Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/16/2007 10:16:06 AM · #601

Originally posted by Louis:

Charming vernacular aside, the bible does say a lot of freaky stuff. You can't escape its inherent freakiness. Warning: reader discretion advised. The following opinion may be offensive to some people. Aside from a few gems here and there about goodwill and the universal tenets that make a good life livable, it's chock full of blood, war, torture, infanticide, patricide, fratricide, matricide, and all manner of murder and horror you wouldn't want any kid to be exposed to in a sane world. If you can disconnect yourself from it for even a moment of rational overview, you might glimpse that this 2,000-4,000 year old document has absolutely no connection to the way human beings live their lives today. And just to imbue this point of view with dripping irony, the only real moral code is to be summed up in something similar to what Jesus said: that the best life is lived treating others as though you loved them as dearly as members of your immediate family. But it doesn't take the oppressive rule of Christianity for two millenia for an intelligent person to figure that out; nor was he the first to come up with that gem. The slaughter of animals, the tiresome history of millenia-old wars, the habits of middle-eastern astrologers, and like minutiae, are nothing more than dreary idles that have no more bearing on people's lives than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Originally posted by RonB:
I believe that they hope that through debate they can find an overwhelmingly compelling reason to finally put the claims of the Bible to rest. Not finding it, they continue to engage in debate hoping that someday they will.

Well, you would be devastatingly wrong if you were to apply that presumption to me for example. Personally, I have no need to "disprove" it, "put its claims to rest", or otherwise present any "contrary" world view to it. I could care less. :) I am quite satisified with how I've personally digested it over the course of the last four decades, the first two of which were solidly in your camp as it were.

So you say. But your own charming vernacular seems to belie that which you profess. If you could care less, and have no need to disprove it, then why do you seemingly feel the need to itemize all of what you perceive as being negative portrayals in the Bible ( that you can also find in most world history books ), that children ought not be exposed to it ( quick, hide the history books ), imply that rational overview is required to disconnect from it ( as though being connected to is is not rational ), point out that it is old ( as if age invalidates accuracy ), that it is somehow not worthy of consideration because it doesn't keep pace as society descends into a moral morass, that "intelligent" people know better, and that it is all minutiae, and nothing more than dreary ideas?
Seems to me that you validate my belief more than you validate your own.

nsoroma79

Nikon Coolpix P7000

02/16/2007 10:45:40 AM · #602

I think this whole thing has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with laws and so on.

To some people it is a sin, to others it's not. To me, it's being true to oneself... and how can God be mad at a person for doing that??? If the only sin they commit is being in love with the same sex, then they are far better off than alot of people.

I just want people to stop shoving religion down my throat and to stop preaching!!! I don't go to church, I don't read the bible... but I do believe in God. We have a one on one relationship... I don't some book telling how to live my life.

So, I said it wasn't about religion. And the OP asked a question... I don't think they meant religiously why can't they. I just felt the need to add my opinion.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

02/16/2007 11:27:19 AM · #603

Originally posted by RonB:

It's unfortunate you can't take me at my word ("so you say"), but I suppose that indicates the general haughtiness associated with many believers. The only thing that really needs to be addressed here is "quick, hide the history books". History is not the issue. Leaving aside the fact that I don't necessarily consider anything in the OT to be of any historical significance to anyone today, especially when it concerns the arcane practices of desert dwellers, it is particularly offensive to me to promulgate the bible as "God's word" to young people, when it is so rife with all the aforementioned gore. I said nothing in particular about hiding violent history from anyone.

David Ey

Nikon D80

02/16/2007 11:34:06 AM · #604

"Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?"

Well, us "straights" have already lost the meaning of the word gay, now we are in danger of loosing the meaning of marriage too. Where will it end?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/16/2007 11:36:06 AM · #605

Originally posted by David Ey:

When you stop caring less about words and more about people?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/16/2007 11:38:07 AM · #606

Gah... I do not do rants... but

What's the "meaning of marriage" and how does that get lost?

