Canada moving to approve same-sex marriages

[Wormboy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/international/americas/18CANA.html

Canadian Leaders Agree to Propose Gay Marriage Law
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS


ORONTO, June 17 — The Canadian cabinet approved a new national policy today to open marriage to gay couples, paving the way for Canada to become the third country to allow same-sex unions.

"You have to look at history as an evolution of society," Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told reporters after a meeting of his cabinet. "According to the interpretation of the courts these unions should be legal in Canada. We will ensure that our legislation includes and legally recognizes the union of same-sex couples."

The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Last week, the province's highest court ruled that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

Once aides to Mr. Chrétien draft the necessary legislation, the House of Commons is expected to pass it into law in the next few months. Although leaders of the two conservative parties and some Liberals have expressed reservations, there is little organized opposition to such legislation, and public opinion polls show a solid majority in favor of the change.

The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. In addition, gay-rights advocates in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional heterosexual family life.

No American state allows same-sex marriage, but Vermont has enacted a law providing for civil unions, which allow gay couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but now that the definition of marriage in the two countries appears likely to diverge, legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian marriages seem certain to arise in at least some states.

Issues including adoption rights, inheritance, insurance benefits and matters as mundane as sharing health club memberships are likely to arise in courts and state legislatures.

Canada's new marriage policy comes at a time when the government is also pushing for legislation that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, another policy that diverges sharply from American federal practices.

Polling experts and social scientists note that conservative religious views are much less influential here than in the United States, with regular church attendance far lower and with fundamentalist Protestant groups attracting far less support.

Mr. Chrétien said the government would also ask the Supreme Court for advice to make the new legislation invulnerable to appeals by provincial governments seeking to invalidate it in their jurisdictions.

However, the conservative premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, has threatened a legal fight to exclude his province from the new rules.

Gay-rights advocates celebrated the decision as a civil-rights milestone.

"June 17 of 2003 is going to be a day gay and lesbian people remember for a long, long time to come," said Svend Robinson, a gay member of the House of Commons from the left-of-center New Democratic Party, in a television interview immediately after the announcement.

Canada's action follows in the steps of the Netherlands and Belgium, but it is likely to have a much larger impact on the United States. Only a few American same-sex couples have taken advantage of expanded marriage laws in the Netherlands because of its long residency requirement, and Belgium will only allow marriages of foreign couples from countries that already allow such unions. But Canada is nearby and has no such restrictions.

"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York.

Mr. Soloway said Canada's marriage reform would go a long way to changing public perceptions and attitudes in the United States, although he added that the march to full acceptance would be slow.

"What we are in for is a long gradual struggle to win full equal recognition of these marriages," he said.

...

There's more if you go to the link.



Amen! Finally, another country recognizing that we have been depriving gays of a basic human right all along. This is another way in which Canada has really impressed me. Canadians, you should be proud of your country as a pioneer in human rights!

Or maybe I am being premature. It isn't a law yet.... But still I am impressed that Chretien thinks this is a priority.

[Internal Damage]

Originally posted by Wormboy

Amen! Finally, another country recognizing that we have been depriving gays of a basic human right all along. This is another way in which Canada has really impressed me. Canadians, you should be proud of your country as a pioneer in human rights!

Or maybe I am being premature. It isn't a law yet.... But still I am impressed that Chretien thinks this is a priority.

YEAH GO CANADA!!! WHOO BEST PLACE IN THE WORLD!!!!!

personaly, i do not support gays. but everyone has the rite to chose their own lifestyle. and really whats the harm of letting homosexuals get married? I guess the only problem is they would have to go and redefine some definitions of marriage and stuff...but thats not to hard

[Crazy_Ivan80]

cool, we got mentioned (Belgium).

Great for Canada. May the marriages be long and filled with happiness

[Wraith]

just another exsample of liberials destroying the moral framework of the world.

[Lewkowski]

Be a lot easier if governments did not recognize the state of marriage period.

[Tontoe]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Be a lot easier if governments did not recognize the state of marriage period.

Soviet Union tried that. The family unit disintegrated. Sank the economy. I wouldn't suggest it.

[Miang]

Wow... go Canada!

* looks for party streamers.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Wraith
just another exsample of liberials destroying the moral framework of the world.

New world needs new morals. When society changes so do the morals.
Setting your morals in stone (pun intended) for all eternity is asking for problems.
Remember: it's society that makes the morals, not the morals that make society.

(society in this context is a grouping of at least 2 humans)

[homercles]

Originally posted by Internal Damage
YEAH GO CANADA!!! WHOO BEST PLACE IN THE WORLD!!!!!

Wha...? Dont you guys have like an 80% tax rate (compared to 30% in the US) while EVERYTHING is more expensive to boot?! The car i bought last year was ~8-9k more in Canada, sure there were only 150 of em in Canada, but thats not why.

Ok, to keep on topic: Whoo hoo! Way to go our slightly odd neighbors to the north! Time to go oot en aboot fur a celebration, eh? ;)

[Hazir]

Originally posted by Wraith
just another exsample of liberials destroying the moral framework of the world. Translation into english : 'I loathe to see my system of hate losing its grip on the world'.

[Philosophy101]

Originally posted by Hazir
Translation into english : 'I loathe to see my system of hate losing its grip on the world'.

:up:

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by homercles
Wha...? Dont you guys have like an 80% tax rate (compared to 30% in the US) while EVERYTHING is more expensive to boot?! The car i bought last year was ~8-9k more in Canada, sure there were only 150 of em in Canada, but thats not why.

Umm, things may seem to cost more because the Canadian dollar is worth slightly less than the US dollar. Ever notice how magazines in the US also have a Canadian price label that is slightly higher than the US price? :)

As for the topic itself, I'm very pleased that another state is on the way to recognizing homosexual marriage. I am moreso delighted that it is the northern neighbor of the United States and that there will be no time-limit restrictions. I hopped the border this winter to get drunk with my friends; it'll be a powerful symbol when people hop the boarder to get married of all things.:up:

[ThorsHammer2]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught


Umm, things may seem to cost more because the Canadian dollar is worth slightly less than the US dollar. Ever notice how magazines in the US also have a Canadian price label that is slightly higher than the US price? :)

As for the topic itself, I'm very pleased that another state is on the way to recognizing homosexual marriage. I am moreso delighted that it is the northern neighbor of the United States and that there will be no time-limit restrictions. I hopped the border this winter to get drunk with my friends; it'll be a powerful symbol when people hop the boarder to get married of all things.:up: [/B]

Will the American companies recognize the married status though.
Part of the reason why homosexuals in Canada wanted this is so they could have the same legal status as a heterosexual married couple. This isnt just for symbolic reasons , there is a practical benefit. Company benefits for one or the right to decide what to do after the partner dies. In the past the family of the deceased had first dibs on the decision making and assets. Now the legally recognized partner has the rights.

[Lewkowski]

Soviet Union tried that. The family unit disintegrated. Sank the economy. I wouldn't suggest it.


I think what "sank the economy" was the flawed economic system called commusnim.

[Aegeri]

They also declared the bible hate literature didn't they?

I'm not really surprised that they would do this :/

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Tontoe
Soviet Union tried that. The family unit disintegrated. Sank the economy. I wouldn't suggest it.

I need to introduce you to a fundamental scientific concept:

"Correlation does not mean Causation"

Meaning that just because two events are coincident, they aren't necessarily linked.

I don't know when exactly the USSR tried that, but since you say "Soviet" it must be 80s or earlier. Well, the Soviet economy was a disaster for 10-20 years leading up to its dissolution (depending on whom you talk to), which natually included a huge black market, alcohol and drug problems, etc. So to imply that same-sex marriages brought all of these problems on is ridiculous, to say the least.

[ThorsHammer2]

Originally posted by Aegeri
They also declared the bible hate literature didn't they?

I'm not really surprised that they would do this :/

Why becasue you actually think you have a clue about the "they" you are talking about.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Hazir
Translation into english : 'I loathe to see my system of hate losing its grip on the world'.

:haha: :up:

[Aegeri]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
Why becasue you actually think you have a clue about the "they" you are talking about.
Canada by any chance?

Do you know what I am reffering to?

[Darkphyre]

Originally posted by homercles
Wha...? Dont you guys have like an 80% tax rate (compared to 30% in the US) while EVERYTHING is more expensive to boot?! The car i bought last year was ~8-9k more in Canada, sure there were only 150 of em in Canada, but thats not why.

Go here (http://ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3892900#post3892900), and also read the second posts below it. As for everything being expensive, that's only for imported stuff, because our dollar is lower than the US's (~$0.75 US = $1 Can). This is actually beneficial for an exporting country like Canada.

Ok, to keep on topic: Whoo hoo! Way to go our slightly odd neighbors to the north! Time to go oot en aboot fur a celebration, eh? ;)

Awnly if ya stay off tha "ruff."

Originally posted by Aegeri
They also declared the bible hate literature didn't they?

I'm not really surprised that they would do this :/

Yes and no. Some people up here did say that, but nothing official has been, or will be, done. (To outlaw the Bible as Hate literature, that is.)

[ductonius]

I hate to break it to all you partying, but Canadians are pretty evenly split on whether to allow same sex marriages.

This move wasnt prompted by a bill in parliment but a unelected judge ruling that the current definition was wrong and arbitrarily imposing his own. In other words, a unelected judge subverted parliment and changed canadian law based on what he thought was right.

Also, there is one province, Alberta, which is willing to use the "notwithstanding" clause in teh constituion to keep same sex marriages illegal in its terriorty.

This isnt a democratic move. A judge imposed his will on Canada and Chretien decided he didnt want such a hot potato subject ruining his legacy (since hes finally letting go of the country) and decided not to fight the issue.

So far, all this has done is give a shot in the arm to western separitism.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
The divorce rate in the USSR was significantly lower that it was in the West.

What was the unofficial seperation rate? Loki, you know that even if the Soviets were trying to get accurate statistics, they'd be hamstrung by selective reporting. Maybe we should ask Int's opinion? :)

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by ductonius

...

Read the article. Chretien has drafted a bill making same-sex marriages law across Canada. Perhaps this was spurred by a judge's actions, but it's mainstream with the PM gets involved.

As for whether it passes or not, we'll see. But even if it fails I think it is an excellent sign that the times they are a changin for the hateful, yessir.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Wormboy
Read the article. Chretien has drafted a bill making same-sex marriages law across Canada. Perhaps this was spurred by a judge's actions, but it's mainstream with the PM gets involved.

LOL!!! "read the artical" he says, as if thats the whole story.

I live in Canada. Even if I hadent read teh artical I still would have known more about whats going on than >90
% of the people here. I've been hearing, watching and reading about this for the last week.

The bill wasnt "spurred" by a judges action, a judge changed the law on his own authority. He didnt just say the law was wrong, he said it was wrong and then arbitraraly reworded the law to his liking.

Now, instead of reverting the law to what it should be before the judge circumvented parliment, Chretien is quaking in his boots that a controversial issue might stain his "legacy" and is just letting everything slide.

Originally posted by Wormboy
. But even if it fails I think it is an excellent sign that the times they are a changin for the hateful, yessir.

I like how you've labeled those who you disagree with as "the hateful". You do know that poisioning the well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) is a logical fallicy, dont you?

[Varky]

Originally posted by Wraith
just another exsample of liberials destroying the moral framework of the world.

The 21st century is waiting for you to join it.

Whats so immoral about homosexuality? Its not a choice, they love eachother just as much as a man and a woman can, so... whats the big issue? Bible aside, someone please educate me why two people who love eachother shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Varky
The 21st century is waiting for you to join it.



Exactly.

:up:

[Moridin00]

\o/ :)

One step forward... Only another couple hundred countries to go!

I think Africans will have a tough time getting gay marriages passed; as will muslims and islams everywhere.

S.Africa has a good chance of going ahead with gay marriages, eventually.

Kudos to Canada! :up: The States must be next; it will be a powerful global signal that it's an ok thing to do.

International marketing/politics; you gotta love it!

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by ductonius

I like how you've labeled those who you disagree with as "the hateful". You do know that poisioning the well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) is a logical fallicy, dont you?

Tha's not what I was doing. The examples in your link (which is very interesting, BTW) show people maligning an individual only a totally unrelated topic, then using that to discredit them generally. In contrast, I have a marked history of being able to focus on the thread at hand. For example, me and Loki are almost polar opposites on US foreign policy (specially, the Iraq war), but are very similar on economics and social issues. I will argue his points on one thread, and laud his points on another. This is inherently NOT poisoning the well.

In this case, I am saying that calling homosexuals and their behavior immoral is intolerant, and bordering on bigotted and hateful. This is addressing your point specifically, and is not "poisoning the well." Poisoning the well would be saying "yeah, you think that war protester should be deported." This is poisoning the well, because it is discrediting a person based on an unrelated subject. Mind you, it is not totally invalid, in the hypothetical situation where a person has ideas that are generally disapproved of. For example, I have indeed attacked some Frothing Fundies on this forum using this very principle. But since hatredand intolerance is present in their every political or social stance, the generally invalid tool becomes relevant.

IMO, you could trot out your "poisoning the well" idea every time somebody disagrees with you or condemns some position of yours. That doesn't make it relevant. It most definitely is NOT "poisoning the well" to disagree with somebody's position. I disagree with your take on homosexuality. More specifically, I think it is intolerant and borderline bigotted and hateful. This is NOT "poisoning the well"

Make sure you understand what a concept means before you accuse somebody of it.

[idlepure]

I wouldn't celebrate Canadians as being so open minded. Our Dictator wants to leave a legacy. I guess beening one of the uglyest leaders on the face of the earth isn't good enough.

I hate when this happens. Last jerk to leave office like this left us with a increase in sales take of 7%. Which Chretien promised to remove over 10 years ago :mad:

Oh and it's not 80% personal income tax. It's only 55% if you make over 73-75K? I'm not sure I don't make it yet ;)

But we could also have those nice low taxes like the U.S. it would just be at the cost of all our social programs. Evil Canadians and there socialist ways :p

[RandBlade]

Yaaay Canada :) :up:

The UK is in the process of semi-legalising gay marriage, I hope it goes all the way.

[Darkphyre]

Originally posted by ductonius
[snip]
The judge didn't change the law. He just said that it was unconstitutional and needed to be revised. It was within his powers (given to him by the system of democracy we have) to do that.

[Mack22]

I think its a bad idea. While I agree that gays should be able to share the same financial/tax benefits that married couples do...marriage was started as a religious union between a man and a woman. To allow gays to be "married" undermines the originol purpose.


[edit] Can anyone find the earliset origin of "marriage." I've been looking and my post included assumptions that Marriage was origionally based on religious beliefs.

[idlepure]

Originally posted by Mack22
I think its a bad idea. While I agree that gays should be able to share the same financial/tax benefits that married couples do...marriage was started as a religious union between a man and a woman. To allow gays to be "married" undermines the originol purpose.


[edit] Can anyone find the earliset origin of "marriage." I've been looking and my post included assumptions that Marriage was origionally based on religious beliefs.

So in other words call it something like "Life partner" and it's ok ;)

[Mack22]

Originally posted by idlepure
So in other words call it something like "Life partner" and it's ok ;)


Doesn't sound to unreasonable does it :)


Calling it a marriage is implying that its a "holy union" which I don't think it is.

[C1CB01]

So now it's legal for men to suck dicks in Canada? :haha:

***S!

[Wraith]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
New world needs new morals. When society changes so do the morals.
Setting your morals in stone (pun intended) for all eternity is asking for problems.
Remember: it's society that makes the morals, not the morals that make society.

