A friend of mine said this on another forum, so I'm going to borrow it because she said it so eloquently.

Quote - No matter how against it you are for religious or moral reasons, it does not affect you, so continue to oppose it all you want, but don't stop loving, committed people for being who they are and having the same rights as everyone else.

Being gay or straight isn't a choice - it's just who people are.

With that said, I'm glad to see that some of the US states are stepping into the 21st Century! What goes on between consenting adults is their own business and they should have the right to marry whomever they wish.

If Jim and John down the hall from me get married, it's of no consequence to me. It doesn't affect my life at all, so why should I feel angry or upset that they want to marry one another because they are both men?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

In answer to the original posting, no I'm not with you on this.

I hope people take the effort to see the big picture and calculate the ripple effect of their decisions.

Passion is anger and love combined. So if it looks angry, give it some love!

If it's acceptance you want, you can count me out.

These kinds of threads are interesting and frustrating at the same time because we learn the lesser-known views of our fellow members - and sometimes end up disappointed in what we discover, as I was after reading this thread. :|

As for me, I'm for logic, science, and reason - interpret that as you will.

SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

Quote - > Quote - For now. Too bad that this is such a derisive issue with respect to religious fervor and, sorry, idiocy. Um, I hate to tell the Jesus nutters but this is SECULAR law and marriage. Get the f*** out of my government, please. Thank you. Makes me wish we could expedite their meeting with their god (that doesn't exist). ;)

While I somewhat share the sentiment, it's just this kind of public negativity that will get the thread locked. I've already been put on notice at DAZ that the thread I made would be locked if people heated it up with stuff like this.

Really sad that something I see as something to celebrate dreges up this kind of hostility from both sides.

Good for you Sulu and many happy returns! Now where can I find a husband?

But it has to be said and defended. I already saw the trucks and signs at the SF city hall on the other side. Rev. Phelps will show up soon enough for certain. And, you know, it's nice that we should be celebratory - but don't forget Matt and other countless, nameless people harassed, beaten, and murdered out of stupidity and fear with little repercussion.

Congratulations on the secular court decision to allow secular marriages to gay couples. But the opposition is great. We are far from the 21st century.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Quote - These kinds of threads are interesting and frustrating at the same time because we learn the lesser-known views of our fellow members - and sometimes end up disappointed in what we discover, as I was after reading this thread. :|

As for me, I'm for logic, science, and reason - interpret that as you will.

SnowS

Yeah, there's no shortage of people willing to piss on your wheaties when it comes to this.

Quote - These kinds of threads are interesting and frustrating at the same time because we learn the lesser-known views of our fellow members - and sometimes end up disappointed in what we discover, as I was after reading this thread. :|

As for me, I'm for logic, science, and reason - interpret that as you will.

SnowS

Same here. I'm a gay atheistic humanitarian critical thinker here. What would Jesus do? (the new cliche) Well, Jesus, according to his supposed words, would embrace everyone who did not harm or deceive others (quoting "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ring any bells). It is sad that the meaning of the message is lost in the body of the message (and Paul didn't help much). I'm not religious any more but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate quality morals of life for which to strive, especially where they concern social conduct. One of those that I hold dearly is that people should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it does no harm to others. Plenty of religious folk could use a dose of that.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I eagerly await legistlative efforts that will allow a male to give birth and a female to become a world champion boxer. Equality in all things! Accept or die! Maybe I don't appreciate the distinction between "civil unions" and marriage. Is marriage really a step up? Why? Anyway, it would good for the economy. Think of the money the lawyers will make in all the new divorice settlements. (Oh no, I've participated in one of those dreaded AM radio talk threads in the Poser forum…)

Download my free stuff here: http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?page=2&userid=323368

Quote - I eagerly await legistlative efforts that will allow a male to give birth and a female to become a world champion boxer. Equality in all things! Accept or die!

Exactly (sort of). There are distinctions between male and female anatomy in general. But then there are distinctions in individual anatomy. If someone wants to do something they can't, at least let them try. If they suck, sorry, do something else. If they exceed, support them with every fiber. And that doesn't even address the glass ceiling put in place due to male-dominated society (and white caucasian rich boy dominated society). Name me one president who wasn't a caucasian male. There has not been one in 230 years. Maybe we'll get one soon!

Quote - Maybe I don't appreciate the distinction between "civil unions" and marriage. Is marriage really a step up? Why? Anyway, it would good for the economy. Think of the money the lawyers will make in all the new divorice settlements. (Oh no, I've participated in one of those dreaded AM radio talk threads in the Poser forum…)

Yes (on divorce)! ;) The distinction between 'civil union' and 'civil marriage' is a matter of familial domain and legal recourse. In a civil union, there are some benefits such as medical coverage and shared ownership rights. But this isn't strong enough legally to prevent the family of the deceased member from claiming rights to the possessions thereof. So, if two people are in a civil union and they generally own their house, cars, and other belongings, it is usually decided in favor of the deceased's family that anything in his/her name now belongs to the deceased's family wherein the partner (of 1 year or 50 years) is left with only what they can demonstrably show as 'theirs'. This has happened many times. Marriage constitutes a familial domain which grants the 'spouse' rights to the mutual possessions.

There are rights and benefits to 'marriage' that are not covered under 'unions'. And, please, do not provoke the 'but heterosexual marriages produce children' fallacy, please, don't, please. Only one quarter of heterosexual marriages have children involved. Are the other three quarters abominations? There is a general consensus that any couple with children is a 'family' and that is good for the most part - maybe we can use that to advantage. Studies show that children reared in homosexual families are as normal as (or better than) those reared in heterosexual families. So much for that myth (that the former will be 'turned gay' or some other crapola).

Wake up, people. We're all in this horrid boat called life together. We had better get used to living with each other while the species exists and propagates 'cause, you'll notice, there are no dinosaurs roaming around anymore. You want survival and perpetuity, get used to compromise and evolution (in more ways than genetic). Otherwise, get yourself spruced up for that museum display in 50 million years.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Don't understand why you think life is such a horrid boat. My take on this is that it will need to be sorted out very carefully. I have already talked with two couples who have broken up over it. In both cases one person was waiting for it to go through, the other was dreading it. Kind of separates the chafe from the wheat. The other is this. If you get married and adopt or have children through artificial insemination, who gets the child/children, who pays support or alimony and will it be enforced? Will this really protect anyone's rights? If there is a divorce who gets the house? The car? I really don't care if folks get married, I'm not going to waste my time with it. It was bound to happen sooner or later and grats to the folks who are able to make it work. Marriage in any form is a job, no matter how fun it is and how much you are in love. After 30 years of marriage my husband and I still take midnight swims, (now that we cleaned the pool again), and we still work side by side when something needs to be done. I attribute that to love, not marriage. Marriage will help if something happens to one of us, it protects against lawyers and such. But without love marriage is a trap. Hope all folks these days realize that, not just gay and lesbian couples.

Oh and please lay off people who believe in a loving God and who believe in Jesus. Never understood why it's ok for folks to slam folks who believe, yet if we say something we believe in we are prudes or closeminded. You want folks to leave you alone in your beliefs, try to refrain from slamming other beliefs and you may get a surprise. I personally don't care if someone is gay or lesbian, but am getting sick of hearing about it all the time. Turn the page already, get on with just living.

Quote -
Wake up, people. We're all in this horrid boat called life together. We had better get used to living with each other while the species exists and propagates 'cause, you'll notice, there are no dinosaurs roaming around anymore. You want survival and perpetuity, get used to compromise and evolution (in more ways than genetic). Otherwise, get yourself spruced up for that museum display in 50 million years.

We ARE in this horrible boat and the only way out is called DEATH;
We cannot get perpetuity because, as individuals, we are going to die in at most a few decades;
If you think survival (as species) is so important, please watch next news on TV and then ask yourself whether a species only bent on the savage self destruction and destruction of the environment where it lives is worth surviving;
You could not find someone further than me from the stereotypical Bible & Winchester & Noose toting yankee redneck (I hope that to have managed to communicate my visceral despise of such people) but at the same time I do not think that homosexuality is something to be proud of.
There is no need for gay marriage: it is sufficient for legal and medical purposes to sign appropriate papers giving to the other one the power to perform all the necessary actions in case one is incapacitated (e.g. telling those professional sadists called doctors to stop playing with someone and let him go the way we ALL will HAVE to go...).

Bye

P.S.: By the way, I think that homosexuality is nothing more than one of our species defensive reactions against overpopulation.

GIMP 2.7.4, Inkscape 0.48, Genetica 3.6 Basic, FilterForge 3 Professional, Blender 2.61, SketchUp 8, PoserPro 2012, Vue 10 Infinite, World Machine 2.3, GeoControl 2

"What goes on between consenting adults is their own business and they should have the right to marry whomever they wish."

Why does the government need to endorse it? On one hand you want "what goes on between consenting adults" to be their business. On the other you want the government to endorse it, support it, change other institutions to include it.

Marriage is marriage, why must the gay lobby insist on changing it to fit their vision, and forcing everyone else to accept it?

Based on Holy Scripture,

**God Instituted Marriage

**“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:27,28). In the same connection, the Bible relates of God creating man in His own image (chiefly in the soul), as well as creating man and woman. Both are basic facts of human existence. We are responsible to God and are created to live in union with each other. This union is realized most deeply between spouses. The creation narrative illustrates this: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:18–24).

I'm not adding any more to this thread!

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Intel Core i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 12.0GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 7770

PoserPro 2012 (SR1) - Units: Metres , Corel PSP X4 and PSE 9

Quote - I personally don't care if someone is gay or lesbian, but am getting sick of hearing about it all the time. Turn the page already, get on with just living.

I'm afraid that until society as a whole, including governments, starts accepting the fact that gay and lesbian people exist and that it's not a deviant behaviour, and people learn to just let people live their lives as they see fit without imposing their own moral beliefs into the equation, we'll continue to see people putting their sexuality "out there" for all the world to see. Once that happens we'll no longer see "gay pride parades" and the need to people to publically declare their sexuality, or media scrutinizing the sexuality of celebrities etc.

However we are decades if not centuries away from that ever happening.

Quote - 1. We ARE in this horrible boat and the only way out is called DEATH;

All living organisms die. :)

Quote - 2. We cannot get perpetuity because, as individuals, we are going to die in at most a few decades;

Of course, perpetuity of the species. But you have to live through those few decades. I don't think our sentience should allow us just to suffer and scrape a living like other animals and then die. Read up on 'cynicism' - these were really nutballs back in Ancient Greece who wanted everyone running around naked begging for food and shelter to spread the idea of everybody doing that. Unfortunately, if everyone were running around naked begging for food and shelter, who would provide it?

Quote - 3. If you think survival (as species) is so important, please watch next news on TV and then ask yourself whether a species only bent on the savage self destruction and destruction of the environment where it lives is worth surviving;

No 'species' really survives long any way in geologic time. The average is about 2-5 million years. Dinosaurs, as a full group of animals, survived and evolved for 125 million years but individual special types (like T. Rex) only lasted a short period within. We're at about the 1 million year mark.

Yep, our aggressive tendencies and lack of long time foresight will be the end of us.

Quote - 4. You could not find someone further than me from the stereotypical Bible & Winchester & Noose toting yankee redneck (I hope that to have managed to communicate my visceral despise of such people) but at the same time I do not think that homosexuality is something to be proud of.

Neither is 'heterosexuality'. It is something to be... Why can it never be left at that?

Quote - 5. There is no need for gay marriage: it is sufficient for legal and medical purposes to sign appropriate papers giving to the other one the power to perform all the necessary actions in case one is incapacitated (e.g. telling those professional sadists called doctors to stop playing with someone and let him go the way we ALL will HAVE to go...).

Then there is no need for heterosexual marriage. Please bring up the children fallacy (see my last post). There are children being raised in single-parent families or in partnerships without marriage or without any parents. And plenty of marriages with no children.

Quote - P.S.: By the way, I think that homosexuality is nothing more than one of our species defensive reactions against overpopulation.

