Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But here's the problem. What constitutes a "truly justified reason"? You might
think that it includes saving someone else's life in the process. What if a man
raped your daughter? Maybe you don't find that justified. Other men just might.
The problem is that this is all relative. Evidently, those 16,000 or so people
who commit the various forms of homicide every year believe they have "truly
justified reasons"... whether or not people such as you or I would agree. This
is yet another example of how, absent an ABSOLUTE STANDARD, chaos will reign to
various extents.
Well, then she would be forced to marry her rapist. I marry off my daughter and she will no longer be considered "used goods". The father will get 50 pieces of silver. Win-win.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:38
Don't say it's in the Old Testament so it doesn't count.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).
Either the bible is black and white and infallible, or it isn't.
What homosexuals "lose" by "me getting what I want" is nebulous anyway because it hasn't existed. What I "lose" by "them winning" is something that I, and millions of other people, have always had. So we lose something that has existed... they lose something that hasn't existed.
The same argument was used to defend slavery. Your refusal to admit that marginalizing homosexuals in society, as you wish to, is analogous to slavery, just smaller in gravity, is a reflection of your unwillingness to view anything other than in the manner that will serve you own personal preference. You want respect for what you claim is what you "lose" from society's recognition of same-sex marriage. You don't deserve such respect because you refuse to grant same to homosexuals.
That's not my opinion: That's an inescapable logical conclusion from the ethic of reciprocity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
We lose something concrete...
Assuming you ever start practicing the respect for the concepts of others so as to earn respect for your own concepts, your comment here still fails, since what you lose, assuming you actually lose anything that was rightfully yours in the first place, is not "concrete" but at best "abstract".
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
I never said it wasn't a historical context.
You claimed it had a greater context than that. You were wrong. Now you're dancing to try to rationalize, yet again, your immoral insinuation that your values should govern how society treats other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
KEEP IT SIMPLE like a child would.
Good advice. You like your Bible. Good! It applies to the inside parts of your skin, the inside parts of your family, and the inside parts of your worship. When you interact with other people, treat everyone equally, judging them based on the principles you share with them rather than your own principles.
Don't say it's in the Old Testament so it doesn't count.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).
Either the bible is black and white and infallible, or it isn't.
Well according to him, the Bible is 'eternally valid'.... except when it's not.
He can explain it all away by telling you your post is just "blahblahblah" and that you are a stupid poopyhead.
Depends upon your point of view. Thus far, people have had the right to call homosexuals sinners, and homosexuals have not had the right to marry nor the unrestricted right to be openly gay. What homosexuals "lose" by "me getting what I want" is nebulous anyway because it hasn't existed. What I "lose" by "them winning" is something that I, and millions of other people, have always had. So we lose something that has existed... they lose something that hasn't existed. We lose something concrete... they lose something that might best be described as "a dream". I don't devalue dreams, but I don't put them on the same par with reality.
Personally, I do agree with you.
But here's the problem. What constitutes a "truly justified reason"? You might think that it includes saving someone else's life in the process. What if a man raped your daughter? Maybe you don't find that justified. Other men just might. The problem is that this is all relative. Evidently, those 16,000 or so people who commit the various forms of homicide every year believe they have "truly justified reasons"... whether or not people such as you or I would agree. This is yet another example of how, absent an ABSOLUTE STANDARD, chaos will reign to various extents.
Truthfully, I do believe that only educated reasonable people should vote. This could be put up to a very easy test at each election, with multiple choice questions that can be answered by computer, about each candidate and his/her platform. If you don't know anything about the people you're voting for, you should not be able to vote for them. (This would ensnare me sometimes too. I am also guilty of walking into certain elections without the first clue about the candidates and merely voting for the Republican guy because his party affiliation makes him more likely than the others to be a conservative.)
This may very well be, and if it is, I suggest that it's because of the "relativistic" and often hypocritical society we have set up. Minority people generally seek equality with the "white majority" but then in the same breath they seek to be different through what they call "diversity". It's like... which one do you want?! Do you want to be equal, or do you want to be different? If you want to be equal, celebrate your similarities with the majority, and keep your differences to yourselves... or at least don't celebrate them in public. People self-select their own discriminations, I think. All you have to do is look at racial demographic maps for various regions of the USA and you'll see what I mean. Birds of a feather flock together.
