Pengiuns

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by Strytllr
now now boys... no catholic bashing on my watch. I'll agree with the majority that catholics have had their bad moments and aren't perfect, but anything that's been around for 2000 years will have some black marks. Nobody's perfect. I could argue long and hard about why the church has done and stands on some of its points... but that's for an entirely different discussion.

One needs to remember that the Catholic church evolved as both a governmental body as well as a religion. Much that is wrong with human nature that is exemplified in contemporary politics is evident historically in past Papal policy making. The same can be said of almost any church to varying degrees of culpability. Also, policies that were good 1000 years ago aren't necessarily good today. There is a good book by (I think) DeVries called Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages that presents a good dynamic analysis of how the institute of marriage, transfer of property, and eccumenical and secular conflict fluctuated and changed from the Carolingian period to the early Rennaissance. Not only that, it also varied widely depending on where in Europe one lived. Oh, and I usually list my religious affiliation as Roman Catholic - Retired, or as Born Again Agnostic.

Jbirch, the only issue I've had with your posts are your frequent assertations of the literalness of the bible. Knowing full well that the bible (OT anyway) was written by men for men, and that there are hardly any rules anywhere that are directed specifically toward women... Therefore, it may be assumed that women don't have to do much of anything to achieve righteousness... OR, it may be assumed that both genders must take the male oriented word bias to heart equally.

The problem is that more than a few people see the bible quite literally as The Word Of God. Nevermind that at best it's the changing interpretation of the word of God spanning several thousand years of social change, that much of it's content was quite likely written as parable, not as code, since that was the most effective way of communicating, and that specific passage quoting is often moot, due to the fact that a lot of the idioms of Aramaic and Hebrew don't exist in English. Keep in mind that there are people out there still trying to eliminate the teaching of evolution in our schools because it's not in the Bible.

Science is not a means to refute, but a means to gain knowledge in order to better explain.

The Bible is a wonderful collection of stories, prophesies, and (I'll even give you) devine instruction. But it also contains a great deal of contradicion, and inherent innacuracies that Man has imbued it with through interpretation and translation and time. As such, my take on it is that it's not a good book to use to support arguments because you can generally always find stuff (especially) from the Old Testament, that contradicts stuff in the New Testament (much less going from version to version).

A good guide to living a good life. Not a great thing to be basing a just and changing legal system on. All further argument has been canceled until Judgement Day. Whoever proves to be wrong then buys the drinks!

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Do you feel the bible should be updated regularly to accomodate the current moral outlook, or should be just adopt a new "moral guide"?

I've waited a week to respond to this and one or two other posts: the Bible doesn't need to be updated, but our understanding ("our" being "people who adhere to the Bible in one way or another") clearly does evolve over time.

At one time, Catholics and Protestants thought it was Biblically right for them to slaughter one another, and whoever had the upper hand did so (eg: the fate of the Huguenots in France). At one time both of those groups felt it was okay (in fact, required) to torture one another in religious trials (not to mention "infidels" who belonged to other religions). At one time the Bible was used to justify slavery and racism (on the basis that people with more melanin than was accepted were descended from the wrong side of Abraham's descendants. Mormon religion adopted a version of this). Just recently, the Southern Baptist conference published their belief that capital punishment was religiously valid, making them (I believe) the only major US religious federation to take that position. Not to pick on Southern Baptists, or Christianity - I picked those examples because they show wide variation within a single religion - but it's clear that what people think "the Bible tells them to do" changes over time. In fact, if you're religious, I think it's your obligation to make that evaluation and reexamination.

The current debate over homosexual marriage already falls into that category, as today there are religious groups that condemn gay unions and others that bless them.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Seems to suggest that cannibalism is, also, Ok. It occurs in nature, therefore, it's completely natural. What would you say to us having funeral feasts instead of burials. Be a great savings on real estate........

