Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Most people who are not christian's don't care. Coveting is sinful, but it is not against the law. Not honoring your father and mother is sinful, but I'm not in prison.

So, basically, it doesn't matter if it is sinful or not. And homosexuality's sinfulness is only stated in one sentence in the bible, and that sentence can be left to interpretation, like much of the bible can be.



Of course I do, but on their own accord. I don't shove my religious beliefs down anyone's throat or state that "because something is against my faith" that it should be against the law.



What I meant is rationality under the laws of the nation. The barring of gay marriage under these reasons alone does not present a rational arguement against it. Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean that it should be law. Why is that? Not everyone in the USA is christian. By instilling religious doctrine into law, it is in direct violation of the Treaty of Tripoli and the First Amendment.

It is a direct violation of the first amendment because it would be showing religious favortism, making the freedom of relgion statement null and void.

Now, the first line of the Treaty of Tripoli states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"... putting christian doctrine into law would violate that statement.

Religion is personal morality that should pertain to you and no one else. Especially if it infringes on the rights and happiness of others. Which in this case, it does.

Now, is there any other reason why you have a problem with gay marriage?

Oh yeah! TOTPD!!!

_________________

Right now it's 4 AM. I really didn't want to get into an argument at this hour, or at any hour. I hate arguments. So this will be my last post.

First of all, it's more than one sentence in the Bible. Leviticus mentions it, and before you say anything about the Old Testament laws no longer applying, so does 1 Corinthians. I think it might be somewhere else as well.

I'm not shoving my religious beliefs down your throat. That assumes that your mouth is open. Less metaphorically, I have the right to state my religious beliefs, and you have the right not to listen. To close your mouth to them, as it is.

Perhaps I should clarify my beliefs. I'm against gay marriage as a concept. As a legal practice, I know well enough about things to predict that it will be legalized anyway.

EDIT: Another reason? What more do you want? Isn't a person's world view reason enough?

RE-EDIT: Like I said, this is my last post, so don't answer that. I won't reply if you do, since I will be asleep. Which I should have been four hours ago,

I already know this. I've read the bible several times. But then again, the bible says it is a sin to eat shellfish...



By saying that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed on the sheer grounds of religion and because its "sinful", yes you are.



I hope it does get legalized. But with the direction the country is going, it's going to take a lot of sway to get people's heads out of the sand and clean the puritan stain off of this country.



No. You also need other ideas and facts to back up your arguements. Not just religious sentiments.

This means that making something into law just because the bible says it's wrong is unjustifiable. By doing that, it disenfranchises many of the other religions practiced in this country, as well as people who don't practice any religion.

Remember, there is a separation of church and state. And let's hope it stays that way.

_________________

Uh ... I'm not going to take my shirt off and enter the ring just yet. Too busy to fight two brick walls who go "see, there's a nazi! Therefore, you're all evil nazis! We're innocent pure angelic liberals!" I just wanted to point something out to Crystillina ...

In the First Epistle of Corinithians, Peter was describing what the Israelites did back in their day (recalling the laws of Leviticus). He agreed that homosexuality is a sin, but he's an apostle, not God.

I also question the traditional view that Leviticus is a code of laws handed down by God, given the Council of Jerusalem found quite a few laws irrelevant or unbinding in the case of gentile Christians (as far as I understand Acts, that is). If a bunch of apostles can sit there and say "okay, these laws don't mean anything to us," that tells me that the laws aren't divine mandate. I mean, they wouldn't dare defy God's word on how we should live, would they?

For that reason, (some of) the only things I regard as God's command are what Jesus himself actually said, and the ten commandments presented to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Leviticus ... it largely conflicts with modern civil and common law anyway.

Anyway, I apologize for presenting unpainted toast. Just couldn't resist pointing this out ...

_________________

Just for the record...

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Even on the map that that site provides, you can still see similarities, especially in the western states.

_________________

Except that, you know, very few people living in those states actually think slavery was a good thing, and even fewer support its return. Around here (North Carolina), we call those people "white supremacist hicks". Don't see very many either.

Veering this a bit more off-topic...

About the laws set out in Leviticus: That's pretty much the point. Reading through it, there are a lot of things that seem fairly implausible today. However, there are three things to keep in mind. First, they were intended as a set of rules for a nation, rather than for all Christians. Second of all, they were effectively superseded. But then, third of all, quite a bit have been reinforced or restated in the New Testament.

AH-OK! Let's all chillax a lil' bit. I know you're just trying to prove a point, but that's no reason to go bitin' peoples heads off.

_________________

And Upsilon descends with all the force of Sgt. Gunny Hartman riding a cruise missile into a castle. You get a gold star, my man.



