Recently In my Political Science class we have been discussing the issue of Gay Marriage. Personaly I dont agree with gay marriage because i feel that because what it says in the bible about a man IS NOT suppose to lay in bed with another man. It states clearly that you should not be gay, and i feel that god created women to be our conterparts. Now saying that i know that every will not be straight because i think they should be, so i feel that there is where civil unions come in. I think that sence there will be gays out there and they want to be togeather then they should have the same responsibilities as straight couple. I think that they should get the tax breaks and when they divorce they should split the accests. I think that unions are good because we as a society are not going to stop homosexuality so we should put laws that give the gay couples the same rights and responsbilties as straight couples.....
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
First of all, it is erroneous to refer to the concept of "marriage" as a strictly religous term, christian or otherwise. The institution of marriage as we know it in this country today was originally a secular arrangement that originated in the common law of England, and was in practice for more than a century before christianity even became a part of the common law after the conversion of the first king of the Heptarchy in 598. Nor in fact did the institution of marriage in a broader historical sense originate as a religious expression. Even in christian lands, marriage did not become a sacrament of the church until somewhere between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.
Secondly, you suggestion for civil unions is (quite literally) a request for a religious establishment in our laws. The First Amendment states quite clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", and I can't think of a more obvious violation of the relgious freedoms of our citizens than to tell them that ONLY the marriages of ONE particular sub-set of religious sects should be given preference over all others. For you see, even the argument that gay people should be prevented to marry on religious grounds fails when you consider that not even all christian denominations prohibit same-sex marriages, and in fact there are (only a few, granted) major christian denominations that perform and recognize our marriages.
The Episcopal Church in this country (i.e. the ECUSA) is an example of a major religoius denomination in this country that performs same-sex marriage. And though not technically "christian," the Universalist Unitarians likewise perform same-sex unions with the full acceptance of their denominational beliefs. There are dozens of smaller denominations as well, but it would only take ONE to render your objection moot. Thus, whether your rejection is religious or not, it is utterly untenable to suggest that we should prevent same-sex couples from accessing institution of marriage simply because SOME (not all) religious sects have a problem with it. In fact, the refusal of many states to accept the marriages of these other, more tolerant sects is ITSELF an unconstitutional establishment.
What you are suggesting is that we adopt a system which is "separate but equal." Does that phrase ring any bells for you? If not, perhaps you should review the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Eduction. An established principle in our Laws is the fact that there really isn't any way to achieve a "separate but equal" arrangement, since the very act of separation represents an invidious act of government, and the imposed categorization of citizens in this matter INHERENTLY regulates the targetted class to an inferior status. As such, institutions which are desiged to be "separate but equal" are unconstitutional. If all citizens are to be afforded the "EQUAL protection of the laws" which the Fourteenth Amendment REQUIRES, then it is not permissible to implement a system wherein SOME citizens are allowed to access the institution of marriage, and others are not.
Of course, this is not the first time that we have heard this kind of argument. It was not so very long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in United States, and these same arguments were common-place in THAT discussion as well.
The following is a quote from the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that struck down the laws making interracial marriages illegal. The passage is taken from the written opinion of the trial judge who sentenced the loving to jail for the "crime" of a white man marrying a black woman...
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow,> malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
> And but for the interference with his arrangement there
> would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
> separated the races shows that he did not intend for the
> races to mix."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
It never ceases to amaze me how often people are want to recycle a bad argument. I suppose this is what George Santayana meant when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The bottom line is this. No religiously based argument is sufficent to overcome the constitutional protections of the First and Fourteenth Amenedments. And in my humble opinion, positions which oppose same-sex marriage from any non-religious source that can be defended in any rational, objective fashion.
Is it really such a novel concept for christians to realize that the laws of our country are not based on the contents of the bible?
Have a nice day,
percivale
First of all i wasnt implying that because of one man's personal beliefe that the constitution should be changed. I feel that because of the religion i was brought up in and what i read in the bible and what i take from it I feel that the same sex marriage is wrong. As to your comment about interacial marriages it doenst state in the bible that a black man cant Marry a white women. It does state that one man cant lay with another. There by supporting my belief, not your's or anyone elses, that same sex marriage is wrong. Brown V. Board of ed is Erroneous to our arrgument about same sex marriage. Because brown v boe is about the constitutional right of freedom to have the same education. In the constitution there is a seperation of church and state, that is why i am against marriage because i am viewing marriage in a religiouse view. That is why the justice of the peace can perform same sex civil unions.