No, no: it's not me saying that "natural implies Ok", it's the other guy! The argument I'm against says "Only hetero is natural, hence homosexual is bad". I point out that the first part of that is incorrect (physical evidence), therefore the conclusion is not proven. Plenty of things that happen in nature are nasty (smallpox, cute little bunnies eaten by tigers, etc), but it has nothing to do with morality one way or the other. It's the homophobe's argument to try to dignify itself with (incorrect) science.

BTW, I turned to my wife the other day after watching the news on gay marriages and asked her "Hey Honey, do you feel our marriage is threatened by these guys?" She just said "Nope".

Funeral feasts? I get dibs on the drumstick... (Yikes, imagine the health consequences... Can you say Human Spongiform Encephalopathy?)

[npkeith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Funeral feasts? I get dibs on the drumstick... (Yikes, imagine the health consequences... Can you say Human Spongiform Encephalopathy?)

Somewhere in the pacific islands (gee, that narrows it down a bit...) there is an illness called "Kuru" or "Die laughing disease" It causes a kind of weird dementia that causes victims to lose their minds to the point where they laugh hysterically at everything just before they die. It was one of the first human diseases to be shown to be caused by a prion (the same family of infectious protein particles that cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy), and transmitted by - you guessed it, eating the brains of infected victims.

There is another one as well as nvCJD (New Variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease). There was a great article in Scientific American a few years back.

[grphiw]

Actually, Kuru is found mainly in Papau New Guinea, if you want to be really specific. And it's not a general disease; rather it's found in women and young children... as they are the ones who participate in the feast of the dead. A great book is Deadly Feasts by Richard Rhodes.

And this is a little off topic, but for anybody who lives in Massachusetts (like me), it seems like this state is turning into a miniature Eastern version of California, except without a governator. We actually managed to stun the nation before California did anything of this nature! I suppose it's something to be proud of.

Personally, I don't support gay marriage. Note the word marriage. Don't want to set off a firestorm. I don't understand why gays are getting so upset about having civil unions. If I understand this correctly, civil unions have the same a marriage. So what if it isn't called marriage? It's the same thing: you can call it a marriage anywhere but a court room or in front of some other government office. One wouldn't say they were "civil unionized", would they? Whether we like it or not, this country is not ready, has never been ready, and may never be ready to accept same-sex marriages. This country was not founded on equality; no, that's still not around today, and our government realizes that. One has to understand that there's no such thing as an unracist society. That'd be a Utopia, which is basically Greek for "No where." Every country in the world has it's prejudiced. Russia hates the Chechens, the Chinese hate the Japanese, Pakistan and India are ready to bomb each other several times over, etc. With the US, it just happens to be same-sex marriages.

But I don't accept that the US is a protestant country either, and thus shouldn't allow same-sex marriages. The statistics say that 51% of the nation calls itself protestant, but seriously, how many of them actually attend a church reguarly? Or follow the Bible's standards? They simply say it, just like they say they're not racist. They're "not comfortable among different people." Is there a difference?

[jeff]

The answer is to get the government out of the marriage business (which has religious implications), and restrict itself to the civil union business (which affects property, will, hospital visitations, employee benefits, tax, etc, etc). If you want a wedding recognised by your religion, then go get a marriage performed by your minister, priest, rabbi, imam, whatever, and whether your religious sect recognises your union is a private matter unconnected to the government of the US.

FWIW, I think that many gays would have been satisfied with civil unions that gave the same legal protections as marriage, but civil unions are not widely recognised, and are not generally recognised by all states the way marriage is. Perhaps the recent gay marriages have raised expectations to the extent that this is no longer true.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Philistine

At the risk of being indelicate, I'll point out that a great many heterosexual couples (including married ones ) do at least some of those "unintended" things to each other with their mouths and hands. And some do all of them.

At times, some (or all) were illegal, even for married couples. Now, all are legal.

Also, as noted above, kissing would seem to be on the list of things that the mouth was not intended to do....

--Philistine

Duh. Obvious, and I can't believe I didn't catch it myself. Moronic statement retracted. Craig, can we get a "proofread" feature on here?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Not that I disgree with you, but, this excerpt caught my eye.