02/16/2007 11:39:38 AM · #607

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I think this whole thing has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with laws and so on.

It does have to do with laws, of course. But laws are passed by legislators, and legislators, for the most part, pander to the majority of those who will put them in office, or keep them in office, by voting for them. And the majority of those who vote will choose a candidate based on their ( the candidates ) position on issues that the voter feels strongly about because of their religious viewpoints ( or lack thereof ). So, in the long run, it does have something to do with religion.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

To some people it is a sin, to others it's not. To me, it's being true to oneself... and how can God be mad at a person for doing that???

Later in your post, you say that you want people to stop shoving religion down your throat and to stop preaching. If so, why do you ask questions that would elicit such a response? So is your question really just rhetorical or are you actually inviting someone to answer the question about how God can be mad at a person for doing that?

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

If the only sin they commit is being in love with the same sex, then they are far better off than alot of people.

I can't find anything in the Bible that implies that being in love with someone is a sin, regardless of your gender or theirs. Jesus, himself, for example, is in love with me. Then again, I haven't seen anything in this thread that has implied that loving someone was sinful. But being in love with someone, and engaging in sexual acts with them are not the same thing.
You are correct in saying that people who have love in their lives are far better off than a lot of people. Studies have shown that hate is a destructive emotion that has negative physiological consequences.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I just want people to stop shoving religion down my throat and to stop preaching!!!

If that is truly your desire, then you are, in effect, shooting yourself in the foot by asking religious questions that require religious responses.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

I don't go to church, I don't read the bible... but I do believe in God. We have a one on one relationship... I don't some book telling how to live my life.

No one "needs" a book telling them how to live. But everyone needs "something" telling them how to live. For many, it is society, or their peers. For some, it's whatever "feels good" personally. For many, the bible seems to provide a good standard for how to live.

Originally posted by nsoroma79:

So, I said it wasn't about religion. And the OP asked a question... I don't think they meant religiously why can't they. I just felt the need to add my opinion.

I think that the OP did want to hear all reasons, including those based on religion. If not, then they didn't need to ask the question at all. The answer was obvious - it's the current interpretation of the law.
Your opinion is always welcome. But, as always, when you state it, you must be prepared to receive a response.

02/16/2007 12:09:23 PM · #608

Originally posted by Louis:

...it is particularly offensive to me to promulgate the bible as "God's word" to young people, when it is so rife with all the aforementioned gore. I said nothing in particular about hiding violent history from anyone.

Ahhh. So it seems that it's not really that you want to protect young people from gore at all, it's that you want to protect them from being told that the Bible is "God's word".
Like I said. You hope to find an overwhelmingly compelling reason to finally put the claims of the Bible to rest.
...For the sake of the children.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/16/2007 12:17:40 PM · #609

Originally posted by RonB:

Ahhh. So it seems that it's not really that you want to protect young people from gore at all, it's that you want to protect them from being told that the Bible is "God's word".

Yes, I concede that. Children should not be told that the bible is "God's word".

Edit: But no, you mischaracterized what I said unfortunately. Protect them from the suggestion that this document of intolerance and gore is "God's word".

Message edited by author 2007-02-16 12:20:26.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/16/2007 12:23:33 PM · #610

Originally posted by David Ey:

What we have is an extra definition, not one fewer. I know that change is scary, but it is not all for the worse. Given your stance, it is unlikely that permitting gay men and women to enter into partnerships (colloquially, "get married") is ever going to impinge significantly on your life (whereas it will improve theirs immeasurably). That is, unless your vicar is a little more (small "c") christian about it than you are.

This might be a good point to bring up the subject that studies indicate that a large proportion (c.80%) of "straight" homophobic men are physically aroused by gay porn, whereas "straight" non-homophobic men are not. A probable conclusion is that homophobic men are acting out of repression of their homosexual desires...!

