NationStates Jolt Archive

Much like the issue of abortion, the issue of gay marriage can be almost completely summed up in one question. How does our culture, as a whole, define marriage?

See, marriage may be a lot of things, but it isn't a scientific issue. It isn't an intrinsic right, nor is it a necessity. One can live without marriage.

Marriage is, however, cultural. It is abstract. It means only what the culture in which it takes place says it means. Therefore, it is up to those who make up the culture, namely, the members of society, to decide what marriage is to us.

In a Democracy, the government is obliged to act as a servant to society. It cannot run the country how it wishes, but instead must run the country how society wishes. It's only other obligation is the rights of minorities within society, which must be protected whenever societies wishes to trample those rights.

Marriage, however, cannot be affected by the issue of minority rights, because, as mentioned before, it is solely a cultural institution. Secularly speaking, it is not remotely necessary to one's existence, nor can official recognition of a marriage be considered essential to one's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property.

Therefore, the government must define marriage as the majority of society defines it. If the majority of society decides that a person can marry his or her dog, than the government is obliged to accept that defintion of marriage. Likewise, if society decides that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, the government is obliged to accept.

In a representative Democracy, such as the US, the legislators act as the voice of the people. They represent society. Thus, it is up to the legislative branch to decide how marriage is defined. Alternately, a popular vote on the issue would be more accurate, and could also fairly determine the definition of marriage. But because it is not in the Courts duties to legislate, and society's definition of marriage does not interfere with one's rights as defined by the Constitution, both in writing and in spirit, it would be unjust for the Courts to overturn any decisions regarding the matter.

The reasons for society's definition of marriage are irrelevant. No breach in the separation of Church and State could occur when creating a law to match society's definition of marriage, as the State would not be endorsing any of the reasons for the definition; only the definition itself is taken into account. In a similar manner, it does not breach the separation of Church and State when murder is outlawed, even though many people are opposed to murder for religious reasons.

So there you have it. The question is simple. How do we, as a society, define marriage?

I see marriage as an eternal union between a man and a woman. I would like to see a law that limits it as such, but I don't expect the majority of society to agree with me. Like abortion, the main question, in an individual sense, comes down to personal opinion, and nothing more. No amount of arguing can change that, as most of the opinions cannot be logically refuted or proved. Therefore, we must take whichever opinion the majority has.

Much like the issue of abortion, the issue of gay marriage can be almost completely summed up in one question. How does our culture, as a whole, define marriage?

See, marriage may be a lot of things, but it isn't a scientific issue. It isn't an intrinsic right, nor is it a necessity. One can live without marriage.

Marriage is, however, cultural. It is abstract. It means only what the culture in which it takes place says it means. Therefore, it is up to those who make up the culture, namely, the members of society, to decide what marriage is to us.

In a Democracy, the government is obliged to act as a servant to society. It cannot run the country how it wishes, but instead must run the country how society wishes. It's only other obligation is the rights of minorities within society, which must be protected whenever societies wishes to trample those rights.

Marriage, however, cannot be affected by the issue of minority rights, because, as mentioned before, it is solely a cultural institution. Secularly speaking, it is not remotely necessary to one's existence, nor can official recognition of a marriage be considered essential to one's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property.

Therefore, the government must define marriage as the majority of society defines it. If the majority of society decides that a person can marry his or her dog, than the government is obliged to accept that defintion of marriage. Likewise, if society decides that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, the government is obliged to accept.

In a representative Democracy, such as the US, the legislators act as the voice of the people. They represent society. Thus, it is up to the legislative branch to decide how marriage is defined. Alternately, a popular vote on the issue would be more accurate, and could also fairly determine the definition of marriage. But because it is not in the Courts duties to legislate, and society's definition of marriage does not interfere with one's rights as defined by the Constitution, both in writing and in spirit, it would be unjust for the Courts to overturn any decisions regarding the matter.

The reasons for society's definition of marriage are irrelevant. No breach in the separation of Church and State could occur when creating a law to match society's definition of marriage, as the State would not be endorsing any of the reasons for the definition; only the definition itself is taken into account. In a similar manner, it does not breach the separation of Church and State when murder is outlawed, even though many people are opposed to murder for religious reasons.

