U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

Thanks Obama.

Dean wrote: Larree wrote: So true.  One cannot apply 21st Century morals and ethics to people who lived in biblical times.  You cannot even do it with people who lived just a few hundred years ago.  That is one of the biggest problems with the study of history in general. Actually on many things you can. Human nature has not changed that much over several tens of thousand years, and considering that a lot (or "most" or "all" depending on who you choose to believe) of our morals and ethics are supposed to come from "the church" in the first place then we can judge them by our standards because our standards are their standards with a small amount of modifcation that we've managed to crow-bar into our codes of morality inspite of the overwhelming influence of the church over the past two thousand years. Like it or not we are as bigotted now as they were then, we are as homophobic now as they were then, we are as immoral and as amoral as they ever were, we are as prudish and we are as promiscuous. We did not invent all those "sins" listed in Leviticus, Romans, Corintians and the gospel acording to saint Tim - all we've ever did different was ease up on the punishments - we no longer consider that "...that those who do such things deserve death..." and feel ourselves "righteous" for saying it... and that is the only thing we can judge them differently on.

Like I said in an earlier post...  Stop thumping on your bibles and thump some bass and drums!  

Edited by Larree - April 10 2013 at 18:35

geneyesontle wrote: Thanks Obama. Being homosexual is okay. Marring someone that is from the same sex as you is okay.

Is he president of Quebec now too?

The T wrote: Thanks Obama??

I think he's referencing the meme.

I think people should be allowed to marry people.

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   It says that He condemns their behavior.  There's a big difference.  God also condemns my own pride, lust, and selfishness, but I believe that I am forgiven because Jesus Christ died on my behalf.  But what is there to condemn about it if that's just the way the guy is?  Sorry, but to me, that sounds very regressive and it would have to be coming from a text written thousands of years back.    If one side can take shelter under religion to judge others in a very prejudiced way, the other side is entitled to take shelter under freedom of expression to pay right back in the same coin.   I cannot and will not accept religious belief as a sound reason to judge another person.   Religious belief is for the person himself to judge his own actions as to whether he has or hasn't incurred the wrath of his God, not impose on others and pooh pooh their choices.

I realize that you raised something like this question earlier; sorry for not answering it then (I'm a bit busy at the moment).

The Bible doesn't even have a word for "homosexual."  All words in the Bible referring to homosexuality are referring to the practice, not the state of being homosexual.  That's why I try (not consistently, I admit) to identify homosexual behavior as sinful according to Scripture as opposed to homosexual orientation.  From the Biblical perspective, just being gay isn't a sin; you have to indulge your desires for it to be sinful.  Scripture teaches the same thing about many other innate desires.  I am heterosexual and have an innate sexual impulse that drives me to want to have sex, but I believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful and, as I am unmarried, I choose to abstain from sexual activity.

And yes, I do realize that there are other interpretations of the passages of Scripture that deal with homosexuality.  I personally have never heard a very convincing argument against the traditional reading, although I'm open to being convinced.  I don't hate homosexuals.  I don't judge them either.  Just because I believe that someone's actions are sinful doesn't mean I have any animosity or judgement toward them personally.

I just don't like to see people get attacked for their views on this issue.  I would never ridicule a homosexual for his lifestyle.  I disagree with the moral choice but I still would respect him.  I don't mind if I get attacked for my views as much, it just saddens me to see a fellow Christian attacked for his views on the issue.  I realize that it's a sensitive issue.  There are other passages in Scripture that I really struggle with, and I understand why people react so strongly against what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.  But I know where Alex is coming from, and I know that I didn't come here to stir up crap; I just want to have a respectful discussion on the issue.  I can't speak from Alex, but I think he wants the same thing, even though we might disagree on the issue quite a bit.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  That's why I try (not consistently, I admit) to identify homosexual behavior as sinful according to Scripture as opposed to homosexual orientation.

Edited by rogerthat - April 10 2013 at 21:16

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  That's why I try (not consistently, I admit) to identify homosexual behavior as sinful according to Scripture as opposed to homosexual orientation. The difference is not very significant.  A homosexual would ultimately want to seek out others of a similar orientation to make love and live with.  Either which way, his choice of coming out with it instead of pretending to be a hetero, which he is not, is being condemned.

I see a significant difference.  There are homosexuals who choose to abstain from sexual activity (usually for religious reasons).  I don't condemn merely having a homosexual orientation as sin.  I don't deny that some churches do (and that fact saddens me deeply). 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  I don't think the way he expressed his opinions was offensive at all; I think it was the opinions themselves that were offensive to some, and in general, I think it's usually better not to voice offense in that case (although I'm not by any means perfect on that point either).

Don't babies drink unpasteurized milk all the time? ;)

edit: not with sushi, of course.  I will concede as much.


Edited by Triceratopsoil - April 10 2013 at 22:39

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Roger/Dark Elf: First of all, nowhere in Scripture does it say that God hates homosexuals.  It says that He condemns their behavior.  There's a big difference.  God also condemns my own pride, lust, and selfishness, but I believe that I am forgiven because Jesus Christ died on my behalf.  All those who believe, homosexual or heterosexual, will also be forgiven: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."  Secondly, Dictionary wrote: Objective (adj): Having actual existence or reality. Yes, I do know what the word means, I'm just using a different definition than the one you're thinking of.  I never said that everyone who makes a truth claim has an objective perspective.  I said that religious and moral truth claims are objective because they don't deal with subjective criteria that differ from person to person but with reality.  That's the worse misused of "objective/subjective" I've seen for awhile. I assumed you would have been aware that you cannot mix the differing definitions of words on a whim because the various meanings are only applicable within the contexts they are being used. It seems I was wrong. I didn't mix them.  The word has different meanings, and I was using one of the meanings and it was unfortunately mistaken for the other.  Perhaps I should have explained myself better. A truth claim is objective because it is a claim about something that has actual reality (i.e. a scientific theory, universal moral law, etc.) The person who makes that truth claim is not objective, in the other meaning of objective that means "unbiased."  People have presuppositions and biases.  I make no claim to being unbiased.  And are you going to explain how you think I misused the word at all?  You simply stated that I misused it while I explained how my use of the word was clear and valid.

ob·jec·tive

noun
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy