Homosexuality

[Faithfulservant]

BB are you interested in being the forums translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we cant share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes. Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

Thank you

[Kaldayen]

Originally Posted by TimMurray

1.I’m not qualified to argue against this statement but I would ask why nature would evolve to this state when it prevents reproduction. What advantage is gained (genetic or otherwise) by having a single sex species that is incapable or reproduction. As a mutation it would have to die out after a single generation. It’s only chance of survival would be to piggy-back on a reproducing society and ‘convert’ a proportion of that society each generation (the choice argument). Alternatively the homosexual culture must become asexual and gain the ability to reproduce and repopulate. As a disease it could be passed from generation to generation but that would require society to argue that homosexuality is a virus and therefore curable.



2.This doesn’t argue that homosexuality is wrong. It simply argues that there are other things wrong as well. I.e. you can’t tell me I’m wrong unless you yourself are perfect.

3.Only the hetrosex outside marriage is wrong and that’s the difference. Since marriage is biblically defined as one man and one female it is always going to be impossible to have homosexual sex inside a marriage. There is also a strong argument that the very act of the first heterosexual sex creates the marriage before God as there are many places in the old testament (Christian / Jewish bible) where the words and the acts are interchangeable.


4.Other than the prejudice element I think that this argument is just an extension of point 1. i.e. the view of ‘its not normal so we shouldn’t pretend that it is’



5.No, this is just an extension of point 1. It’s not individual couples that we are arguing over, it’s a general concept i.e. in general hetero couples can have kids (they have the right parts at least) however homo couples can never biologically have kids (they only have half the parts they need)



6.This is just the prejudice argument or an extension of the others. I’ll deal with it assuming it is just prejudice. Prejudice alone is unarguable and has no place in a decent society. As an unarguable point there is no point in using it to try to convince others!

Hello M. Murray,

1. You might want to have a look at this thread about a possible theory explaining this : Homosexuality: evolutionary necessity?

3. Religious marriage is biblicaly defined that way. But civil marriage is based on law. In a society where state and church should be separated, religion shouldn't influence law.

4. Many things aren't "normal" but are accepted by society nowadays, we should protect minorities.

5. Still, if you're arguing that marriage is only meant for procreation, then someone who cannot have kid should'nt be allowed to marry... hetero or gay. We don't witness that happening...
___
Kal

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

BB are you interested in being the forums translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we cant share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes. Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

Thank you

I think BB has a good point- when you are using Hebrew scripture (or any other language) to prove a point, it's usually a good idea to make sure you have at least a reasonable translation... one of the problems I see with using the Bible as a "proof" of anything - there's enough different translations out there with differing words that the meaning often becomes lost in translation (like "virgin" and "young woman" - a sloppy translation that has affected the core of many denominations beliefs...)

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Religious marriage is biblicaly defined that way. But civil marriage is based on law. In a society where state and church should be separated, religion shouldn't influence law...

Many things aren't "normal" but are accepted by society nowadays, we should protect minorities.

Still, if you're arguing that marriage is only meant for procreation, then someone who cannot have kid should'nt be allowed to marry... hetero or gay. We don't witness that happening...
___
Kal

Hello Kal,

1. If you are referring to the United States Law, the separation of church and state is not a constitutional edict. It was a statement made by President Jefferson in a letter to evangelicals in Connecticut, who were concerned about the "government" establishing a national religion and/or restricting citizens from following the religion of their choice. He coined the phrase "separation of church and state"



The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for its citizens and protects those who would hold office from being denied from that office due to their religious belief (Article 1, and Article 6 paragraph 3).



Also, marriage is not a right for anyone. It is a privilege bestowed by the government of the people, by the people and for the people (in the United States). That is why anyone wanting to marry must apply for a license. In order to get that license, the couple must meet the criteria set down by the law.



If one does not feel that the law is fair, then one must petition to have the law changed. That requires a majority vote in order to change the law.



Case in point would be the November elections held in 2004. On the ballot of 11 states, petitioners successfully put the "right" for same sex couple to marry, up before the citizens of those states. The majority of each of the 11 states' citizens voted against granting that "right" to gay couples, including the State of Oregon (considered being the most liberal of the 11 in regards to this issue).



2. I wouldn't say that things that are not considered normal are accepted by society, but rather they are tolerated, or ignored. And you are correct, about protecting minorities, of their "rights". That has nothing to do with anyone demanding privileges that others have, just because they have them, and the minority wants them. Again this is based on the United States form of law.