So there you have it. The question is simple. How do we, as a society, define marriage?

I see marriage as an eternal union between a man and a woman. I would like to see a law that limits it as such, but I don't expect the majority of society to agree with me. Like abortion, the main question, in an individual sense, comes down to personal opinion, and nothing more. No amount of arguing can change that, as most of the opinions cannot be logically refuted or proved. Therefore, we must take whichever opinion the majority has.
No. There is more to it than this.

When you deny same sex couples the right to marry, aren't you basically telling them they're second class citizens? They can have a relationship, but not the benefits heterosexual couples have. That to me sounds like discrimination.

When the government takes the position of not allowing same sex couples to get married, they're also saying there is a good reason to hate gays. They're dirty, what they do is wrong. I think allowing same sex marriages could change this view, at least a little bit.

Aren't you aware that a gay widdow is not automatically the heir of their partner? That is something that is different for married straight couples. That could infringe on the right of pursuit of happiness. That is discriminating.

So the least that needs to be done when the government decides to not allow gay marriage, is revoke all the rights you gain when you get married. And I think they owe it to all homosexuals to somehow try and stop the discrimination, bashing and killing of homosexuals instead of saying they're against gay marriage to gain a vote or two, thus creating more misunderstanding, fear and hatred.

What makes Paul better than the other apostles? You claim that they're all infallible, and then Paul corrects them? That negates your only argument for Paul's infallibility, because it obviously didn't work for the others! Besides, you said he had a "vision"... just like you said to various other people... how did he know that it was from "another source"?

She's in love with Paul, because Paul tells her everything she wants to hear. Paul tells her it is okay to hate people, and thaty it is okay to hang on to her oh-so-comfortable hatreds, bigotries, and prejudices. Fundamentalists ALL love Paul, and for that very reason. You gotta understand that these people are not truly Christians (that is...followers of CHRIST) they are Paulites (as in followers of PAUL.)

they think they are Christians, but how can they possibly be when they ignore the most fundamental of Jesus' teachings in favor of the pontifications of the misogynistic bigot from Tarsus...Paul.

Marriage is, however, cultural. It is abstract. It means only what the culture in which it takes place says it means. Therefore, it is up to those who make up the culture, namely, the members of society, to decide what marriage is to us.

Once the goverment gets involved, marriage becomes legal. Is the legal definition different from the cultural one? Most likely. After all, there are often many cultures in the same country.

In a Democracy, the government is obliged to act as a servant to society. It cannot run the country how it wishes, but instead must run the country how society wishes. It's only other obligation is the rights of minorities within society, which must be protected whenever societies wishes to trample those rights.

And, in the US, the minorities are protected by equal protection.

Marriage, however, cannot be affected by the issue of minority rights, because, as mentioned before, it is solely a cultural institution. Secularly speaking, it is not remotely necessary to one's existence, nor can official recognition of a marriage be considered essential to one's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property.

Once the government got involved, marriage ceased being a "soley cultural institution" and became a legal one as well. By the 14th Amendment, if any recognition of marriage is to be created by the government, all marriages must be equally recognized unless the government can provide a damn good objective reason to not do so.

Meanwhile, the courts have held that marriage is a right in the US.

Therefore, the government must define marriage as the majority of society defines it. If the majority of society decides that a person can marry his or her dog, than the government is obliged to accept that defintion of marriage. Likewise, if society decides that marriage is solely between a man and a woman, the government is obliged to accept.

This is truly silly. The legal institution of marriage is essentially contract law. A dog cannot sign a contract. Thus, the government would have a compelling interest in not allowing marriage to a dog. It does not, however, have any such interest in not allowing two people of the same sex to receive such a contract.

The reasons for society's definition of marriage are irrelevant. No breach in the separation of Church and State could occur when creating a law to match society's definition of marriage, as the State would not be endorsing any of the reasons for the definition; only the definition itself is taken into account.

