Biblical Protests

[93henfan]

My friend and I were actually having this discussion yesterday. While I completely oppose the Westboro Baptist Church's views, I can at least respect that they're faithful to their beliefs. I can't say the same about many sects of other religions, Christianity or otherwise. That said, it's probably a VERY good thing that most followers are hypocritical 'cause I'd rather not have a bunch of WBCs running around with actual influence.

Yes. That is called Saudi Arabia.

[mrklean]

Most of this is from the Law of Moses. It was not charged twords Chriatians, and yes divorce is legal under current biblical law if its Adultry and/or Physical Abuse.

[Ibanez]

Most of this is from the Law of Moses. It was not charged twords Chriatians, and yes divorce is legal under current biblical law if its Adultry and/or Physical Abuse.

Christians follow the Law of Moses, hence the use of the Old Testament and the 10 Commandments. Now, it's silly for Christians to follow the OT since it was written for a different audience and a different religion. But the Christian-Judea religion is intertwined.

Please provide the passage where divorce is legal. I'd love to tell someone that.

[kalm]

[houndawg]

They believe in making money, like all churches do.

Bills do need to be paid....

So do taxes. Oh wait...

[UNI88]

Homosexuals can practice their deviant lifestyle all they want as far as I'm concerned, and I am opposed to any law that would prohibit them from doing so. If two homosexuals want to live together and think of themselves as "married," that's fine.

I find your use of the word deviant interesting. You could logically argue that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm (if it was the norm than humankind would likely be extinct). I don't think that you could argue that it is unnatural since homosexuality occurs in other species in nature as well. I would argue that deviation is a natural and necessary part of evolution. Without deviations would humankind have evolved and prospered?

The flip-side of a discussion involving evolution and deviation are your arguments that it is healthy and natural to look at young girls who have reached menstruation. That might have been true hundreds and thousands of years ago when the average life span was in the 30's and people matured much more quickly and you had to get as much out of a woman's fertile time as you could in order for the species to survive and prosper. I would argue that that is no longer the case now that girls mature later and our lifespans and fertility last longer. Humankind has evolved and looking at young girls (or boys) in such a manner is deviant.

[Grizalltheway]

Homosexuals can practice their deviant lifestyle all they want as far as I'm concerned, and I am opposed to any law that would prohibit them from doing so. If two homosexuals want to live together and think of themselves as "married," that's fine.

I find your use of the word deviant interesting. You could logically argue that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm (if it was the norm than humankind would likely be extinct). I don't think that you could argue that it is unnatural since homosexuality occurs in other species in nature as well. I would argue that deviation is a natural and necessary part of evolution. Without deviations would humankind have evolved and prospered?

The flip-side of a discussion involving evolution and deviation are your arguments that it is healthy and natural to look at young girls who have reached menstruation. That might have been true hundreds and thousands of years ago when the average life span was in the 30's and people matured much more quickly and you had to get as much out of a woman's fertile time as you could in order for the species to survive and prosper. I would argue that that is no longer the case now that girls mature later and our lifespans and fertility last longer. Humankind has evolved and looking at young girls (or boys) in such a manner is deviant.

BOOM!

[andy7171]

I don't ever recall hearing from the Book of Leviticus in any first reading in my life time. Maybe ebcause I am not a Jew from 700 BC.

[YoUDeeMan]

The flip-side of a discussion involving evolution and deviation are your arguments that it is healthy and natural to look at young girls who have reached menstruation. That might have been true hundreds and thousands of years ago when the average life span was in the 30's and people matured much more quickly and you had to get as much out of a woman's fertile time as you could in order for the species to survive and prosper. I would argue that that is no longer the case now that girls mature later and our lifespans and fertility last longer. Humankind has evolved and looking at young girls (or boys) in such a manner is deviant.

When has it ever benefitted a species to slow down its evolution?

[JohnStOnge]

But a Church still has the right to marry homosexuals if they want to, right? And those married homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as married hetero's right? Regardless if you interpret the bible differently.

I think that a Church should be able to consider "marriage" to be anything it wants to consider it to be. Like I think the Mormons should've been able to consider relationships between more than two individuals to be marriage as they used to before they were pressured to stop that. But I also think we've gotten to the point where it's probably time to end marriage as a civil institution and just leave it to churches.

As far as rights go: I think you and I probably have a different outlook as to what a "right" is. What "rights" do you think there are that homosexuals don't already enjoy?

Having other people see you as "married" is not a right. And I think some of the other things that might be construed as "rights" could be handled without going so far as saying that two members of the same sex are "married."

