NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not a discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin. I will accept that many Christians believe it is. This is not a discussoin on whether we should legislate all the laws of Leviticus (pork, shellfish, clothing of mixed fibers, etc) since I will accept the Christian ascertion that Jesus did away with those. This is a discussion about the first and foremost law according to the Bible:

First Comandment (in the Protestant and Catholic versions, first part of the second in the Hebrew version): Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That is pretty clear, and yet, our first ammendmant allows pagans and other polytheists to worship how they wish. (and that is accepting that Muslims and Zoroastrians worship the same God Jews and Christians do, and the Brahman in Hinduism is another name for Yahweh, although the ideas are quite different)

So the question this begs is, why should a something that is mentioned 6 times in the Bible (in only certain translations), and never by Jesus be legislated, but not the most fundamental tenent of Christianity? So why do you want gay marriage illegal but not paganism (or Hinduism, etc)?

I do not support legislating biblical laws. In my view, the "Bible" that we should follow regarding legislation is the Declaration of Independence.

And I am not a bible-basher. I am a Jew who observes many of the laws in the Torah.

This is not a discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin. I will accept that many Christians believe it is. This is not a discussoin on whether we should legislate all the laws of Leviticus (pork, shellfish, clothing of mixed fibers, etc) since I will accept the Christian ascertion that Jesus did away with those. This is a discussion about the first and foremost law according to the Bible:

First Comandment (in the Protestant and Catholic versions, first part of the second in the Hebrew version): Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That is pretty clear, and yet, our first ammendmant allows pagans and other polytheists to worship how they wish. (and that is accepting that Muslims and Zoroastrians worship the same God Jews and Christians do, and the Brahman in Hinduism is another name for Yahweh, although the ideas are quite different)

So the question this begs is, why should a something that is mentioned 6 times in the Bible (in only certain translations), and never by Jesus be legislated, but not the most fundamental tenent of Christianity? So why do you want gay marriage illegal but not paganism (or Hinduism, etc)?
I think the question about gay marriage is more than just the religious implications. You also have to consider the views of various aspects of society and also the benefits that will be allowed to "married" gays. Also, yes, I agree that there is sometimes a vaguely religious aspect. Me, for instance....I'm all for gay unions, but I would be upset if that union was to take place in a church. Technically, it's not for the government to decide whether or not it's allowed on a religious level, but considering that many marriages anymore aren't even religious ceremonies, separation of church and state gets very hazy there.

Furthermore, America was established under the ideas of separation of church and state to distance us from the way most of the world was at that time being run. It is because of this fact that the First Amendment does not coincide with the First Commandment. Therefore, the argument you presented as to whether or not Jesus mentioned gay unions (or homosexuality in general) really wouldn't matter anyway. Ideally, all politicians should be able to widen the gap between politics and religion -- it's a sad fact that many aren't able to, but that also just speaks highly of the personal faith they have that it makes that much of a difference in their lives. Am I proud that my country is controlled by religious whackjobs that are prone to poor judgement based on Christian ideals? No. Never will be. Am I satisfied that, at the very core, they're heading in the direction that their soul tells them is right and just? Sometimes. I have doubts about many actions the President has taken, then spouting off drivel about God and his beliefs, but overall I think that even the most secular of politicians, in some small way, fall back upon their beliefs to guide them through hard decisions.....some are just far less vocal about it.

Those who are religious and oppose gay marriage give secular reasoning why they oppose it, though; some would say quite weak reasoning, but nevertheless, reasoning not based upon what is seen as biblical evidence. There would really be no secular reason for outlawing the practicing of polytheistic, pagan, and other opposing religions, other than discriminatory statements that would be quickly attacked and shot down ("That religion is for terrorists!", etc.).

The issue is I haven't heard very many reasons against it only:
1) It will hurt society (I ask how and it generally goes into religious reason and moral decay which are arguments that can be used against paganism as well)
2) We are redefining a basic institution: So? We redifined the even more basic society unit of citizen with the with the 14th and 19th ammenment.
3) If we allow gay marriage then we have to allow polygamy etc. No, marriage can still be defined as a binding agreement between two consenting adults.


Other than that, I have not heard of any secular arguments against gay marriage.

