|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
Singapore147 Posts
On December 24 2012 17:58 KwarK wrote:
Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be.
Why so discriminatory? Why should polygamists not have the same rights and freedoms as other people? Despite your claim to want equality you are denying these people the right to practice what they want in a way that affects no one except themselves. If marriage is personal and secular, they should be allowed to marry as they wish. Marriage as being between two people only is a concept that derives solely from western judo-Christian values. Plenty of other societies practice polygamy. Thus I posit to you that not only should churches be forced to marry gays but they should also be forced to marry polygamists. Laws should be changed to make this legal as well of course as we need to end this sort of discriminatory policy immediately. Thus, the UK government should legalise polygamy as well.
Edit:Further more, I would like to challenge your notions for gender. In the same way that you view marriage between a man and a woman as gender discriminatory (I'm addressing it on the grounds of gender as opposed to sexual orientation. The church could very easily just argue that they refuse to do it because it's between two people of the same gender instead of their sexual orientation.) I believe that all gender separation in society is discriminatory. An example is the mixed badminton example someone brought up earlier and that you addressed. I think that all sporting bodies competitions etc. should not be allowed to have legislation that prevents people from joining based on gender. The logic for this is the same behind that of allowing Female Bishops in the CoE and allowing them to run for office. Continuing to perpetuate these differences is unbecoming of our liberal, secular society. The belief that men are superior to women in sport perpetuates gender stereotypes and I think both sexes should compete together based on merit. I'm sure there are plenty of women who would do well in Men's competitions and vice versa. Any body or organisation that limits entry based on gender should, like the church be forced to accept both men and women into any and all positions - sports teams, women's book clubs, and single-sex schools included.
(I believe bathrooms should be excluded because women take so damn long to pee and I'd hate having to have long bathroom queues)
/end sarcarsm
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 24 2012 19:06 pigscanfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 17:58 KwarK wrote:
Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. Why so discriminatory? Why should polygamists not have the same rights and freedoms as other people? Despite your claim to want equality you are denying these people the right to practice what they want in a way that affects no one except themselves. If marriage is personal and secular, they should be allowed to marry as they wish. Marriage as being between two people only is a concept that derives soley from western judeo-christian values. Plenty of other societies practice polygamy. Thus i posit to you that not only should churches be forced to marry gays but they should also be forced to marry polygamists. Laws should be changed to make this legal as well of course, we need to end this sort of discriminatory policy immediatly.
I don't see why people are getting caught up on the polygamy aspect of Kwark's argument; it is peripheral at best. Operate on the assumption that polygamists are not a protected group (as they are not at the moment). The argument for the validity of that position is a separate debate. The discriminatory actions of organised religion in relation to homosexuals is the topic of this thread.
|
Singapore147 Posts
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant.
|
Singapore147 Posts
Oh and Kwark I just wanted to say that I mostly agree with you when you quoted "render Caesar what is Caesar's" - I think Church and state should be completely separated, which is at the heart of this marriage debate issue in general. The COE should not be the state Church of the UK. I do however take issue with the idea that that means the Church should listen to exactly what the state says, which seems to be what you're implying. I believe the quote's exact context is about paying tax to the Roman state.
|
On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant.
Please allow me to quote you the moderators note.
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well.
Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not.
That's why it's peripheral.
I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed.
Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through.
|
Just as an aside, I remember reading an article a while back that explained when churches register for tax exemption, they open themselves up to some degree of govt control. They unwittingly give away their rights to free speech through the documents they sign. If at some time govt wants to step in and force the churches to change what they teach, they are then legally allowed to do so. Maybe that's part of what's happening here.
Did a quick search for the article but don't know where it is...
|
United States41959 Posts
That's not relevant in the UK because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament wields the powers of the monarch which amount to total and absolute power. It can make any law and unmake any law and cannot be bound by any previous Parliament. What this means in practice is that there are no rights and nothing is beyond their power. Now in the UK we have things we commonly understand to be rights under law but the law itself cannot bind Parliament which can, at it's discretion, dissolve the entire system. The Church doesn't need to be tricked out of its rights any more than Henry VIII needed the consent of the monasteries to loot them and steal their land, their rights are just things they are allowed to consider to be rights by the sovereign. In practice there is a limitation to how abusive they could before a revolution but I doubt anyone will rise up over freedom of religious action.
|
On December 19 2012 01:16 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm a pantheist (that's neither a theist, deist, or atheist), but it's not relevant. I could be an atheist and make the same point.