The point i am trying to make is that we are talkin about religiouse conflicts and conflicts of oppinion. I have beliefs that there should not be same sex marriages because i think its wrong. In my oppinoin when u where stating the brown v boe i think that was stupid becuase thats just compairing apples and oranges. Two completely different things that are erelevent to each other.
( SORRY FOR THE BAD SPELLING AND GRAMMER IM RUSHING BECAUSE I HAVE LUNCH)
Thank you
-Sean
> personal beliefe that the constitution should be changed.
Do you not see that your point of view, if carried to its logical conclusion, would REQUIRE such a change?
I feel that because of the religion i was brought up in and> what i read in the bible and what i take from it I feel that
> the same sex marriage is wrong.
That's fine for you. But the Constitution does not permit us to make laws just because we have a religious objection to something.
As to your comment about interacial marriages it doenst> state in the bible that a black man cant Marry a white women.
> It does state that one man cant lay with another.
You COMPLETELY missed the point. It doesn't matter WHAT the bible says, because our laws are NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE, and in fact we are prohibited (thank goodness) from enacting legislation that is biblically based.
There by supporting my belief, not your's or anyone elses,> that same sex marriage is wrong. Brown V. Board of ed is
> Erroneous to our arrgument about same sex marriage. Because
> brown v boe is about the constitutional right of freedom to
> have the same education.
I am sorry, but the concept of the invalidity of "separate but equal" institutions in this country has advance far beyond the narrow interpretation that you suggest. Brown is relevant because when we apply the same REASONING that is found in Brown to THIS issue, we see a similar attempt to separate citizens into invidiously based categories in order to access parallel institutions that have the same effect and purpose.
In the constitution there is a seperation of church and state,> that is why i am against marriage because i am viewing marriage
> in a religiouse view.
This argument fails for TWO reasons. The first reason is that creating a parallel insitituion out of respect for the wishes of a religious group is...literally...a religious establishment. Since not all citizens are chirstian, and even if they were not all christian sects in this country are unwilling to perfom same-sex marriages, the ONLY way that your proposal could be implemented is by allowing the government to decide WHICH religion or group of religions has precedent in the Law. The First Amendment plainly forbids this. The second reason that your argument fails is that, quite frankly, the implication that "marriage" is in ANY way a uniquely religous institution is patently false. Historically, marriage was originally a secular instutution (dating back to the legal documents of the Mesopotamian region such as the Code of Hammurabi). But specifically the model of marriage which we find in the U.S. originated in the Common Law of England, which existed for centuries prior to the insertion of christianity into the mix after the conversions of later Saxon kings.
That is why the justice of the peace can perform> same sex civil unions.
He can perform same-sex (and opposite-sex for that matter) marriages as well. None of our states require that ANY religous ceremony be performed in order to validate a marriage license...not ONE. There is a reason for that, and that reason is that marriage is a legal institution. Even religious marriages have to be registered with the state before they are given access to the legal privledges (and saddled with the corresponding legal responsibilities) of marriage.
The point i am trying to make is that we are talkin> about religiouse conflicts and conflicts of oppinion.
The First Amendment resolves all of the RELEVANT points of your conflict. Live your life in accordance with whatever religion you wish. But when you try to use the state to force OTHER people to adopt your religion's dogmas, you have crossed the line between church and state.
I have beliefs that there should not be same sex> marriages because i think its wrong. In my oppinoin
> when u where stating the brown v boe i think that
> was stupid becuase thats just compairing apples
> and oranges. Two completely different things that
> are erelevent to each other.
If you think the Brown comparison is "stupid," then I am left to presume that either you aren't very well versed in Constitutional Law, nor are you familiar with the arguments which are currently being argued with some succes before the various federal courts in this country.
percivale
that was a type O about constitutional change i ment that because of one mans beliefe it shouldnt be changed, it should only be changed if a lobby group that all holds the same idea campainge for a change.
For what u where saying about the constitution does not permit us to make laws. i wasnt saying it does i was saying that it is a matter of personal oppinion. The only way personal oppion can change the constitution if enouph people come togeather and demand a change.
For your arugment that law is not based on the bible, that is what i was trying to get across by saying that the brown v boe has nothing to do with the bible. its about the need for change in the education system that is funded by the state and the federal government. they run the schools and give them restrictions. As far as same sex marriage, i feel that u are tryin to say that society has to change from its sociological norms. I am saying that its about my believe, my morals that i dont agree for the reason i dont agree is the bible. Many people interpret religion and the bible different ways and my interpritation is gay marrige is wrong.