3) If we allow gay marriage then we have to allow polygamy etc. No, marriage can still be defined as a binding agreement between two consenting adults.
Why should marriage be defined as only being between two consenting adults? If disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination, why is disallowing polygamy not discrimination? You've still drawn a line separating what can be marriage from what cannot be marriage. Same with incest, bestiality, etc. I'm not saying that homosexuality and bestiality are the same thing--they're not. I'm just saying that many people bag on the "slippery slope" argument, but what they're saying is "you think the line should be drawn here, I think it should be drawn there."

As I have posted on another such thread, Jesus specifically and clearly stated that divorce is adultery (which is punishable by death), but he never said a word about homosexuality. If the wingnuts were actually interested in "making America a Christian nation" they would be campaigning against divorce first. Of course, divorce rates are LOWEST in Massachusettes, and are above average throughout the Bible Belt. So I guess we know exactly what their "Christian values" are worth.

Olara']Why should marriage be defined as only being between two consenting adults? If disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination, why is disallowing polygamy not discrimination? You've still drawn a line separating what can be marriage from what cannot be marriage. Same with incest, bestiality, etc. I'm not saying that homosexuality and bestiality are the same thing--they're not. I'm just saying that many people bag on the "slippery slope" argument, but what they're saying is "you think the line should be drawn here, I think it should be drawn there."
Marriage should be between consenting persons. That removes bestiality and children as they cannot be consenting before the law.

Cousins: there are genetic reasons for disallowing those kind of marriage. So they can be denied for the greater good of the population at large.

The only one who is somewhat hard to defend is polygamy. Apart from issues such as current laws like tax benefits, which would have to be re-written to allow more than one person and delineate which responsibility falls on whom, I see no reason for disallowing them. But then, if it's alright with them, I don't see why I should object.

So the slippery slope slides just below polygamy, as far as I'm concerned. After that, it's a pretty even floor with no slope.

Olara']Why should marriage be defined as only being between two consenting adults? If disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination, why is disallowing polygamy not discrimination?

Polygamy is a different situation altogether from a two-person marriage. The financial and legal issues covered by marriage could not possibly cover polygamy - it would need it's own code of laws. One could not, for instance, extend the "your spouse is your next-of-kin and power-of-attorney" stipulation to polygamy. You would have to institute a new system that determined which one. Each polygamous relationship would be entirely different - with the only similarity being that there were more than two people.

Same with incest,

Compelling government interest in the health of its citizens.

bestiality,

Lack of consent.

I'm just saying that many people bag on the "slippery slope" argument,

which is a logical fallacy.

but what they're saying is "you think the line should be drawn here, I think it should be drawn there."

And never provide objective reasoning for their line, while objective reasoning for this line can be provided.

I am against legislating any "belief". I don't understand why anyone would be for it. I am a pretty conservative Christian, but I am also fully aware that America isn't about me. If it was things would be very different, and most if not all people would get fed up and leave, and then what would I do?

It is a big conflict for me on some issues, like abortion, I really do believe that it is murder, and that it is a human rights issue. Although I do realize that not everyone sees it that way. I don't really know what I think about abortion laws. (pathetic isn't it)

As far as homosexuality, why is it the government's business at all? That is something that goes on between 2 consenting adults, and it sure isn't any of my business. That is a very clear issue for me, that even though I have my own thoughts about homosexuality, it really isn't my place to "legislate" anything about it at all.

Olara']Why should marriage be defined as only being between two consenting adults? If disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination, why is disallowing polygamy not discrimination? You've still drawn a line separating what can be marriage from what cannot be marriage. Same with incest, bestiality, etc. I'm not saying that homosexuality and bestiality are the same thing--they're not. I'm just saying that many people bag on the "slippery slope" argument, but what they're saying is "you think the line should be drawn here, I think it should be drawn there."
Non-consenting parties cannot enter legal contracts, so animals, children, inanimate objects, etc are all excluded from obtaining marriage under the law. Polygamy, if between consenting adults, is perfectly fine. Incest, if between consenting adults, is perfectly fine. (To people who cite the "genetic" dangers of incest, keep in mind that maternal age over 40 is more directly correlated with fetal malformations than couplings between first cousins...so if you'll let 40+ women get married, you can't use the "genetic" argument against incest.)

Now, I don't personally LIKE the idea of incestuous marriages, but whether or not I find something "icky" has nothing to do with whether it should be allowed under the law.

So the question this begs is, why should a something that is mentioned 6 times in the Bible (in only certain translations), and never by Jesus be legislated, but not the most fundamental tenent of Christianity? So why do you want gay marriage illegal but not paganism (or Hinduism, etc)?

