Homosexual marriage II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Meanwhile, in the real world, Catholic adoption agencies in the UK have been refused an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm

And once again, the secular governments give religious freedom a nice @$$ raping. Why don't we just go the Elton John way, and outlaw religion altogether, since we're outlawing the free exercise thereof?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No your analogy is flawed again. “Allowing” homosexuality is not allowing smoking. Allowing homosexuality would be the same as allowing the existence and growth of tobacco. Allowing gays to MARRY (according to your unproven and irrelevant harm argument) would be the same as allowing people to smoke.

No, allowing the existence and growth of tobacco is the same as allowing homosexuals to exist, rather than rounding them up and gassing them like Adolph Hitler. Allowing smoking is the same as allowing the practice of homosexuality.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As IR mentioned, I was just teasing Lief a bit.

The white elephant in the room is that the only real reason for denying homosexuals marriage is because the bible, by some interpretations, says so.

The Bible says so, by any interpretation that doesn't completely disregard what the authors say in order to impose a liberal modernistic view on the text.

And you are damn right that that is the only real reason.

Everything else is a smokescreen, or maybe a bit of self-rationalization, because I do believe that even those who argue against it on this board are generally decent people by any measure of the word.

Oh, wow, even those twisted Cthulhu-spawn who would argue against homosexual marriage could be decent people? Imagine that!

I think they just need to lighten up a bit and maybe interact more firsthand with people involved in homosexual relationships. The more they meet and are willing to give a chance to those they can not understand, the more opinions might change. Studies don't often change opinions, but friendships can.

I don't think friendships would have much effect on my opinion. I think I have plenty of first-hand experience as is. Not to say I would refuse to interact with peop involved in said relationships; far from it. But you are talking about changing opinions on purely emotional and subjective reasons, or at the very least on experiential reasons. Having SSA I think gives me plenty of such reasons to change my opinion, if I would do so.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Allowing smoking is the same as allowing the practice of homosexuality.

Allowing fags is the same as allowing fags.

[klatukatt]

Tee hee, Jonathan!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Bible says so, by any interpretation that doesn't completely disregard what the authors say in order to impose a liberal modernistic view on the text.

And you are damn right that that is the only real reason.

I don't think friendships would have much effect on my opinion. I think I have plenty of first-hand experience as is. Not to say I would refuse to interact with peop involved in said relationships; far from it. But you are talking about changing opinions on purely emotional and subjective reasons, or at the very least on experiential reasons. Having SSA I think gives me plenty of such reasons to change my opinion, if I would do so.

So you are saying, your main argument against homosexuality is the Bible?
Just making sure. I like it actually.

And out of curiosity, what would change your mind on the subject of homosexuality?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, allowing the existence and growth of tobacco is the same as allowing homosexuals to exist, rather than rounding them up and gassing them like Adolph Hitler. Allowing smoking is the same as allowing the practice of homosexuality.

Allowing big companies to actually harvest and manufacture nicotine delivering devices called cigarettes and approving of their right to sell them to the citizens of the country is allowing a fundamentally and clearly harmful thing to happen. Which is directly equivalent to what Lief is saying about gay marriage. That it is allowing (and according to his argument thereby endorsing) its citizens doing a harmful thing. The mere existence of tobacco in the world is not harmful.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And once again, the secular governments give religious freedom a nice @$$ raping. Why don't we just go the Elton John way, and outlaw religion altogether, since we're outlawing the free exercise thereof?

Your free exercise of religion only goes so far as it does not impinge on my right of equal rights. There's nothing saying these people can't be Catholic, and practice their religion - the law is saying that they can't run an adoption agency that discriminates according to Catholic doctrine. Running an adoption agency is not a required part of being a Catholic.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

be whether marriage, as part of the pursuit of happiness, is an inalienable right?

The Founders were, I think, pretty clear on government being limited. I know Jefferson was. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0100.htm

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Your free exercise of religion only goes so far as it does not impinge on my right of equal rights. There's nothing saying these people can't be Catholic, and practice their religion - the law is saying that they can't run an adoption agency that discriminates according to Catholic doctrine. Running an adoption agency is not a required part of being a Catholic.

Indeed. In fact, it only applies to agencies which get public funding.

To some extent I can understand where they're coming from; I've read Leviticus, and if you believe it then that's that. So there's a basic clash of values going on. But if you're going to have anti-discrimination laws then you have to apply them: by their nature, they only reason for having them is because such a value clash exists.

