Gay Marrige

Quote:The second statement is biased coming from someone who examines ANE society in comparison to American society.

This is an argument for moral nihilism. Of course I'm judging based on today's norms, but if you accept those norms, then it results in a contradiction: your Bible doesn't conform at all to popular notions of morality (for instance, we assume human rights, equality, liberty, etc,.).

Thus, I guess the question for you is:
Do women deserve unequal political rights?

Quote:BE SPECIFIC. CITE VERSES. I don't want to assume which cities you are talking about.

Seriously, it doesn't take that much analysis to figure out what cities I'm referring to when I say both "the destruction of cities is an atrocity" and "the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" is an atrocity in a thread about gay marriage.

Stop avoiding the question, and try not to jump down my throat in situations like these :)

Quote:. You cannot extrapolate one instance of a biblical metaphor and assume that the punishment for homosexuals is also a metaphor.

Then provide a mechanism for showing which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted figuratively and which are to be interpreted literally. You cannot provide a mechanism that exists in your own mind (since that would make the Bible relative, or you God), and you cannot point to the Bible (since the integrity of the Bible is in question, and thus we can never know whether any mechanism proposed by the Bible is meant to be literal or figurative).

The mechanism has to be wholly independent of either you or the Bible. If I come across a Bible verse and I'm not sure if I should take it literally or not, I shouldn't have to turn to the Bible verses (because I'm questioning them) and I shouldn't have to turn to you in order to find out. Give me a mechanism where I can independently arrive to the conclusion.

Quote:No, the Jews did practice such laws.

The Christians similarly seemed to practice laws that did, in fact, suggest some form of geocentrism. Since you have just logically endorsed the idea

1. If a group of adherents to an Abrahamic religion practiced some part of the Bible X, X is literally true.
2. The Jews practiced some part of the Bible X.
3. Therefore, X is literally true.

Then you must endorse the idea of geocentrism.

Quote:If I'm misinterpreting you, correct me, but it seems that you assume that literary devices such as metaphors destroy any set meaning to a writing.

It destroys the ability of the writing to be considered an objective source of knowledge. I would never predicate anything on my interpretation of Hamlet, because it is simply my intepretation, and there is nothing in the text that suggests that my interpretation is or is not the Sole Truth of Hamlet(tm).

Quote:Show me a single verse where the Bible approves of homosexuality.

When we get into interpretation, it is possible to have the Bible say anything. I can say that the Book of Ruth allows for homosexuality, and I can say that Leviticus/other areas are using "homosexual" to refer to pederastic relationships, and thus it is not referring to the same concept. I can say that Jesus saying that eunuchs are made that way/choose to be that way for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is referring to gay people (in fact, in Indian society it was often the case that "homosexuality" would be conflated with those who became eunuchs).

"Oh, well, if you look at the context...." is not an answer, because you haven't shown me why I should look at the context in that instance but not in the "lol the earth is the centre of the universe" instance. Back in the day, Jews/Christians were persecuted. The ancient practice of treating the wife as property and taking a young boy/teenage lover, in addition to being really pagan, would also have a negative impact on the population. Contextually speaking, I can explain your prohibitions against homosexuality out of moral existence. Contextually speaking, I can explain prohibitions against shrimp or prohibitions against religious toleration or against women in terms of the economic and sociopolitical environment that people faced at the time. Indeed, we can use history and econonmics to explain why Christianity eventually rid itself of that, why segments of Christianity evolved toward the gospel of wealth, why segments of Christianity came to endorse slavery and others endorsed non-slavery, why all of these things occured. We can do this just as we can explain vegetarianism among the Hindus or Buddhist repression in Tibet or how communism came to get a grip on the world or why France is richer than Italy or any of these things.

Once again: why should passages that demean women be considered "contextually", but passages that demean gays be considered literally? Who gets to choose which passages are literal and which one's aren't? You?

Quote:And what of historical evidence for the Bible's accuracy. Are we to assume that they are 'interpretations' though attested by history?

