I meant as "one man and one woman" and going by the Biblical model (which required the relationship to be one of love.)
So it hasn't changed definition... except all of those times it has, but you can just ignore those if you like. And if you want to talk about the Bible (I don't even see how that's relevant anyway, as the Bible is not a legally binding governmental document of the United States, and plenty of people in the USA aren't Christian), but if you DO want to talk about what's in the Bible, you also have to take into account the many polygamous marriages there (Genesis 4:19, Genesis 31:17, Deuteronomy 21:15, Judges 8:30, 1 Samuel 1:2, 1 Kings 11:3, 2 Chronicles 11:21, 2 Chronicles 13:21, 2 Chronicles 24:3, for some examples), the fact that having concubines was common and acceptable (Exodus 21:10 for example gives a rule about Concubines), Then there's the whole Levirate marriage scenario...
He also fails to note that marriage is a man-made construct. Animals do not get married. Marriage is not a "natural law," it is a social construct created to formalize family units & create treaties between families.
Biblical marriage includes owning women, older men marrying female children, rape victims being forced to marry their attackers, women being sold by their fathers to their husbands, etc.
But I doubt hisarcher19 will heed any of that.
Biblical marriage includes owning women, older men marrying female children, rape victims being forced to marry their attackers, women being sold by their fathers to their husbands, etc.
But I doubt hisarcher19 will heed any of that.
The definition has not changed no matter how many people try. Actually, they seem to reenforce it.
While you can't force Christianity itself on a populace per say, you can put certain laws inspired by Christianity into effect without forcing the population to accept said religion (see point 1).
Now tell me, did these happen with God's approval, or did it simple say that it happened (as to catalog the event)? Also, some of these laws were put simply because it was dealing with the reality that it was happening and find a way to cope. (e.g. you can't just divorce your other wives or you'd make more problems.)
And what about "the whole Levirate marriage scenario"?
While you can't force Christianity itself on a populace per say, you can put certain laws inspired by Christianity into effect without forcing the population to accept said religion (see point 1).
Now tell me, did these happen with God's approval, or did it simple say that it happened (as to catalog the event)? Also, some of these laws were put simply because it was dealing with the reality that it was happening and find a way to cope. (e.g. you can't just divorce your other wives or you'd make more problems.)
And what about "the whole Levirate marriage scenario"?
Why don't you look up the verses I cited for yourself and see? God never punishes or chastises them for it. In fact in many of the cases (i.e. Jacob, King Solomon, Gideon, Jehoiada) they were considered holy men blessed by God.
And yes, the definition has changed, many many times throughout history and different cultures. I've demonstrated that to you already in the article I've shown you. Your "point 1" directly admits that different religions and beliefs have different definitions of marriage. So in order to implement a national law restricting marriage, that law has to have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose is denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In fact, you suggested that the government should just stop officially recognizing marriage altogether and let individuals and non-governmental groups oversee it (this would also mean not granting privileges like tax exemptions for married couples). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_a… Removing all of these from the legal system would be a major chore, but it might actually be a good idea. Of course that would also mean that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry just as well - if the government no longer controls marriage then who's going to stop them?
Also "dealing with the reality that it was happening and finding a way to cope" seems like a flimsy excuse to me. God can do anything, if he didn't want these polygamous marriages and concubines to exist, then they wouldn't exist. There would be a law against it, and anyone who broke that law would be punished. I mean, look all over the OT for examples of this kind of thing. It seems that "no polygamy" would be a lot easier to enforce than "no working on the Sabbath", but God and the Hebrews had no problem enforcing that one (Numbers 15: 32-36). In fact, the OT has tons of rules forbidding things, most of which are punishable by death (fortune telling - Deuteronomy 18:10, shaving the hair on the sides of your head or shave your beard with a razor - Leviticus 19:27, men wearing women's clothing or vice-versa - Deuteronomy 22:5, tatoos - Leviticus 19:28, cut yourself or shave your head in mourning - Deuteronomy 14:1, adultery - Deuteronomy 13:18, Putting oil or frankincense on the meal offering - Numbers 5:15, sexual relations with your mother, mother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, daughter, granddaughter, a woman and her daughter, a woman and her granddaughter, your aunt, aunt-in-law, daughter-in-law - Leviticius 18:7 - 18:18, bestiality - Leviticus 18:23, sexual relations with a woman on her period - Leviticus 18:19, Marrying non-Israelites - Deuteronomy 7:3, sacrificing castrated male animals - Leviticus 22:24, eating non-Kosher animals - Leviticus 11:4, eating the meat of a wounded animal - Exodus 22:30, eating blood - Leviticus 3:17 - this is actually why Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions, as they consider it a form of "eating", eating meat cooked with milk - Exodus 23:19, eating fruit from a tree that's less than 3 years old - Leviticus 19:23) I could go on, that's just the beginning, but my point is that the OT had tons of rules for so many things that were expected to be strictly followed. Nowhere is there a rule against polygamy, though (except in situations where it would break one of the other rules). So yes, the Biblical definition of marriage includes polygamy.
