BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:15 PM

In the church I linked to in my post just above, they discussed the matter long and hard before they decided to become a signatory of the "Reconciled in Christ" Affirmation of Welcome. When the congregation took the vote, the votes in favor were an overwhelming majority, something like 95%.

I think about four or five people left the church and joined other churches. But once the word was out that Central had signed the affirmation, there was a sudden influx of new members. Maybe twenty-five or thirty people right off. And it's continued to grow since.

And no, not all of them were gay. Some were, but most of the new members were young married couples, many with young children. They wanted to join a church, and had been looking for a one that was liberal, open-minded, and focused on the positive aspects of religion, such as being socially active in the community (free lunch programs, helping the homeless find affordable housing, and such), and being mutually supportive. They had tried many churches, but wanted nothing to do with the exclusivity, negativity, and easy condemnation of others that so many of them seem to be bogged down in.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

Boy, now I'm getting confused... ;-)

How does someone else's marriage choice affect my rights? The only thing that can directly affect my rights is a law restricting my behaviour, seems to me. If I were restricted by law from marrying the person of my choice, then that would be an attack on my rights.

What do I care who the other guy (or gal) decides to marry? Like I said before, that's his or her cross to bear. If people want to marry, they obviously have an important emotional connection don't they? What does that have to do with my rights?

If they wanted to alter the rules of a church I was in, of course, then I would be concerned. As I'm not in any church, I'm not facing that particular issue. If I were, then I would face the issue within that church, but not outside it. Yes...I can understand that congregations are having trouble dealing with the issue when it comes to things like gay marriage within the congregation....gays entering the ministry...etc.

Okay, fine, so it's a problem for them. I guess they'll work it out whichever way they collectively decide to as time goes by. Fine with me. It's not really my business, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

"The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions."

Not so.

Most gays that I'm acquainted with (about 8% to 10% of the people I know, which, according to Alfred Kinsey, is the general demographic of the whole human race) don't give a billy hoot whether their lifestyle is accepted by certain Christian churches or not. I specify "certain Christian churches" because some Christian churches accept anyone who wishes to participate in the spiritual life of the church regardless of their sexual orientation--or practice. EXAMPLE, just nine blocks south of where I live. And HERE is where they spell it out specifically. And there are quite a number of other Christian churches all over the country that are signatories to that same "Affirmation of Welcome."

Was your post "irrational," Ake? Well, it was most certainly inaccurate.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

I take it you don't have a valid answer.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

Sorry KB but I just can't be arsed. (if you'll pardon the expression)

Sometimes life's a bitch and you've just got to work things out for yourself....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

But how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

I'm the idiot who set you right about the UK withdrawal from Basra :0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

"The difference is, granting those "rights" to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems.

And if you cannot see that difference you should not be having this discussion..."Ake

Well, I, for one, don't see that "granting those rights to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems."

In what way? I'm serious.

And don't you be tellin' me that I should not be having this discussion. Ha, I say. Who are YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.


You are mistaken, Ake. They want civil rights to marry, regardless of what churches say or do not say.

The big difference is that civil rights -- and granting them to others -- is a concomitant of citizenship.

Being a Xian or Muslim or Jane or Jew is entirely voluntary. In this country, as well as in the UK, no matter which of these sects or groups you belong to, you are obliged to respect the core set of civic freedoms of others. The firmly held beliefs of Christians, for example, are respected as long as they do not leak into the commons in such a way as infringing on the more basic civic rights of others.

We lived through all this in the Sixties; the Klan had religious beliefs about the superiority of races, for example. We fought through it in the 40's where religious justification was used to promote eugenics and racial extremism.

It doesn't work and it should be clearly and deliberately eradicated as a flawed cognitive process; it is not a belief, it's a neurosis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

"I see little difference between denying rights to a gay person, man or woman, and denying rights to someone because their eyes are pale blue, or their hair is red, or their skin is dark brown, or their eyes are differently shaped."

The difference is, granting those "rights" to homosexuals denies or affects the rights of the Christians or Moslems.

And if you cannot see that difference you should not be having this discussion...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:08 PM

Do you mean my last post was irrational Don?

Because I thought I had laid out an example of a minority's "rights" subverting a majority's "rights"

The homosexuals want their lifestyle accepted by Christianity or Islam, regardless of the firmly held beliefs of the followers of these religions.

It should not matter to homosexuals whether they are "married" in church or not, other than to push for more acceptance by mainstream society

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

I have straight mates who neither act straight nor flaunt their sexuality publically,how i wish they were all like that because they are ridiculously offensive and annoying.And why do television people think that we would be entertained by them,do they think straight = funny? To all straights,shut up,fit in and keep your sex life to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Don:

In response to your last question, no.

should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious?

There is no core belief in Xianity about sexuality. There are a number of passing comments here and there (selling unfaithful wives or stoning them to death, for example) which have long since been outgrown. Most of these are in the Olld Testament before God's New Deal.

A CORE belief would be something like "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.". Or "Turn the other cheek." (Not to be humorous.)

The entire confusion between secular agreements and the rights of religion comes about because the fundamentals that make all men alike aren't granted primacy in the rulemaking. Everyone needs to live, eat, be free and pursue happiness. The FIRST contract of a society is how you are going to respect the individual (or not) in fundamental ways. Adding arbitrary moral contracts, such as are enjoyed by subgroups, cults and other clumps of people who decide to think left-handed thoughts only on Wednesday, or whatever.

If a religious believer cannot consent to honor the common contract that joins all people in basic mutual respect, then he should buzz off and be an authoritarian busybody somewhere else. If he believes that God only speaks through the decapitated neck-holes of white teenage girls, he is STILL a criminal if he starts developing a supply of same, and will hang as surely for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

"Can anyone give me a rational reason why it's anybody's business?"


             Attacking homosexuality increases donations to churches.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:10 PM

Does the majority have the right to deny rights to a minority? Especially if that minority does nothing that really affects the majority except offend the sensibilities of some of them? That strikes me as a very bad precedent to set.

"It's their followers who come after them who insist upon faith labels and exclusivity. Their followers take a message of universality and turn it into a message of exclusivity!"

Exactly my point.

I'm not naïve. I'm fully aware that suggesting that Christian churches should follow the teachings of Jesus is tilting at windmills.

I know a great deal about the beginnings of the Christian church, and this includes the fact that within less than a century and a half after Jesus' crucifixion, there were some eighty-two "bishops," all claiming to be "spiritual descendants" of the original twelve apostles—and rather than following the "love one another" injunction, because of strenuous disagreements on minor points of doctrine, they hated each other's guts and were "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center.

Their excommunications didn't carry much weight because this was before the founding of the Catholic Church. There was no one central body. That took place when the emperor, Constantine, became a Christian (more for political than religious reasons), said "Dogma is what I say it is!" and gave religion the force of secular law. He also set up the conference at Nicea, out of which grew the Nicene Creed, to essentially bring an end to the bickering bishops and unite the Church under one head.

And where was Jesus in all this? You might well ask. . . .

By the way:    In my opinion, the matter of the validity of religious views of homosexuality falls into the same category as the validity of Creationism and its insistence that the universe came into existence no earlier that 4004 B.C.—the disagreement between Biblical literalists and modern science.

There is considerable scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a matter of choice at all. One comes wired that way. While discussing this with a gay acquaintance of mine some years ago, he said, "From my very early teens, I had girl friends but I felt no physical attraction to girls and women. I did feel physical attraction toward some men. It was not a matter of choice. I did not decide to be gay. After all, considering the prejudice that gays face, not to mention the times one is called 'fag' and 'queer,' and is sometimes actually physically assaulted—who in his right mind would choose to be 'gay'? I had no choice in the matter!"

I see little difference between denying rights to a gay person, man or woman, and denying rights to someone because their eyes are pale blue, or their hair is red, or their skin is dark brown, or their eyes are differently shaped.

Nor do I see that what the fellow who comes to our writers' group and his partner do in the privacy of their own apartment a half-dozen blocks from here has any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage.

Lots of churches regard homosexuality as a sin. In days gone by, Christian churches believed being Jewish—or anything but Christian—was a sin (some still do). Some Muslims believe being anything but a devout Muslim is a sin. Pick a human activity. Or pick a belief! Somebody somewhere is going to believe it's a sin.

