Book, chapter and verse? Name one place, please, I’ll take it from there on my own.
I think Copaesthetic may be implying that jesus didn’t specifically exclude groups, when he said stuff like “do unto others…” and “love one another…”
Just to clarify: The issue I meant, and I believe Copaesthetic meant, is whether or not the law of Moses applies to converted gentiles.
As others have pointed out this is an unnecessary distinction. Black is different than white, rich is different than poor, blond is different than brunette, etc. Why are you making a distinction on the hetero-homo issue? You may not want to admit you are making a quality issue out of it, but from here it sure sounds as though you are.
Sounds like you are saying that homosexuals don’t need to be treated as equal. Why do you believe this? Are you a homosexual? If not, then why do you think you can speak about their rights?
This sounds like a slippery slope logical fallacy.
Ok, I’m back (should have known that the cafeteria served only crap on fridays…).
Personally I think the racial comparison is out of place. A black man is allowed the same rights as a white person. But then again, a homosexual man is allowed to marry a woman, just like any other man. The choice not to do so isn’t really the fault of the government (I can already hear the outcry over this example, but seriously you need to learn to differentiate between rights and things that “should be that way”. I do not challenge homosexual relationships with this, I merely point out how things are from a legal point of view.)
If you feel this isn’t a straight answer, then I am sorry, but this is the straightest answer you’ll get from me.
I did try to answer, but perhaps I wasn’t trying hard enough. Still I get the feeling that answering your questions doesn’t serve the debate, but that it serves arguments. I’ll give it a shot against better knowledge and again hope that I am not offending you (too much):
-
It is the obvious difference that a man is not a woman. It’s a whole different story whether the difference matters that much, but the trend to say that white is black, men are women and everything is equal anyway is something I strongly disagree with. Difference isn’t a weakness, it’s rather a strength, and to deny differences is a big mistake imho.
-
What this trend has done already is that people like Marshall Mathers are censored and in turn result in him singing “homophobic? Nah, you’re just heterophobic.”. Debate has already degraded to this kindergarden level. It doesn’t help solve our problems, pretending that everything is equal and there is no distinction and no differences, only results in more problems. I just gave one example, I’m sure there are more, but ultimately it is just one opinion (namely mine) and you are free to disagree.
Now that this is out of the way, let’s sit down and really talk: Forget the above text and read this one with a new outlook (perhaps making a pause of 5 minutes before going on would be good).
We both agree on several issues: You agreed that removing the marriage status alltogether would be something you’d support in theory.
Then we agree that the feelings in a homosexual relationship are the same as in a heterosexual or other relationship.
Finally we are of the opinion that homosexual relationships are entitled to the same rights as other relationships.
Where we drift apart is that I don’t agree with the universal all is equal approach. And another point we disagree on, is that for legal reasons I disagree in changing the marriage status, but would prefer a broadening of the laws to accomodate homosexual relationships.
We might not agree 100%, but the way I see it, we’re on the same side on the core issues. And I don’t expect you to subscribe to my point of view, on the contrary, I encourage you to be guided by your own ideas. Nevertheless I’d like you to see my point of view. To that end I clarified a couple of unclear points and now I am done. If my stance is unclear yet, no further amount of clarifying on my part can remedy that.
Before this grows into a huge argument, I’ll step back a bit and leave the discussion to other people, because in the end it is not that important to me anyway. There are more important issues that need to be debated and as I said, I already gave insights to my position, so there is really nothing more I could do, except for quarrel. Something that doesn’t benefit anyone here, so, forgive me for not discussing things further, but rather for going out and enjoying the good weather. Have a great weekend 
God. Damn. It.
I hate to be prompted to reply, but this little rant by Meatros cannot go unanswered:
"You may not want to admit you are making a quality issue out of it, but from here it sure sounds as though you are."
"Sounds like you are saying that homosexuals don’t need to be treated as equal. Why do you believe this? Are you a homosexual? If not, then why do you think you can speak about their rights?"
You know how you sound? Yes, exactly, thank you very much.
A couple of points my good man (or woman. An assumption on my part):
-
Take part in the debate and then you can go criticize people. Just barging into a discussion, throwing out “you sound like” phrases in order to imply a whole bunch of rubbish without actually saying something and without taking a clear stance is a pretty poor performance.
-
“Why do you believe this?” First you make an assumption and then you’re elevating that assumption to a fact? Please, do me and yourself a favour and don’t ever resort to clumsy tactics like that again.
-
You have absolutely no idea about my sexual orientation and are in no position to talk about it.
-
Your opinion is as significant or insignificant as mine, but please note that presenting an opinion is one thing, preaching like you did is an entirely different story.
Optihut! that was every bit a vague and meaningless as ever - you have still failed to explain why you feel that the difference between hetereosexual and homosexual relationships is significant enough to disqualify one of them from being legally recognised as marriage; you appear to find it self-evident.
I’m also troubled by what appears to be this line of reasoning:
[Marriage is currently defined as a bond between a man and woman]
>[Homosexual relationships do not involve a bond between a man and a woman]
>[We cannot redefine marriage to include same-sex bonds because… marriage is currently defined as a bond between a man and a woman]
>[Homosexual relationships do not involve a bond between a man and a woman]
>[We cannot redefine marriage to include same-sex bonds because… marriage is currently defined as a bond between a man and a woman]
>[Homosexual relationships do not involve a bond between a man and a woman]
>[We cannot redefine marriage to include same-sex bonds because… marriage is currently defined as a bond between a man and a woman]
>[Homosexual relationships do not involve a bond between a man and a woman]
>[We cannot redefine marriage to include same-sex bonds because… marriage is currently defined as a bond between a man and a woman]
>[let’s leave everything as it currently stands]
I don’t buy all this ‘I’ve given insights’ bit - you have not dome anything of the sort, you have merely repeated baseless assertions.
