Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also you can have sex with relatives, as long as you don't take their clothes off.

Seriously though, many of the things in Christian doctrine don't come from the Gospels but instead come from the letters of Paul, a hugely influential Christian leader but a man none-the-less (example, IIRC there aren't any passages condemning homosexuality in the Gospels). Take a look sometime at the 'Jefferson Bible' which tells the story of Christ without the miracles and religion.

To paraphrase from the cast of Monty Python, Jesus said "Love thy neighbor" and people have been killing each other ever since about how he said it.

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

That must be a really old rabbi.

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

Respectfully... I'm not cherrypicking. I think you are cherrypicking and trying to bend my statements to your own needs.

I'll quote Paul, who happened to be a Jewish Rabbi before converting to Christianity.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Notice Paul's consolation to those who repented of these sinful deeds of the flesh:

"And such were some of you but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

MEN WITH MEN AND WOMEN WITH WOMEN

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).

If your really that interested (and not just trying to pick a fight :-0), I suggest you read the book of Romans to understand the Chrisitan view of the sin nature of man, and the book of Hebrews to understand the Christian view of the new covenant and how that relates to the old covenant. Afterall Paul who was a Jew is much better at explaining this than I.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I'll quote Paul, who happened to be a Jewish Rabbi before converting to Christianity.

He was Jewish and a Pharisee (almost? he was likened to one but never stated he actually was a member for certain), but not a rabbi. He did not teach, he was closer to an enforcer of Talmudic law.

generalgrog wrote:"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Here, have some more translations and a breakdown of that passage. Translating words differently changes the meaning.

Also, again as pointed out, you are using Paul's words, not Jesus. He never met the guy while he was alive like most of the others that wrote and yet many cling to him more strongly than those personally closest and heard the word first hand.

dogma wrote:It seems you have not yet encountered antidisestableshmentarianism

Sbuh? Antidisestablishmentarianism is a brilliant word!




Meanwhile, GeneralGrog, I think its interesting that in the same post you talk about homosexuality is a sin as it's written in the bible, but then go on to point out how Jesus taught that you shouldn't just follow the law for the sake of the law. I know you'll likely go on to point out homosexuality is still a sin for whatever reasons, but you have to see how much of a stretch the whole thing can appear to the rest of us.

Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

The question for me is why so many Christian groups are so fixated on the issue. Why was so much money spend lobbying for Prop 8 and the other constitutional amendments, and why wasn't that money spent on things the bible spends most of its time talking about, like caring for the poor and making sure there's another instalment in Max Payne games.

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.

...because people generally agree the other ones are wrong, or at least bad ideas?

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

All your doing is proving my point that there are multiple translations which say slightly different things, which is all I said. I didn't say which was the correct one or which one you choose to believe.

A Christian complaining about people focusing on homosexuality is a little ironic considering the main cause behind anti-gay rights and gay bashing in the US is the reigious right. The Christian (though not all of course) element is what is obsessed with keeping gay people from being equal citizens more than any others here.

Let's make this clear, I am not saying all Christians by any stretch.

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

Well, for the queer rights movement I think the argument is that all other sexual sins are avoidable while still leading a rich full sexual life. Once you're married, you can do pretty much whatever you want, while gay and lesbian couples are denied that opportunity. Since the evidence seems to be mounting that homosexuality is more innate and less a behavior that can be learned or unlearned, it strikes a lot of people as being really, really unfair.

Generalgrog: My thoughts on gay marriage is were do you draw the line. next there will be people trying to mary there dog or even there cat. Bestiality is still very real in this day and age, and though it may sound like I'm trying to be funny there are people out there with real serious emotional issues. I am still one of the strong belivers that believe Homosexuality is a behavioral problem and not a genetic one. This is because there are to many people saying there gay one minute and then saying that there heterosexual the next. This does not seem like genetics to me.

My point is if were going to talk about rights across the board then you'll have to open up Pandoras Box, and that means giveing sexual Liberties for all whether we think it's moral or not. So I think we should leave marriage alone as it is already defined and established, and not cross that line because you may not like whats on the other side.

Eh.

Can someone enter into a legal contract with their dog?