Can anyone give me a rational reason why it's anybody's business?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM

Ake, in what way are "devout Christians and Moslems" affected by the public granting the same rights to a minority as they themselves enjoy? Here in Juneau, Alaska, I know several couples who can't get the benefits married people gain automatically.

In this countryt is not at all uncommon for this situation to develop: One half of a couple takes ill or is injured and is in the hospital at death's door, so to speak. The surviving half cannot make any decisions in the care of the ill person.

And if the ill person's family - who may have always resisted/resented/fought the sexual orientation of their relative - shows up at the hospital, they can leave orders at the desk that the surviving half of the couple cannot visit.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:43 PM

Hawk..I've been away.

Homosexuality is a moral issue to devout Christians,or Moslems. Maybe not to you or I. As far as people's rights are concerned, there are many many more Devout Christians and Moslems in this world than homosexuals. Therefore, should this minority (homo sexuals) have the right to subvert the core beliefs of the religious?

And do we just not care because we think they're a bunch of nutters?

Wouldn't that be a little hypocritical in a gathering of "liberal democrats" like us?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:41 AM

In regards to Ron Davies posting about keeping this out of the 2008 campaign as it brings the opposition to the polls, I'm afraid Ihave to agree. The problem is that it is the political right wing that usually brings this issue to the campaign. Witness what happened in Ohio in 2004. A constitutional ammendment that would forbid any future laws legalizing same sex marriage was put on the ballot in the November election that year, even though there had never been any serious attempt to legalize same sex marriage in Ohio. It had been a non-issue until the Republicans cynically put this on the ballot in order to bring more conservatives to the polls. It worked exactly as intended. Bush won Ohio by 1% of the vote and won the country by winning Ohio. If Ohio had gone to Kerry he would be our president.
    The ammendment also passed, so we now have a situation where we are telling future generations what to believe (as if they couldn't vote to overturn this ammendment in a hundred years if they wished). How absurd. But the real damage was in giving this moronic cowboy and his Machiavellian administration four more years to ruin this and other nations.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:29 AM

Obviously Jesus wasn't a Christian, by definition, given that, whatever else they might be, Christians have to be in soem way followers of Jesus. I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that he could be described in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,sinky
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:12 AM

The way things are going it wouldnt surprise me if it became compulsary for us all to marry the same sex.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM

Hee hee

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,sinky
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:55 AM

I have gay mates who neither act gay or flaunt their sexuality publically,how i wish they were all like that because they are ridiculously offensive and annoying.And why do television people think that we would be entertained by them,do they think gay = funny? To all gays,shut up,fit in and keep your sex life to yourself,get married and stop acting like annoying exhibitionists or i will organise a heterosexual march through London.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM

I could not have made the point about divisions within Christianity better than Don Firth's lecture on "true" Christianity. Is it possible that he is not heard that every Christian sect believes it's version of doctrine is the only true adherence to the word of Jesus. It is this arrogance that the Roman Catholic Church has displayed in dismissing everyone who isn't them. And they are not the holiest of thou. My bridge partner, a "Jew for Jesus", has informed me that there are very few "real" Christian churches and he is privelaged to belong to one. He is quite certain on this point.
If marriage is a holy union (and centuries of history so define it),
the USA, founded on the pribciple of separation of church and state, should not be in the business of endorsing a religious ceremony. We should be leaving marriage to the church and granting legal contract status to all consenting adults who apply. It is not for our government to make moral doctrine. That is the job of religion or, in cases like mine, the individual citizen. I have managed to survive
without the benefit of religion and, if I am to be judged one day, as my bridge partner has warned me, I shall face it like Robert Henley, "...my head is bloody but unbowed".
The best we can do, Don, is to be kind to one another and that lesson precedes the teaching of the Christ.

                        Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM

Don, you asked, "Little Hawk (and others), can a church that does not take its core beliefs from the teachings of Jesus really, legitimately, call itself a "Christian" church?"

That's a question worth asking. But anyone can call themselves anything they choose to, can't they? If they choose to...