For your vier on creating a parellel institution, i think it already exsists in form of marriges in churches, mosques, and other religiouse temples. the only reason that i am arguing a cristian stance is because i was raised cristion, noone in my family is buhdist or muslim so therefore i cant argue their beliefs. And for ur second reason i totaly missed because i dont understand what u are trying to point out.
About the justice of the peace i thought it was obviouse that no state requires a religouse ceremony, but i was saying that a church ceromony privilage in my opion should be given to straight couples.
For your argument about the first amendment and riligouse dogma ive never stated that the state should gear laws to surfice to the church.I am speaking planely to my views and the simular views of religouse people.
I am well versed in the constitution, i was just saying that i feel that its two completely different comparisons. Brown v boe is about unsegragating the schools and intergrating the pubic schools. What i am talking about is that i believe that in a church setting and a marriage setting that it should be hetero no homo. I know now for going into a poli sci class that marriage is legal not religouse but i still hold that bias that marriage should be hetero and the creation of civil unions in my opinion is nice because it gives gays the same responsibilities and rights straight couples have.
> i think it already exsists in form of marriges
> in churches, mosques, and other religiouse temples.
How is this a "parallel" institution> Whether your wedding takes place in a mosque, or in a church, or in front of a justice of the peace, the officiator fills out the exact same form, and the legal priviledges and and responsibilities offered to you are IDENTICAL. There is no separation at all. Some people choose to have a religious ceremony prior to filing the appropriate paperwork, but in fact that ceremony is irrelevant to the legal process, and is not in ANY way taken into consideration in a contingent fashion by the State.
Brown v. Board of Education is the most prominent case that sturck down a "separate but equal" instituion. But the principle upon which the case was decided was not unique to educational institutions. Brown was decided (in part) on consideration of the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that "separate" institutions are inherently unequal. We can also see that the Fourteenth is relevant in this case, due to the decison of Loving v. Virginia, that declared "the freedom to marry" as a fundamental right ALSO under the argument of the application of the Fourteenth Amendment against invidious classification. Loving is also useful in demonstrating the untenability of religious justifications for this kind of discrimination.
Its nice that you feel that gay people should have the "effect" of marraige (if not the name), but your attempt to claim "marriage" for your religion is simply unsupportable, be it from a legal OR a historical perspective. Nothing short of the full and equal application of the law, devoid of religious establishments is an acceptable solution to this dilemma.
We have no obligation to pacify those who have a desire to "protect" their religous practices by denying other citizens access to the full and equal protection of our laws. Since marriage ALREADY exists as a secular institution in our laws, there is absolutely no way to justify ANY modification of that institution for the purpose of advancing a religous interest.
I am sorry if I seem intractible about this, but I am not willing to vacate my civil rights just because some religious folks have a dogmatic hang up about my relationship.
percivale
But percivale its parallel because if you are religouse the ceromony isnt for you, its that in the churches eyes( i see this mostly with the catholics) that you are married. Many people that are not catholic still follow this same beliefe that marriage is for the church, I think that the legal process you are stressing about is that i feel that the legal part is more morals with people, people believe its morally wrong to be gay and have a marriage and right now in the state and even federal legislature there oppionon is that of the people that vote and donate funds to there campaigne.
With your argument about the 14th amendment is that no state shall make laws that go against the privilages or immunities cant be taken away such as life, liberty or property with out due process. >>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
And percivale your whole last paragraph is very confusing cause i took at least 20 minutes to read the civil rights and they do not have anything to do with what we are talking about, cause as far as i know gays can vote, eat at resturants, and go to the movies. im sorry if i sound like a jerk but i really do not know what you mean by giving in your civil rights for some religouse folks because that would be a imposibility.. >>> http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
Its a pleasure to argue with you
-Sean
Morals are not subject to legislation, and I really don't see the "parallel" since the law considers both religious and non-religious marriages identical...the privledges of marriage, the immunities of marriage, the legal process, even the terminology is identical. Your RELIGION may consider your marriages to be different than everyone else's, but that consideration is illusory.
As for your moral objections...they are irrelevant. You have a right to believe that way if you wish. That's what religious freedom is all about. But you don't have the right to force others to comply with YOUR religious beliefs. Again, that's what religious freedom is all about.
According to the Supreme Court (see Loving v. Viginia, Skinner v. Oklahoma, et.al.)...