The big thing is that other people should have rights too. For example: If you are a Christian person offering a rental property you should have the right to rent or not rent your property to anyone you choose to rent or not rent it too. And if you don't want to rent it to a couple because that couple is a couple of homosexuals you should have a right to not rent it to them without any concern at all about government questioning your reason for making that decision. Same thing if it's an unmarried couple and you as a Christian don't want to be involved in facilitating fornication. It's YOUR property that's being rented and government should butt out.

[Seahawks08]

A real libertarian's point of view:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/01/the-n ... -sex-marri

[JohnStOnge]

A real libertarian's point of view:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/01/the-n ... -sex-marri

A real Libertarian might make those arguments but would also premise everything by saying that marriage is not a matter of Liberty; that a society taking the stance that it will not recognize a certain class of relationships as "marriage" is not taking Liberty away from anyone.

Otherwise: There really is no reason to have marriage if it's not about children. Not that it necessarily hurts to have it under such circumstances. But there's no real reason for it.

As for homosexual pairs adopting children or using surrogates and/or sperm donors and such to produce them: It would be nice if we could be confident that those in the fields of sociology, psychiatry, and psychology will generally provide objective assessment of the effects of that. But we can't. We we can be confident of is that they will generally start off by seeking to show that it does not cause problems and that dominant tendency will bias the results. And anyone who does produce results contrary to the desired outcomes will be ostracized. They will have difficulty in getting such results published because they won't flatter the philosophical orientations of journal editors and if they do get published there will be massive efforts to discredit them. Meanwhile those who produce results purporting to support the "acceptable" outlook will be lauded and their results will skate through to publication with little critical review.

That's the way it works.

[JohnStOnge]

A real libertarian's point of view:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/01/the-n ... -sex-marri

BTW as I've written before, when all this is over and homosexuals can be legally married everywhere, we will still be denying whatever we say homosexuals were being denied to others just by virtue of defining marriage at all. And we can make arguments comparing allowing certain things to what's already allowed just as the author of that editorial did.

For example: Why do we not allow siblings to marry if they want? Increased risk of genetic disease among offspring? Really? Is that the REAL reason? Does that mean we generally don't allow people to marry if there's a relatively high risk of genetic disease in the offspring?

No, it does not. We don't interfere with people getting married in cases where there is increased risk of genetic disease except in the single specific case where the individuals are closely related. We would not, for instance, say that two people who each carry the cystic fibrosis gene can't get married even if we know they both carry it. And the risk of genetic disease among offspring is much higher in that scenario than it is in a scenario where siblings get married. ! in 4 chance of a horrible, acute, and eventually fatal genetic disease. And any kid that doesn't have the disease is going to carry the gene. So why are we discriminating against siblings that want to get married if we wouldn't prohibit people like that from doing it?

[houndawg]

But a Church still has the right to marry homosexuals if they want to, right? And those married homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as married hetero's right? Regardless if you interpret the bible differently.

I think that a Church should be able to consider "marriage" to be anything it wants to consider it to be. Like I think the Mormons should've been able to consider relationships between more than two individuals to be marriage as they used to before they were pressured to stop that. But I also think we've gotten to the point where it's probably time to end marriage as a civil institution and just leave it to churches.

As far as rights go: I think you and I probably have a different outlook as to what a "right" is. What "rights" do you think there are that homosexuals don't already enjoy?

Having other people see you as "married" is not a right. And I think some of the other things that might be construed as "rights" could be handled without going so far as saying that two members of the same sex are "married."

The big thing is that other people should have rights too. For example: If you are a Christian person offering a rental property you should have the right to rent or not rent your property to anyone you choose to rent or not rent it too. And if you don't want to rent it to a couple because that couple is a couple of homosexuals you should have a right to not rent it to them without any concern at all about government questioning your reason for making that decision. Same thing if it's an unmarried couple and you as a Christian don't want to be involved in facilitating fornication. It's YOUR property that's being rented and government should butt out.

So much fail in one paragraph.

a) churches can consider a marriage to be whatever they want, but as kalm pointed out, (you really should listen to him more, John), it ain't a marriage until the county clerk says it is.

b) Mormons were polygamous because due to all the hangings the church was 75% female at one point.

c)marriage should be left to the churches? let them pay taxes like the rest of us then we can argue that.

[SeattleGriz]

The 64K question is...do gays care if their union is called marriage?

Out here in Washington, the civil unions had all the rights of marriage and many were just arguing talking points while not knowing gays already had all the rights of marriage.

So, once again, do gays care if their union is called marriage?

[BlueHen86]

The 64K question is...do gays care if their union is called marriage?

Out here in Washington, the civil unions had all the rights of marriage and many were just arguing talking points while not knowing gays already had all the rights of marriage.

So, once again, do gays care if their union is called marriage?

If a partnership of two men or two women have the same rights/privileges/legal recognitions as the partnership of a man and a woman it shouldn't matter what you call it.

