Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/19/2009 01:43:39 PM · #3176

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I honestly don't know how having an honest conversation like that causes me to come across in a bad light unless you just assume bad things about me.

Probably because every single time we get into this, you always come up with your comparing homosexuality to pedophilia.

Since we're talking about genetics, and the possibility that pedophilia has genetic roots, you want to lump that in. Even the new guy went with depression or obesity as possibly genetic. But both of those have consequences to the people with the traits that can be treated, and should be, for the health & well being of the person.

Pedophiles and sociopathic murderers may both be genetic, but these are horrible characteristics on multiple levels, and comparing them to homosexuality is just not reasonable. Dwarfism and cancer have genetic roots, too, so why not go with one of those as a comparator? Because you know you'll get shot out of the saddle because it'd be nice if something could be done to eliminate those traits.......there really isn't any reason to try and eliminate homosexuality because the only downside is that some people are afraid of it, and that fear breeds hate, without reason.

Like we talked about with left handers, we learn and grow......why, when we know that homosexuality does not hurt anyone, and isn't a choice, is it so hard for so many to accept?

Why must so many go instantly to comparing it with the darkest of human traits?

Every time I hear that comparison made, I want to say that at least a pedophile has an excuse.....a Christian that tries to make a gay person's life Hell because they CHOOSE to is just a despicable human being.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/19/2009 01:52:38 PM · #3177

Once again, this argument belongs elsewhere. But because the offence to logic is so outrageous here that I'll address that.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There is plenty of evidence that refutes scientific theories such as macro-evolution, big-bang, etc. as well. Like I said before, you either put your faith in incomplete scientific theory or in some sort of religion that is perceived as being incomplete because science hasn't proven it. If you think that science is the ultimate truth and that everything in the universe can be explained through science, then you're putting your faith in man and assuming that the human mind is the highest and most advanced intelligence that exists. That's faith too.

No. For the hundredth time in these forums, tiresome as it is to go over with newcomers to these discussions, accepting data arrived at by empirical evidence under theories that are testable and falsifiable is not faith. Accepting that scientific theorizing can address questions at some point in future for which we do not yet have the answers is not faith. There is simply no compelling reason to accept the comparison between untestable, unassailable religious faith -- let alone religious faith of any particular flavour du jour -- and scientific theorizing. It is bad logic and bad thinking, and a corruption of your faculties to even consider it.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

One could argue that history is the story and the Bible is the backdrop.

Assuming this is supposed to make some kind of sense, one could also argue that stripes are the zebra, and the animal is the backdrop. Doesn't really actually mean anything, and certainly doesn't form an "argument", but it can come out of one's mouth to form a sentence.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible told us that the earth was round and suspended in empty space at a time when humanity believed it was flat and standing on a pedestal. Thousands of years later, humanity realized the earth was really round and suspended in space. So what's the fantastical story and what is the fact?

Wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

When I look at the facts of the Bible, I can't imagine not believing it. You have 40+ authors writing 66 books over the course of thousands of years. Somehow, these authors who never knew each other, and lived hundreds of years apart, managed to write all these books with the same overall theme.

If that's supposed to be an argument for the veracity of the facts of the bible, why is it that you presumably dismiss the Greek myths? The Upanishads? The latter have been composed over the course of more than a thousand years, obviously by disparate authors, all strangers to one another, all writing the "same overall theme". Wow, it must be true! And are you a biblical textual critic? Are you aware how biblical texts arose and were disseminated?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And, somehow, everything that the authors predicted in 1500 B.C. took place 1500 years later. One hundred percent of the predictions from the Old testament authors and prophets took place, with historical and scientific evidence that they did.