BTW, speaking of divorce, there were provisions in the OT for a man to divorce a woman (but not vice-versa). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(div… Here is a link with some information on this.
As for the Levirate marriage, it's an arrangement found in the Bible where the brother of a dead man is obligated to marry his brother's widow. In other words, neither the husband or the wife have any say in this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum In fact, there was even an incident in the Bible where God killed a man for refusing to go through with such a marriage (Genesis 38:7 - 10). This is also part of the Biblical definition of marriage.
Of course the Bible is actually completely irrelevant to the legal issues here, I'm just discussing it so much because I find it interesting and like to study it. The real point is that same-sex marriage harms no one (I should know - it has been legal in my state for nearly 6 years and nothing bad has happened), so unless you have a secular purpose to forbid it (one that would hold up in court), then you can't pass a law against it. More and more state courts are overturning SSM bans because there is no secular purpose that can justify such a ban. After all, it doesn't affect you or me. If you don't like same-sex marriage, just do what I do: Don't have one.
And yes, the definition has changed, many many times throughout history and different cultures. I've demonstrated that to you already in the article I've shown you. Your "point 1" directly admits that different religions and beliefs have different definitions of marriage. So in order to implement a national law restricting marriage, that law has to have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose is denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In fact, you suggested that the government should just stop officially recognizing marriage altogether and let individuals and non-governmental groups oversee it (this would also mean not granting privileges like tax exemptions for married couples). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_a… Removing all of these from the legal system would be a major chore, but it might actually be a good idea. Of course that would also mean that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry just as well - if the government no longer controls marriage then who's going to stop them?
Also "dealing with the reality that it was happening and finding a way to cope" seems like a flimsy excuse to me. God can do anything, if he didn't want these polygamous marriages and concubines to exist, then they wouldn't exist. There would be a law against it, and anyone who broke that law would be punished. I mean, look all over the OT for examples of this kind of thing. It seems that "no polygamy" would be a lot easier to enforce than "no working on the Sabbath", but God and the Hebrews had no problem enforcing that one (Numbers 15: 32-36). In fact, the OT has tons of rules forbidding things, most of which are punishable by death (fortune telling - Deuteronomy 18:10, shaving the hair on the sides of your head or shave your beard with a razor - Leviticus 19:27, men wearing women's clothing or vice-versa - Deuteronomy 22:5, tatoos - Leviticus 19:28, cut yourself or shave your head in mourning - Deuteronomy 14:1, adultery - Deuteronomy 13:18, Putting oil or frankincense on the meal offering - Numbers 5:15, sexual relations with your mother, mother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, daughter, granddaughter, a woman and her daughter, a woman and her granddaughter, your aunt, aunt-in-law, daughter-in-law - Leviticius 18:7 - 18:18, bestiality - Leviticus 18:23, sexual relations with a woman on her period - Leviticus 18:19, Marrying non-Israelites - Deuteronomy 7:3, sacrificing castrated male animals - Leviticus 22:24, eating non-Kosher animals - Leviticus 11:4, eating the meat of a wounded animal - Exodus 22:30, eating blood - Leviticus 3:17 - this is actually why Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions, as they consider it a form of "eating", eating meat cooked with milk - Exodus 23:19, eating fruit from a tree that's less than 3 years old - Leviticus 19:23) I could go on, that's just the beginning, but my point is that the OT had tons of rules for so many things that were expected to be strictly followed. Nowhere is there a rule against polygamy, though (except in situations where it would break one of the other rules). So yes, the Biblical definition of marriage includes polygamy.
BTW, speaking of divorce, there were provisions in the OT for a man to divorce a woman (but not vice-versa). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(div… Here is a link with some information on this.
As for the Levirate marriage, it's an arrangement found in the Bible where the brother of a dead man is obligated to marry his brother's widow. In other words, neither the husband or the wife have any say in this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum In fact, there was even an incident in the Bible where God killed a man for refusing to go through with such a marriage (Genesis 38:7 - 10). This is also part of the Biblical definition of marriage.
