PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage = Polygamy? Who Cares?



Slipnish
March 21st, 2005, 06:10 AM
I keep seeing this slippery slope argument and counter-argument made in all of the gay marriage and related threads. And I can't help but wonder:

1. Why do people care if gay marriage leads to polygamy, beastiality, or incestous relationships?

2. How exactly does it affect them?

3. Let's say the couple next door add another spouse. Does that automatically drive down the value of your house, or make your children stupid?

4. Let's say the guy next door marries his dog. As long as he keeps his business in his house, how would you know? Would...beastiality vibes leak out, or something? Would your 3 yr old wake up with nightmares?

5. Last one. The couple next door tends to be incestous, homosexual, twin brothers, each of whom who has married his cat, and is married to someone else. Both are investment bankers, and madly in love with each other. They own the largest house on the development, and drive really expensive foreign cars and are immaculately tailored and grooomed. Is it time to move to a "better" neighborhood?

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 06:46 AM
:rolleyes: Come on, Slipnish: we all know that this is a CHRISTIAN COUNTRY... so anything the undermines Christian values threatens the country. Polygamy today --> anarchy tomorrow.

Besides, we all know as well that part of being American is being a busy-body / knowing that your neighbors are being righteous / attempting to enact legislation to correct them if they're not.

Without moral standards people would be free to do, well... to be free, I guess... :P

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 07:01 AM
Besides, we all know as well that part of being American is being a busy-body / knowing that your neighbors are being righteous / attempting to enact legislation to correct them if they're not.

/\ Exactly. /\

I never understood the counter-argument. Jesus hung out with lepers, whores, feebled, all of the dregs of Roman society. He helped them, listened to them, defended them, and even told others to do the same. My personal belief is that he would be the first one in the parade, the one in front of state congresses protesting the anti-marriage laws, and would even get on those horrible debate-shows like Hannity and Colmes to explain to the world why all people should be equal.

Cuz you know, when Jesus kept telling his followers to go help others he meant to add, "except the gays."

HappyLady
March 21st, 2005, 08:06 AM
Polygamy wouldn't bug me if worked both ways. ;) I want a few husbands. ;)

Seriously, I think communal living has it's advantages. I guess it isn't much different from a small tribe or something like that. But 10 parents can field 20 kids better than 2 parents can field 4. I don't think homosexuality leads to the acceptance of beastiality, etc... so I can't argue that angle.

Harrison, Jesus hung out with those folks with the intention of teaching them to "Go and sin no more."

I think the primary reason that the "busy body" stereotype exists is because what a lot of people fail to understand is that parent looks at society as "How is this going to screw up my kid?" If my neighbor is participating in...all that...and my kids are in close contact to it, it will influence them...period. If they weren't exposed to it, it wouldn't be stimuli in their environment that would influence them. If they are told it is perfectly normal and acceptable, it will influence them...period. I want grandchildren, not kittens. ;)

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 08:26 AM
I wasn't aware leperacy was a sin. Or being crippled.

KevinBrowning
March 21st, 2005, 08:26 AM
1. Why do people care if gay marriage leads to polygamy, beastiality, or incestous relationships?

Because it's wrong.


2. How exactly does it affect them?

It leads to an immoral society.


3. Let's say the couple next door add another spouse. Does that automatically drive down the value of your house, or make your children stupid?

No. But it does negatively influence your children.


4. Let's say the guy next door marries his dog. As long as he keeps his business in his house, how would you know? Would...beastiality vibes leak out, or something? Would your 3 yr old wake up with nightmares?

By "keeps his business in the house," I assume you mean only have sex with the dog in the house. You might know, you might not. I don't know what you mean by "vibes leaking out." It wouldn't affect your 3-year-old's dreams. But it would set an immoral example if it was discovered, and it is wrong.


5. Last one. The couple next door tends to be incestous, homosexual, twin brothers, each of whom who has married his cat, and is married to someone else. Both are investment bankers, and madly in love with each other. They own the largest house on the development, and drive really expensive foreign cars and are immaculately tailored and grooomed. Is it time to move to a "better" neighborhood?

The quality of a neighborhood is not determined by the wealth or appearance of its inhabitants, but by the moral character of them.

Wrong actions are to be discouraged because of their possible consequences for others, but more fundamentally, because they are wrong. Atheists do not seem to understand this fact. Wrong actions, at their most basic level, are not wrong because of any negative effects they have, but because they are against God's teaching.