Of course, because in a relativistic society where nothing is absolutely "wrong", there is no basis upon which to refuse tolerance of something, and there is also no basis upon which to judge any action as "wrong" because what's right for you is right and nobody can say otherwise. I do agree with you here... but I'd say that there are other religious adherents who are less tolerant than Christians. I've heard quite a bit about Middle Eastern Muslims.
Quote the passage in the Bible which classifies my attitude toward homosexuals as "sin", please... otherwise this will be demonstrably a lie.
When you think in shades of gray, again it opens up the discussion to relativistic points of view which have no concrete basis. Without a concrete basis, the point of view lacks credence and strength. So, this is why I think in black and white. I've said it before and I'll say it again... there MUST be an absolute standard upon which a society must be based, otherwise the society will crumble at some point just as a building without a solid foundation will crumble at some point.
Can you disprove the historical accuracy of the Bible? Many a historian has examined it and the worst number I've ever seen is "99.5% accurate"... and who's to say that that 0.5% wasn't some hiccup in the historian's own study?
Yeah, I do believe that, but again it's not one of those fully conscious decisions. Like the decision to be gay, it is largely influenced by subliminal messaging... or, should I say, the conscientious parents' protection of their children from such.
And to address "if people have chosen to be gay, so what?"... again, if we legalize and protect one small group's choice, we have to legalize and protect all such choices... when you legalize and protect all choices, pandemonium ensues.
Dude... NEW TESTAMENT. Read it, learn it, love it. The Word of God is allowed to countermand itself. When that happens, you take the most recent decree as the valid one.
I never said it wasn't a historical context. I said that you can't interpret it within its historical context; you just have to read it. After all, Jesus said "Let the little children come to me, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these". Also, "Whoever doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a little child shall not enter it".
What does this mean? KEEP IT SIMPLE like a child would. All of this mumbo-jumbo about historical context and any other fancy-shmancy term that people like to apply to their chosen interpretation of the Bible is just so much garbage when you have to consider that acceptance of the Word of God must be on a simple level. Read what it says, and follow it. Easy. Simple.
BOTTOM LINE IS YOU DO NOT LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO MARRY THE ONE YOU LOVE IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO MARRY. Loud and clear anough for you, maybe you should take your fingers out of your ears and listen. We are not allowed to marry our partners because people like you want to legislate laws that ban us marriage based on YOUR religious beliefs. You are so adamant that you lose something, yet never clarify what it is. What is it that you lose if we are allowed marriage? Are there any of the 1049 rights and benefits granted with secular marriage that you lose if we gain those very same benefits and rights? Name just one. Using your religion to base biased laws against gays or to discriminate against them is not a religious right. Remember that we are tax paying citizens too, we deserve the same exact rigths too and that includes marrying the one we love, not the one society says we can.
Quote the passage in the Bible which classifies my attitude toward homosexuals as "sin", please... otherwise this will be demonstrably a lie.
Matthew 7, Matthew 23, Romans 2. If you're going to claim Romans 1 is condemning gays, Romans 2 says you will not escape judgement from God for judging gays, because you yourself do the exact same things you're condemning them for. Therefore, Paul says you're gay.
Depends upon your point of view. Thus far, people have had the right to call homosexuals sinners, and homosexuals have not had the right to marry nor the unrestricted right to be openly gay. What homosexuals "lose" by "me getting what I want" is nebulous anyway because it hasn't existed. What I "lose" by "them winning" is something that I, and millions of other people, have always had. So we lose something that has existed... they lose something that hasn't existed. We lose something concrete... they lose something that might best be described as "a dream". I don't devalue dreams, but I don't put them on the same par with reality.
It actually has existed before. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, both of which had a form of government that inspired ours, were very much accepting of gay relationships. The irony here is that neither of them had a document claiming everyone is equal, yet we do and an enormous amount of elected officials believe their actions are sinful.
Quote:
But here's the problem. What constitutes a "truly justified reason"? You might think that it includes saving someone else's life in the process. What if a man raped your daughter? Maybe you don't find that justified. Other men just might. The problem is that this is all relative. Evidently, those 16,000 or so people who commit the various forms of homicide every year believe they have "truly justified reasons"... whether or not people such as you or I would agree. This is yet another example of how, absent an ABSOLUTE STANDARD, chaos will reign to various extents.