The "accuracy" of the Bible is not particularly noteworthy: pagan Greek philosophers were discovering truths about the world far before Jewish, Christian, or Muslim philosophers (who all take various credit for various things). The story of the Flood of Noah, or geocentrism, or any other number of scientific absurdities do not speak particularly well to the Bible as a revealer of physical truth. In fact:

Quote: 1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
10He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.
11They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.
12By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.
13He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.
14He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
16The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;
17Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.
18The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies.
19He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
20Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
21The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
22The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.
23Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
24O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
25So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
27These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
28That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
29Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
31The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.
32He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.
33I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.
35Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

That seems pretty damn clear to me that the Earth is geocentric.

"Oh, but in context..." becomes irrelevant by your own argument. The Catholic Church used this to attempt to ban the idea of heliocentrism. Thus, since it was *practiced* by the Church, I guess it must be taken literally (as you said above, the Jews practiced certain laws and therefore those laws ought to be taken literally).

Can we interpret these things in the context of history? Of course we can. But in doing so, the whole Bible becomes open to interpretation in context: you don't get to say "Ah, yase, everything is open, except for my pet issue of morality, that is closed forever to interpretation for it is the literal word of the LORD.". That is, you don't get to say that if you place any value on truth or logic.

Quote:No, you cannot extrapolate literary devices such as metaphors or hyperboles into parts of the Bible where it is obviously meant literally.

Oh, so you attempt a new line of argument:

1. X area of the Bible ought to be taken literally, obviously. (Premise)
2. THEREFORE: X area of the Bible ought to be taken literally. (Conclusion)

If you are no longer concerned with logical soundness, simply say so.

Quote:It is Shakespeare's interpretation that is the correct interpretation one not ours.

Suppose I write a book, and I call it "Omlet". What I am attempting to communicate in Omlet is that it is important that everybody tolerate everybody else, lest the whole world implode. To do this, I have a passage:

1. "But Jim is a LOVER OF RAP MUSIC! Therefore, let us stone Jim in accordance with our common morality!" said Dr. Mike. Therefore, Dr. Mike killed Jim with the power of the heavens!

Dr. Mike has chosen an issue that affects nobody - liking rap music - to base his intolerance that leads to death. That Jim is killed with the power of the heavens merely means that Jim is killed in a spectacle, a real eye-grabbing fashion. Clearly the intention of Omlet is to show that we ought to affirm liberty, and not be distracted by senseless and arbitrary divisions.

Unfortunately, I die shortly after the publisher prints the book. Various social conservatives now use Omlet to justify a new law that bans rap music. After all, Jim liked rap music, which was obviously a sin since Mike killed him for it. No less, Jim was killed by the power of the HEAVENS!!!! Clearly the intention of Omlet is to show that rap music is dangerous!

Radical Feminists use Omlet to show how male patriarchy leads to violence, and thus attempt to use Omlet to support a law banning men from political life. After all, is it not interesting that Jim, a *MAN*, instigates the whole controversy, and that Mike, a *MAN*, kills him for it? Clearly the intention of Omlet is to show that men are dangerous!

Marxists show that rap music historically was created by poorer classes, and thus use Omlet to show that the bourgeoisie will always attempt to surpress the lower classes and thus a violent revolution is necessary.After all, historically Jim would have been a poor, inner-city boy, whereas Mike (being a doctor and all) was a rich man who KILLS Jim because of the way Jim's poverty manifests. That Jim is killed by the power of the heavens merely underscores how Dr. Mike, a member of the CAPITALIST CLASS, was so far above Jim socially as to almost be a God. Clearly the intention of Omlet is to show that the bourgeoisie are dangerous and ought to be overthrown!

All of these interpretations are incorrect, but I'm dead so I don't get to talk to people anymore. You can't come up and ask me what I really meant, because I don't talk to people anymore. Thus, now you only have my book, Omlet, to tell the truth. However, everyone is interpreting Omlet differently, and so everything thinks that clearly Omlet is supporting their position.