Message edited by author 2007-02-16 12:24:35.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/16/2007 12:47:38 PM · #611

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Ahhh. So it seems that it's not really that you want to protect young people from gore at all, it's that you want to protect them from being told that the Bible is "God's word".

Yes, I concede that. Children should not be told that the bible is "God's word".

Edit: But no, you mischaracterized what I said unfortunately. Protect them from the suggestion that this document of intolerance and gore is "God's word".

Ahh. So now it's just not gore, it's also intolerance. And it's not just telling them it's also even suggesting it to them. I see.

FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop?
Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well?

Flash

Nikon D700

02/16/2007 12:56:29 PM · #612

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:
The Torah had 613 commandments for Jews. Joseph Good

The Bibles New Testament has 2.
1. Put the Lord your God FIRST in everything you do
2. Love others as you love yourself

Are the commandments "love God and one's neighbour," and to "love one's neighbour as oneself" overriding commandments? Is there a specific exclusion for gay people?

Yes. Not that I know of.

The "10" commandments as brought down the mountain by Moses are summed up in the New Testament by 2 commandments. Each summing up nearly half of the 10. The First as it relates to our relationship with God and the second, our relationship to each other.

Regarding your second question, I know of no particular exclusion of these commandments either for or against "gay people". Sin is sin regardless of who does the performance. The fact that "gays" seem so defensive regarding scripture baffles me. Their sin of engaging in same sex relations is not more or less sinful than some other behaviours by heterosexuals. The path to forgiveness is not different. The path to salvation is not different. The creator of each is not different.

edit to add: The Lord loves all who come to him and is pained by those who refuse his shelter

I highly suspect that you already knew that.

Message edited by author 2007-02-16 13:21:23.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/16/2007 01:08:37 PM · #613

Originally posted by Matthew:

This might be a good point to bring up the subject that studies indicate that a large proportion (c.80%) of "straight" homophobic men are physically aroused by gay porn, whereas "straight" non-homophobic men are not. A probable conclusion is that homophobic men are acting out of repression of their homosexual desires...!

Matthew, thanks for that link - not so much for what the article says ( it does, after all state that there are alternate views of why the results are what they are that must be considered ), but because through that link, I found the actual questionnaire that was used to determine a participant's degree of homophobia. If anyone is interested, they can actually take the questionnaire and find their homophobia ranking vis-a-vis those who took part in the study.

The questionnaire can be accessed here

And, FWIW, my score was:

21 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic

As an aside, it is my opinion that the reason Dr. Adams had difficulty finding high-grade non-homophobic men is because he only included white, male college students - namely those who had spent their entire lives in a society that was more sexually open - both in attitudes and in the media, than it was a generation earlier - when there were stricter moral standards.

fotomann_forever

02/16/2007 01:13:51 PM · #614

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, us "straights" have already lost the meaning of the word gay, now we are in danger of loosing the meaning of marriage too. Where will it end?

FWIW, you might want to read an Etymology of the word gay before making such false assumptions that the 17th century meaning of the word gay was lost to homosexuals. As early as the late 17th century the meaning of the word leaned more toward heterosexual promiscuity.

And for what I can tell, the meaning of marriage was lost a LONG time before "gays" began lobbying for marriage rights. You can also blame us "straights" for that.

If you're gonna make assumptions, please base them on a bit of fact.

Flash

Nikon D700

02/16/2007 01:17:17 PM · #615

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/16/2007 01:25:55 PM · #616

Originally posted by Flash:

I believe taterbug has copyrighted that number.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/16/2007 01:47:37 PM · #617

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Flash:
23

I believe taterbug has copyrighted that number.

Sorry. Changing my score would be akin to lying and then I would need to seek forgiveness for my sin. Do I need to pay restitution? Typically remorse is enough, along with a good dose of thought regarding the deed and of course the confession.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/16/2007 02:00:41 PM · #618

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop? Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well?