Of course the Bible is actually completely irrelevant to the legal issues here, I'm just discussing it so much because I find it interesting and like to study it. The real point is that same-sex marriage harms no one (I should know - it has been legal in my state for nearly 6 years and nothing bad has happened), so unless you have a secular purpose to forbid it (one that would hold up in court), then you can't pass a law against it. More and more state courts are overturning SSM bans because there is no secular purpose that can justify such a ban. After all, it doesn't affect you or me. If you don't like same-sex marriage, just do what I do: Don't have one.
I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Scripture isn't as good as I want it to be, but I will say this. God is rather merciful when we screw up. But this topic is slightly off the point.
Ah ha, here's the kicker; I always knew my plan would legalize same-sex marriage by proxy. But with everyone going by their definitions, it wouldn't force an acceptance. Although, I'd like to see homosexuality re-recognized as a mental disorder and have the option (keyword there) of therapy open.
A friend of mine (friend on this site at least) answers your third paragraph nicely here: hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…
Well, there are exceptions to certain rules. Divorce is fine in cases of infidelity. To compare, killing is justified in very specific cases (self-defense, defense of others, war, executing criminals, etc.)
The Levirate marriage was to ensure that the widow wasn't going to be left to fend for themselves and most likely go into poverty (or worse). Also, if you look at the guy God killed, you'd find God had a legitimate reason for killing him. He was basically say, "Since legally they'd be my brother's kids, I'm gonna make sure my new wife never has kids, even though she wants them. Oh, but of course I'm gonna take advantage of her and still have sex and stuff, I just don't want to have that pesky responsibility." If you were in God's position, wouldn't you deal with this prideful, selfish, hedonistic monster?
Actually, history has shown that the Bible is the perfect basis for government. Even America's founders agreed (even the Deists!) I recommend this book for you: www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Chr…
Here are just a few excerpts from it:
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
Also, I find pandering to a psychosis very harmful. Especially when said psychosis can lead to health problems that make alcoholism look safe by comparison.
Ah ha, here's the kicker; I always knew my plan would legalize same-sex marriage by proxy. But with everyone going by their definitions, it wouldn't force an acceptance. Although, I'd like to see homosexuality re-recognized as a mental disorder and have the option (keyword there) of therapy open.
A friend of mine (friend on this site at least) answers your third paragraph nicely here: hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…
Well, there are exceptions to certain rules. Divorce is fine in cases of infidelity. To compare, killing is justified in very specific cases (self-defense, defense of others, war, executing criminals, etc.)
The Levirate marriage was to ensure that the widow wasn't going to be left to fend for themselves and most likely go into poverty (or worse). Also, if you look at the guy God killed, you'd find God had a legitimate reason for killing him. He was basically say, "Since legally they'd be my brother's kids, I'm gonna make sure my new wife never has kids, even though she wants them. Oh, but of course I'm gonna take advantage of her and still have sex and stuff, I just don't want to have that pesky responsibility." If you were in God's position, wouldn't you deal with this prideful, selfish, hedonistic monster?
Actually, history has shown that the Bible is the perfect basis for government. Even America's founders agreed (even the Deists!) I recommend this book for you: www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Chr…
Here are just a few excerpts from it:
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
Also, I find pandering to a psychosis very harmful. Especially when said psychosis can lead to health problems that make alcoholism look safe by comparison.
Homosexuality was de-listed as a mental disorder because it doesn't fit the parameters. Furthermore, it's not only psychological. This is fact.
Would you have drapetomania (obsession with no longer being a slave) re-classified as a mental disorder, too? Maybe treat them both with trepanning?
Homosexuality is not psychosis, and is not inherently harmful (no more harmful than heterosexuality, anyway).
Oh, and the founders of the US had this to say about the Bible being the basis for government:
"As the government of the United States of America is in no way founded up on the Christian religion..." -John Adams et al, Treaty of Tripoli
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson
Of course, you get your information from a book whose author has been proven to use either dishonest or wildly misinformed versions of history (such as claiming that the first universities in Europe were Christian inventions), and from a heavily biased apologetics site. Do you not have any actual historical or empirical evidence?
Would you have drapetomania (obsession with no longer being a slave) re-classified as a mental disorder, too? Maybe treat them both with trepanning?
Homosexuality is not psychosis, and is not inherently harmful (no more harmful than heterosexuality, anyway).