KevinBrowning
March 21st, 2005, 08:27 AM
I wasn't aware leperacy was a sin. Or being crippled.

Having a disease is not a sin itself, but it is the result of the sin of mankind.

HappyLady
March 21st, 2005, 08:32 AM
I wasn't aware leperacy was a sin. Or being crippled.

Don't be such a ninny. ;) You knew that isn't what I meant. I guess I should have been more "wordy." He spent time with the whores, and even Samaritans, in the hope that they would see the light. It was missionary work, and no that he had a good time partying with the sinners. lol. He spent time with the lepers the same way Mother Theresa spent time in poverty stricken areas. To help and heal.

Snoop
March 21st, 2005, 08:39 AM
Kevin Browning says: Wrong actions, at their most basic level, are not wrong because of any negative effects they have, but because they are against God's teaching.

Having a disease is not a sin itself, but it is the result of the sin of mankind.

Kevin, I really think you are slipping in your debating tecnique - stop quoting god and get some real people and sources to quote - it might be helpful in debating. I respect your religion and I have to say I single you out because you do this postulating all the time. I still love you though.

KevinBrowning
March 21st, 2005, 08:43 AM
Kevin, I really think you are slipping in your debating tecnique - stop quoting god and get some real people and sources to quote - it might be helpful in debating. I respect your religion and I have to say I single you out because you do this postulating all the time. I still love you though.

God is more "real" than any person. I am simply explaining that morality at its most basic level is not a matter of results, but of principle. Now, add something to the debate, rather than throw vague criticisms my way. Love you too.

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 08:49 AM
:P


Don't be such a ninny. You knew that isn't what I meant. I guess I should have been more "wordy." He spent time with the whores, and even Samaritans, in the hope that they would see the light. It was missionary work, and no that he had a good time partying with the sinners. lol. He spent time with the lepers the same way Mother Theresa spent time in poverty stricken areas. To help and heal.

But that still doesn't mean he would be denying thier rights to live a life. That almost seems like the complete opposite of what he was doing.

And Jesus didn't need to hang with sinners to party. The man was a machine. First miracle. Booyah.

Apokalupsis
March 21st, 2005, 08:56 AM
I never understood the counter-argument. Jesus hung out with lepers, whores, feebled, all of the dregs of Roman society. He helped them, listened to them, defended them, and even told others to do the same.

Cuz you know, when Jesus kept telling his followers to go help others he meant to add, "except the gays."
Incorrect. Jesus never APPROVED of their actions. He showed that who the populace considered to be "outcasts" and degenerates, were people too, and thus, deserving of our love. Yet at the same time, he disapproved of the action.

There is NOTHING in scripture that could be used to support the idea that Jesus would have "helped gays seek marriage" or condone any other act mentioned in the op. Scripture says the contrary.

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 09:04 AM
Kevin:

Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice to take place in or around the 1810's. Somewhere in the teens... I don't recall when. Let's take a look at life back then:

A servant who wore no coat and showed off his "bare shirt sleaves" would have been considered scandalous at worst and horribly innapropriate at best.

Ladies were expected to learn French, Latin, and German and were expected to marry as well as they possibly could. Protesting to their fathers that they didn't want to marry a certain individual was a punishable offense. Women were effectively property and could not own land.

"Propper dancing" was little more than walking in specific patterns. Anything more than this was considered "savage" and was complete tabboo.

A woman's "undergarments" were as large and confining as most modern day ballroom gowns. The idea of a woman showing off anything other than her arms, neck and face was labeled as completely scandalous and innapropriate.

Point: society's morality has been easing up for nearly 200 years. I have no doubt that actions that you would stand by as being 100% moral were viewed as completely scandalous in the time of Jane Austen.

So, all you're doing when you say, "society is in danger of becoming less moral..." is proclaim your inability to see where it is our society has come from. We don't live in the world of Jane Austen anymore and society has not self-destructed. It's time you accepted this. The Chicken-Little schtick is getting old.

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 09:06 AM
Scripture says the contrary.

I have yet to find one reference in that Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, "Except homosexuals." I'm not saying the Bible, I'm saying I've heard time and time again, people say that "Jesus wouldn't approve". I understand some using references in the Old Testiment of Sodomn and Gemorrah (yeah, spelling doesn't count...), but I just don't understand where they pull out this idea that Jesus wouldn't approve?

