Civil Rights vs. Gay Marriage Rights
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/11/28/gay.civil.rights.ap/]Blacks call gay marriage rights "special rights"[/url]
personally i think they're just doing what was done to them when they were fighting for civil rights. yes, civil rights is slightly different, but to issue a public statement saying that it's not comparable, reeks of blatent discrimination.
thoughts....
Basically their argument is that homosexuality is a behavior or a choice and so if homosexuals are discriminated against to bad, they've made their "choice" Because I don't believe thats its a choice their whole argument is moot to me. Of course all people should have the same civil liberties regardless of sex, color or sexual orientation.
There are definate advantages to being "legally" married and I think those advantages should be available to everyone. There are certain decisions your spouse automatically can make for you in the event of your death or disability. Then there are inheritance rights, insurance, taxes. Its a big legal mess for gay couples to create trusts and living wills in order to create the same legal protection straights have just by saying "I do" in front of a judge
exactly my sentiment. i wonder why they are becoming so enraged about it though. what is the point of saying, "no, don't use our plight as an example to help further a cause for other demographics to attain [i]equal[/i] civil liberties"?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
i wonder why they are becoming so enraged about it though. what is the point of saying, "no, don't use our plight as an example to help further a cause for other demographics to attain [i]equal[/i] civil liberties"? [/QUOTE]
My cynical response is: because human nature is such that everyone would like to think their suffering is worse than anyone elses and that happens on a larger scale with "oppressed" groups. Each thinks they've been opressed the worst or the longest.
But I think the real reason is that they're not just enraged but [i]disgusted[/i]. There is a lot of homophobia out there .
When asked if they favored legal agreements with many of the same rights as marriage, 51 percent of blacks were opposed.
and the difference here is what? marriage is a legal agreement. they only support it if they aren't granted the [i]exact[/i] same rights as the rest of the country?
I'm curious if its just blacks that feel that way? Did they poll whites too and/or hispanics, asians...? I wouldn't be suprised if those percentages held for the general population of this country...
Last I heard they did. Among honkys, that is. Don't know about Hispanics.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
From ABC News' site, statistics are provided by the Pew Poll:
presumably from a fairly even demographic distribution...
again, presumably the other 9%s are the neither/nor types.
silly white evangelicals
when will religion catch up? if you go by catholocism, probably in about 200-400 years.
I forgot who it was, but a not so famous black leader once said
"The next civil rights dispute will be fought for gay rights..."
or something to that extent. He was a gay man, and was killed (I believe for being gay). I'm glad that he recognized that these are exactly the same rights that gays and lesbians are fighting for.
And I'm with you tryp, if you are going to give them domestic partnerships, why not full marriages? Oh wait, I forgot. Because then Farmer John will want to marry his pig. Because you go from same sex of the same species to a different fucking animal in one giant leap...
but wouldn't animals have to recieve government freedom first, before they are granted possibility of inter-species marriage? and what are the arguments for and against inter-species marriage, keep in mind "it's just not right" and "i love bessie the pig" aren't valid arguments.
[b]somebody put a gun in this country's mouth[/b]
When I've been discussing this issue with my friends (and it's weird, but lately we've been discussing it a lot), the comparison I like to make is that what happened in Virginia (where rights such as insurance, death issues, etc, have been granted) is the gay right equivalent to the Plessy Vs. Ferguson case of 1892. When segregation was legalized, so long as "seperate but equel" provisions were provided.
Which, as I think most of us can agree on, turned out to be a crock of shit. But I'm honestly surprised that no one else that I know of has seen the similiarities between these two issues yet. Yes, some governments are saying, "Well, we'll recognize you. We just won't PERMIT you into our little club."
I'm honestly excited, that this whole issue seems to be coming to a head when it is. Massachusettes (isn't it?), or whatever the state is that says banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, seems to really be moving towards a landmark, "Brown Vs. Board of Education" type case. We're not there yet, I don't think. But boy. We sure are getting closer.