Oh, and the founders of the US had this to say about the Bible being the basis for government:
"As the government of the United States of America is in no way founded up on the Christian religion..." -John Adams et al, Treaty of Tripoli
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson
Of course, you get your information from a book whose author has been proven to use either dishonest or wildly misinformed versions of history (such as claiming that the first universities in Europe were Christian inventions), and from a heavily biased apologetics site. Do you not have any actual historical or empirical evidence?
Maybe you should take some time, sit down, and read the Bible cover-to-cover. Despite not being a Christian (or a Jew for that matter), I actually find it quite fascinating. There is also commentary and references from theologians you can look at from sites like this: biblehub.com/ (it also lets you cross-references passages with the original Hebrew and Greek, compare different translations, etc. Very useful site).
Now as for the rest of your post, first of all, what do you mean by "force an acceptance"? No one is forcing you to like the fact that homosexuals are allowed to marry, merely making it so you can't make it illegal for them to do so. Of course there is often a misunderstanding here: If you disapprove of gay marriage, then of course some people are going to criticize you for that. They have the right to do so, just as you have the right to criticize the concept of SSM. Free speech means you can express any opinion you want, but it also means that others can disagree with you, call you out on it, and say you're wrong. There are people today who say that interracial marriage, woman suffrage, etc. should go back to being illegal, and even people who say things like slavery should be legal again. They're allowed to voice those opinions, despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with them and do so quite vehemently. So no one is forcing anyone to accept anything, but the more your views run contrary to societal norms, the more you'll be criticized for them - that's just an unchangeable fact of human nature.
Regarding reclassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, it is very unlikely that will happen. It was removed from the DSM in 1973 for very good reasons, including consensus and research by countless professional psychologists. Are you a professional psychologist? Have you studied psychology and mental illness your entire life? To get it removed, you'd have to become a psychologist, perform research and overturn the accepted consensus, based on actual medical evidence, not merely your personal feelings.
Your friend seems to be using specific translations to support his points. For example, in one of the verses he quoted (1 Corinthians 6:9), he says "homosexual offenders" (which is the phrase used in the New International Version), whereas the original Greek actually uses the word "arsenokoites", which, in Greek, is actually a hapax legomenon (a word that has only been used once in an original source). Thus the actual translation is somewhat up for interpretation. One way it is typically translated is "abusers of themselves with mankind", which has variously been interpreted as homosexuality, pederasty, pimping, pedophilia, "sins against nature" (whatever that means), etc. This confusion of translation has been a problem with this verse ever since the Bible was first translated into English and other European languages, centuries ago.
Furthermore, there is also the following verse (which, using your friend's preferred NIV, translates as "nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.")
"Greedy" in this verse is more properly translated as "covetous", which basically means anyone who desires something that anyone else has. There's also the inclusion of slander, drunkenness, effeminate men, idol worship, and extortion (swindling). So if you want to be consistent, you should also be trying to outlaw anyone lying or defaming anyone else (which would include about 80% of the US right wing's attacks on President Obama, just as an example), alcohol, any non-Christian or pagan religions (idol worship), capitalism (covetousness/greed), men who have long hair, speak in a soft voice, or act feminine in any way, as well as used car dealerships, homeopathic medical practitioners, and televangelists (swindlers). And those are just the specific things addressed in those two verses! Certainly you can avoid doing all of these things yourself, but good luck trying to force the rest of the nation to follow along with you.
Regarding divorce, it was actually legal in certain circumstances in the OT, but Jesus said that it wasn't legal at all in the NT. However, according to secular law, it's legal, even in ways it wouldn't be in the OT (for example, a woman can divorce her husband, not just the other way around). Funny how very few modern Christians try to implement laws to outlaw divorce nationwide, as opposed to those who try to outlaw homosexuality, considering that the former was something that Jesus specifically addressed and disapproved of, unlike the latter. Unlike SSM, divorce is legal in every state in the US, but you see very few Christians complaining about that or trying to change it. In fact, many of them take advantage of it.
The point of bringing up Levirate marriage was that it is yet another type of marriage found in the Bible. The justification for it is irrelevant, it was merely showing that the Biblical definition of marriage includes many things other than what is commonly thought of as "traditional marriage". We don't have any laws enshrining anything similar to Levirate marriage in our modern nation. Now as for your question of "If I was God", I don't really like these kinds of questions, because I'm not God, and I have no way knowing what I would or would not do if I was, since, if you ask me, the mentality of being God would be completely different from the mentality of being a human. However, as a human, I don't find it particularly moral to force people to have sex and reproduce against their will.