(society in this context is a grouping of at least 2 humans)

Well first off my "Morals" don't come from a stone if it's the ten commandments your most likley refering too. If people compramise the morals they hold true regardless of were they have learned them just because the "world" is changed then the "world" is in for trouble. And society makes the, morals not the morals that make society? it can work the other way as well. And i love your condecending inferance that im too stupid too know what society is. Try again ivan :down:



Translation into english : 'I loathe to see my system of hate losing its grip on the world'.

So if i dont agree that 2 people of the same sex should be able to marry is hateful? Wow. Listen i dont hate anyone I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. So in reality you are the intollerant one because you can't tolerate a view which doesnt prescribe to yours. Why should i let someone shove something i dont agree with down my throat. Liberal thinking is all the same barf your view all over the place and if someone disagrees call them a name or label them.:down:

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by C1CB01
So now it's legal for men to suck dicks in Canada? :haha:

Actually, male to male fellatio is legal in almost every country in the world.

It also has nothing to do with marriage...

[C1CB01]

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Mack22
I think its a bad idea. While I agree that gays should be able to share the same financial/tax benefits that married couples do...marriage was started as a religious union between a man and a woman. To allow gays to be "married" undermines the originol purpose.


[edit] Can anyone find the earliset origin of "marriage." I've been looking and my post included assumptions that Marriage was origionally based on religious beliefs. Calling it a marriage is implying that its a "holy union" which I don't think it is.This is easily dismissable nonsense. If marriage is religious, why do more and more people do it in civil cermonies? Why do atheist couples get married and call it marriage?

I plan to get married if I meet a woman I love and want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'd call it marriage. As an atheist is will have absolutely no religious conotations, unless perhaps she wants it to, but if she didn't either then it wouldn't, it would be called marriage and it wouldn't be hypocrisy.

Secondly some churches allow gay marriage ceremonies, although its not recognised in the law.

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by Loki
Not in America... (though it's not enforced in most states).
omg :weird:

Why?
Edit: Is it illegal I mean...

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Moridin00
omg :weird:

Why?
Edit: Is it illegal I mean... Do the words puritanical bigots mean anything to you?

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Do the words puritanical bigots mean anything to you?
:haha:

[idlepure]

Originally posted by C1CB01
So now it's legal for men to suck dicks in Canada? :haha:

***S!

It's also legal for women to run around topless. :D

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Darkphyre
The judge didn't change the law. He just said that it was unconstitutional and needed to be revised. It was within his powers (given to him by the system of democracy we have) to do that.

He did change teh law. Thats why they were able to start marrying moments after the ruling. If he had just said the law is wrong and should be changed, they wouldnt have been able to do that because the law wouldnt have been changed. However, becuae he did change the law, they were able to start marrying right away.

[Moridin00]

Originally posted by Loki
Two gay men were arrested and jailed for this (in Texas or some state in that area) a few weeks back.
So much for America's shining constitution.

That's pathetic.

[idlepure]

Originally posted by Loki
It's a very good constitution. It's main advantage is that it can be interpreted very broadly. In this case, the Republicans interpret "freedom to privacy" as the freedom to do what we want you to do in private.:confused:

So your saying somehow in the privacy of there home someone saw the act and charged them with "freedom to privacy" :weird:

[{TDC}FR33K]

puritanical biggotted hate mongers....

:haha:

when some of us choose to be religious, I think we're subject to a lot more hatred than those who do not.

My God makes the rules in "my" life. I do not tell Him His rules suck and need to be renegotiated. I allow Him to be God and give Him the respect He deserves. You go build a Universe and I won't mind you settin up the rules either.

My Mom does not allow her grandchildren (under the age of 8) to cross the street by themselves. Doesn't mean she hates the underaged roadcrosser, or the "roadcrossing rules whiner", but she won't be happy with the action of breaking this rule. And it does NOT mean she "fears" the rogue little roadcrosser.

My God doesn't allow ppl of the same sex to have sex. Doesn't make me hate the homosexual, just the act. The two can be separated.

I don't define an individual by his or her orientation. However, the act truly disgusts me on many levels. But so does someone eatin sushi ;) Doesn't mean I hate (or lol, fear) sushi eaters, just that I don't want to see it, hear about it, or vote for someone's rights to open a shop next door. And I really can't stand it when someone continues to shove it in my face after I've made my feelings known.



Originally posted by Loki
No, I'm saying that some people have a warped interpretation of the Constitution.

True.

For example, you do not have the right to murder someone in the privacy of your home.

[idlepure]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
when some of us choose to be religious, I think we're subject to a lot more hatred than those who do not.

Most likely trust because many religious views can be interpreted as teaching hatred.

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
My God makes the rules in "my" life. I do not tell Him His rules suck and need to be renegotiated. I allow Him to be God and give Him the respect He deserves. You go build a Universe and I won't mind you settin up the rules either.


Sorry it was my god that created this universe not yours :rolleyes:

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Loki
The reason being that you'd be harming someone else. Tell me, who are the homosexuals harming by having sex?

And I made this point how?

I was agreeing that many ppl misinterpret the "right to privacy" thing.
Some argue that the government has NO place in an individual's privacy. That is just not true.
Personally, I don't think there is "harm" in many laws bein broken. Doesn't make it right.

ppl on our beltway drive an average 70 mph. It's still speedin and ppl get ticketed. And more times than not, the judge will still fine you.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
when some of us choose to be religious, I think we're subject to a lot more hatred than those who do not.

The Fundies in the US often cast themselves as martyrs and objects of hatred. This is not so, since our country's SINGLE GREATEST FOUNDING PRINCIPLE was (and still is in some respects) freedom of religion. You are not discriminated against because of your religion.

Fundies only become targets of anger when they express intolerant views, or worse, act in intolerance. That is, you are held responsible for actions and decisions you make, not for just being religious. Likewise, many in turn probably judge me for my opinions and actions--they judge me for what I do, not who I am. I'm cool with that. I suggest you be too.

Also, one of my favorite quotes: "I am only intolerant of intolerance itself." I live that. I will occasionally flame or argue with people who disagree with me, but I never dislike somebody for the way they came out of the womb.

My God makes the rules in "my" life. I do not tell Him His rules suck and need to be renegotiated. I allow Him to be God and give Him the respect He deserves. You go build a Universe and I won't mind you settin up the rules either.

Well, where was this particular rule set out by god? If you say "Leviticus", then I will ask you "why you don't follow every single other injunction in Leviticus?" EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because if you don't, you are picking and choosing which of god's words you obey, and you have picked a ban on homosexuality, but yet don't stone your neighbor for eating shellfish.

My Mom does not allow her grandchildren (under the age of 8) to cross the street by themselves. Doesn't mean she hates the underaged roadcrosser, or the "roadcrossing rules whiner", but she won't be happy with the action of breaking this rule. And it does NOT mean she "fears" the rogue little roadcrosser.

By this analogy (one of protection), I assume you are acting to "protect" homosexuals? That's fine for 8 year olds, but for adults we have a word for it: "paternalism" It's not generally considered a positive word when applied to anything but children

My God doesn't allow ppl of the same sex to have sex. Doesn't make me hate the homosexual, just the act. The two can be separated.

I already adressed where your god said that. How can the act be separated? Humans are all sexual beings--it is part of who we are. It is ridiculous to expect any human not to be sexual with a person that they love. In fact, you should welcome same-sex marriage, because then these people would be sexual within the bonds of marriage, which is probably also important to you.

I don't define an individual by his or her orientation. However, the act truly disgusts me on many levels. But so does someone eatin sushi ;) Doesn't mean I hate (or lol, fear) sushi eaters, just that I don't want to see it, hear about it, or vote for someone's rights to open a shop next door.

:confused: shop?

Here's the key (IMO):
1) Sexual orientation is innate (we have debated this on other threads). Genetics says a large part of homosexuality is purely genetic. Psychology notes that the earliest ideation of sexuality is in dreams of 5-10 year olds. People who later become totally homosexual (ie not bi or "partway") have complete homosexual ideation at this point. thus: HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE, and is thus an innate trait.