Are you really suggesting that the Bible is culturally equivalent to fairy tales? Because if you are, all our differences magically evaporate. If you aren't, your attempt to blur the line between a powerful tool being used to dictate how people should live their lives and a collection of inconsequential children's stories is as astounding as it is disingenuous.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/16/2007 02:05:54 PM · #619

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop? Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well?

Are you really suggesting that the Bible is culturally equivalent to fairy tales? Because if you are, all our differences magically evaporate. If you aren't, your attempt to blur the line between a powerful tool being used to dictate how people should live their lives and a collection of inconsequential children's stories is as astounding as it is disingenuous.

Louis, if you really think Grimm, Anderson and Aesop are "Inconsequential children's stories", you need to do some studying. Aesop's "Fables" can be likened to the Parables of the Bible very easily; they are/were tools for the teaching of morality to an illiterate people. The "fairy tales" collected and published by Grimm and Anderson are archetypal tales that go back to the dawn of human consciousness; these authors did not invent these stories, but rather collected them and, perhaps, embellished them. In every fairy tale there is a "moral", or a "caution", or something fundamental and basic that speaks to the human condition. They also are powerful tools for passing on the collective conscience/morality of a people.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/16/2007 02:13:45 PM · #620

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop? Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well?

Are you really suggesting that the Bible is culturally equivalent to fairy tales? Because if you are, all our differences magically evaporate. If you aren't, your attempt to blur the line between a powerful tool being used to dictate how people should live their lives and a collection of inconsequential children's stories is as astounding as it is disingenuous.

Louis, if you really think Grimm, Anderson and Aesop are "Inconsequential children's stories", you need to do some studying. Aesop's "Fables" can be likened to the Parables of the Bible very easily; they are/were tools for the teaching of morality to an illiterate people. The "fairy tales" collected and published by Grimm and Anderson are archetypal tales that go back to the dawn of human consciousness; these authors did not invent these stories, but rather collected them and, perhaps, embellished them. In every fairy tale there is a "moral", or a "caution", or something fundamental and basic that speaks to the human condition. They also are powerful tools for passing on the collective conscience/morality of a people.

R.

Being a student of fable and folklore, I understand that fully. I understand its historical role and cultural importance. In relation to the Bible, and it relation to modern people living modern lives, Grimm et. al. become inconsequential children's stories.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that they find their way to the young eventually. You can find beautifully illustrated books of Greek mythology especially for kids, for example. This doesn't mean that the myths of Greece and Rome weren't important vital parts of people's lives, or that they didn't once represent a beautiful, vital, and (dare I suggest such a contranym) humanist religion. It just means they're now inconsequential, and are currently culturally relegated to fantastic tales more suitable for young imaginations.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/16/2007 02:17:28 PM · #621

Originally posted by Louis:

In relation to the Bible, and it relation to modern people living modern lives, Grimm et. al. become inconsequential children's stories.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm glad to see you ARE aware of the cultural/moral significance of "fairy tales", as I had always thought you were well-read and thoughtful. You can see why the original statement threw me for a loop, right?

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/16/2007 02:24:12 PM · #622

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:
In relation to the Bible, and it relation to modern people living modern lives, Grimm et. al. become inconsequential children's stories.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I'm glad to see you ARE aware of the cultural/moral significance of "fairy tales", as I had always thought you were well-read and thoughtful. You can see why the original statement threw me for a loop, right?

R.

Yes... in the rush to get out my thoughts it's difficult to resist the temptation to make summary statements that probably don't accurately reflect what I think. Also I'm supposed to be working right now. :)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/16/2007 02:28:58 PM · #623

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, could you provide any evidence to support your charge that the Bible is a document of intolerance, any more so than, say, nearly any book including tales by the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, or Aesop?
Or do you feel that we should shield children from them as well?

Do you really know anyone who teaches their children that those books are the Gospel Truth -- the inspired word of God, with precepts to be faithfully followed under penalty of eternal damnation?