Records of homosexuality go back to Ancient Greece and they probably existed before that. There was no overpopulation then (nor for the next two thousand years). The recent increase of it may be linked to overpopulation but that doesn't make it 'abnormal'. I love that how a person ends up genetically makes them unique but if it doesn't make them like the rest it is abnormal.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Quote - 5. There is no need for gay marriage: it is sufficient for legal and medical purposes to sign appropriate papers giving to the other one the power to perform all the necessary actions in case one is incapacitated (e.g. telling those professional sadists called doctors to stop playing with someone and let him go the way we ALL will HAVE to go...).

What i get for $40 a gay couple would have to spend thousands of dollars to have written up by lawyers. Even then they would not recieve any benifits (social security, medicare, pensions, insurance, etc). There are many things that cannot be bestowed upon a partner with such a contract.

examples:

The marital communications privilege is the privilege allowing one spouse not to testify about confidential communications made to the other spouse. This only applies to legaly married couples.

In some cases confilct of intrest laws may not apply because the government does not recognize the gay relationship.

Taxes cannot be filed together. Debts to creditors are not shared.

Insurance companies view married couples as safer drivers, rates are lower strictly because of being married. Gay relationships are not recognized.

When one gay partner dies the inharitance is taxed. A spouce inherits tax free.

Private institutions are under no obligation to recognize your private contracts.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

I am impressed by those of us here that can actually participate in this discussion in a way that actually gives our posts credibility.

What's the point of posting an opinion if it's done in such an immature and derogatory way that it is nothing but hypocritical?

As for me, I serve the Lord. I find that interesting that suddenly people think they can label me. Holy Roller. Bible Nut. Jesus Freak. Isn't it those same labels and judgements that the opposing side is trying to get rid of? Is it not the same type of prejudice?

I was in SF a few years ago. I happened to arrive when this issue was first presented and was very heated. The person I was staying with, had a gay sister, who happened to be getting married the day I arrived at cityhall. I, being a guest in the city, went with, as it was my first visit to SF.

Out front of city hall were "christians", whom told me my soul was going to hell, that I must turn from my wicked ways, etc, etc. I actually tried to strike up conversation with them to no avail. Because I was not on their side of the fence, I must be on the opposite side.

My own views, whether right or wrong, are this. Jesus Himself never EVER forgot the person. He never made stereotypes based on a given situation.

The Bible is quite clear on this subject. And I follow that Bible. Does it mean I hate gay people? No. Does it mean I won't talk to a gay person? No.

Do I think the Bible is dated? No. Furthermore, I believe the more we stray from God and the Bible as a nation, the worse our society becomes. Don't believe me? Take a really close look at what has been happening the last forty years.

I would also once again like to thank those participating in a mature fashion. Though we disagree, it should not change our opinions of each other.

Quote - Oh and please lay off people who believe in a loving God and who believe in Jesus. Never understood why it's ok for folks to slam folks who believe, yet if we say something we believe in we are prudes or closeminded. You want folks to leave you alone in your beliefs, try to refrain from slamming other beliefs and you may get a surprise. I personally don't care if someone is gay or lesbian, but am getting sick of hearing about it all the time. Turn the page already, get on with just living.

I can't let this go by unretorted.

I was raised in an Italian Roman Catholic family - very religious and some of them still are. I was even considering seminary to become a Franciscan monk at one point. But then I learned some life lessons.

See, the problem is that you turn it around so nicely. Poor religious people - awww. So, it's only us (a very small minority) berating you (the vast majority). Religious people never try to dictate my life (sarcasm, big fat stinking sarcasm). They (and I mean particular groups and not a blanket everyone) try to tell people who they can marry, how to love, work, live. They force this into legislation. They sometimes determine if you live. And it is I who is slamming you? If we were just to be quiet and let those poor religious folks get on with doing their honorable stuff for us, hmmm, any self-described homosexuals would be dead or imprisoned or institutionalized.
I'll make a pact with ya. You (general) leave my life alone and I'll stop retaliating in defense of non-stop attempts to legislate how I live. Sound reasonable?

Short list of laws/programs with religious undertones or under constant attack from religious organizations:

Abortion
Homosexuality
Homosexual marriage
Creationism/Intelligent Design
Stem cell research
Right to die (Kevorkian and Terry Shiavo)
Faith-based initiative
School vouchers
Abstinence programs/Birth control

Except for the first, there is no other 'person' (loosely) harmed (yes, even with chosen right to terminate one's life due to suffering).

One reason that I am easily angered over these types of statements: AIDS. I remember vividly the coming together and communal support given to the gay community by everyone else when AIDS killed millions. Paybacks suck don't they. It should make you (again, general - I hate English) feel ashamed and cry.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

-- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I for one have no problem with it, what I have a problem with is why people are so upset over this. I for one hope that people will loose their bigotry towards people who don't have the same belief as they do. Remember California was the first state to recognize marriage between people of different skin pigment.

Poserverse The New Home for NYGUY's Freebies

"Otherwise, get yourself spruced up for that museum display in 50 million years."

LOL! Personally though, I think religion will probably be the reason why we'll be in a museum display a lot sooner than that. ;)

Again, interpret that as you will.

SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

i believe it's important for the government to come around on this because, as many of us forget, homosexuality is not just frowned upon in many places, but outright outlawed. there are people sitting in jail simply for being gay. i remember a case in texas about ten years ago that made its way all the way to the supreme court where some guys in dallas got their home invaded just as they were engaged in sex, and thrown into prison for it. they are not alone in this i assure you. i don't know this for sure but they probably had their house tapped so as to catch them just at the right moment.

when you deny anyone any right at all, you justify denying anyone's rights anytime. (gitmo, anyone?) i believe that the only way to protect your own rights is to stand up for those you don't really agree with so that we all have equal rights in every way.

o and just on the religious side...i figure jesus hated divorce more than anything. he railed against it quite a bit. not that i would outlaw that either...i figure he was simply trying to insure that no women and children ended up starving to death. our society does make effort in that direction.

go that way really fast.
if something gets in your way
turn

Give me a break, maybe catholics treated you badly but I'm sick to death of folks blaming the church for every problem they have. Maybe if you just got on with your life and stopped demanding everyone treat you special because you're gay or whatever then folks would be so worried about it. I have a gay friend who just acts like a normal person. Doesn't have to tell the world she's gay just lives her life. She met someone who insists that EVERYONE knows she's gay, and I'm talking graphic discussions in resteraunts. Obviously being gay isn't her problem getting attention is. I don't hang out with this person because she's embarrassing to be around. I had another friend who is straight. Does the same thing but talks about heterosexual encounters. I don't hang out with her anymore either. It is a LIFESTYLE no matter how you look at it. I don't insist that you live your life according to my rules, please stop demanding that I live according to your rules. I don't have parades to validate my sexual preference, don't know why gays feel they are so special because that is the lifestyle they have chosen. Get over yourselves, you are not that special.

Quote - I don't insist that you live your life according to my rules, please stop demanding that I live according to your rules.

I actually think this is a very common issue for people. For me, as a Christian to tell you my views is "holier than thou", "judgemental" and the like, but if I don't accept your views I am close minded.

I think this is where the circle begins. How do you convince someone you're not being judgemental without sounding judgemental?

Quote - Give me a break, maybe catholics treated you badly but I'm sick to death of folks blaming the church for every problem they have. Maybe if you just got on with your life and stopped demanding everyone treat you special because you're gay or whatever then folks would be so worried about it. I have a gay friend who just acts like a normal person. Doesn't have to tell the world she's gay just lives her life. She met someone who insists that EVERYONE knows she's gay, and I'm talking graphic discussions in resteraunts. Obviously being gay isn't her problem getting attention is. I don't hang out with this person because she's embarrassing to be around. I had another friend who is straight. Does the same thing but talks about heterosexual encounters. I don't hang out with her anymore either. It is a LIFESTYLE no matter how you look at it. I don't insist that you live your life according to my rules, please stop demanding that I live according to your rules. I don't have parades to validate my sexual preference, don't know why gays feel they are so special because that is the lifestyle they have chosen. Get over yourselves, you are not that special.

Quoted for agreement

My website

YouTube Channel

Quote - > Quote - I don't insist that you live your life according to my rules, please stop demanding that I live according to your rules.

I actually think this is a very common issue for people. For me, as a Christian to tell you my views is "holier than thou", "judgemental" and the like, but if I don't accept your views I am close minded.

I think this is where the circle begins. How do you convince someone you're not being judgemental without sounding judgemental?

In my experience it is less often the subject matter and more often the presentation that is "holier than thou" or "judgmental"

I know some people that can talk about their beliefs for hours without being offensive and others who can barley open their mouths without making you cringe.

Disparaging remarks about "religious" people are almost always addressing the "vocal minorities".

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

Wow! All I can say is for something that should have been a joyful announcement, people really have gone out of their way to display their anger and hatred over it. You all need to ask yourself if that's really how your God wants you to react to someone elses joyful announcement.

This could have been a very nice thread of congratulatory posts. It should have been just that. If you've participated in the anger and hatred. Ask yourself why you felt the need to be so hateful. Does God tell you to behave that way? I don't think he does.

well, anyway, before they lock this thread, I just wanna mention that, when sulu
came out of the closet, the automatic sliding doors went "WHOOOOOOSSHHH".

Well since it would appear that almost everyone else is venting here I'd like to do the same, also.

SAME-SEX ATTRACTION, CAUSES AND CURES

Dozens of gay and lesbian couples were married in California Monday evening, starting at 5:01pm when same-sex marriages officially became legal in the state. Some of those who rushed to sign up for marriage licenses were from out-of-state; unlike Massachusetts, California has no law requiring residency to obtain a marriage license. All of the new unions may yet be nullified, though. California voters can go to the polls in November to overturn the state Supreme Court’s ruling, and reinstate the state ban on same-sex marriages.

The promotion of gay marriage pulls from two basic assumptions, that:

homosexual attraction is inborn and genetic;
homosexual attraction, though found in a relatively small portion of the population, is still normal and harmless.

If people believe that homosexuals are normal and are truly “born that way”, then it is easy to argue that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry just as other minorities are allowed to marry. These consider discrimination against same-sex couples as a cruel denial of basic human rights.

The gay and lesbian political machine has been working hard for decades to promote those two assumptions. Neither, however, is close to having been proven. While a significant number of gays and lesbians truly feel that they were “different” from birth, there is little to prove that same-sex attraction is purely genetic. Homosexuality flies in the face of basic laws of procreation, and cannot therefore be considered “normal”, and there is plenty of evidence that the lifestyles of gay men tend to be anything other than harmless.

In July, 1993, the magazine Science announced the existence of the “gay gene.” Of course, what the research actually determined was more like, “There could possibly be maybe a chance that this particular gene could conceivably have an influence on being gay. Sort of.” Unfortunately, many people in the public assumed an actual gay gene had been found, and the idea that people are “born gay” took off.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric illnesses. According to a survey reported in the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality in 1977, though, 69 percent of psychiatrists still considered homosexuality a disorder.
The fact is that the “experts” don’t know exactly what causes homosexual attraction. The APA does see it as a combination of nature and nurture. Certain trends pop up, though. Sensitive personalities, poor relationships with fathers, forceful mothers, trauma in childhood, early sexual activity and/or molestation, early rejection by peers – things that leave small children longing for love or acceptance, or that create an extreme sense of inadequacy – are the sorts of things in the backgrounds of many unwilling homosexuals. Then there is the spiritual aspect, which is even harder to nail down in politically correct America.

Ex-Gays
Perhaps the biggest arguments against the “born that way” mantra are the many men and women who have changed. The process is often difficult and takes a long time and careful, loving therapy. When the foundational causes of the same-sex attraction are addressed and dealt with, however, significant numbers of once-homosexuals have become heterosexual. They have been freed from something that was a chain around their necks and hearts, and have rejoiced in becoming whole.