It sounds like you just want to take "suffering = wrong" as an axiom and not present any kind of moral theory. I mean, ok, fine. But that's not very interesting, now is it? You seem to be aware that you cannot design an experiment which would falsify this claim, and so this claim, if true, is not scientific. You seem to then proceed to claim that it's not "true", because all "truth" is scientific truth, but that it is the "true" morality nonetheless simply because you say so. I find this profoundly unphilosophical. You just say "because that is how I use words." Ok. Well what happens if I say "let's use words differently, here's why." All you can do is just get stubborn.
I don't feel like you really have quite grasped the problem here but I don't know how to explain it better. What you're saying doesn't really respond to my point.
Basically you are someone who wants to make a moral claim who is simply (edit: and rather self-righteously) uninterested in defending that claim, and you are someone who is convinced that science is the only way to produce truth claims, again without any interest in defending it - you simply take it as self evident and repeat that claim whenever it is challenged. You must be aware that you cannot prove the claim that science is the only way to produce truth claims with science. I said that before but you ignored it.
If I remember correctly, I asked you about other ways to produce truth claims, but got no response to that question.
On December 19 2012 01:16 sam!zdat wrote:It's not that "we cannot get an absolutely objective model of morality," it's that an "objective" model of morality simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we're going to find an "objective" model about art. It's a category error. What does ethics taste like? What is the volume of 1 happiness at room temperature? Yes, when you realize that the book must be bigger than the universe, you realize why being a reductionist is stupid. Ponder that please. If you're just going to say "suffering is wrong and that's that" please don't engage in discussions about morality on the internet. edit: when you say "I do claim that good and bad are real in our mind," can you test that with science? What would THAT experiment look like? Same with "suffering is real in our mind." Can you test THAT with an experiment? edit: btw, the Kant thing has NOTHING to do with the problem of conflict between morality and unjust secular law. edit: "My claim is that models which can be tested are more useful than models which cannot." You realize that this is an entirely different claim than "only those truth-claims which are produced by science are legitimate." Which is it? Are you making a strong epistemological claim, or a trivial pragmatic observation? edit: anyway, what is your "model" of morality? "suffering is wrong"? That's not a model at all! Where are the falsifiable and quantifiable predictions?! You don't even have one of these "useful models" and you're going around saying these "useful models" are the only ways to think about anything at all! lol. Even if you were going to reduce all morality to the movement of electrical impulses, the problem would be computationally intractable and would certainly not be "useful." edit: look, if you want to falsify the claim "it would be wrong if I punched you in the face," you would have to have an operationalized definition of "wrong." Then you would punch me in the face, and see if "wrong" existed after that. What would that be? How would you measure it? You've just been ignoring this question. Earlier, when you tried to explain why it would be wrong for me to punch you in the face, you'll notice that your reasoning had nothing at all to do with science. edit: at any rate, you seem to have accepted that your claim "suffering is wrong" is not scientific and is merely an arbitrary pronouncement, which proves what I set out to prove, that one cannot ground moral theory in science. ok. edit: Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:24 [F_]aths wrote:
I do think that is is possible that a law is wrong even if it was installed by a vote. if it were, how would you know?!? science?? edit: hey I'm sorry I'm not trying to yell at you, you stepped on one of my pet peeves and I wrote this before I drank my coffee. I'm not trying to be mean but I really think you are quite wrong. sorry
There are many edits and many topics. I don't know where to begin. You also continue to argue against things I never did (intend to) say. While you are very verbatim on attacking my view, little do I know about your view. Maybe we get a more fruitful discussion if you can outline (very shortly, if possible) your approach to morality.
I don't say that I am not making mistakes in my arguments, but the discussion gets a bit boring when I am the one defending a view and you are just pointing out some things which would require very long postings to clarify. I am afraid that you would continue to point to another thing, requiring me to reply with a very long posting again.