2) Other innate traits are: gender, race... Wow, there aren't many of them. Based on science, we have to add: sexual orientation.

3) thus, if you don't like somebody because they are gay, it's no different than not liking somebody because they are black. They are both innate states (i.e. one is born with them, and can't do anything about it). If you disapprove of or think somebody is immoral because they are gay, it is no different than disapproving of or thinking somebody is immoral because they are black (or asian, or a woman). We have words for people who don't like blacks or women simply because of the way they were born.

The one tricky point in all this is something I think people who dislike gays hide behind: "I don't like the act. It's OK if they are gay as long as they don't act on it" IMHO, that's a cheap circumlocution. It dodges responsibility for the true feelings behind it: well, yes, you DO dislike then for being gay. This is just my opinion.

besides, I don't think it's reasonable to separate people from their sexuality based on some absrtact morality. We have seen how well this works in celebacy in the Catholic church, (which BTW is not a biblical doctrine, but a practical one--the only way the church could hang on to wealth and lands was to keep the clergy from having kids. Otherwise, the clergy were handing over church property and wealth to their children as an inheritance. That's all it is--money and land. As such it is totally out of date). It is human nature to be sexual--it is deeply embedded in our genes (and the genes of all animals). It is no more reasonable to expect a gay person to be celebate than it is a straight person. There is a fundamental drive in humanity to pair off and mate. In gays it is there just as much as straights. The ONLY difference is that it won't lead to kids.

I'm not saying all of this so I can call people bigots, intolerant, or hateful. I'm saying it so people will perhaps look on homosexuality as another state of being. This person is just different than you are, but has just as much right to be different as woman from man or black from white. Trying to set them apart as something other than "just different" is, frankly, dishonest. I think it is flying in the face of logic and honesty.

Of course, this is all just my take on it. But I would like to see somebody take on two points I made:
1) the arbitrariness of banning homosexuality, but not acting on everything else stated in Leviticus or anywhere else in the bible.
2) The logic that shows that orientation is no different than race or gender.

If somebody disagrees with me, please address those two points. They are the foundation of my opinions about homosexuality, and so you need to address them if you want to have a conversation with me about it.

Or perhaps I am missing some other big point that somebody will make.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by idlepure
Most likely trust because many religious views can be interpreted as teaching hatred.

And many liberal teachings can be interpreted as teaching hatred/intolerance of conservatives or religious ppl.


But ppl should not be judged based on the actions of a few morons.



Originally posted by idlepure

Sorry it was my god that created this universe not yours :rolleyes:

To each his own.




Hi Wormboy,

To understand my God and His rules you'd need to give me more time and space than this forum would allow. There are a great many references to sexual immorality. And context is crucial in any understandin of these references. Something that always gets lost, set aside, and completely annihilated in counter arguments.


I've spent many years studying "my" God. And to 'nutshell' it would be a disservice, as you've seen in this forum in the past.
Tangents fly and lawyer-speak spreads unchecked.

For example: you didn't understand my point on "defining the person". Whether it was my typing or yer readin, comprehension gets lost in this place,
what I meant is, that I am not defined by my sexual orientation, neither is the homosexual. No one has ever said to me, if only he was gay, his life would be complete. Please. gimme a break. Neither would I say the opposite to a homosexual.

I am not defined by my liking chocolate more than vanilla. See, those are my points. So, it has nothing to do with whether I like the person or not. Unless they disrespect my wishes and keep shovin it my face.



I am not tryin to convert ppl. Just letting some of you know that not everyone shares yer point of view. Simple.

To say we don't get ridiculed is crazy. Sure many ppl say they're Christian. But if you actually "believe", haha, look out.



(and I neva heard of anyone being stoned for eatin shellfish.)

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Wormboy
...3) thus, if you don't like somebody because they are gay, it's no different than not liking somebody because they are black. They are both innate states (i.e. one is born with them, and can't do anything about it). If you disapprove of or think somebody is immoral because they are gay, it is no different than disapproving of or thinking somebody is immoral because they are black (or asian, or a woman). We have words for people who don't like blacks or women simply because of the way they were born...


Dood, you really need to tread lightly here. What if they discover the Assh*le genes? Or the Murder and Rape genes?

Y'kno, the things that trigger a tendancy for these behaviors?

With your argument, if you dislike the behaviors/actions of assh*les, murderers, and rapists, well, then, yer the same as a racist.

You're equating the "behaviors/actions" of individuals with physical composition. Doesn't work that way.

Mind over matter issue. I honestly believe a homosexual can stop participating in homosexual activity--in the same way a heterosexual can become celibate. A white guy however, can't stop being white.


Read my previous posts. I don't dislike the person/ppl. I'm actually commanded to love them. ALL. The actions/behaviors however....

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
And many liberal teachings can be interpreted as teaching hatred/intolerance of conservatives or religious ppl.

I think in most of them you will find the principle "I am only intoleratn of the intolerant" or some variation thereof. But of course, there are those who are chronically angry and intolerant of everybody who doesn't share there view. No one camp has cornered the market on such people.

But ppl should not be judged based on the actions of a few morons.

And yes, you put it much more succinctly than I did!

As an aside: I have always respected the fact that you are quite respectful of everybody else on this forum, Fr33k!

I understand my God and His rules you'd need to give me more time and space than this forum would allow. There are a great many references to sexual immorality. And context is crucial in any understandin of these references. Something that always gets lost, set aside, and completely annihilated in counter arguments.

I've spent many years studying "my" God. And to 'nutshell' it would be a disservice, as you've seen in this forum in the past.
Tangents fly and lawyer-speak spreads unchecked.

Well doubtless this is true. But lemme ask you this: how many specific references to homosexuality are there in the bible? I'm not talking "Sexual immoraility", which could be interpreted any way you chose. My understanding is that there is Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (I forget which book). I also think I recollect that "Sodomy" was just one of the many sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

But I'm not a biblical scholar. My point is that it seems inconsistent to me to take some of the bible literally and not others (particularly the old testament-I can accpet taking the New literally but not the Old). If one does it part way, then one is open to charges of hypocrisy. After all, that person is just picking and choosing their morality from a Smorgasbord--not likely to convince others that their morality is divineely inspired.

For example: you didn't understand my point on "defining the person". Whether it was my typing or yer readin, comprehension gets lost in this place,
what I meant is, that I am not defined by my sexual orientation, neither is the homosexual. No one has ever said to me, if only he was gay, his life would be complete. Please. gimme a break. Neither would I say the opposite to a homosexual.

I am not defined by my liking chocolate more than vanilla. See, those are my points. So, it has nothing to do with whether I like the person or not. Unless they disrespect my wishes and keep shovin it my face.

I tried to understand you. I myself have never encountered homosexuality being "shoved in my face". If two gays have sex in the middle of the street, they should be arrested for indecent exposure just like if they were two straights.

Do you call holding hands "shoving it in your face?"

Well, I make a distinction between how one is born (race, gender, orientation), and the choices one makes (vanilla, etc). The point is that race and orientation are the same in this regard. I take it you disagree with with this and think orientation is a choice? I'm not sure what you are saying here. I mentioned that the science is pretty clear on this: orientation is almost certainly innate (like race and gender)

I am not tryin to convert ppl. Just letting some of you know that not everyone shares yer point of view. Simple.

Well, we disagree on much, but I deeply respect the fact that you always do it politely! So I return the favor :D

To say we don't get ridiculed is crazy. Sure many ppl say they're Christian. But if you actually "believe", haha, look out.

Like I said, I think few Chistians in the US (where they make up 80% of the population) are ridiculed JUST by virtue of being Christian. usually if they are ridiculed, it is because they have expressed beliefs or acted in a way that somebody finds offensive. Even then they are disliked for their actions, not their background (though "Fundie" is a convenient label). For example, my very dear aunt is quite Fundamentalist, but since she keeps it to occasional "god willing" or "thank the lord", I have no problem with it at all.

