Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Lemur]

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.

Rhyf, would you consider yourself a Biblical literalist? Or if you prefer, a believer in Biblical inerrancy?

[Fragony]

Specific would be a start really, on which star scale specifically?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have to leave, but I will be back. And when I do, I am afraid I am going to have to prove the Bible is contradictory, and not in the manner you claim.

The Skeptics' annotated Bible is a publicly available, proven and verifiable case against the inconsistencies of the Bible. Since I own a Bible, I can readily look up the contradictions myself.

The Bible directly contradicts itself in thousands of instances, and the list I give you will be MORE than incomplete. But it will entirely prove my assertion, I'm afraid.

See you guys soon!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I believe the facts in the Bible (that the earth was created by God, that Adam and Eve were created in Eden etc), although there are times it is obvious that metaphors are being used (for example Jesus was not a branch).

[KukriKhan]

I have to leave, but I will be back. And when I do, I am afraid I am going to have to prove the Bible is contradictory, and not in the manner you claim.

The Skeptics' annotated Bible is a publicly available, proven and verifiable case against the inconsistencies of the Bible. Since I own a Bible, I can readily look up the contradictions myself.

The Bible directly contradicts itself in thousands of instances, and the list I give you will be MORE than incomplete. But it will entirely prove my assertion, I'm afraid.

See you guys soon!

But in another, more related thread please. This one is about an American State Legalizing gay Marriage.

[Koga No Goshi]

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself. The OT is the story of God teaching the Jews to obey his laws one step at a time. This is done through several covenants, which the people break each time. So while at first in the OT we see people being stoned for their sins, this is just the beginning, as they recognise the basic sins. Then, by the time we reach the NT we should have reached the point where we can forgive these sins and avoid them ourselves. The NT is what applies to Christians today. On a seperate note, if you think the punishments God told them to inflict on people were harsh, you should consider their alternative of Baal. Children were sacrificed by fire regularly to him, as well as other abominations eg male prostitution. The former of course being infinately worse before anyone here goes nuts.

On topic, as a Christian I see it as my duty to prevent sinful acts being comitted. You can try to create a utopia by giving everyone total freedom in their private spheres and a philosphy of everyone minding their own business. But in the end relativism and human reasoning just don't get you that far, indeed you will get only a dystopia, be it an anarchic world where everyone may do as they please, or the opposite of a totally controlled world where people have no freedom at all. If you compromise as most people who employ reasoning do, well then that is what you get - a compromise. You can't make it perfect, no human can.

I used to think like that, but God opened my eyes. Yes people may think it is crazy, but God is sovereign and infinitely good, human reasoning brings only relativism which will not give you the answers you look for. The thing is, its seems pretty pointless trying to explain God's existance through my human abilities, its one of these things that you "know when you know". Then you can pursue goodness as best as you can, and realise that evil is not just blatant harm to other people. By its nature it is much more corrupting than that, if you give it a foothold in this fallen world then it will grow and consume it.

First off, we're talking about the U.S. That means separation of church and state, so while it's very illuminating to learn about your religious views, even if you were in America, they SHOULD have no bearing on what legislation you support in terms of respecting the rights of others. Of course, religion can and does get used for people to support disciminatory laws or the restricting of freedoms, but this is a willful rejection of our ideals as a nation.

Second, the law is not, has not be, and will never be, a pure reflection of encouraging holy behavior and punishing sinful behavior. Divorce is legal. Having affairs are legal. Saying cruel things is legal. Being greedy is legal. Overeating is legal. Charging interest is legal. Eating on the Sabbath or holy days is legal. This is not a theocracy nor should it ever be. So arguing that it is your personal duty to fight sin, does NOT explain why just on one or two issues, you feel that the way to do that is through shaping the laws of a secular democracy.

I am dead serious, what are you about next? Banning divorce? Laws against gluttony? Because I do not understand why Christians pick just these two topics, abortion and homosexuality, and think the way to express your faith is to try to pass legislation for everyone which restricts rights.