Of course not, that's a line already in place. Adults capable of entering into legal agreements.
Two men are perfectly capable of doing this, that shouldn't change based on their gender.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Generalgrog: My thoughts on gay marriage is were do you draw the line. next there will be people trying to mary there dog or even there cat. Bestiality is still very real in this day and age, and though it may sound like I'm trying to be funny there are people out there with real serious emotional issues.

This is a slippery slope fallacy, trying to argue against something on the grounds that some subsequent event might happen. Basically, the argument is a fail because there is nothing stopping the opposition to bestiality after homosexuals are allowed legal marriage. There are so many differences between the two beyond ‘the Bible says they’re bad’.

Besides, there is already a clear legal distinction between bestiality and homosexuality, because the former is illegal while the latter is not. Given that there has been no success at all in legalising bestiality despite the legalisation of homosexuality, why on Earth would gay marriage change anything.

The argument is basically nonsense.

I am still one of the strong belivers that believe Homosexuality is a behavioral problem and not a genetic one. This is because there are to many people saying there gay one minute and then saying that there heterosexual the next. This does not seem like genetics to me.

There’s nothing in genetics that suggests there should be a hard switch between the two. It also doesn’t have to be simply a case of genetics, but environmental factors starting in the womb.

Now, if you think it’s all about choice let me ask you; could you choose to be gay? Because there’s no way I could choose to start being gay, I have no desire towards men at all. Could you decide to start being gay tomorrow?

My point is if were going to talk about rights across the board then you'll have to open up Pandoras Box, and that means giveing sexual Liberties for all whether we think it's moral or not. So I think we should leave marriage alone as it is already defined and established, and not cross that line because you may not like whats on the other side.

Except there is nothing about legalising homosexuality that’ll lead to any increased acceptance of bestiality. Nothing. It’s a nonsense.

1-0 to Sebster. Good job.

I'm not sure I see the significance of whether or not homosexuality is inborn, to be honest.

I like to eat meat. It's tasty. That's an inborn preference. (Or a preference instilled on me when I was very young, it makes no difference. I can't just decide that I don't like the taste of meat anymore.)

I could nonetheless be a vegetarian. My eating meat isn't an inborn trait, my liking meat is. If there was a pressing reason for me to not eat meat, I would have to do without.

Pedophiles and.. uh.. zooaphiles(?) may have inborn attractions themselves, the difference between them and homosexuals is they're not marrying/having sex with consenting* adults. That's the reason for what they do being illegal, it has nothing to do with whether or not those are inborn traits.

There's no real grounds for homosexuality to be treated in a different manner from heterosexuality; the sex of the people in a relationship doesn't make a difference in nearly any case, so there's no reason for homosexual couples to be inconvenienced by the lack ability to marry.

*Animals never count as consenting because they are not intelligent enough to make such decisions.

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

I could be wrong Ahtman, but, ignoring the Paul part, I think it all links to Old Testament sections. If its not a supposed statement from the Jmeister, I tend to ignore it.

The following is for informational purposes only.

The question for me is why so many Christian groups are so fixated on the issue. Why was so much money spend lobbying for Prop 8 and the other constitutional amendments, and why wasn't that money spent on things the bible spends most of its time talking about, like caring for the poor and making sure there's another instalment in Max Payne games.

Only some sects actually, and often only segments within those sects. Many sects say, yea its wrong but we don’t give a BLEEP, we have bigger fish to fry. Other sects don’t care at all. I think you’re seeing the resurgence of the “we’ve got bigger fish to fry here” crowd, me included.

But you want fun, be in a parish hall when this stuff comes up. The “hardcores” and the “STFU we got good to do” crowds can really go at it. Sometimes its really hard not to say “you need to go BLEEP yourself” in church…

Orkeosaurus wrote:Eh.
Can someone enter into a legal contract with their dog?

Of course not, that's a line already in place. Adults capable of entering into legal agreements.
Two men are perfectly capable of doing this, that shouldn't change based on their gender.

No but a group of ten can. That’s the slippery slope argument, that you can’t limit the whole multiple wives thing, and that it gets hard to regulate underage marriage. The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

Another issue that comes up is less about gay marriage but the anything goes lifestyle. I know several people who don’t give a fig about gay marriage, but the freakout and often times antichristian stuff they see gives them pause.