A legal point of view? So you are saying that the law shouldn’t be changed occasionally?
But shouldn’t we all be treated equally under the law?
May I point out that Marshall Mathers wasn’t blasted about his opinions on homosexual marriage, he was blasted on his lyrics being offensive to homosexuals. Not to mention that, yes people want to censor him, but AFAIK he hasn’t been censored.
You still haven’t given a reason for this assertion:
Differences are one thing, legal matters are another. Why should homosexuals be legally treated differently than heterosexuals?
I see you’ve backed out, but I’ll give this a shot anyway.
So gay people should choose to live a non-gay life style? You do realise that that’s exactly the same as you choosing to marry a man, right? Yes, gay men can marry women, but they cannot, legally, marry someone they have a romantic relationship with. See it that way instead.
Who has ever said that homosexuality is the fault of the government? That people are born blind isn’t the fault of the government either, but the government exists to serve its people, including blind ones, so they get help.
Then you’ve basically admitted that you cannot answer. The question was “What are the differences between gay and straight relationships that you speak of?”, and you haven’t named one such difference. You haven’t said anything pertaining that question.
Nobody is talking about denying differences except you. Actually, I want you to tell me these differences you claim to see. We know a man is not a woman and that doesn’t matter in the slightest and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Again, nobody is pretending that everything is equal. Are you saying that the “foundation toppling” that you talk about is that Marshall Mathers cannot sing exactly what he wants?
Yup.
Yup.
I am of that opinion. You feel homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
What do you mean with this “universal all is equal approach”? What effects have you seen it have? Why does the word (not rights of, not concept, just word) “marriage” mean so much to you? I guess the answers to these questions are in orbit around Pluto, with the answers to my other questions…
Rant?? I think you read a little too deeply into my tone.
Out of context.
I see. My mistake, please give me all the rules for posting in this forum. I was giving you my opinion on what you sounded like. Instead of clarifying it you instead choose to supply motive to my post.
Again you missed the part where I said “Sounds like”, a simply clarification on your part would have resolved this. Clumsy tactics? What exactly do you think I’m doing? Was my question fair? No, it did make an assumption on my part, for this I apologize.
Preaching? You sound like you are preaching. You attempt to blast me for making assumptions about your sexuality which I never made.
A while back, the state in which I life tried to pass an amendment that would have made it illegal even to recognise “domestic partnerships”. I went to the hearing of the subcommittee that was having a public session on that (and a few other bills), hoping to speak. I didn’t get to, but what I was going to say ran something like this:
We met when I was sixteen, and we were high-school sweethearts. We were separated for several years of college, with only occasional visits and time spent together over the summer, but we stayed together through that, and when my partner finished college, we started to live together. A year ago, we bought a house.
We were married by a justice of the peace on 21 December, 2000, and the certificate is registered at the City Hall in the City of Lynn. And we could do that because my partner is a man.
The question I would have posited to the committee is the same one I posit in response to Optihut: if I can fall in love with a man and marry him, why should MrVisible, who has fallen in love with a man, be denied that same opportunity? The difference posited is that I get this opportunity because I am a woman, and he is explicitly denied it because he is a man. What justifies this distinction, which on its surface is illegal in many places, including the one in which I live?
Incidentally, the usual “society falling apart” reasons I’ve seen posited have been cats-and-dogs-living-together hysteria, we-can’t-allow-secular-society-to-not-follow-our-religion, and a phobia of polygamy so severe that it is expected to go unquestioned and unexplained. Given that Optihut is not specifying what reasons there are to believe in this particular doomsday knell, I’ll suggest the ones I’ve seen most often in the hope of getting some information through rebuttal.
As has been stated already, homosexuality is against God’s law. Period. End of Story.
So as a Christian I fight to stamp it out, just as I oppose murder or other abominations.
It’s all explained very clearly here: http://www.missionamerica.com
Do you eat pork or shellfish, or wear two different fabrics?
If I were militating for laws to ensure I could stick pork up other people’s rectums, or militating for laws to ensure I could marry an oyster then it might be relevant. This is not a question of MY adherence to God’s Law – I’m not the one trying to force my sins on society. Nobody’s trying to get regulations to force schools to teach that eating lobster is just peachy and wonderful. Nobody’s stocking school libraries with books called “I have two piggies”…
Not quite. It’s your interpretation of what you believe (the J/C/I) God’s law to be. And unless you can read Hebrew of the Biblical period and Greek of the 1st century, CE, you’re simply reading someone’s interpretation of someone’s interpretation of someone’s interpretation of somone’s translation of those documents.
Are you trying to stamp out the eating of shellfish, pork, and mixed fabrics or is it just homosexuality that you are trying to stamp out?
I am reading you original post correctly, right? If not please tell me so
Freyr: Actually, I read the scriptures in either Aramaic or Greek, depending on the language of the earliest-available documents.
Meatros: Nope, not trying to stamp those out. Currently just working on homosexuality, witchcraft, paganism… and other abominations which are destroying our society. The day I see shellfish-eating harming this great land of ours, I’ll go after it full-bore.
So, can you specify what homosexuals are doing to harm this great land of ours, DrChuckie? As in, specific and demonstrable harm.
That would be really, really off-topic (as opposed to the past couple posts which were sorta off-topic). The OP was about how Christians react to homosexuals, and my first post in the thread gave my thoughts on that as a Christian.
The answer to YOUR question is already explained at http://www.missionamerica.com. OR, start an appropriate thread and I’ll respond there.
How far would you go to stamp out homosexuality? Also, do you include other religions on your list?