Pragmatics, I would guess. It's very hard to enforce a law against holding certain beliefs but easy to not wed gay couples.

Non-consenting parties cannot enter legal contracts, so animals, children, inanimate objects, etc are all excluded from obtaining marriage under the law. Polygamy, if between consenting adults, is perfectly fine. Incest, if between consenting adults, is perfectly fine. (To people who cite the "genetic" dangers of incest, keep in mind that maternal age over 40 is more directly correlated with fetal malformations than couplings between first cousins...so if you'll let 40+ women get married, you can't use the "genetic" argument against incest.)

Now, I don't personally LIKE the idea of incestuous marriages, but whether or not I find something "icky" has nothing to do with whether it should be allowed under the law.
ah but fetal malformation from a mother of 40+ is not tied to the genetic makeup that get passed on, like recessive genes. Or am I talking out of my ass again?

I am against legislating any "belief". I don't understand why anyone would be for it. I am a pretty conservative Christian, but I am also fully aware that America isn't about me. If it was things would be very different, and most if not all people would get fed up and leave, and then what would I do?

It is a big conflict for me on some issues, like abortion, I really do believe that it is murder, and that it is a human rights issue. Although I do realize that not everyone sees it that way. I don't really know what I think about abortion laws. (pathetic isn't it)

As far as homosexuality, why is it the government's business at all? That is something that goes on between 2 consenting adults, and it sure isn't any of my business. That is a very clear issue for me, that even though I have my own thoughts about homosexuality, it really isn't my place to "legislate" anything about it at all.
Ahhhh, my favourite sensible conservative Christian on the boards these days. People, this is the voice of reason that you've all been seeking! My opinion doesn't count because, Catholic though I may be, I'm more for human rights than my individual religion being the shared majority.

Simonist']Ahhhh, my favourite sensible conservative Christian on the boards these days. People, this is the voice of reason that you've all been seeking! My opinion doesn't count because, Catholic though I may be, I'm more for human rights than my individual religion being the shared majority.
thanks;)

Marriage should be between consenting persons. That removes bestiality and children as they cannot be consenting before the law.

Cousins: there are genetic reasons for disallowing those kind of marriage. So they can be denied for the greater good of the population at large.

The only one who is somewhat hard to defend is polygamy. Apart from issues such as current laws like tax benefits, which would have to be re-written to allow more than one person and delineate which responsibility falls on whom, I see no reason for disallowing them. But then, if it's alright with them, I don't see why I should object.

So the slippery slope slides just below polygamy, as far as I'm concerned. After that, it's a pretty even floor with no slope.
Alright. Point taken. Thank you very much. Oh, yeah, and thanks to everyone else as well.

Maybe because...Christians...don't want to undermine Democracy and make America a theocracy?

Nah. That couldn't be it.

"You," not "no one."

This is not a discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin. I will accept that many Christians believe it is. This is not a discussoin on whether we should legislate all the laws of Leviticus (pork, shellfish, clothing of mixed fibers, etc) since I will accept the Christian ascertion that Jesus did away with those. This is a discussion about the first and foremost law according to the Bible:

First Comandment (in the Protestant and Catholic versions, first part of the second in the Hebrew version): Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That is pretty clear, and yet, our first ammendmant allows pagans and other polytheists to worship how they wish. (and that is accepting that Muslims and Zoroastrians worship the same God Jews and Christians do, and the Brahman in Hinduism is another name for Yahweh, although the ideas are quite different)

So the question this begs is, why should a something that is mentioned 6 times in the Bible (in only certain translations), and never by Jesus be legislated, but not the most fundamental tenent of Christianity? So why do you want gay marriage illegal but not paganism (or Hinduism, etc)?

Finally someone who agrees with me. While I do think practicing homosexuality is a sin I have no great desire to legislate against it. I believe in the right of people to make their own decisions about their life as long as it doesn't negatively affect me. I also agree that Christians focus way to much on homosexuality. Why not go around and try to ban premarital sex while they are at it? I like to bring that one up since so few Christians who are advocating anti-gay legislation seem to be able to avoid that sin.

I look at a lot of the old laws that are still in observation in some measure today, and I understand now that they were likely put in for very practical reasons, if you look at it. The Torah stated that people couldn't eat pork or shellfish; at the time, the fact that it killed people led them to believe that God didn't want them to eat it. Now we know that there are very tangible reasons they died from eating pork or shellfish; they didn't have the means or knowledge to cook them at high heat and kill the bacteria that make people sick. I don't know if the prohibition on clothing of mixed fibers stems from something similar, but it wouldn't surprise me.