Frazzled wrote:The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

So are you trying to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing or at least so similiar that rational people will not make be able to make a distinction between the two?

Frazzled wrote:Only some sects actually, and often only segments within those sects. Many sects say, yea its wrong but we don’t give a BLEEP, we have bigger fish to fry. Other sects don’t care at all. I think you’re seeing the resurgence of the “we’ve got bigger fish to fry here” crowd, me included.

But you want fun, be in a parish hall when this stuff comes up. The “hardcores” and the “STFU we got good to do” crowds can really go at it. Sometimes its really hard not to say “you need to go BLEEP yourself” in church…

Fair point, I didn't word my point that well. It implied all Christians in all groups were worried about this, and that's plainly not true. I should have said I wonder why any Christian groups worry about this, when it isn't anywhere near as big a part of their faith as charitable works.

No but a group of ten can. That’s the slippery slope argument, that you can’t limit the whole multiple wives thing, and that it gets hard to regulate underage marriage. The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

Yeah, and the NAMBLA people have made zero progress, because they have no case. Just as the legalisation of sodomy never led to any momentum at all for the NAMBLA people, because one is an act between consenting adults and the other is paedophilia. One does not lead to the other. And it's the same for bigamy, polygamy and anything else like that.

And the big thing is, you all know that, because it's very, very obvious.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

So are you trying to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing or at least so similiar that rational people will not make be able to make a distinction between the two?

Nope, not at all. Reasonable people are not the issue. I am saying NAMBLA is making the same legal arguments that the courts are using to overturn anti gay marriage legislation.

Anyone ever see the SouthPark episode where NAMBLA (National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes) is at the same hotel as NAMBLA, and commences to hunt them down like the dogs they are? A choice episode.

Yeah, and the NAMBLA people have made zero progress, because they have no case. Just as the legalisation of sodomy never led to any momentum at all for the NAMBLA people, because one is an act between consenting adults and the other is paedophilia. One does not lead to the other. And it's the same for bigamy, polygamy and anything else like that.

And the big thing is, you all know that, because it's very, very obvious.

1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

But you can still cut it off there.

No marrying children. Simple, direct.

Allow it to go as far as it can without putting others in harm's way, cut it off at that point and don't budge.

Adult + Child Sexual Relationship = Exploitation of a child.

Adult + Adult Sexual Relationship = Nobody elses bloody business so keep your neb and your opinions to yourself.

How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Indeed, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom is no business of the state.

[edit] Nobody is asking for multiple partners in the UK, it never crops up as a problem here.

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Fine by me. Doesn't seem like a very good idea, but it doesn't really affect anyone but the people who enter into it.

There's probably some tricky stuff legally though, when you're dealing with more than two people.

Frazzled wrote:1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

I didn't say you compared it to gay marriage, that was Ahtman. I'm not angry, it's just this same bonkers line of reasoning always appears and never goes away, despite how silly it is. You know the 9th circuit is not going to legalise paedophile marriage. You know it, it's very, very obvious. Just try saying it out loud 'I think the 9th circuit might possibly legalise paedophile marriage once gay marriage is allowed'... it's completely stark raving bonkers.

Why not go for gay marriage is a step closer to gay adoption. That is at least somewhat sensible.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Fine by me. Doesn't seem like a very good idea, but it doesn't really affect anyone but the people who enter into it.

There's probably some tricky stuff legally though, when you're dealing with more than two people.

Yes it most certainly does. You're forgetting children. No children - meh who gives a fig. Children? The State has a compelling interest.

Way OT though, sorry.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

I didn't say you compared it to gay marriage, that was Ahtman. I'm not angry, it's just this same bonkers line of reasoning always appears and never goes away, despite how silly it is. You know the 9th circuit is not going to legalise paedophile marriage. You know it, it's very, very obvious. Just try saying it out loud 'I think the 9th circuit might possibly legalise paedophile marriage once gay marriage is allowed'... it's completely stark raving bonkers.

Why not go for gay marriage is a step closer to gay adoption. That is at least somewhat sensible.

No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Whats wrong with gay adoption?

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.