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Marriage IS a fundamental right in this country, and it is being denied to a great many citizens in a manner that seems to me to be clearly contrary to the protections guaranteed to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
percivale
percivale the whole point of my blog is that its my opinion, i never stated that because i beleave that then automaticaly this should be so. Morals are subject to legislation because of Abortion, abortion is not leagal in all 50 states because of moral beliefs. Also, my religion doesnt view "Our Marriage" different because in the "Eyes" the church marriage is sacrade and it has nothing to do with legislation. The reason its proven to be sacrade is the vows you take, ie.. till death do us part. These vows where started when most weddings took place in a church or a place of religouse significance.
And for your cases the Skinner V. Oklahoma was about sterilizing habitual offenders, Loving V.Virginia is about interacial marriges which has to do with the race of a person which the amendments and civil rights says is unconstitutional because of race not sexual preference
-Sean
What is the point of telling us your opinion unless you either A) want to see that opinion implemented into the law, or B) want to convince other people to change their opinion to match your own?
Personally, I think the "its just my opinion" defense is a cop-out and an attempt to divert critical responses that hold you responsible for the content of what you say.
You said, "abortion is not leagal in all 50 states because of moral beliefs." I hope this was a typo, because in fact abortion IS legal in all 50 states, thanks to the Roe decision, despite the ongoing and pointless attempts of the pro-life crowd to change this legal reality.
Moving on, you admit that it is your religion that sees its marriages as separate. Well, I've got a newsflash for you. No matter what difference your religion sees in your union, the government is (and has to be) blind to it. Your mistake seems to be in the presumption that your religion has some sort of special status or significance in realtion to the legal institution. It doesn't. In fact, if you fail to file the same legal papaerwork that everyone else must also complete, you aren't legally married, regardless of what your chruch might tell you.
Finally, if you read Loving v. Virgina closely, you will see that the Court cites Skinner v. Oklahoma as precedent in the decision. And, the Court has already recognized the relevance of Loving v. Virginia in regards to the relationships of gay people (cited as precedence in Lawrence v. Texas).
"Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102
Even in dissent, the Court specifically references the Loving case as a relevant consideration (though the dissent concludes differently than the Opinion of the Court, obviously). You claim to be familiar with Constitutional Law, but you really don't seem to grasp the concept of how precendes are applied forward into the decision making process.
percivale
Doesn't the Bible also mention things like stoning, laying with your father to continue the family name, not eating anything without a split hoof or scales...?
Aren't some things in the Bible outdated?
Why do you get to decide which rules to follow?
Hail The PitGodess!
Your second example is fundamentally different. The first, last, and his example are all 'laws' in the Bible, while the second example you give is a story in the Bible. It is by no means saying that all girls should sleep with their fathers, just that those two did. In fact, I'm pretty sure later on it says that this union is 'illegal'. And it doesn't ban scales (since fish were allowed to be eaten). It bans everything that comes from the sea that DOESN'T have scales. Just saying.
But besides that point, I agree. :-)
~C
Visit my blog.
not eat anything without hoofs or scales...
Meaning without hoofs or without scales.
Hail The PitGodess!
Sorry, misread on my part :-)
~C
Visit my blog.
I think that there are things that are outdated, like the story about giants and in that time people who are taller then 6 foot are believed to be giants and other stories like that one girl said. I think that the whole same sex marriage is a moral and religouse stance. If you where raised a certain way you view things different from someone who was not raised in that social setting.
yeah...what the hell ever...do you smoke, drink, etc...i bet you do...well if gays cant married because of their orintation...then people who poision their bodies with achol, weed, and what ever else should not married just because the bible states it...the bible also states dont do wrong onto others if you dont want wrong done onto you...but look blacks were slaves...the bible is one big lie...and why in the hell would the bible stays that all homosexuals will go to hell...if our so called GOD loves us why will he state something like that to/or bout his sons and daughters...man wrote what he thought what the bible should say...so dont back track to the bible if you dont look at the whole picture not just partical. IF IT IS TRUE GOD LOVE ALL CHILDREN NO MATTER WHAT...
Your statement about smiking and drinking have to do with marriage, futhormore in the bible it says nothing against smoking and in the new testiment during the final supper the apostles and jesus christ where drinkin wine. Also to the whole black thing, the african tribal leaders put there own people into slavery. they traded there people to the spanish for resources and weapons. so if you look at that statement real closely then u could persieve that slavery was because there own people betrayed themselves. Also blacks didnt believe in cristianity, missions and such did not come to african tribel people until most recently.The bibel is about fath, it was writen by apostles who god influenced. And also the bibel is pretty much different apostles's journals on how they lived and how god talked to them. So to the whole picture i dont know where you are going with this but i find it hard to believe that you know it...
