Gay marriage

[Napoleon Ier]

A few more Leviticus quotes:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"They [referring to shellfish] shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)b

And finally, a favorite of mine that was used to argue slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

What happened to giving to God?

Type "Council of Jerusalem 50 AD" into google. Read a few articles on it. Rinse out your mouth with soap. Say 10 Hail Mary's. Then apologise to me. Then repeat four times.

Exactly. So why the deal with gay marriage? Didn't they say that you didn't have to follow Jewish law?

Find me a single instance in which a serious (i.e not Ted Haggard) Christian has used Leviticus to justify anything. If you can...well, I'll just have to cry. Then burn them for possessing an English Bible.

[Snorri1234]

Find me a single instance in which a serious (i.e not Ted Haggard) Christian has used Leviticus to justify anything. If you can...well, I'll just have to cry. Then burn them for possessing an English Bible.

Then why is homosexuality bad? Where else does it say it's bad?

[Napoleon Ier]

Find me a single instance in which a serious (i.e not Ted Haggard) Christian has used Leviticus to justify anything. If you can...well, I'll just have to cry. Then burn them for possessing an English Bible.

Then why is homosexuality bad? Where else does it say it's bad?

I don't think it's "bad" because of the Bible, though the Bible does incidentally agree with me.

I mean, Jesus at no point says that Keynesianism is a load of bollocks, but I still think that.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think it's "bad" because of the Bible, though the Bible does incidentally agree with me.

Where? Where does it say that christians should believe homosexuality is bad and discriminate against them?

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't think it's "bad" because of the Bible, though the Bible does incidentally agree with me.

Where? Where does it say that christians should believe homosexuality is bad and discriminate against them?

Doesn't say we should discriminate against them, but reading Romans 1:27 ("unnatural lusts") and 1 Corinthians 6 (I think something along the lines of "homosexuals shall not inherit the Kingdom of God") makes it clear it's wrong. Though there is controversy over the use of "homosexuals" in 1 Co 6, it's a different word to the one usually used in NT Greek, which has been seized upon by various people who claim that it refers exclusively to male prostitutes. Err...about it really. Though to me it's irrelevant, since I have Church tradition and writings of early fathers and all that jazz to reference. I only have to know the above to answer asinine questions in my RS GCSE, I never use it as an actual argument (except in response to aforesaid retarded GCSE "5-mark" questions).

[PLAYER57832]

Find me a single instance in which a serious (i.e not Ted Haggard) Christian has used Leviticus to justify anything. If you can...well, I'll just have to cry. Then burn them for possessing an English Bible.

Then why is homosexuality bad? Where else does it say it's bad?

Just to add a little more mud to the already turbid waters, Several churches have re-evaluated the texts and no longer state that homosexuality is forbidden. The Epicopaliens, Evangelical Lutherans, etc.

BUT , once again, the debate on what the Bible does and does not say, what Christians do and do not think about homosexuality is a completely different issue from whether the state should legalize unions.

If you want to get down to it, most Christians would say that folks of other faiths are also subject to condemnation (though some Christian churches place them in a different category from those believers who disobey). But we have all learned to live together quite well. Homosexuality is just another one of those things that some believe is wrong, but that others believe is perfectly OK.

And, no, you won't find many people at all who think beastiality or incest are OK ... never mind pedophilia. Call it hypocritical if you like, it is the reality. Most of us DO draw pretty big distinctions.

[Frigidus]

BUT , once again, the debate on what the Bible does and does not say, what Christians do and do not think about homosexuality is a completely different issue from whether the state should legalize unions.

You'd hope so, but the heavy majority of those against it cite the Bible. Nappy is honestly a breath of fresh air. I disagree with him, but at least he looks at the matter sociologically and not religiously.

[reminisco]

Ahh...yes it is. Paedophilia is sick.

wait, weren't you the one saying that those awesome jumps in the x-games were totally sick? cause they were, those jumps were sick, dude.

also, there aren't any homosexuals in Iran. and look at how "healthy" they are.

maybe you should move there, Napoleon Ier.

[PLAYER57832]

And to get back to the original question of why the state should care?

A lady has a stroke. The partner knows about the new treatment, the new drug which must be administered, but the hospital is reluctant to provide it without consent. There are no readily available recognized relatives. By the time they contact a cousin in a distant state, it is too late to give the drug.

A man and his child get into a car wreck on the interstate. The police knock at the door and find a domestic partner and another child. This state doesn't recognize domestic partners. The partner brings in living wills, custody papers, but they are disregarded. The domestic partner is not allowed to see the injured adult or child. The injured man's brother is contacted to make medical decisions for both the man and the child. The injured man eventually dies and is buried without the partner or the partner's child even being told where. The child is remanded to foster care because the uncle cannot or won't take the child. The partner who has considered this his child, too, must either spend thousands of dollars fighting for custody .. with no gaurantee ...

A woman is ready for retirement, but gets injured. She has no disability insurance. Her partner does, but it only covers legally married spouses. She depleted their savings, sells her house and then ends up having to get her partner declared indigent and admitted at the state's expense to a care facility. (note, with irony that had this lady had domestic partner coverage, we the taxpayers would not be footing the bill!

Etc. etc., etc.

[tzor]

Ahh...yes it is. Paedophilia is sick. That's why it's illegal.

No its not illegal simply because it is sick. There are many sick things that are not illegal. Paedophillia is a part of a larger category of child sexual abuse. It is a serious problem because it seriously messes with the innicent victim for the rest of their lives, especially their mental and emotional states of being, and since they are young to begin with that's an exceptionally long time.

That is why a number of states are starting to equate some extreeme cases of child sexual abuse with serious cases of murder and want the option for the death penalty. If there was something that sucked worse than death, child sexual abuse might be one.

[Napoleon Ier]

Ahh...yes it is. Paedophilia is sick. That's why it's illegal.

No its not illegal simply because it is sick. There are many sick things that are not illegal. Paedophillia is a part of a larger category of child sexual abuse. It is a serious problem because it seriously messes with the innicent victim for the rest of their lives, especially their mental and emotional states of being, and since they are young to begin with that's an exceptionally long time.

That is why a number of states are starting to equate some extreeme cases of child sexual abuse with serious cases of murder and want the option for the death penalty. If there was something that sucked worse than death, child sexual abuse might be one.

Agreed. Badly phrased on my part.

As for the clown talking about Iran, I really don't know what you're driving at. I'm not proposing laws curtaling the freedom of gays to have sexual relations, I'm only opposing legislation favoring "gay marriage" as a social institution. Why? Because there is strictly no reason for society to give it to them. Seriously, rather than squealing in politically correct indignation like a petulant little child, read other people's posts and start offering mature responses. Right now you sound like a cross between a Parisian Communist Trade-Union director and a doped-up neo-Hippie of the radiojake variety.

[Napoleon Ier]

And to get back to the original question of why the state should care?

A lady has a stroke. The partner knows about the new treatment, the new drug which must be administered, but the hospital is reluctant to provide it without consent. There are no readily available recognized relatives. By the time they contact a cousin in a distant state, it is too late to give the drug.

A man and his child get into a car wreck on the interstate. The police knock at the door and find a domestic partner and another child. This state doesn't recognize domestic partners. The partner brings in living wills, custody papers, but they are disregarded. The domestic partner is not allowed to see the injured adult or child. The injured man's brother is contacted to make medical decisions for both the man and the child. The injured man eventually dies and is buried without the partner or the partner's child even being told where. The child is remanded to foster care because the uncle cannot or won't take the child. The partner who has considered this his child, too, must either spend thousands of dollars fighting for custody .. with no gaurantee ...

A woman is ready for retirement, but gets injured. She has no disability insurance. Her partner does, but it only covers legally married spouses. She depleted their savings, sells her house and then ends up having to get her partner declared indigent and admitted at the state's expense to a care facility. (note, with irony that had this lady had domestic partner coverage, we the taxpayers would not be footing the bill!

Etc. etc., etc.

Which is why they invented the CUC.

[PLAYER57832]

Which is why they invented the CUC.

? What is CUC?

[Dancing Mustard]

It's when your wife has sex with other men.

[reminisco]

It's when your wife has sex with other men.

as in cuckold?

Is that so, Dr. Freud?

no, my name is Dr. Spaceman.

that is all. thank you.

[InkL0sed]

Well, I'm late to this thread, so there's no way I'm gonna read all 50 pages of it. But I will respond to this, which I saw in Napoleon's post:

I'm only opposing legislation favoring "gay marriage" as a social institution. Why? Because there is strictly no reason for society to give it to them.

You clearly have the wrong idea of law. The ideal (at least in the US) is that it shouldn't ban anything that has no reason to be banned, not the other way around (like you suggest in that quote). Even if there was no reason to legalize gay marriage, that would be no reason to ban it. And there certainly is reason legalize it, as PLAYER said in that post you quoted.

EDIT: I just realized I may have mis-read that post -- by social institution, did you mean a legal one? I'm suddenly not sure

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, I'm late to this thread, so there's no way I'm gonna read all 50 pages of it. But I will respond to this, which I saw in Napoleon's post:

I'm only opposing legislation favoring "gay marriage" as a social institution. Why? Because there is strictly no reason for society to give it to them.

You clearly have the wrong idea of law. The ideal (at least in the US) is that it shouldn't ban anything that has no reason to be banned, not the other way around (like you suggest in that quote). Even if there was no reason to legalize gay marriage, that would be no reason to ban it. And there certainly is reason legalize it, as PLAYER said in that post you quoted.