Former lesbian Debbie Thurman says, “I can count myself among the growing numbers of men and women who have overcome a significant struggle with same-sex attraction. While our stories and the degree to which we have found wholeness may be different, the central themes are often similar. Frequently, you will find we came from broken homes, were alienated from one or both parents, were sexually abused as children, are sensitive by temperament, and suffered from depression.

"…Sticky problems arise when a number of those who have 'always felt' homosexual begin moving along the continuum of feeling less so, and at the same time, actually begin feeling better about themselves. How dare we forsake the gay cause célebrè? Like crabs trying to escape from a bucket, gay activists begin dragging us down.

“Detractors insist that measurable results must be quick, and that change 'isn't change' if it requires a long process. These same people generally see life as a continual 'journey' in all other respects. But if someone gives up during the long process, that is somehow 'proof' that change is a sham. Never mind that overeaters, alcoholics or drug addicts fall off the wagon every day. The standard for sexual identity change remains 'all or nothing'!

“So where are the mental health professionals who will stand up and challenge these untruths? Why do they allow the APA to hijack the truth?”

Regardless of what the politically-charged APA accepts, the Bible consistently condemns same-sex sexual intercourse as wrong. At the same time, Jesus Christ specifically came to save those who were lost. That’s all of us. He loves us. He died for our sins, and through the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives, we can all be freed from the various chains that hang around our necks. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-32, homosexuality has a root cause in a culture’s turning away from God the Creator. It’s easy to attack people lost in same-sex attraction, but we are all responsible as a culture to truly put Christ first in our lives, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If we do that, maybe we will have fewer young people falling prey to the lie of homosexuality.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Cor 6:9-11 (NKJV)

one other thing: altho I qualify as a christian (e.g. not jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist et al.)
I got confused about the part in the bible where apparently eve was the only woman, but cain
and abel musta had kids, so where did their wives come from?

"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

At least the ban on thieves, drunkards, extortioners and adulterers will keep out roughly 100% of our politicians. :)

SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

Quote - Well since it would appear that almost everyone else is venting here I'd like to do the same, also.

After reading your uncited quotation of Pastor Jesse Roland's blog (who intern quotes without citation the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) I am left with some questions.

Quote - Homosexuality flies in the face of basic laws of procreation, and cannot therefore be considered “normal”, and there is plenty of evidence that the lifestyles of gay men tend to be anything other than harmless.

Abstinence, monogamy and celibacy also fly in the face of basic laws of procreation. How are we to pick and choose which are appropriate? Keep in mind that as a non-christian i do not give much weight to your Biblical quotations.

Quote - The fact is that the “experts” don’t know exactly what causes homosexual attraction. The APA does see it as a combination of nature and nurture. Certain trends pop up, though. Sensitive personalities, poor relationships with fathers, forceful mothers, trauma in childhood, early sexual activity and/or molestation, early rejection by peers – things that leave small children longing for love or acceptance, or that create an extreme sense of inadequacy – are the sorts of things in the backgrounds of many unwilling homosexuals. Then there is the spiritual aspect, which is even harder to nail down in politically correct America.

If we assume that any or all of these "nurture" events are the "cause" of the sexual orientation, why do we need to "fix" someone who has found fulfilment of their needs in a loving relationship? True there are extreemes in homosexual activity, as there are in heterosexual activity, and in sports for that matter, but these cannot be used as the baseline for judging a group.

Quote - They [exgays] have been freed from something that was a chain around their necks and hearts, and have rejoiced in becoming whole.

Former alcoholics say similar things, should I then stop having a glass of wine with dinner so that I can become “whole” and be freed from a chain around my neck?

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

Quote - one other thing: altho I qualify as a christian (e.g. not jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist et al.)
I got confused about the part in the bible where apparently eve was the only woman, but cain
and abel musta had kids, so where did their wives come from?

I believe it was "Asimov's guide to the bible" had some interesting speculation on that. If I recall correctly he says that it was possible that the individuals in the genesis stories were not single people but rather groups or societies and the stories represent things that were happening more widely. For example the story of Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the garden of Eden was a representation of the shift from nomadic life to agrarian life. The tree of knowledge was the knowledge of sewing crops which tied the people to one location and ment they had to work the land. Thus they could not live the free roaming lifestyle that was the "garden of eden".

but then others just say the bible doens't cover everything that happened.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

What has religion got to do with anything?
Are people not capable of their own thought without the inclusion of a religious belief?
If someone chooses to agree with same sex marriages or not, it's a personal opinion, end of.
Who decides whether something is right or wrong?
My personal opinion is do what you will with your life so long as you're not harming anyone.

Quote - Do I think the Bible is dated? No. Furthermore, I believe the more we stray from God and the Bible as a nation, the worse our society becomes. Don't believe me? Take a really close look at what has been happening the last forty years.

The Bible is not only dated (i.e. role of women) but it is also VERY flawed. There are MANY versions of the Bible and there are THOUSANDS of errors - both intentional and unintentional - in the Bible. There are several books - by Christians, Evangelicals and others - that point these items out. We are NOT talking about laypeople writing books, but Biblical Scholars!! Read "Misquoting Jesus" to get a real idea as to what these changes are. Anyone who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God really does not know how the Bible came to be and how it got to where it is now.

And have you actually stopped to think (before you stated about the last 40 years) that lifestyles have changed considerably? How many mothers stayed at home 40 years ago? How many did in the 80's? How many today? Perhaps it could have something to do with that? Parents today want their schools to teach their kids everything rather than take on that responsibility themselves. To say that it is because we have strayed from God is very sad. You don't need a god to teach morality.

Quote - Maybe if you just got on with your life and stopped demanding everyone treat you special because you're gay or whatever then folks would be so worried about it.

Well Marque, it's BECAUSE people will not allow them to be treated "normally." haven't you read the thread? If same sex couples were actually treated the same as their heterosexual counterparts, we would not be having this discussion. Do you honestly think that they want to be treated special? That's not it AT ALL. They just want the same rights and privileges that EVERYONE ELSE HAS.

Quote - It is a LIFESTYLE no matter how you look at it. I don't insist that you live your life according to my rules, please stop demanding that I live according to your rules. I don't have parades to validate my sexual preference, don't know why gays feel they are so special because that is the lifestyle they have chosen. Get over yourselves, you are not that special.

So it is YOUR contention that they have chosen this lifestyle? It's not genetic? They have chosen to be harassed rather than take the easier "heterosexual route?" Yeah.... right. These people are NOT demanding that YOU live by their rules - they just want to live by the same rules that YOU do. But since YOUR rules do not allow them to marry, obviously they MUST make some noise to try to change the rules. Understand?

Quote - Ex-Gays
Perhaps the biggest arguments against the “born that way” mantra are the many men and women who have changed. The process is often difficult and takes a long time and careful, loving therapy. When the foundational causes of the same-sex attraction are addressed and dealt with, however, significant numbers of once-homosexuals have become heterosexual. They have been freed from something that was a chain around their necks and hearts, and have rejoiced in becoming whole.

Obviously you are not an expert but are quoting others. Taking pieces from here and there does not help. Obviously there are same-sex attractions not based on genetics - some are from child abuse. So in essense they were not "born" gay. But then you are lumping all homosexuals together. Regardless if it IS a choice or IS genetic, consenting adults should be allowed to marry - it does not hurt anyone in doing so.

There are SO many people who want to impose THEIR will on others, it simply boggles my mind. By allowing same-sex couples to marry, they are NOT imposing their will on ANYONE, but just want the same as every heterosexual. The ONLY reall reason people are against it IS religious. And in this country, that should not fly. This will more then likely end up at the Supreme Court and hopefully the Constitution will prevail and allow EVERYONE equal rights.

*quote:"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Wow, as an adulterous, sodomizing, fornicating, idolator who likes to drink while reviling and coveting - it looks like I'm screwed seven ways to Sunday :)

Rick

Quote - What has religion got to do with anything?
Are people not capable of their own thought without the inclusion of a religious belief?
If someone chooses to agree with same sex marriages or not, it's a personal opinion, end of.
Who decides whether something is right or wrong?
My personal opinion is do what you will with your life so long as you're not harming anyone.

I agree completely.

The reason why religion is injected is because the religious right (NOT to be confused with the common-sense Christian/Jew/Muslim/Bhuddist, etc.) essentially want to impose there beliefs on others. Some things I can completely understand - such as abortion. There is the issue as to when human life really begins and that will be debated for a long time. But when it comes to same-sex marriage... there is no reason except that they want everyone to believe as they do.

It's sad.

What about the constitution of the United States? What about the Bill of Rights?? Or do these documents mean nothing anymore? How can you say you live in the land of the free and the home of the brave when you deny other's their rights to live freely and without persecution? Or does the Constitution and Bof R only good for those "certain" few??????

And please save me the argument about the Founding Fathers and their "religious" beliefs if you dive further into their lives and ideals you will see that many of them warned against and "National" religion because they knew this would be just as oppressive as the government they were fighting to break from. The FF also knew there were other religions and people of different mind sets in the world besides their own hence the phrase "endowed by THEIR creator" as a matter of fact Jefferson was interested in Islam so much so he had a copy of the Koran.

I grew up very religious to the point of almost entering the priesthood (I served in the 20 years in the military instead) and I do not understand, nor will I ever, this need to mix the affairs of God in a worldly government affairs? Paul warned the early church of this and Christ himself made point of this also. It also annoys me that those who profess to be saved by grace are the most vicious, condemning and judgmental and feel they need to enforce the laws of God. God needs no help he and he alone will judge God needs no worldly government, institution or MAN to do this. Do you really feel that Christ himself would not love the very people you stand against? Who are you to do so?

Again, you can't say people have the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and then turn around and deny them that freedom...kinda sounds like speaking with a fork tongue?
This would be an excellent debate however I see how "Adult" these debates come out here.

My Facebook Page

I have no doubt this is going to turn a lot of people off to me, but so be it. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, but niether am I trying to appear self righteous or 'holier then thou'. I am simply stating Biblical Truth.

**Genesis 19:4, 5
**"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."

Know them carnally meaning that the men of Sodom desired homosexual relations with Lot's visitors.

**Genesis 19: 24, 25
**"Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground."

The Bible is not flawed, some translations just may not be 100% accurate as the original writings. But there can be no mistake about God's position on homosexuality, considering Sodom and Gomorrah (and every single person in those cities with the exception of Lot and his family) were destroyed for their sin and depravity. This is just one of countless examples in the Old Testament of God's judgement on people for their sin.

In the case of Jesus saying that "let he without sin cast the first stone", John 8:9 says that those who heard him went away convicted by their consiences. Only the Lord is blameless and it is to Him that we must give an account of our actions on judgement day. Man's law is not God's law. Man's laws can be changed, ammended or updated. God's law has and always will be the same and uncompromised.

1000 years ago, people believed putting an onion on your head would cure a headache. Perhaps we shouldn't blindly believe everything our ancient ancestors said. :)

SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

I think that we marry because we fall in love with a person's inside and the exterior gender thing is just a formality. I wish I had a significant other so that I could participate. I am much happier now, gay than when I was a straight. Let me rephrase that - I am happier now that I realized that I was fighting my true impulse in an attempt to appear normal to the outside world.

I was raised in a bible family - my grandmother is a Doctor of Theology, learned Greek and Hebrew to translate the texts; my mom runs a church with her pastor / husband; my dad's side of the family is VERY Catholic - and I while the bible does state that homosexuality is one sin among many, one cannot interpret the bible literally for two reasons:

nuances are lost in translation and,
really folks, can the finite mind of man know the mind of an infinite God?

Besides, why would God condemn me if he made me gay?

I personally don't care if gay couples want to get married or not, it's their choice. If they want to, they should be allowed. As I said before, if no one's being harmed, what's the problem?
This religious issue is pathetic on two counts. Firstly, if there is a God & Jesus, who knows what they said & secondly, why base your beliefs on this, it's not important & it's not relevant. I would hate to run my life by what was wrote in a book. You might as well pick up a Mills & Boon.
If more people thought for themselves there would be less problems in this world.