[Askthepizzaguy]

But in another, more related thread please. This one is about an American State Legalizing gay Marriage.

Not a problem, sir! I will post a link only, and then get back on topic. Is this acceptible?

I won't contaminate this thread, but I will respond to the assertion that the bible doesn't contradict.

[Rhyfelwyr]

First off, we're talking about the U.S. That means separation of church and state, so while it's very illuminating to learn about your religious views, even if you were in America, they SHOULD have no bearing on what legislation you support in terms of respecting the rights of others. Of course, religion can and does get used for people to support disciminatory laws or the restricting of freedoms, but this is a willful rejection of our ideals as a nation.

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

Second, the law is not, has not be, and will never be, a pure reflection of encouraging holy behavior and punishing sinful behavior. Divorce is legal. Having affairs are legal. Saying cruel things is legal. Being greedy is legal. Overeating is legal. Charging interest is legal. Eating on the Sabbath or holy days is legal. This is not a theocracy nor should it ever be. So arguing that it is your personal duty to fight sin, does NOT explain why just on one or two issues, you feel that the way to do that is through shaping the laws of a secular democracy.

Indeed, you will find that it was Calvin in Geneva who adopted crazy notions such as allowing women to divorce if their husbands cheated on them. You don't think theocracies should exist, I do. Who's right? We'll probably never prove that to each other, and we both believe to have sufficient proof for our own beliefs.

I am dead serious, what are you about next? Banning divorce? Laws against gluttony? Because I do not understand why Christians pick just these two topics, abortion and homosexuality, and think the way to express your faith is to try to pass legislation for everyone which restricts rights.

The focus on abortion should be obvious if you acknowledge Christian beliefs. We see it as the murder of babies, just as horrific as infanticide would be to you. As for the focus on homosexuality, that is because unlike other sins modern society is increasingly choosing to accept it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

The United States is officially secular, and our laws must adhere to that. No law can be made purely on the basis of theocratic doctrine. There needs to be secular reasoning.

Just as a secular person cannot argue what laws a church has for its own members, the church and its members cannot force their views upon a secular state, unless their religious argument is backed up with a secular one.

Just because you aren't secular, that doesn't mean you don't need secular reasoning to make law.

Indeed, you will find that it was Calvin in Geneva who adopted crazy notions such as allowing women to divorce if their husbands cheated on them. You don't think theocracies should exist, I do. Who's right? We'll probably never prove that to each other, and we both believe to have sufficient proof for our own beliefs.

Theocracies have a significant history of authoritarianism and abuse of human rights. Muslim fundamentalist theocracies do some very atrocious things to those they deem sinners, and past christian theocracies have allowed witch trials, stonings, and crucifixions, Inquisitions and crusades.

However, that doesn't mean all theocracies are bad. Just all the ones that have ever existed so far. Theocracies could work, in theory, but they would have to conform to natural law, which is secular.

The focus on abortion should be obvious if you acknowledge Christian beliefs. We see it as the murder of babies, just as horrific as infanticide would be to you. As for the focus on homosexuality, that is because unlike other sins modern society is increasingly choosing to accept it.

We also chose to accept gambling, drinking, divorce, and many other things. Why the focus on gays? If we are to argue against the sins described in Abrahamic religions, then we must force Nevada to make prostitution, gambling, sodomy, and eating the wrong kinds of meat illegal. Also, we need to ban all pornography. If we take the Bible literally, we have far worse things to combat first besides marriage between consenting adults, which never ever gets brought up by the religious folks who call themselves defenders of morality.

To pick and choose your battles is one thing, but frankly I'd prefer we fought drugs, pedophiles, human trafficking, corruption, waste, fraud, and crackdown on violent crime before we even begin discussing the "evils" of gay marriage.

Priorities.

[Lemur]

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

Hate to break it to you but my people, the commercial secularists, the cast-offs from middle-upper-crust England were here decades before the Puritans.