Even given that such evidence exists, which is magnanimous of me in the extreme to grant because it does not, it is merely a testament to your credulity that you would accept as "prophecy" something written, say, in Matthew that echoes -- erroneously, I might add -- older Hebrew scripture in order to substantiate a claim made in its own text. Dubious indeed, and the furthest thing from science (or common sense).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Many people don't believe that, but the Bible predicted that many people wouldn't believe it. If everyone believed the Bible, then that prediction would be incorrect and the Bible would not maintain its 100% accuracy. So, I suppose that some of you guys are just helping maintain the Bible's accuracy.

I trust you aren't taking any logic courses currently. This is convoluted beyond all repair.

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

12/19/2009 03:23:18 PM · #3178

Originally posted by Louis:

Once again, this argument belongs elsewhere. But because the offence to logic is so outrageous here that I'll address that.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There is plenty of evidence that refutes scientific theories such as macro-evolution, big-bang, etc. as well. Like I said before, you either put your faith in incomplete scientific theory or in some sort of religion that is perceived as being incomplete because science hasn't proven it. If you think that science is the ultimate truth and that everything in the universe can be explained through science, then you're putting your faith in man and assuming that the human mind is the highest and most advanced intelligence that exists. That's faith too.

No. For the hundredth time in these forums, tiresome as it is to go over with newcomers to these discussions, accepting data arrived at by empirical evidence under theories that are testable and falsifiable is not faith. Accepting that scientific theorizing can address questions at some point in future for which we do not yet have the answers is not faith. There is simply no compelling reason to accept the comparison between untestable, unassailable religious faith -- let alone religious faith of any particular flavour du jour -- and scientific theorizing. It is bad logic and bad thinking, and a corruption of your faculties to even consider it.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
One could argue that history is the story and the Bible is the backdrop.

Assuming this is supposed to make some kind of sense, one could also argue that stripes are the zebra, and the animal is the backdrop. Doesn't really actually mean anything, and certainly doesn't form an "argument", but it can come out of one's mouth to form a sentence.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The Bible told us that the earth was round and suspended in empty space at a time when humanity believed it was flat and standing on a pedestal. Thousands of years later, humanity realized the earth was really round and suspended in space. So what's the fantastical story and what is the fact?

Wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I look at the facts of the Bible, I can't imagine not believing it. You have 40+ authors writing 66 books over the course of thousands of years. Somehow, these authors who never knew each other, and lived hundreds of years apart, managed to write all these books with the same overall theme.

If that's supposed to be an argument for the veracity of the facts of the bible, why is it that you presumably dismiss the Greek myths? The Upanishads? The latter have been composed over the course of more than a thousand years, obviously by disparate authors, all strangers to one another, all writing the "same overall theme". Wow, it must be true! And are you a biblical textual critic? Are you aware how biblical texts arose and were disseminated?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And, somehow, everything that the authors predicted in 1500 B.C. took place 1500 years later. One hundred percent of the predictions from the Old testament authors and prophets took place, with historical and scientific evidence that they did.

Even given that such evidence exists, which is magnanimous of me in the extreme to grant because it does not, it is merely a testament to your credulity that you would accept as "prophecy" something written, say, in Matthew that echoes -- erroneously, I might add -- older Hebrew scripture in order to substantiate a claim made in its own text. Dubious indeed, and the furthest thing from science (or common sense).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Many people don't believe that, but the Bible predicted that many people wouldn't believe it. If everyone believed the Bible, then that prediction would be incorrect and the Bible would not maintain its 100% accuracy. So, I suppose that some of you guys are just helping maintain the Bible's accuracy.

I trust you aren't taking any logic courses currently. This is convoluted beyond all repair.

Well, I'm on my phone so please excuse my short response. I don't know what you were trying to achieve by picking apart my last post, but I appreciate your attempt at whatever it was. Are you trying to convince me that I'm nuts, or are you trying to convince others in this thread that I am?

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2009 03:43:07 PM · #3179

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we do not allow the pedophile to argue "I am the way I am so you must accept me" then it is likewise a poor argument for homosexuality. The argument must be made on other grounds. That's all I'm saying. I'm just tired of the idea that the "it's genetic" card trumps all other arguments. It's not true and we can see that obviously play out in pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong for the exact reasons you list above and the pedophile cannot claim innocence because he is genetically predisposed.

