) lamb in the temple to account for their sin "without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin." Jesus became the ultimate sacrafice for sin, He who was without sin, hence the term "Lamb of God."

Get the big picture, see the context, its really easier than you think.

[Butter]

Can y'all really not see the other side's perspective???

(I'm talking to both sides with that question, by the way.)

I can see both sides of the perspective. I am an atheist married to a woman who was raised Southern Baptist (but is more of a spiritual "free agent" at this point, if you will... she finds that particular church too strict, she holds more liberal beliefs than most... but she won't hesitate to tell me that if I don't accept the Lord as Savior, then I'm going to hell).

It's an odd situation for us both, especially with our children. My brother is also a born-again Christian, and my parents are both atheist. So I have had hours upon hours of discussion about all aspects of religion, and the Christian God, and Jesus, and so on and so forth.

And I just think it's extremely presumptuous of Bubba Wheels to come on here and tell everybody what the Bible means. It means different things to different religions. I'm sick of people whining about religious persecution in this country. If you want to see religious persecution, let's all time warp back to the good old 1600's when you could be burned at the stake for heresy.

So, I can SEE both sides of the discussion, and I can understand why people believe what they believe, and how difficult it is to question one's beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good old-fashioned argument every once in a while.

[RendeR]

I know that this discussion has deteriorated into "Xion vs the world" but let me ask this:

How many people reading this have gone to the article about "purity day" and then gone on to check out the website and promotional material that these kids are being given to pass around to other peoples children?

*edited out a large, very angry rant at the arrogance of the religious right in this country*

The original point of this thread (I'm assuming at least) was to point out the very anti-gay/lesbian cant put on this very well intentioned abstinance day thing. I have to agree that while the premise for the "purity day" was a good one: Try to get kids to wait until they are older to have sex, a christian group chose to support this with an over the top Xion commentary. I'm betting they'll lose more kids than they'll gain because of the dogmatic statements within their information.

[Bubba Wheels]

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus

Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." Jesus

Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability. :)

[Chubby]

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus

Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." Jesus

Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability. :)

Except I don't believe in your god so I don't care what he thinks.

[CamEdwards]

Don't be a dick, Chubby. He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to Yabanci.

These issues are contentious and emotional enough without having intentional bullshit inserted into the argument.

[Chubby]

Don't be a dick, Chubby. He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to Yabanci.

These issues are contentious and emotional enough without having intentional bullshit inserted into the argument.

Once again, proving my point that so far the only real argument against this is religious.

So, let me get this straight. People are free to go off about how they worship their god and spout scripture but ONLY if they are Christian? Anyone else isn't allowed to speak their view? I don't follow Judeo-Christian beliefs, I have just as much right to say so as Bubba does in spouting of scripture every chance he gets.

[CamEdwards]

Chubby,

He was responding to a question by Yabanci about what Jesus has said. Give it a rest, dude. He wasn't spouting Scripture, he was trying to answer a legitimate question.

[dawgfan]

Chubby,

He was responding to a question by Yabanci about what Jesus has said. Give it a rest, dude. He wasn't spouting Scripture, he was trying to answer a legitimate question.

He also felt compelled to add this line:

"Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability."

He's certainly within his rights to express this view, just as Chubby is to express his views.

[Poli]

Can I get the Cliff Notes on this thread?

[Chubby]

Can I get the Cliff Notes on this thread?
umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

[wig]

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

Chubby just got himself off the "soon to be wignored" list.

Kudos, sir.

:)

[Bubba Wheels]

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

The 'abstinence' point-of-view concerning sex-education in the public schools is almost always promoted by Christians. The Secularists want to deny the 'faith' aspect of anything, and always seem to feel that they have more answers than the parents do (because they are graduates of Universities specializing in education and those 'backwater religious folks need to join the real world?)

I have done nothing more than address the topic of this thread from the Judeo/Christian point of view. I am not 'forcing my religion' on anyone. But as long as public schools are the tax-funded vehicles of choice to educate our kids then those with personal relationships with their living God will not allow themselves to be marginalized and condenscended to by liberal social engineers who 'know what's good for your kids weather you like it or not." Trust me, I speak for many, and we are not going away (until the rapture) :D

PS In case of Rapture, have at it, do it all your way and have fun!

[Chubby]

Chubby just got himself off the "soon to be wignored" list.

Kudos, sir.

:)

I didn't know I was on that list, but thanks :)

It just gets a little thick in here at times, it's no wonder you don't see any other religions brought up in here. They'd be pounced on for being "wrong" in not time.

[Chubby]

The 'abstinence' point-of-view concerning sex-education in the public schools is almost always promoted by Christians. The Secularists want to deny the 'faith' aspect of anything, and always seem to feel that they have more answers than the parents do (because they are graduates of Universities specializing in education and those 'backwater religious folks need to join the real world?)

I have done nothing more than address the topic of this thread from the Judeo/Christian point of view. I am not 'forcing my religion' on anyone. But as long as public schools are the tax-funded vehicles of choice to educate our kids then those with personal relationships with their living God will not allow themselves to be marginalized and condenscended to by liberal social engineers who 'know what's good for your kids weather you like it or not." Trust me, I speak for many, and we are not going away (until the rapture) :D

PS In case of Rapture, have at it, do it all your way and have fun!