I think we should bury this argument with that. I'll retract what I said, it was meant in good humor, but I don't feel that we should debate the intentions of someone who lived over 2000 years ago. I wasn't there, so I don't think we should take this any further.

Snoop
March 21st, 2005, 09:07 AM
God is more "real" than any person. I am simply explaining that morality at its most basic level is not a matter of results, but of principle. Now, add something to the debate, rather than throw vague criticisms my way. Love you too.
My criticism was anything but vague.

Here's my answer to the posted question "Gay marriage = Polygamy? Who Cares?" - No polygamy for me - I have enough problems with one wife. I do care.

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 09:24 AM
Because it's wrong.

Why is it wrong? Why is your opinion that it's wrong better than another's opinion that it's not wrong?


It leads to an immoral society.

Fallacy: slippery slope.


No. But it does negatively influence your children.

Oh you and HappyLady can take this "negatively influence" shtick to the curb. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of listening to how hard it is for parents to control their kids. I'm tired of Christian America trying to censor things that they don't like because they're too lazy to actually watch television WITH their children or (heaven forbid) tell their kids NOT TO WATCH SOMETHING! *gasp*


By "keeps his business in the house," I assume you mean only have sex with the dog in the house. You might know, you might not. I don't know what you mean by "vibes leaking out." It wouldn't affect your 3-year-old's dreams. But it would set an immoral example if it was discovered, and it is wrong.

There are a lot of people into BD/SM. Is it better to encroach upon their freedom to enjoy adult activities behind closed doors or to simply tell your children what you believe is acceptable / unnacceptable.


The quality of a neighborhood is not determined by the wealth or appearance of its inhabitants, but by the moral character of them.

LOL Riiiiiight. That's FUNNY. I'm going to save this and read it again when I'm feeling blue.


Wrong actions are to be discouraged because of their possible consequences for others, but more fundamentally, because they are wrong. Atheists do not seem to understand this fact. Wrong actions, at their most basic level, are not wrong because of any negative effects they have, but because they are against God's teaching.

What Christians like Kevin don't understand is freedom. If you understood freedom, you'd understand that being free means disagreeing with other people, but not actively attempting to limit their freedoms based on said disagreement. Methinks you have forgotten the lessons learned by your faith when you were still cultitsts being fed to lions.

CliveStaples
March 21st, 2005, 10:21 AM
Why is it wrong? Why is your opinion that it's wrong better than another's opinion that it's not wrong?

To the first: it's wrong because marriage is meant for one man and one woman. We outlaw what we consider wrong all the time. Prostitution, bestiality, public nudity, indecency, pornography, etc. "Community standards" have been a basis for legislation for a very, very long time.

To the second: You are misunderstanding the situation. It isn't that Kevin's, or my, opinions are any more important than anyone else's. It's that in a democracy, the will of the majority rules. If the will of the majority is that gay marriage and polygamy should be legal, then they will be made legal.


Fallacy: slippery slope.

First: the slippery-slope argument is appropriate in discussion of laws, as the judiciary is forced to carry out any decision to its logical conclusions. The legislature, on the other hand, is not. Second: I disagree with Kevin. It isn't that polyhamy LEADS to an immoral society, but that it is a CHARACTERISTIC of an immoral society. But what I consider moral is inconsequential if I am in the minority. It isn't unconstitutional to ban or allow polygamy, so leave it to the states. If you do that, however, you can't ***** and moan when the state doesn't legislate your morality.


Oh you and HappyLady can take this "negatively influence" shtick to the curb. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of listening to how hard it is for parents to control their kids. I'm tired of Christian America trying to censor things that they don't like because they're too lazy to actually watch television WITH their children or (heaven forbid) tell their kids NOT TO WATCH SOMETHING! *gasp*

Decency statutes should either be enforced or gotten rid of. A community has the right to determine what is decent and what is not.


There are a lot of people into BD/SM. Is it better to encroach upon their freedom to enjoy adult activities behind closed doors or to simply tell your children what you believe is acceptable / unnacceptable.

Encroach on their freedom? It certainly encroaches on their liberty, but that isn't unconstitutional. All that is needed is due process. Are you claiming that there is a fundamental right to, say, consensual homosexual sodomy?


LOL Riiiiiight. That's FUNNY. I'm going to save this and read it again when I'm feeling blue.

What? You didn't even say anything besides: "I laugh at you. You are funny." I can't resist the SHEER POWER of your persuasive rhetoric!

