|
|
On November 12 2012 07:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:00 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex. wait, what Gospel is that in again? Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." of course, the first response will be: but he said woman. yes, he did say woman. but understanding the culture of Jesus' time is important to understand the context. homosexuality was already considered by the Jews to be a mortal sin, and Jesus was speaking to fellow Jews who would have understood that homosexuality being included in the "adultery" list was implied. obviously there can be multiple interpretations of the passage, but it would take a pretty hefty leap to suggest that Christ was allowing for sleeping (or looking at with lust) with men, but not women.
Isn't the point here more that: no one is forcing you to have premarital sex?
If anyone isn't christian, shouldn't they be free to act as they please as long as they don't hurt anybody else?
|
On November 12 2012 06:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 06:22 Zooper31 wrote:On November 12 2012 06:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism. also, as a social conservative, I can tell you that most of us feel as though we have a moral duty to push for these policies and to not compromise on them. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not nearly so popular as the people in this thread want to think it is (as evidenced by their wild insistence against even the most moderate fiscally conservative positions) and social conservatism is not so unpopular as they think. a very large portion of blacks do not approve of gay marriage (49% I believe). a large portion of Hispanics don't approve of legal abortion, possibly even a majority (not sure about that one, I'll look it up). liberals and conservatives both tend to put their own bias onto other people, but the fact is that the American people are usually right in the center on all these issues. Democrats don't, contrary to the opinion of most in this thread, represent that center any more than Republicans do, especially on social issues. A very large portion is still a minority fyi. The times are changing and more and more people will accept gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, etc and not force their beliefs on others and let people decide their own lives. indeed, but if the claim is that abortion and gay marriage lost us the election... well, actually if that was the case (people voting on social issues and not fiscal ones) than we should have gotten close to 35% of blacks and 40% of Hispanics. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is what turns minorities away from the Republican party. well, that and a good sixty years of being called racists by both the media and the education system. that certainly doesn't help. (and immigration policy has been a losing issue for us too.)
Issues that hit close to home make voters decide the most. Immigrataion definitely didn't help have to agree.
|
On November 12 2012 07:07 sam!zdat wrote:
oh man is that a stretch
Welcome to the world of pseudo-literal exegesis.
|
On November 12 2012 07:02 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 06:52 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex. but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not. Sure, but no more hoops than one would already have to go through to justify marital sex without the intention or possibility of producing offspring (e.g., with infertile people). If you're going to have to jump through hoops regardless, jump through the non-homophobic ones.
the Scripture never says anything about infertility. the Catholic Church doesn't even hold that opinion (and though I am a Catholic, I don't necessarily agree with them about birth control).
I'm not sure if this is even on-topic, so I'm gonna let this be my last post on the matter (of religious interpretation).
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:07 sam!zdat wrote:
oh man is that a stretch
You don't really have to stretch it. They're pretty clear about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22.
|
On November 12 2012 07:09 Souma wrote:You don't really have to stretch it. They're pretty clear about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22.
pre-christian
|
On November 12 2012 07:09 Souma wrote:You don't really have to stretch it. They're pretty clear about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22.
Dat's Old Testament dawg, ain't nobody got time for that.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Yeah I never understood people who disregard some things regarding "God's words" and take other things verbatim.
Muslim fundamentalists all the way.
|
on government and religion being mixed:
as Christians I believe we have a duty to at least try to conform our society and selves to the Christian ideal. religion creates and informs our moral standards and opinions, and will necessarily (in my opinion) have a direct effect upon our voting behaviors. and it should, (one should not sacrifice morals for political gain). obviously there is a time for separating the two (give to Caesar what is his, to God what is his), and that is why gay marriage probably, for me, falls into the category of: "not a big deal, we can get more done by dropping it".
I'm more trying to play devil's advocate for the staunch conservative on the issue than really putting my own thoughts out here. a conservative who does see it as a serious issue would feel as though he/she has a moral duty to oppose the action, being that it was, in their opinion, directly condemned.
|
On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 06:52 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex. but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
I'm personally of the opinion that same-sex marriage should be decided upon by the states individually, and that the courts ought recognize the vote of the populace. Would I vote to make it legal? No, very likely not. But there are conservative Christians that would vote for the legalization of same-sex marriage for the same reason libertarians would vote for abortion or marijuana. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work so well in the '20's, and that's a potent argument on many issues, including this one.
If Republicans want to gain the "social issue" voters, I'd recommend they throw their hands up and say they support legalizing gay marriage. Pull a libertarian "live and let live." Don't have to agree with it morally of course, but you don't have to do it either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
having an immediate and clear case of real life bigotry/bad behavior to rally against is good for society. we need more hating of haters.
|
On November 12 2012 07:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
on government and religion being mixed:
as Christians I believe we have a duty to at least try to conform our society and selves to the Christian ideal. religion creates and informs our moral standards and opinions, and will necessarily (in my opinion) have a direct effect upon our voting behaviors. and it should, (one should not sacrifice morals for political gain). obviously there is a time for separating the two (give to Caesar what is his, to God what is his), and that is why gay marriage probably, for me, falls into the category of: "not a big deal, we can get more done by dropping it".
