Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

Exactly my reaction to Leviticus as a whole, yet you insist on taking that one quote about homosexuality out of it. You haven't answered me about the other "rules" I quoted which are also laid down in Leviticus, presumably because you recognise these at least are outdated and stupid.

In Exodus 20:14, in both the Standard Revised edition, and the Kings James version, the quote is simply "Thou shalt not commit adultery". There is no context given to state this includes fornication, homosexuality, incest or beastiality. You (or Joseph Smith/Brigham Young) may have deciphered the passage differently but it does not appear to be recorded as such in any of the oldest texts available.

[ January 05, 2007, 16:39: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Which of course would mean that if there was a religion which allowed single sex marriages, they would legally be allowed to do so. Correct?

 

You've just exposed why democracy will fail. The more you spread the opinions, the less weight any opinion will hold. And where a state cannot or will not, accommodate all groups without making one group a second class citizen, the greater the failure of said democracy.

The difference is that this quote is supported elsewhere in the bible, especially in the New Testament.

That's because you have the basic version of the King James Version. The one my church put out (which does use the King James version) is cross referenced for convenience in research. In these footnotes it directs us to references to other forms of sexual immorality. Basically, the commandment would be understood that "Thou shalt have no sexual relations save they be with the spouse you are legally and lawfully married to", and since this is religious in origin, marriage would be explicitly defined as betwen a man and a woman.

 

Oh my god! The sky is going to fall! We're all doomed!
Democracy is not going to fail. You are right, this is a small short coming. But every system has its short comings, but such short comings does not result in an inevitable failure. In proper works of democracy no people are made second class citizens. If such exists, you are not seeing a well run democracy.

I urge you to go and read JS Mills On Liberty.

In a situation such as what's been discussed here, looking at it in a plain black and white view (ie. not seeing any compromise) there wer two choices a government can make:
(1) Allow single sex marriages; and
(2) Not allow single sex marriages.

Option two, as you said before, does leave a group of people as a second class citizen. It prevents a certain sect of society from having a right that another sect has, so this is not an option.

Number one, on the other hand, grants this equal right. It will lead to offend people - just as removing slavery, giving women the vote and introducing social wealthfare schemes did/does. I would claim, that it does not does is leave any sect with less rights than another, so is not a failure as you describe. Feel free to give reasons why I'm wrong here.

[Edit]A poorly writen post by me there, sorry... hope it makes sense.

 

Where's the refusal of compromise? If the gays are refusing compromise, then they should lose out. If the refusal is on the side of the religious nutbars, then they piss in the pickles for the rest of us.

A point in the middle (civil unions) only pisses off the extremes in this debate. What's wrong with that?

By redefining social mores against what religion is teaching, you make the religious folk out to be such second class citizens. If you'd like to take a people socialized not to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, respect their parents, give to help those in need and to think of others as they think of themselves out to be second class citizens, you might as well discourage these traits. How long before society morphs such that these traits are less desired in the people? How long before they are not taught in most homes? How long can a state stand when they marginalize those that are taught to support it?

I know this sounds cold, but marginalizing a bunch of deviants (sinners) is the lesser evil here. What morals are they teaching the next generation? This is not just gays either. Any group that seeks to challenge such morals should be held in check for the good of society. Yes, they have their right to speak. But to ultimately overthrow common morals is not a good thing...

If the courts can accommodate these groups without bothering the majority, then great, but where this can't, the decision has to be made between one group or the other, the oppressed group will remember that in the next election...

 

That's exactly the reason. If the extremes do not make any group of people 'second class citizens' then a compromise hardly would, so instead of taking into account every possible compromise, I focused on the extremes.

By allowing single sex marriages, 'religous people' (to steal your words) are not made second class citizens. I cannot think of any other religion that has parts of its doctrine inbedded in western law just because it is part of a religous doctrine. If anything, it is doing completely the opposite and bringing these 'religous people' you talk about down to an even level with everyone else. Until women must cover their faces and no one is allowed to eat sea food, by not forcing another peice of religous doctrine on the population is NOT making anyone a second class citizen.

I truely pitty you if you are so blinded that you think that only religon teaches such traits.

I can tell you that everyone of those things you listed above (lying, stealing, murdering, etc) were all illegal in the traditional Maori culture before Europeans set foot in New Zealand with their religion.

Your religion (or religion in general) is not the only source from which people can learn good morals.

Oppression, ha? Oppression according to Answers.com (quoting from Legal Encyclopedia
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale), describes oppression as follows:

"Oppression: The offense, committed by a public official, of wrongfully inflicting injury, such as bodily harm or imprisonment, upon another individual under color of office.

Oppression, which is a misdemeanor, is committed through any act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, or excessive use of authority."

Do tell me how not enforcing one religion upon everyone is oppression. I'm dying to hear.

 

Marriage is only a word so I think it would be shallow to take offence. Besides marriage is not exclusive to any form of Christianity.