I think that a ghetto filled with good people is better than a thousand Hollywoods.


What Christians like Kevin don't understand is freedom. If you understood freedom, you'd understand that being free means disagreeing with other people, but not actively attempting to limit their freedoms based on said disagreement. Methinks you have forgotten the lessons learned by your faith when you were still cultitsts being fed to lions

What atheists like Zhavric don't understand is democracy. If you understood democracy, you'd understand that you can't cry "Oppression!" whenever the will of the majority doesn't go your way. You'd also understand that the government does, indeed, limit liberty. It does so Constitutionally, as all that is needed to constrain liberty is "due process of the law". Methinks you have forgotten the lessons that the Founding Fathers taught.


...stop quoting god and get some real people and sources to quote...

Oh, man. That's a sweet rebuttal: "I don't think that the source you gave was real! Find another one!" The last resort of a flailing mind...

You may disagree with the 10 Commandments, and that's within your rights. But you cannot say that they are not a great example of good law: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill. These two offer the kind of law that Zhavric actually understands: laws meant to guard against physical harm to other members of the human race. Thou shalt not commit adultery. This one offers the kind of law that sails right over Zhavric's head and into Kevin's territory: laws that do not guard against physically harming another member of the community, but instead guard against immoral activity. Should temporal law mirror divine law? Certainly it should, in some aspects. But where it differs, as Zhavric would be swift to point out, is that the government doesn't have the authority that "God, or whatever cult leader you choose to meet all your oppression needs" does to say what is immoral. That is true. But the people still maintain the right, in this democracy, to legislate against activity that they consider immoral. If they consider heterosexual sodomy immoral, then it's going to be illegal. If they consider prostitution immoral, then it will be illegal. The point is to have more people involved in the law-making process, not just an elite ruling class that tells everyone else what's best for them (like, say, five lawyers in black robes?).


I don't feel that we should debate the intentions of someone who lived over 2000 years ago.

You're not getting yourself out of the hot water that easily. You aren't debating the intentions of Jesus, per se, but what the Bible says. It might be the case that the Bible does not accurately characterize Jesus' views; that is another debate.


Zhavric: your "modesty" example from Austen is a great example of what I'm talking about. If there is a widespread feeling that a woman may be modest while showing her ankles, then the will of the people will be accomplished. The difference here is that there ISN'T a wide movement to legalize gay marriage; certainly not a majority of people. What's happening now is that a minority group is attempting to foist off as "popular" opinions which are NOT held by the majority of people. If they were, then there would be no need for a California judge to tell Californians that they can't outlaw gay marriage (although the argument for the unconstitutionality of a gay marriage ban is quite unpersuasive to this observer).

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 10:33 AM
You're not getting yourself out of the hot water that easily.

I wasn't aware that making my beliefs and opinions known would be considered putting myself in "hot water"....


You aren't debating the intentions of Jesus, per se, but what the Bible says. It might be the case that the Bible does not accurately characterize Jesus' views; that is another debate.

Actually, to me it's not that the Bible doesn't accurately characterize Jesus's views; it's that some people don't. But it's not my place to point fingers and say if anyone's wrong. So I'm dropping out of that point. I'm not a Bible Scholar, (...hehe, duh) so I have no real bearing there. I could give my uninformed opinion.....but I could also spit at a wall and provide that as evidence too.

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 10:45 AM
To the first: it's wrong because marriage is meant for one man and one woman.

Why?


We outlaw what we consider wrong all the time. Prostitution,

Legal in Nevada.


bestiality,

Outlawed more to protect animals than because anyone thinks it's gross...


public nudity,

Legal in Columbus, OH. You can be topless regardless of which gender you are.


indecency,

So easy to define...


pornography, etc.

That's funny that you would say pornography is outlawed since it's readily available on every internet browser, book store, and video store. Methinks you have attempting to blend illegal / immoral / and unacceptable into one string of examples.


"Community standards" have been a basis for legislation for a very, very long time.

And have brought us so many wonderful things... like your old friend Jim Crow.



To the second: You are misunderstanding the situation. It isn't that Kevin's, or my, opinions are any more important than anyone else's. It's that in a democracy, the will of the majority rules. If the will of the majority is that gay marriage and polygamy should be legal, then they will be made legal.

The will of the majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's what the Bill of Rights ensures. That's what being American is about. The majority may think it's a really good idea pass a law banning unkind remarks about Jesus. Fortuneatly, we have freedom of speach...