EDIT to add Shannon made the exact point Paul did. So we are all in agreement.

You know the romans probably got tired too after hoisting so many men up on crucifixes... I like you Jason but man do you come across poorly at times and I know that's not your intent.

Requiring that homosexuals must make their arguments on other grounds is ridiculous. They shouldn't have to make any. You certainly don't yet you're tired?

I think if we were having this conversation face to face it would come across quite different. Rant, unfortunately, seems to make people assume the worst intentions in the other people conversing. I was only making comment about a specific argument that is presented. It doesn't mean no other valid arguments exist for or against.

EDIT to add:

I think I just get in trouble for thinking out loud too much. I was mainly describing a conversation I had with myself during one of my drives to a photoshoot. Two hours in a car alone at 5:00AM gives one time to think.

The conversation starts out like this. "Hmmm, that IS an interesting argument. My faith holds that homosexuality is wrong. BUT I believe that being gay is partly or even completely determined by genetic or outside forces. Is it OK to hold someone accountable for something they don't have control over?" I think for a while longer. "But wait. I don't think anybody chooses to be a pedophile which indicates that it also is partly or even completely determined by genetic or outside forces. I think pedophilia is wrong and in fact I think almost everybody thinks the same thing." I'm forced then to conclude that we, as people, do hold people accountable for their actions despite their predispositions. At that point I have answered for myself the question, "Is it OK to hold someone accountable for something they don't have control over?" The argument then shifts to other grounds.

I honestly don't know how having an honest conversation like that causes me to come across in a bad light unless you just assume bad things about me. Perhaps it's even surprising that I think about things like this instead of just sticking my fingers in my ears saying, "The Bible says it's bad! The Bible says it's bad! The Bible says it's bad!"

So I ask that you cut me some slack. Assume that the person you talk to outside Rant is the same person posting inside it.

I think what comes across poorly is that your thought process on this issue begins with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong (because your faith tells you it is). For you, that it's wrong is a given. If that's your assumption from the beginning, aren't you in essence just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "The Bible says it's bad"? You seem to believe you're breaking out of that [faith] box, and maybe you want to break out of it when you think about this issue, but you haven't done so thus far.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/19/2009 04:07:39 PM · #3180

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

If the fact that I merely disagree with you comes across "poorly" then I guess it's a lost cause. Doesn't your post here make the very same assumptions you accused me of? For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. I won't go down this road because it's fruitless. If you think my actually thinking about things and tossing them back and forth is equivalent to me sticking my fingers in my ears then that's your shortcoming, not mine. We ALL have our base assumptions. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

12/19/2009 04:14:05 PM · #3181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

Since this base assumption allows gays to live as they choose, and enjoy the same rights and freedoms as you and I, I'll take that any day over one that wants to impose their standards on it.

Surely you can see that fundamental difference?

Among other things, it'd be a respect issue as well.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/19/2009 04:21:58 PM · #3182

Jeb, perhaps you can make the argument more obvious by telling me exactly what you meant when you said, "Being a Christian is a choice.....being gay is not." and why you chose to use that line in that moment of the conversation. This phrase was the whole reason I waded back into this thread.

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

12/19/2009 04:37:16 PM · #3183

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Because gays must defend themselves against people who invade their lives and try to tell them what they can and cannot do, that their way of life is wrong, and fully intend to do all they can to deprive them of basic rights all for reasons that have nothing to do with them being gay, but are because they don't believe being gay is right.

Thing is, this behavior, and these beliefs, are a CHOICE, whereas, being gay is not.

If you choose to be a Christian, and sign on for the full deal, essentially you have to be anti-gay because you have to uphold a book that's 2000 years old and just doesn't apply so much any more.

The dilemma is......should you actually acknowledge the mistakes, and the things that are no longer applicable, it undermines the book in so many ways.

