Same-Sex Marriages

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:13 pm

fatpie wrote:

Just because something is clear, doesn't mean there will be no argument

But, er, it's not at all clear.

What's clear is that you've run out of arguments because you don't know what you're talking about. But thanks for playing.

Ooh, TOTPD!

fatpie · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:20 pm

I'm working on a new post right now, but there's a lot of writing/ reading. I've extended my previous post now

furrykef · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:55 pm

fatpie wrote:

Try actually reading the passage, without twisting the words

The whole point is that it may well be the case the words already have been twisted. The only way to not twist them at all whatsoever is to read it in ancient Greek, and of course it's impossible to read ancient Greek exactly as the ancient Greeks did without being an ancient Greek. What we can do is make educated guesses. But they are only guesses.

And I still think the words may well apply to ceremonial practices of pagan Greeks rather than to all people.

Anyway, arguing about the specific wording of the English passage is a bit senseless because it wasn't originally written in English.

Of course, yet another possibility is that these are not the words of God, merely the words of a fallible person named Paul, but I already decided arguing along such lines is going to be even less fruitful than along these lines.

Whatever the case, I think I have substantiated my claim more than you have yours. I pointed to a source, and you haven't. I think the burden of proof is still on you since my challenge to you was to prove that your interpretation is the most valid. That you interpret the words one way and it's very obvious that they mean X doesn't necessarily even mean much because not everybody is you.

Finally, if you're going to use quotes from the source I gave, I would suggest you give that source a very careful look-through and offer a potential refutation to each argument that opposes your viewpoint.

- Kef

fahooglewitz1077 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:01 pm

Ugh. I'll just state my beliefs and get outta here before I get into a "Heated Discussion".

I do not support homosexualty, gays, same-sex marriages and the like. There, I'm done. Now to go back to browsing.....

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:09 pm

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

I do not support homosexualty, gays, same-sex marriages and the like.

To which he added, "though I have absolutely nothing useful to add to this discussion nor any justifiction for my views whatsoever."

(Thank you Jon Stewart.)

furrykef · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:19 pm

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

Ugh. I'll just state my beliefs and get outta here before I get into a "Heated Discussion".

Can't stand up to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, huh?

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:19 pm

Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:

just because their life is different in a way they didn't chose it to be doesn't mean they shouldn't be denied the right of marriage.

I think you misspoke here.

And just to add something:

Quote:

unless a married homosexual couple lives next door to you, it doesn't affect you and you should just igore it if you don't like it.

Actually, even if a homosexual couple lives next door to you, it still doesn't affect you any more than it affects you if your neighbors practice BDSM or Paganism, though I'm sure plenty of narrow-minded people think that those should be outlawed as well.

racerx_is_alive · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:22 pm

Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:

and if you don't like it, then keep your oppinion to yourself, because unless a married homosexual couple lives next door to you, it doesn't affect you and you should just igore it if you don't like it.

Ok, I agree that the government probably shouldn't be getting involved in marriages, particularly at the federal level. And I'm not one to be blocking gay marriages. But just because my personal opinion on homosexuality is based in a religious perspective, I have to keep it to myself? I'm not out trying to make my opinion public policy, so why do I have to keep my mouth shut? Why shouldn't someone who does like homosexuality keep their opinions to theirselves on the same basis?

I really didn't want to get involved in this, but that post went too far.

furrykef · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:50 pm

I don't think it's people's opinions on homosexuality that they should shut up about. I'll point out I never told fahooglewitz or fatpie to keep their opinions on that matter to themselves. I think Fhqwhatever was referring to people who do want it to be public policy (just it was stated unclearly). In which case, a claim such as "This is a Christian nation and God says XYZ, therefore we should restrict such-and-such freedoms" is absurd (I already pointed out this is NOT a Christian nation and the government has no right to restrict freedom on basis of religion). To be frank, people who make claims like that should either see the error of their ways, find an alternative argument to make, or, indeed, shut up. Patent ignorance is offensive.

I'd like to point out that I don't think it should be illegal for people to say such ignorant things even though I intensely disagree with the viewpoints expressed.

- Kef

fahooglewitz1077 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:50 pm

InterruptorJones wrote:

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

I do not support homosexualty, gays, same-sex marriages and the like.

To which he added, "though I have absolutely nothing useful to add to this discussion nor any justifiction for my views whatsoever."

(Thank you Jon Stewart.)

UGH. Overload. I just finished typing a report.
But I do have justification: I am a Christian. Now, Skeptics will point out that this is extremely generic. Oh well. Go skepticize on someone else. They're Just my beliefs, okay?

furrykef wrote:

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

Ugh. I'll just state my beliefs and get outta here before I get into a "Heated Discussion".

Can't stand up to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, huh?

Actually, I can, but all you ever seem to do is tear apart what I believe in. I don't like this. I'm more sensitive than most people.

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:56 pm

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

But I do have justification: I am a Christian.

But aren't you also an American? And don't you believe in freedom of religion, from the very same Amendment that allows you to practice your religion freely and that says you don't have to live according to the beliefs of others? What does your being Christian have to do with unconstitutionally barring the freedoms of others?

Quote:

Now, Skeptics will point out that this is extremely generic.

Actually, it's not generic at all. On the contrary, most Christians respect the right of others to have different beliefs and don't believe that the law should be based on their religious beliefs.

Oh well. Go skepticize on someone else. They're Just my beliefs, okay?

fahooglewitz1077 wrote:

but all you ever seem to do is tear apart what I believe in.

I've read every thread in the Religion and Politics forum, and I've never seen kef "tear apart" a thoughtful, informed opinion. Have you ever thought that the fact that someone like him is able to so effectively tear apart your assertions simply reflects how very flawed and unconsidered those assertions are?

fahooglewitz1077 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:59 pm

I'm confused.

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:13 am

I knew that.

fahooglewitz1077 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:23 am

Because you apparently know "everything".

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:27 am

fooglewits:

Here's something that might be helpful.

Christians through the centuries have maintained a distinction between religious and secular power. In fact, many Christians were suspicious of Constantine when he declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Our Christian faith falls in the category of religious authority. US Law falls in the category of secular authority. The simple fact is that secular authorities are going to do what they want to do whether we like it or not. If we continue to fight this battle in the secular realm, we will lose. Instead, let's concentrate on shaping our society by sharing the love of Christ. That was what changed the ancient world, long before Constantine was even born. Or as Scripture puts it, the weapons of our warfare are not flesh and blood, but spiritual.

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:33 am

furrykef wrote:

Finally, if you're going to use quotes from the source I gave, I would suggest you give that source a very careful look-through and offer a potential refutation to each argument that opposes your viewpoint.

- Kef

I did, but the arguments fit the passage so badly, I didn't bother. Try actually dealing with all these words that I mentioned ealier:

Someone who actually listens to other arguments and refutes them because they're wrong, not because they can't afford to be wrong wrote:

Paul also describes such people as 'ungodly, unrighteous, futile in their thoughts, having foolish hearts, professing to be wise and becoming fools, given up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts, exchanging the truth of God for a lie, using their bodies for what is against nature, immoral, commiting what is shameful, recieving the penalty that they richly deserve, filled with all unrighteousness (again), sexually immoral, deserving of death (those who pratice such acts, and those who approve).

Your response to this said that it could be reffering to a specific ritual, however, the fact is that many sins are mentioned in the passage that wouldn't take place in one ritual.

I've read the Bible, which is the source that matters in this case.

By the way, do you have any knowledge of Greek?

Anyway, I have to go now or I'll end up being late for school, which isn't such a bad thing, but I still need to go.

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:03 am

Romans 1v18:32 wrote:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Here is the full passage:

Explain away!

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:23 am

fatpie wrote:

Your response to this said that it could be reffering to a specific ritual, however, the fact is that many sins are mentioned in the passage that wouldn't take place in one ritual.

Perhaps "specific ritual" is the wrong phrase here, but maybe a specific pagan religion? I think you're reading too much into my wording now.

Quote:

I've read the Bible, which is the source that matters in this case.

You've read it in English. The Greek text is what matters in this case. Too bad it's accessible to neither of us.

Quote:

By the way, do you have any knowledge of Greek?

I wish I did now, heh. Studying an ancient language is a huge task. Jeez, learning Japanese would be a piece of cake by comparison. Anyway, since it's clear that English is the best we've got right now, I guess I'm going to have to take the plunge and argue with the KJV.

OK, let's try to define who "men" are in this entire passage.

"Men" might refer to all men, i.e., every man has committed each of these crimes.
It might refer to all of mankind in a very general sense. (This is what you're arguing, correct?)
It might refer to a specific group of people (Greek pagan worshippers), or possibly any pagan group.

We both can agree #1 is unreasonable. #3 in reference to the entire passage is admittedly not very likely, but it's not what I'm arguing. I argue that #3 applies to only the offending verses. Here, let me clarify: not everybody has committed murder, therefore "murder" in the passage clearly does not apply to everybody (the basis on which we reject interpretation #1). It applies to some people. Likewise, verses 26 and 27 do not refer to everybody, they refer to some people. This raises a question: who? It could be either "all homosexuals", or "people who belong to certain pagan cults who engage in homosexual practices". Analysis of the Greek wording seems to support the second possibility, though perhaps not to the point we can say "this is what they definitely meant)".

Unless you can find a compelling reason for one interpretation over the other, there is ambiguity, therefore, the passage is not clear.

- Kef

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:09 pm

I think that the passage is referring to the entirety excluding those who have become christians. For them, it is now their past, but not their future.

The passage was relevant in that day, as it described the general state of society at that time. However, as i would say for all Bible passages, it is still relevant today. Just because in may be primarily refering to society at that particular time, it does not mean that these practises are therefore right elsewhere. Paul condemns them using the strongest terms.