Decency statutes should either be enforced or gotten rid of. A community has the right to determine what is decent and what is not.

Gotten rid of.


What atheists like Zhavric don't understand is democracy. If you understood democracy, you'd understand that you can't cry "Oppression!" whenever the will of the majority doesn't go your way. You'd also understand that the government does, indeed, limit liberty. It does so Constitutionally, as all that is needed to constrain liberty is "due process of the law". Methinks you have forgotten the lessons that the Founding Fathers taught.

Yeah, that whole part on the constitution about life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness... that can all be done away with if enough people decide that your idea of "liberty" is "gross".

Please.



Oh, man. That's a sweet rebuttal: "I don't think that the source you gave was real! Find another one!" The last resort of a flailing mind...

You may disagree with the 10 Commandments, and that's within your rights. But you cannot say that they are not a great example of good law: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill. These two offer the kind of law that Zhavric actually understands: laws meant to guard against physical harm to other members of the human race. Thou shalt not commit adultery. This one offers the kind of law that sails right over Zhavric's head and into Kevin's territory: laws that do not guard against physically harming another member of the community, but instead guard against immoral activity. Should temporal law mirror divine law? Certainly it should, in some aspects. But where it differs, as Zhavric would be swift to point out, is that the government doesn't have the authority that "God, or whatever cult leader you choose to meet all your oppression needs" does to say what is immoral. That is true. But the people still maintain the right, in this democracy, to legislate against activity that they consider immoral. If they consider heterosexual sodomy immoral, then it's going to be illegal. If they consider prostitution immoral, then it will be illegal. The point is to have more people involved in the law-making process, not just an elite ruling class that tells everyone else what's best for them (like, say, five lawyers in black robes?).



You're not getting yourself out of the hot water that easily. You aren't debating the intentions of Jesus, per se, but what the Bible says. It might be the case that the Bible does not accurately characterize Jesus' views; that is another debate.


Zhavric: your "modesty" example from Austen is a great example of what I'm talking about. If there is a widespread feeling that a woman may be modest while showing her ankles, then the will of the people will be accomplished. The difference here is that there ISN'T a wide movement to legalize gay marriage; certainly not a majority of people. What's happening now is that a minority group is attempting to foist off as "popular" opinions which are NOT held by the majority of people. If they were, then there would be no need for a California judge to tell Californians that they can't outlaw gay marriage (although the argument for the unconstitutionality of a gay marriage ban is quite unpersuasive to this observer).[/QUOTE]

HappyLady
March 21st, 2005, 10:47 AM
But that still doesn't mean he would be denying thier rights to live a life.

WHose denying anyone the right to live a life? There is a difference between accepting a notion and embracing a notion.

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 10:58 AM
Whose denying anyone the right to live a life?

Well, here in Ohio, a law was passed that denies people certain rights if they are not married. It's a bunch of confusing legal jargon, but for the most part, it was a stab at gay marriages, and that gay couples will not have the same rights as straight couples. Ironically, it also hurt people who are just living together - (college roomates, heterosexual straight women/men living together to pay the rent, couples dating). For the most part it separated certain property/tax rights to EXCLUSIVELY married heterosexual couples.

I guess I consider that a "life". I think that a person should be able to do basically whatever they want (within reason :P ) with as little intervention from authorities as possible. So to limit certain rights that have no real substantial detriment to society (from what I see) seems to be denying that person a right to live a life....as they chose.

CliveStaples
March 21st, 2005, 10:59 AM
Legal in Nevada.

EXACTLY! It's LEGAL in Nevada, but OUTLAWED in other states! That's the way it's SUPPOSED TO WORK!


That's funny that you would say pornography is outlawed since it's readily available on every internet browser, book store, and video store. Methinks you have attempting to blend illegal / immoral / and unacceptable into one string of examples.

Methinks you are misinterpreting what I said. Can you paint a pornographic mural? Maybe in San Francisco, but certainly not in Lancaster County. You'd think that since I put it after "indecency" that you'd catch the implication, but apparently I should have connected the dots.


And have brought us so many wonderful things... like your old friend Jim Crow.

My "old friend"? I hope you retract that, because I don't like being called a racist. BTW: freedom of speech doesn't cover "fighting words". Also: race is a suspect class. Homosexuality is not.


The will of the majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's what the Bill of Rights ensures. That's what being American is about. The majority may think it's a really good idea pass a law banning unkind remarks about Jesus. Fortuneatly, we have freedom of speach...