When you open Omlet up to interpretation, you no longer have a way of telling what Omlet is actually saying, because you don't have any source of whether one part of Omlet is meant to be figurative or not. The only thing you have is Omlet, but you can never be able to tell whether one part of Omlet is literal or figurative....except, of course, your own system of morality. Thus, conservatives, feminists, and Marxists all think Omlet supports what they say because Omlet's lack of clarity means that we can never actually know.

Quote:Suggesting that practices such as stoning were 'interpretations' just like Jesus said to 'eat his flesh' would be an obvious violation of context, which you have been ignoring even now.

Why? Why can't we say that "stoning" simply means "harsh condemnation"? After all, if in Omlet I say "Mike stood up on the stage and denounced the President of the Assembly, and the audience - filled with supporters of the President - began to stone him for his words.", I could very well mean that the audience began to boo very loudly. I could even mean that the President was a good man and so criticising him *ought to* be very harshly criticised. There is no "obvious" about whether stoning must necessarily mean the actual process of throwing stones at a person until they die*.

*which, we should note, would be a cruel and barbaric way to kill someone.

Quote:Offer an interpretation without contradicting with the Bible and you win. I highly doubt you will.

But you are assuming your interpretation, and you *ADMIT* it is an interpretation, is correct! If I assume your interpretation isn't correct, then you have no independent standards to judge whether my interpretation contradicts the Bible or not - you can't simply say "Well, look at what it *SAYS*", because you don't hold that the Bible is literally true. All you can say is "Well, it obviously means X", but by saying that you take upon yourself the role as the sole arbiter of the word of God. I'll require a miracle coming from you before I believe that one.

Quote:Please show me how I can interpret "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." other than it's literal meaning.

Back then, marriage was a contract of ownership often created between families for economic reasons, and it would not be entirely uncommon for the married man and wife to have no interest in each other whatsoever. Thus, one other possible interpretation is "You shall not have ownership over a man as you have ownership over a woman - that is an abomination". Of course, that makes the passage rather misogynistic, but the Bible is not particularly known for its gender equality anyway.

I mean, even you are ascribing interpretation: you aren't taking it literally. It *LITERALLY* says "You shall not put your body in a horizontal position of rest with a person of the male gender as you would put your body in a horizontal position of rest with a person of the female gender - it is forbidden.". In fact, the Hebrew "lo tishkab" (used in Leviticus 18) refers to "laying down to rest", whereas "lo-titten shokobteka" is used everywhere else and refers to sex specifically. Thus, it is simply saying that I can't rest with a man in the exact same fashion that I would with a woman.

"Oh, that's a stretch" you might say. Your interpretation of it as a "stretch" ignores that it *literally* means that, but regardless, let us assume you are correct for a moment and suppose that it means something sexual. LITERALLY speaking, except to interpret "lie" as being sexual (which isn't ltieral, but figurative, but I'll ignore that for now) it would still mean "You shall not have sex with a man in the same manner as you have sex with a woman - it is unclean". That is true, of course: you can't have sex with a man in the same manner, because men have different sexual organs placed in different locations.

You can interpret it to be more broadly against gender equality. "You shall not treat men like you treat women" (where, historically, men were treated more equally than women.) Thus: "You shall not give women political rights as you do men, it is an abomination."

You can interpret it in a marxist fashion. To lay down with a woman implies a certain economic relationship (for instance, it implies your sovereignty over the woman's property, it implies certain ties with the woman's family, it implies certain responsibilities on the part of the woman versus the man in providing for the household, a certain delegation of labour, etc,.), and thus you can say that the passage means "Do not engage in the same sort of economic activities with men as you do with women, because that is immoral" - essentially, "sex" is used once again to represent a form of ownership. Hell, you could even say that "man" in this case refers to "mankind", and thus this interpretation is flipped on its head: You shall not oppress mankind in the way that you have, up to this point, oppressed women, for such oppression is an abomination.

Reform Judaism interprets it as a prohibition against the cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite nations.

You can interpret the use of "to'evah" and notice its use as it relates to food to say that this "law" was revoked by Jesus anyway.