And I think the blacks that are saying gay marriage rights are "special" rights should really do there homework a little more. Well, for one thing - I'll bet a number of the black men who offered this opinion freaking LOVE the lesbian pornos. But on a more serious level, it's been proven, I believe, that homosexuality is at time hereditary. And gays are certainly not asking for any further rights than hetero couples have.
I liked what the Reverend Al Sharpton said in the Debates for the nomination for Presidential candidate. I can't quote it exactly, but he said that YES, this is a civil rights issue. And to say that he doesn't approve of gay marriage is the exact same thing as saying that he doesn't approve of Greek marriage, or Latino marriage, or whatever color your skin is marriage.
I liked what Margaret Cho has said even more. "Any government that would deny a gay man his right to a bridal registry is CLEARLY A FASCIST STATE."
I really don't see the issue of gay marriage being, "the great war or great depression" that this generation will rally around, but you know what? It's something. And the progress that's being made is a sure sign, in my mind, that we're moving forward.
At least, that's what I think. How about the rest of you? 
civil rights to blacks, is gay rights to homos.
except not to the exact degree
Knox, civil rights to gays are the same as civil rights to blacks. Civil refers to "civilian" as in an ordinary person
First paragraph of the 14th amendment to the Constition of the United States:
Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [b]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/b]
The [i]equal[/i] protection of those laws.
Gahh, I simply love the way you guys tear up my mind sometimes on issues like this. I would never even think about these kinds of things if I didn't have all of you.
As I've recently stated, my own personal jury is out on the issue of homosexuality. But anyway, a few years ago (I want to say when I was 15 or 15, so 3-4 years ago) the state of Nebraska passed a law that said, in essence, gay marriages would not only never be performed in Nebraska, but they would also never be recognized, even if other states, feasibly every other state in the Union, recognized them. The law passed with by a huge landslide, something like 90% of the vote.
To me, ok, maybe we have our reasons for not wanting to perform gay marriages. Maybe, even, we have our reasons for not recognizing them (just to be a bit of a devil's advocate). But to pass a law that pre-emptively strikes down any future attempt at nondiscrimination to [i]anyone[/i], on any issue, for any good reason, is ridiculous and paranoid.
In ten years this law is going to make my beloved home state look backwards and fucking idiotic, if it doesn't already.
There is hope, but not for us.
Yeah, too late.
I know.
There is hope, but not for us.
Being black is arguably also a choice, ask Mike Jackson and O.J. They've chosen not to be.
see what i dont like against these laws to prevent homos from doing their deed. it also restricts straight people from ass fucking too.
i think if they want ano homo law than they should stop being pussys and dancing around the subject and just make a freaking law
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B]As I've recently stated, my own personal jury is out on the issue of homosexuality. [/B][/QUOTE]
How do you mean jane? Is this comment directed towards your feelings about homosexuality and whether it's "right"?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by knoxville [/i]
[B]i think if they want ano homo law than they should stop being pussys and dancing around the subject and just make a freaking law[/B][/QUOTE]
1. Could you please quit calling gay people homos?
2. "Being a pussy" is what political figures do. It's called filibustering. No one can really help it, because once you elect your representative they do what they like in the senate and such. In my opnion, filibustering is good because that means that [i]some[/i] people care about this issue on both sides (as opposed to one side not approving of gay rights). The way I see it, there will be a natural progression: There was a concensus around the time of the civil rights movement that gay activities are "wrong". That concensus is now changed to a different, more approving number. In the future, the majority will feel that gay rights are a necessary thing. This happened with white people's feelings about civil rights. This will happen with straight people for gay rights (yes, mirkah, they are the same thing, but it's nice to have a noun to differentiate between the two). Tolerance will be exampled, and people will follow, in time.
I agree with you Diabetic, I made that point to clarify for Knox. He doesn't seem to understand what "civil rights" are and how the term applies to everyone. Obviously 'The gay civil rights movement is quite a mouthful as is "the african american civil rights movement".
Diabetic, what I mean is that I am a very religious person, and Christianity doesn't typically condone homosexuality for a variety of reasons. It's very hard for me at times to reconcile my religious/societal Midwestern values and the way I actually, gut-feelingly feel about different issues.
