Well, If George wants to ban gay marriage because of the bible, he better ban crop rotation and mixed fabric clothing as well, or he’s a giant hypocrite. Plus anyone who works Sunday should be killed:
Diogenes, I agree that Bush wouldn’t know “compassionate” if it was slurping cocaine off the head of his throbbing cock.
I think you’re overreacting to the “sinners” thing, though.
The “codify in law” thing is much more disturbing, by a long shot.
Arting a woman is punishable by stoning.
Isn’t it already codified in the federal DOMA that Clinton signed?
I’d be interested to see what people think about which states might be the ones to block such a Constitutional amendment. You only need 13 states to say “no” for the amendment to fail. Can we come up with 13 such states? Perhaps I’ll post in the GD about this.
Passing a law that is basically a paper tiger (utterly meaningless and easily struck down), is the ultimate form of red meat politics. Giving the good old boys what they want in a bill that pretty much means nothing is always a good idea.
I’d dare say that a lot of liberals and moderates who voted for state-level DOMAs would pause before inscribing bigotry permanently in the Constitution.
Particularly the version of the amendment being passed around now, which would also proscribe the generally-popular idea of gay civil unions. I think the states would be hard pressed to give the Federal government that much control over their own social policy. You might even get some Republican to vote against such a massive federal power grab.
matt, I’m no scholar when it comes to these things but IIRC DOMA basically said “no federal benefits to same-sex partners”. This google search should help you some.
Cervaise, I’m sending you a bill for the bleach I’m using to cleanse my brain of that image.
BIANARYDRONE –
Excuse me, but pointing out that the OP’er has totally misrepresented what was said – and in the title of the OP, no less – is hardly “nitpicking for Bush.”
:: Donning asbestos undies :: Actually, I think the issue is more complicated than it at first appears. First of all, I don’t think he’s “looking into how to exclude them;” they are excluded. He’s looking into how to guarantee their continued exclusion. And to me that raises some interesting legal issues: Who decides what marriage is? The federal government? The states? Municipalities? If two people can be married to each other, what about three or four? If that’s okay, isn’t there a point at which we define “marriage” so broadly that it becomes meaningless? Do we have a “right” to be married? What business does the government have recognizing any relationship, marital or not, anyway?
But so far as gay couples are concerned – I can see no persuasive legal or ethical reason to not grant them the right to be married. I do not consider religious belief to be sufficient grounds for the government to do anything, and while collective morality may justify the passing of laws outlawing certain “negative” behaviors, I don’t think there’s any rational basis for considering homosexuality to be a “negative” behavior (or orientation) since it doesn’t hurt anybody. As a conservative who is suspicious of federal enactments, certainly I don’t think it’s something that should be done at the federal level. If there’s a collective belief in the State of West Banjo that homosexuality is immoral, could it refuse to recognize gay marriages? That to me is more problematic. As a lawyer, proposed laws that seek to pre-emptively restrain the states (or individuals) from doing something (“You canNOT recognize a gay marriage”) tend to arouse my suspicions. As a moderate on social issues – almost a libertarian on social issues – I have a hard time seeing what business it is of mine, or anyone’s, who someone else sleeps with or marries.
So no, it’s not okay with me.
And FWIW, as a moderate Christian, I do NOT consider homosexuality, or the practice thereof, to be a sin. I do not believe that the same God who put in you the desire to love someone else, would then damn you for feeling, or acting on, the very desire He gave you. And I don’t believe women should be silent in church, neither. 
Hope you’re right, Spectrum.