The US government is in no way based on the Bible (apart from very abstract connections). A clear study of historical and legal formation of the US government will tell you that (for example, many churches and religious organizations kept lobbying for mentions of God and Christianity to be added to the Constitution, but they were continuously denied, there's also the Treaty of Tripoli, which specifically says that the government of the United States is in no way based on the Christian religion, in those exact words, and, of course according to the Supremacy Clause of the US constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" - Article 6, Clause 2). However, that's a rather long and involved tangent, so instead I'll just jump to the most salient point: If the US constitution were based on the Bible, then there would be no such thing as freedom of religion and it would be illegal to be anything other than a Christian. After all, what's the worst sin you can commit, according to the Bible? I'll give you a hint: it's not homosexuality. According to Mark 3:29, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Here's a Christian site explaining this: christianity.about.com/od/faqh… This sin basically means rejecting Jesus Christ as savior, in other words, rejecting Christianity. If it's perfectly legal in the US to commit the worst possible sin in the Bible, then why should it not be legal to commit any other sin, unless there is a secular purpose of that law? For example, the secular purpose of laws against murder and theft are obvious, but there is no secular purpose of a law against being a non-Christian.
Finally, what "health problems" are you talking about? If you're going to mention things like depression and suicide rates, you are aware that's due to persecution of their kind by people like you, right? It's equivalent to a bully who picks on short kids saying that the fact that short kids are often beat up and have their lunch money stolen means that it's their fault for being short.
If you're talking about STDs and stuff, the same exact risks exist with heterosexual sex, and safe sex practices reduce the risks by the same amount for both. In fact, lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs statistically, so if you want to use that argument, then lesbian sex is the most healthy kind of sex and all other kinds should be outlawed.
Now as for the rest of your post, first of all, what do you mean by "force an acceptance"? No one is forcing you to like the fact that homosexuals are allowed to marry, merely making it so you can't make it illegal for them to do so. Of course there is often a misunderstanding here: If you disapprove of gay marriage, then of course some people are going to criticize you for that. They have the right to do so, just as you have the right to criticize the concept of SSM. Free speech means you can express any opinion you want, but it also means that others can disagree with you, call you out on it, and say you're wrong. There are people today who say that interracial marriage, woman suffrage, etc. should go back to being illegal, and even people who say things like slavery should be legal again. They're allowed to voice those opinions, despite the fact that the majority of people disagree with them and do so quite vehemently. So no one is forcing anyone to accept anything, but the more your views run contrary to societal norms, the more you'll be criticized for them - that's just an unchangeable fact of human nature.
Regarding reclassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, it is very unlikely that will happen. It was removed from the DSM in 1973 for very good reasons, including consensus and research by countless professional psychologists. Are you a professional psychologist? Have you studied psychology and mental illness your entire life? To get it removed, you'd have to become a psychologist, perform research and overturn the accepted consensus, based on actual medical evidence, not merely your personal feelings.
Your friend seems to be using specific translations to support his points. For example, in one of the verses he quoted (1 Corinthians 6:9), he says "homosexual offenders" (which is the phrase used in the New International Version), whereas the original Greek actually uses the word "arsenokoites", which, in Greek, is actually a hapax legomenon (a word that has only been used once in an original source). Thus the actual translation is somewhat up for interpretation. One way it is typically translated is "abusers of themselves with mankind", which has variously been interpreted as homosexuality, pederasty, pimping, pedophilia, "sins against nature" (whatever that means), etc. This confusion of translation has been a problem with this verse ever since the Bible was first translated into English and other European languages, centuries ago.
Furthermore, there is also the following verse (which, using your friend's preferred NIV, translates as "nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.")
"Greedy" in this verse is more properly translated as "covetous", which basically means anyone who desires something that anyone else has. There's also the inclusion of slander, drunkenness, effeminate men, idol worship, and extortion (swindling). So if you want to be consistent, you should also be trying to outlaw anyone lying or defaming anyone else (which would include about 80% of the US right wing's attacks on President Obama, just as an example), alcohol, any non-Christian or pagan religions (idol worship), capitalism (covetousness/greed), men who have long hair, speak in a soft voice, or act feminine in any way, as well as used car dealerships, homeopathic medical practitioners, and televangelists (swindlers). And those are just the specific things addressed in those two verses! Certainly you can avoid doing all of these things yourself, but good luck trying to force the rest of the nation to follow along with you.