Yet there are some pretty fundamental things that have seen the light of day, like no longer owning slaves and that women are not second class citizens......yet you do still stumble over that one a little, don't you?

I guess I just get frustrated because you guys just will not accept people who are gay as the same wonderful, intelligent, funny, REGULAR people that they are because of a hurdle in your chosen mindset.....and that just doesn't seem remotely reasonable or logical to me.

Like that whole pedophile analogy you keep dredging up. Can't you see how plain old fashioned nasty that is? It serves no purpose, it's not valid, you know that, any more than it's reasonable to lump people who are gay with serial killers......yet there may be a genetic predisposition to that as well.

Here's the thing......I'm betting there's a genetic predispositon in heterosexuality, too.

Why......that would make a gay person just like me, huh?

Genetic sexual orientation!

Go figure!

Message edited by author 2009-12-19 16:38:25.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2009 05:10:51 PM · #3184

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think what comes across poorly is that your thought process on this issue begins with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong (because your faith tells you it is). For you, that it's wrong is a given. If that's your assumption from the beginning, aren't you in essence just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "The Bible says it's bad"? You seem to believe you're breaking out of that [faith] box, and maybe you want to break out of it when you think about this issue, but you haven't done so thus far.

If the fact that I merely disagree with you comes across "poorly" then I guess it's a lost cause. Doesn't your post here make the very same assumptions you accused me of? For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. I won't go down this road because it's fruitless. If you think my actually thinking about things and tossing them back and forth is equivalent to me sticking my fingers in my ears then that's your shortcoming, not mine. We ALL have our base assumptions. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

No, it's not the fact that we disagree that comes across poorly, and if my message seemed harsh, I apologize because I didn't mean it that way. I was trying to suggest that if you start with your assumption, there will never be a meeting of the minds on this issue. Why don't we, just for the sake of argument, assume that your faith has nothing to say on the issue? Would you still believe homosexuality is wrong? What makes something wrong anyway? In this case, what is the harm to the individual, to the society? I don't see it, and you'll have to convince me of some harm in order to convince me it's wrong.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/19/2009 05:22:21 PM · #3185

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Like that whole pedophile analogy you keep dredging up. Can't you see how plain old fashioned nasty that is? It serves no purpose, it's not valid, you know that, any more than it's reasonable to lump people who are gay with serial killers......yet there may be a genetic predisposition to that as well.

Here's the thing......I'm betting there's a genetic predispositon in heterosexuality, too.

Why......that would make a gay person just like me, huh?

Genetic sexual orientation!

Go figure!

Here's the thing: we KNOW that being male or female is genetic. There's nothing faith-based about this knowledgeâ�� we can identify the exact chromosome responsible. In some cultures, just being female makes you a lesser person... somewhere in between 2nd class and downright evil. Most decent, modern humans have largely abandoned such an absurd notion, even though it's repeated loud and clear throughout the Bible, and now treat women as regular people. We also know that being male or female is NOT strictly an either/or proposition. There's a whole genetic spectrum in between (see earlier Gaza post), from obvious physical differences to more subtle manifestationsâ�� NONE of which are "morally wrong." So why is it so difficult to accept that love and attraction is also genetically subject to variation, and no more a moral issue than being female or left-handed used to be?

Opponents are trying to vilify a group of people for simply being who they are, when it doesn't affect them one iota. They try to instill fear and prejudice by envisioning ridiculous scenariosâ�� "They'll teach our kids to be gay in school!," or "They'll force our church to perform gay marriages!" when both are patently absurd (could YOU learn to be gay? could your church be forced to perform a satanic marriage?). Calling homosexuality a crime is just as ludicrous as calling heterosexuality a crime, and attempting to equate it to murder or pedophilia (where victims suffer) is shameful in the extreme. These people try to justify such hatred by saying the Bible requires it, even as they ignore more prominent commands of discriminatory sexism and racism. It's incredibly saddening that otherwise decent, intelligent people still cling to such archaic prejudices and try to rationalize their mistreatment of others as anything other than naked, evil hatred. Perhaps the most offensive part of it for me is that the phrase "God's love" would ever be uttered in that context.

