Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Carlos del Vaca]

I've probably posted this before, but just in case:  very good post on the Biblical origins of "gays/shrimp are an abomination," and their overturning, here.

[slink]

Seperation of church and state?

Also, I refuse to pay any attention to anything in the bible, not just because I'm an atheist, but any bible is a translation. The various translations around show that you can pick various nuances in the interpretation. It is wholly unwise to base these decisions on it.

[miles]

I'd never seen the "effeminate" thing but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm giong to chalk that particular diction up to translations of translations. And the way I learned it was that Christians are not bound by the covenants that God made with Noah, or Abraham, or Moses. Instead, each time we partake of communion, we are binding ourselves to what Jesus taught. And while Jesus did make it a point to reiterate the Ten Commandments (and the "golden rule") h(H)e never once mentioned homosexuality. Although a deciple did which is where I'm guessing the Corinthians quote came from.

I also have a hard time taking a person seriously when they reffer to the judeo-christian deity as "Him." 2/3 of that entity is gender neutral. Therefore unless specifically talking about Jesus the correct term is It.

And I'm engaged. I don't want a bunch of gay people making a law that says I can't marry my SO because they don't like it. Therefore I will not attempt to treat homosexuals in the same way. I will treat them and their relationships as I would like them to treat me and mine.

But anyway. I still think that food, clothes, jobs, and health insurance for the poor is a larger moral issue than butt sex so Kerry was the the Christian choice. Not to mention the not invading other countries and killing people for no reason thing.

Corinthians is attributed to Paul.  And listen, I'm not making any theistic claims.  We could nitpick about all sorts of things.  The whole Bible is a bit wacky.  I don't think that it was until the 18th or 19th century when philologists really started to take a look at the Bible.  A lot of it didn't seem to fit.  So when I referred to God as a male, I only did it because the majority of Christians do so, even many who probably don't believe that God has a sex.  Who cares whether I got the pronoun right.  I take you seriously even though you produced this sentence: "I also have a hard time taking a person seriously when they...."  You made a mistake that is so common today many people don't really consider it a mistake.  I make it all the time.   My main point was to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is right there in the NT.  It's not in red text, but it's there.  I don't endorse the condemnation, but it's not like people who do are simply misreading the Bible.

And Christians aren't bound to the Law of Moses, but it's not like the entire OT is about the Law of Moses.  And you can't argue that just because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality must mean he approves of it.  You can doubt whether Paul authored Corinthians, but you could just as easily doubt whether Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Who is to say whether poverty, war, or sexual immorality is the bigger moral issue?  What is morality anyway?  God really didn't seem to mind the wanton destruction of men, women, and children (not to mention the enslavment of young virgins) in the OT, in fact he explicitly commanded it.  He has been picky about sexual morality.  The relevant issue for us, I think, is whether banning gay marriage has a good enough secular purpose.  I don't think it does.  The whole Bible stuff was just to point out that Christians who oppose homosexuality aren't pulling it out of their asses.  You choose, if you are a Christian, to ignore certain things in the Bible (and if you don't have a problem with homosexuality, it at least seems that you do).    Everyone does.  Some people don't have a problem with greed, which, obviously, was a huge problem to God.  In my case, I choose to ignore much of the Bible, although I really enjoy studying it.  Or you can just reject the Bible, and if you do, it would seem weird to use it to argue against Christians.  Sure you can point out inconsistencies in their adherence to the faith, but the smarter thing would be to show why the Bible should be rejected as a whole.

A large portion of what I just wrote was pulled directly from my ass, so please correct me if you'd like.

[CortJstr]

Actually my main point with the It thing was that nobody gets it right. Because everybody picks a few nit-picky parts of a book that 40 guys wrote over several hundred years.

And you're right, there's absolutely no secular reason to ban gay marriage. And if we pick apart the bible then there's no religious legs to stand on either.

People in this country should be able to marry any consenting adult they choose. And do what they will with their bodies in the meantime. While burning flags and repealing the Patriot Act.

[Nabubrush]

Stuff . . . The relevant issue for us, I think, is whether banning gay marriage has a good enough secular purpose.  I don't think it does. . . More stuff.

I have no arguments with any of that stuff, and I'm down with you for this part of it, certainly. You are more of a bible scholar than I. I've never heard a particularly compelling argument for banning gay marriage. I don't suppose that there are too many folks who post here who would care to make one, I guess. It is nice that this board can host discussions that aren't so venomous as some of the others I have seen. I spent a little time on (God help me) the ESPN message boards yesterday - those are some downright tolerant people.

Oh look, a pool of sarcasm under my desk.

[Jay!]

More young people were registering to vote, but republicans were using legal pressure to make sure that they couldn't vote once they got to the polls.

Also, there was some new legislation last year making it harder for college students to get absentee ballots from their home states.

Bear in mind that young people tend to vote on the left.

I'm a college student.  I'm registered to vote in Southern California, but I go to school in Northern California.  I had been told by the office of the chancellor of my university that I could vote here in the county superior courthouse in Oakland; when I got there, I was told that that information had been distributed incorrectly, and I wasn't allowed to vote.

So, er, yeah. Go America.

Oh, and I spent last night wondering what they're going to call the whiskey they name after me when I die in the civil war.  Long live California secession!

[Nabubrush]

Oh, and I spent last night wondering what they're going to call the whiskey they name after me when I die in the civil war.  Long live California secession!

Wow, were you at the ESPN board yesterday too? Because there were some certifiable folks there who were just all bent out of shape because California has 55 electoral votes, and they thought the state should secede or be broken up into several smaller states.

[Jay!]