Seriously, I have a really hard time believing you are so unimaginative as to be wholly unable to come up with any interpretations whatsoever.

Quote:You're assuming that the Bible can support multiple interpretations without directly contradicting them.

This is a meaningless phrase. If you assume that the Bible can be open to interpretation, which YOU ALREADY ASSUME, then any "contradictions" that exist can be explained away under more interpretations. You are holding up two different standards of evidence: parts that you don't like get to be interpreted, but parts that you like are classified as literal, and once again you provide no mechanism to differentiate the two other than a bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:If you think that my 'interpretation' is flawed, then show me where in the Bible it contradicts my statement that the Bible condemns homosexual activities.

I already have, and I've already shown how your interptetation of these sections can be interpreted in a different fashion (and, thus, YOUR position is the one contradicting the overarching Biblical message of tolerance and unity!).

You just don't like that interpretation, so you rely on a circular reasoning of "Well, OBVIOUSLY it isn't meant to be read that way, because I say so, and I'm right because its OBVIOUS.". Anybody can do that.

Quote:Show me any implication where the passage is meant to be taken figuratively.

You aren't getting the point: if ANY passage is to be taken figuratively, then we can NEVER KNOW simply by looking at the Bible itself which passages are to be taken figuratively. If the whole Bible is literal, then I get to go to sleep at night knowing that all questions can be answered by just looking at what the words say. If ANY part of the Bible is not literal, then I don't get that comfort: I'll never know which parts are literal and which parts aren't. Just as we can never know what my book, Omlet, really says by just looking at it unless we assume it to be 100% literally true.

Quote:1. The part regarding homosexuality is part of the Hebrew LAW. It was an actual practice. Show me how this can be taken figuratively.

The part regarding geocentrism was part of Catholic LAW. It was an actual practice. Show me how this can be taken figuratively.

Quote:2. Show me how the writer could 'figuratively' mean that it rains and then water returns to the sky.

I don't need to show that - you are the one saying it is possible to interpret sections of the Bible figuratively. And it isn't anything extraordinary anyway - the ancient Indians and the ancient Chinese knew that water came from the sky and returned to it.

Why is it that you interpret the Bible literally whenever it makes a statement that science supports as true, but figuratively whenever it does not? I mean, even today, the Bible is being used to attempt to "disprove" evolution, which has been confirmed time and time again. Why do these get a magic pass in your world? Could it be because you have an *emotional* investment in your beliefs and, thus, you are willing to excuse those things that would contradict them?

Quote:3. The passage obviously states that the tree that was seen from all over the world was in a dream.

Except that, contextually speaking, other parts of the Bible support the idea of a flat earth: Gathering people from the corners of the Earth (we now use this phrase colloquially, but it came from the previous flawed people that the "corners of the earth" encompassed the whole world), that the Earth is immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30, Pslam 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, Isiah 45:18), that all points on Earth can be visible from a sufficently tall location (Matthew 4:8) which is not possible under a spherical model.

Why should I interpret any of this figuratively, and yet interpret your pet morality literally?

Quote:4. I guess our daily speech is flawed whenever we use simple idioms like sunset and sunrise.

This is a really poor emotionally-driven argument, and your frustration is starting to show. We have third-party verifiable study to suggest that "sunset" and "sunrise" refer to the perception of such, not the reality of such. We don't have third-party studies to indicate anything on the Bible.

Honestly, even for a fundamentalist, you are defending your position rather poorly. The only way you can defend this idea that some parts are literal and some parts aren't, based on "obviousness", is if you annoint yourself a Godlike ability to see into what God "really meant" when he said X or Y. You discount centuries of theological tradition from Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike in a quest to desperately provide support for, ultimately, your baseless interpretations of theology. The Bible supports absolutely anything you want it to! Hence how it has been used (in PRACTICE! Since you care so much about practice, this is important!) slavery, the oppression of women, imperialism, the conquest of nations, oppression against blacks, oppression against foreigners, and indeed, oppression against gays.