That being said, I've often felt great disgust for many of my Christian friends' utter lack of tolerance towards gay people. I once slapped one of my best friends across the face when she told me Matthew Shepard was 'a queer who deserved it.'
In a nutshell, I guess I just really struggle with making a compromise between the way I really feel and the way I'm supposed to feel.
There is hope, but not for us.
Okay, first of all, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about how being gay is a sin. But second of all, there are different interpretations of the bible, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I've just gotten to the point to where I don't even care that people hate other people for no damn reason. Just so long as they don't physically show it, or try to put that group down through unfair terms, I'm cool. Those haters can just sit in the corner hating everything and die lonely.
But what I wanted to say about religion is that you never have to conform to your religion. If something it says doesn't hit you right, then don't take what that it seriously. Because it is all subjective and if you really stick to what most religions say and be a good person to the best of your ablilities, then you are going to be rewarded justly. Little issues don't matter if you're a good person.
And I hate people who always talk about Jesus and then end up hating people. That is the most hypocritical thing on this earth. [i]Those[/i] people are guaranteed a spot in hell.
you're right diabetic, nowhere in the bible does it say that being homosexual is a sin, but the act of homosexual copulation is addressed in the bible as a sin. then again in the bible it aslo says that if someone steals from you you have the right to cut off their hand. but that's neither here nor there.
and jane, i'm sure that with Mass. ruling on gay marriages, it will spill over into the other states, other gay couples will be able to use that ruling to their advantage, at least to reappeal the laws like the one in your state. eventually it will go to the supreme court, but it is probably, at best, still a year away from being brought to the supreme court.
a couple good links:
[url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1128-06.htm]Gay Marriage Decision Spurs Action Across US[/url]
[[url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001803427_gays29.html]Gay-marriage foes want Constitution amended [/url]
[url=http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031128/APN/311280794]Gay marriage decision renews tension between Legislature, courts[/url]
ok sorry sorry, gays instead of homos. i dont mena homos in a degrating way (i have had a few gays as friends) its just easier to type i guess. but isnce your all asking nicely.
second to mirkah: sorry mirkah but usually it goes right over my head unless osmeone says it in their own wrods. i find those governmental things to be too wordy etc.
as for the bible thing: i personally see the world as God's little experiement. well n ot experiment but His own little place to look down upon. and i think we wer emeant to make mistakes, to rebel, to ocme up with extrordinary thoughts, we were meant to live. not doing somehting, isn't living. living is doing something.
i think as long as your a good person at heart, than your okay in God's eyes. whether you be gay or not
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Diabetic [/i]
[B]But what I wanted to say about religion is that you never have to conform to your religion. If something it says doesn't hit you right, then don't take what that it seriously. Because it is all subjective and if you really stick to what most religions say and be a good person to the best of your ablilities, then you are going to be rewarded justly. Little issues don't matter if you're a good person. [/B][/QUOTE]
Whether or not you have to conform to your religion is a matter of personal opinion as well. I've heard both religious and non religious people ask me how I can justify only believing certain parts of the Bible and not all of it. And in a way, that makes sense: if this stuff really is divinely inspired, etc., who am [i]I[/i] to say that some of it is right or wrong? Why believe any of it if you don't believe all of it?
That being said, what tryp always says is probably right: you just need to find out what is right for you and what makes sense for you personally. I cannot follow my religion blindly, when my religion tells me that slave ownership and female subservience are correct. But neither can I blindly follow society with its knee-jerk political correctness and its oftentimes willfull disgust for religion.
Like I said before, it's constantly a struggle for me, as it is for most religious people, to find some kind of middle ground that doesn't have them tearing their hair out.
There is hope, but not for us.
Thanks knox. I know you didn't mean it in a derogatory way, but so many people do, and it gets to me. Esp. in these forums, because I really do think everyone is more tolerant than calling gay people fags and such.
