Is there too much division in America?

[redfirebird2008]

Under God is in it. It was added, but it is in it today.

Whether Christian or not, the history is there that most of them were at teh very least deists, read and knew the Bible and were commonly churchgoers. Far from secular.

Being a Christian nation is FAR from enforcing biblical law upon everyone the way some radical Righties feel (like Schmuckabee).

You do realize it was added in 1954 during the McCarthyism era right? That's pretty damn recent for a country that is more than 230 years old.

 

[The Senator]

Under God is in it. It was added, but it is in it today.

Whether Christian or not, the history is there that most of them were at teh very least deists, read and knew the Bible and were commonly churchgoers. Far from secular.

Being a Christian nation is FAR from enforcing biblical law upon everyone the way some radical Righties feel (like Schmuckabee).

The interesting thing, though, is that the Christian right doesn't want to enforce Biblical law on us. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage is exclusively reserved for man and woman, and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality explicitly mentioned as a sin. However, the Christian right has made the Bible a key argument in their pursuit against gay marriage and gay rights, and imbeciles such as Tom Coburn and Rick Santorum specifically mentioned their faith as a reason why they support an amendment banning gay marriage.

So ultimately, our politicians are doing what every other society has done since the emergence of Christianity... and that's using Christianity as a manipulative device to control Christians and manipulate them into supporting conservative causes...

 

[Franklin Richards]

Doesn't it say in the Bible that if a man goes near a woman during her period that he'll get bludgeoned to death with rocks?

 

[Backdrifter]

How does my ability to marry a man infringe on any of those three rights I listed? I do not want to force you to accept homosexuals or even force you to get a gay marriage; however, you believe that there shouldn't even be such a thing as a homosexual, and that I shouldn't be able to get married to another man. My beliefs do not infringe on your rights; yours do. That's the major difference.

Because I find it offensive and immoral. I don't want my children (hypothetical ) to be exposed to that kind of behavior. I can successfully argue from a secular point of view that homosexuality is a negative trait from evolution and that we should not perpetuate that kind of behavior in our society if we desire to continue human flourishing. That would totally be in line with a "secular" view of the world. It is terrifying where you can take that actually.

You are infringing on my rights because my idea of life, liberty and happiness is a society that does not sanction gay marriage or abortion. The point is, we are both trying to force one another to accept that one view of society is better than the other.


(I am playing devil's advocate, here)

 

[Franklin Richards]

Overpopulation is a big problem so your secular argument is crap.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Because I find it offensive and immoral. I don't want my children (hypothetical ) to be exposed to that kind of behavior. I can successfully argue from a secular point of view that homosexuality is a negative trait from evolution and that we should not perpetuate that kind of behavior in our society if we desire to continue human flourishing. That would totally be in line with a "secular" view of the world. It is terrifying where you can take that actually.

You are infringing on my rights because my idea of life, liberty and happiness is a society that does not sanction gay marriage or abortion. The point is, we are both trying to force one another to accept that one view of society is better than the other.


(I am playing devil's advocate, here)

History is going to prove you wrong. Deprivation of rights to gays is no better than deprivation of rights to blacks. It's discrimination, period.

 

[The Senator]

Because I find it offensive and immoral. I don't want my children (hypothetical ) to be exposed to that kind of behavior. I can successfully argue from a secular point of view that homosexuality is a negative trait from evolution and that we should not perpetuate that kind of behavior in our society if we desire to continue human flourishing. That would totally be in line with a "secular" view of the world. It is terrifying where you can take that actually.

You are infringing on my rights because my idea of life, liberty and happiness is a society that does not sanction gay marriage or abortion. The point is, we are both trying to force one another to accept that one view of society is better than the other.


(I am playing devil's advocate, here)

But you don't have to expose your children to homosexuality. You can send your children to private schools, you can home school them, you can keep them out of activities which are not exclusive to the church community. A homosexual's right to get married has no effect on your ability to get married, it has no effect on YOUR life, and it will not hinder YOUR ability to pursue happiness. You will still be alive, you will still have your liberty, and you will still be able to pursue happiness as it resides in your own life.

Meanwhile, to deny homosexuals rights infringes on their ability to live the way they were born, it infringes on their ability to live life happily, and it restricts their freedoms when compared to heterosexual couples who have access to greater freedoms.

Morality is subjective to everyone's personal view, and no law which is passed can ever get rid of that cognitive view. However, laws passed which restrict gay rights DOES directly impact the lives of homosexuals. Therefore, your reasoning is flawed. You are talking about a mental view vs. a realistic view.

 

[Backdrifter]

The interesting thing, though, is that the Christian right doesn't want to enforce Biblical law on us. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage is exclusively reserved for man and woman,

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. - Genesis 1:23-24




4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6

and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality explicitly mentioned as a sin.

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing." - Genesis 19:1-7


9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:26-27

--------------------

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. However, I do think it is important to make it clear that homosexuality, in the Bible, is not the big deal that we make of it in our culture. ALL sexual immorality is sin. So the heterosexual couple having pre-martial sex is just as sinful as the two guys engaging in homosexual relations who just as sinful as the high school kid that *********es to pornography. It is all the SAME. It is our culture that has made too big a deal out of homosexuality and not a big enough deal out of the rest of it.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Because I find it offensive and immoral. I don't want my children (hypothetical ) to be exposed to that kind of behavior. I can successfully argue from a secular point of view that homosexuality is a negative trait from evolution and that we should not perpetuate that kind of behavior in our society if we desire to continue human flourishing. That would totally be in line with a "secular" view of the world. It is terrifying where you can take that actually.