Regarding divorce, it was actually legal in certain circumstances in the OT, but Jesus said that it wasn't legal at all in the NT. However, according to secular law, it's legal, even in ways it wouldn't be in the OT (for example, a woman can divorce her husband, not just the other way around). Funny how very few modern Christians try to implement laws to outlaw divorce nationwide, as opposed to those who try to outlaw homosexuality, considering that the former was something that Jesus specifically addressed and disapproved of, unlike the latter. Unlike SSM, divorce is legal in every state in the US, but you see very few Christians complaining about that or trying to change it. In fact, many of them take advantage of it.
The point of bringing up Levirate marriage was that it is yet another type of marriage found in the Bible. The justification for it is irrelevant, it was merely showing that the Biblical definition of marriage includes many things other than what is commonly thought of as "traditional marriage". We don't have any laws enshrining anything similar to Levirate marriage in our modern nation. Now as for your question of "If I was God", I don't really like these kinds of questions, because I'm not God, and I have no way knowing what I would or would not do if I was, since, if you ask me, the mentality of being God would be completely different from the mentality of being a human. However, as a human, I don't find it particularly moral to force people to have sex and reproduce against their will.
The US government is in no way based on the Bible (apart from very abstract connections). A clear study of historical and legal formation of the US government will tell you that (for example, many churches and religious organizations kept lobbying for mentions of God and Christianity to be added to the Constitution, but they were continuously denied, there's also the Treaty of Tripoli, which specifically says that the government of the United States is in no way based on the Christian religion, in those exact words, and, of course according to the Supremacy Clause of the US constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" - Article 6, Clause 2). However, that's a rather long and involved tangent, so instead I'll just jump to the most salient point: If the US constitution were based on the Bible, then there would be no such thing as freedom of religion and it would be illegal to be anything other than a Christian. After all, what's the worst sin you can commit, according to the Bible? I'll give you a hint: it's not homosexuality. According to Mark 3:29, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Here's a Christian site explaining this: christianity.about.com/od/faqh… This sin basically means rejecting Jesus Christ as savior, in other words, rejecting Christianity. If it's perfectly legal in the US to commit the worst possible sin in the Bible, then why should it not be legal to commit any other sin, unless there is a secular purpose of that law? For example, the secular purpose of laws against murder and theft are obvious, but there is no secular purpose of a law against being a non-Christian.
Finally, what "health problems" are you talking about? If you're going to mention things like depression and suicide rates, you are aware that's due to persecution of their kind by people like you, right? It's equivalent to a bully who picks on short kids saying that the fact that short kids are often beat up and have their lunch money stolen means that it's their fault for being short.
If you're talking about STDs and stuff, the same exact risks exist with heterosexual sex, and safe sex practices reduce the risks by the same amount for both. In fact, lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs statistically, so if you want to use that argument, then lesbian sex is the most healthy kind of sex and all other kinds should be outlawed.
Sounds fascinating. I'll check it out sometime.
But that's the point! We don't have that. If you don't feel right with your conscience about being the photographer or baker for a gay wedding, you face charges! If that's not forced acceptance I don't know what is.
In the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics", the author points out that about 60% of psychologists disagree with it. I recommend reading the rest of the book for more details.
So what you're saying is "It's not X, it's Y." The problem here is that X=Y. Also, I'm not for outlawing every sinful act. Like I always say, the ideal government is one that gives its citizens enough freedom that they have a true choice between right and wrong. But also has enough control to punish only those who choose wrong. The tricky part finding which wrong choices are in the government bounds to punish and which ones are their own punishments. While I think homosexual activity should be left as it's own punishment, I don't think we should pander to it.
Ah, who are we humans to try and understand something greater than our selves? Though, it was that guy's motive for not having kids with her (and his general vileness) that made God kill him.
On the topic of our government, I don't believe they were trying to blaspheme anyone there. Also, that isn't the worst possible sins (it's up there though, but the worst is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Which is said to be unforgivable.) Also, John Adams (whom wasn't a Christian) said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."
The suicide and depression rates are about the same in countries that are very "tolerant" of them. On the topic of health issues, the book I mentioned earlier covers it rather well.
But that's the point! We don't have that. If you don't feel right with your conscience about being the photographer or baker for a gay wedding, you face charges! If that's not forced acceptance I don't know what is.
In the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics", the author points out that about 60% of psychologists disagree with it. I recommend reading the rest of the book for more details.