Has anyone ever heard of a book called "Stranger at the Gate"? It's an interesting biography of a gay pastor, who is now openly gay, but for years had tried to "cure" his "sickness". He even resorted to shock therapy. Interesting read.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B]That being said, what tryp always says is probably right: you just need to find out what is right for you and what makes sense for you personally. I cannot follow my religion blindly, when my religion tells me that slave ownership and female subservience are correct. But neither can I blindly follow society with its knee-jerk political correctness and its oftentimes willfull disgust for religion.[/B][/QUOTE]
That is exaclty how I feel. Except I now no longer have a religion. I follow myself, and try to be what I believe is a good person. Tool helped me out a lot with the whole "question authority" thing, so maybe I'm biased. But who isn't?
you are what you are. in the end yeah sure i may say derogatory terms, but i never mean them and id never turn away anyone who needed help.
i think being gay is cool and all, but im not to sure on this whole parade thing. to me its liek saying "we want you to treat us normally, depsite the 33 pound lesbian over there dressed up ina rainbow costume spraying water on the crowd pretending the hose was her dick".
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Diabetic [/i]
[B]Okay, first of all, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about how being gay is a sin. But second of all, there are different interpretations of the bible, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But what I wanted to say about religion is that you never have to conform to your religion. If something it says doesn't hit you right, then don't take what that it seriously. Because it is all subjective and if you really stick to what most religions say and be a good person to the best of your ablilities, then you are going to be rewarded justly. Little issues don't matter if you're a good person.
And I hate people who always talk about Jesus and then end up hating people. That is the most hypocritical thing on this earth. [i]Those[/i] people are guaranteed a spot in hell. [/B][/QUOTE]
Homosexuality and the act of it is indeed considered a sin in the bible and in christianity..the act makes the person.
Second of all...The word of God is the word of God..its not open to peoples opinions...its set and if you choose to live by it then you choose to do so but if you decide that its too harsh and not to your liking then i agree you must find the shoe that fits..but the bible holds a very strict doctrine..and very few people no matter how christian they call themselves dont actually follow it.
People who truly follow the ways and teachings of Jesus do not hate anyone and most of all they do not JUDGE anyone for who they are or what they practice or who they decide to be with....Most Christians pick and choose what to read in the bible and thats where everything gets lost.
I think gays should be allowed to get married...this country needs to learn a little thing called seperation of church and state.
Could someone explain homosexuality ot me, I dont get it. I mean, like in pornos it's 2 hot girls, which is cool. But 90% of the lesbians I've seen in real life there's a cute one and a mannish one.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/Lazlosdead/completeLazloSig.jpg[/IMG]
i had a discussion about this at work with a russian engineer (i find myself in some crazy situations). i kept shooting down his arguments against gay marriage until he finally resorted to saying, "but i just can't picture myself with a man...that's just disgusting."
and i replied, "well...no one's saying you have to."
this seemed to be a novel idea to him. this could be what's at the root of homophobia in general. there's a reason they call it homo[i]phobia[/i].
[SIZE=1][QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. [/QUOTE]
[URL=http://confessionalpoe.blogspot.com]Grand Mental Station[/URL]
[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=15714&highlight=interview+insomnomaniac]Insomnomaniac: the found interview[/URL][/SIZE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lazlosdead [/i]
[B]Could someone explain homosexuality ot me, I dont get it. I mean, like in pornos it's 2 hot girls, which is cool. But 90% of the lesbians I've seen in real life there's a cute one and a mannish one. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not understanding homosexuality is the biggest reason, as I see it, why gay people will not see their rights recognized any time soon. The whole issue of sexuality is so complex and governments so short-sighted, it will take years to sort the mess out.
As far as homosexuals/homosexuality being a sin, and what the Bible says about it - we do not create laws to accomodate what the Bible says or does not say.
Gays deserve to have the same civil rights and liberties as any other person. The general public may think it is wrong, but screw democracy and equality if you're not ready to deal with what they bring.
Elderly saying 4 to 1 that gay marriages are wrong? I dont like old people and I think most old people are just spitefull. Maybe its the wrinkles, but I really think old people are evil.