As for the widespread backlash against gay marriage, there are a lot of arguments against letting gay couples marry or adopt children, none of which hold much water when looked at logically.

Let's see...the Bible says that being gay is a sin. Gee whiz, last time I checked the Bible wasn't the law of the land; the Constitution was. The Constitution is more concerned about how the government is run and how to keep the government from interfering too much in people's lives.

Oh, but look at how fast gay couples get together and break up. Hmm, I see a lot of that too, in Hollywood, and everywhere else in America. Among straight couples, no less.

Hey, what about the stability of the institution of marriage? Like it's really stable as it is now. I suppose you want to ban interracial marriage, require parental consent of all marriages...hell, just arrange all marriages like we used to do. Lord knows marriage hasn't survived the past several centuries of change.

Oh come on, gay couples can't produce children. Neither can infertile couples or older folks; on top of that, lots of people get married and don't have kids. Are we going to ban people from getting married unless they're going to produce children? Maybe we should concentrate on helping out the ones who need homes now.

Surely you don't mean letting gay couples adopt kids; kids need a male and a female parent. Is that so? I guess my fiancee's a fuckup, considering her father died when she was seven and she was raised pretty much entirely by her mom. I guess I am out of luck too, considering I had an overload of female parents after my dad remarried and my mom turned gay, if you will.

OK, OK, but don't you think being gay is kind of...well, you know, icky? You know what else I find...you know, icky? Let's see...smoking, eating mushrooms, the Lifetime channel, and nut jobs telling me how to live my life. Surely you don't want to ban those things either, do you? Well, OK, maybe you do, especially the smoking and eating mushrooms, but come on...

/snip

OK, OK, but don't you think being gay is kind of...well, you know, icky? You know what else I find...you know, icky? Let's see...smoking, eating mushrooms, the Lifetime channel, and nut jobs telling me how to live my life. Surely you don't want to ban those things either, do you? Well, OK, maybe you do, especially the smoking and eating mushrooms, but come on...


LOL, yeah if we start outlawing some things cause they are icky, I want to see some constitutional amendmants against lima beans, scotum piercings, and picking your nose.

The greatest commandment is you should love God----The second is you should love your neighbor.

Can you find a place in the Bible where Jesus rejected someone because of their religion? He tested the faith of one woman but granted her request. Jesus taught tolerance for the beliefs of others.

Notice--When Paul walked into Athens, he didn't condemn them for other beliefs---He HONORED their great faith in other religions.

If we legislated by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and Paul, the "religious?" right would lose their power. Robertson, Falwell and the other Pharasees would be shown for what they are. And they and their followers certainly AREN'T Christians according to the Bible.

The greatest commandment is you should love God----The second is you should love your neighbor.

Can you find a place in the Bible where Jesus rejected someone because of their religion? He tested the faith of one woman but granted her request. Jesus taught tolerance for the beliefs of others.

Notice--When Paul walked into Athens, he didn't condemn them for other beliefs---He HONORED their great faith in other religions.

If we legislated by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and Paul, the "religious?" right would lose their power. Robertson, Falwell and the other Pharasees would be shown for what they are. And they and their followers certainly AREN'T Christians according to the Bible.


It is important to me that I post the definition of tolerance. I find myself very tolerant of others. (under this definition anyway)

tolerate- digest: put up with something or somebody unpleasant
from here (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tolerate)

I can be tolerant of something without agreeing with it at all. I get the feeling that when people want "tolerance" what they really want is acceptance. These are not the same.

The issue is I haven't heard very many reasons against it only:

3) If we allow gay marriage then we have to allow polygamy etc. No, marriage can still be defined as a binding agreement between two consenting adults.


Other than that, I have not heard of any secular arguments against gay marriage.


Actually there is nothing in the BIBLE against polygamy. The only scripture that comes close is 1Tim 3:2. A Bishop is to be the husband of one wife. Which implies that others may have more than one wife. You can find no other scripture that goes against polygamy. As most of us know, many of the greatest Biblical characters had more than one wife, including King David. Polygmay is a cultural norm NOT a Biblical norm.

It is important to me that I post the definition of tolerance. I find myself very tolerant of others. (under this definition anyway)

tolerate- digest: put up with something or somebody unpleasant
from here (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tolerate)

I can be tolerant of something without agreeing with it at all. I get the feeling that when people want "tolerance" what they really want is acceptance. These are not the same.