So what you're saying is "It's not X, it's Y." The problem here is that X=Y. Also, I'm not for outlawing every sinful act. Like I always say, the ideal government is one that gives its citizens enough freedom that they have a true choice between right and wrong. But also has enough control to punish only those who choose wrong. The tricky part finding which wrong choices are in the government bounds to punish and which ones are their own punishments. While I think homosexual activity should be left as it's own punishment, I don't think we should pander to it.
Ah, who are we humans to try and understand something greater than our selves? Though, it was that guy's motive for not having kids with her (and his general vileness) that made God kill him.
On the topic of our government, I don't believe they were trying to blaspheme anyone there. Also, that isn't the worst possible sins (it's up there though, but the worst is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Which is said to be unforgivable.) Also, John Adams (whom wasn't a Christian) said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."
The suicide and depression rates are about the same in countries that are very "tolerant" of them. On the topic of health issues, the book I mentioned earlier covers it rather well.
"But that's the point! We don't have that. If you don't feel right with your conscience about being the photographer or baker for a gay wedding, you face charges! If that's not forced acceptance I don't know what is."
You only face charges if you're performing those services as a public function, that is, paid for by the government. Not if it's a private corporation. Of course you're still going to face criticism, because most people these days are against discrimination. I bet if some employer refused to provide services to someone because they were Christian you would be pretty upset about it, wouldn't you?
"In the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics", the author points out that about 60% of psychologists disagree with it. I recommend reading the rest of the book for more details."
I'd obviously need to see a citation from an impartial source, and the origin of those statistics. Believe it or not, I don't have the time nor the money to just buy any books you care to name and search through them for the claims you say they make.
"So what you're saying is "It's not X, it's Y." The problem here is that X=Y"
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
"Also, I'm not for outlawing every sinful act. Like I always say, the ideal government is one that gives its citizens enough freedom that they have a true choice between right and wrong. But also has enough control to punish only those who choose wrong. The tricky part finding which wrong choices are in the government bounds to punish and which ones are their own punishments. While I think homosexual activity should be left as it's own punishment, I don't think we should pander to it."
Not discriminating against them and giving them civil rights is not "pandering". They are not hurting anyone, and nothing they are doing is affecting you, so why do you feel that you have the right to oppress and discriminate against them? What if someone from another religion who considered your religious beliefs to be heresy and sin tried to prevent you and others like you from getting married, or practicing your religion in public? How would you feel about that?
"Ah, who are we humans to try and understand something greater than our selves? Though, it was that guy's motive for not having kids with her (and his general vileness) that made God kill him."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing by trying to imply that you known exactly what God wants, which sins are more relevant than others and how society should deal with them, etc.? Like I said, the very worst sin in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Yet we let Non-Christians (who actively deny the Holy Spirit) get married. Do you think trying to legislate your religious morality is going to get more people to convert to your brand of religion? If anything, it's done the opposite, causing many people to stereotype all Christians as bigoted and intolerant. Instead of acting like a busybody and driving people away from your faith, wouldn't it make more sense to trust in God to judge sinners? Isn't that his job, after all?
"On the topic of our government, I don't believe they were trying to blaspheme anyone there. Also, that isn't the worst possible sins (it's up there though, but the worst is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Which is said to be unforgivable.)"
That's exactly what I said! But what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Certainly it would include denying that the Holy Spirit exists, right? And that's exactly what non-Christians do! The Constitution isn't committing this blasphemy, but it is giving US citizens the legal right to commit it, with no punishments for doing so whatsoever. If it were based on Christianity, that wouldn't be the case at all.
"Also, John Adams (whom wasn't a Christian) said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."
Actually no, he didn't. This is one of the many fraudulent quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers by the Christian Right which you will see drifting around on the internet (there are many false ones in particular attributed to Thomas Jefferson). In fact, those words were specifically taken out of context and merged together from different parts of a letter he wrote to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't:
fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010…
You only face charges if you're performing those services as a public function, that is, paid for by the government. Not if it's a private corporation. Of course you're still going to face criticism, because most people these days are against discrimination. I bet if some employer refused to provide services to someone because they were Christian you would be pretty upset about it, wouldn't you?
"In the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics", the author points out that about 60% of psychologists disagree with it. I recommend reading the rest of the book for more details."
I'd obviously need to see a citation from an impartial source, and the origin of those statistics. Believe it or not, I don't have the time nor the money to just buy any books you care to name and search through them for the claims you say they make.