I try to hold that distinction VERY clear in my mind. I have flamed other Christians on this forum because I found something they said to be offensive (usually I'm only snide or sarcastic--I only flame if flamed first generally). Hence, I have never flamed you or even been snide or sarcastic with you, because you have always been civil, even to people who were rude to you (BTW, I find this to be the most Christian behavior. Unlike many Christians, I suspect that you actually live Christ's teachings, which I deeply respect). I hope I have never flamed somebody JUST BECAUSE they were Christian.

Mind you, a large majority of Christians themselves never say anything that bothers me in the least. It's only the ones who try to force everybody to believe the way they do that bother me a lot. I was raised Catholic, after all, and I respect people's choices along those lines, even if I don't always understand them.



(and I neva heard of anyone being stoned for eatin shellfish.)

I believe this is one of the many things in the Old Testament for which one could be stoned. Christ, of course, taught that one should stone nobody. So in this sense (as in many others) the New and Old are inconsistent. One of the reasons why I have never understood how one could be a true biblical literalist 1) many inconsistencies 2) much that is open to interpretation (and interpret they do!) I think it's much easier and internally consistent to be a New Testament literalist. I consider myself to be one at least in terms of the ethics Christ espoused. I actually ask myself "What would Christ do?" because I think it's an excellent guideline for ethical behavior in general. Leads to great tolerance as well, I might add.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Hey Wormboy,

Gotta go see the Hulk, so til later mah brutha....

[Dreadnaught]

To Clarify on What's Legal in the US:

Sex laws vary from state to state and from county to county. Many laws regarding sex are very old and outdated. Most are just downright funny.

Homosexual oral sex and anal sex in general is illegal in some states, but is really never enforced. That is, until last year when two men were arrested for "sodomy" charges in Texas. But their case is going to be decided in the Supreme Court in the next few weeks or so. In 1982 the court ruled that sodomy laws--even if they were biased against gays-- were constitutional. I expect that they won't make the same embarassing ruling again.

[Darkphyre]

Originally posted by ductonius
He did change teh law. Thats why they were able to start marrying moments after the ruling. If he had just said the law is wrong and should be changed, they wouldnt have been able to do that because the law wouldnt have been changed. However, becuae he did change the law, they were able to start marrying right away.

Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking about something else.

But the fact remains, he was allowed to do that. It's not like he broke any laws.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Wormboy
[QUOTEAs an aside: I have always respected the fact that you are quite respectful of everybody else on this forum, Fr33k!

-Thanks Bro.

Well doubtless this is true. But lemme ask you this: how many specific references to homosexuality are there in the bible? I'm not talking "Sexual immoraility", which could be interpreted any way you chose. My understanding is that there is Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (I forget which book). I also think I recollect that "Sodomy" was just one of the many sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

But I'm not a biblical scholar. My point is that it seems inconsistent to me to take some of the bible literally and not others (particularly the old testament-I can accpet taking the New literally but not the Old). If one does it part way, then one is open to charges of hypocrisy. After all, that person is just picking and choosing their morality from a Smorgasbord--not likely to convince others that their morality is divineely inspired.

I'm not a biblical scholar either but here's a quick ref. There are more....

1. Romans 1:26-27

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:

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.

I tried to understand you. I myself have never encountered homosexuality being "shoved in my face". If two gays have sex in the middle of the street, they should be arrested for indecent exposure just like if they were two straights.

Do you call holding hands "shoving it in your face?"

Of course not, tho PDA should remain discreet.
For example; friends of mine that swing the other way are cool about their pref. I don't talk about 'straight' rights/power and acts, and they don't talk about 'gay'... That's how we respect each other. I don't preach, they don't preach. Easy enough. As a matter of fact. I NEVER bring up the subject, I always respond with my "other" point of view--all the while trying to get that main point across that it is ONLY a point of view.

I can't stand the lame "homophobic" slang. gimme a break, there is precious little I fear. Homosexuals are not one of them.


...I take it you disagree with with this and think orientation is a choice? I'm not sure what you are saying here. I mentioned that the science is pretty clear on this: orientation is almost certainly innate (like race and gender)

-see my previous post concerning this issue. I will add tho, that I find that there is sufficient evidence to point to genetics, as well as, learned (or chosen) behavior. Or a combination of the two can also be true.


Well, we disagree on much, but I deeply respect the fact that you always do it politely! So I return the favor :D
Yeah, I really enjoy our conversations. Despite the disagreements. :D


I have flamed other Christians on this forum because I found something they said to be offensive (usually I'm only snide or sarcastic--I only flame if flamed first generally).
They more than likely had it comin. I haven't found you to b the irational type. and I'll be the first to admit we have our share of loons.

Hence, I have never flamed you or even been snide or sarcastic with you, because you have always been civil, even to people who were rude to you....
Haha, kinda weird that some of us seem to come here for the fun of it. You and Miang (and others) are very cool about not usin the phrases 'tard', 'dumbass', 'SFB', et al.

Unlike many Christians, I suspect that you actually live Christ's teachings, which I deeply respect)...
Tryin mah brotha, tryin...

I believe this is one of the many things in the Old Testament for which one could be stoned. Christ, of course, taught that one should stone nobody.
not as far as I know on both counts. Again a lot more study needed.
There are actually very few 'stoning' offenses in the OT. But, ppl are ppl and lynch mobs have been with us since the beginnning.
Jewish courts of law in the OT gave MANY rights to the accused.
The trial of Christ was a fiasco and NOT held according to Jewish laws and customs.

Many ppl confuse the story of the adulterous woman. Christ wasn't saying to not stone ppl. There are many reasons for the ppl turning away (I think Christ was writing the names of their girlfriends in the sand--well he was writin something anyway).
The NT actually stipulates the importance of government and laws.


So in this sense (as in many others) the New and Old are inconsistent. One of the reasons why I have never understood how one could be a true biblical literalist 1) many inconsistencies 2) much that is open to interpretation (and interpret they do!) I think it's much easier and internally consistent to be a New Testament literalist. I consider myself to be one at least in terms of the ethics Christ espoused. I actually ask myself "What would Christ do?" because I think it's an excellent guideline for ethical behavior in general. Leads to great tolerance as well, I might add.

No inconsistencies bro.
Example: OT, no mixing of different fibres in clothing. NT, no mention.

If you read the NT, you'll find that almost ALL of it is quoting the OT and validating it. However, the physical aspects of worship in the OT pointed to the 'spiritual' aspects of our relationship with God. THe OT looked forward to the messiah, the NT was the realization. We now look back upon it. Once Christ came the 'spiritual' aspect was reinforced and remained, but the husk(blood) of the law was shed. We still learn about the spiritual by reading about and observing the physical. But we are not 'saved' by the observation/obedience of the law..... blah blah blah.... Sorry...

you see, way too much info to cover and I just opened myself up to 8,000 misinterpretations :D




P.S. THE HULK WAS A W E S O M E !!!!!!!!!

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
The reason being that you'd be harming someone else. Tell me, who are the homosexuals harming by having sex?

Are they using protection? Loki, you're taking a poor approach in this...

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Are they using protection? Loki, you're taking a poor approach in this...

:weird:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
:weird:

Don't tell me you don't know your constitutional privacy rights arguments?!

[Loki]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Don't tell me you don't know your constitutional privacy rights arguments?!

*unsuccessfully looks for the part mentioning condoms in the Constitution* :confused:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
*unsuccessfully looks for the part mentioning condoms in the Constitution* :confused:

Oh, you were confused by the harm part of my post, not the "Loki, you're taking a poor approach..." If one of them is Hiv+, for instance, and they're not using a condom, then yes, they might well be doing harm to each other. Then there's S&M...