To begin with the outlining of the view on morality, here is mine:
Even though I have a naturalistic world view – I see no sufficient evidence for a dualistic world view – I don't see the validity of the question why we should reduce unnecessary suffering. While utilitarian replies are possible, they are not required imo, because unnecessary suffering is bad. This is how we use the word bad (implying an existing concept of good and bad in our mind. Of course I think that a mind can be – in principle – reduced to states of the physical world.)
We can approach the question of what action leads to good or bad outcome scientifically. We do can answer the questions "Should women be allowed to vote", "should young boys be circumcised when they parents wish to", "should gays have the same rights as straight persons, including the right to marry someone."
With science progressing, 'scientifically found' answers to these questions could change and/or get more refined.
|
It pisses me off that I can start this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383750¤tpage=30 and get spammed out by a host of people who feel that another country's minority abuse has nothing to do with the rest of the world (to the point I was getting PMs telling me stop interfering), and yet this one is relatively civil (no pun intended) etc.
Anyways, clearly it's OK to hold forth righteously on the first world, just don't touch 'em poor folks.
Personally I have never understood why any gay person wants anything to do with marriage, other than the civil kind for legal purposes. Read the bible FFS, they killed gay people.
EDIT: I see it's XMAS time in Merica, so merry xmas ya'll!
|
United States41959 Posts
On December 25 2012 03:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote:It pisses me off that I can start this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383750¤tpage=30 and get spammed out by a host of people who feel that another country's minority abuse has nothing to do with the rest of the world (to the point I was getting PMs telling me stop interfering), and yet this one is relatively civil (no pun intended) etc. Anyways, clearly it's OK to hold forth righteously on the first world, just don't touch 'em poor folks. Personally I have never understood why any gay person wants anything to do with marriage, other than the civil kind for legal purposes. Read the bible FFS, they killed gay people. EDIT: I see it's XMAS time in Merica, so merry xmas ya'll!
South Africa is East of America...
|
My Liquiclock was not set whoops ^_^
|
Singapore147 Posts
On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through.
I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be."
As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well.
If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size?
I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders.
|
On December 25 2012 06:23 pigscanfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through. I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be." As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well. If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size? I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders.
1. Polygamy is a choice. Choices are open to criticism that non-choices are not.
2. Historically polygamy has been used to abuse children and women. Even in the modern world many polygamist marriages are in communities where women have no choice in the matter and are not allowed to leave. If polygamy could be disassociated from these issues we might be able to have a discussion (in a different thread).
Your last paragraph is a cesspool of fallacies and complete ignorance of gender and orientation. I'm honestly not sure if you're just trolling with it.
|
On December 25 2012 09:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 06:23 pigscanfly wrote:On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "this deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through. I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be." As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well. If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size? I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders. 1. Polygamy is a choice. Choices are open to criticism that non-choices are not. 2. Historically polygamy has been used to abuse children and women. Even in the modern world many polygamist marriages are in communities where women have no choice in the matter and are not allowed to leave. If polygamy could be disassociated from these issues we might be able to have a discussion (in a different thread). Your last paragraph is a cesspool of fallacies and complete ignorance of gender and orientation. I'm honestly not sure if you're just trolling with it.
Do you have evidence that people are not genetically predisposed toward polygamy?
|
Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage.
Here is a full right up.
+ Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6  -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness.
|
On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness.
Tell that to the Church of England?
The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you.
If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? 
Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
|
On December 26 2012 08:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness. Tell that to the Church of England? The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you. If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
Contraceptive, Interracial marriage, women in mens clothing, women preachers, eating of pork,
Also slavery and the rights of children or women.
Current churches hold faith through prodigious. They then allow their feelings to determine the meaning of very vague religious text.
"As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness."
Self righteousness is very dangerous. We are flawed. As so, it is improper for us to reach in to the unknown and deem a set of people to be sinner. If they are in fact so, it is still not our place to cast a stone. Striping away rights of marriage is a heavy stone to cast indeed.
|
On December 26 2012 08:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness. Tell that to the Church of England? The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you. If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
Interracial marriage?
Using a condom (my understanding is the Catholic church is lightening up on this significantly)?
Consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament?
Divorce?
|
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
|
On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
There is nothing for me to forgive, I do not know if they are sinning, It is not my place to grant any forgiveness for any thing.
Here is a passage about donating sperm. it is was used in the past to say contraceptive is a sin.
"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also."
Today we know that it was about donating sperm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