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

12/19/2009 05:40:21 PM · #3186

Most Christians believe that homosexuality is "wrong". Why? Because Christians are prejudice, cruel, and oppressive? No. Christians believe it's wrong because they believe that the Bible is the word of God and contains rules for living. Therefore, when Christians say homosexuality is wrong, it's not an idea that they came up with, but instead it's an idea that they believe is from God and thus they are obligated to follow it. So, the question should not be, "Why are Christians so cruel and oppressive?" The question should instead be, "Why would God command that there be no homosexual physical interaction?"

So, what do you think? Maybe you believe that Christians are crazy and absolutely out of their mind for even believing that God exists and wanting to do what he says. I can understand why a non-Christian would think that way. But, even if you feel that way about Christianity you should still try and be a decent person, give them the benefit of the doubt, and instead of being harsh and critical toward Christians you should try and be somewhat understanding. Just give Christians the benefit of the doubt for one moment, and, assuming that there is a God ask, "why did God command that there be no homosexual physical interaction?" Remember, the Bible does not say that homosexuality is wrong, it says that homosexual interactions are wrong.

So, non-Christian folks, are you willing to step outside the box, pretend the God exists, and ask (not just sarcastically but honestly, and willing to listen to the answer)... "Why would God do that?" Or, would you rather just be critical, judgmental, and close-minded?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/19/2009 05:47:07 PM · #3187

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Do you ever eat bacon or shrimp or a cheeseburger? Because God forbade those too ...

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

12/19/2009 05:53:51 PM · #3188

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Most Christians believe that homosexuality is "wrong". Why? Because Christians are prejudice, cruel, and oppressive? No. Christians believe it's wrong because they believe that the Bible is the word of God and contains rules for living.

Do you ever eat bacon or shrimp or a cheeseburger? Because God forbade those too ...

Yes, you are correct. The old testament law required that people do not eat those types of foods. However, Christ died to fulfill the law, so since the old testament law has already been fulfilled by Christ, we no longer need to. Homosexuality, is however, mentioned in the new testament, after the death of Christ, meaning that the teachings are still relevant and applicable.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2009 06:12:30 PM · #3189

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Only some Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. Some Christians believe it's the word of men and therefore fallible, and some Christians don't need to be spoon-fed their morality out of an ancient text but can instead think for themselves.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/19/2009 06:13:50 PM · #3190

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Could you please show me where? I'm truly interested and am not one to just take someone's word for it - I have to know first hand, rather than 2nd, 3rd, or 4th...

12/19/2009 06:30:22 PM · #3191

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Yes, you are correct. The old testament law required that people do not eat those types of foods. However, Christ died to fulfill the law, so since the old testament law has already been fulfilled by Christ, we no longer need to. Homosexuality, is however, mentioned in the new testament, after the death of Christ, meaning that the teachings are still relevant and applicable.

Could you please show me where? I'm truly interested and am not one to just take someone's word for it - I have to know first hand, rather than 2nd, 3rd, or 4th...

No problem. These are the two passages in the new testament that are clearest. Please don't lash out on me for posting this... I didn't make this stuff up, I'm just copying and pasting.

Romans 1:26-27 English Standard Version

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-20 English Standard Version

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. 13 "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"â��and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Message edited by author 2009-12-19 18:31:09.

12/19/2009 06:50:02 PM · #3192

Originally posted by dahkota:

Could you please show me where? I'm truly interested and am not one to just take someone's word for it - I have to know first hand, rather than 2nd, 3rd, or 4th...

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No, what you are doing is selectively putting forth yet another translation.

This is also something that you should post in good conscience:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous [1] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [2]

Footnotes
[1] 6:9 Or wrongdoers
[2] 6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

So....this isn't God's Word, it's the convenient translation of something that may not even have been directly able to be translated from the ancient Greek language.