Do you feel the bible should be updated regularly to accomodate the current moral outlook, or should be just adopt a new "moral guide"?

i think that we should look to the bible to get a basic sense of what's right and wrong....

but we have to keep in mind the context of the bible, in order to understand the bigger picture. of course, we also have to understand the context of now, too....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

[quote=Soldier]As for "they said interracial marriage was wrong, too", I don't buy it. Interracial marriage still works - there's nothing biologically wrong with it. It's quite obvious it's a matter of opinion that it "wasn't meant to happen". Homosexuality, however, is quite obviously unnatural. We're simply not built that way. The only ways it can be practiced involve using body parts in ways they were not meant to be used. Men and women work, men and men don't work, women and women don't work. Regardless of color, all around. Hence, the racism comparison is inappropriate.
[quote]

people did say that there was something biologically wrong with interracial marriages. people had crazy misconceptions, like the fact that if a black person and a white person procreated, that their child wouldn't be able to give birth (the whole "mule" idea, i think... crossbreeding...) --- and yes, i'm aware that it's not the same exact situation.

there's some species of lizard where the women lizards can survive for up to 8 generations without any new genetic information from males. that's natural....


and, besides. my comparison wasn't made to say that a group of people should be able to get married because it's morally okay that they should do so. i'll never be able to convince ANYONE that it's morally okay; i don't feel the need to. either i will burn in hell for certain actions, or i won't. either when i die, i'll be truely sorry for all the right things, or i won't. and, i won't really find out until it happens. so... i'll figure it out later. i'm 17, i have time to figure out religion.

my argument is that some people STILL think that interracial marriage is morally wrong. if we waited to allow people rights until EVERYONE thought it was morally right (or even until just a simple majority agreed), there would be a whole lot of people that would NEVER have have rights.

all men (and, as ammended, we're including women in here too) are created equal. also, we all have the right to persue happiness.

now, if my happiness involves me marrying someone of the same gender, damning us both to hell, and doing all sorts of immoral things in the privacy of my own home, how is that your business? i (should) have just as much right to persue happiness, and marry someone i'm in love with as you do.

rapists get married. muderers get married. couples that have no intensions or staying monogomous get married. why can't i marry someone of the same gender??


people are going to live together and act married whether or not it's legal- making marriage available just protects the rights of these people....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Strytllr

Catal, do not mistake personal opinion for the opinion of an entire church, or for that matter, an entire religion.

.....

Again, by that article, the true reason some people are homosexual will never be fully understood because to understand it would mean that it can indeed be fixed... back to what is (ahem) "natural".
hehe... couldn't resist that last part... sorry.
And that is something that the gay community does not wish to have happen.

Strytllr, do not mistake personal opinion for the opinion of an entire group of homosexuals, or for that matter, all homosexuals.

don't you think that the kid that gets beaten up every week in high school wishes that there was a "cure"???

don't you think that the people that can't get married to the people they're in love with wishes that they'd gotten "the cure" when they were younger?

the people that are disowned by their families?


despite the term "gay", it ain't easy. ever. i have yet to meet a homosexual or bisexual person who has never wished desperately for it to all go away, to be able to live their life like the majority of the population.

it's when you start to realize that you can't stop the thoughts, you can't pretend that it's all ok, and that you shouldn't live in denial the rest of your life..... that's when you say, "ok. i'm a good person. i may be attracted to people of the same sex, and i'm going to get a lot of people treating me like $hit because of it, but i refuse to treat myself like a second-class citizen"

sure, i'm skeptical about a "cure" for homosexuality. but that's because a lot of the "scientific data" about it (both ways, in fact) are rather biased. my personal experience is that everyone i know who has had homosexual thoughts hasn't been able to stop it, and has wanted to.

there may be a cure. but if there is, it's not easy, and it's not out there now.