You're evading the argument. I'm claiming that there is no right to gay marriage. You are claiming that I'm trampling on their rights. If the state wants to grant gays the right to marry, fine. If they don't, fine. What the HELL does this have to do with free speech? Speech enjoys MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more Constitutional protection than homosexuality.


Yeah, that whole part on the constitution about life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness... that can all be done away with if enough people decide that your idea of "liberty" is "gross".

Hate to tell you, buddy: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution. That would be the "Declaration of Independence", which is actually different than the Constitution. I consider prostitution wrong; laws banning prostitution are a constraint on liberty.

Slipnish
March 21st, 2005, 11:29 AM
Because it's wrong.

By your standards. Maybe even by the majority of people's standards of today. But how exactly does that hurt you?


It leads to an immoral society.

And here's is where it gets squirrely, Kev. You can't exactly prove that, you just think that it would. People in the 50s thought other things would lead to the downfall of society. And it did, for those that thought rigidly about the types of things that were acceptable. Society is elastic and has room to grow. Only those that get dogmatic and refuse to grow get left behind.


No. But it does negatively influence your children.

In what way? How? You live in what I bet is largely considered an immoral society. Lots of things meet with your disaproval, and yet you are still a Christian, still conservative, and still who you want to be.

How could this possible influence your children unless you let it?


By "keeps his business in the house," I assume you mean only have sex with the dog in the house. You might know, you might not. I don't know what you mean by "vibes leaking out." It wouldn't affect your 3-year-old's dreams. But it would set an immoral example if it was discovered, and it is wrong.

Well, people do it. There are whole web sites out there for every paraphilia this ole brain can formulate and a few I seriously never thought of... The point is, wrong is in the eye of the beholder.


The quality of a neighborhood is not determined by the wealth or appearance of its inhabitants, but by the moral character of them.

Which you can't determine on the outside. So why worry about it? Do you really care if the guy next door marries his mother?


Wrong actions are to be discouraged because of their possible consequences for others, but more fundamentally, because they are wrong. Atheists do not seem to understand this fact. Wrong actions, at their most basic level, are not wrong because of any negative effects they have, but because they are against God's teaching.

I am not an atheist, and I know some who are terribly moral. Much more so than myself. I think mostly because they are atheist some of them feel the need to "prove" their morality to the unbending religious sect in a "See there!" mode.

Personally, I don't get all the hype, and I don't think you have given me much to go here.

Your best answer seems to be: It's wrong because God said so. I believe that the bible is the Word of God. The bible is therefore the best measure of any moral choice.

Unfortunately, there are lots of religions that don't agree with your stance and even more individuals who do not.

I just don't get it.

Apokalupsis
March 21st, 2005, 11:37 AM
I have yet to find one reference in that Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, "Except homosexuals." I'm not saying the Bible, I'm saying I've heard time and time again, people say that "Jesus wouldn't approve". I understand some using references in the Old Testiment of Sodomn and Gemorrah (yeah, spelling doesn't count...), but I just don't understand where they pull out this idea that Jesus wouldn't approve?

I think we should bury this argument with that. I'll retract what I said, it was meant in good humor, but I don't feel that we should debate the intentions of someone who lived over 2000 years ago. I wasn't there, so I don't think we should take this any further.
We don't have to get into it if you don't want. But the line of reasoning goes like this:

The Bible is the Word of God.
God = Christ.
All that is written in the Bible, is agreed to by Christ, the "inspiring author."

What you are doing here, is saying that Jesus' words are more canonical than the rest of the Bible, and that authors of the Bible "got it wrong".

Jesus also didn't mention pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, wife beating, incest or any number of other sins. Following your logic, they too must all be acceptable, no?

Now, to get back on topic...let's see a little what Jesus said about MARRIAGE...

The Pharisees once questioned Jesus about divorce, and in his reply (Matthew 19:4-6) said:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause [that they are male and female] shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together [a man and a wife]), let not man put asunder.
Jesus, would NOT have approved of gay marriages. And that is the primary reason for objecting to it I believe, by those of faith.

I'd LOVE to hear an argument FOR gay marriage that used scripture (obviously, another thread). I just do not believe it can be done w/o seirously undermining the authority of scripture. It would be a practice of eisegesis.