Mark 16:17-18 says that believers can drink poison without being hurt. To my knowledge, most people that have attempted this were harmed by the attempt (lol I guess they didn't just believe enough?).
Proverbs 30:5 claims that every word of God is true, but 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, Jeremiah 8:8, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 all suggest otherwise. Which one is right? If it isn't the former, then the Bible is destroyed by its own authority.
In Genesis, God (in his capacity as the ALL KNOWING CREATOR) decided to withhold from Adam and Eve moral knowledge. If he does that, of course Adam and Eve are going to be tricked, since they don't have moral knowledge. He already knows what is going to happen (since he knows everything), and he lets it happen regardless, when he could have just guarded the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the same manner he guards the Tree of Eternal Life.
Noah's Flood marks God as guilty of near genocide, and certainly makes him more murderous than any other figure in history.
God turns people into pillars of salt for the crime of simply looking back as God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah.
God decides to just kill all the first-born in Egypt, an abominable example of collective punishment.
The Isrealites commit mass murder again and again (during a time when world population was quite low).
If people decide not to follow God's will, he claims that he will (among other things) sends wild animals to kidnap children (which is just creepy anyway). In fact, Leviticus is one of the most violent things every written.
God again and again sends down plagues that kill tens of thousands of people.
Women are treated as property, taken by the Israelites as a sort of prize (with a number of them being sacrificed in the name of the LORD!)

Hell, he even kills people for taking a census. Can we explain these things by historical context? Of course we can - but the Bible describes abominations of actions that would earn any human the title of a psychotic mass-murderer. The Church at one point used Gensis to oppose anesthesia for women (because, hey, God WANTED women to suffer during childbirth).

These things are not a source of modern moral guidance, but they can be explained as the way ancient peoples attempted to understand and interact with the world around them. Ancient holy books of any religion often depict absurd and atrocious things, but it is understandable given the time.

If your Bible were the word of God, though, then it should rise above that. It doesn't. It is full of moral contradictions, physical contradictions, and that is just if you take a literalist view. If you don't, then you have no way of knowing ANYTHING about the Bible, except what your gut tells you.

Seriously, just move on to secular arguments against gay marriage. They are, in fact, more plentiful and easier to defend than your deeply flawed religious arguments. Right now you are just cherrypicking parts of the Bible you like and saying "These are literal, OBVIOUSLY..." and parts you don't like and saying "These parts are figurative, OBVIOUSLY...." without giving any actual *OBJECTIVE* mechanism to differentiate when a verse ought to be considered literal and when it ought to be considered figurative. You just say its "obvious", which ultimately means "It's obvious to ME", and that YOU are the one interpreting things.

You don't value what the BIble has to say, but rather you value what you have to say through the Bible. YOU don't like gays, and so parts of the Bible that appeal to your homophobia will be pleasing to you. You do, however, like the idea of a round Earth, and so parts of the Bible that dont' comform to that are not pleasing to you. The homophobia is the supreme value here, not the word of God. You are using it as a means of personal reflection as much as anybody, but you want to use it to beat on the head everyone who disagrees with your own system of morality. "Well, my interpretation of the Bible is 100% correct because I say so, and thus society should do everything I say because that's God's word."

Of course, you have utterly failed to prove that the Bible even has the POTENTIAL of being true, you have utterly failed to prove it true, you have utterly failed to prove the existence of your God, or of any God, or that your interpretation of things is correct, you have utterly failed to prove that homosexuality is a choice, that it results in harm, that it ought to in any way be discriminated against....You have managed to prove that the Bible contains some rather abominable things, and that we can look to history to explain those things, but this doesn't support your position. In other words, you have utterly failed to prove your point on any issue of importance in this discussion. Your conclusion stands alone, without logical support.

