| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| ignoscere intermissione |
| ||
|
Agreed, my post was too long. It wasn't jibberish and hot air, except that you didn't agree with it. I could cite sources for all that I was stating, but that would be overkill on a running forum. This time I'll try to be brief. 1) Jewish texts are not insignificant to Gentiles. About 1 billion Christians on the face of the globe (most of Gentile descent) consider those the Old Testament scriptures. Long ago, the church rejected the notion of Marcion that the OT should be abandoned. 2) Newsflash, the ancients didn't consider people to "be a homosexual" as if it was part of their personhood or their orientation and different from "being a bisexual". That's a modern construct. They didn't even have a word for such a person. Even in the NT, Paul had to coin a word to come up with such a noun. The ancient Hebrews and Jews saw homosexuality as a depraved, deviant form of sexual activity that Lot could appease with the offering of his daughters. Read the talmud on this and you'll see how Jews understood this. 3) In certain passages of Genesis (especially the J source), angels and god himself were described in very anthropomorphic terms, walking in a garden, molding man from the dust of the ground, walking up to Abraham, etc. Reread my longwinded jibberish. I never said these passages were literal any more than a woman normally turns into a pillar of salt as in Genesis 19. But even if they weren't literal, they were still treated as scripture to the Hebrew community and their principles were considered authoritative to them. Yes, you're right there is not agreement on interpretation, but any valid interpretation must be rooted in the historical context of how it was intended in its time. Just like I would grant you the same respect with your words. I won't twist your words apart from their context into interpretations you didn't intend. And yes, we can know about this historical context by examining the surrounding literary context in the books themselves and how the passages were historically understood by ancient Jews down through history. It's not some kind of blind shot in the dark. And taking a modern philosophical perspective and it imposing it anachronistically onto an ancient context is simply abuse of ancient texts.
|
| homophobe |
| ||
What difference? I don't hate homosexuals so I don't fit the self loathing figure you try to make me out to be. And I'm not scared of homosexuals. I don't understand it, but hey do whatever floats your own boat. But don't expect me to support gay marriage because I don't understand it. I've read through this thread trying to understand so I don't think I'm choosing to be an ignoramous like you think I am. But I do think you're choosing to be gay. But that's ok. Peace. |
| out of here |
| ||
|
"Truth time, fags" and "Brick Top" need to do some serious soul searching about themselves and their perspectives. Reading their posts makes me glad I've lurked on an anonymous forum, but it's scary to know people on both sides of the gay issue are walking around like ticking timebombs with such vindictive emotions. Peace out. |
| Swiss moderator |
| ||
|
This thread is now 16 pages with over 300 posts. That has to be some kind of LRC record for not being deleted yet. Really interesting arguments except for those who lash out with insults. Well done, participants. Runners tend to be over achievers. Not too surprised that there are some well articulated arguments on both sides of the issue here. |
| wi|fredo |
| ||
God did say eating shrimp was an abomination though. Bet you've had shrimp before HEATHEN. |
| luv2run |
| ||
I noted that I am okay with gay marriage. I was not aware that was an accepted view in the 50s. Care to be more specific? |
| luv2run |
| ||
Actually the majority are in favor of it, but nice try. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11603182-half-of-americans-support-gay-marriage-in-new-gallup-poll?lite It's close sure, but the vast majority of those are young people. tick tock on the bigotry.[/quote] It is interesting to note that polls show acceptance of gay marriage/civil unions but when it really counts, the measures lose. What gives? My guesses: 1) Selection bias in the folks who are answering. Either from the folks doing the polling or by not get a representative sample or by people who simply refuse to take the polls. 2) When asked about this, people do not want to look like bigots (or gay-haters) so they give what they think is the more socially conscious answer. This happens in questionnaires regularly such that good one have questions built in to detect lying. This has also been seen when polls show a black candidate to be ahead and then that candidate loses. Happened in VA and CA with candidates there. 3) The people who answer in support of gay marriage choose not to vote (for whatever reason). My guess is that people who are really opposed out-number the folks who are really for it. I also guess that this is not really a serious issue with folks. The next time you are out with your friends, ask them to list the top 10 concerns they have right now. No leading them, just ask them to list them. I bet it will not show up on many straight males' lists. |
| luv2run |
| ||
You've talked to God? If so, you're probably schizophrenic.[/quote] Talking to God is not schizophrenic; God talking back to you is. (Even then it might not be clinically diagnosed that way). |
| seriously dude |
| ||
|
I put some thought into it and figured out why the gay vote keeps losing. 1) Gays want civil rights, just like blacks and women wanted. 2) Gays and blacks couldn't vote to get civil rights because they weren't allowed to vote. 3) I finally realized that since gays don't have civil rights yet, they are not allowed to vote! Even if they could, they would probably have to ride to the voting station on the back of the bus, which is downright humiliating. I really feel for those two poor gay guys making $100K per year each that they are being denied the basic human right of being on the same healthcare plan or being denied the right to visit each other in the hospital (unless of course, they have done the paperwork for medical power of attorney, which probably takes less time than planning a wedding). The children sold into sweatshop work and militias in other less fortunate countries may have a pretty rough life, but at least they can marry who they want (or whoever their parents arrange for them to, or for the females whoever purchases the right to marry her), and if good healthcare existed where they are, I am sure they would be allowed to put their spouse on their plan. They clearly have bette civil rights over there, so nobody needs to be an advocate for them. Here in the US though, we are the ones with the backwards beliefs, apparently, and gay marriage is really the one that everybody needs to promote on their Facebook page.