You are trying to force your views on others whether you will admit that or not. Like I said, I for one am sick of the bible thumping around here and will certainly speak my mind whether you agree with me or not.

I don't care if you speak for many, I speak for MANY MORE people on this earth who DON'T believe in the same religous system that you do. I don't give two fucks about the rapture, I don't give two fucks how many bible verses you quote, and I don't give a fuck how you try to weave your "god" into every moral/ethical debate there is. If people want to spout off about their "god" then be prepared to hear the other side of the coin too, yet many people don't want to (not you Bubba in this case, you just choose to bury your head in the sand).

People are free to believe whatever they want, we as a country can NOT make laws based on one religions point of view. The truth is, christianity is the "most vocal" religion in this country. They feel that they are in a position of power and need to use that power to influence things to be how they want. You can quote all the selective bible verses you want, you aren't going to convince anyone that you are "right" and that things should be how your church says they should be.

[Cuckoo]

People are free to believe whatever they want, we as a country can NOT make laws based on one religions point of view.

You're right, but laws will be made and sometimes they'll agree with one religion's point of view and not another. It doesn't necessarily make it a religious law.

[Chubby]

You're right, but laws will be made and sometimes they'll agree with one religion's point of view and not another. It doesn't necessarily make it a religious law.

Once again, feel free to show me an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't based in religous beliefs. The only one even semi-offered up was that it would lead to incest/child abuse/etc... and that argument is silly because it has nothing to do with those things.

[Cuckoo]

Once again, feel free to show me an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't based in religous beliefs. The only one even semi-offered up was that it would lead to incest/child abuse/etc... and that argument is silly because it has nothing to do with those things.


:rolleyes: How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

[Chubby]

:rolleyes: How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

How many times do I have to tell you to POST THOSE REASONS. Stop trying to cop out by "well I'm not going to tell you". When I asked John Galt that earlier the best I got was the "incest/child abuse" argument which is foolish.

So do tell, so you can "enlighten" the lurkers even tho you know me so well that I will "obviously" connect them to religion.

[Cuckoo]

This is why I hate these arguments and regret it everytime I get into one. Inevitably, there is at least one person who needs everything recapped for them. In all actuality, they really don't need it recapped, they just like to pretend that they do in order to marginalize and diminish the other viewpoint. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

[tucker342]

Well said Chubby

[yabanci]

:rolleyes: How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

I too would like someone to point out these "legitimate objections" that are not rooted in religion or bigotry.

[Chubby]

This is why I hate these arguments and regret it everytime I get into one. Inevitably, there is at least one person who needs everything recapped for them. In all actuality, they really don't need it recapped, they just like to pretend that they do in order to marginalize and diminish the other viewpoint. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Funny, I hate these discussions because when religous people are pressed for their so-called "non religous reasons" they can't seem to find any. They don't want to SAY the only reason they are against something is for religous reasons so they try and find some why to keep ducking the question.

You still haven't posted those reasons now have you? Nope, not yet.

[Maple Leafs]

Chubby, would it upset you terribly if I suggested in your worldview "Christian" and "Conservative" mean the same thing, and that maybe that's the source of your confusion here?

[Chubby]

Chubby, would it upset you terribly if I suggested in your worldview "Christian" and "Conservative" mean the same thing, and that maybe that's the source of your confusion here?

No it wouldn't upset me.

I have found, that many vocal christians are conservative tho not always the case. Me being a liberal tend to clash with those people, me also being spirtual and not religous tend to clash with those same people more :D

To me, what 2 adults do in the provacy of their own home sexually is none of my friggin buisness. It shouldn't be any of your business, and it certainly shouldn't be the buisness of the government IMO.

[Maple Leafs]

To me, what 2 adults do in the provacy of their own home sexually is none of my friggin buisness. It shouldn't be any of your business, and it certainly shouldn't be the buisness of the government IMO.Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

[Chubby]

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

No, they are asking the government to force a group of people (that they already are on record as not liking, feel are going to hell, think are beneath them) to not use a word that tthey feel is theirs.

The issue is Christians want the word "marriage" for their own. They don't want gay people to be able to use it because they don't like gay people. THAT'S the issue.

And my argument is government shoudln't be writing laws (stupid laws at that, over a WORD) JUST because one religion wants something a something way.

Funny, I STILL haven't seen these phantom non-religous reasons for not allowing same-sex marriages. But that's prob because they don't exist. Same-sex marriage does NOT lead to incest, or child abuse, or killing puppies, or driving over grandmothers...

[MJ4H]

Funny, I STILL haven't seen these phantom non-religous reasons for not allowing same-sex marriages.

I have. About 30 times. Why haven't you? I didn't even read the whole thread and I've read the reasons that are non-religious.

EDIT: Welcome to my ignore list.

[Chubby]

I have. About 30 times. Why haven't you? I didn't even read the whole thread and I've read the reasons that are non-religious.

EDIT: Welcome to my ignore list.

Oh no, don't hurt me in that way :rolleyes:

Funny that there are others who still haven't seen any non-religious reasons given.

[yabanci]

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

On a side note: just a few months ago private, consensual sex between gay people *was* illlegal in many states, and many people were outraged when the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that those laws were unconstitutional. If you look at the positions of most of the organizations that strongly oppose gay marriage, you will see that they do in fact want the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people and are very angry that the Supreme Court ruled it can't.