[Loki]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the reason that this is illegal is not because of a lack of use of protection.:confused:

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Oh, you were confused by the harm part of my post, not the "Loki, you're taking a poor approach..." If one of them is Hiv+, for instance, and they're not using a condom, then yes, they might well be doing harm to each other. Then there's S&M...

The need for protection is not unique to gay men, which removed the issue of any harm that is SPECIFIC to homosexual sex.



Fr33k, sounds like you are generally respectful of gays. I appreciate that!

I want to see Hulk too, but I doubt my wife will be interested. DOH! Sounds like either a guys night out, or another movie with my sister-in-law (who, BTW is lesbian, and she likes guy movies, so we go see the ones my wife won't go to with me).

[{TDC}FR33K]

Wormboy,

My wife loved the flick and she's as feminine as they come. :D

[Dreadnaught]

As LittleFuzzy alluded to, the constitutionally-allowed use of condoms definitely has a some part in determining if laws that descriminate against homosexuals are constitutional.

See Griswold v. Conn. (1972?) and of course Roe v. Wade(1973) for the kind of rationale that has allowed intimate acts to become constitutionally protected. And then there's the 14th Amendment, which is why the court should make those protections apply to homosexuals as well.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the reason that this is illegal is not because of a lack of use of protection.:confused:

You're right. Excellent. Now develop on why it is illegal, and why that might be considered unconstitutional.

[Loki]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Dreadnaught]

Me too. But we both know that it took a bit of a struggle to get to marital privacy from that. The Griswold case is just so hillarious because the Connecticut was actually trying to make distributing condoms illegal for some reason. The dissenting judges who didn't want to strike it down all had to work around the fact that the law was the most ridiculous thing they'd ever heard. One dissenter called it "offensive":haha:

Although there was a potential supreme court justice named Bork who lost his nomination because he famously wrote in dissent on the Griswold case also.

[Miang]

I'm not a biblical scholar either but here's a quick ref. There are more....

1. Romans 1:26-27

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:

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.

A couple things here.

First the word Paul uses here for nature here "phusis" is the same he uses in this passage---

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" --- I Corinthians 11:14

It's not nature as in "Natural Order" but something between personal inclination and custom/tradition.

The phrase "para phusis" doesn't mean against nature, "para" means in excess of ("Kata phusis" would be in opposition to that nature). "Para" is translated as more than in previous verses of Paul as well as elsewhere in the NT (the phrase "Para phusis" is even used describing God in Romans 11:23-24). In other words, these are people satisfying their desires to the excess of that which is normal for them.

Secondly, even this isn't the sin here, it's part of the punishment. The sin, which the full context of Romans 1 makes quite clear, is idolatory. The punishment is thus inflicted upon the gentiles who've rejected the one true god.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It is rather striking to note that the list of 'wickedness and evils' which Paul recites doesn't mention the topic of homosexuality at all. They're gossips, disrespectful to their parents, insolent, and ruthless but they aren't apparantly homosexuals. Conversely, if you aren't those things you can also be comforted in the knowledge that Paul clearly isn't talking about you.

Thirdly, is to repeat that point, these people aren't homosexuals. They're explicitly described as heterosexual people behaving rather oddly. One can't 'exchange' a type of inclination which one never had to begin with.

not as far as I know on both counts. Again a lot more study needed.
There are actually very few 'stoning' offenses in the OT. But, ppl are ppl and lynch mobs have been with us since the beginnning.
Jewish courts of law in the OT gave MANY rights to the accused.

Quite true. Executions were very rare. To take an example, one rather interesting point of Jewish law which I've always admired is that you can't execute a person with a unanimous decision. As odd as that might seem at first, the logic behind it was that if one was able to get that unanimity in the first place, then in all probability defenses' council didn't do a good enough job in trying to protect him/her.

The trial of Christ was a fiasco and NOT held according to Jewish laws and customs.

Not at all, it would have been a circus trial.

And thanks for the compliment, I think.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Loki
Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people are arrested under Texas' anti-sodomy law, law enforcment enters the premise validly, and observes two people engaging in an illegal act, and arrests them *I know that's what happened with the case currently before the Supreme Court* So it's not an unreasonable search, and the only way it can be viewed as an unusual seizure of their persons is if homosexual acts were, by definition, against that, which isn't a claim that the 5th amendment will support on it's own. By itself, it would accede to the laws of the state in question.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Miang
...Not at all, it would have been a circus trial.

And thanks for the compliment, I think.

Hi Miang,

Actually, I'm not goin to get into a reference debate for the exact reasons I stated to wormboy. Picking apart a single piece of the puzzle without looking at the reference photo, to me, is useless.
We could go on and on in lawyer-talk. But in the context of other scripture OT and NT and jewish history, my studies (as well as a good number of other ppl) show otherwise. I just don't have the hours needed to piece this puzzle together. I'm just giving a sample of "my" understanding.


Anyway, according to this book written by a lawyer:

The Trial of Christ: A Twenty-First Century Lawyer Defends Jesus
by Dee Wampler

Christ's trial was severely unlawful according to Jewish law.



Oh and it was I meant it :)

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people are arrested under Texas' anti-sodomy law, law enforcment enters the premise validly, and observes two people engaging in an illegal act, and arrests them *I know that's what happened with the case currently before the Supreme Court* So it's not an unreasonable search, and the only way it can be viewed as an unusual seizure of their persons is if homosexual acts were, by definition, against that, which isn't a claim that the 5th amendment will support on it's own. By itself, it would accede to the laws of the state in question. Are you telling me that in Texas a couple were raided by the police in their own home while having sex?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Are you telling me that in Texas a couple were raided by the police in their own home while having sex?

IIRC, yes. Talk about a mood-killer.

[Hazir]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
IIRC, yes. Talk about a mood-killer. Try somebody starting to clean the house while you're having a go at it :D

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by LittleFuzzy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people are arrested under Texas' anti-sodomy law, law enforcment enters the premise validly, and observes two people engaging in an illegal act, and arrests them *I know that's what happened with the case currently before the Supreme Court* So it's not an unreasonable search, and the only way it can be viewed as an unusual seizure of their persons is if homosexual acts were, by definition, against that, which isn't a claim that the 5th amendment will support on it's own. By itself, it would accede to the laws of the state in question.

The reasoning is that making laws that restrict the consentual "intimacies" of the bedroom and making them subject to search and seizure is unconstitutional. Of course things like rape aren't consentual (and incest is usually statutory rape) and thus can be prohibited. The principle is that a "zone of privacy" exists in certain areas of life.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
The reasoning is that making laws that restrict the consentual "intimacies" of the bedroom and making them subject to search and seizure is unconstitutional. Of course things like rape aren't consentual (and incest is usually statutory rape) and thus can be prohibited. The principle is that a "zone of privacy" exists in certain areas of life.

Yes. The fact that your are protected from unreasonable search and seizure *combined with various other amendments* implies a privacy right.

[RandBlade]

There are two things I don't get about this Texan case.

Firstly: Who the hell would order a raid on people having sex? And why?

Secondly: How on earth did they get the timing right? I mean how did they know that the people would be having sex at the exact moment that they walked through the door?

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by RandBlade
There are two things I don't get about this Texan case.

Firstly: Who the hell would order a raid on people having sex? And why?

Secondly: How on earth did they get the timing right? I mean how did they know that the people would be having sex at the exact moment that they walked through the door?

Neither happened. They went in for something else, and discovered them breaking another law. Naturally, the D.A. piled on all the charges he could make stick, that's the way the US legal system works.

[iv_Purge]

Originally posted by ductonius
LOL!!! "read the artical" he says, as if thats the whole story.

I live in Canada. Even if I hadent read teh artical I still would have known more about whats going on than >90
% of the people here. I've been hearing, watching and reading about this for the last week.

The bill wasnt "spurred" by a judges action, a judge changed the law on his own authority. He didnt just say the law was wrong, he said it was wrong and then arbitraraly reworded the law to his liking.

Now, instead of reverting the law to what it should be before the judge circumvented parliment, Chretien is quaking in his boots that a controversial issue might stain his "legacy" and is just letting everything slide.



I like how you've labeled those who you disagree with as "the hateful". You do know that poisioning the well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) is a logical fallicy, dont you?

Did you know that over 87% of all statistics are made up? :D

I disagree with you on the "changed the law", as ultimately the government recognized "marriage" in heterosexual exclusivity is unconstitutional. Athiests can get "married". If you live with someone you are involved with you are in a "commonlaw marriage". Stripping the term "marriage" of all religious stigmas, and looking at it from a strictly administrative purpose means that denying a gay couple of their shared resources means they are taxed differently, and are not entitled to the insurance benefits of "married" status.

I'm not a big supporter of the "gay/lesbian" movement, as I feel like the topic is overblown. I'm a computer tech. Not a "HETEROSEXUAL computer tech". The activist would have you believe that "HOMOSEXUAL" precede all other topics of relevance.

Introductions such as "Hi, my name is John, and I'm a pepsi drinker; I have small feet and I have sex with men" would be context sensitive, say if one were at a mixed(homo/hetero) singles bar for podiatrically-challenged pepsi drinkers.

Your choice of sex, much like any other personal preference, should not transcend all interactions with the rest of the species. Passing this bill helps make homosexuality a non-issue, the same as decriminalizing* marijuana helps crush the pot-head subculture.

* Decriminalization does NOT mean legalization. It simply means no jail time and no criminal record; posession of small amount steps down to a misdemeanor, so that law enforcement can focus on "real" drugs.

[ThorsHammer2]

Just to clear up a few misconceptions people have been posting about how the process is actually worked.
___________________________________________________
OTTAWA -- The federal government declared yesterday it WILL CHANGE the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said Ottawa won't appeal recent court rulings in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec that all said banning gay and lesbian marriages is unconstitutional.

"Rather, we will be proposing legislation that will protect the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it," Mr. Chrétien said in a statement. "At the same time, we will ensure that our legislation includes and LEGALLY REGOGNIZES the union of same-sex couples."

As soon as legislation is drafted, it will be referred to the Supreme Court. After that, it will be put to a FREE VOTE in the House of Commons, Mr. Chrétien said.

Although the Prime Minister's statement used the term "union," rather than the more politically charged "same-sex marriage," Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said it is "quite clear" the federal government is recognizing same-sex marriages by not appealing the court decisions.

He said the decision had the full support of the Liberal cabinet and that he believes the bill will pass.

"It's a great day for Canadians," Mr. Cauchon said. "I'm very proud to be part of this country."

The bill will be ready within weeks.

"We don't want there to be a long period of uncertainty," Mr. Chrétien said. "We want to complete this file and deal with it as quickly as possible, and as soon as we have the reference, then the House of Commons will vote."

Until the legislation is passed, same-sex couples can be married ONLY IN ONTARIO. Other jurisdictions are not yet registering gay marriages.

The cabinet's decision came yesterday after impassioned debate following the Ontario court decision. Indeed, the Liberal caucus itself was divided on the matter, as were members of the Tory Party. Last week, a Commons committee voted 9-to-8 to support the Ontario ruling.

Mr. Chrétien said the country's views on the matter have changed over time.

"There is an evolution in society. According to the interpretation of the court, they concluded these unions SHOULD BE legal in Canada," he said after a caucus retreat in Ottawa.

However, the debate over same-sex marriage is likely to continue to be controversial.

For example the Alberta Tory government, a staunch opponent to such unions, is prepared to challenge the planned changes to the traditional definition of marriage.

Alberta's Justice Minister Dave Hancock said the federal government should have appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court.

The Alberta government has said it would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to protect against challenges to provincial responsibility to recognize marriages.

"Can we redefine marriage? Probably not, that's in the FEDERAL jurisdiction," Mr. Hancock said. "Can we say that we will not recognize marriage in Alberta unless it adheres to the 'opposite-sex' definition that we have in our act? Yes, I believe we can."

The cabinet's landmark decision would make Canada the third country in the world to recognize same-sex marriages.

Currently, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries that extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages immediately, leading gay and lesbian couples in Ontario to line up for marriage licences.

"It's a historic day," John Fisher, of the Ottawa-based gay rights organization Égale Canada, said yesterday.

"The Prime Minister of Canada has finally said our relationships are equal. Same-sex marriages are here to stay."

The legal definition of marriage falls under OTTAWA'S jurisdiction while it is up to the provinces to issue marriage licences.

In 1999, a Reform Party motion to maintain the legal definition of marriage as between man and woman passed overwhelmingly in the House of Commons with support from Mr. Chrétien and many Liberal MPs, including leadership contenders Paul Martin and John Manley.

Currently, there are some Liberal back-bench MPs who are vocally opposed to same-sex marriage while the Tory party is split on the issue.

The Canadian Alliance opposes changing the definition of marriage but the NDP and Bloc Québécois are in support of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Canadian Alliance MP and Justice critic Vic Toews, who represents a rural Manitoba riding, said conservative religious constituents are concerned about the government changing the traditional definition of marriage.

"Many of them see this as sacrilege," he said.

But gay NDP MP Svend Robinson applauded Mr. Chrétien. "The Prime Minister has shown courageous leadership on this issue. He's doing the right thing."

[Miang]

{TDC}FR33K:

Actually, I'm not goin to get into a reference debate for the exact reasons I stated to wormboy. Picking apart a single piece of the puzzle without looking at the reference photo, to me, is useless.
We could go on and on in lawyer-talk. But in the context of other scripture OT and NT and jewish history, my studies (as well as a good number of other ppl) show otherwise. I just don't have the hours needed to piece this puzzle together. I'm just giving a sample of "my" understanding.

Fair enough, but I will say that in my evaluation the rest of the references to it are just as easily dealt with. You might try this, you certainly don't have to agree with it but I think the author argues the point quite well indeed http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2554/kallos/bchtext1.html

Randblade:

There are two things I don't get about this Texan case.

Firstly: Who the hell would order a raid on people having sex? And why?

Secondly: How on earth did they get the timing right? I mean how did they know that the people would be having sex at the exact moment that they walked through the door?

First point, as I recall of this case, the police were summoned by a neighbor claiming there was a fight in said room. When the police officers dispatched arrived on the scene and found the situation was... rather different than described, they went ahead and arrested the two.

Second point... Um, I Dunno really. Unusual stamina?

[Mahram]

Can't we all just get along? :D

People, people, people! You're doing far too much hair splitting. It simply comes down to this:

Live and let live. Simple, easy. As long as my actions aren't harming your physical or mental person (and don't be childish and say the idea of 2 men or 2 women having sex with each other is doing your mental self harm), there shouldn't be any problem.

What does it matter to ANYONE who ANYONE ELSE chooses to love and spend their time with? Why should any government agency desire to regulate these things?

It seems like such a simple premise that is so easy to follow, and yet we all have such a hard time with it.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Miang
{TDC}FR33K:

Fair enough, but I will say that in my evaluation the rest of the references to it are just as easily dealt with. You might try this, you certainly don't have to agree with it but I think the author argues the point quite well indeed http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2554/kallos/bchtext1.html



Interesting writing, and I have seen it's like applied to:

genocide
molestation
robbery
bestiality
slavery (the US type, not the actual 'permitted' bond slavery in the bible)
racism
drunkedness
etc.

I think the problem with these studies is the premise of "HOW we can interpret these writings" and not the context/spirit of the writings.

My studies first start with who is God, what does He stand for, what are His principles, how does He relate to His creation, etc. I don't put myself on equal footing with God. I don't base my interpretations of His word on my 'feelings', desires, or wishes. If I did, I could easily justify any action (common behavior noted in terrorists, neo-nazis, extremists, etc. etc etc.) *see edit below

Once I know the character of God, THEN I can study His word properly and Not with the mindset that these words were written simply by men for men. Do I have struggles with this? of course I do. I am human afterall and therefore have a superiority complex.