I think he/she meant the bible was used to jusify slavery by certain people...like Jefferson Davis.
Have a Nice Day :)
care to exsplain npsm18?
Lightskinstud:"...the bible also states dont do wrong onto others if you dont want wrong done onto you...but look blacks were slaves..."
Translation: People used the bible to jusify slavery, even though, it states "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you".
That's not in any way my personal opinion, I'd figure I'd try to help, since this particular person has a habit of "jumping the gun" if you know what I mean...by the way, welcome to pregressive u :)
My personal opinion I'm for gay marriage, they deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of society
lol. i was just argueing her stance with that line, if you look at that leteral the blacks sold there people to the spaniards and now they where made slaves...
"lol. i was just argueing her stance with that line..."
Haha, okay sorry then (feels like a dork)
"...if you look at that leteral the blacks sold there people to the spaniards and now they where made slaves..."
Yes, I am very familar with my ancestral history about how the slave trade came about.
Have A Nice Day :)
lol i kno, but i like arguing the opposit 2, you have a nice day too!!
What about women getting married? Doesn't say that a woman should not lie with another woman. :p
well in the bibel it states one man with another, but it mean homo wich scientificaly it means the same. so same same sex marriage is a no no, in my oppinon anyway...
How would you know what the bible 'means'?
The bible forbids anal intercourse between men. What does that have to do with women?
Well Kiota, for one i read it and i studied it so i think that would gave me a really good idea....
I take your title to mean that you are chastising her for responding to you. From your grammar (and spelling), I'd venture to guess that you are not a Bible expert. But, the point is, how do you jump from it saying that male homosexuality is wrong, thus female homosexuality is also wrong? I have read many interpretations of the OT, and none of them say that female homosexuality is outlawed, but frowned upon because it constitutes 'impure thoughts'.
~C
Visit my blog.
Well if you read her blogs about me you would see she was saying things, and i felt that i would give my opionon and interpritation. As far as grammer and spelling, last time i checked this is a blog not a college paper or any paper of educational value. I have never stated i was a bible exspert i only said ive study it, i took philosophy classes that deals with religion and world cultors classes which study different religions. Saying that i said i had a good idea because sence im not a expert im just interprating the works not stating facts. I feel that female homosexuality is wrong because that is still being gay and from a moral and a relgiouse stance that means its wrong. I do not know what the ot is so hopefully u will enlighten me.
-Sean
Writing blogs about any specific person is against the rules here, and from what I see of her comments in THIS blog, she was asking you a question. Your title was 'women, women, women...', which makes it sound like you are saying she is being silly for asking you that. That was the point of the first part of the post.
You're right, this is a blog, but as percivale noted above, your posts are continually bordering on illegible. It is a place for education, though, and we do value proper grammar and spelling. I only get nickpicky about it when it starts to interfere with understanding.
You said: for one i read it and i studied it so i think that would gave me a really good idea...., and that implies to me that you think that you are very educated about the Bible. Other people do not agree with you, and have had just as much, if not more study.
The OT is shorthand for the Old Testament, which I'm sure you are familiar with, having studied the Bible. I just gave you a religious standpoint on female sexuality. The Bible doesn't talk about female homosexuality, unless you have a new argument that I haven't heard yet...
~C
Visit my blog.
the response women, women, women... is in response to my earlier blog when i was talkin about it stating a man cant lay in the bed with another man and i belieave that, that goes in place with women cause thats still homosexuality. I feel that i have a good idea because i personaly believe that unless you have studied catholicism or the bible then you are not very educated in the bible. Personaly i feel that i have a pretty good idea because i have taken courses dealing with the bible. The bible states that the sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God’s intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live. Therefore anything that is not heterosexual is wrong, imoral, and outlawed by God's elicet command.
As far as new argument St Paul stated "All forms of homosexual eroticism and sexual behavior fall short of God’s glory, violate God’s revealed law, and are inherently unnatural"
So it supports my oppinon...
Guess what? I studied the bible. I did not merely take 'courses' dealing with the bible. I had classes every single day, seven days a week, from the age of five, about the bible. Often four hours of bible classes per day if not far more, also religion classes, also my own study... all in the bible's original language. So stop going, "WELL I TOOK COURSES", that proves nothing.