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 11:46 AM
Well, here in Ohio, a law was passed that denies people certain rights if they are not married. It's a bunch of confusing legal jargon, but for the most part, it was a stab at gay marriages, and that gay couples will not have the same rights as straight couples. Ironically, it also hurt people who are just living together - (college roomates, heterosexual straight women/men living together to pay the rent, couples dating). For the most part it separated certain property/tax rights to EXCLUSIVELY married heterosexual couples.

I guess I consider that a "life". I think that a person should be able to do basically whatever they want (within reason :P ) with as little intervention from authorities as possible. So to limit certain rights that have no real substantial detriment to society (from what I see) seems to be denying that person a right to live a life....as they chose.

I have nearly drawn blood from my own tongue while biting it in the presence of Governor Taft...

Zhavric
March 21st, 2005, 11:50 AM
We don't have to get into it if you don't want. But the line of reasoning goes like this:

The Bible is the Word of God.
God = Christ.
All that is written in the Bible, is agreed to by Christ, the "inspiring author."

What you are doing here, is saying that Jesus' words are more canonical than the rest of the Bible, and that authors of the Bible "got it wrong".

Jesus also didn't mention pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, wife beating, incest or any number of other sins. Following your logic, they too must all be acceptable, no?

Now, to get back on topic...let's see a little what Jesus said about MARRIAGE...

The Pharisees once questioned Jesus about divorce, and in his reply (Matthew 19:4-6) said:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause [that they are male and female] shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together [a man and a wife]), let not man put asunder.
Jesus, would NOT have approved of gay marriages. And that is the primary reason for objecting to it I believe, by those of faith.

I'd LOVE to hear an argument FOR gay marriage that used scripture (obviously, another thread). I just do not believe it can be done w/o seirously undermining the authority of scripture. It would be a practice of eisegesis.

Let me get this straight: Jesus saying divorce is bad also means that gay marriage is bad? You're reaching, my friend.

Harrison383
March 21st, 2005, 11:55 AM
The Bible is the Word of God.
God = Christ.
All that is written in the Bible, is agreed to by Christ, the "inspiring author."

I see your point, and I respect it. Even though I don't 100% agree with it.


Jesus also didn't mention pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, wife beating, incest or any number of other sins. Following your logic, they too must all be acceptable, no?

Considering that wasn't my line of logic....okay?

I said, when he stood and proclaimed to everyone that you must love and respect another as you would want to, he did not put an exception of, "except gays."


The Pharisees once questioned Jesus about divorce, and in his reply (Matthew 19:4-6) said:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause [that they are male and female] shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together [a man and a wife]), let not man put asunder.

Jesus, would NOT have approved of gay marriages

Are you saying because there's a little bracket bit with "man and wife" in there (and I believe that means it wasn't in the original piece) that Jesus wouldn't approve of gay marriage? I understand that argument being used against divorce, but I'm not sure where the connection is to gay marriage.



I'd LOVE to hear an argument FOR gay marriage that used scripture (obviously, another thread). I just do not believe it can be done w/o seirously undermining the authority of scripture.

Completely agree with you on the second part. But do you think that maybe it has more to do with the social status of the world at the time of the Bible's writing, or that it just never made it into there?


We don't have to get into it if you don't want.

Damn you. :P Damn you and your interesting dialogue, easy-to-understand-English, and good points.....


I have nearly drawn blood from my own tongue while biting it in the presence of Governor Taft...

I am totally against murder of mostly any kind. But some people just need to die.

Apokalupsis
March 21st, 2005, 12:15 PM
Let me get this straight: Jesus saying divorce is bad also means that gay marriage is bad? You're reaching, my friend.
No. I never made that argument. Reread, pay closer attention next time as to what the purpose of the post was.

Slipnish
March 21st, 2005, 01:14 PM
I thought this was a neat article, and though I know we aren't suppose to just do links for links sake, I think it has real relevance for this thread.

Summary: Its the concept of someone interviewing Jesus and His thoughts on homosexuality. I thought it was pretty good. Your opinion may differ of course.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12135.htm

KevinBrowning
March 21st, 2005, 01:33 PM
I thought this was a neat article, and though I know we aren't suppose to just do links for links sake, I think it has real relevance for this thread.

Summary: Its the concept of someone interviewing Jesus and His thoughts on homosexuality. I thought it was pretty good. Your opinion may differ of course.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12135.htm

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the ridiculous claim that the Bible "condoned" slavery and polygamy. Just because it's recorded in the Bible, doesn't mean God suppports it.