I value liberty. I take the position that, if you aren't harming another person, you aren't doing anything wrong. If I want to have gay sex, or if I want to listen to rap music, or if I as a woman want to own property, or if I want to eat shrimp, or wear polymaterial shirts, or listen to music, or vote in a democracy, or proselytize for another religion, or any number of absurd things the Bible can be used to outlaw....if you want to do these things, you are FINE because you aren't harming anyone else. You haven't provided a reason why I should reject liberty and go back to the 15th century (or to modern Arabia) and live by the absurd standards the Bible commands that I live by.

Don't merely assert that you are "obviously" correct: explain it logically. Otherwise, stop with the argument. "I'm right because it's SELF EVIDENT!" is not an argument, it is an assertion.

Also, please don't respond until you can both respond to my above post in its entirety and to the 27 or so arguments that you have failed to address. YOU are the one saying we should deny gays rights, and so YOU are the one who needs to defend the position.

I also want to reiterate that, once again, you haven't proven ANYTHING as it relates to your theology. I'm being really generous right now, but even if the Bible says EXACTLY what you want it to say, you still haven't proven anything. You are literally missing every step to your argument.

You have a long way to go before your position on gay marriage comes anywhere NEAR being logically coherent, much less sound and true.

I don't see why any of this stuff matters. We are debating whether a person has the right to be married, and therefore, because he is a person, he should. So why does religion matter? Why does politics matter? I don't get it. All I know, is that if I loved someone, I would want to marry him and let the world know he is mine. And I'm a person, so what would sexual orientation matter?

Think about it.
Greenlover17

Greenlover17;80546 wrote:I don't see why any of this stuff matters. We are debating whether a person has the right to be married, and therefore, because he is a person, he should. So why does religion matter? Why does politics matter? I don't get it. All I know, is that if I loved someone, I would want to marry him and let the world know he is mine. And I'm a person, so what would sexual orientation matter?

Think about it.
Greenlover17
... where have you been for... right about ever?
honestly not to be mean but you ask what religion and politics have to do with anything... have you even been reading?
religion- christians (and other religions) believe that homosexuality is against god and shouldnt be allowed...
politics- they are trying to go against the foundations of our country and make gay marriage illegal because of religious reasons
so if you notice it all leads back to religion which is why the entire thing is basically against religions platform...

Marine Corps

Well to be honest, a lot of it is way over my head. I couldn't follow half of it. Heh...heh...

However, what I was trying to get across is that if you are gay, you are a human. Therefore, why would marriage be a problem. What does the bible or politics matter? And yeah, that is a pretty naive comment, but isn't that the root of the issue?

Basically, what I've been able to understand, is that a book that's been corrupted by time and politics, which is corrupted be the people's beliefs, is causing a conflict with allowing a person to exercise his basic rights. Yes?

Well, he's a person, so why should his rights be denied.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Please tell me if I'm just being naive and I will refrain from mutilating this thread.

Greenlover17

Greenlover17;80715 wrote:Marine Corps

Well to be honest, a lot of it is way over my head. I couldn't follow half of it. Heh...heh...

However, what I was trying to get across is that if you are gay, you are a human. Therefore, why would marriage be a problem. What does the bible or politics matter? And yeah, that is a pretty naive comment, but isn't that the root of the issue?

Basically, what I've been able to understand, is that a book that's been corrupted by time and politics, which is corrupted be the people's beliefs, is causing a conflict with allowing a person to exercise his basic rights. Yes?

Well, he's a person, so why should his rights be denied.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Please tell me if I'm just being naive and I will refrain from mutilating this thread.

Greenlover17
well no, thats exactly the point that me and zasch are trying to get across but there are the people that are trying to use the whole "god doesnt like it so it shouldnt be done" argument and making themselves prime targets for religious debates such as the one that took place here... basically religious people are saying that since homosexuality is a crime agianst god then homosexuals are no longer gods creation and no longer given the rights that are given to his creation, which includes marriage...

also sorry if I seemed to come off a little harsh... had a headache...

In other news, the California Supreme Court has legalised full gay marriage in California.

Zasch;81163 wrote:In other news, the California Supreme Court has legalised full gay marriage in California.
yeah I saw that, I think that its just a way for them to get more people to move to california...