State Laws/ Propositions

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

My mother says the same thing, yet claims to be fully supportive of my "lifestyle". She's not religious, in the least bit, and yet she claims marriage should only be between a man and a woman, yet she won't give a reason why. And if it weren't for the fact that she's co-signed for my tuition, we'd no longer be speaking. She has nothing against gay people raising children or running for office, just as long as we don't get married.

My question is, how does it affect you, who I choose to spend my life with? It doesn't, in the absolute least, any more than it affects me who you choose to spend your life with. Religion has nothing to do with it, nor should it, in a society that no longer needs religion. The only purpose religion serves today is peace of mind for the small-minded.

I like you....

This forum has a lack of people worth arguing with. I only wish I disagreed with you so I could...

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Gross misinterpretations of the Bible by politically motivated Religious leaders, of course.

Sorry, but there's really no way of misinterpreting the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, it's categorically against it.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by JCC

Sorry, but there's really no way of misinterpreting the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, it's categorically against it.

I was raised Catholic. I've heard several opinions on this, even within the clergy.

Drawing any sort of literal meaning from the English Bible is a waste of time, it's been translated and butchered too many times, often by less than impartial individuals.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by JCC

Sorry, but there's really no way of misinterpreting the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, it's categorically against it.

SSSHHHH! You'll spoil the trap.

[Saya]

The problem with listening to the Bible when it talks about its stance on homosexuality is, is that you are obliged then to stone them to death.

And has anyone found a passage in which it talks about lesbians? I can only find them in relation to "men laying with other men".

[Godslayer Jillian]

The most literal interpretation to the bible has led me to believe that it's not actually about man falling in love with man, but about anal sex.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The most literal interpretation to the bible has led me to believe that it's not actually about man falling in love with man, but about anal sex.

I've heard that as well.

[Saya]

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

But yeah, it seems that the idea behind it is that every sperm is sacred, thats why masturbation is a sin. With that logic however lesbians are fine and its an equal sin to sleep with a woman on birth control or if she can't have babies.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Like I said, it's all interpretation. As an unrelated example, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" originally referred to the taking of a human life UNLESS you had God's permission/command to do so. And since the modern church has said that God does not actually ever condone or command murder in his name, the original interpretation is irrelevant. Even though, to the ancient Christians, murder and killing in the name of God were obviously two completely different things.

I'd post the original text, if I knew ancient Hebrew.

[Saya]

Hey, also according to the Bible, r@pe costs fifty shekels of silver! And you have to marry your rapist.

Deuteronomy 22:28

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; hen the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

And if you're missing your member or you're a eunuch, you can't enter the church. Its like the Catholic church didn't even read this book.

Deuteronomy 23:1
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

So remember, if you get kicked in the nuts, you have to stay away from a church until you're all better.

I understand that these things are looney and not even the Church does this anymore, but why pick one looney passage where it says gay men are an abombination, and ignore the looney passage that says r@pe costs fifty shekels?

[PortraitOfSanity]

Well if you got kicked in the nuts, logic would dictate that you're too busy beating your wife (who of course, probably was the one who kicked you in the nuts) to attend Church anyway. And as long as you're using a cane less than the diameter of your thumb, you're home safe as far as God goes.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Like I said, it's all interpretation. As an unrelated example, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" originally referred to the taking of a human life UNLESS you had God's permission/command to do so. And since the modern church has said that God does not actually ever condone or command murder in his name, the original interpretation is irrelevant. Even though, to the ancient Christians, murder and killing in the name of God were obviously two completely different things.

I'd post the original text, if I knew ancient Hebrew.

That's the wrong way around. Originally, you couldn't be Christian unless you were a pacifist. Of course, then Constantinus became a Christian and the leader of the Roman army can't be a pacifist, so things changed.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

I must say that I am not a supporter of gay/lesbian marriage. And it is for religious reasons. On that same note, I have/had many gay and lesbian friends, none of whom I judged for choosing the path that was right for them. They know I don't support gay/lesbian marriages and respect my feelings as well. We are still good friends and still have fun together.