3. The law says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not a fertile man and fertile woman. Many people do not find out they can't conceive until after they are married. Therefore your argument would imply that their marriage should be dissolved...and that would imply the government interfering with religious beliefs, which would violate the Constitution.



Let me put it this way. Two men, one with sight and one who is blind, and both want a license to drive a car...does the blind man have "right" to drive? No, because he does not meet the criteria set down by the law.



Gay couples do not meet the criteria of the law to have the privilege of a civil marriage. In order to change that one must change the Constitution, which requires a majority vote by its citizens.



In the uniqueness of the United States wherein one state generally recognizes the laws of another, this issue is highly disruptive. Most states have declared they will not recognize a marriage between gay couples. No state recognizes "polygamy" for example, and the states that do recognize "civil unions" of gay couples are having problems of their own.



Sometimes protecting the minority takes a second seat to the protection of the nation as a whole, and sometimes protecting the minority takes front seat because it protects the nation as a whole.



The bottom line is that the nation as a whole must be protected.



v/r



Q



The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one...

[I, Brian]

Just to point out that the earlier list has been removed. Probably a good idea before we get the wrong sort of people Googling their way here.

[bananabrain]

BB are you interested in being the forum's translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we can't share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes.

well, i'm hardly an expert in either hebrew or aramaic. whilst i can generally glean the basic thrust of a verse and thus criticise a given translation, for a more subtle response, i'd generally seek clarification elsewhere, from more authoritative sources or, if really stumped, there are a number of far more expert people that i have access to. what's really important is the context and, for this, it's important to be aware of the relevant commentary. naturally, i applaud all attempts to learn either greek or hebrew!

Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

i don't have a problem with christians *using* it and *referring* to it. i do have a problem when they attempt to use it to support points of view that, imho, the Text manifestly does not support, nor does it mean what they think it means more often than not. similarly, in my experience, referring to the Written Torah alone, without any idea of how what the Oral Torah affects the Written Torah's opinion, is often completely foreign to the intention of the Text from a traditional jewish standpoint. the current discussion is a case in point; you have people using leviticus 18:22 to support a "G!D hates gays" PoV, when in fact if you are aware of the way jewish law *actually* works, it actually *protects* them from discrimination! but if you are unaware of this and attempt to read the Text literally, or interpret it on your own, you are going to come up with not even a tenth of the entire argument. what you may not understand is that the Written Torah (that's the pentateuch to you) is the equivalent of the *lecture notes* from on top of sinai, whereas the Oral Torah (that's the Mishnah and Gemara and other commentators) are far closer to what was actually Said, as it were.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[robocombot]

The Bible only mentions male homosexuality, it seems lesbianism was either not mentioned or considered important.

also, although Leviticus does explicitly state that male homosexuality is *bad* under the Old Covenant, the particular verse occurs in the same chapter as saying about not wearing clothes of 2 different materials :s (also about Kosher food).

Do not pick and choose bits of the Old testament that suit you.

[Kaldayen]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

1. If you are referring to the United States Law, the separation of church and state is not a constitutional edict.

I can't speak for your country. I know religion has a huge influence on your politics but I never studied your constitution. What I do know is that it's not the case up the frontier, in Canada. Our prime minister never refers to his religious faith (i don't even know if he has faith in anything). And as weird as it may seem to people in USA, if he did base his actions on religion, he would get in trouble. So separation of church and state does apply here.
___
Kal

[brucegdc]

I tend to agree, Kaldayen. Being a southward escapee, I think there was less intrusion of religion into the political and legal spectrum back home (Canada), where there was no explicit prohibition against the mix (in fact, there is a publically funded Catholic school system in Toronto [taxpayers pick which school system to fund, and pay accordingly...]), than here (the US) where there is a constitutional prohibition... and every church is up to it's neck, apparently, in politics, and politicans spend most of their time proclaiming their faith...

For those who are curious, here is the text of the infamous first amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In short, it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, or preferring one over another in law, and protects those who wish to exercise their religion from government interference.

[Faithfulservant]

I would just like to say that anyone that says God hates anyone is extremely misinformed about the Christian faith.. God however does hate sin and unrighteousness.. But even "hate" to God would not be the same hate as we have since our hate is from the enemy.. God hates ALL sin not just that of immorality.