Wow, were you at the ESPN board yesterday too? Because there were some certifiable folks there who were just all bent out of shape because California has 55 electoral votes, and they thought the state should secede or be broken up into several smaller states.

No, I thankfully avoided the ESPN messageboard the whole time.  And the California secession thing was a joke; the idea (surprisingly) gets tossed around a bit, but I don't think anyone takes it seriously.

Besides which, were these people actually complaining that California has too much power?  Californians have proporionately less voting power per person than residents of, say, Wyoming or Alabama, who get a stronger boost from their two senate-based electoral college votes.

[Nabubrush]

Well, these were people whose sole argument for the Electoral College was that our forefathers did it that way. So I'd say they hadn't examined the subject too closely. Actually, one fellow said that the EC was good because it forced candidates to visit rural areas, and that way the rural voice was represented, instead of being drowned out by the cities. I'm not sure I feel that it's working that way.

[AlohaDawg]

I used to think you guys were mostly reasonable. This particular thread is the worst kind of gloom and doom ever.

The economy is growing.

More people voted in this election than EVER before despite the mysterious wholesale disenfranchisment of people which is wholly undocumented. This was a clean election with a clear winner in both popular vote and electoral vote.

The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in  a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.

Chanting bumper stickers didn't work 4 years ago and it won't work now.

[CortJstr]

More people voted in this election than EVER before despite the mysterious wholesale disenfranchisment of people which is wholly undocumented. This was a clean election with a clear winner in both popular vote and electoral vote.

The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in  a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.

Yes we have a clear winner but one that represents all the worst qualities of the Ugly American. Namely pride of his own ignorance, the use of his god as a crutch, and blatant disregard of the rest of the world.

These communities have made value judgments that contradict the basic principles of this country. Every argument against gay marriage and abortion is based in religion. Our Constitution invalidates all these arguments because it doesn't give a fuck about anybody's god. Yes communities across the country continue to throw their god in our faces and reduce freedom for millions of people in the process. I live in a community which holds secular reason above religious belief but this community is located within a state that goes the opposite direction. So my dumb-ass state is overriding my community standards. Our values are the basic ones of the Constitution, namely the freedom to keeps other's gods the fuck out of our lives. So its the rest of my state that needs to reevaluate.

My SO works at the Feminist Majority and I help them out. I was at the March for Women's Lives this year, I write all kinds of letters, I get the ACLU Action Updates, and I generally harass the hell out of my two dumb-ass senators who deserve some of Dante's more colorful ideas to be performed on them. So I definitely do more than just vote once a year. And yes, I do vote every year not just every 4.

[Nabubrush]

ADawg, I think you might be jumping to some conclusions in your post. And as for this:

The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

I find it extremely disturbing that you would espouse that viewpoint. Yes, I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the people who voted in Oregon feel that gays should not have the right to marry. Am I going to leave the state? No. Am I going to change my mind because those people don't agree with me? No. Do you really think I should do one of those two things? How about if I try to change their minds? Would that be better? Worse?

[Bozack]

One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children.

Because I believe that a major part of raising children is making them watch their mother and father fuck.

I just can't understand that shit at all.

If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

Ha, I'm actually doing the latter. SO LONG, BITCHES.

[miles]

The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in  a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.

That's true.  Voting is almost meaningless if that's all you do.  But I like that you encourage us to reevaluate our values or move to Canada if they don't seem to fit the values of any state, but then suggest we should work harder in the system for change.  Come on, man, which one is it?  Should I stay or should I go?  I think it's completely wrong to tell someone to move if their values don't match the majority of the state in which they live.  To JS Mill, difference in opinions and experiments in living were not only important to the individual to discover his true character, but also because of the real possibility that the majority COULD BE WRONG.  But of course, because Bush is God's messenger, that can't be the case.  But, if the majority is right, it should still value the opinion of minorities because revealing their falsehoods will only strengthen the opinion of the majority.  I guess that's moot though because Bush is God's mouthpiece.  But, hey, that's just Mill.  But it seems that most people would agree that it's quite ok.  And it's not like Bush won in a landslide.  Kerry faired pretty well in the popular vote.  My fellow liberals... we... are not... alone.

Chanting bumper stickers didn't work 4 years ago and it won't work now

Chants like:  "Kerry's a Flip-Flopper, Kerry's a Flip-Flopper!"

"Protect marriage, protect marriage!"

"Don't let France have a veto over our national security, don't let France have a veto over our national security!"

Well, maybe that last one is a stretch, but, you know.

Anyway, I would say it worked pretty well.  All Bush had to do was push a few hot button issues, and he had it.  That, and campaign like a motherfucker in Ohio.

But still, I would say that his words more than his deeds impacted voters.

[V-Adore]

ADawg, I think you might be jumping to some conclusions in your post. And as for this:

The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.

I find it extremely disturbing that you would espouse that viewpoint. Yes, I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the people who voted in Oregon feel that gays should not have the right to marry. Am I going to leave the state? No. Am I going to change my mind because those people don't agree with me? No. Do you really think I should do one of those two things? How about if I try to change their minds? Would that be better? Worse?

I concur with the above. I find myself profoundly troubled by the idea that the only response of the minority when faced with an inimical minority opinion is to yield to it -- either by moving (which seems like using legislation as a club against the minority, the lowest and most despicable application of "community standards" legislation)  or by changing their opinions to match the majority. Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

(Note that I support the right of gay people or other legislated-against minorities to choose to move or otherwise yield to public expectation -- if that's what their most comfortable with, that's their choice to make -- but reject entirely the idea that legislation requires departure or acceptance. "Community standards" resulting in ostracism of otherwise-constructive individuals is totally unacceptable.)