TO DO: Become own hero. Push piano. Survive celebrity.
right but the whole idea of the rights of the minority is that those not in a minority don't identify with them. why do you think it's so easy for people to discriminate against people they don't identify with? you think the average white person understands what it's like to be black? there's a reason it's called [i]ignorance.[/i]
this doesn't mean the rights of the minority shouldn't be recognized.
[SIZE=1][QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. [/QUOTE]
[URL=http://confessionalpoe.blogspot.com]Grand Mental Station[/URL]
[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=15714&highlight=interview+insomnomaniac]Insomnomaniac: the found interview[/URL][/SIZE]
I'm just saying it is ignorance that leads to not respecting gay rights. To me, wheter a majority can identify with an issue or not should be irrelevant. It is not, however, irrelevant in the real world.
TO DO: Become own hero. Push piano. Survive celebrity.
true.
another thing, trypd, is that the original reference is a bit racist, or at least a bit of a generalization, don't you think? it identifies blacks as having a single unified opinion. even [i]gays[/i] don't have a unified opinion about gay marriage.
[SIZE=1][QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. [/QUOTE]
[URL=http://confessionalpoe.blogspot.com]Grand Mental Station[/URL]
[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=15714&highlight=interview+insomnomaniac]Insomnomaniac: the found interview[/URL][/SIZE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]Homosexuality and the act of it is indeed considered a sin in the bible and in christianity..the act makes the person.
Second of all...The word of God is the word of God..its not open to peoples opinions...its set and if you choose to live by it then you choose to do so but if you decide that its too harsh and not to your liking then i agree you must find the shoe that fits..but the bible holds a very strict doctrine..and very few people no matter how christian they call themselves dont actually follow it.
People who truly follow the ways and teachings of Jesus do not hate anyone and most of all they do not JUDGE anyone for who they are or what they practice or who they decide to be with....Most Christians pick and choose what to read in the bible and thats where everything gets lost.
I think gays should be allowed to get married...this country needs to learn a little thing called seperation of church and state. [/B][/QUOTE]
actually no, homosexuality is accepted to a certain degree in a lot of christian churches. the act is considered a sin. i used to go to church with a gay guy who told me that several pastors he talked to said it was ok, as long as no homosexual coupling was involved.
and yes, the bible is open to individual interpretation to a degree. the bible is not a rule book like say a MLA handbook, but more of a guideline, stating what general path you should conform your life to.
not to mention the bible was originally interpreted by man, that's how it made it to paper, and every translation was just another "take" on the bible.
and insom, yea i can see how my first post might come across as racist, but in no way was it meant as such. i was merely confuse why one minority demographic group would stunt the advancement of civil rights for another minority demographic group. i would have thought they would have embraced and understood their plight and struggles, and by understanding also would have assisted in creating "equality", as was the statement they made during their struggles.
everyone deserves equal rights. in the words of Dr.Gonzo
"even a werewolf deserves an ttorney"
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drenowski [/i]
[B]As far as homosexuals/homosexuality being a sin, and what the Bible says about it - we do not create laws to accomodate what the Bible says or does not say.
[/B][/QUOTE]
This is not strictly true--since our country was originally mainly settled by Puritans and missionaries, and our first government/constitutional writers were a bunch of white Christian males, the majority of our laws and social mores are based around Christian ideas of right vs. wrong. It's harder to escape our country's religious heritage than you think it is.
There is hope, but not for us.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]actually no, homosexuality is accepted to a certain degree in a lot of christian churches. the act is considered a sin. i used to go to church with a gay guy who told me that several pastors he talked to said it was ok, as long as no homosexual coupling was involved.
and yes, the bible is open to individual interpretation to a degree. the bible is not a rule book like say a MLA handbook
[/B][/QUOTE]
Alot of things are accepted in the christian churches..my point is that homosexuality and its acts does not follow within the teachings of the bible
hmmm what are the 10 COMMANDments? whether you choose to follow like i said is totally up to you. Whatever religion and spiritual teachings you see fit.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]Alot of things are accepted in the christian churches..my point is that homosexuality and its acts does not follow within the teachings of the bible
hmmm what are the 10 COMMANDments? whether you choose to follow like i said is totally up to you. Whatever religion and spiritual teachings you see fit. [/B][/QUOTE]
the teachings of the bible say nothing about 2 men or 2 women wanting each other's company exclusively. so yes, the act of homosexual coupling is the only thing the bible addresses. if you feel otherwise, go ahead and support your argument.