I'm more trying to play devil's advocate for the staunch conservative on the issue than really putting my own thoughts out here. a conservative who does see it as a serious issue would feel as though he/she has a moral duty to oppose the action, being that it was, in their opinion, directly condemned.
And that is why alot of people dislike religion in general. You arn't being a good *insert religious follower* if you arn't trying to spread your religion and it's views onto other people.
But thats another arguement this thread should stay away from, but it's getting rather difficult with the current social issues we are having to find answers for.
|
On November 12 2012 07:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
on government and religion being mixed:
as Christians I believe we have a duty to at least try to conform our society and selves to the Christian ideal. religion creates and informs our moral standards and opinions, and will necessarily (in my opinion) have a direct effect upon our voting behaviors. and it should, (one should not sacrifice morals for political gain). obviously there is a time for separating the two (give to Caesar what is his, to God what is his), and that is why gay marriage probably, for me, falls into the category of: "not a big deal, we can get more done by dropping it".
I'm more trying to play devil's advocate for the staunch conservative on the issue than really putting my own thoughts out here. a conservative who does see it as a serious issue would feel as though he/she has a moral duty to oppose the action, being that it was, in their opinion, directly condemned.
Aren't we all condemned anyways unless we accept that Jesus died for our sins and there is only one true God?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:15 oneofthem wrote:
having an immediate and clear case of real life bigotry/bad behavior to rally against is good for society. we need more hating of haters.
It's okay, once this gay marriage thing is over with we can move on to liberating atheists and elect me as President of the United States.
|
On November 12 2012 07:00 Slaughter wrote:
The problem with people being against gay marriage is because those people are forcing RELIGIOUS beliefs into regulation of GOVERNMENT definition of marriage. That is not right by how our country was built to be.
We should just remove marriage as a legal concept all together.
|
This really comes down to:
1) Jesus was not a political theorist (render unto Caesar)
2) Christians remain free not to enter into homosexual marriage
3) It's nonsensical and unconstitutional to make laws that will "help" the rest of us heathens "be better Christians"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 07:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:15 oneofthem wrote:
having an immediate and clear case of real life bigotry/bad behavior to rally against is good for society. we need more hating of haters. It's okay, once this gay marriage thing is over with we can move on to liberating atheists and elect me as President of the United States.
i'll consider assigning you the post of regent of the province of americana once i become emperor of the galaxy.
|
On November 12 2012 07:14 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 06:52 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex. but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not. I'm personally of the opinion that same-sex marriage should be decided upon by the states individually, and that the courts ought recognize the vote of the populace. Would I vote to make it legal? No, very likely not. But there are conservative Christians that would vote for the legalization of same-sex marriage for the same reason libertarians would vote for abortion or marijuana. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work so well in the '20's, and that's a potent argument on many issues, including this one. If Republicans want to gain the "social issue" voters, I'd recommend they throw their hands up and say they support legalizing gay marriage. Pull a libertarian "live and let live." Don't have to agree with it morally of course, but you don't have to do it either.
The problem with this, is that if I have a marriage license in one state, but then cross the border to one that doesn't allow gay marriage, even on vacation not talking about living in a state that recognizes it, but that's even a bigger issue it severely limits mobility for a job , then they don't have to recognize gay marriage because of the defense of marriage act. So it's basically forcing gay couples to move to a different state(one that recognizes gay marriage) to receive the same benefits that straight couples get.
If they say, are crossing through a state on vacation, that does not recognize them as a couple, and get in a car accident, then the loved one could actually lose the right to visit them in the hospital.
Basically the idea that states can choose what to do, is denying the fact that the Full Faith and Credit Clause exists, I actually have no idea how the courts justified themselves on this issue.
IMO the goal should be for marriage to basically not matter in the eyes of the government anymore, and make marriage solely a religious act, and then let each church decide if they want you to marry. There are plenty of churches that will marry gay couples, and plenty that won't.
|
On November 12 2012 07:12 Souma wrote:
Yeah I never understood people who disregard some things regarding "God's words" and take other things verbatim.
Muslim fundamentalists all the way.
The bible is totally fine with slavery and stoning adulterers, yet you don't see fundamentalists trying to legalize those things (yet). Cherry picking passages to serve your purposes is par for the course.
|
Or maybe Jesus said nothing against homosexuality.
And maybe he said that the Kosher laws no longer applied. (Prohibition on gay sex included)
(Also on the fun fact list: Jesus didn't say anything against pre-martial sex either.)
People (Christian and Atheist) who try to make Christianity about opposition to homosexuality, pre-martial sex, or abortion (mentioned nowhere in the NT, though the Torah takes a pro-choice stance) are missing the point. Try reading Christian texts if you have any intention of either bashing them or using them to further some archaic agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