The definition itself, is religious. Other religions have a different definition. If the goverment adopts a religious viewpoint, to the exclusion of all others, it has endorsed that religion.

I see marriage as an eternal union between a man and a woman. I would like to see a law that limits it as such, but I don't expect the majority of society to agree with me. Like abortion, the main question, in an individual sense, comes down to personal opinion, and nothing more. No amount of arguing can change that, as most of the opinions cannot be logically refuted or proved. Therefore, we must take whichever opinion the majority has.

The main question for a person comes down to personal opinion.

The main question for the goverment is equal protection and what is legal under the Constitution.

Much like the issue of abortion, the issue of gay marriage can be almost completely summed up in one question. How does our culture, as a whole, define marriage?

See, marriage may be a lot of things, but it isn't a scientific issue. It isn't an intrinsic right, nor is it a necessity. One can live without marriage.

Marriage is, however, cultural. It is abstract. It means only what the culture in which it takes place says it means. Therefore, it is up to those who make up the culture, namely, the members of society, to decide what marriage is to us.

In a Democracy, the government is obliged to act as a servant to society. It cannot run the country how it wishes, but instead must run the country how society wishes. It's only other obligation is the rights of minorities within society, which must be protected whenever societies wishes to trample those rights.

Marriage, however, cannot be affected by the issue of minority rights, because, as mentioned before, it is solely a cultural institution. Secularly speaking, it is not remotely necessary to one's existence, nor can official recognition of a marriage be considered essential to one's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property.

Bzzzt. Wrong. It is NOT solely a cultural institution, because there are THOUSANDS of rights and privileges attached to it that are forever denied to gay couples. for instance, the passing on, tax-free, of proerty to the spouse when the first spouse dies.

A man and woman can be married 50 years or fifty hours (ala Britney Spears) and if one partner dies before the marriage ends...the surviving spouse gets all the deceased spouse's property, tax free. This means the couple who lived in the same house for 50 years, and paid it off...well, the widow doesn't have to worry about being put out on the street by being forced to sell the house to pay the death tax (inheritance tax) on said property...because it is considered to be COMMUNAL PROPERTY between that husband and wife.)

Now, take the gay couple who have been faithful to each other for 50 years (and, yes, there ARE such couples) They, too, have built a life for themselves, they jointly own a home together that they have lived in together all their lives. When one partner dies...the other partner could easily be put out in the street, because that person would be forced to sell the house to pay taxes on their "inheritance" because there is no rights of survivorship extended to the situation in which the gay couple are living.

Consider, too, that the aforementioned married couple may make medical decisions for their spouse, and may visit their spouse in the hospital, and be with them when they are on their deathbed. Even if they'd only been married for fifty hours ala Britney Spears. Yet, the aforementioned gay couple...who love each other every bit as much as the hetero couple who've been married for fifty years...are denied the ability to make medical decisions for the person they love, and have committed their lives to. They may NOT visit their partner in the hospital, nor be with them at their deathbed.

They will be denied the ability to hold the hand of their loved one one last time as he/she slips away forever into whatever is beyond this world. Not so the married couple. Even the one that is married only fifty hours.

So, you see, it is NOT just a cultural institution. Lots of rights and privileges are also attached to marriage...rights and privileges denied to gay couples, just because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. Their relationships are thus devalued by society...as if it were not possible that these two same-gender people could have loved one another just as much, if not even more...than the hetero couple.

And that...my friend, is discrimination...it is denial of rights, it is unjust, it is unequal, and it is unfair. And these are only TWO of the rights and privileges denied gay couples in our current "culture." There are actually well over a thousand, but I listed the two of the top concern only, to save bandwidth, and because they are all I really need to make my point that, by denying gay couples the ability to marry, you ARE trampling on the rights of a minority, and, by your own words...the government is supposed to stop you from trampling on their rights.