Doesn't say it exactly that way in the King James, and once again, it's an interpretation thing......and one that's pretty nasty.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/19/2009 06:55:04 PM · #3193

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The whole point Jeb was not to draw similarities between the groups but to draw stark contrasts. It seems to me that there are lots of predisposed activities we do not tolerate and lots we do. I, therefore, don't understand why you consider the fact that being gay is not a choice as relevant to the discussion. If you can't comprehend that argument, I don't know what else to tell ya.

It seems the thread has moved on anyway (as these things are wont to do)...

12/19/2009 06:58:27 PM · #3194

johnnyphoto, do youi know any gay people? Could you look them in the eye, and with God's Christian love in your heart, tell them that they are wrong, immoral, and will burn in Hell for their acts?

Do you worship a God that would categorically deny Salvation to an entire segment of the population who cannot control who they are as they were born?

And......to denounce who they are would be a lie, total hypocrisy, and against their very existence.

Yet is that what you would have them do?

Does that seem right to you?

12/19/2009 07:07:07 PM · #3195

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think I'm having the comprehension problem.

Yes, there are predisposed activities that are tolerated, and some that aren't.

Homosexuality is a predisposed activity.....the complete intolerance of that, and the attempts to deny gays of their rights is a choice.

That's wrong.

If you can't comprehend that argument, I don't know what else to tell ya.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/19/2009 07:08:34 PM · #3196

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

the question should not be, "Why are Christians so cruel and oppressive?" The question should instead be, "Why would God command that there be no homosexual physical interaction?"

Yes, we get that you believe that, but at least be honest with the statement: Why would ANCIENT, UNKNOWN* AUTHORS CLAIM God commanded that there be no homosexual physical interaction? There is no proof, nor any evidence whatsoever that the text actually IS the word of God... and the many irreconcilable inconsistencies, added texts, discarded manuscipts and outright errors would strongly suggest it's not. All you can really say is that anonymous writers claimed so, which is no more convincing than assuming a Greek, Norse or Egyptian manuscript is the word of God.

*Despite what you may think, we don't actually know who wrote the vast majority of the Bible (or when). None of the gospels were even firsthand accounts, yet they often conflict with each other and contain material such as direct quotes from private conversations.

"most of modern critical scholarship hesitates to say that Matthew wrote this Gospel which bears his name, preferring instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the first century."

"The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but has been traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a cousin of Barnabas. There is also evidence that the author of the Gospel of Mark was Peter's scribe.

"the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has been described as â��about evenly dividedâ�� on who the author was." "Luke, however, was a superior storyteller and sometimes rearranged events in Mark to improve the story."

"The Fourth Gospel, like the three Synoptic Gospels, is anonymous in that it does not bear its author's name. The title, "According to John," was attached when the four Gospels were gathered together and began to circulate as one collection." "The Gospel of John differs significantly in theme, content, time duration, order of events, and style, reflecting a Christian tradition different from that of the synoptics."

Net conclusion: it doesn't matter if you try to avoid your own responsibility for your prejudices or not... either you disapprove of homosexuality because you personally believe it's wrong or because you personally believe God says it's wrong. Either way, it's just your own belief, and should not be imposed on others.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/19/2009 07:20:21 PM · #3197

Originally posted by scalvert:

Net conclusion: it doesn't matter if you try to avoid your own responsibility for your prejudices or not... either you disapprove of homosexuality because you personally believe it's wrong or because you personally believe God says it's wrong. Either way, it's just your own belief, and should not be imposed on others.

I wish I could put things so concisely and eloquently.

Well said, sir.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/19/2009 07:31:28 PM · #3198

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Welcome to DPC Rant. You offered propositions. I assumed that meant we were free to pick those arguments apart, as opposed to simply having to accept them. If not, may I suggest an essay published at a blogging site.