Also, I get tired of pointing this out, but the Founding Fathers had a very clear memory of the wars of religion in England and Europe, and they had no desire to re-create that mess here. That's why our Declaration of Independence and Constitution largely reflect enlightenment ideals, which you can argue arise from, but cannot say are synonymous with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And gay marriage is perfectly compatible with the enlightenment tradition, even if it conflicts with Leviticus.

-edit-

And don't make me haul out the Treaty of Tripoli, 'cause I will.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Note that this was published to general acclamation in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797, signed into law by President John Adams, and ratified by both houses of Congress. It doesn't get much more official than that.

[yesdachi]

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.

That’s rich.



Hey Frag, are these “piets” all male? Is Sinterklaas for or against gay marriage?

[Askthepizzaguy]

@yesdachi-

We may not agree with him, but we should respect him as a fellow member. Let's not mock.



Appreciate the support, though. Let's focus on ideas and debate those. Thank you for listening.

[Fragony]

That’s rich.



Hey Frag, are these “piets” all male? Is Sinterklaas for or against gay marriage?

Of course not that is one vile asshumption

[yesdachi]

@yesdachi-

We may not agree with him, but we should respect him as a fellow member. Let's not mock.



Appreciate the support, though. Let's focus on ideas and debate those. Thank you for listening.

My respect fades as his post count grows.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

Do you know what this is equivalent of?

Me: I think murdering someone worth less than $50,000 should be legal.
Rhyfe: No it shouldn't! It's still murder!
Me: Yes but only in an equal rights democracy, I'm an oligarchical authoritarian. They conflict with each other, you know.

My argument should have no bearing over the passage of laws in a democracy anymore than "the bible says x" should.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That’s rich.

That's informative.

Anyway I expect to be mocked but I put forward my ideas nonetheless, its my duty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hate to break it to you but my people, the commercial secularists, the cast-offs from middle-upper-crust England were here decades before the Puritans.

OK so they would have just banned the dissenters and kicked out those annoying Jews instead, unlike the intolerant Puritans.

[Koga No Goshi]

OK so they would have just banned the dissenters and kicked out those annoying Jews instead, unlike the intolerant Puritans.

Well part of my heritage didn't come from anywhere, and their democratic framework was a stronger influence upon the present-day U.S. Constitution than ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Ben Franklin openly cited their society and culture and government many times in various speeches.

You're going to quickly run out of arguments for dismissing anyone but the Puritans as being the founders of this country, Rhyfe.

[Lemur]

Rhyf, I'm not sure where to go with that. You failed to address the meat of my post, which was about how the U.S. is founded on secular principles, thus making gay marriage perfectly compatible with our mos maiorum, and instead you throw down a strange comment about persecuting Jews and "banning dissenters," which doesn't even make sense in this context. Could you elaborate and elucidate, please?

[Don Corleone]

We also chose to accept gambling, drinking, divorce, and many other things. Why the focus on gays? If we are to argue against the sins described in Abrahamic religions, then we must force Nevada to make prostitution, gambling, sodomy, and eating the wrong kinds of meat illegal. Also, we need to ban all pornography. If we take the Bible literally, we have far worse things to combat first besides marriage between consenting adults, which never ever gets brought up by the religious folks who call themselves defenders of morality.

To pick and choose your battles is one thing, but frankly I'd prefer we fought drugs, pedophiles, human trafficking, corruption, waste, fraud, and crackdown on violent crime before we even begin discussing the "evils" of gay marriage.

Priorities.

Speaking as a devout Roman Catholic, HERE! HERE!

To quote the big guy Himself on this:

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

Emphasis mine. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the morality of homosexual activity in my own playbook. Suffice it to say, it's pretty clear to me that Mrs. Corleone, and ONLY Mrs. Corleone is in the playbook, and anybody, male or female, otherwise is sinful to even consider.

Lemur one time chided me, saying "You know, between adultery and strip clubs, I think 'traditional marriage' is in a lot of trouble, with or without homosexuals. At least, I think it was you, Lemur. Might have been Goofball, or some other know-it-all Lefty that gets it really right once in a blue moon.

Point is, there's a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Why we waste time worrying about things like gay rights, when the real battle is to try to protect our children, our elderly and other defenseless from scourges like drugs, predators (sexual and financial)... is beyond me. I think all of us 'believers' are falling short of the glory, wasting our time on matters such as these, when there's more we could all be be doing to solve some problems we ALL would agree are dramatically worse.

I saw a Dateline NBC Sunday night. Now I'll grant you, they're not always 100% on the up and and up, but I want you to listen for a second. They were going around to San Francisco massage parlors. Forget consenting prostitutes, we have human sex slave trafficing going on right under our very noses. And what town doesn't have a massage parlor? Want to improve 'morality' and 'humanity' simultaneously? Get rid of human sexual slave trafficing. End exploitation of children. See to it that nobody in your community is hungry or cold this winter. Then we'll discuss playing 'smear the queer' again next spring, or next fall, whenever this perrenial issue is due for another re-tread.

[Koga No Goshi]

Lemur one time chided me, saying "You know, between adultery and strip clubs, I think 'traditional marriage' is in a lot of trouble, with or without homosexuals. At least, I think it was you, Lemur. Might have been Goofball, or some other know-it-all Lefty that gets it really right once in a blue moon.

You forgot Britney Spears and Elizabeth Taylor. :) And K-Fed!

Point is, there's a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Why we waste time worrying about things like gay rights, when the real battle is to try to protect our children, our elderly and other defenseless from scourges like drugs, predators (sexual and financial)... is beyond me. I think all of us 'believers' are falling short of the glory, wasting our time on matters such as these, when there's more we could all be be doing to solve some problems we ALL would agree are dramatically worse.

I agree, it honestly makes Christianity look like hypocritical, petty throwbacks who want to scapegoat gay people for all of society's ills. I'm not saying that to be nasty, I really and honestly think making this a "cornerstone" religious issue in national politics makes Christians look VERY petty and smallminded. It's is very much a question of, "Of all the problems out there...."

I saw a Dateline NBC Sunday night. Now I'll grant you, they're not always 100% on the up and and up, but I want you to listen for a second. They were going around to San Francisco massage parlors. Forget consenting prostitutes, we have human sex slave trafficing going on right under our very noses. And what town doesn't have a massage parlor? Want to improve 'morality' and 'humanity' simultaneously? Get rid of human sexual slave trafficing. End exploitation of children. See to it that nobody in your community is hungry or cold this winter. Then we'll discuss playing 'smear the queer' again next spring, or next fall, whenever this perrenial issue is due for another re-tread.

It's quickly becoming a trot-it-out-each-election-cycle issue to revv up the Biblethumping base. And it works. Unfortunately it's up to Christians to stop this, I think. Because asking gay people to just deal with not having equal rights until the Churchers get over the issue is not fair.

[Goofball]

If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it.

You're a pretty intelligent, well read, and worldly guy for the most part. That you can make such a statement with a straight face surprises me, and in my opinion, diminishes you.

[Goofball]

So it IS okay to discriminate against some people, just not people with sexual fetishes.

What if I said that most rich people were born that way?

You'd be correct...

[yesdachi]

That's informative.

Anyway I expect to be mocked but I put forward my ideas nonetheless, its my duty.

It’s a lie. More than worthy of an eye roll.

God is satisfied with his works
"God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31]
God is dissatisfied with his works.
"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]

Is that not a contradiction? There are hundreds more if you look, the bible is filled with them.

I don’t care if you put forward your ideas but at least know what you are talking about, you’re giving god faring people a bad name. If you feel the need to represent, do a good job of it. I speak lie a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I'm actually in the metaphorically, not literally, true view of the bible, yesdachi, but you've not picked the best example of a contradiction. You're stepped over a fundamental (pun not intended) act between those two statements: Adam and Eve betraying God's love by breaking the one rule they had to live under.

It'd be the equivalent of:

-Bill made a statement in favor of the NY Yankees.
-Bill then spit in the face of Roger.
-Roger slugged Bill.