you're right, the 10 commandments are usually followed to the letter, but the rest of the bible isn't. it addresses dietary habits, it addresses clothing habits, and prayer habits. i doubt your lifestyle comes anywhere close to even beginning to resemble the outlines it addresses on those points. the point is that parts of the bible are outdated and were meant for that specific time period, but if you're saying that the bible's not open to intrepretation, you're saying that you follow those outlines to the letter.
[url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/30/bishops_sjc_decision_tragedy/]And then there was more protesting, this time from the Catholics[/url]
this one (above) looked to be their only argument.
"Once again, this issue is not about forcing any one religious tradition to perform same-sex weddings, but about respecting religious freedom, and the separation of church and state," said Valerie Fein-Zachary, chairwoman of the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts. "The archdiocese is out of touch with its own membership. We have seen in recent polling that our friends and neighbors who are Catholic support equal civil rights for their gay and lesbian neighbors, and I believe the average Catholic also values the separation of church and state."
exactly what i was thinking when i first read this. yea, the catholic church claims to be against seperation of church and state, but it seems to only work that way when it's convenient for the church.
this whole message they're sending out is filled with only the message of discrimination. just because the state allows same-sex marriages, does not mean that churches will have to also.
final arguments:
But a spokeswoman for Dignity/Boston, a group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Catholics that holds its own worship services, said church leaders are trying to have it both ways. "Plain and simple, Catholic officials are urging continued infringement on our civil rights," said Marianne Duddy-Burke. "It's a decades-old dilemma for them -- the inherent conflict between the pastoral aspect of our church, and the doctrine."
yes, this is an openly anti-catholic post. being raised catholic i've just seen too much of their hypocritical, backwards-thinking anti-everything-that-isn't-catholic stances to have any respect for a religion that will just change their stance 200-400 years down the road to get with the modern age (the one they left behind 200-400 years ago that is).
thoughts...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B][...] the majority of our laws and social mores are based around Christian ideas of right vs. wrong. It's harder to escape our country's religious heritage than you think it is. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have no illusions about how difficult it is to distinguish 'majority lifestyle' from legislation. I live in a prononced catholic country where most politicians are up-tight beause of their electoral body.
My argument is that if you allow muslims to practice Islam freely in the US, you have a secular state. Period. A secular state means that it may be hard for white, middle class Protestants to deal with gay marriages, but they would have to. If being homosexual is 'moraly questionalble', being a muslim or god-forbid - an atheist! - should also be scrutinized through laws.
Let's not forget that besides the religious (Protestant) background of your country's founding fathers, they also used to talk about life, liberty and pursuit of happines. But in debates such as this one, the majority decides to neglect that aspect of morality and freedom.
TO DO: Become own hero. Push piano. Survive celebrity.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B] i doubt your lifestyle comes anywhere close to even beginning to resemble the outlines it addresses on those points. the point is that parts of the bible are outdated and were meant for that specific time period, but if you're saying that the bible's not open to intrepretation, you're saying that you follow those outlines to the letter. [/B][/QUOTE]
I dont consider myself christian brother.....but i know a thing or two about it and ive grown up in that type atmosphere.....and i have seen people, plaenty of people, follow the bibles teachings to the "letter" i dont have that type lifestyle and neither do you....but people do and thats that.
The United Pentacostal Churches the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus...these churches all follow strictly to what the bible says...