Incidentally, this is NOT a Representative Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Governed by the rule of law...not merely the voice of the majority. If it were merely a representative democracy, your representative would be forced always to vote along the lines of what the majority of his/her constituents want, thus hamstring his/her ability to be a leader, and do an unpopular thing. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed in a Representative Democracy, for example.

and neither would gay marriage pass in a representative democracy. Because, nowadays, most people are selfish and stupid, and, if it does not directly impact them (or if they percieve that it doesn't) they don't give a shit. The problem is, with gay marriage...people seem to PERCIEVE it will negatively impact them or their marriages...but they have yet to say HOW. Except of course their religion...which we have time and again stated it doesn't affect that at all. You can still personally deny the legitimacy of those marriages, as can your church. Your church can continue to refuse to perform ceremonies for them. You can still live and worship and love as you please without interference. Gay couples currently cannot.

Now do you see the injustice and inequality? I hate when I have to shove people's nose into it for them to SEE.

<snippity> Secularly speaking, it is not remotely necessary to one's existence, nor can official recognition of a marriage be considered essential to one's life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property. <snip>
Actually, I forget where it is, but someone posted earlier pointing out that according to a Supreme Court decision a couple hundred years ago or so, marriage falls under "pursuit of happiness".

Though I believe you to be incorrect, thank you for the otherwise calm and clear post.

She's in love with Paul, because Paul tells her everything she wants to hear. Paul tells her it is okay to hate people, and thaty it is okay to hang on to her oh-so-comfortable hatreds, bigotries, and prejudices. Fundamentalists ALL love Paul, and for that very reason. You gotta understand that these people are not truly Christians (that is...followers of CHRIST) they are Paulites (as in followers of PAUL.)

they think they are Christians, but how can they possibly be when they ignore the most fundamental of Jesus' teachings in favor of the pontifications of the misogynistic bigot from Tarsus...Paul.



Hah! Paul teaches many things I disagree with, but who am I to oppose them? Same for you! I have already shown how rejection of Paul is rejection of Christ, therefore I say that YOU are the pseudo-Christian! I'm going to work now, take your time justifying your rejection of Christ.

Hah! Paul teaches many things I disagree with, but who am I to oppose them? Same for you! I have already shown how rejection of Paul is rejection of Christ, therefore I say that YOU are the pseudo-Christian! I'm going to work now, take your time justifying your rejection of Christ.
Simple … Paul deviated from the following of by the time he was recorded in the bible. He stopped following Christ’s will and in following him you do too. You are being lead by a sinner and accepting his word as gods.

Hah! Paul teaches many things I disagree with (which means I don't really believe them and only follow because I am afraid of getting hit with a stick), but who am I to oppose them? Same for you (because I am the end-all be-all of religion and I can tell you waht you believe!)! I have already shown how I think that rejection of Paul is rejection of Christ, therefore I say that YOU are the pseudo-Christian! I'm going to work now, take your time justifying what I see as your rejection of Christ.

Ah, much better. (Corrections in bold)

Well, at least instead of trying to twist and stretch, or otherwise totally deform, the scripture into saying something that it does not, this time the fanatical humanists have decided to just flat out deny the teachings of the only guy in the New Testament that actually had to talk about what to do, and how to respond, when cross-dressing transvestite men and short-haired women who dress like men, say and teach when they come to the church and start trying to change everything to their way of thinking... (i.e., Paul talking to the Corinthian Church’s problems with unchecked sexuality for the sake of sex, false teachers came along).

At least now they just pretend like the modern day world is so much different than the old days when Paul was just an old fuddy-duddy who doesn’t know what the modern day GLBT worldviews are like... :rolleyes:

Well, at least instead of trying to twist and stretch, or otherwise totally deform, the scripture into saying something that it does not
Lol from our point of view christians are doing this as often if not more then us lol

Well, at least instead of trying to twist and stretch, or otherwise totally deform, the scripture into saying something that it does not,

You mean like many Christian fundamentalist churches?

this time the fanatical humanists have decided to just flat out deny the teachings of the only guy in the New Testament that actually had to talk about what to do, and how to respond, when cross-dressing transvestite men and short-haired women who dress like men, say and teach when they come to the church and start trying to change everything to their way of thinking... (i.e., Paul talking to the Corinthian Church’s problems with unchecked sexuality for the sake of sex, false teachers came along).