[Faggot the Hutt]

Well, I'm glad to see such an exchange of ideas is happening. To supplement your debate, I would like to offer this story:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040228/D8108MVO0.html

[civiltech]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Strytllr, do not mistake personal opinion for the opinion of an entire group of homosexuals, or for that matter, all homosexuals.

don't you think that the kid that gets beaten up every week in high school wishes that there was a "cure"???

don't you think that the people that can't get married to the people they're in love with wishes that they'd gotten "the cure" when they were younger?

the people that are disowned by their families?


despite the term "gay", it ain't easy. ever. i have yet to meet a homosexual or bisexual person who has never wished desperately for it to all go away, to be able to live their life like the majority of the population.

it's when you start to realize that you can't stop the thoughts, you can't pretend that it's all ok, and that you shouldn't live in denial the rest of your life..... that's when you say, "ok. i'm a good person. i may be attracted to people of the same sex, and i'm going to get a lot of people treating me like $hit because of it, but i refuse to treat myself like a second-class citizen"

sure, i'm skeptical about a "cure" for homosexuality. but that's because a lot of the "scientific data" about it (both ways, in fact) are rather biased. my personal experience is that everyone i know who has had homosexual thoughts hasn't been able to stop it, and has wanted to.

there may be a cure. but if there is, it's not easy, and it's not out there now.

Health Canada began looking into a deficient gene or something that would explain homosexuality....I read the article some time ago in Macleans...geeze must have been mid to late 90's. The "Gay" community was outraged and challenged it calling it discriminitory...even before any relevant research could be done....almost like they were concerned a sexual choice could be linked to a ****ed up gene.....didn't sound like they wanna be cured, or even know why they like things up their bums.....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by grphiw

Personally, I don't support gay marriage. Note the word marriage. Don't want to set off a firestorm. I don't understand why gays are getting so upset about having civil unions. If I understand this correctly, civil unions have the same a marriage. So what if it isn't called marriage?

the issue is that a civil union vs. marriage is a whole.. "separate but equal" deal. which, if you remember Brown vs. Board of Education (y'know, the ruling that said that southern schools had to integrate the blacks and whites??) doesn't cut it. in the case of educating everyone, it just blatently didn't work. i think (although i'm not sure) that this supreme court case might have said that "separate but equal" is constitutionally unsound, end of story.

for those of you that like to minimize government, this increases government. we don't need to create a new word that means all the same things except it happens to be same sex rather than both sexes. it's rather unnecessary.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by civiltech

Health Canada began looking into a deficient gene or something that would explain homosexuality....I read the article some time ago in Macleans...geeze must have been mid to late 90's. The "Gay" community was outraged and challenged it calling it discriminitory...even before any relevant research could be done....almost like they were concerned a sexual choice could be linked to a ****ed up gene.....didn't sound like they wanna be cured, or even know why they like things up their bums.....

oh, i'm not saying there aren't people that think this way...

i'm saying that lots of people would welcome a cure....


if homosexuality WERE a choice.... god... that would bring up a lot of issues.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by ****** the Hutt

Well, I'm glad to see such an exchange of ideas is happening. To supplement your debate, I would like to offer this story:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040228/D8108MVO0.html

And the relevance...?

[Soldier]

As for the lizard: There are insects that do something similar. However, it is a case of asexuality. They give birth without having mated, essentially cloning themselves. Then, each of those offspring can mate, and the genetic information is that more widespread. Sort of delegating the responsibilities of reproduction.

Sure, we have the right to pursue happiness - within limits. What if brutal murders make me happy? What if I truly enjoy cutting people's fingers off one by one? Et cetera. (Yes, that is completely hypothetical.)

And I've known gays/bisexuals who enjoyed it. I've also met those that I strongly believe made a choice (considering they were definitely straight for a time beforehand). Some, I think, do it for attention; some, I think, may just prefer it. I don't know. But yes, there are definitely those that don't wish "desperately for it all just to go away."

[Faggot the Hutt]

Originally Posted by Soldier

And the relevance...?

If the church has all the right answers regarding gays, why then did they fail so miserably with those within it's flock?

[Tireur]

if my happiness involves me......... , damning us both to hell, and doing all sorts of immoral things

Personally, I think we ought to make everything legal. That would eliminate crime altogether.