(On the other hand, if you’re wrong, it could mean a sudden influx of hot American immigrants… rubs palms)
Incorrect. Arsenokoitai (you spelled it wrong) is a composite of two words, arsenos which means “male” and koitai which means “bed.” This would seem to give us something like “one who sleeps with/goes to bed with males,” but that is not entirely clear. For one thing the word arsenokoitai does not appear anywhere in Greek literature before Paul uses it in Corinthians and it is used very scarcely after that. there was no word in Greek for “homosexual” as in an orientation, there were only words for homosexual acts, none of which are used by Paul.
post Pauline uages of the term seem to suggest a connection with male prostitution but there were other common terms for male prostitutes which Paul did not use. Other uses seem to suggest that it referred to the active (penentrating) partner in male/male intercourse. Quite frankly, it is simply not known with any certainty what Paul meant by the word. “Male bed” is suggestive but could include any number of things. Looking at the culture that Paul was speaking to, pederasty was an all too common practice and young male prostitutes were easily available. Some of the more common early interpretations of arsenokoitai were that it referred to “child molesters,” specifically pederasts. This connotation, taken together with extra-Biblical associations of prostitution and specifically in a social context where married men were frequently paying for sex with teenage boys would seem to strongly suggest that Paul used arsenokoitai to refer to the “Johns” who participated in this practice. There is no use of arsenokoitai found anywhere else in Greek as a general term for homosexual men and it is my (somewhat) educated opinion that Paul was condemning pederasty, not homosexuality in general.
Well Diogenes, my reference books disagree with you. In reading The Interlinear Bible (a Bible with the English right next to the Hebrew and Greek and references to a companion dictionary), the passage I quoted earlier traces the word “homosexuals” to the word “arsenokoites” while also referencing the word “arrhen” or “arsen.”
“Arsen” means “male, man.” We have no dispute there. However, “arsenokoites” is defined as “a sodomite - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.” This sounds a lot like the OT descriptions of homosexuality being an abomination.
Regardless, these are merely semantics. I still think you blew GWB’s comments out of proportion, although I think it’s wrong for him to “have lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
I’ve been told by my girlfriend that women art as like men, just less noisily. I don’t believe her.
Your research books are wrong. “Arsenokoites” is often translated in Christian Bibles as “sodomites” etc… but those translations are based on subjective and biased interpretations rather than any real basis is Greek usage. As I said before, there is no word in Koine Greek for “homosexual” and certainly not for a word as ridiculous as “sodomite.”
As I said before the word is not found in any Greek writings before Paul and is never used to mean “homosexual” in any other context. The New Testament translations and the corresponding notes found in Strong, etc. are only guesses. Once again, the word literally translates as “male bed” and no other subsequent use of the term supports a definition of “homosexual.” (and “abuser of one’s self with mankind” is just nonsense).
We know that homosexuality in ancient times was not seen as a fixed orientation but simply as sexual behaviour. We also know what the terms were for that behaviour and Paul does not use them. He uses instead a word that has no pre-Pauline precedent and subsequent uses vaguely hint at the use of male prostitutes (who in the social context of Corinthians would have been teenagers). Since pederasty and male prostitution were widely practiced in ancient Greek culture and were despised in Jewish culture, the most likely interpretation of Paul’s word is that he was condemning those particular practices, especially when they were engaged in by married men.
Is that where “arse” comes from? Seriously. Curiously, but seriously.
No. According to this site, “arse” (and “ass”) derives from an Indo-European word meaning the “hindquarters of an animal.”
Ta.
So are you saying that everything in the Bible is a FACT??? Why the Bible, and not Mother Goose? It’s a **fact **that Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
This is what happens when people can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Another name for this is psychosis.
Is there a name for people who attempt to turn political/moral arguments into banal arguments between atheism and Christianity?
I’m having a hard time convincing myself that this reference was benign, given that he goes right on to say “On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage.” This certainly makes it sound like gays are sinners, but we can tolerate them up to a point, at which point we can compromise no more.
But I’m not sure how I feel about the sinners thing, taken all by itself. Certianly not overt enough to even say for sure it was implied. It would seem a little weird in situations where the conduct was clearly good, clearly bad, and so on.
"Mr. President, some of your supporters think that many of Saddam’s acts against his own populace were immoral care to comment?
"I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own."
“Mr. President, some of your supporters think that abortion is immoral, care to comment?”
"I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own."
“Mr. President, some of your supporters think that Tony Blair’s conduct in the Iraqi war was immoral, care to comment?”
"I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own."
“Mr. President, some of your supporters think that saving babies from burning buildings is immoral, care to comment?”
"I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own."