(a) One does not have to "flat-out deny" Paul's teachings to view him as one would any other preacher. Do you take anything and everything your preacher says as absolute fact? Or do you pray on it to see if it seems correct? If you do take whatever your preacher says as fact, what happens if you go to another church where something different is said? And aren't you, in fact, placing your faith in a man (or woman), rather than in God?

(b) No one here has argued in favor of "sexuality for the sake of sex," at least not that I have seen.

At least now they just pretend like the modern day world is so much different than the old days when Paul was just an old fuddy-duddy who doesn’t know what the modern day GLBT worldviews are like... :rolleyes:

Are you claiming that the modern day world is not different from the days of Paul? Are you claiming that many things in Western society have not progressed since that point (anti-slavery, women are not viewed as property, etc)? Are you claiming that Paul ever said anything at all about a loving relationship between two homosexuals who are committed to each other in the same way that any married couple is?

Well, at least instead of trying to twist and stretch, or otherwise totally deform, the scripture into saying something that it does not, this time the fanatical humanists have decided to just flat out deny the teachings of the only guy in the New Testament that actually had to talk about what to do, and how to respond, when cross-dressing transvestite men and short-haired women who dress like men, say and teach when they come to the church and start trying to change everything to their way of thinking... (i.e., Paul talking to the Corinthian Church’s problems with unchecked sexuality for the sake of sex, false teachers came along).

At least now they just pretend like the modern day world is so much different than the old days when Paul was just an old fuddy-duddy who doesn’t know what the modern day GLBT worldviews are like... :rolleyes:

Well, we are not the only ones who choose which sections of the bible we want to believe in or follow, if any.

As I already pointed out a number of times, if we were to believe and follow Paul's letters, neither Neo Rogolia nor I would be allowed to speak in church.
And we would be absolutely forbidden to teach faith, so both of us are risking hell in leading these discussions here ...
:rolleyes:

Well, at least instead of trying to twist and stretch, or otherwise totally deform, the scripture into saying something that it does not, this time the fanatical humanists have decided to just flat out deny the teachings of the only guy in the New Testament that actually had to talk about what to do, and how to respond, when cross-dressing transvestite men and short-haired women who dress like men, say and teach when they come to the church and start trying to change everything to their way of thinking... (i.e., Paul talking to the Corinthian Church’s problems with unchecked sexuality for the sake of sex, false teachers came along).

At least now they just pretend like the modern day world is so much different than the old days when Paul was just an old fuddy-duddy who doesn’t know what the modern day GLBT worldviews are like... :rolleyes:
The time was different, and so was the society. In that society, there was a serious need to multiply, and they could not have known that it would be possible for gays and lesbians to do so.

Not only that, if homosexuality was truly wrong in the eyes of your god, why was Paul the only one to address it? Surely someone would have commented.

And also, Paul's mention of deviant sexual behavior could have referred to any number of things. For instance, in Romans 1:26-1:27; this could refer to anything from S&M to prostitution to pedestry, etc. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm explores such possiblities) As for Corinthians, it has already been said that this has most likely been mistranslated.
"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."
Timothy, of course, uses "arsenkoitai" again. It is also very much open to interpretation.

Well, we are not the only ones who choose which sections of the bible we want to believe in or follow, if any.

As I already pointed out a number of times, if we were to believe and follow Paul's letters, neither Neo Rogolia nor I would be allowed to speak in church.
And we would be absolutely forbidden to teach faith, so both of us are risking hell in leading these discussions here ...
:rolleyes:



I don't speak in church, nor am I forbidden from teaching the gospel.

The time was different, and so was the society. In that society, there was a serious need to multiply, and they could not have known that it would be possible for gays and lesbians to do so.

Not only that, if homosexuality was truly wrong in the eyes of your god, why was Paul the only one to address it? Surely someone would have commented.

And also, Paul's mention of deviant sexual behavior could have referred to any number of things. For instance, in Romans 1:26-1:27; this could refer to anything from S&M to prostitution to pedestry, etc. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm explores such possiblities) As for Corinthians, it has already been said that this has most likely been mistranslated.