Acts 17:22- Paul did not condemn the people of Athens. He honored them for their beliefs. He didn't tell them they were wrong. He told them they were right. He used their belief in the "unknown God" to bring them to a greater understanding. He accepted their beliefs. He accepted them for where they were. He did not just tolerate them, he accepted them and taught them based on what they already believed.

Acts 17:22- Paul did not condemn the people of Athens. He honored them for their beliefs. He didn't tell them they were wrong. He told them they were right. He used their belief in the "unknown God" to bring them to a greater understanding. He accepted their beliefs. He accepted them for where they were. He did not just tolerate them, he accepted them and taught them based on what they already believed.
I think the point Smunkee was making was more abuot the modern world than Paul's example, which even at that time would've been absolutely more than most anybody could do. Does everybody hold themselves to so high a standard? Certainly not. Is Smunkee better off than many Christians, in terms of tolerance and moral understanding? Most likely, and I'm not just saying that because I like him (because I used to not like him so much, before I really started listening to what he was saying....no offense, Smunk). It's all in the person.

Actually there is nothing in the BIBLE against polygamy.

Sure there is, Mat 6:24: No man can serve two masters.


I'm obviously kidding, and your points are well taken. We have historically already re-deffined marriage countless times, from being about property (notice the ten commandment has the wife listed among other property not to be coveted) to our current idea of a partnership.

Olara']Why should marriage be defined as only being between two consenting adults? If disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination, why is disallowing polygamy not discrimination? You've still drawn a line separating what can be marriage from what cannot be marriage. Same with incest, bestiality, etc. I'm not saying that homosexuality and bestiality are the same thing--they're not. I'm just saying that many people bag on the "slippery slope" argument, but what they're saying is "you think the line should be drawn here, I think it should be drawn there."

The answer to much of what you said (aside from polygamy) rests on consent. In some states, incest is legal with genetic testing or proof you are sterile in an effort to address the increased likelihood of birth defect. Most incest laws are considered legal because they are meant to protect the outcome of such unions. Bestiality is a matter of consent. You prove to me that a dog understands what his entering into and consents to that union then you will have an argument, until then not comparable at all.

Olara']Alright. Point taken. Thank you very much. Oh, yeah, and thanks to everyone else as well.

Whoops, didn't see this before I replied. Ignore my post.

I can't figure out how the Religious Right can so vehemently support laissez-faire capitalism. I mean, I understand the history of why they do--Some of the most important early revivalists in the fundamentalist movement were supported financially by the big industrialists--but I don't know how they square it with the Bible.

They're very happy to enshrine in law the Bible's dicta on homosexuality, but how about John the Baptist's "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same" (Luke 3:11)? Or Jesus' "Sell your possessions and give to the poor" (Luke 12:33)? No, these are left to individual discretion, while an issue on which Jesus had nothing to say is meant to be translated into law. Probably because the luminaries of the Religious Right find it easier to pick on a beleaguered minority than give up their personal riches and the financial backing of their wealthy supporters ...

ah but fetal malformation from a mother of 40+ is not tied to the genetic makeup that get passed on, like recessive genes. Or am I talking out of my ass again?
Sure it's tied to the genetic make-up...older biological mothers have eggs that they've been carrying around for 40+ years, and those eggs have a higher probability of being "defective." (We also are starting to get evidence that older men produce more defective sperm than younger men, but that evidence isn't a solid just yet.)

As for recessive genes, I think what you are talking about is that siblings may be more likely to each carry the same recessive gene if that gene runs in their family. That's true in some cases (depends on the gene and the frequency of mutation), but...well, so what? We're talking about serious birth defects, here. If the concern over incest is based on probability of deformed or defective offspring, and if older females have a greater chance of producing such offspring than first-cousin pairings, then we ought to have the same prohibitions against marriage/procreation of older women than we do for incest. In my opinion, neither should carry any legal prohibitions, of course, but at the very least we should treat them equally. The reality is that incest prohibitions are about societal taboo rather than concrete science.

If you read that first commandment again,

you will see that it does not deny the existance of other gods.


It simply tells believers that they shall place no other god before her/him/it
"...thou shall have no other gods before me"





maybe someone already pointed this out? sorry.
not claiming any religion.
maybe i'll claim atheist to help defend them from persecution by god's children
(well, the extremist ones that want to make a usa theocracy and keep the word god in the pledge of allegiance and shove god in school and knock down cement walls on top of homosexuals because they think god commands it)