You are infringing on my rights because my idea of life, liberty and happiness is a society that does not sanction gay marriage or abortion. The point is, we are both trying to force one another to accept that one view of society is better than the other.


(I am playing devil's advocate, here)

You can't really sucessfully argue that in an evolutionary state actually. Various factors effect and are necessary for evolution that can seem at the time to have no point or be detremental but always have a long term positive benefit. Virus' are a prime example of this, something that kills and hurts society is actually the jumping off point for the majority of all evolutionary adaptations. Now you might argue that something social isn't related but you'd be wrong on that as well, social adaptations can and do effect the envirnment. Stress actually rewrites some genes and activates and deactivates others. Perhaps being gay is in response to overpopulation coupled with the need for connection and a sustainable living envirnment? Perhaps being gay makes straight people reevaluate ourselves in a way that's prepping us for long term social adaptations necessary for survival? The point is we don't know, and to pressume you could sucessfully argue that point would either be the height of arrogance or ignorance, take your pick.

As far as the rights and ideals go, to assume that your rights supersede anyone else's instantly makes you a hypocrite. If you have a right to have your ideals and others have a right to have theirs how can a compromise be met? Simple, it's through choice. You choose what to believe and where to go and who to live with, others have the same right and the world keeps on a spinning.

 

[USMC]

Oh Jesus Christ... haven't seen Bible quotes brought out since Mindworm was around...

Close thread.

 

[The Senator]

None of those quotes state that homosexuality is a sin. I have also posted responses to those quotes in other threads... which I will try to find and post shortly...

 

[Backdrifter]

Lol. Nevermind. If you want me to give you a detailed exegetical anaysis of the follow texts in a PM I can do that. The point of each of them is that because these people are in sin, they are not partakers in kingdom of Heaven.

 

[USMC]

Lol. Nevermind. If you want me to give you a detailed exegetical anaysis of the follow texts in a PM I can do that. The point of each of them is that because these people are in sin, they are not partakers in kingdom of Heaven.

Bummer.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Lol. Nevermind. If you want me to give you a detailed exegetical anaysis of the follow texts in a PM I can do that. The point of each of them is that because these people are in sin, they are not partakers in kingdom of Heaven.

And exactly what does that have to do with their right to live in the United States of America as they wish? You know, like the rest of us who are heterosexuals? Religion is private. Enforcing it on other people goes against the Constitution. I'm a Christian but I believe bigotry against gays, based primarily on the Old Testament, is wrong. I follow Jesus Christ (the New Testament) first and foremost.

 

[The Senator]

I'd also point out that Christians do not want to pass laws which outlaw the sale of shaving cream or razor blades, or the sale of shellfish... when the Bible has references made which explicitly denounce shaving one's beard or consuming living things which reside in the sea...

 

[Franklin Richards]

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

Saint George


Why would I follow a philosophy that is morally bankrupt? Do it or I'll ****ing kill you? Nice.

 

[lazur]

The interesting thing, though, is that the Christian right doesn't want to enforce Biblical law on us. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage is exclusively reserved for man and woman, and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality explicitly mentioned as a sin.

I beg to disagree:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

And I'm only calling into question your statement that nothing on the subject exists in the Bible - not your personal belief system. Personally, I believe that what happens between two consenting adults is between two consenting adults.

 

[SuBe]

I beg to disagree:

Can I ask if these are in the original Greek and Latin Tranlations before they were Re-written in the King James version?

 

[The Senator]

Lol. Nevermind. If you want me to give you a detailed exegetical anaysis of the follow texts in a PM I can do that. The point of each of them is that because these people are in sin, they are not partakers in kingdom of Heaven.

I'd prefer to keep this argument in the open where everyone has access to the information I would like to provide:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=15776114&postcount=6146

My response to Moviefan's post in the Higher Power thread, who happened to give me the exact same verses you did.

 

[lazur]

Can I ask if these are in the original Greek and Latin Tranlations before they were Re-written in the King James version?

Those are from the King James version, I believe.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I think there is a section in Harry Potter where Dumbledore gets poked by another wizard. So if I follow that book of fiction instead of that other book of fiction, I'll be morally ok.

 

[The Senator]

Those are from the King James version, I believe.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=15776114&postcount=6146

I'd also like to point out that the argument was against the idea that homosexuality is a choice, but the commentary I have shared could also be looked upon as commentary against homosexuality being referred to as a sin.

 

[USMC]

I beg to disagree:

Seeing as how human beings picked and chose which books would be suited to make up the Bible over the course of many years, I take most of it with a grain of salt.


We're talking about the USA and the Constitution here anyway, not the Bible. And the Constitution talks about equal rights among its citizens, not special ones for one group over another.

To deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is the same as denying those rights to any other minority group. It's un-American.

 

[SuBe]

Seeing as how human beings picked and chose which books would be suited to make up the Bible over the course of many years, I take most of it with a grain of salt.


We're talking about the USA and the Constitution here anyway, not the Bible. And the Constitution talks about equal rights among its citizens, not special ones for one group over another.

To deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is the same as denying those rights to any other minority group. It's un-American.

I agree, this I think is the first time USMC and I agreed on something.

BTW, USMC, were you in the Marine Corps, and if so PI or SD?

 

[The Senator]

As for Leviticus, which was I did not address... I have read that the "abomination" in question was actually in reference to the laws set up within that society, not explicitly in reference to God's will...