I take it those agencies also refuse to place children with couples who wear garments woven from more than one type of textiles or women who uncover their heads in church...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I take it those agencies also refuse to place children with couples who wear garments woven from more than one type of textiles or women who uncover their heads in church...

I'm sure.

If there was a papal bull requiring good Catholics to run adoption agencies, do you suppose that would resolve this funding issue?

The Vatican must have a suggestion box, somewhere. They'd probably be thrilled to hear from someone about something other than the ordination of women, for a change.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Bible says so, by any interpretation that doesn't completely disregard what the authors say in order to impose a liberal modernistic view on the text.

Not exactly. Some christians think that the bible is the work of men as opposed to the word of god, and can thus be taken with varying degrees of salt. And this debate is not modernistic. It has existed as long as religion has.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And you are damn right that that is the only real reason.

Which is perfectly fine, at least as far as not ever forcing churches to marry individuals they don't want to. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Catholic church regularly denies performing heterosexual marriages for all kinds of reasons.

But, since the US does not have a state church, it shouldn't carry over to federal or civil law.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I take it those agencies also refuse to place children with couples who wear garments woven from more than one type of textiles or women who uncover their heads in church...

Or of course, people who eat pork...

[The Gaffer]

Or people who have sex during menstruation...
Or people who have tattoos...
Or people who don't have beards...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Allowing fags is the same as allowing fags.

LOL. Great way to put it.

Originally Posted by Katt

So you are saying, your main argument against homosexuality is the Bible?
Just making sure. I like it actually.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

And out of curiosity, what would change your mind on the subject of homosexuality?

No idea.

Your free exercise of religion only goes so far as it does not impinge on my right of equal rights. There's nothing saying these people can't be Catholic, and practice their religion - the law is saying that they can't run an adoption agency that discriminates according to Catholic doctrine. Running an adoption agency is not a required part of being a Catholic.

In other words, you are ONLY allowed to practice Catholicism as long as you are just quietly praying the rosary in your house, with all the lights turned down and the curtains drawn. As soon as you begin to actually INTERACT with the outside world, you are an atheist.

And yes, it is a prohibition of the free practice of the Catholic religion for adoption agency workers.

But anyway, it is not impinging on homosexual rights to adoption; only on the rights of homosexuals to force people to procure adoptions for them against their own conscience. They are free to go elsewhere for adoptions.

So, someone here give a real answer: WHY does the government not simply ban religion, or at least conservative non-Islamic religion, since it is so antagonistic to it and clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion?

Indeed. In fact, it only applies to agencies which get public funding.

They should just take away public funding, rather than take away right to religion.

To some extent I can understand where they're coming from; I've read Leviticus, and if you believe it then that's that.

I don't get my idea of the natural law from Leviticus.

I take it those agencies also refuse to place children with couples who wear garments woven from more than one type of textiles or women who uncover their heads in church...

I assume you are only being an ass, and that you actually know that prohibition on homosexuality is in the New Testament, and not just part of the Levitical Law.

I'm sure.

See above.

Originally Posted by CC

Or of course, people who eat pork...

See above.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Or people who have sex during menstruation...
Or people who have tattoos...
Or people who don't have beards...

Not you again!

Originally Posted by IR

Allowing big companies to actually harvest and manufacture nicotine delivering devices called cigarettes and approving of their right to sell them to the citizens of the country is allowing a fundamentally and clearly harmful thing to happen. Which is directly equivalent to what Lief is saying about gay marriage.

No, again, its equivalent to what Lief would say about allowing the practice of homosexuality. I don't even know what would qualify as marriage; giving big tax cuts to people who smoke, maybe? Which, as we know, is the direct opposite of reality.

Originally Posted by BJ

Not exactly. Some christians think that the bible is the work of men as opposed to the word of god, and can thus be taken with varying degrees of salt. And this debate is not modernistic. It has existed as long as religion has.

Indeed, some think that the Bible is the work of men, though with that premise, there is really no reason to believe Christianity. However, I fail to see any relevance that has to what I said.

In brief:

Me: "Any reading of Scripture which is not incredibly contorted will see that it considers homosexuality to be abnormal, and homosexual acts to be sinful."
You: "That's not quite true. Some Christians don't think the Bible matters."

I don't see how that statement contradicts what I said.

What debate are you claiming has existed as long as religion has?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In other words, you are ONLY allowed to practice Catholicism as long as you are just quietly praying the rosary in your house, with all the lights turned down and the curtains drawn. As soon as you begin to actually INTERACT with the outside world, you are an atheist.