And having me describe it as "Bill made a statement in favor of the Yankees and Roger slugged him", implying that Roger slugged him because of his statment, when in reality it was the unmentioned act in-between.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It’s a lie. More than worthy of an eye roll.

Well no its not.

Is that not a contradiction? There are hundreds more if you look, the bible is filled with them.

I don’t care if you put forward your ideas but at least know what you are talking about, you’re giving god faring people a bad name. If you feel the need to represent, do a good job of it. I speak lie a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

One verse refers to before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the other after it.

Rhyf, I'm not sure where to go with that. You failed to address the meat of my post, which was about how the U.S. is founded on secular principles, thus making gay marriage perfectly compatible with our mos maiorum, and instead you throw down a strange comment about persecuting Jews and "banning dissenters," which doesn't even make sense in this context. Could you elaborate and elucidate, please?

I'm just a bit tired of hearing all the bad press regarding Puritans. You gave me the example of the Royalists, who had ensured Jews were banned in England from the 13th Century IIRC, and discriminated against dissenters, basically dumping them in Northern Ireland and later Massachusetts. Of course Puritans discriminated as well, everyone did in those times, its not some specific flaw to raise up against Christians nowadays.

I know the US was founded as a secular state, thats one reason why I said to TuffStuff that if you want too much 'freedom to' then this is what happens. If we were to stick rigidly to the topic in the context of the modern US, then TuffStuff has focused more on the legal arguments.

I agree, it honestly makes Christianity look like hypocritical, petty throwbacks who want to scapegoat gay people for all of society's ills. I'm not saying that to be nasty, I really and honestly think making this a "cornerstone" religious issue in national politics makes Christians look VERY petty and smallminded. It's is very much a question of, "Of all the problems out there...."

Well we agree on those issues so they wouldn't make very fun Backroom topics. The reason for the media coverage of the Christian input in the gay rights debate is that Christians agree with you on the topics you list, so there's nothing to argue about. Christian-related charity work does of course focus on helping those in poverty, drug addiction, alcohol problems etc. But that doesn't help demonise Christians so its best not to go there.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

You are absolutely correct and courts saying exactly what you just said, in not so many words, is what is being challenged and overturned, and then criticized as "activist judging."

[KukriKhan]

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

Well, there's the licensing thing. To be recognized in a court as 'married' folks hafta be able to show a gov't license to do this special thing. People 'live as married' all the time, sans license, but run into trouble upon death or disability of the other partner, same as gay couples do now.

So: the license = the rub?

[Goofball]

Well, there's the licensing thing. To be recognized in a court as 'married' folks hafta be able to show a gov't license to do this special thing. People 'live as married' all the time, sans license, but run into trouble upon death or disability of the other partner, same as gay couples do now.

So: the license = the rub?

So it's not really a law against gay marriage in most cases, simply a bureaucratic regulation about the issuance of licenses. So again, it shouldn't require legislation to change a regulation. Simply (as the courts have rightly done) a judge saying, "Oh, that regulation is not constitutional. So sorry. Peter, Dave, here's your marriage license. Live long and prosper."

What seems to be the problem?

But you know, I'm starting to lean to Don's way of thinking on this. The government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If you want your relationship recognized by the government for tax, pension, estate, or any other purpose, then you need to get a civil union whether you're gay or straight. If you want to get married in a church, that's all well and good, but it won't count for anything legally.

[Strike For The South]

So it's not really a law against gay marriage in most cases, simply a bureaucratic regulation about the issuance of licenses. So again, it shouldn't require legislation to change a regulation. Simply (as the courts have rightly done) a judge saying, "Oh, that regulation is not constitutional. So sorry. Peter, Dave, here's your marriage license. Live long and prosper."

What seems to be the problem?

But you know, I'm starting to lean to Don's way of thinking on this. The government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If you want your relationship recognized by the government for tax, pension, estate, or any other purpose, then you need to get a civil union whether you're gay or straight. If you want to get married in a church, that's all well and good, but it won't count for anything legally.

Well yea. I thought thats how it worked now.