But here's another question. Was Jesus a Christian? I don't think so. As far as I know, he was a Jew, endeavouring to reform the teachings in the Jewish church of his time. Furthermore, I think he was giving a Universalist teaching that transcended all organized religions. In this respect I think he went far beyond being "Christian" or Jewish, but that's just my private opinion.

I think that all truly great prophets (such as Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna, for example) go way beyond the limitations of belonging to any single identifiable faith. It's their followers who come after them who insist upon faith labels and exclusivity. Their followers take a message of universality and turn it into a message of exclusivity!

Thus does the jealous human ego in people undo the works of the greatest spiritual teachers and turn them into a competitive struggle for superemacy between different official religions. They divide people instead of uniting them. And that's sad!

I wrote a song once called "Jesus Was Not a Christian". It's praiseworthy of Jesus, and quite critical of various aspects of the religion(s) founded in his name.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:00 AM

Phil, you're allowed to average that over the whole population. Here's another scenario. Man grows potatoes. Species continues. Man doesn't grow potatoes, species starves to death. It's natural to grow potatoes, but I'd suggest it's not immoral to be a computer programmer, indeed I'm tolerant of computer programming between consenting adults in private.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:39 AM

Big Phil

The suggestion is that that gay marriage be optional for those who want it, not compulsory for everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Big Phil
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM

1 man, and 1 woman the species continues. 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman the species ends - its fact, so man/woman is correct, all other is wrong by my principles.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:40 AM

Jesus on marriage: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife

That's allowing a man to live with his wife. It is apparently mandatory, as is uxorilocality. Living with either or both of the man's parents is also specifically forbidden by this part of the New Testament. It doesn't appear to forbid, or even say anything about, women who aren't his wife, or other men, even bodhran players.

Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

That would appear to make it compulsory for divorce court judges to be female, or if male to be satisfied that they had not been joined together by God, but by some other authority.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:30 AM

I don't recall that Jesus said... anything that could be construed to be about homosexuality. (Don Firth)

Don, you should know better than that. History has shown that the Bible has been used to support so many sometimes contradictory ideas and acts that one should never underestimated human fantasy.

Georgiansilver has shown you how the con side can be read in the NT, here's how the pro side has been read in(to) the NT (found on a pro gay site construed as a Jesus statement endorsing male homosexual acts):

There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him

Jesus on marriage: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

Yup necrophilia I meant of course, mind you not too sure about necromancy either ¦¬]
I live in a village where they hold the biggest lamb sales in Europe, if you come visit when the sales are on, I could help you pick out a pretty one.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:53 AM

PMB

I think you are thinking of necrophilia (not implying "thinking of" as meaning "considering indulging in"). Apart from finding it distasteful, I can't see who is being harmed anyway.

I think consent might be a problem unless they said something specific in their will. On the other hand, most marriage vows say "Till death us do part". You can sleep with whoever you like once your dead.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:44 AM

Necromancy is legal, Giok. I think you are thinking of necrophilia (not implying "thinking of" as meaning "considering indulging in"). Apart from finding it distasteful, I can't see who is being harmed anyway.

Incest? As long as (1) no child is involved, either as one of the parties or conceived as a result, and (2) full consent is involved, which is difficult to demonstrate when power relationships come in, I can't see the harm done. Perfectly normal in some societies, see ancient Egypt, also see Eric Gill. Not for me.

Bestiality? Can't see how a non- human can give meaningful consent, and I don't fancy the sheep round here, many of thm are Jacob's anyway. On the other hand, if we abuse animals so far as to kill them and eat them, why the hangup about sex?

I think informed consent is the key phrase.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:20 AM

Will the time soon be right for incest to be recognised as legal, or necromancy, bestiality, etc etc.
Single issue politics seems to be the way the world is going now.
I think it's time I came out of the closet.
I AM SCOTTISH, AND A MEMBER OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONALIST PARTY.
There, I feel better now I've got that off my chest.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

Georgiansilver

As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is a sin.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:22 AM

I don't think Jesus said anything about homosexuality (St. Paul did IIRC, but he wasn't the same bloke), though he did ask us to love each other*... hey, why don't the Bible literalists give everything they have to the poor? Why don't they turn the other cheek? Why forego the blessings of being meek? Why do they risk judgement by judging? Why does literalism only seem to apply to condemnation of others? Motes and beams and barley grows...

I doubt if homosexuals want ACCEPTANCE by censorious Christians. They just want persecution to stop. That politician's "crime" is not homosexuality- it is hypocrisy.

(* Yes, I know, you can go through a whole scholarship that explains why by "love" he meant "not love". Funny how the arguments are always there when you want to keep a prejudice.)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:24 AM

If you return to the Old Testament you will find that homosexuality was considered a sin and even after Jesus ministry it is again mentioned as a sin in the New Testament. When Jesus came his words portrayed the fact that He had come to fulfil the law...not to change it...that is His Fathers law from time immemorial not the laws of Israel and the known world. As far as the Bible is concerned, homosexuality is a sin.
As far as Jesus words apply....He gave a commandment...."This is my commandment...that you love one another as I have loved you" and as Christians we are ordered to love everyone...yes everyone...but abhor the sin in the world. We have to show love, understanding, mercy, grace etc to Homosexuals but cannot accept the sin. Sadly the homosexuals cannot accept this...they want acceptance of the sin also which from true Christians they can never have.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:54 PM

Little Hawk (and others), can a church that does not take its core beliefs from the teachings of Jesus really, legitimately, call itseld a "Christian" church?

I know there are a lot who do, but I think that's a valid question that requires an answer--with support.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

I work - part time - for an Episcopal church, and I think that would be called a Christian church. In the course of my work I read a good deal about their beliefs and their practices. And guess what? They are not even up tight about homosexuality. From what I gather, their concern is that each individual face themselves honestly and fearlessly. I think they consider being 'in the closet' as seriously hurtful to the human spirit.

That said, I also am aware that the greater body of Episcopalians is undergoing a tremendous upheaval right now for a couple of reasons: For one, their current national leader is a woman, secondly they recently ordained an actively gay priest. It appears that some will or perhaps already have break away.

Aren't human beings wonderful?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:29 PM

Personally, I don't care what various sects think about the beliefs or non-beliefs of other sects, including homosects. AFAIAC it is none of their god-blessed beeswax.

But I will say that if I were founding a religion to save people's souls, I don't think I would consider it wise policy t make it intolerant.

Especially about things with only the vaguest connection thereto.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Mike Miller
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:05 PM

Yeah Hawk, the various sects, denominations, divisions within divisions and god knows what else that make up the entity of American Christianity are, frequently at odds. They may not agree on much but, in the area of gay marriage, they toe the party line. And, it's not just the Christian Churches that oppose gay marriage on moral or religious grounds. Islam and orthodox Jewery make strange bedfellows but they are as one on the subject of bedfellows.
I kind of sympathize with them. I get the same feeling when I see that singer/songwriters want to be called folksingers (because there are more folk venues than poetry venues) but I'll just have to live with it. Someday traditional music will be in vogue again and I'll know the songs already.

                         Mike

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:45 PM

That's right, Don. ;-)

The negative stuff about homosexuality comes from some other passages in the Bible, not from Jesus.

Actually, there are several different sets of core beliefs, as one finds when talking to different Christians. Some come from Jesus, some come from Paul, some come from other apostles' writings, some come from the Old Testament, and still others come from various councils of bishops held in Constantinople or Rome at a much later date or even from various preachers in the 1800s and 1900s. The Rapture, as a matter of fact, is a concept that seems to have arisen in the 1800s as far as I know, and it is a core belief of some Christians.

There are enough different core beliefs out there to float the Titanic.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:33 PM

If, by "Church," you mean the Christian church, then (and this covers all denominations) the core beliefs are found in the four Gospels, and are enunciated by a fellow named Jesus.

Granted, a lot of presumably Christian churches don't pay much attention to what Jesus said. In fact, many of them say and do a lot of things that Jesus would—and did—disapprove of.

And I don't recall that Jesus said one single word about homosexuality, or anything that could be construed to be about homosexuality.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:47 PM

Yeah, yeah.....


See? The Taoists were right. Rubbing Mirrors is better for the health.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Justa Picker
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:45 PM

All right I'll admit it.
I support same sex legislation ...





















