Tre: Yeah. I live in Wisconsin. To be honest, I'm all for equal rights in all cases.(obviously there's certain stuff I'm against, like I would prefer 18 for being the Marriage/Sex consent under all conditions.)
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
We need to get fucking DOMA repealed. That way NC would at least have to recognize marriages performed in other states.
Agreed, CA. Maybe enough petitions can get that shit gone? Because I don't care what anybody says. It's fucking horrible and its existence is a blight upon humanity.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
To say the least, I am under the belief that the ideals of the book should be followed, not every single entry. Those entries, atleast some, are against basic human rights. To follow it to a t would include sexism as is.
It's why I can't just follow its exact words.
This is the oldest problem in the world when it comes to religion -- not a single one is tailored for everything you prefer except in these two cases:
1. You made up said religion, or
2. You are a fanatic.
A faith is like anything in life -- whatever you choose is going to have things you like and don't like.
Regarding Christianity, there shouldn't be an issue with gay marriage at all considering Matthew 22:21 (render unto Caesar.) Like every other religion, it is a sin is to not be a Christian, and America has been allowing that since it began. Therefore, it falls directly under civil rights, unless you want to make it illegal for non-Christians to wed. Using this same logic, we don't allow the stoning-to-death of children who backtalk their parents (Leviticus) for Jews and Christians, nor do we allow it for any other religion.
The book is severely contradicted. I could not see many Women supporting that a woman can't speak up in Church, for example.
And so on.
Also, this is probably where the whole "Christians trying to make everyone a Christian" thing comes from.
But anyway, I know some of it is contradicting. And yes, I may be nitpicking certain parts of it. I don't feel ashamed by this at all. I am happy to apply the good parts and ignore the horrific parts. It's the same with any other type of book, etc.
Maybe I don't fight to change it enough. But it's another reason I won't allow it to run my life. Or any other religion.
Well... yeah. My point is that these moments make me ashamed to be a Christian, but very happy with acting like a good human being.
I am tired of the excuses used for this. Especially when you do the worst thing possible: Only care about certain entries. It's hypocritical, to be honest.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
There's a great deal of interpretation to be done in the book. There's also some interesting articles I've read regarding people who have not only attacked specific "anti-gay" verses, but picked some the might show the Bible as neutral on the subject.
Regardless, many of the "anti-gay" verses could be mistranslated and they're almost always invoked without any sort of context. Rather, a single verse is used, but once these verses are explored in the context of the surrounding verses they either appear to be talking about something else entirely, or at least are dealing with a specific issue and not making blanket statements.
I've heard that line of argument before, but I find that pretty dubious, to be honest. I haven't ever been given convincing explanations of what the passages "actually" mean, and some of them appear unambiguously condemnatory.
Regardless, I don't see why any religion's view on the subject should make bigotry acceptable, so I don't think it matters either way.
I haven't read around the article, admittably. But from what I can guess, it was either talking about adultery, pedophilia, or prostitution, but not homosexuality.
I assumed you'd have a Bible to hand. If not, Google is a thing, ya know.
Anyway
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Passage in context here. The site has other translations and editions if you want to compare them, including the original Hebrew.
Ah, thanks. Yeah, considering I detest the death penalty, I just can't agree with it.
If most of those are replaced with jail, I'm good.
As for homosexuality(note how it doesn't mention women at ALL in that context), something doesn't add up. Why doesn't it talk about women being with eachother at all? Why does only the males suffer?
This is probably why they did more translation work.
Note that Leviticus isn't in every single English version. Maybe because it's removed due to the death penalty not being acceptable now?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Couple of the major points that are often used against this as a blanket passage against homosexuality is the verse might just be against sodomy (which can possibly be dangerous, and in this case, life threatening given when this was written).
Suggesting that this passage and also the the similar one in the New Testament from Paul deal with pederasty comes up quite a bit. It works with the vocabulary, also this would be a common practice from the Greeks.
Also, this passage as well as what Paul mentioned are contain in chapters that begin condemning pagan rituals. Hence why many have suggested this passage deals with temple prostitution.
At the very least, it is ambiguous, and the passage does specify "as man lies with woman" (though that is obviously open to some amusing reinterpretation).
I still don't see that it matters, though, and I guess I find the attempts to deproblematize the passage troubling because doing so appears to give credence to the idea that if the Bible condemns homosexuality, so should we.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^Well LOTS of people beliefs are at least heavily influenced by some religious book. That's pretty apparent given what many modern views on homosexuality come from. Regardless of how willing one is to act on their perceived interpretation of the Bible, it's others are very willing to act on their owninterpretations.
Casting doubt on certain interpretations is a good way to fight anti-homosexuals who use Bible verses for their causes, as it casts doubt on what they're doing. Also, people who do count the Bible as something akin to the "greatest good" have the much easier choice of accepting one interpretation for another rather than having to pick between two competing ideological systems.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Also, here's a fascinating article that provides something of a possible historical counterpoint to popular modern Bible interpretations on this stuff: http://www.well.com/~aquarius/rome.htm
I actually argued about point 4 with an American black man who was for "traditional" marriage. Traditional to him actually meant US post 1978 style marriage who btw is the most modern definition of marriage in the US
Yeah, there's really no reason for anyone to ban it it beyond "Ewww, I don't like it!"