I did not study the NT as much as I studied the OT, however I am POSITIVE that Paul never said that. Certainly not that particular quote - maybe you could cite that so-called 'quote'?
And I also believe your beloved Paul clearly stated that marriage is NOT mandatory or 'commanded'.
Congrats? I mean did you go to catholic school? I studied it everyday for school for about 2 years in high school besideds me exploring it. I think it does prove something because it showes that you partially understand the bible in your own interpritation.
And i think i posted another blog towards you, but if you look at Paul's statement in Romans 1
Congrats? I mean did you go to catholic school? I studied it everyday for school for about 2 years in high school besideds me exploring it. I think it does prove something because it showes that you partially understand the bible in your own interpritation.
And i think i posted another blog towards you, but if you look at Paul's statement in Romans 1
I re-read the terms and conditions because i was concerned that i did break the rules, but i read under blogs and comments on to which not to post and i never posted anything that was obscene, pornographic, harrasing, or abusive. Further more i did not write anything violent, hateful to anyone or group. So therefore i didnt not violate the rules. I did not write a blog about a specific person, but if i did it would be legal because its not against the rules.
As of the grammer and spelling, that is not against the rules, but i will look at it more closely because it would make it more enjoyable to other people and also to clerify my point.
Thank you
-Sean
I never said that you broke the rules. I just said that a blog about a specific user (naming that user) is against the rules. It is not written in the rules because ProU has just taken a stand against it. You want more proof? http://www.progressiveu.org/235213-you-are-a-moron. Read the comment by ProgressiveU Team. Your blog will be deleted if it is written against a specific member.
I did not say that bad grammar and spelling were against the rules, I said it was valued. Which it is. I'm sure you can find countless blogs written to say this.
I'm going to respond to your other comment below, since I don't like skinny boxes.
~C
Visit my blog.
Guess what? I read it and studied it as well. For over ten years. I think that would give me a really good idea as well.
And guess what? I actually studied it in its original language. I think that would give me an even better idea than you.
See why that isn't a valid explanation? Now, please answer my questions without going, "WELL I JUST KNOW IT."
I never said that i was more intelligent then anyone else, i merely said that i took courses in it. I feel this is valid because its not someone talking out of there ass. Also, the content is valid because of the texts we used(ot,nt, genisis, ect) so its not made up information...
See my comments below. I'm pretty sure my studies of the bible are superior to yours, however saying that isn't going to win me any arguments. Reply directly to my questions instead of claimg you're 'educated'.
it doesnt say anal in the bible it says lay in a bed with another male, wich means sex of all kind not just butt sex, also unity because in that time spouses lay in the bed with the male, so yea!
Oh really? Why don't you quote that to me? Because I don't remember anything about lying in a bed. Damn, I guess all those sleepover parties were sinful?
Specifically it says (and I'm translating this from Hebrew), "A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman." There are different words for 'lie' in Hebrew, the one used is the one referring to sex, not just lying in bed together. Anything there about beds? Nope. Lessee, how does a man have sex with a woman? Penentration.
Educate yourself. Like, READING the bible.
I'm pretty sure (at least in the Jewish perspective) that this is taken quite literally, and that there is a law saying that men cannot sleep in the same bed. I remember my boyfriend telling me about the prohibition during a Shabbaton...
~C
Visit my blog.
In talmudic times, men slept together quite frequently, so that's incorrect.
Pardon my ignorance, but what time is that? I don't have my handy source with me now, so I wouldn't be able to ask him about it until tomorrow night.
~C
Visit my blog.
Urgghhh... nineteenth century or so? I can't recall.
The Hebrew and Armaic had different words that referred to male-male as opposed to female-female sex.
Almost all Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the specific texts of the Five Books of the Written Torah does the Torah prohibit homosexual acts by WOMEN (see the writing on this by Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Chief Rabbi of Baghdad, 1834-1909), in The Halachot of the Ben Ish Hai, Chapter "Shoftim," on lesbianism). This fact proves that homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not the intent of the subject verses in the Book of Leviticus.
The intent of the verses in question was to prohibit male sexual idolatry in the practice of Canaanite and Egyptian cultic fertility rites by Israelite heterosexual men (see Leviticus 18: 1).
In the 3rd century CE, the Babylonian Talmud records that Rabbi Huna (the miracle working rain making-Sacred Circle Drawing Rabbi) tried to get the Sanhedrin to legislate against female homosexuals being able to marry a High Priest, a Cohen, but his colleagues ruled against him (BT Yebamot 76a). The Sanhedrin said that it was not permissible to prohibit what the Torah permits.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
percivale
the response women, women, women... is in response to my earlier blog
Ok, my bad. I didn't realize that. I'm sorry.
i belieave that, that goes in place with women cause thats still homosexuality.
Well, I'm saying that that specific quote (taken from Leviticus, I believe) does not say anything against women. I further told you that OT scholars have said that there is no prohibition against female homosexuality, but it is frowned upon because it constitutes 'impure thoughts', which I believe are prohibited.
I feel that i have a good idea because i personaly believe that unless you have studied catholicism or the bible then you are not very educated in the bible. Personaly i feel that i have a pretty good idea because i have taken courses dealing with the bible.
I'm not Catholic (so I see no reason to study Catholicism in depth), and I have studied the first few books of the Bible (Genesis through Numbers) in depth. I also consult with people who make it their life work to study the OT. I believe that they are very educated in the Bible (at least the OT). I have taken a number of classes dealing with religion, and one of my current classes will be dealing with the debate between science and religion within the next couple weeks. Now you know where I'm coming from.
Therefore anything that is not heterosexual is wrong, imoral, and outlawed by God's elicet command.
Thank you for stating your opinions so plainly.
St Paul stated "All forms of homosexual eroticism and sexual behavior fall short of God’s glory, violate God’s revealed law, and are inherently unnatural"
Where? I'd like to look it up myself.
In the meantime, I have too much homework to spend all night on ProU. Feel free to respond, just know that I won't get back to you for a while.
~C
Visit my blog.
St Paul stated "All forms of homosexual eroticism and sexual behavior fall short of God’s glory, violate God’s revealed law, and are inherently unnatural"
Oh really?
Stop pulling shit out of your ass. That is NOT a quote of Paul's.
Notice the italics. You commented on it above. It's a quote from him. Stop insulting me for doing that. Thank you.
~C
Visit my blog.
the reason all of it is in italics is that i cited that from a source so im not just quoting Paul im citing the website
The reason it is in italics in MY comment is because you said it. You did not put it in italics in YOUR comment, you simply put it in quotation marks. But if you're citing it from a website, you need to provide the website, which you most certainly did not in your comment, or any comment, anywhere in this blog.
But right below me you say it's from Romans I, so make up your mind and tell us where you got the information that Paul supposedly said that.
~C
Visit my blog.
I said i got it from Romans and i do not have a copy of it so i go online to view it. there are multiple sites but ive seem to be looking at the king james version the most....
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/rom001.htm
Ok, I browsed through the entire book, and the CLOSEST thing I found to your quote was: Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
So, I'm not really sure where you got it from. Since you have the text available to you now, how about you tell us the verse that Paul said that in. Otherwise, I say that you don't know what you're talking about despite the numerous classes you claim to have taken.
~C
Visit my blog.
I foud that response rude and for the record i did not pull that out of my ass. Look in Paul's statement in Romans I
I found that response rude and for the record i did not pull that out of my ass. Look in Paul's statement in Romans I
as far as the whole impure thoughts ideal, i think that St. Paul spoke about female homosexuality and lesbianism alot in newconvent.com.I like that website because it is a good reference to the bible (OT,NT, Genesis, ect) So feel free search female homosexuality and lesbianism.
I do see where you are coming from, but where im coming from is that its my belief. Through the whole blog i was tring to stress that it is my belief not mainly facts or anything else .
Finally, could u respond when you said "Where? I'd Like to look it up myself." i am unsure as to what you are tryin to respond to.
Parts of your post are in italics. My comments are in regular font. So, the italics immediately preceding that are what I was questioning (which was the quote from St. Paul you provided above).
As far as the website you mention, either it doesn't exist, or my browser does not recognize it. I did find a newcovenant.com, but it is for widows, so I'm not sure that that's where you're talking about.
~C
Visit my blog.
http://www.newadvent.org/
it was a .org not a .com
My goal for this blog was to post my opinions and beliefs. I wanted to hear oppionions and facts that different people learned and it turned in to a huge exsplosion of crazyness. So i am done with this blog and with arguing because i have my own beliefs and opinions and everyone else has there own. So i will be continuing to post blogs and please comment to those. thank you.