EDIT: I just realized I may have mis-read that post -- by social institution, did you mean a legal one? I'm suddenly not sure

That's the point: no-one's banning anything, only refusing social recognition via the appellation of mariage:

i.e, if they want to put on their own little ceremony, who am I to stop them, but the Mayor's office won't be giving them the official piece of paper and all.

[reminisco]

this is actually a fascinating article, from the Christian perspective, about why gays should not get married:

http://www.bearforce1.nl/

(everyone here please read it before continuing this illuminating debate)

[Napoleon Ier]

It's when your wife has sex with other men.

See, when he stops trying to be a jester he ends up ridiculous, but here, it's just bloody genius.

[Snorri1234]

That's the point: no-one's banning anything, only refusing social recognition via the appellation of mariage:

i.e, if they want to put on their own little ceremony, who am I to stop them, but the Mayor's office won't be giving them the official piece of paper and all.

But...why shouldn't the mayor give them that piece of paper?

When you're denying two people who love eachother the right to recognization as a union, you're in fact banning that same thing. If you don't allow drugs to be sold, you're banning the selling of it. A government can either ban or allow, not inbetween. (Well, except if you're dutch and sort of ban/allow pot-selling...)

[InkL0sed]

Well, I'm late to this thread, so there's no way I'm gonna read all 50 pages of it. But I will respond to this, which I saw in Napoleon's post:

I'm only opposing legislation favoring "gay marriage" as a social institution. Why? Because there is strictly no reason for society to give it to them.

You clearly have the wrong idea of law. The ideal (at least in the US) is that it shouldn't ban anything that has no reason to be banned, not the other way around (like you suggest in that quote). Even if there was no reason to legalize gay marriage, that would be no reason to ban it. And there certainly is reason legalize it, as PLAYER said in that post you quoted.

EDIT: I just realized I may have mis-read that post -- by social institution, did you mean a legal one? I'm suddenly not sure

That's the point: no-one's banning anything, only refusing social recognition via the appellation of mariage:

i.e, if they want to put on their own little ceremony, who am I to stop them, but the Mayor's office won't be giving them the official piece of paper and all.

Well then, my point still stands. That is banning it in a legal sense, which is just as silly as banning sodomy.

[Napoleon Ier]

That's the point: no-one's banning anything, only refusing social recognition via the appellation of mariage:

i.e, if they want to put on their own little ceremony, who am I to stop them, but the Mayor's office won't be giving them the official piece of paper and all.

But...why shouldn't the mayor give them that piece of paper?

When you're denying two people who love eachother the right to recognization as a union, you're in fact banning that same thing. If you don't allow drugs to be sold, you're banning the selling of it. A government can either ban or allow, not inbetween. (Well, except if you're dutch and sort of ban/allow pot-selling...)

No, they're welcome to unionize in however many numbers of whatever sex they want, with their siblings and farmyard pets for all I care, but I don't want my community giving them the stamp of approval under "marriage". Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage". Because marriage implies a family building block.

[PLAYER57832]

That's the point: no-one's banning anything, only refusing social recognition via the appellation of mariage:

i.e, if they want to put on their own little ceremony, who am I to stop them, but the Mayor's office won't be giving them the official piece of paper and all.

But...why shouldn't the mayor give them that piece of paper?

When you're denying two people who love eachother the right to recognization as a union, you're in fact banning that same thing. If you don't allow drugs to be sold, you're banning the selling of it. A government can either ban or allow, not inbetween. (Well, except if you're dutch and sort of ban/allow pot-selling...)

No, they're welcome to unionize in however many numbers of whatever sex they want, with their siblings and farmyard pets for all I care, but I don't want my community giving them the stamp of approval under "marriage". Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage". Because marriage implies a family building block.

Actually, in the US, some couples ARE small corporations for legal and business reasons. Why not?

As per the marriage -- you hit the nail on the head, ironically. Homosexual individuals want marriage BECAUSE it is the building block of the family ... and they have families.

But really, most (not all, of course) would be happy to have the state call it a civil union as long as it had similar rights to marriage.

[reminisco]

Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage". Because marriage implies a family building block.

you are so dense. it's not a truly free and open society if gays can't get married and be subject to the same tax benefits of marriage.

look, from a legislative perspective, that is simply the most compelling argument for why they should be allowed to marry. but this whole thing is ridiculous, and i can't believe i'm even dignifying you, Napoleon Ier, with a real response.

i'm just gonna go back to making as much fun of you and your conservative cronies as i can.

[Snorri1234]

No, they're welcome to unionize in however many numbers of whatever sex they want, with their siblings and farmyard pets for all I care, but I don't want my community giving them the stamp of approval under "marriage".

But...the community approves.

Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage".

Well I really wouldn't want to give a man and a woman who don't want it the title of marriage...