 

Sorry, I must have misread my post. Where did I (or anyone else for that matter) mention rewritting religous doctrine?

OMG! He knows! Well, now you know that much, guess I should tell you the rest. Really, the state is mind controlled by a group of aliens who are slowly attempting to errode not only our religons, but also our morals and everything else that makes us human. Eventaully, once they decide that these have been so whittled away that we're hardly human any more, they'll impose their own religion upon us, turning us into nothing but mindless zombies! They're in leuge with the purple space monkeys that Aiky mentioned before, you see?

In other words, no, the state is not trying to tear down anything, other than inequity, by imposing such laws.

Well, they didn't destroy the indiginous culture as much here. But that is beside the point. It just goes to show that such morals exist outside of religion.

I'll give you that. According to that definition, you're not oppressing them.


One thing I'm not quite sure on, which you may be able to clarify for me. You mentioned about your rights quite a bit in that last post (maybe in previous ones as well), and how such laws as single sex marriages would be trampling them. Can I ask you what rights would be trampled?

[ January 11, 2007, 07:01: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

Good luck getting an answer. I've lost count of how many times I (and others!) have asked that specific question, only to have it either ignored, evaded, or deliberately misconstrued.

 

Where they talk about redefining marriage. I would imagine that any religion which has a marriage ceremony would hold it sacred, and many of such faiths define it explicitly as between a man and a woman. By changing that definition, the state is attempting to overwrite a portion of religious doctrine.

I don't see it as inequity. I see the status quo (before activist judges stepped into this) as the state deciding the degree of conformity they want from mainstream society. this implied a certain degree of morality. By changing that, they are eroding that desired degree of morality. Call it a slippery slope but that's what they are on. The more you loosen the state morality, the more you risk having what's left of that morality challenged.

Freedom of religion implies the right to worshp without seeing the state re-write your religious doctrine at all. By changing the definition of marriage, they do just that. By calling it Civil Unions, they grant rights or priviledges to one group without interfering with the religious doctrine or the majority.

About the number of times I answer only to find that people don't like the answers I give them?

 

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this concept. Even if it was called marriage and not civil union, it still wouldn't be a religious union or attempting to be one, because it wouldn't be performed by priests or through a religious ceremony. According to the religious view it wouldn't be legitimate in the eyes of God anyway, so what's the problem? Why can't they just do their thing? I mean, do the homosexuals practicing their homosexual homosexuality come haunting your dreams or what?

Do radical Islamists have a right to practice their religion the way they want? Aren't the laws against murder attempting to rewrite their doctrine?

How exactly is homosexuality immoral? God says so, but *why?* Is it the whole "go forth and multiply" -thing? It can't be, because then people who simply choose not to have children would be immoral too. Or am I missing something?

 

You want reason where no reason is wanted. Religion - faith - works without reason, because they can be become obsolete. That would imply failure in religious doctrine and that cannot be.

There are however ethnological or anthropologicial reasons for implementing a ban on homosexual practices. It does not further the production of offspring, for example. Because the Israelites needed every human being to survive, homosexuality was considered evil.

Today, this reason is obviously obsolete.

 

That's what they've done. I fail too see how this point, though reiterated countless times, is still flying over your head.

 

Heh, and his point that he's alright with calling it civil union seems to be flying right over your head, Clixby

 

THEN WHAT'S HIS POINT?!

What is this argument about?

Is it even about anything anymore? I stopped posting in this thread about two weeks ago, thinking that it'd just die if I dstopped trying to contest his irrational arguments out of sheer stubbornness, but it still goes on unabated! Civil union is the official term for homosexual unions, therefore they aren't treading on anyone's feet. How is there a problem? What are you people arguing about?

 

I think it's moved on to the fact that the government shouldn't recognise a homosexual union as the same as a heterosexual marriage that is conducted under the church's permission.

That in the eyes of the state a homosexual civil-union is exactly the same as a heterosexual civil-union. Both should be called civil-unions. Both are equal. Religion doesn't want that.

 

It's the definition of the word. By re-writing that deifinition, they are trumping religious doctrine unnecessarily.

Only if they can do it without trying to force the government to rewrite my religious beliefs. While they're at is, they should seek privacy. That second part applies to heterosexuals equally. The only circumstances where someone's sexual activity is my business is if I seek to be a part of it (proposed or current spouse for example). I'd like to avoid hitting on a woman that's spoken for if possible...

They could argue it, but this country had such laws forbidding murder long before they had militant Muslims living within our borders. That's off topic and a whole different can of worms...

Further, Religion takes on an eternal perspective. This goes into areas that logic and reason tell us nothing about. Part of our purpose on this planet is to forge such a relationship that will last eternally, where we can be like our heavenly parents, Father and Mother. Logic fails because there is no way to verify any such extrapolation.

Not my head, but some other heads in this thread. There are some that disapprove of that compromise and seem to have an axe to grind against religion in general...

By differentiating the terms, we can believe that our ordinance has not been defiled and go about our lives unaffected. That's what we want.