That's not true, you can go to Church with other Catholics, you can invite non-Catholics to join your Church, you can volunteer with the Catholic Foundation for Children and Aging or even go on a mission with them, you can send your kids to Catholic school, you can live out your life according to your faith, and all kinds of good things that I'm sure many Catholics do.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And yes, it is a prohibition of the free practice of the Catholic religion for adoption agency workers.

No, it's not. If a Catholic adoption agency wants to not allow gay couples to adopt, then they should run the agency completely free of public funding. The government cannot fund anything that goes against the Constitution or the Charter (or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights).

Likewise, if a Catholic person wants to be a pharmacist, dispensing medication to the public, he or she had better be prepared to give poeple Plan B or the "morning after pill".

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But anyway, it is not impinging on homosexual rights to adoption; only on the rights of homosexuals to force people to procure adoptions for them against their own conscience. They are free to go elsewhere for adoptions.

I believe the correct focus is "the Catholic adoption agency is free to continue operating without public funds". The one who has to change is the one who is violating any existing laws. That would not be the gay couples, in this case.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So, someone here give a real answer: WHY does the government not simply ban religion, or at least conservative non-Islamic religion, since it is so antagonistic to it and clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion?

Because this is unnecessary and extreme, and also would violate people's rights to practice religion. And if you feel they are already being violated, please refer back to my first paragraph.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They should just take away public funding, rather than take away right to religion.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't get my idea of the natural law from Leviticus.

I know I'm jumping in in the middle of a discussion, but what is natural law? Should I look at a certain post where you already explained it?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I assume you are only being an ass, and that you actually know that prohibition on homosexuality is in the New Testament, and not just part of the Levitical Law.

I actually didn't know it was in the New Testament, and as far as I know, I'm not an ass. (I know you weren't talking to me, I just wanted to be clear.) Obviously I have no time for Leviticus's irrelevant rules, but what are the NT passages? Somehow I suspect St. Paul is involved in this.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed, some think that the Bible is the work of men, though with that premise, there is really no reason to believe Christianity. However, I fail to see any relevance that has to what I said.

If the Bible was the work of men, then there still would be a reason to believe in Christianity. In fact, it doesn't even matter who the author/s is/are. The point is that in the Bible, someone recorded Jesus' teachings and the wonderful work that He did, as well as some lovely prayers and some useful metaphors for life. Whether that was God or a group of men is unimportant to me, as the message of Christanity is still there.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Me: "Any reading of Scripture which is not incredibly contorted will see that it considers homosexuality to be abnormal, and homosexual acts to be sinful."

I disagree. Biblical scholars such as John Shelby Spong, who certainly know the Bible and do not abuse its contents, would not say that homosexuality is abnormal, or that homosexual acts are sinful.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

This made me LOL.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Somehow I suspect St. Paul is involved in this.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Likewise, if a Catholic person wants to be a pharmacist, dispensing medication to the public, he or she had better be prepared to give poeple Plan B or the "morning after pill".

You do realize that, as far as the Catholic conscience is concerned, that is equivalent to saying a Catholic "beter be prepared" to pull out a gun and shoot small children in the head as they pass by, don't you?

Because this is unnecessary and extreme, and also would violate people's rights to practice religion. And if you feel they are already being violated, please refer back to my first paragraph.

Which essentially says, "you can talk the talk and go through the rituals, but if you actually want to walk the walk, go get stuffed." The government is most definitely violating freedom of religion.

I know I'm jumping in in the middle of a discussion, but what is natural law? Should I look at a certain post where you already explained it?

No, I didn't define it, at least no recently; I believe I have in the past. But I don't really want to go into natural law right now, so how about I just restate it to say "right action"?

I actually didn't know it was in the New Testament, and as far as I know, I'm not an ass.

If you read my original quote, I worded it such that persons saying 'if homosexuality is out, so are shellfish, pork, and polyester' would either A) be an ass, or B) not know. Since you B) did not know, (not to mention didn't say that anyway), you are therefore not A) an ass.

Obviously I have no time for Leviticus's irrelevant rules, but what are the NT passages? Somehow I suspect St. Paul is involved in this.

Good guess, Nurv. Here you go; I've attempted to include the context of the particular passages, but I place the relevant bits in bold, in case you don't want to read everything:

Romans 1:21-23; 26-27
21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things....26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

If I recall correctly, the Jerusalem Bible has for "effeminate" "catamites", and for liers with mankind "sodomites". One could debate the former, but the latter clearly refers to homosexual conduct.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.