...I should be gracious, but I just can't help myself. What you are experiencing is the logical consequence of advocating for the systematic denial of the rights of an entire classification of people. You certainly have a right to believe whatever you wish, but your opinion is intolerant, hurtful and frankly unconsititutional. Your religion has a TERRIBLE track record when it comes to respecting the basic human rights of non-adherents, and you really shouldn't be surprised that the people your judge in your irrational religious fervor take issue with your attempts to belittle their lives and relationships.
percivale
zz
The retreat into aloof disinterest is a typical response of the irrational religious conservative who has found himself unable to defend his position in an intellectual fashion. Suddenly, the issue which was SO significant that you felt you had to write a blog about it becomes tiresome and boring.
Typical... predictable... and very telling.
percivale
Like i said before everyone has there own beliefs.
the logical consequence of advocating for the systematic denial of the rights of an entire classification of people.I was not dening anything i had a belief that gays should stay out of the church. I feel that they still have the rights that straights do, but only within the law. Ive never belittled ur lives, if you wanna be gay then be gay. I tolerate gays just like i tolerate a cold, a bad movie, or something else that i do not like. But in American you dont have to accept it, but it would be supper to accept something. I think that if you want you should get married as long as its not in the church. Personally i found it offensive when you said that what i believe is intolerable, hurtful, and that i was judging people, and that i was belittleing their lives and relationships. I merely stated that i feel because the way i was raised that gays should not get married in a church or have any religiouse affilations with the church. So if your gay then be gay and have a wonderful day! :)
No, you said we should give them civil unions. I'd go through all your comments, but I'm sure somewhere you said something along the lines of 'marriage is sacred and defined as between a man and a woman'. Civil marriage has nothing to do with the church. So why not allow gays to marry by law? The church doesn't have to have anything to do with it.
~C
Visit my blog.
well, i said above when i consider marriage i am talking about religiousely, And when i say civil union feel its the same as civil marriage. That is what i mean by difference between marriage and civil union.
...you are advocating something that goes far beyond your personal religious beliefs.
percivale
I dont know what you mean by advocating, but i did not coin the word marriage for straight people, i merely said that when i(just one person speaking about what he thinks) say marriage i think church. The reason is because the gay people i am freinds with they are not in a civil mirriage. so when i see married people and ive been to weddings its all about the church and the pastore and all that jazz....
You fail to see that I DO understand what you mean. But the fact remains that your point of view isn't consistent with the history of the term "marriage," nor is it consistent with the legal realities--much less the constitutional principles--which define the institution of marriage in this country.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are rational or reasonable.
percivale
First you say...
"Ive never belittled ur lives, if you wanna be gay then be gay."
And then in the very next sentence...
"I tolerate gays just like i tolerate a cold, a bad movie, or something else that i do not like."
The hypocrisy is STAGGERING!
percivale
I do not know what you are trying to say here, i think there is a difference between belittling and tolerenc....
If you do not see the insult in comparing someone's life and relationship to a disease, then there really isn't much hope for you.
percivale
I was merely saying that i can tolerate things. I dont have to accept someone's lifestyle. I do not have to have tea on sundays with them. I can tolerate them, be civil with them, and share ideas. I just do not understand how one thing takes presidence over the other...
...that you can "tolerate" gay people in the way you tolerate something unpleasant, like perhaps a fart that you can't escape, but can't for certain blame on anyone in particular. Your opinion is perhaps marginally superior to that of the true religious radical who would prefer to kill all of the gay in the world, but the essense of your attitude is the same. Despite your claims of "tolerance," you nonetheless continue to dismiss all gay people as if they were somehow beneath you, and lacking in intrinsic value as human beings. Hiding this attitude behind the shield of your religion doesn't make it any less ignornat, or more palatable to the people you insult.
percivale
"...and it turned in to a huge exsplosion of crazyness."
*seen it coming* Yeah, anytime anyone posts something about gay marriage it almost always turns into a "explosion of crazyness". But hey, at least you got a lot of comments
"Education...is our best protection against
unreasoning prejudice and panic-making fear."
~President Franklin D. Roosevelt
ok just because the bible says that being gay is immoral doesn't mean that it's true nowadays. think about it the bible was written centuries ago. alot of the stuff that is written there is old and outdated. if you haven't noticed alot of things have changed since the bible was written but obviously people perceptions of being gay is still in the 1st century. what if the bible said that sleeping with the opposite sex was wrong and immoral would that change anything. the bible says that all children are the children of god. it wont matter to him if your gay, straight, transexual, bi, etc. all that will matter to him is that you love and except christ as your savior and no one else.
Peace Out- Anonymous08