Sexuality? - Page 3

Alright, someone told me the other day that homosexuals are sinners because it's "against the bible". But I thought divorce was against the bible as well, maybe I'm wrong, but if that is true why isn't every Christian criticizing any person who gets divorced (which is a lot in this day and age). Maybe someone with more knowledge of the bible could tell me if that is correct.

Okay, I am officially sick of people using this type of reasoning: which every right thinking person should have outgrown by grade three. Besides, why does anyone need everyone else to accept their lifestyle? Having been brought up Catholic, I know that the best part of sinning is the guilt.

I criticize people who get divorced. I criticize people who are gay, too. And people who don't match their belt to their shoes. And people who weigh too much... or too little. And it really bugs me when people aren't named 'Ken' and don't have dark hair and eyes. Oh yeah and I absolutely hate elitists and anyone who isn't an elitist like me.

Sure I guess it is 3rd grade reasoning, its simple logic. Its a double standard within their own beliefs. Millions of Christians get angry because gays are marrying and they ban it because its against the bible. With that logic they should ban divorce too. But they dont, maybe because more than a few of those Christians who hate gays might be divorced too. They shouldn't be picking and choosing which "sins" they suddenly decide should be made laws. But whatever, it's just my opinion.

Yeah, it sure is a shame that those pesky Christians got "Thou shalt not kill" into the law books.

Unless of course it's Iraqis (SP?) and we're after their oil (er -looking for weapons of mass destruction), or capital punishment...

Fair enough.  I don't think the neoconservatives have always done the correct thing.  Nonetheless, I agree with capital punishment as a deterrent.  However, I concede that it needs some serious stream-lining.  My previous post was to show the importance of basing legal law on moral codes.    And, just for the record, you spelled Iraqis correctly.

Doesn't work, even logically. Capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous criminals, so it's certainly not going to deter "lesser" crimes. Nor is capital punishment going to deter serial murderers and others who commit other truly brutal acts. Punishment only works as a deterrent when the punishment is percieved as being disproportionately harsh compared to the transgression. For example, capital punishment for petty thieves would certainly be a deterrent. But I don't think mst people want to live in such a state. And statistically, there is no compelling evidence of a correlation between lower crime and states/nations with capital punishment. The very opposite is true, in fact. And now, for my rant. I'm no namby pamby liberal. But the conservatives in the nation are, in my humble opinion, barely civilized. The religious rhetoric, the intolerance and lack of sympathy for other cultures and other points of view, the frequency of violent, "rogue" religious sects that are offshoots of mainstream religions (endemic of societies in which a lot of people feel alienated and seek to derive meaning and fellowship from religion). It may as well be arch-conservative Americans hiding in caves on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and the Taliban and Osama hunting them with the help of the Pakistanian security forces.

There are some grounds for divorce covered in the Bible, adultery is one of them; however it is safe to say that the majority of cases are against the biblical principle of marriage. LA Guy, what is your counter-argument exactly?

The biggest hypocrisy of today's conservative movement (in both its social and economic meanings) is their immigration policy. Economically, immigration restriction is against free trade of labours. Socially, it is against one of the most long-standing American traditions, simply because the new immigrants aren't Anglo-Saxons. The vast majority of European colonies came to America for two reasons: 1) human rights violation (which was often religious in nature) in Europe, and 2) economic opportunity (usually for abundant farming lands that were increasingly rare in Europe); the very same reasons of most contemporary immigrants. Any conservative who disagree probably should pack up and leave.

Hi FCS, Not a counterargument per se.  However, the original line of reasoning doesn't hold because there is no a priori reason that a failure to enforce or adhere to one part of a particular set of rules makes the other section part invalid.  And Andrew does not present any compelling argument, or any argument at all, why there should be such a link.  (What we are talking about here are not rules or laws, but words are failing me today.)  The argument is also based on a factual error.  There are provisions in the Bible (old testament) for divorce, although these may be interpreted as having been superseded by teachings in the New Testament.  On the other hand, there are no contradictory or ambiguous passages about the acceptability of homosexuality.

Yea I know it wasn't much of an argument, because I don't know shit about the Bible or it's rules. Just something I thought up while reading this. But should the President make policy decisions off of his own personal religion? What was Bush's reasoning for banning it exactly.

Andrew, From what I understand, the main argument against same-sex marriages is the fact that society needs men to marry women. Without heterosexual couples, childbirth cannot take place. Without childbirth, a set of people eventually dies off. A defense insists that the rights of homosexuals are not limited, since they can still marry -- they just can't marry someone of the same sex. When proponents of gay marriage say they are not able to marry the people they love, does that mean, since some middle-aged man very much loves his 13-yr old cousin, he should be allowed to marry her? A compelling argument is the question of, assuming gay marriages do become accepted, where does society stop? Those are just a few of the arguments I've heard, and I'm sorry I can't provide more. Personally, I like the idea of civil unions, because marriage is -- in fact -- a bond between a man and a woman. But, who am I to stop someone else from sharing a life-long partnership under another name sactioned by the state?

Who needs their partnership sanctioned by the state? The state doesn't need to be recognizing ANY marriages, let alone homosexual ones. Institute the Flat Tax, let any marriage 'motivations' fall to the wayside, and boom: a fairer society. Marriages belong in churches/halls/shanties/whatever, not in government file boxes.

Okay, so "sanctioned" was not the best word. I don't know... "allowed by"? As in, the state should not prohibit such things as relationships.