Also, that article Justice linked to is quite enlightening. It may also explain why the really crazy conservatives prattle on about the "gay agenda" -- back in Rome, there was a large eunuch population who were considered subhuman by the hardline Christians, and were being persecuted in much the same way. It was all about increasing a special interest's power to the point where it could set policy by fiat, and that's what the crazies this time want, too.
Wow, a list of 10 terrible points with atleast one terrible fallacy. Gay marriage actually suggests bestiality is okay? What?
Yeah, I can get people think it's gross. To be honest, that's fine if they don't like it. It's atleast not an entire stupid reason, or for that matter, is completely fine as a reason. Albeit, it's silly to deny basic rights because of it, but there's no reason they can't just ignore the thing and all.
I said it was a stupid argument, not that is wasn't common.
Until we actually get a real catgirl(etc.), which you know... how they conceived unless it was done through science is illegal.(Science route is kind of too)
Albeit, a catgirl for real would be cool, but seriously, no just no.
It's a fallacy because Gay Marriage is still two human beings getting married and not animals. There's a lot of terrible things that point suggests as is.
That was obvious when it listed bestiality. That's the worst slippery slope fallacy I've ever heard of and is beyond facepalm-worthy. Hell, other entries are beyond absurd. XD
>Casting doubt on certain interpretations is a good way to fight anti-homosexuals who use Bible verses for their causes, as it casts doubt on what they're doing.
It would do that if these reinterpretations didn't so often sound like grasping at straws. Yes, the passage could theoretically refer to pederasty or raping prisoners of war or whatever, but that's certainly not the most obvious reading and there's no reason to suppose it's the most likely one, either. The apparent need to render it acceptable to modern liberal values sends the message that it most likely doesn't support those values, which sounds like you think the bigots might have a point but that you are in denial about it.
The well.com link was kinda interesting but I don't really see how substituting homophobia for misogyny and prescribed heteronormative gender roles is an improvement. And I don't see what's so wrong with just accepting that it's an old book from an old culture which, whether for reasons of hygiene or safety concerns or bigotry or some other reason, held some ideological views that may not be deemed appropriate in this day and age. In other parts of the Bible you see misogyny and slavery being accepted. I don't recall seeing that used as an argument to support those practices, because we know that misogyny and slavery are wrong.
It's not like it's an either/or thing where you have to agree with every single problematic ancient custom or reject the faith entirely. It's an old book from a totally different culture with different values and ideals. Doesn't mean there's nothing good in it, but attempting to whitewash the bad is unconvincing and comes off as kind of intellectually dishonest.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
The bestiality, slippery slope fallacy argument is pretty common. Though, I think people are starting to use it a bit less because everyone realizes how absurd it actually is.
Now of course. because this is planet earth, there are pro-bestiality arguments, but I don't think anyone from that camp has claimed they should be able to marry their dog if gays can marry.
Also, you guys are way taller than me.
We need to have Heaper's convention so I can maybe grow an inch or two.
Comments
It's why I can't just follow its exact words.
This is the oldest problem in the world when it comes to religion -- not a single one is tailored for everything you prefer except in these two cases:
1. You made up said religion, or
2. You are a fanatic.
A faith is like anything in life -- whatever you choose is going to have things you like and don't like.
Regarding Christianity, there shouldn't be an issue with gay marriage at all considering Matthew 22:21 (render unto Caesar.) Like every other religion, it is a sin is to not be a Christian, and America has been allowing that since it began. Therefore, it falls directly under civil rights, unless you want to make it illegal for non-Christians to wed. Using this same logic, we don't allow the stoning-to-death of children who backtalk their parents (Leviticus) for Jews and Christians, nor do we allow it for any other religion.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Regardless, I don't see why any religion's view on the subject should make bigotry acceptable, so I don't think it matters either way.
Anyway Passage in context here. The site has other translations and editions if you want to compare them, including the original Hebrew.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I still don't see that it matters, though, and I guess I find the attempts to deproblematize the passage troubling because doing so appears to give credence to the idea that if the Bible condemns homosexuality, so should we.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
http://www.well.com/~aquarius/rome.htm
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
The Christians in Ancient Rome after the 300's were batshit intolerant
make that ^
|
causes, as it casts doubt on what they're doing.
It would do that if these reinterpretations didn't so often sound like grasping at straws. Yes, the passage could theoretically refer to pederasty or raping prisoners of war or whatever, but that's certainly not the most obvious reading and there's no reason to suppose it's the most likely one, either. The apparent need to render it acceptable to modern liberal values sends the message that it most likely doesn't support those values, which sounds like you think the bigots might have a point but that you are in denial about it.
The well.com link was kinda interesting but I don't really see how substituting homophobia for misogyny and prescribed heteronormative gender roles is an improvement. And I don't see what's so wrong with just accepting that it's an old book from an old culture which, whether for reasons of hygiene or safety concerns or bigotry or some other reason, held some ideological views that may not be deemed appropriate in this day and age. In other parts of the Bible you see misogyny and slavery being accepted. I don't recall seeing that used as an argument to support those practices, because we know that misogyny and slavery are wrong.
It's not like it's an either/or thing where you have to agree with every single problematic ancient custom or reject the faith entirely. It's an old book from a totally different culture with different values and ideals. Doesn't mean there's nothing good in it, but attempting to whitewash the bad is unconvincing and comes off as kind of intellectually dishonest.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis