Homosexuality

[Hobie-wan]

And...c'mon. The word "man" obviously is taking all of "mankind" as a whole to mean man and woman. If we go through ANY texts, including the newspaper of today, we will see the word "man" as referring to all humans. "Is this the best thing for mankind? Err, is this the best thing for mankind....and womankind? "

Are you sure? I'm certainly no bible scholar, but women sure seem to marginalized a lot and thought of as second class citizens. Made of merely a rib, the weaker one who got humans thrown out of the garden of eden and all that.

[indecks]

People is people. Happy is happy. If a man likes a man, so whut. A woman likes a woman, so whut. Are they happy? Awesome. Are they miserable? Bummer. Do they have the right to both? Damn straight. Your sexual preference doesn't make you any less human, or right/wrong.

Though from a completely non-homophobic viewpoint, I have to say that I dont know how the human species propagates itself. I mean, I don't know how my wife stands to have sex with me, or how any woman stands to have sex with a male. We're gross. Smelly, hairy, gross. Even if I had a preference for men, I'd still think we were gross.

And I want to clarify I don't mean 'gross' in the "ew, two peeners are touching" sense. Just the "females are so much lovelier than males" sense. Because we as males, are gross!

[mjmjr25]

I guess for me it comes down to the fact that, in light of lots of variable interpretations, why would you choose the one that forces you to discriminate (through a vote, for example) against people who aren't doing any harm to anyone else by pursuing their own love life with a consenting partner?

The 95% silent majority will simply deny equal rights through legislation and voting instead of picketing about it (all the while professing love). And his point is well made that this silent majority pick on this issue in particular (instead of the ones that they feel are not relevant in contemporary society)--- why?

And herein lies the fundamental rift that we have. You state it does not do harm as if that is fact. I know the exact opposite to be true. There is our divide - plain as day.

I believe that any stance that attempts to establish a sinful act as unharmful, is in itself, harmful, thus a pro gay marriage stance does have a victim, imo. Who? Everyone who reads this thread and then thinks, "those religious nuts don't know what they're talking about, how can this be bad? See, they're arent even any victims. They are just ignorant bigots." <----That to me is harmful, the legitimizing of sin. I don't expect an atheist or agnostic to understand that. And that is why we won't reach agreement. You don't see potential victims, you see consenting adults. I do see a temporal pleasure being slowly legitimized as "natural", as "ok", as "no victims".

What is natural after all? Any impulse? Surely you would agree a great many of us have impulses that are not good? So if it is in fact natural, that does not affect the argument at all.

So and so cut me off in traffic, I got enraged, my heart raced, we both stopped at the same gas station, I got out of my car in a rage and shot him. That was my nature, that was the environment I was raised in, it was a natural reaction for me to do that, so thus it's justified? I don't see the weight of nature in the debate, at least in regard to my beliefs anyways.

[Hobie-wan]

See, they're arent even any victims. They are just ignorant bigots." <----That to me is harmful, the legitimizing of sin.

Whoa whoa whoa, you added that bit in yourself. Unless I missed it, nobody in this thread has called anyone ignorant or a bigot.

And again, I don't see how what 2 people are doing in a room where you can't see affects you.

[mjmjr25]

One of a select handful of bible passages that sparks a bevy of hatred and ignorance that rests on an incorrect Greek translation of two words in particular:

Nope, right there.

I didn't reply to this, but probably worth noting, most bibles were not translated from Greek, but rather the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, but a minor sidenote, i'm sure.

[mjmjr25]

And again, I don't see how what 2 people are doing in a room where you can't see affects you.

Again, because you do not view homosexuality as a sin, so I would not expect you to.

How does anything happening behind closed doors affect anyone else? How does my meth lab, that I use only for myself, in my own home that I own, behind closed doors affect anyone? It doesn't, it is a consensual action that I am taking on my lonesome.

[dsheinem]

I believe that any stance that attempts to establish a sinful act as unharmful, is in itself, harmful, thus a pro gay marriage stance does have a victim, imo.

Our rift is in that you see homosexuality as sinful and thus harmful, whereas I don't see strong Biblical evidence that it should be considered a sin at all.

I don't expect an atheist or agnostic to understand that. And that is why we won't reach agreement.

Like many agnostics I came to my position after many, many years of practicing a faith. I spent the first 20 years or so of my life attending church 3-4 times a week, leading Bible Studies, and - for at least 10 of them - trying to set something of an example as "the good Christian" since I was the minister's son. Lots of folks had me pegged for seminary. You'd probably be surprised by how much theology I know and how much I know about the line of thinking you've been proposing in general, but I can't really understand its justification anymore in light of an increasing knowledge of a wide variety of interpretations and implementations of Christian doctrine by organized religion (which is at least part of why I left the faith). I also can't abide it's place in national politics, as many of the worst offenders for using the scriptures to sow hate and division seem to have the loudest voices in the discussion of political issues.

I consider you to be a rational person capable of reaching understanding or else I wouldn't keep going. Ending "at an impasse" is a weak conclusion to a potentially meaningful debate.

my belief is that the Nicaean Council was divine, an instrument of God. That Aramaic first bible has of course been translated into numerous languages, and then translated from a translation, however the direct Aramaic > English bible is believed my most theologians to be extremely accurate, if not wholly accurate to what came from that Council.

I'll just leave this here: http://www.christian-history.org/nicea-myths.html

"The Council of Nicea never addressed the books of the Bible (and thus could not have changed them)."

[Flake]

How does anything happening behind closed doors affect anyone else? How does my meth lab, that I use only for myself, in my own home that I own, behind closed doors affect anyone? It doesn't, it is a consensual action that I am taking on my lonesome.

C'mon Mike. You can do better than that and you know it.

[DinnerX]

Late to the discussion. I mostly agree with mjmjr25.

...but not being gay. And somehow the idea of a few gay people getting married worries people more than the reality of tens of thousands of straight people getting divorced.

The divorce rate in the U.S. is appalling. In just about every church I've been to you'll hear the divorce rate preached as one of the greatest shames to the nation.

Even if I did see a theologically sound one, I would have issues with those religious views shaping secular policy.

The way I see it, basically every law on the books comes from some sort of moral belief. Maybe it's a belief about how much money people should have. Maybe it's a belief about how how cautious people should be required to be.

By making a law, essentially any law, you attempt to force a belief on a society. The question isn't "is this law based on a belief?" the question is "is this belief worth putting above the others?" or "Do we need the government to support a belief in this area?" Because the government is so involved in marriages, having it simply stay out of marriage probably isn't much of an option.

When it comes to the same-sex marriage issue I see two perspectives. One is that same-sex relations are moral, consequently a same-sex union would be legitimate, and people have a right to marry who they want therefore same-sex unions should be legal. The other perspective is same-sex relations are not moral, consequently a same-sex union isn't legitimate, and the unions should not be legal.

I don't want a law that goes against one of my strong beliefs and currently the government is forced to pick sides on this issue, so here we are.

I really don't care what people do in their bedrooms. You won't find me asking the government to bring back sodomy laws. I think such acts are wrong, but that's an issue where the government is simply not taking a stance, so I view it differently.

[Flake]

The way I see it, basically every law on the books comes from some sort of moral belief. Maybe it's a belief about how much money people should have. Maybe it's a belief about how how cautious people should be required to be.

Almost every law comes from the Code of Hammurabi. The goal was not morality, it was stable society. Morality as a reason to enact laws did not come into play until monotheism became a thing.