Timothy, of course, uses "arsenkoitai" again. It is also very much open to interpretation.



Ah, but we are not to adjust the teachings of the Bible to fit different periods of time.

Galatians 1:8 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Ah, but we are not to adjust the teachings of the Bible to fit different periods of time.

Galatians 1:8 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
I did not even suggest that. However, I did suggest that what non-heterosexual orientations meant in one time and place do not mean the same thing in another.

Ah, but we are not to adjust the teachings of the Bible to fit different periods of time.

Galatians 1:8 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Adjusting something to fit the times and teaching a "different gospel" are not the same.

Take, for instance, the "turn the other cheek" passage. In Christ's day, that would have been a form of passive resistance. It would have kept people from hitting you, but without getting you in trouble.

However, in our time, we can't just say "turn the other cheek". Why? Because our society is different. Turning the other cheek won't keep you from getting hit - it'll just mean you get hit on the other cheek. So we have to change the way we explain it, using terms like "passive resistance" or talking about ways that the general idea can be used today.

Adjusting something to fit the times and teaching a "different gospel" are not the same.

Take, for instance, the "turn the other cheek" passage. In Christ's day, that would have been a form of passive resistance. It would have kept people from hitting you, but without getting you in trouble.

However, in our time, we can't just say "turn the other cheek". Why? Because our society is different. Turning the other cheek won't keep you from getting hit - it'll just mean you get hit on the other cheek. So we have to change the way we explain it, using terms like "passive resistance" or talking about ways that the general idea can be used today.



The purpose of turning the other cheek is to present a fresh cheek for them to strike. In other words, we are not to physically resist those who persecute us.

I could speculate about why you're then willing to oppress others, but it prolly would be pointless.

I gotta ask tho, why would religion have any bearing on this particular issue?

The purpose of turning the other cheek is to present a fresh cheek for them to strike. In other words, we are not to physically resist those who persecute us.

And that is a very clear misinterpretation if you actually look at the society that Christ lived in.

In Christ's society, the rules were very different. For one, it was absolutely unlawful to touch another with your left hand. Much like many Middle Eastern or East Asian societies today, the left hand was reserved for the bathroom - for unclean functions - and one was not to touch another/gesture/etc. with it. In addition, the only way one could hit someone below their station was to backhand them. If they slapped or punched that person, they were making a statement that the slave/woman/etc. they were hitting was actually on an even level with them - which would allow them to legally hit back.

Now, if a master backhanded a slave, or a man backhanded a woman, or any other number of "higher" caste person backhanded a lower caste person - the person being hit could not hit back. To do so would get them severe punishment - possibly even death.

Instead, Christ presented an alternative. If one backhands you with their right hand, the blow will fall across your left cheek. If you turn the right cheek towards them instead, they cannot backhand you - and thus they cannot hit you!

Of course, as time went on and society changed, powerful leaders saw fit to interpret it in another way, without explaining the context. That is the interpretation which you have just brought up.

I could speculate about why you're then willing to oppress others, but it prolly would be pointless.

I gotta ask tho, why would religion have any bearing on this particular issue?
It is my understanding that the Christian community believes they invented marriage. :D

It is my understanding that the Christian community believes they invented marriage. :D
Who can argue with that....

Perhaps it would be more prudent to discuss an education reform in the US?

this time the fanatical humanists have decided to just flat out deny the teachings of the only guy in the New Testament that actually had to talk about what to do, and how to respond, when cross-dressing transvestite men and short-haired women who dress like men, say and teach when they come to the church and start trying to change everything to their way of thinking...



First off I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine known as Jesus Christ. You might have heard of him. He spent all his time with prostitutes and tax collectors and those considered "evil". He was a pretty humane guy what with all those miraculous healings and he loved to preach the fact that one shouldn't judge and not to be intolerant and to be a nice person.

Your argument actually goes against the followers of Jesus because their teachings "flat-out deny" the laws presented in Leviticus.