Here in Michigan, medical marijuana and stem cell research passed. Medical marijuana by a landslide...the stem cell research was a rather close one though.

"I think they're wrong, but me and faggots have loads of fun!"

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

I'd post the original text, if I knew ancient Hebrew.

Aramaic. Sorry, a touch neurotic.

Originally Posted by Saya

The problem with listening to the Bible

A list under that subject would be longer than the actual Bible.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by JCC

That's the wrong way around. Originally, you couldn't be Christian unless you were a pacifist. Of course, then Constantinus became a Christian and the leader of the Roman army can't be a pacifist, so things changed.

Well, the early Jewish tribes basically exterminated anyone who was on land that they wanted. And the Old Testament starts with them. And even the early history of the church was extremely violent. Even before Constantinus, there was more or less open war in the streets of Rome between Christians and Roman Pagans.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Well, the early Jewish tribes basically exterminated anyone who was on land that they wanted. And the Old Testament starts with them. And even the early history of the church was extremely violent. Even before Constantinus, there was more or less open war in the streets of Rome between Christians and Roman Pagans.

You know what they say. When in Rome, kill Pagans.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

You know what they say. When in Rome, kill Pagans.

Yea usually they had a cross on the end of a long staff. The cross was about 2" tall by 1" wide, and it was superheated like a cow brand. They'd brand you on the cheek with it, and then chop off your head and put it on the steps of a government building. Fun, eh?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Yea usually they had a cross on the end of a long staff. The cross was about 2" tall by 1" wide, and it was superheated like a cow brand. They'd brand you on the cheek with it, and then chop off your head and put it on the steps of a government building. Fun, eh?

Yup.
messagetooshort

[viscus]

Disagreeing with something because of "religious reasons" always sounds like a cop-out to me.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by viscus

Disagreeing with something because of "religious reasons" always sounds like a cop-out to me.

Agree, but being uncritical of your own religion is a copout.

As is forcing your faith in a book two thousand years old on other people.

[ionic_angel]

Not to be "forcing my faith in a book two thousand years old on other people" by forcing them to read an internet post, but I'd like to point out that the stoning passage everyone loves to point out as an example of Christian intolerance is a passage written as law for a nation that ceased to exist in A.D. 70.

This law and penalty, along with all the other Jewish law and penalties, were discontinued in the New Testament. Now, while it is still a sin, according to Christian doctrine, there is no prescribed penalty. Ditto for lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, and many other things. And yes, sins do earn a ticket into hell, with the only exception being through faith in Christ and His death and resurrection.

Now, I'm not posting this to start an argument on the merits of Christianity. But Christian doctrine actually defines - if I recall correctly - no actual in-this-world penalty for actions it considers sinful. A Christian might consider the death penalty appropriate for murder, and argue so from Biblical reasons, but the New Testament, which supersedes the Old Testament, doesn't explicitly state penalties for actions. By the way, the book of Galatians makes it abundantly clear that Old Testament law is no longer in effect for believers, and there is absolutely no support in the Bible for the application of Biblical principles to secular institutions.

That's not to say that many people in government and politics today don't try to do that. But their views are no less valid than others, at least according to the constitutions of most of the countries we live in.

Jus thought I'd set the record straight.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I want to know something for the record too:
Where does the New Testament say it supersedes the Old one?
I've never known.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I want to know something for the record too:
Where does the New Testament say it supersedes the Old one?
I've never known.

And isn't "Man Shalt Not Lie With Man" in the Old Testament?

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

And isn't "Man Shalt Not Lie With Man" in the Old Testament?

Like I said, the book of Galations. And yes, however, the New Testament also has prohibitions on homosexuality, incest, sex before marriage, lying...you know, the list.

Anyway, gonna go check the other thread now.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Like I said, the book of Galations. And yes, however, the New Testament also has prohibitions on homosexuality, incest, sex before marriage, lying...you know, the list.

Anyway, gonna go check the other thread now.

Passage on Homosexuality, please?