"So what you're saying is "It's not X, it's Y." The problem here is that X=Y"
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
"Also, I'm not for outlawing every sinful act. Like I always say, the ideal government is one that gives its citizens enough freedom that they have a true choice between right and wrong. But also has enough control to punish only those who choose wrong. The tricky part finding which wrong choices are in the government bounds to punish and which ones are their own punishments. While I think homosexual activity should be left as it's own punishment, I don't think we should pander to it."
Not discriminating against them and giving them civil rights is not "pandering". They are not hurting anyone, and nothing they are doing is affecting you, so why do you feel that you have the right to oppress and discriminate against them? What if someone from another religion who considered your religious beliefs to be heresy and sin tried to prevent you and others like you from getting married, or practicing your religion in public? How would you feel about that?
"Ah, who are we humans to try and understand something greater than our selves? Though, it was that guy's motive for not having kids with her (and his general vileness) that made God kill him."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing by trying to imply that you known exactly what God wants, which sins are more relevant than others and how society should deal with them, etc.? Like I said, the very worst sin in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Yet we let Non-Christians (who actively deny the Holy Spirit) get married. Do you think trying to legislate your religious morality is going to get more people to convert to your brand of religion? If anything, it's done the opposite, causing many people to stereotype all Christians as bigoted and intolerant. Instead of acting like a busybody and driving people away from your faith, wouldn't it make more sense to trust in God to judge sinners? Isn't that his job, after all?
"On the topic of our government, I don't believe they were trying to blaspheme anyone there. Also, that isn't the worst possible sins (it's up there though, but the worst is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Which is said to be unforgivable.)"
That's exactly what I said! But what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Certainly it would include denying that the Holy Spirit exists, right? And that's exactly what non-Christians do! The Constitution isn't committing this blasphemy, but it is giving US citizens the legal right to commit it, with no punishments for doing so whatsoever. If it were based on Christianity, that wouldn't be the case at all.
"Also, John Adams (whom wasn't a Christian) said, "the general Principles on which the Fathers achieved Independence, were the general Principles of Christianity."
Actually no, he didn't. This is one of the many fraudulent quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers by the Christian Right which you will see drifting around on the internet (there are many false ones in particular attributed to Thomas Jefferson). In fact, those words were specifically taken out of context and merged together from different parts of a letter he wrote to make it seem like he was saying something he wasn't:
fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010…
Adams, in his reply (28 June 1813), disclaims any such general application of his words. He limits the “principles … received from their ancestors” to two areas: “the general principles of Christianity … and the general principles of English and American liberty”. What did he mean by “the general principles of Christianity”? He doesn’t spell them out in the letter, but they are principles held in common by a diverse range of beliefs, including “Roman Catholics, … Presbyterians, Methodists, … Universalists, … Deists and Atheists ….” In other words, Adams had in mind the common system of morals held by all humankind throughout history. And far from giving it the unique status implied by the patchwork quotation, he couples “the general principles of Christianity” throughout with “the general principles of English and American liberty”.
Here is what Adams wrote to Jefferson, with the selected passages in bold:
"Now, compare the paragraph in the answer with the paragraph in the address, as both are quoted above, and see if we can find the extent and the limits of the meaning of both.
Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.
Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame."
If the passage as given above can really be considered a fair summary of the entire passage, then so can this version, emphasizing the other elements Adams gave as the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence”:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."
Obviously neither version is a fair representation of the original. Each leaves out one essential element in the original mix so that even though these extracts are made up of Adams’ own words, the overall quotation (particularly sans ellipses) is as dishonest as the Patrick Henry “religionists” misattribution or the Washington “impossible to govern without the Bible” concoction.
"The suicide and depression rates are about the same in countries that are very "tolerant" of them."
Such as? I'd like to see some citations here. Although a quick search actually found this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_…
"The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention notes there are no national data (for the U.S.) regarding suicidal ideation or suicide rates among the LGBT population as a whole or in part, for LGBT youth or LGBT seniors, for example.[16] In part because there is no agreed percentage of the national population that is LGBTQ, or even identifies as LGBTQ, also death certificates do not include sexuality information.[9] A 1986 study noted that previous large scale studies of completed suicides did not "consider sexual orientation in their data analyses."[17]"
"On the topic of health issues, the book I mentioned earlier covers it rather well."
Again, I am not going to be locating, paying for, and reading through all of these books to find your citations. If you think a book makes a good argument, then please either quote it, link to a site which quotes it, or summarize it in your own words.
View all replies