There have been so many different groups that have sincerely claimed for more than 2000 years they followed the Bible to the letter that the obvious conclusion is : there is no 'letter' of the Bible. Every reading is another interpretation.
in the ned the church and the bible were written by mortal men, correct?
well we are but mere mortal men. man. he isnt perfect. therefore perhaps the whole gay thign was written in just cause one of the guys felt that way. who knows?
all im saying is that if it was written by man, is there not possible room for error?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B]This is not strictly true--since our country was originally mainly settled by Puritans and missionaries, and our first government/constitutional writers were a bunch of white Christian males, the majority of our laws and social mores are based around Christian ideas of right vs. wrong. It's harder to escape our country's religious heritage than you think it is. [/B][/QUOTE]
that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
[SIZE=1][QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. [/QUOTE]
[URL=http://confessionalpoe.blogspot.com]Grand Mental Station[/URL]
[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=15714&highlight=interview+insomnomaniac]Insomnomaniac: the found interview[/URL][/SIZE]
I hate I hate I hate it when stupid people try to explain what the bible says about homosexuality and then try to show that it's a crock by citing some part of the old law.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]you're right diabetic, nowhere in the bible does it say that being homosexual is a sin, but the act of homosexual copulation is addressed in the bible as a sin. then again in the bible it aslo says that if someone steals from you you have the right to cut off their hand. but that's neither here nor there. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sounds like it's time for a Sunday School Lesson...
The part of the Bible that talks about putting tassles on four corners of your garment, and not eating pork, and cutting off limbs and such is all a part of the OLD TESTAMENT, in a section called the "Old Law." This is the stuff still believed in by Orthodox Jews.
However, when Christ died and was resurrected in the NEW TESTAMENT, the Old Law was abandoned (by believers in Christ). Thus, we eat Pork, we dance, etc.
This is how we are able to say that the eye for an eye system is obsolete, and we don't have tassles on our t-shirts.
BUT- The passages that express that homosexual sex is a sin is not a part of the Old Law, and thus was NOT abandoned when Christ came back, and thus is STILL believed in by Christians. In fact, the belief is reiterated in one of the Epistles (part of the New Testament). There are no Scriptural flaws in that belief...nor is eating pork and thinking homosexual sex is a sin considered a contradiction.
So stop trying to say it is, because that's ignorant and wrong.
HOWEVER: It's also an important bit in the New Testament about loving others no matter what they do or how they sin. This makes all homophobic gay-haters HYPOCRITES, who are, themselves, no better than those they are attempting to make themselves out to be better than. Christians are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin, and if you encounter a Christian who is hating on Gays, just tell them "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It ought to shut them up.
FURTHERMORE: There's this bit of the United States Constitution that provides for a seperation between church and state. This means that, despite all of what I said, and despite the fact that any Christian who believes what is Biblically sound should indeed believe that homosexual sex is a sin (I believe that it is)....yes friends, despite ALL of that, the fact remains that it is perfectly legal for homosexual marriage to be allowed in the United States, and so it most assuredly SHOULD occur for the sake of total, unquestionable civil equality. Additionally, all Christians should do the Christ-like thing and respect it. They should be tolerant...they HAVE to be tolerant, or they might as well just be gay.
So, know your stuff, know your rights, and deal with the way things are supposed to be....oh, and KWITCHERBITCHING
"Do you have 846 pounds of zinc? I don't!" -- The Laz.
"I was almost Six On Tha Dot. What a mistake that would have been." -- Six On The Dot
aheffel, point me to the part of the new testament that says that being homosexual is a sin? it's adressed in the old testament, not the new testament. so by your own standards there chief, it's a moot point. so aheffel, i'm sorry but with what you just said there, you just invalidated your whole argument.
and yes, every different sect, every different branch of christianity has interpreted the bible in a different manner, so to say that it's wrong to interpret the bible personally is to say that all religions are wrong, and that what you believe is wrong because yes, every time it was translated, and everytime part of it was written, it was a translation of what the author/editor/translator read.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by franc tireur [/i]
[B]There have been so many different groups that have sincerely claimed for more than 2000 years they followed the Bible to the letter that the obvious conclusion is : there is no 'letter' of the Bible. Every reading is another interpretation. [/B][/QUOTE]
exactly
The majority of blacks are notoriously hateful of gays. This isn't anything new, unfortunately.
The whole thing is too fucking ugly for me to try and find some kind of root for their intense bigotry.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.