HEH. Is that so? What's all that mottled red and blue all over the former Confedracy and Union states, then? Heck, I see a nice banana-shaped red streak sweeping down from New York and into the Deep South. The Butternut Reigon is lookin' pretty red too.

There's few parts on the map that are strongholds of redness or blueness, and they don't follow the lines of the Civil War.

The 2004 election was far too divisive to villainize parts of the nation as "evil red state conservative facist bigots just like in the Civil War." I wish bigots like the author of Doonesbury would understand that, but nooo.

And a loaf of unpainted toast:



As I understand it (but I'm no scholar) Jesus was a radical change to Jewish society, though rather than becoming a movement within Jewish society it formed a new religion. That includes rewriting the books, not enforcing old ways. It's my opinion that since homosexuality's strongest detractors in the bible were men and not God, and given Jesus didn't openly speak out against homosexuality (rather he spoke out against lust, which is far a more general and all-encompassing extreme of human sexual nature) ... I just don't see why homosexuality is such a grevious immoral thing.

But I should probably stop talking about it here and take it to the homosexuality discussion threads ...

_________________

I would like to point out that it still hasn't been proven that all bigots are conservative, no matter how much people scream it. Even if the whole "south" was red (and, guess what, kiddies, it isn't even close. Even the people in appalachia, and everyone knows they're racist, voted blue), it wouldn't be proof, as the people in the "south" are not all bigots. In fact, most aren't. Of course it'd take something like, hmmm, maybe actually visiting the "south" to see that.

Let's assume that the statement is true, however, just for the sake of argument. Correlation does not equal causation, even if EVERY bigot on this planet were conservative, it doesn't prove the point that Rosalie really meant when she started this thread. All conservatives are not bigots. If you believe that, you're either really naive, or REALLY stupid.

Note: I don't think Appalachians are racist, just playing on the stereotype.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Two sad things here:

1. That this thread even exists and needs to be debated and

2. That Rose has been so adamant that she's right on this "conservatives are bigots" thing. I guarantee she'll show back up here after she gets out of her 6th grade today and STILL argue the point.

Please, Please, Please... Look at my post in the Michael Moore thread. Or better yet, just look on the Wikipedia at the information on the political make-up of the US during civil war time. The south was democratic (or left, or liberal if you want). It was the north where all the republicans (or conservatives) were. In case you forgot, it was the south that had slavery... oh wait your picture already showed this.

As an answer to lahamitoa.

Rose will not be back, so stop commenting on her.

_________________

I thought as much.

_________________

I agree. Now that Rosalie has been banned (which is a shame, because I think she did have a lot of perfectly valid ideas, and it's sad that she lets her anger management issues get in the way by presenting them in such a pompous way during discussion), I think this thread has outlived its' usefulness. And the way the arguments are heading right now, it could get even more ugly than it already is.

My two cents: I can't say I necessarily disagree with the idea that quite a lot of the most bigoted views and people in politics come from the conservative side. But the important thing is that does NOT in any way mean the same thing as "I believe all or most conservatives are bigots" or that "there aren't any hateful, clueless liberals out there", as both sides are certainly represented by their share of good and bad people, and it especially shouldn't be taken as attacking your character if you happen to be conservative. It's just something I've noticed in general. I'm just glad that Deathly Pallor was able to actually back up this viewpoint to a respectable degree, better than I ever could, though even he probably went a bit too far with it.

I do have to agree, however, that the Civil War/election map thing is a total load of crap, for too many reasons to go into. It appears valid at first to the naked eye, but that's without doing any reading into the politics in both eras.

About the political parties of the time, you have to remember something. Back then, the Republicans were considered the progressive and liberal party, and the Democrats were considered the conservative traditionalist party. They ended up switching at some point. I'm trying to verify a date.

But I'm not a democrat or a republican.

By posting the civil war map, I didn't intend to say that southerners are racists. I have family that live down there, so I really can't say that. What I am saying is that the major social change of that era was abolishing slavery, and how certain regions opposed that social change at that time.

Also, seeing the voting pattern of most republicans and how they are opposing many of the social changes that are being put forth in this era (for example; Gay Marriage) and that the same regions that are opposed to social change in that era, are still opposed to social change now.

Okay...

TOASTPAINT

_________________

More precisely, they were given as laws to govern a particular nation-state. Second, it's not so much that they've been superceded, but rather that they were never applicable to Gentile Christians to start with. That is one clear theme of the writings of St. Paul: righteousness for Christians comes not from obeying the letter of the Old Testament Laws (the Torah), but rather from faith in Jesus Christ.

_________________