Quote - 1000 years ago, people believed putting an onion on your head would cure a headache. Perhaps we shouldn't blindly believe everything our ancient ancestors said. :)

SnowS

The One who said that 'he without sin should cast the first stone' will still be alive long after our current bodies are dead and buried. I think that makes him more of a living relative than an ancestor. :D

As for your first sentence, I would think an onion would cause more of a headache with all the eye rubbing and crying it would cause.

Imo, we're going to see a lot more of this in a lot more states and other countries. It's simply a sign of our times and we can't stop it. That's not saying I do agree or do not agree, everyone should make up his or her own mind about these kind of things.

But before one makes up his or her mind perhaps it's a good thing to read this little statement:

Let the one who is doing wrong continue to do wrong; the one who is vile, continue to be vile; the one who is good, continue to do good; and the one who is holy, continue in holiness." "See, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me, to repay all according to their deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

One day Jesus Christ will be coming back to judge each man and woman that ever lived according to their deeds and that means we're all in big trouble. We've all sinned against God, we've all broken one or more of His commandments. If you've lied, stolen, lusted after someone, been jealous, hated anyone, failed to always put God first in your life, dishonered or disobeyed or disrespected your parents in any way, failed to keep Gods day as a special day for Him then you're already in trouble.

God alone, who made the law, can rightly judge among us. He alone has the power to save or to destroy. Those who sin are opposed to the law of God, for all sin opposes the law of God. **God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were.
**
Being opposed to the law of God isn't a good thing at all and we've all done it and have to face God one day and that's not something to look forward too.

Unless....... You know that Jesus came to take away our sins, for there is no sin in him. But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful kindness became more abundant. So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God's wonderful kindness rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Homesexual or heterosexual it doesn't matter at all, we're all stand quilty before God because we failed to keep His commandments and only one Person can save us from the fate ahead!

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

This thread is so far off topic that I'm surprised it hasn't been locked yet.

I think it will be soon.

*1000 years ago, people believed putting an onion on your head would cure a headache. Perhaps we shouldn't blindly believe everything our ancient ancestors said. :)

SnowS*

I've tried that and it really WORKS!!! Do it for a couple of minutes and your eyes hurt so badly that you forget all about your headache!

Anayway I'm glad Rendo allows a bit of discussion on the subject and they're not as upthight as DAZ is. They allow certain people to take a stand for the issues, but remove every comment that is made against it. When you take a stand for the issue you're not political, religious and so on, but when you take a stand against it you suddenly are.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

Quote - I am simply stating Biblical Truth.

Biblical truth? So what? This is AMERICA. We have amelting pot of cultures AND religions. YOU... are free to believe as you choose. The point here is that you do not impose YOUR religious beliefs upon others.

Quote - The Bible is not flawed, some translations just may not be 100% accurate as the original writings. But there can be no mistake about God's position on homosexuality, considering Sodom and Gomorrah (and every single person in those cities with the exception of Lot and his family) were destroyed for their sin and depravity. This is just one of countless examples in the Old Testament of God's judgement on people for their sin.

Again, you know nothing about HOW the Bible came into being. Read up on it to truly understand. There are BIBLICAL scholars who attest to othe fact that the Bible has been altered over the centuries and many of the meanings have been lost AND/OR misunderstood. You can see this happening even today.

For example... if you were to say to someone in the 1920's "You seem so gay." And then say the same this to someone today... you can see the VERY different meanings. The EXACT SAME THING has happened within the Bible. You MUST read books written by various Bible scholars to understand that you are mistaken.

And God's position on Homosexuality? So you must be considering yourself a Jew - since Christ NEVER said anything against homosexuals. And since we have two VERY differerent types of Gods when comparing the old testament God and the new testament God, it's interesting to see that so many people decide to choose the old testament God when it comes to same-sex marriage. Why is it that paople want to "impose Gods Will" on us rather than have God do the judging? Simpy amazing.

mpromised.

And it's VERY interesting that you bring up that passage - for it was NOT in the original writings written by the apostle. "Let he who is without sin..." was added at a later date. Another error in the Bible. It IS flawed. If you choose NOT to accept that, then you are blinding yourself to the facts - plain and simple.

Quote - Homesexual or heterosexual it doesn't matter at all, we're all stand quilty before God because we failed to keep His commandments and only one Person can save us from the fate ahead!

But this is YOUR belief, not many others. I've always found it quite arrogant of the various religions when they say that THEY are right and EVERYONE else is wrong. It's funny and it's sad.

Quote - In answer to the original posting, no I'm not with you on this.

" <---------------------- ditto

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

P.S. It is sad that some expend great effort to foist their opinions and lifestyles on others.
I, on the other hand, appreciate those who do not.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - > Quote - In answer to the original posting, no I'm not with you on this.

" <---------------------- ditto

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

But of course. So many people want to impose their will on others and deny them happiness. That's why the religious right exists. :(

Quote - deny them happiness.(

Crikey, that line really stood out to me. It really seems to be this way with alot of people. I just don't understand it.

Oops ??? :unsure:

Hmmm, did I just contradict myself?
Did I just "foist" my opinion on you?
Perhaps, but .................. please note that I did NOT expend any great effort to do so.
Therefore, I remain ... :lol:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - > Quote - deny them happiness.(

Crikey, that line really stood out to me. It really seems to be this way with alot of people. I just don't understand it.

Precisely!

Why some want to impose their will on others when it does not even concern them is beyond me. If you believe in God and that that God will judge everyone, then please let others make their own decisions and leave the judging to God!

Quote - Anayway I'm glad Rendo allows a bit of discussion on the subject and they're not as upthight as DAZ is. They allow certain people to take a stand for the issues, but remove every comment that is made against it. When you take a stand for the issue you're not political, religious and so on, but when you take a stand against it you suddenly are.

Quoted for agreement

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." -Desmond Tutu

My goodness! Funny how people can get so ruffled about other people's lives. At any rate, congrats to Sulu, for finding someone he cares for, and being able to share it openly.

Applause, applause, @ kuroyume0161

Give em hell back and know that at least I'm with you for what you posted!!! (as straight man btw)

And congratulations to George Takei and Brad Altman :)

:-D

Quote - ... but this is SECULAR law and marriage.

...which makes me wonder why government is in any sort of marriage business in the first place. Seriously - the gov't has no business at all in marriage, of any kind.

But ........................ lest ye forget ..................... they MUST control !!!

'Tis their nature, m'ess pas?

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

I reccommend anyone who think's God hate's gay people take a trip to BlockBuster video and rent "For The Bible Tells Me So".

I'm just here for the views for my Dragon Eggs. This thread oughta hatch em'!

My Freebies

Quote - But ........................ lest ye forget ..................... they MUST control !!!

'Tis their nature, m'ess pas?

Actually that sounds like religion to me. Think history.... Catholic Church... Oh wait a minute... that's what they want to do again. ;)

Apparently too many people think that you NEED religion to marry.

Again... that's sad. :(

Lol these issues are just deceiving all of you on the real reason behind everything: Money and Power. Simple fact: if there is no problem, there is no money. The only blunder to profit is a close knit family lead by husband and nurtured by a wife. Destroy the family and you will get money. How to destroy a family? Tear man and woman apart with issues of gender and once the balance is tipped, you will get whole herd of lost souls who will be willing to buy your 'solution' to their problems. Plus tax.

Passion is anger and love combined. So if it looks angry, give it some love!

Quote - one other thing: altho I qualify as a christian (e.g. not jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist et al.)
I got confused about the part in the bible where apparently eve was the only woman, but cain
and abel musta had kids, so where did their wives come from?

Something along the lines of "And the Sons of God found the daughters of Men to be beautiful, and took them as wives..." (heavily paraphrased). So I'm suspecting that someone had a veritable 'human factory' that wasn't mentioned...

Quote -

Actually that sounds like religion to me. Think history.... Catholic Church... Oh wait a minute... that's what they want to do again.

Again... that's sad. :(

It sounds a whole lot like modern secular cults as well, come to think of it.

(Yes, they not only exist, but seem to be very popular in many quarters)

Quote - It sounds a whole lot like modern secular cults as well, come to think of it.

(Yes, they not only exist, but seem to be very popular in many quarters)

/P

What modern secular cults are you talking about?

Regarding same-sex marriage.... they ONLY want to have the same rights that hetero's do. YOU aren't required to marry a same-sex partner. How do they want to control you? Since that is primarily what THIS conversation has been about.

Quote - > Quote - But ........................ lest ye forget ..................... they MUST control !!!

'Tis their nature, m'ess pas?

Actually that sounds like religion to me. Think history.... Catholic Church... Oh wait a minute... that's what they want to do again. ;)

Apparently too many people think that you NEED religion to marry.

Again... that's sad. :(

The Catholic church regards Marriage as a Sacrament, binding of body and spirit, and therefore a Religious Ceremony! :) And yes, I'm Catholic and I have absolutely nothing against gays etc.

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Intel Core i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 12.0GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 7770

PoserPro 2012 (SR1) - Units: Metres , Corel PSP X4 and PSE 9

Quote - I have no doubt this is going to turn a lot of people off to me, but so be it. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, but niether am I trying to appear self righteous or 'holier then thou'. I am simply stating Biblical Truth.

**Genesis 19:4, 5
**"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."

Know them carnally meaning that the men of Sodom desired homosexual relations with Lot's visitors.

If we're throwing BIble quotes around, let's be comprehensive about it, shall we?

Okay, everyone, sit down. It's time for today's episode of BIBLE TALK.

Now, here's the first few verses that describe that situation. No editting, straight from the KJV --

*And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. *
*
And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: *

*and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.*

Now, a couple of things come to light almost immediately: (1) your use of "carnally" aint substantiated by the KJV, nor is it really posed that way in what we have of the original texts. The suggestion has been made that the "sin of Sodom" (which, please note, isnt specifically described in the BIble) was a near paranoid fear of strangers -- something pretty antithetical to the basic Middle Eastern tenet of providing strangers with shelter for the night. In a desert region, that's almost as much a social necessity as anything else you can think of. (2) Please note that, to dissuade the people of Sodom, Lot offers up his own daughters because they're virgins. Yeah, Happy Father's Day, bud! That just strikes me, anyway, as kind of the WRONG thing to do when you're trying to tell a story about God's sense of morality and judgment.

So put these together, and you have a few more questions than some facile "Oooo! Evil Sodom! wish fulfillment about gays and lesbians. What was the "sin of Sodom"? The Book aint all that specific, and, sadly, the two towns get burned to a crisp before we can find out. Why did Lot offer to allow his daughters to be gang-banged? Did God really want Lot to do that? I'm kinda thinking not, but then we get to the punishment phase: both towns are nuked right out of existence. Everyone -- the bad men, the bad women, and (we assume, anyway) the bad toddlers and infants, not to mention the bad horses and sinful cattle and frogs and insects driven by the forces of Satan -- are wiped right off the face of the planet. Gosh, nothin' too ruthless about that, is there? But you have to remember that this is (theoretically, anyway) the same God that tells various Hebrews that they have the God-given right to marraude and murder various tribes, to the point of killing their animals as well... which, let's face it, takes "vengeance" to a whole new level.

So to anyone that quotes this story of S&G -- if you honestly believe these were the actions of a loving, merciful diety... well, y'know, there's a few issues there you might want to work on.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

The "bottom line" is ...

**One either believes or .............. one does not !

**It's an individual's choice.

Do you believe? (rhet)

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

The real bottom line is that one believes what one wants to believe, n'est pas? (rhet)
An interesting discussion none the less. ... ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - [ Seriously - the gov't has no business at all in marriage, of any kind.

Well, for now, it is, and as such we have to act accordingly.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote -
The Catholic church regards Marriage as a Sacrament, binding of body and spirit, and therefore a Religious Ceremony! :) And yes, I'm Catholic and I have absolutely nothing against gays etc.

I think that's the main point here. For some, marriage is a holy ritual, only to be done between a man and a woman. For some, it's just a sort of formal contract, a try to bond two people together and give them rights and duties. I would like to state that most marriages don't really have much to do with the former, but with the later, aspecially if you see how many choose a divorce later - which is as well only possible with the later, according to the catholic church. If this two things weren't so much tied together, the whole thing would not be that much of a problem, at least not in my view.

As it's said already in this thread - Jesus isn't really famous for hating people, but for forgiveness. When I look at the Sermon on the Mount then I don't read anything about going to other peope and force them to live "the right way". I think that a main part of Jesus teaching was to leave the judgement to God. If the christians who disapprove gays would live up to that, all should be fine.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori.

I thought this was a Poser forum???

Why is this even on here?

Who cares?

*eyeroll.

:b_confused: ___ Poser? ... What's that?

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - I thought this was a Poser forum???

Why is this even on here?

Who cares?

*eyeroll.

Is that anything like an eggroll?

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

those biblical references may be more relevant than we had previously believed.
for example, IIRC it was cain and abel, not cain and mabel. :lol:

Quote -
What modern secular cults are you talking about?

Well, here's a few that come to mind:

Anthropogenic Global Warming
Various Political Party Issues ("Planks")
Greenpeace
PETA
moveon.org
9/11 conspiracy theorists

...and many, many more.

Basically, any group of individuals who carry an irrational passion for a pet issue (be it political, scientific, philosophical), to the point of getting visibly angry (or worse) at anyone who dares challenge it. That group successfully turns the issue's talking points and supporting arguments into dogma, the lead proponents as apostles, and the issue itself as their god. Anyone who brings conflicting facts into the arena are instantly treated as heretics and apostates. Instead of logical rebuttals and defenses, the adherents lose objectivity in favor of viciousness and raw anger.

Even atheism itself becomes a religion - after all, one's personal conclusions concerning belief are tentative at best, and that internal instability is almost always a source of discomfort. Having others come along, presenting arguments that make things even more unstable? Well, it more easily leads to a casting-aside of logic and more towards raw emotion. Even when the adherent is claiming to use logic (either by parroting talking points, or by presenting original arguments based on bad assumptions --or worse, bad or disproven facts-- ), it is often readily apparent that emotion is in charge.

I mean, look at this thread for instance... perjoratives like "Jesus Nuts" and "Sinners" get thrown around as the salt-and-pepper of many posts in this thread. Personally, if you (the generic "you", no particular person) have to use such terms, then your argument and its logic are likely too weak to stand on its own - even to your estimation, since you felt compelled enough to use them in the first place.

I haven't seen the inside of a church for longer than some folks reading this thread have been alive. That said, I do have to give props to (albeit sometimes overzealous) religious types in this thread. Why? At least they admit to relying on religion as a basis for their opinion - foibles, faulty logic, bad assumptions, blind faith, the whole ball of wax. OTOH, others in here claim to be 'above' that, yet the hallmarks of their prose suggest strongly that they are just as zealous, just as frail, just as dismissive, just as unsure of what its really all about... and just as human. They just refuse to admit otherwise.

Once we all admit that we're dealing with a lot of philosophical issues for which there is no scientific or factual analogue to be found, then the rest is just tentative postulation.

Personally, if two (or more) people want to set up house somewhere, cool - just know that you get the bad along with the good, and states with common-law marriage laws are going to be fun to live in... even if you and your partner never get married officially, or were just roommates.

You now get the grand booby-prize of risk: divorce proceedings, higher tax rates (depending on how you file), tax suckiness in general (ever have to file injured spouse paperwork w/ the IRS to keep from getting your tax return garnished?), custody cases (doesn't matter if you had the kid before you and your partner hitched up - the partner now has rights), property ownership, debt and collections, you name it... just like the straight couples have to deal with. You wanted reality? You got it.

So, err, before you pack your bags for Cali, you may want to stop and think about this. George Takei (no, not "Sulu" - the man does have a real name, folks) and his partner were together for roughly eternity IIRC, so they probably already knew what they were getting into - they just made it official. You and your partner may not - you think you do, but honestly, you probably don't. Just like the straight folks.

Quote -
So to anyone that quotes this story of S&G -- if you honestly believe these were the actions of a loving, merciful diety... well, y'know, there's a few issues there you might want to work on.

Good post. Most scholars IIRC figure the sins of S&G to be more along the lines of disobedience, hostile treatment of guests (Lot offered his daughters because, as any good Mideast house host with guests in your home, you always protect your guests at all costs) and a badly unorganized list of priorities (which means He wasn't at the top of the list).

As for mercy? God was actually haggled down from his original intent of just wiping out the city, to sparing it if there were five good and honest men in the joint. Throughout the Old Testament, God is often self-described as jealous, vengeful, and judging by some descriptions, pretty over-the-top when it comes to revene for injustices. But then, when you run the Universe and your subjects are semi-civilized humans who do far worse to each other on a near-daily basis... let's just call it Getting One's Undivided Attention.

Not until a far more advanced (relatively) stage of civilization do we see the radical concepts as put forth by one Yeshua of Galilee: Love, Forgiveness, Tolerance, Kindness...

>> You now get the grand booby-prize of risk: divorce proceedings, higher tax rates (depending on how you file), tax suckiness in general (ever have to file injured spouse paperwork w/ the IRS to keep from getting your tax return garnished?), custody cases (doesn't matter if you had the kid before you and your partner hitched up - the partner now has rights), property ownership, debt and collections, you name it... just like the straight couples have to deal with. You wanted reality? You got it.

When Steve was taken to the hospital in the final days of his bout with AIDS in 1984, I was forbidden to be in the hospital room because I wasnt "immediate family". We'd been together for almost a decade, and his family, who had ignored him not only throughout his illness but for a good 15 years prior to that, were able to skip right through and set up camp. Because they were "blood" and I wasnt, I was tossed out and they got to move in, for the sole purpose, I might add, of punishing him and me and all our friends who had been with us as he dealt with this disease.

Yeah, I'll take reality. And know what? Because I've seen the horror stories that are many of the straight couples around me, I know exactly what I would be getting into. But because I have to work that much freaking harder to get it, I'd also be a damn sight more appreciative.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Well-put, Penguinisto. I have to agree with every word you've said.

Secular marriage is a legal contract. Nothing more, nothing less. It grants rights and imposes duties on both partners, and it often grants (depending on state/country laws) some financial or social privileges to the partners. Including the right - as Penguinisto describes - to the miseries of divorce.

Where I live, there's a clause in the constitution that forbids discrimination based on gender, age, religious/spiritual beliefs or sexual preference. Same-sex secular marriages should be allowed based on this clause of the constitution. And yes, same-sex marriage is legal and grants the same rights and imposes the same duties as "regular" marriage in the Netherlands.

Church marriage (I mean "church" in the broadest sense, including every possible spiritual or religious groups) is different. It would not be a good idea to impose same-sex church marriage on these religious groups - in my opinion, freedom of religion is a more important right.

The right to same-sex marriage has lead to another interesting pickle here in the Netherlands. A secular marriage is conducted (don't know how to describe it better) by designated local government officials. It's in their job description.
Now what about those officials who object to same-sex marriage, based on their personal convictions? Should they be forced to conduct those marriages - infringing on their right to spiritual/religious freedom, or should they be exempted from that duty - possibly infringing on the right of the partners to get married? A fine pickle indeed, and cause for some heated debate in the highest government circles.
In my opinion, anyone who applies for the job of marriage official now cannot have the right to turn down same-sex couples - marrying same-sex couples is in the job description, so you'll have to do it. But those who already held this job when same-sex marriage was legalized should be exempted IMO - it was not in the job description when they applied for it. Probably too simplistic a view, and in need of refinement, but I thnk that should be the basis.

I expect that the states that have legalized same-sex marriages will run into exactly this problem, and I'm curious as to how California and other states are going to resolve it. The Dutch government hasn't figured it out yet, and same-sex marriage was legalized a couple of years ago....

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

>> Now what about those officials who object to same-sex marriage, based on their personal convictions? Should they be forced to conduct those marriages - infringing on their right to spiritual/religious freedom, or should they be exempted from that duty - possibly infringing on the right of the partners to get married? A fine pickle indeed, and cause for some heated debate in the highest government circles.

IMHO, it's not a pickle at all. Faith is a matter between the individual and God, no one else. Just as I do not have the right to impose my personal beliefs on you, neither do you have that right. If one believes in s/s marriage, the religious consequences of that are between him and God, period, end of story. If one doesnt, again, it's between him and God and no one else. But even as Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", so a public official has the obligation to do his job. If he feels it infringes on his freedom to worship as he chooses, he should look for some other line of work.

Again, IMHO, the folks who are making this a pickle are the ones who vocally and demonstratively think their beliefs are the Way and the Truth and the Light. Jesus had something to say about such folks: He didnt think much of them at all.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

This site is about ART and this forum is about Poser. It doesn't matter whether you're religious, an atheist, agnostic, gay, straight, smoke, don't smoke, and so on, and so on, and so on. Bringing up divisive issues has no purpose but to inflame others. We all have a different perspective about how we view the world, BUT we all share a common goal and that is producing art. That is what we are about and that is what is important.

True enough, but if you find these threads an issue, may I respectfully suggest you avoid anything marked OT?

Just a suggestion, made only because yes, I am a Poser user, but I'm also a cat owner, a former seminarian, a bowler with a 180 average, someone fond of Chinese and Indian food, someone who prefers jazz over hip-hop, someone who reads until 1AM even when he has to get up at 5AM to go to work. someone who has lived in five countries in different parts of the world, someone who is a social liberal and an economic conservative -- and all of these influence not only my view of the world as a whole but my artwork, such as it is, as well. These are the things that make us who we are, whether united or divided.

Amd sorry, but I see little reason not to discuss those things that make us different if it's going to lead to a better understanding between us. If things get out of control... well, this is why we have folks like JenX around, isnt it?

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote - >> You now get the grand booby-prize of risk: divorce proceedings, higher tax rates (depending on how you file), tax suckiness in general (ever have to file injured spouse paperwork w/ the IRS to keep from getting your tax return garnished?), custody cases (doesn't matter if you had the kid before you and your partner hitched up - the partner now has rights), property ownership, debt and collections, you name it... just like the straight couples have to deal with. You wanted reality? You got it.

When Steve was taken to the hospital in the final days of his bout with AIDS in 1984, I was forbidden to be in the hospital room because I wasnt "immediate family". We'd been together for almost a decade, and his family, who had ignored him not only throughout his illness but for a good 15 years prior to that, were able to skip right through and set up camp. Because they were "blood" and I wasnt, I was tossed out and they got to move in, for the sole purpose, I might add, of punishing him and me and all our friends who had been with us as he dealt with this disease.

Note that I never said there weren't benefits. But, lost in all the hoopla is the (merely partial) grand list of pitfalls, which is the point of the paragraph. Well over 50% (or more... prolly way more) of marriages today end in divorce before 10 years have passed. My first one lasted seven, almost eight. It involved a whole lot more than merely getting my stuff out of the house I once paid the mortgage on, loading it into a rented truck, and shouting loud and vile curses out the driver's-side window as I drove away. Oh, no - you get months and months of paperwork, court appearances, meetings with lawyers, phone calls from both the ex and her family, and spending money... very large wads of money.

Quote - Yeah, I'll take reality. And know what? Because I've seen the horror stories that are many of the straight couples around me, I know exactly what I would be getting into. But because I have to work that much freaking harder to get it, I'd also be a damn sight more appreciative.

You would - now would the other massive percentage of folks out there be appreciative - not only of the benefits, but of the risks? Note that this is not endemic to any one group or category of humanity...

>> You would - now would the other massive percentage of folks out there be appreciative - not only of the benefits, but of the risks? Note that this is not endemic to any one group or category of humanity...

There is nothing more fanatical than a convert, Tom. And yeah, I like to think that because we've had to work so hard for it, we know what we're getting, both bad and good. Sure, someday, when it's treated as casually as "Hey, let's drive to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator!:, then yeah, we'll have just as many problems as everyone else. But right now? The grand majority? I'm going out on a limb and saying that we'd be much more willing to accept the bad with the good. We can see the bad all around us, any time we want. That probably explains why a lot of gays and lesbians arent in favour of marriage. But those who do? Whole other story.

BTW: first time marriages -- 62% fail rate. Second ones -- 30%. I'm sure gay marriages will follow that stat at some point in time.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

*quote: 'BTW: first time marriages -- 62% fail rate. Second ones -- 30%.'

I wonder how much these stats contribute to the general (secular) antipathy to same sex marriages, i.e., feelings that the institution of marriage is already under assault?

People with certain spiritual beliefs may oppose S/S marriage on moral grounds but I'm sensing a secular backlash arising from the sense that maybe a wheel is falling off the social wagon in regards to matters like these.

'Don't ask don't tell' is one thing but S/S marriage grants a social legitamacy to the gay/lesbian lifestyle that I don't think many hetero's are comfortable with.

*quote:'When Steve was taken to the hospital in the final days of his bout with AIDS in 1984, I was forbidden to be in the hospital room because I wasnt "immediate family".'

That's one of the most compelling reasons for supporting S/S marriage that I've ever heard :(

Rick

>> I wonder how much these stats contribute to the general (secular) antipathy to same sex marriages, i.e., feelings that the institution of marriage is already under assault?

If it's under assault, it's from within, not without. Gays and lesbians arent the problem with the failure rate of heterosexual marriages. We're simply a convenient scapegoat for folks who dont want to deal with their own failings and need to find someone else to blame so they can be "victims" and shove their own faults onto anyone else they can. Not saying we're blameless when it comes to such a tactic, but when it comes to a 62% divorce rate, sorry, I doubt we have anywhere near that much sway. If we did, gay marriage would have been a fait accompli a long time ago. :)

>> 'Don't ask don't tell' is one thing but S/S marriage grants a social legitamacy to the gay/lesbian lifestyle that I don't think many hetero's are comfortable with.

Sorry, no sympathy there. Our history has been littered with someone's need to feel superior to someone else, which is why this nation of freedom and liberty took almost two centuries to fully recognize blacks as participating citizens and one hundred and fifty years to grant women the right to live as something more than property exchanged in the legal rites of marriage. We have also systematically jerked around the Natives, the Irish, the Jews, the Japanese-Americans, and -- well, no surprise here -- the gays... all in our searching need to be superior.

So pardon me if I'm not interested in knowing what other people's "comfort level" might be. That's irrelevant, just as I doubt they lose sleep at night worrying what I might think of them.

>> That's one of the most compelling reasons for supporting S/S marriage that I've ever heard

And it's a pity that the reason even has to exist in the first place. But I appreciate your kind thoughts. It's been over two decades, and I still miss him, a lot. Were he still alive, I'm sure by now we'd be on our way to California, even at our somewhat advanced ages. At least, I can console myself with the thought. :)

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

*quote: 'So pardon me if I'm not interested in knowing what other people's "comfort level" might be. That's irrelevant, just as I doubt they lose sleep at night worrying what I might think of them.'

Oh I understand completely and I didn't mean to imply that it should be your personal concern. I think these things are part of this issue though and they have to be considered. It's fairly easy to disregard all the bible scripture being slung around because if you are not a member of any particular faith you are certainly not bound by their moral strictures. But 'acceptance' and 'comfort levels' are the 800 pound gorillas in the 'secular' room even if it's become politically incorrect to mention it - and these are the things that will determine people's decisions when they are facing a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage in the voting booth.

I am very sorry for your loss.

Rick

Quote - Throughout the Old Testament, God is often self-described as jealous, vengeful, and judging by some descriptions, pretty over-the-top when it comes to revene for injustices. But then, when you run the Universe and your subjects are semi-civilized humans who do far worse to each other on a near-daily basis... let's just call it Getting One's Undivided Attention.

Not until a far more advanced (relatively) stage of civilization do we see the radical concepts as put forth by one Yeshua of Galilee: Love, Forgiveness, Tolerance, Kindness...

/P

Oh come now... you actually call this a REASON why God is how He is? Because of who WE were He acted like this? And we reached a FAR more civilized tone so he behaved better? This is the first time I've heard anything like this and it sounds like you're reaching and trying to reconcile the differences. We did not advance THAT much. We did not change THAT much. The two Gods in the Bible are RADICALLY different from each other and the reason you propose is insufficient.

Answer me this. If He is all-knowing and all-seeing, how come he did not know EVERYTHING that was going to happen LONG before it ever happened? And KNOWING all of these things... HOW could He get angry?

**Let me put it another way... a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET... she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? Apparently God did the same thing when He created us. Of course we all have "free will," but then He IS God and knows what will happen nonetheless. Interesting, huh?
**

The devoutly religious really do not ask the hard questions and the vast majority of the time resort to "We don't understand Gods' Plan." Uhh... yeah. We're supposed to understand everything else and BELIEVE in Him with nothing but a collection of misrepresented letters as proof.

As has already been pointed out here, it is obvious that most religious consistenly misinterpret the stories in the Bible and sway them to mean what they want them to mean. This is why we have so many sects of Christianity since none of them agrees with each other. It's just very sad when they try to change laws based on their religious beliefs BASING them on false interpretations.

Not forgetting that over 1 Billion Catholics put their faith in God!

Visionaries and Saints have seen into the other world, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. and relayed messages for mankind and confirmed much of what the bible states. They were also subject to all kinds of Scientific and Medical examinations, many of which couldn't be explained!

Near Death experiences have been recorded, even by those who didn't believe in any God, and changed their life afterwards!

>> Oh come now... you actually call this a REASON why God is how He is? Because of who WE were He acted like this?

I dont think that was Tom's point, actually. If anything, what he's saying is that our particular vision of God is coloured by how we act, not the other way around. During the early, more primitive days of the times described in the OT, God was seen as a reflection of ourselves -- easy to ire, vengeance-driven -- because that's who we needed Him to be, not the other way around.

But thats not new, when you think about it. We rarely allow God to manifest Himself as He is, just who we need Him to be to justify our own miserably human actions. And face i: we've done some pretty awful stuff to each other in His name. Need to justify slavery? The Bible can do it for you. Need to make sure women are kept in their place? The Book is replete with scripture that will support that. Want to make sure those gays are kept where you want them? Well, hey, three verses are all you need to tell to one and all that the Truth says we're an abomination in His eyes.

Whether or not we actually are is another question, bound by one's personal sense of faith and no more. But lots of folks cant allow that, you see, because religion (not faith) requires order and a sense of hierarchy: spiritual "leadership" built on as many bureaucratic levels as the federal governmen, with plenty of people to tell you what you should believe, that this or that is what God says. Never mind that it might not make sense; it's still "Truth". Because "we" say God says so, and that should be good enough for you, so shut up and send us the donation today.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote - The suggestion has been made that the "sin of Sodom" (which, please note, isnt specifically described in the BIble)

Actually the sin of Sodom is VERY EXPLICITELY described in the bible and it has nothing to do with Homosexuality!

**Passage Ezekiel 16:49:
** 49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

So Sodom was overweight, stuck on herself and lazy, never helped others and was a poor parent? I can see the last 4 as being sins way more than I can see falling in love being a sin, but what do I know? My church encourages us to love everyone regardless of orientation, race, breed or sex. We even have trans-gender support groups! I do not understand people who walk around with hate in their hearts, yet preach the word of God. Other people's actions do not affect me personally, so what does it matter? If you give love out, it will always come back to you in one form or the other I think.

-Sarah

Quote - So Sodom was overweight, stuck on herself and lazy, never helped others and was a poor parent? I can see the last 4 as being sins way more than I can see falling in love being a sin, but what do I know? My church encourages us to love everyone regardless of orientation, race, breed or sex. We even have trans-gender support groups! I do not understand people who walk around with hate in their hearts, yet preach the word of God. Other people's actions do not affect me personally, so what does it matter? If you give love out, it will always come back to you in one form or the other I think.

-Sarah

Unfortunately most people claiming Christ as the basis of their religion are basing that belief off what their pastors tell them and not on what the bible actually says. So much for enlightened thinking.

Definitely making a note of that. Thanks, Lost.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Attached Link: Golden Rule

**Been reading and not joining, but if you want to quote scriptures, I have one I live by. And it has served me well my whole life.

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
*John 13:34

*There's also the Golden Rule which is another excellent one to live by and pretty much every religion has a version of it. I won't quote them all since there are many, many different religions, but I will provide a link to that you can read it for yourself. Point being, if we all truly lived by these two commandments alone, the world would be such a better place.

And last but not least, a card given to me by my late sister that I carry in my wallet.

**Card carrying member of the Human Race. As such I am entitled to live my life as I see fit as long I do no harm to anyone."

*Such a shame that not everyone can remember these 3 things.

*Note...there's lots of ads on that site. But some interesting articles on all types of subjects.

Just like at my husbands job, there is a Gay Pride day there, and this is a government office, yet if he puts anything up that has the work God or Christ on it, they take it down immediately. I don't run around demanding that I be accepted as a Christian, I just am a Christian. So please lighten up on the gay stuff, getting tired of hearing about it.

Quote - > Quote - Throughout the Old Testament, God is often self-described as jealous, vengeful, and judging by some descriptions, pretty over-the-top when it comes to revene for injustices. But then, when you run the Universe and your subjects are semi-civilized humans who do far worse to each other on a near-daily basis... let's just call it Getting One's Undivided Attention.

Not until a far more advanced (relatively) stage of civilization do we see the radical concepts as put forth by one Yeshua of Galilee: Love, Forgiveness, Tolerance, Kindness...

/P

Oh come now... you actually call this a REASON why God is how He is?

I honestly don't (and literally cannot) claim any of it to be a "reason" - just that it lends insight towards finding one.

Quote - Answer me this. If He is all-knowing and all-seeing, how come he did not know EVERYTHING that was going to happen LONG before it ever happened? And KNOWING all of these things... HOW could He get angry?

Dunno - and if I ever find out, I'd likely to have gained omniscience, in which case I think I'd be too busy putting such a gift to my advantage, instead of discussing how to gain it. ;)

Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET... she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

Quote - The devoutly religious really do not ask the hard questions and the vast majority of the time resort to "We don't understand Gods' Plan." Uhh... yeah.

Do you fully understand String Theory, enough to repeatably and reliably prove the concept in a laboratory?

You don't?

Well, I guess String Theory is false then, and the scientists working on it are fools. Best get on with ignoring it and finding something else.

(...and before you say it, note that even the biggest proponents of this physics theory don't fully grasp the thing, and will readily admit as much).

You also make a lot of bad overly-generalistic assumptions - that the "devoutly religious do not ask the hard questions". How on Earth would you know that? ...all of them? What questions would you consider "hard" enough, given that outside of geologic scales of measurement, "hard" is a subjective term?

Quote - As has already been pointed out here, it is obvious that most religious consistenly misinterpret the stories in the Bible and sway them to mean what they want them to mean.

Call it a side-effect of struggling to make sense of a document that has been through a whole lot of mishandling over the millennia. Also, you too easily lump in benign individual (and group) struggles for insight, vs. malicious intent and propaganda.

It also happens that misinterpretation (either through mistake or by malicious design) occurs with alarming frequency in secular documents as well - see also the series of UN/IPCC reports.

So no, misinterpretation is not a religious thing - it's a human thing. Which is part of what I was trying to say all this time.

IOW, I'm really sorry, but atheism does not make one superior, nor does it grant you anything special. You're still as human and frail as the rest of us, and just as statistically prone to our foibles and failings of intellect and wisdom... and just as prone to speaking it as if it were (s'cuse the pun) Gospel. ;)

Quote - >> Oh come now... you actually call this a REASON why God is how He is? Because of who WE were He acted like this?

I dont think that was Tom's point, actually. If anything, what he's saying is that our particular vision of God is coloured by how we act, not the other way around. During the early, more primitive days of the times described in the OT, God was seen as a reflection of ourselves -- easy to ire, vengeance-driven -- because that's who we needed Him to be, not the other way around.

Pretty close :)

I was thinking along the lines of how early man, while sentient, was pretty unsophisticated, and assuming that the Old Testament is an attempt at a historical record (not all religious folks believe it to be any such thing)? Well, if you're an omniscient being, and you have to get, say, a Babylonian's attention, you do it rough and hard, and in unequivocal terms. Subtlety was not exactly a dominant trait in many early societies (Hell, literacy wasn't even a dominant trait). Now, getting the attention of someone who did more during their childhood than simply get beaten, fend off wild animals, and work their asses off just to stay alive? Well, it's easier to get the more complex ideas across.

Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET... she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all. If God is truly omniscient, it makes no difference whether it is inanimate bread dough or free-willed humans - he SHOULD know everything BEFORE it happens. That was the point and that premise makes it quite clearly.

Quote - > Quote - The devoutly religious really do not ask the hard questions and the vast majority of the time resort to "We don't understand Gods' Plan." Uhh... yeah.

Do you fully understand String Theory, enough to repeatably and reliably prove the concept in a laboratory?

You don't?

Well, I guess String Theory is false then, and the scientists working on it are fools. Best get on with ignoring it and finding something else.

(...and before you say it, note that even the biggest proponents of this physics theory don't fully grasp the thing, and will readily admit as much).

We're not talking String theory here. We're talking about religious people asking the hard questions about their God and their faith. You can't equate the science of String theory with faith. One will or will not be proven by science - the other cannot and is based solely on faith.

Quote - You also make a lot of bad overly-generalistic assumptions - that the "devoutly religious do not ask the hard questions". How on Earth would you know that? ...all of them? What questions would you consider "hard" enough, given that outside of geologic scales of measurement, "hard" is a subjective term?

The "hard questions" deal with all of the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible as well as the changes made conciously and unconciously in the Bible. Most Christians have NO IDEA that the Bible they are reading is inacurrate and many of those believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We know this to be false, yet how many Christians do you know actually KNOW this? And... if they DO know it, how many choose to ignore it? How many do YOU know who actually delve into it at length. As someone has already pointed out here, people generally believe what their religious leaders tell them - NOT on what they read and/or research.

Quote - It also happens that misinterpretation (either through mistake or by malicious design) occurs with alarming frequency in secular documents as well - see also the series of UN/IPCC reports.

So no, misinterpretation is not a religious thing - it's a human thing. Which is part of what I was trying to say all this time.

I won't argue with that because you're right. However... the point here WAS that the religious have twisted the words in the Bible to allow them to campaign against same-sex marriage. Feel free to start another thread concerning secular misrepresentations and I'll join in there - most likely agreeing with you as well.

Quote - IOW, I'm really sorry, but atheism does not make one superior, nor does it grant you anything special. You're still as human and frail as the rest of us, and just as statistically prone to our foibles and failings of intellect and wisdom... and just as prone to speaking it as if it were (s'cuse the pun) Gospel. ;)

/P

Uhmmm... you must be talking about someone else here. I never said I was an athiest and I never said that being an athiest makes one superior. I consider myself an agnostic because I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW if there is or is not a God. No one KNOWS for certain based on any facts. They know for "certain" based only on faith. I have no problems with ANYONE from ANY religion - as long as they do not try to legislate based on their faith. No one should be forced to abide by somone elses faith. And THAT is the sole reason for my being in this thread. As long as the rights of others are not infringed upon - yours, mine or anyone elses - then I see no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. But when they cross that line - such as here with same-sex marriage - that's when I get irritated and step up to the podium. I am not gay nor do I find the prosepct of two men marrying particularly great, but then WHO AM I TO JUDGE? If they are two consenting adults, then they should be allowed to do as they wish. Who is anyone else to judge them that they should NOT be allowed to marry?

And I now step off the soapbox..... :)

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET... she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all.

Actually, it does - there has been a metric ton (or so) of philosophical discussions concerning the tension between being creatures of God but at the same time having the free will to act contrary to His wishes. Your analogy is bad because someone making bread w/o yeast already knows in advance that the bread won't rise (or baking powder, which throws a curve ball into things, no?

A better analogy would that of a parent who warns the kid not to get a cookie from the kitchen, knows full well the kid will get one anyway, and when it happens, the parent scolds the kid with both barrels. Is the parent supposed to be nice about it?

But we can spend the next couple of centuries quibbling over such minutae. May as well start comparing angles and heads of pins for all the good it'd do. ;)

Quote - The "hard questions" deal with all of the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible as well as the changes made conciously and unconciously in the Bible. Most Christians have NO IDEA that the Bible they are reading is inacurrate and many of those believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We know this to be false, yet how many Christians do you know actually KNOW this?

You just answered your own questions. If someone doesn't know about the existence of inconsistencies, how do you expect that person to question them? Who is this "we" you refer to? Is there a universally agreed-upon and unassailable list of inconsistencies and errors that we can all point to and say "here, study that"?

It's rather strange to sit and belittle someone for something they're not even supposed to know about, let alone compare to an uncontroversial, universal set of standardized errata?

Quote - And... if they DO know it, how many choose to ignore it? How many do YOU know who actually delve into it at length.

As for the former, it would depend on how much evidence there is to support the error/inconsistency's existence, and what the proposed correction would be (and how that change would jibe with everything else in the context in which the change sits). It's not as easy to say "there - it's an error! now reconcile your beliefs to it!" when you see what's actually involved in such an endeavor - especially considering the disciplines of etymology, archaeology, language, and theology.

As for the latter, I'd lost count long ago, but I hang out with strange people. :)

Quote - However... the point here WAS that the religious have twisted the words in the Bible to allow them to campaign against same-sex marriage..

Name the issue, and both sides of it will have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

Quote - Uhmmm... you must be talking about someone else here. I never said I was an athiest and I never said that being an athiest makes one superior.

In that case please accept my apology to inferring such.

Quote - Near Death experiences have been recorded, even by those who didn't believe in any God, and changed their life afterwards!

I believe it is The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying that describes what you see after you die... tunnel, light at the end, feelings of comfort.... all the same things Christian's say they see, but a completely different explanation of what it is.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

*quote:I consider myself an agnostic because I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW if there is or is not a God. No one KNOWS for certain based on any facts. They know for "certain" based only on faith. I have no problems with ANYONE from ANY religion - as long as they do not try to legislate based on their faith. No one should be forced to abide by somone elses faith.

I agree wholeheartedly with that and especially with the part I emphasized. There are many moral issues that any society has to deal with whether that would be same sex marriage or abortion, etc. If persons wish to weigh in on these issues based on their religeous beliefs that is their perogative. But to quote scriptures in defense of their opinions and expect that everyone else is supposed to accept them as ultimate arguments directly validated by God is wrong.

I know there a lot of Christians here at Renderosity and I mean no disrespect to your chosen beliefs. But I would suggest that if a Muslim member (or Buddhist, Hindu, Jew etc.) was quoting verse from their own respective spiritual doctrines in support of any social opinion you wouldn't be willing to except those opinions as having any ultimate validity either.

Rick

Quote - Just like at my husbands job, there is a Gay Pride day there, and this is a government office, yet if he puts anything up that has the work God or Christ on it, they take it down immediately. I don't run around demanding that I be accepted as a Christian, I just am a Christian. So please lighten up on the gay stuff, getting tired of hearing about it.

Not as tired as we are of people telling us our lives don't count and we have no rights. If you're tired of hearing about it, why are you in this thread?

Quote -
I know there a lot of Christians here at Renderosity and I mean no disrespect to your chosen beliefs. But I would suggest that if a Muslim member (or Buddhist, Hindu, Jew etc.) was quoting verse from their own respective spiritual doctrines in support of any social opinion you wouldn't be willing to except those opinions as having any ultimate validity either.

Dunno why not. I've read the Q'uran, and believe it or not, there's a lot of wisdom to be found in there, esp. in the context of the culture and region which it had originated in. Same with Confucianism, Buddhism, Hindu beliefs, you-name-it.

The diff though, is that on matters of belief, an intelligent response is to contain such arguments within just that - belief. Quoting scripture is certainly not empirical evidence at all, but merely a statement of conviction based on... belief. Unprovable, unscientific, personal belief.

But then, objectivity on subjective issues is a bit hard to come by. :)

As far as ancient texts of any kind? They tend to carry a bit of weight with me if there is a general agreement among them on a philosophical subject - mostly because these beliefs and scriptures are based on some pretty common means and methods of how to get by in a human society, forged in a time when things were pretty basic and uncomplicated. Obviously I'm not talking about isolated crap like human sacrifice, but instead more common-sense items like how to get along with one's neighbors, kindness and compassion, loyalty to one's parents, keeping out of situations that could get you into trouble (and back then, killed)...

But then, it's just my opinion - not necessarily yours or anyone else's. If they agree, cool. If they don't, cool.

That said, in spite of my own beliefs on the issue (obvious apathy these days, but hey - I don't expect y'all to get passionate about net neutrality, so don't expect me to get all anxious to support gay marriage)... I do have a few devil's advocate questions to pose. Note that this is not a troll, but I would like to see honest answers to the following:

This issue is often framed as a demand for equal rights. That said, can someone show me where a gay man is denied the right to marry any woman he chooses, or a lesbian woman vice-versa?

Okay, obviously there's an argument that any person should have the right to marry anyone else they choose, correct? Fair enough. So what about polygamy? As long as all parties are of age and do so consentually (ruling out the FLDS crap), why can that not be legal by the same concept?

The age of marital consent is (in some states) as young as 14 (Utah, if both parties are minors and all parents agree, otherwise it's 16. I had a pair of students who really wanted to marry each other, asked me about it before they asked their parents, so I looked it up). So how does this figure into the equation?

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?

>> Name the issue, and both sides of it will have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

There are 637 laws in Leviticus, having to do with everything from the acceptable length of one's hair to what fabrics one should wear to what to do to adulterers when they're caught in flagrente... not to mention the old standbys about not eating shellfish and being gay. Oh, and a few things about how to beat your slaves, if you're interested. That one is a doozy, BTW. If you beat him and he's still alive after three days, that's okay with God (check it out; it's in there, somewhere around chapter 12, IIRC -- it's been a while since seminary, but I think that's right).

Now, we could discuss context for all of them, why they would seem reasonable and right back then and ludicrous and absurd now. For example, in Leviticus it says that if a man dies, his wife must immediately marry his brother.. even if said brother is already married (Hey, what's a little polygamy when it's done in the name of the Lord?). We laugh at that now, but back then in OT times, it was a necessity to keep the family name and lineage alive. (Curiously, if a woman dies, nothing's said about that particular legal situation.) The stuff about shellfish? No doubt because so many had died from eating poorly stored shellfish. Being gay? Because the Hebrews needed a growing population, and homosexuals werent doing their part, as it were.

So context is easy, Tom. What's tougher and harder to let go of is that the context no longer applies. We now know how to store shellfish. We're not so concerned about continuing family names. And we really dont need a growing population, but somehow, out of all 637 Levitical laws, we cling to that one with a tenacity that would strike envy in a dog worrying a towel. Just. That. One.

And why? Because some guy named Paul, who had an identity crisis while on the road, decides he needs to reinforce it in his letter to the Romans. Of course, also in that letter he has some highly interesting things to say about the place of women in the church -- all of which most denominations cheerfully and willfully ignore, because they understand that Paul was of a different time and a different culture. But that doesnt stop them from saying, at the same time, "Look! See? Paul says God says being gay is a sin!"

So. Two verses out of the entire Bible, which speaks more about dietary regulations and haircuts than it does about homosexuality -- but those two verses are the only things the ever devout Christians will cling to in their desperation to keep us underfoot. And the more we point out the context in which those verses arise, the more they doggedly ignore us, then turn around and use those verses as justification for all manner of atrocities, from the legal nonsense we're seeing in California to those fun times during the Inquisition, where gay men, bound together, were used as kindling for the bonfires meant for burning witches -- hence, the charming epithet "faggot".

So there's your context, Tom. It aint pretty, and it ably demonstrates how the RR, like all the arch-conservative religious movements before it, have manipulated and used the Bible to lay claim to a type of most peculiar Christianity, one that is, more often than not, in direct antithesis to what Jesus Himself had to say about such things.

But hey, why let God's Son get in the way when you have the Truth? Or, at least, what you perceive to be the Truth.

And folks wonder why I left the Franciscan Order after two years.

So, as I wrote before, sorry, but no sympathy for those who are all concerned about the social impact of gay marriage. These are the same people who used the Bible to justify slavery and to forbid inter-racial marriage and even to deny women the simple democratic act of casting a vote. And since all those other things have now passed from acceptable society, now they feel it necessary to take care of those uppity gays by quoting scripture that -- in context -- is utterly irrelevant... just as the RR is now.

Now, with all due respect towards good Christians like Marque, sorry but no sympathy there either. No discussion of gay and lesbians is ever complete, it seems, without a handful of self-righteous "christians" telling us to just shut the f*ck up. I thank God that most honest, real Christians arent like them, but it;s sorta like the media at a Gay Pride Parade: they love those drag queens and ignore the accountants.

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?*

I see nothing problematic in any of the situations you describe. If a man wants three wives and four husbands, what difference is it to you? What does what you think even matter? Are you partipating in this marriage? I gather not, so, to be blunt, it's none of your business, is it. If a particular state says the legal age for marriage is 14, seems to me that's a law that's been on the books for quite some time. Yes, when it was written, it had a meaningful context -- maybe not so much now, but no one's gotten around to rewriting it, which suggests the State's just fine and dandy with it. So again, what business is it of yours? Should you decide to marry your girlfriend under these circumstances, would that mean you find your own marriage less valued? Well, frankly, that's your problem, no one else's.

So to answer your question, the slope levels out when folks realize that they should not and do not control the lives and relationships of others. Just as I wouldnt dream of telling you you shouldnt marry your girlfriend, so do you not have the right to tell me I cant hitch up with Mister Right.

Or, to put it another way, I promise I wont dance uninvited at your wedding if you promise not to uninvited picket mine.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote - > Quote - a mother is preparing to bake bread. She gets all of the ingredients together - except the yeast. She puts the bread in the oven and when the timer goes off and she pulls it out of the oven she finds it has not risen. AND THEN SHE GETS MAD. Now of course she KNEW it would not rise because she intentionally left out the yeast - and YET... she still got mad. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

Quote - Bad premise - bread dough doesn't have any concept of free will.

Quote - It is a GOOD premise. The "free will" aspect has nothing to do with it at all.

Actually, it does - there has been a metric ton (or so) of philosophical discussions concerning the tension between being creatures of God but at the same time having the free will to act contrary to His wishes. Your analogy is bad because someone making bread w/o yeast already knows in advance that the bread won't rise (or baking powder, which throws a curve ball into things, no?

A better analogy would that of a parent who warns the kid not to get a cookie from the kitchen, knows full well the kid will get one anyway, and when it happens, the parent scolds the kid with both barrels. Is the parent supposed to be nice about it?

Then you don't quite understand what omnisicent means. It does not matter if we have free will or not - IF GOD IS TRULY OMNISCIENT... He will know what will happen whether we have free will or not. You seem not willing to accept that omniscient means All Knowing and All Seeing . The premise I presented is quite sound and I stated again (after initially stating it) that it did not matter whether or not free will is involved.

It does not matter if a person who has free will changes his mind today and rides the train and then goes into a store and steals $20. An Omniscient god would know this REGARDLESS of free will since he is an omnisicent God.

If you are saying that free will changes the equation, then you are admitting that God is not omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

And it doesn't matter what He wants. If humans "thwart his will" are you saying that he won't know the outcome? If so, he is not omniscient. If you are saying that he does know the outcome, then there is my point. Again, can't have it both ways.

And while we're on the subject of God...

What kind of God would require that you believe in Him and worship Him? I would say a pretty vain and arrogant god. Consider if YOU had the power to create living creatures from nothing. being a good person, would YOU want your creations to worship you and tell them that they MUST believe in you and if they don't they will be cast into a ppit of hellfire?

I wouldn't. A small thank you would be sufficient and I would wish them well. I would hope that they would ultimately amount to something and let them exercise their free will. On the other hand... were I omniscient and knew how my experiement would end..... I might change the ingredients. Like baking a loaf of bread.... :)

I cannot see any way that gay marriage is going to harm me, so hurrah for california.

As for religion, there are many gods and many religions and I'm sure they all believe theirs is the one true way. I cannot prove who is right and who is wrong, so I say they are all right, believe as you will, or not at all, in the USA that is supposed to be garuanteed.

Live and let live, other peoples lives are not yours to control. If you feel you must teach someone the error of their ways then teach by example, legislating people into a mold of your concept of the ideal (religious or otherwise) doesn't work they will only rebel. One example, Martin Luther and his followers were at one time under sentence of death because they believed differently and look what happened.

A HOMELAND FOR POSER FINALLY

Quote -
This issue is often framed as a demand for equal rights. That said, can someone show me where a gay man is denied the right to marry any woman he chooses, or a lesbian woman vice-versa?

I know a gay man who married a lesbian.
they did it to get her son covered by medical insurance (he had good benefits from his job).

Legal? yes, as far as i know.
Was it "right", "moral"? was it what was intended?

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

*quote: 'Dunno why not. I've read the Q'uran, and believe it or not, there's a lot of wisdom to be found in there, esp. in the context of the culture and region which it had originated in. Same with Confucianism, Buddhism, Hindu beliefs, you-name-it.

Oh no doubt of that and most any system of secular ethics is certainly derived from or at least, strongly influenced by these belief systems for that very reason. The difference though between faith-based morals and reasoned ethics is that the former is considered 'incontestable' because its validity is rooted in the ultimate word of God while the latter can be more flexible and responsive to changed social conditions.

I guess I just don't like the idea of people dialing up their bibles like a rolodex to determine what their opinion should be on current social issues :)

Rick

Quote - >> Name the issue, and both sides of it will have agents who will twist whatever is handy to make it sound as if they are correct. The trick to unmasking it is to demand context.

There are 637 laws in Leviticus...

In the interests of brevity, let's stop right there. Leviticus applied to the ancient tribes of Israel, and were superseded in Christianity (Jesus boiled down the ten Commandments into two, subsequent letters by apostles alter them radically, including such things as a direct repeal of Jewish food laws, etc).

So a Christian quoting Leviticus is kinda silly, you know? Now someone Jewish quoting it would make sense.

Quote - Now, we could discuss context for all of them, why they would seem reasonable and right back then and ludicrous and absurd now.

Indeed - and you know as well as I that later on in the New Testament that nearly all of them had been pretty much altered and/or rescinded, with few exceptions.

Quote - And why? Because some guy named Paul, who had an identity crisis while on the road, decides he needs to reinforce it in his letter to the Romans.

Paul isn't the only gent in the pile though.

Quote - Of course, also in that letter he has some highly interesting things to say about the place of women in the church -- all of which most denominations cheerfully and willfully ignore...

They largely ignore it (IIRC) because even back then it was a huge source of controversy, and a very large number of Christians thought it to be wrong (and since it didn't come from Jesus, it was wide open for debate). Christianity made it upwards into the Roman nobility specifically because of women - female nobility fell for it at first as a fad, then as conviction. Perfect example: Constantine was taught Christianity almost in secret by his mother - better known as St. Helena.

Quote - because they understand that Paul was of a different time and a different culture. But that doesnt stop them from saying, at the same time, "Look! See? Paul says God says being gay is a sin!"

It probably wasn't just Paul saying it, though - Romans converted in large numbers out of disgust with what they saw as the excesses of Roman society. Originally, Roman culture was disciplined and rigid. By the time Christianity showed up, Upper Roman society was packed solid with excesses of all sorts. Homosexuality was looked at as one of them - as a perversion of the Greek ideals (which focused on a higher love between members of the same sex), turned into an example of sexual excess. So I doubt that there was any grumbling of any size at all from early Christians about that one.

This all skips something important though - the concept of loving one's neighbor... no matter what. A Christian may detest the sin, but to remain true to belief, he or she must still love the sinner.

Quote - ...to those fun times during the Inquisition, where gay men, bound together, were used as kindling for the bonfires meant for burning witches...

Err, Gays weren't the only people targeted by such things. Independent-thinking women, intellectuals, innocent men and women who happened to piss off the wrong town magistrate, Jews (who got it worst of all), Muslims who lingered in Spain after the Moroccan Caliph's army was driven out, even a neighbor caught on the wrong end of an argument over property... it's not as if the Pope woke up one morning and said "You know? I think we oughta go after the gays this year!" Hell, if you so much as sneezed in church in Spain back then you were a target.

But then, comparing what happened in one region during the 16th century with what is happening in the 21st? That's kinda stretching things. It certainly doesn't excuse bad behavior, but likening oneself to martyrs and innocents during a 600-year-old period of dystopia doesn't do much for the argument. ;)

In other words, where does the slippery slope level out?*

Quote - I see nothing problematic in any of the situations you describe. If a man wants three wives and four husbands, what difference is it to you?

None to me, but it widens a whole lot of loopholes...

>> Leviticus applied to the ancient tribes of Israel, and were superseded in Christianity

Sorry, but many hard core fundamentalists would disagree, insisting that the whole Bible is the Inviolate Word of God (TM). In their 700-Club way of thinking, Levicitus is still part of the Truth, even though all they care about is Just That One Verse and Nothing Else.

Indeed - and you know as well as I that later on in the New Testament that nearly all of them had been pretty much altered and/or rescinded, with few exceptions.*

Again, many "Christians" would disagree. After all, that would suggest that God changes His Mind, which, of course, He never does -- well, to their way of thinking anyway.

>> They largely ignore it (IIRC) because even back then it was a huge source of controversy, and a very large number of Christians thought it to be wrong (and since it didn't come from Jesus, it was wide open for debate).

Not so. The early Christians were not sexual egalitarians, no more than the Jews were. Women could worship, but they could not participate, save in the most subservient of roles: caregivers (not doctors), nurses, maids -- from which we got the concept of nuns, which was purposely designed to remind women participating in the Holy Church exactly what their place was in the Heavenly Hierarchy*.

Err, Gays weren't the only people targeted by such things.*

Of course not. But while we'll look at intellectuals and "independent women" and the rest and shake our heads in disgust at the folly of our distant ancestors, we'll quietly and quaintly remain silent when "sodomites" are mentioned -- something we still have yet to learn, given the controversy over the recent unveiling of the memorial to the gays and lesbians who were murdered in the camps during Nazi Germany. We shall celebrate the deaths of the Jews and the gypsies and the mentally ill and the rest of the folks who died there, but mention the gays and everyone acts shocked that you would have the affront to say anything suggesting those atrocities actually happened.

Have we learned nothing since Paul's time?

Apparently not.

>> It certainly doesn't excuse bad behavior, but likening oneself to martyrs and innocents during a 600-year-old period of dystopia doesn't do much for the argument

See note above. Indeed, we havent learned anything in the past half millenia, just how to cover our tracks better.

Besides, arent we basing our entire religious credo on things that happened two millenia ago, when things were even more dysfunctional? That aint helping the RR's argument much either.

>> None to me, but it widens a whole lot of loopholes.

And straight society will just have to deal with them. We are not responsible for a legal age of marriage at 14; the larger heterosexual society, in its infinite wisdom, decided on that. We are not responsible for the 62% divorce rate; you folks created on that all on your own. We are not responsible for heterosexual polygamy -- that was around and widely accepted long before we raised our heads over the hedge line. Seems to me the loopholes are all of your own making.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: OT: you go, sulu!

And it doesn't matter what He wants. If humans "thwart his will" are you saying that he won't know the outcome? If so, he is not omniscient. If you are saying that he does know the outcome, then there is my point. Again, can't have it both ways.