Absolute standard? Standard's change all the time, and generally for the better. For example, the Bible has been used to justify war and murder throughout history. The Crusades are a fine example of a was based on a lie. Today, we can't do that. Bush kind of declared holy war, but ignoring that, you can't kill me for not worshiping your God, yet it happened all the time back in the day. Standards clearly change.
Quote:
Truthfully, I do believe that only educated reasonable people should vote. This could be put up to a very easy test at each election, with multiple choice questions that can be answered by computer, about each candidate and his/her platform. If you don't know anything about the people you're voting for, you should not be able to vote for them. (This would ensnare me sometimes too. I am also guilty of walking into certain elections without the first clue about the candidates and merely voting for the Republican guy because his party affiliation makes him more likely than the others to be a conservative.)
I'd rather just do a better job of educating people. Why take away their vote because the schools were inadequate. Although, I don't necessarily equate education with intelligence. Rational thinkers don't just come from ivy league colleges; they can come from high school drop outs. Education isn't always a sign of intelligence. Case and point, Bush.
Quote:
This may very well be, and if it is, I suggest that it's because of the "relativistic" and often hypocritical society we have set up. Minority people generally seek equality with the "white majority" but then in the same breath they seek to be different through what they call "diversity". It's like... which one do you want?! Do you want to be equal, or do you want to be different? If you want to be equal, celebrate your similarities with the majority, and keep your differences to yourselves... or at least don't celebrate them in public. People self-select their own discriminations, I think. All you have to do is look at racial demographic maps for various regions of the USA and you'll see what I mean. Birds of a feather flock together.
Equal doesn't have to mean exactly equal. For example, women's rights. A girl can't go to an all boy's school (and vice versa of course). One could make an argument that it's unequal for that to be true, but logically, it really isn't. I mean, just as a girl can't go to an all boy's school, a boy can't go to an all girl's school. Same restriction, slightly different setting.
My point being that equality doesn't mean literally the same. It means an Iranian immigrant can still practice his own customs and not be judged or discriminated here. As to why minorities tend to 'group together'... well, that's a different sociological study.
Quote:
Can you disprove the historical accuracy of the Bible? Many a historian has examined it and the worst number I've ever seen is "99.5% accurate"... and who's to say that that 0.5% wasn't some hiccup in the historian's own study?
I think it's common knowledge by now that Adam and Eve almost certinaly didn't exists, that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, the dinosaurs weren't killed in a flood, and there wasn't a world wide flood to begin with. I'd say much of the Bible is exaggerated truth. More recent example, when Kind Herod heard of the 'Kind of the Jews' being born, he ordered that all the male infants be killed within the vicinity of Bethlehem. Something like this would surely have been documented both within and outside of the Bible, yet the only account of this was in the Bible.
Quote:
And to address "if people have chosen to be gay, so what?"... again, if we legalize and protect one small group's choice, we have to legalize and protect all such choices... when you legalize and protect all choices, pandemonium ensues.
We already protect choices. You benefit from one greatly: religion. This right is protected under the constitution, and it is a choice as no one is born Christian or Muslim.
"What does this mean? KEEP IT SIMPLE like a child would. All of this mumbo-jumbo about historical context and any other fancy-shmancy term that people like to apply to their chosen interpretation of the Bible is just so much garbage when you have to consider that acceptance of the Word of God must be on a simple level. Read what it says, and follow it. Easy. Simple."
I'll keep it as simple as possible for you. Children are tought to hate and be intolerant. They are tought to percieve others not like them as somehow lesser human beings. They are tought that someone's sexual orientation has meaning outside the individual. So if you expect to face your maker as a child you have a lot of unlearning to do.
The most intolerant and judgemental people that I have met in my life are Christians such as you. They feel they must tell others what they think of their lives and that they will pray for them that they will find god and repent their sins.
Seems like a lot of people are quite intolerant of my right to oppose gay marriage.
Seems like a lot of people are quite intolerant of my right to oppose gay marriage.
We're not intolerant of your right, we're intolerant of your judgement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