If the Bible was the work of men, then there still would be a reason to believe in Christianity. In fact, it doesn't even matter who the author/s is/are. The point is that in the Bible, someone recorded Jesus' teachings and the wonderful work that He did, as well as some lovely prayers and some useful metaphors for life.

But if you don't believe the rest of it, why believe those parts? That's what I mean. If the rest is incredible, why believe any of it? Why believe there was a man named Jesus? Why believe he taught those things, or did those things?

I disagree. Biblical scholars such as John Shelby Spong, who certainly know the Bible and do not abuse its contents, would not say that homosexuality is abnormal, or that homosexual acts are sinful.

Spong also discredits the Bible completely, and even has a book devoted to "the Sins of Scripure"; in fact, if I recall, from reading the back of the book, this very issue was one of the charges he brought against holy writ. You can hardly say that because Spong says A is true, that Spong says Scripture says A.

Though I am glad to see you aren't calling him a bishop.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Indeed, some think that the Bible is the work of men, though with that premise, there is really no reason to believe Christianity. However, I fail to see any relevance that has to what I said.

In brief:

Me: "Any reading of Scripture which is not incredibly contorted will see that it considers homosexuality to be abnormal, and homosexual acts to be sinful."
You: "That's not quite true. Some Christians don't think the Bible matters."

I don't see how that statement contradicts what I said.

You are making my argument black and white, but it is not.

Many christians or more broadly, followers of the abrahamic traditions, believe that the bible depicts actual persons and events, but, like all histories, is full of inaccuracies and editorializing.

Not to mention entire sects that believe the words are literal, yet ascribe different interpretations to it. Some of which don't even really buy the concept of "sin" in a catholic or orthodox sense.

Many people's reasons for believing in christianity is the spirit of the words more than the actual text.

None of the above is "completely disregarding" the authors, just partially.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What debate are you claiming has existed as long as religion has?

How to intepret religious texts. And it's not a claim. It's a fact.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

If I recall correctly, the Jerusalem Bible has for "effeminate" "catamites", and for liers with mankind "sodomites". One could debate the former, but the latter clearly refers to homosexual conduct.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.

Alright then. If this is a basis under which we can and should discriminate, A) fornicators B) liars C) the covetous D) drunkards E) railers etc should all be prevented from the same things as you want to bar homosexuals from. Far more, indeed, for lying, coveting, and fornicating are complained of far MORE (say, the 10 commmandments). Yet they can marry, and adopt; and indeed, I think if you tried to ban "railers" from adopting, you'd get into trouble for discrimination. Likely the same is true of fornicators.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You do realize that, as far as the Catholic conscience is concerned, that is equivalent to saying a Catholic "beter be prepared" to pull out a gun and shoot small children in the head as they pass by, don't you?

Ah. I forgot about that. Though I would point out that the egg and sperm have not necessarily joined the day after unprotected sex.

Anyway, I'm guessing Catholics persue other careers in countries where pharmacies dispense the morning after pill.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Which essentially says, "you can talk the talk and go through the rituals, but if you actually want to walk the walk, go get stuffed." The government is most definitely violating freedom of religion.

What the heck can't you do? Anything that doesn't violage the Charter or the Constitution is obviously allowed, so what's the problem?

Don't forget that this same Charter protects your very right to be Catholic. You don't need to actively discriminate against gay people to be a practicing Catholic.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, I didn't define it, at least no recently; I believe I have in the past. But I don't really want to go into natural law right now, so how about I just restate it to say "right action"?

What is right action then? Or should we just shelve this part of the debate? (I'm cool with that.)

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you read my original quote, I worded it such that persons saying 'if homosexuality is out, so are shellfish, pork, and polyester' would either A) be an ass, or B) not know. Since you B) did not know, (not to mention didn't say that anyway), you are therefore not A) an ass.

Ah. I gotcha now.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Good guess, Nurv. Here you go; I've attempted to include the context of the particular passages, but I place the relevant bits in bold, in case you don't want to read everything:

St. Paul and I have a slightly strained relationship, but he's a good guy. Anyway, I will read all the quotes. Thanks for compiling this list BTW.

But, I'm going to a play soon and I have to eat dinner, so I'll do the quotes later.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Though I am glad to see you aren't calling him a bishop.

Well, he is retired. He's also a complete and total genius as far as I'm concerned.