P.S. My brother studies Hebrew and Greek. Actually, i think Japanese is probably harder. Japanese is less formulaic. There are many characters for the same sound. At least spoken and written Greek are connected, but that's beside the point.

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:19 pm

fatpie wrote:

I think that the passage is referring to the entirety excluding those who have become christians. For them, it is now their past, but not their future.

OK, I don't think that clears up anything.

Quote:

The passage was relevant in that day, as it described the general state of society at that time. However, as i would say for all Bible passages, it is still relevant today. Just because in may be primarily refering to society at that particular time, it does not mean that these practises are therefore right elsewhere. Paul condemns them using the strongest terms.

But what are the precise practices being condemned? Pagan rituals back then often involved things like orgies, which could conceivably be called unnatural. You can't really make an analogy between a huge homosexual or bisexual orgy and what two lovers practice in the bedroom.

I'd also point out that romantic love need not necessarily involve sex, just that in practice it usually does. But it would be conceivable for a gay couple to marry and never engage in sexual activity.

EDIT: I forgot to answer this bit, though it's not really relevant, but as a linguist I can't help but want to answer:

Quote:

P.S. My brother studies Hebrew and Greek. Actually, i think Japanese is probably harder. Japanese is less formulaic. There are many characters for the same sound. At least spoken and written Greek are connected, but that's beside the point.

The difference is that people actually speak and write Japanese. People speek Greek today, of course, but people also spoke English 1000 years ago and reading 1000-year-old English is no easy task! Few people can help you understand 2000-year-old Greek, even though there's a whole population who can help you with modern Greek. It's a lot easier to learn a language if you have people you can actually speak it with.

- Kef

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:19 pm

furrykef wrote:

We both can agree #1 is unreasonable. #3 in reference to the entire passage is admittedly not very likely, but it's not what I'm arguing. I argue that #3 applies to only the offending verses. Here, let me clarify: not everybody has committed murder, therefore "murder" in the passage clearly does not apply to everybody (the basis on which we reject interpretation #1). It applies to some people. Likewise, verses 26 and 27 do not refer to everybody, they refer to some people. This raises a question: who? It could be either "all homosexuals", or "people who belong to certain pagan cults who engage in homosexual practices". Analysis of the Greek wording seems to support the second possibility, though perhaps not to the point we can say "this is what they definitely meant)".

Unless you can find a compelling reason for one interpretation over the other, there is ambiguity, therefore, the passage is not clear.

- Kef

I think the passage is describing sins that are typical of that society. These are examples of the sins people away from God commit. However, there is no implication of pagan rituals. The sins commited in pagan rituals are condemned, but each sin is condemned outside the context of pagan rituals as well as inside. The sins are universally condemned

furrykef · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:24 pm

OK, even if I accept that, what, exactly, is the sin?

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:47 pm

All that is condemned in the passage. I would say that the homosexual desires are condemned as well. This is because Jesus condemns thoughts to adultery as strongly as adultery, thoughts to murder as strongly as murder etc.

**Off topic linguistics thread**

I see what you mean, but there are a lot of parrallels between old and new Greek and, I may be wrong, but I think, unlike English, there have been less influences for the language to change. England has been invaded many times. As well as this, a large part of Greece consists of Orthodox Christians, who would understand Bible Greek, so I guess that might keep the modern language more similar to the early version (that's just a guess, I am no linguist).

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Just for interest, so I know who I'm talking to, what do you describe yourself as?

Christian (God is God)
Athiest (You are God)
Agnostic (It Alternates)
Other

AgentSeethroo · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:17 pm

fatpie wrote:

Just for interest, so I know who I'm talking to, what do you describe yourself as?

Christian (God is God)
Athiest (You are God)
Agnostic (It Alternates)
Other

I have a problem with this post.

I'm a Christian, but I refuse to make statements like this one. To say that an atheist believes himself to be God is completely silly.

I understand where you're coming from, fatpie, but PLEASE try to be more informed when you say things like that.

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:19 pm

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't meaning any of that seriously, it was a joke. I didn't mean it to be offensive. However, I do know people who think they are God, but I by no means think that of all athiests.

Sorry if my sarcasm is hard to pick up. Several of my teachers have mistaken my meanings too.

Oh, and for the record:

My real name is Peter Roberts
I am 14 years old and attend government school.
I am a Baptist Christian.

AgentSeethroo · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:23 pm

fatpie wrote:

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't meaning any of that seriously, it was a joke.

If you seriously are attempting to affect people's lives, sarcasm is NOT the way to go.

Also, that was a very condescending and condemning remark. Jesus came to save, not to condemn.

I'm not calling you a jerk or anything like that, but you could seriously tick off someone who actually is an atheist, and then they'd view you as just another judgemental "Christian".

fatpie · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:26 pm

I take your point. I'm sorry if my sarcasm was offensive, I'll avoid it in the future

InterruptorJones · **Posted:** Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:33 pm

I decline to categorize myself according to your narrow scheme. My belief system has no bearing on the validity of my arguments.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Same-Sex Marriages

Who is online