... provided both chicks are hot.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:20 PM

Well, it depends who you're talking about when it comes to core beliefs, doesn't it?

Akenaton, I can understand people within a given church/religion/congregation getting upset about this issue if it is being brought into their own religious community....for sure! Then it is their business. And I can understand them debating it or opposing it. For them it is a vital issue which has to do with their beliefs. It just isn't for me, since I don't belong to such a community.

You said something which caught my notice. You said, "The problem is that homosexuality and how we view it has become a political issue, when in fact it is an issue of morality."

Is it an issue of morality? I'm not convinced it is. I think it's primarily an issue of social custom, not morality...but here's another angle: I've studied Taoism a good deal, and I have a tremendous respect for the Taoist philosophy which was prevalent in ancient China in its golden age. It's a very non-judgemental and harmonious philosophy (unlike rule-bound Confucianism, which is its antithesis). Taoism favors individuality, free thinking, and nonaggression. It favors finding the harmonious path and having as few restrictive rules in life as possible. In a community of practicing Taoists you wouldn't really need any rules, because their way of living, if it truly was Taoist, would be harmless and would not threaten others in any way.

In any case, here's how the Taoists viewed sexuality.

They did not see sex as a moral issue at all. They saw it as a health issue, sex being a healthy natural act that all animals and humans engage in for obvious reasons (emotional, social, recreational, and procreational). They felt that to suppress one's sexuality was unnatural and therefore unhealthy. They felt on the other hand that to overemphasize and overdo sexuality was also unhealthy, injurious to the body, and indicative of an emotional problem of some kind. The harmonious path would be the middle path between extremes.

Taoists had no rules against lesbian sexuality ("Rubbing Mirrors" in their vernacular) or male homosexuality ("Dragon Yang"), but they did have a health cautionary where the latter was involved. Their opinion, based on observation of the practice, was that the bringing together of two passive sexual forces ("Rubbing Mirrors") was in no way injurious to the health of the women involved, but that the bringing together of two aggressive sexual forces ("Dragon Yang") was to some extent injurious to the health of the men involved.

So, although there were certainly no rules against it in Taoism, men were cautioned that practicing too much Dragon Yang could over time cause damage to their physical health. It was a minor caution, not a restriction, and as I say, they did NOT regard it as a moral issue. No one would be seen in a condemnatory way for having practiced Dragon Yang.

Taoists felt that males were more subject to energy damage from overuse or misuse of their sexuality than women were, so they had a number of cautionary suggestions about how to deal with that.

Going by my own (albeit limited) observations of people and sexuality in this life, I think they were onto something real there.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:38 PM

"Acceptance of homosexuality by the Church strikes at their core beliefs."

WHAT!??

Core beliefs? Since when?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

This is a bit simplistic but:

I like the separation of church and state; and the separation of marriage as a valid man and woman institution. I want to keep The Girl Scouts separate from the Boy Scouts: the Brownies separate from the Cub Scouts, Campfire Girls separate from the hot-as-fire boys; Bluebird Girls from…

And to the point: the forever and always separation of gay civil unions from the term marriage.

And I am one of those mean old atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM

And just what do we say to those who think that having their rights means being able to impose their views on others?

We say "That's not the way it works in America, pal. Go somewhere else where doing that is all the rage. Russia or Iran, maybe?"



A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

This bumper sticker says it all for me:

My sexual preference is often.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:27 PM

"make sure its "rights for everyone"

And just what do we say to those who think that having their rights means being able to impose their views on others?

We **ALL** understand that certain groups are not ever going to agree that same-sex marriage ...or same-sex anything... is ok. No one is doubting that some will be "offended" if same-sex marriages are allowed. Some are still 'offended' that skirts are worn above the knee, or that 'inferior races' are allowed to vote.

It is NOT that we need to find some way to keep these folks from BEING offended....we need to instill, in some way, a concept of what is none of their business, and there needs to be clear laws protecting certain aspects of life which are none of other's business.

....and yes, at the same time, we need same sex couples to TRY to avoid the most provocative behavior. I have NO doubt that a lot of tension could be reduced if each side made some effort to co-exist with respect for the other side.