|
| Mort Asplundt |
| ||
|
Looking into the fine print of Obama's "come to Jesus" moment on gay marriage: While Obama has announced his support of gay marriage to ticker tape parades and rejoicing throughout the greater San Francisco area, he muttered thereafter that he thinks it should be a state's right to put the issue to a vote of the people... suddenly, Obama has also become a Republican on the issue, too. Romney, meanwhile, maintained his position that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman... The position that Obama also held until a few days ago, even though nobody really bought it. Romney ALSO thinks the issue should be up to the states to decide. So, at the end of the day, BOTH candidates support a state's right to decide the issue and, so far, they have pretty much ALL voted it down! This grande coming out party, really, has changed very little. The only things it has changed are that the gay lobby can now lavish money on Mr. Obama and, perhaps, the drive for gay marriage has received a moral boost from the president officially supporting it. As with everything associated with Mr. Obama - a PR stunt more than anything else. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
I'd say that while 52% of Americans may not be opposed to gay marriage, those 52% certainly aren't evenly distributed across the 50 states, and that the anti-gay marriage crowd to a large extent has a big organizational advantage in that many of them meet as group once a week, every week. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Obama, like Clinton before him, has made a career of co-opting republican ideas and making them his own. Nothing knew here.
That is false. Romney affirmed earlier this week that he supports a constitutional amendment on marriage that was strip states of their right to define marriage as they see fit, and went so far as to say that he doesn't support civil unions that have the identical rights and status as marriage.
I think he's finally being honest about it. Back in 1996, he supported legalizing same-sex marriage, but probably knew that it was a difficult position to hold when he became a higher level politician. |
| get back on your meds |
| ||
Sorry to be unclear. "Talk," in this context, means converse. The guy made claims about what God had said. If he heard God talking, he probably needs to be medicated. |
| another banned poster |
| ||
|
By my count it's been about 12 pages since anything new was brought up in this debate. See ya later, gurlfriendz. It's been real. |
| Racehorse |
| ||
Amen! |
| Steve Martin |
| ||
That would just rid the planet of democrats, not the entire population. |
| Steve Martin |
| ||
[/quote] Now, this is an example of your side being dishonest. Almost makes me sad that I commended your prior post.[/quote][/quote] Yes, I was talking about your comment about latent homosexual urges. It is dishonest of you and your side to attribute it to all who oppose gay marriage. |
| Racehorse |
| ||
[/quote] Now, this is an example of your side being dishonest. Almost makes me sad that I commended your prior post.[/quote][/quote] Yes, I was talking about your comment about latent homosexual urges. It is dishonest of you and your side to attribute it to all who oppose gay marriage.[/quote] Are you pretending to be me? If so, you made my point, but confused me when you said "I". As for me, I certainly harbor no such desires. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
I respect that you say you are not a homophobe. However, you used it as a screen name, and other gays have apparently called you this before. In your own words you think I am choosing to be gay so in fact you are proving to be an ignoramus as far as homosexuality is concerned. For one, I remember being sexually attracted to men around the age of 5. I was not molested, I wasn't ignored by my father, my mother wasn't at all overbearing. I just knew at that time I loved looking at men's bodies at the beach or when playing sports. Did I choose this for myself at this age? Absoluetly not. Nothing changed as I got older. Most kids my age talked about Playboy growing up. I saw them as a teen. Never got aroused at all...not even once. How could I choose not to be aroused? I had girlfriends in highschool and college. I never got aroused from making out but admittedly with the only girl I was ever with, I was aroused when she touched my genitals. The first time I kissed a guy, about age 20, instant arousal. I dated women after that hoping I could fall in love...never did...never got emotionally attached to them in any way. The last girlfriend I had used to put my hands on her breasts when we were making out. No arousal. I knew at that point I was done. In my twenties I read volumes about why I might be this way. People had their theories...overbearing mother, distant father, molestation..none of them applied to me. I had guilt for a long time, until my early thirties. When I met my partner it went away. I realized I wasn't alone and when I fell in love with him, it felt right and I knew I was doing what was right for me. I could probably go my life without having sex with a man ever again. But I would still be gay and I would be miserable without the companionship of my partner. Noone can choose who they love. Sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, can be an expression of love. It can be an expression of lust, too, I get that, but when you have someone you want to marry, sex is an expression of love. Marriage is also an expression of love, and that is why it is not fair to deny people these rights, whether you agree with the behavior or understand it or not. People should look at how things would be if the shoe were on the other foot. For you straights who oppose this, consider that you were the minority and were not allowed to marry the person you love. That people ridiculed you for how you were born because you were different. Imagine not being able to introduce your family to the person you loved because they were prejudiced against straight people. Ah, but lucky for you though.
What difference? I don't hate homosexuals so I don't fit the self loathing figure you try to make me out to be. And I'm not scared of homosexuals. I don't understand it, but hey do whatever floats your own boat. But don't expect me to support gay marriage because I don't understand it. I've read through this thread trying to understand so I don't think I'm choosing to be an ignoramous like you think I am. But I do think you're choosing to be gay. But that's ok. Peace.[/quote] |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
Using the argument that gays don't deserve equal right because other people also need civil rights somewhere else doesn't change the need for said civil rights in our own country. Thanks for playing. [/quote] |