As far as lesbianism.. it IS mentioned in the bible in link with male homosexuality.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them

Thank you for your response to my post BB.. I dont think any one person is 100% qualified to know exactly what God means in any given part of the Bible old and new testament. I think arguing the bible with anyone is against his wishes and we are to use it to edify him ourselves and our brethren.. not to use it as a weapon to bash anyone with.

[bananabrain]

also, although Leviticus does explicitly state that male homosexuality is *bad* under the Old Covenant, the particular verse occurs in the same chapter as saying about not wearing clothes of 2 different materials :s (also about Kosher food).

Do not pick and choose bits of the Old testament that suit you.

now, i was having lunch the other day with a mate of mine who is a protestant minister in germany and he says that the objection homosexual *marriage* is actually considered a pre-noachide-laws prohibition, inasmuch as it's stated in the genesis story, which explains the "pick-and-choose" problem; in other words, some christians derive their OT authority from there. this does make sense, i'd have thought and it is at least consistent, but needless to say, we don't derive the same laws!

faithfulservant - although lesbianism is mentioned in the NT, it is not mentioned in the OT, which is what my point was.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Faithfulservant]

I know... my response was to robcombot.. Sorry I should have been more clear on my post.

[Quahom1]

The media has now claimed that homosexuality is causing damage to the United States military because of the 1993 law (don't ask, don't tell, don't act), signed by then President Bill Clinton. The damage is that talented military personnel are leaving the military within 2 1/2 years of their enlistment/comission, rather than live with the rules of non engagement in homosexual behavior.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7025815/

Out of 1.8 - 2.2 million service members, since 1994, 9,488 have been discharged (one must assume because they could not keep their preferences quiet and private, or else could not abide by the non-engagement rule), for homosexuality. That is not roughly 1/3 of 1% as the article suggests, but 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%.

However, House Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who requested the GAO study, is working on legislation that would repeal the policy enacted under the Clinton administration.
The proposal would ban discrimination in the military based on one’s sexual orientation. It also would contain a measure designed to prevent the military from re-instituting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In the United States, n the military, it is not a democracy. It is an Ogliarchy, under democratic principles. When one signs up for the military, one voluntarily gives up certain rights, so that the rest of society can enjoy all of theirs...

That requires self discipline and self restraint. If one can not abide by the oath they took upon entering the military, then they have no business being in the miltary. Not, that the military should cater to the whims of a tiny fraction of people who are set in demanding their ways, at the expense of the whole.

The article is an interesting read (I especially admire the way the author twists facts to suite a particular slant on the issue).

Again I repeat, the needs of the many out weigh the "needs" of the few, or the one.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

I can't speak for your country. I know religion has a huge influence on your politics but I never studied your constitution. What I do know is that it's not the case up the frontier, in Canada. Our prime minister never refers to his religious faith (i don't even know if he has faith in anything). And as weird as it may seem to people in USA, if he did base his actions on religion, he would get in trouble. So separation of church and state does apply here.
___
Kal

Then for argument's sake I presume that you imply that that Canada's government is the way to go (enlightened and a shining beacon for the world to emulate), and the United States is a backwater superstitious lot of barbarians...

Perhaps if you were more versed in your reading, you'd find that the United States law is based on moral principles as opposed to religious hype. The forefathers of this country did not bring specific religion into the laws of the land, but rather used their convictions to create a moral/legal code that was (and is now) appropriate for running a goverment and governing a people.

I too lived in Canada, for a good while. The Canada you speak of today is not the Canada I knew 40 years ago. There has been great upheaval in Canada over the past four decades, while the United States is still maintaining principles established 220 plus years ago.

Even though your land and people are as old as we, your government is not. You've changed. We still maintain. And we still have your backside, whether you like us or not.

We like our officials to re-affirm their belief in something greater than them. We the people (65 % of 175 million voting eligible), have spoken about our decision concerning certain issues.

Perhaps that is the difference between Canada and the US. I for one would not want to be ruled by an atheist, or agnostic, nor do I care to have a fanatic in the 'driver's seat'.

I don't know Kal. I want freedom for the individual, but not at any price...to the rest.

I believe in respect for others, more than I believe in individual rights for self.

v/r

Q

[Kaldayen]

Greetings Quahom1,

No, I don't think you're in any way barbarians. And I don't think our government is the way to perfection, far from it. You're right on one point though, my own ideas are much closer to the one of my government than of the US's. I'm much happy to know that my prime minister would never speak of a "crusade against the axis of evil".

I understand your apprehension of an atheist political leader, although I don't share your point of view.

But again, that's another debate that would have his place on the political forum.
___
Kal