[kalm]

The 64K question is...do gays care if their union is called marriage?

Out here in Washington, the civil unions had all the rights of marriage and many were just arguing talking points while not knowing gays already had all the rights of marriage.

So, once again, do gays care if their union is called marriage?

I don't know, but "small government" Christian conservatives seem to care a whole bunch. Have churches copywrited the word?

[SeattleGriz]

The 64K question is...do gays care if their union is called marriage?

Out here in Washington, the civil unions had all the rights of marriage and many were just arguing talking points while not knowing gays already had all the rights of marriage.

So, once again, do gays care if their union is called marriage?

I don't know, but "small government" Christian conservatives seem to care a whole bunch. Have churches copywrited the word?

My point is that if the gays don't care, but the Christians do, then why the issue. Of course I am assuming gays do have all the rights with their union as a marriage.

This seems to be an argument being propagated by those who are looking to only piss off Christians and cry foul over bullshit.

Once again, I am saying if civil unions afforded the same rights as marriage.

[kalm]

I don't know, but "small government" Christian conservatives seem to care a whole bunch. Have churches copywrited the word?

My point is that if the gays don't care, but the Christians do, then why the issue. Of course I am assuming gays do have all the rights with their union as a marriage.

This seems to be an argument being propagated by those who are looking to only piss off Christians and cry foul over bullshit.

Once again, I am saying if civil unions afforded the same rights as marriage.

JSO frequently makes the point that this about gays gaining recognition/validity...egalitarianism...blah, blah, blah. If they want to call it "marriage", who really cares?

[93henfan]

Just to touch on the point about who you can rent to. I don't believe it's illegal to choose your renter. I sure as hell discriminated. And check DC (or any big city) Craigslist rental section. You'll see female only, gay only, black only, Muslim only, male only, no pets. You can discriminate however you please when you rent. If you're big rental company with hundreds of properties there's probably an equal opportunity law but individuals discriminate thousands of times a day.

[BlueHen86]

I don't know, but "small government" Christian conservatives seem to care a whole bunch. Have churches copywrited the word?

My point is that if the gays don't care, but the Christians do, then why the issue. Of course I am assuming gays do have all the rights with their union as a marriage.

This seems to be an argument being propagated by those who are looking to only piss off Christians and cry foul over bullshit.

Once again, I am saying if civil unions afforded the same rights as marriage.

Why do the Christians care? It takes two to argue. Stop objecting to the use of the word marriage and the problem is solved.

[SeattleGriz]

My point is that if the gays don't care, but the Christians do, then why the issue. Of course I am assuming gays do have all the rights with their union as a marriage.

This seems to be an argument being propagated by those who are looking to only piss off Christians and cry foul over bullshit.

Once again, I am saying if civil unions afforded the same rights as marriage.

Why do the Christians care? It takes two to argue. Stop objecting to the use of the word marriage and the problem is solved.

Christians care because it means something to us. It means that after 17 years, I love my wife with all of my heart. Our families have become one. When my family cannot help, her's can.

Not saying this won't happen in a gay marriage, just want to protect what I have.

[SeattleGriz]

My point is that if the gays don't care, but the Christians do, then why the issue. Of course I am assuming gays do have all the rights with their union as a marriage.

This seems to be an argument being propagated by those who are looking to only piss off Christians and cry foul over bullshit.

Once again, I am saying if civil unions afforded the same rights as marriage.

JSO frequently makes the point that this about gays gaining recognition/validity...egalitarianism...blah, blah, blah. If they want to call it "marriage", who really cares?

I do.

I won't discriminate same sex unions as having all the rights of marriage, just don't call it marriage.

I know I am old school, but fucks sakes, stop attacking.

[BlueHen86]

Why do the Christians care? It takes two to argue. Stop objecting to the use of the word marriage and the problem is solved.

Christians care because it means something to us. It means that after 17 years, I love my wife with all of my heart. Our families have become one. When my family cannot help, her's can.

Not saying this won't happen in a gay marriage, just want to protect what I have.

There are hetero marriages that don't have what you and your wife have. Why make an issue out of gay marriage? Seems to me that if you are looking to protect what you have the real enemy is divorce, not two same sex strangers getting married.

I was raised as a Christian and still myself one, I've also been married for 23 years. I've never considered gay marriage to be a threat to me and my family.

[clenz]

Why do the Christians care? It takes two to argue. Stop objecting to the use of the word marriage and the problem is solved.

Christians care because it means something to us. It means that after 17 years, I love my wife with all of my heart. Our families have become one. When my family cannot help, her's can.

Not saying this won't happen in a gay marriage, just want to protect what I have.

How would allowing 2 men to marry make it so both families won't help?

How would 2 men marrying ruin/take away what you have?

You do realize that the church performs weddings not marriages....right?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2