If the scriptures were simply men speaking to men, then All things are on the table and open for renegotiation. In that case, the assertions of the author, would certainly be legitimate, as would all of the other arguments/subjects mentioned.

You (and many others) and I (as well as many others) look at these texts from completely different angles. That is the primary reason we have difficulty in debating.

Those that love God and his law R-A-R-E-L-Y aggree with those that do not. Our lives center on Him, other's lives center on themselves and/or their fellow man.

Why non-christians go to such great lengths to research and tear apart simple texts from the Bible until they find a way that it could possibly mean what they want it to mean for the sole purpose of justifying/rationalizing a sin is a complete mystery to me.




[EDIT: The Jewish leaders (throughout the centuries leading up to Christ's coming) created a multitude of bogus and flawed laws/justifications/rationalizations/other-than-God-centered-interpretations in addition to those handed down by God, primarily because they were (in selfishness) treating scripture as "man-centered" and secondly, as a means to control the people. When Christ came, he continually rebuked these leaders because of these actions, and he also reminded them of the 'intent' or root meaning of God's laws and words, quoting God's scripture all the while. END EDIT]

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Mahram
Can't we all just get along? :D

People, people, people! You're doing far too much hair splitting. It simply comes down to this:

Live and let live. Simple, easy. As long as my actions aren't harming your physical or mental person (and don't be childish and say the idea of 2 men or 2 women having sex with each other is doing your mental self harm), there shouldn't be any problem.

What does it matter to ANYONE who ANYONE ELSE chooses to love and spend their time with? Why should any government agency desire to regulate these things?

It seems like such a simple premise that is so easy to follow, and yet we all have such a hard time with it.

Yes, that is exactly what it comes down to. The problem is that some people are constitutionally incapable of "live and let live": they MUST meddle in other people's affairs. This group is the only group of which I am intolerant (though IMPATIENT is another matter--I am impatient with many individuals :D )

[{TDC}FR33K]

I agree.

It's strange how we have all these homosexuality vs. christianity topics.

We're also (equally) against two unmarried ppl living together and in an intimate relationship. (Sexual immorality is sexual immorality.)
but oddly, we don't see ppl calling us co-habitationophobics :D or co-habitation haters.



As an aside: I am guilty of living with my wife b4 we were married. I never thought of it as legal in my religion nor did I think it was favorable in my God's eyes. I did it out of my own selfishness and desires, period. It was/is wrong according to my religion; past, present, and future.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
I agree.

It's strange how we have all these homosexuality vs. christianity topics.

I think these things just come in waves. Also, there just ahppens to be an unusual amount of gay-related stuff going on in the news right now.

We're also (equally) against two unmarried ppl living together and in an intimate relationship.
but we don't see ppl calling us co-habitationophobics :D or co-habitation haters.

True, though I think people who disapprove of lifestyle issues and going to be VERY upset by what they see as LIFESTYLE issues. In other words, I think homosexuality is far more outside of the experience of some people, and is thus more shocking and inflammatory. Thus, they will make the point that homosexuality is UNNATURAL, while somebody would be hard-pressed to make a similar claim about co-habitation, which is after all just a cultural convention.

[Note: I'm just expressing a hypothetical here. I don't espouse these views AT ALL. In fact, I believe I have shown that modern science is pretty certain that homosexuality in fact is NOT a choice at all, but is an innate trait]

As an aside: I am guilty of living with my wife b4 we were married. I never thought of it as legal in my religion nor did I think it was favorable in my God's eyes. I did it out of my own selfishness and desires, period. It was/is wrong according to my religion; past, present, and future.

I think many people (myself included) think of co-habitation as a prudent step toward ensuring a good marital match. After all, much of the friction in marriage is a result of two people living in close proximity. Doubtlessly the children of the 60s, 70s and 80s are much more cautious in getting married (on average) because of the huge rash of ugly divorces that they saw amongst their parents and/or friends' parents.

Is this a bad thing? I say absolutely not. I'd rather see two people co-habit and figure it out before they get married, instead of getting married without that experience, have kids, and then figure out that they can't stand sharing space with this person (or money issues, or whatever).


Also, I don't think co-habitation is the same as pre-marital sex. Entirely different issues, though I think many people equate them in their minds. I know several co-habitting couples who refrained from sex before marriage.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Wormboy

...In other words, I think homosexuality is far more outside of the experience of some people, and is thus more shocking and inflammatory...

This is one of my earlier points. This isn't a christian you're describing, but a "cafeteria christian" as stated way back. Or someone raised with a "here's a moral, there's a moral" upbringing.

Both of the described lifestyles rub a true christian with equal amounts of sandpaper.

And a true christian also knows that neither person should be hated for the sin/act of disobedience.

Or for any sin actually (which is another commandment). Tho I am hated by a few for my beliefs (Boy some of the pm's and e-mails I get), I do not return the feeling. Instead, I understand exactly where they are coming from, because I used to think the EXACT same thing.

Originally posted by Wormboy
I think many people (myself included) think of co-habitation as a prudent step toward ensuring a good marital match. After all, much of the friction in marriage is a result of two people living in close proximity. Doubtlessly the children of the 60s, 70s and 80s are much more cautious in getting married (on average) because of the huge rash of ugly divorces that they saw amongst their parents and/or friends' parents.

Is this a bad thing? I say absolutely not. I'd rather see two people co-habit and figure it out before they get married, instead of getting married without that experience, have kids, and then figure out that they can't stand sharing space with this person (or money issues, or whatever).

Well, here you go. This makes another one of my previous points. You are creating a man-centered point of view (and as good an argument as any discussion on morals excluding God). As a matter of fact, I fleetingly tried to use some of the same rationalizations in my earlier position, but they were incompatible with my studies.

If God were truly not in the picture, then who could say any different?

nobody.

[ThorsHammer2]

I grew up going to church with Irish Protestant Aunt and Father every Sunday until I was about 9 years old. Now im no expert on religion but the whole" gays should not be accepted" was not something I ever remember hearing. The sentiments I remember being expressed were things "love thy neighbour"..." turn the other cheek" ..."he among you who is without sin shall cast the first stone" ..stuff like that. I dont ever remember the preist saying" Love the neighbour,... unless he's a homo".
But I understand the contradiction. On one hand you here about loving everyone and showing compassion and on the other hand there are passages that could be interpreted to not love homosexuals. Which is why at some point I came to the conclusion that the bible was purposely contradictory. If the bible made sense all the time and always cleanly resolved itself there would be no need for man/woman to interpret it. And therefor there would be no free will. Man must look at the bible in its entirety and resolve it himself. Its not meant as a definative guide to follwed strictly to the letter, but more as a starting point towards choices.
I think whats most revealing are the choices people make about how to interpret the bible , not what the bible actually says.
I mean you could choose to interpret this homosexual issue two different ways, and as a Christian ask yourself what your chioice says about you.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
I grew up going to church with Irish Protestant Aunt and Father every Sunday until I was about 9 years old. Now im no expert on religion but the whole" gays should not be accepted" was not something I ever remember hearing. The sentiments I remember being expressed were things "love thy neighbour"..." turn the other cheek" ..."he among you who is without sin shall cast the first stone" ..stuff like that. I dont ever remember the preist saying" Love the neighbour,... unless he's a homo"...


Well at least I'm glad you admitted to not studying the Bible.
cuz...
Nowhere in the bible does it say to hate homosexuals.
It never states we are to hate anyone. period. Just like you remember your priest not saying.


There are no contradictions in the bible. Just VERY poor ill-based interpretations.

So I found it very ironic that you would post:

"I think whats most revealing are the choices people make about how to interpret the bible , not what the bible actually says."

There isn't a choice, it's actually called proper biblical hermeneutics--or the proper methods of interpreting ANY work of literature. It keeps most of us from listening to graduates from the Archie Bunker School of Theology (not a reference to you ThorsHammer :), just speaking in general).

btw: the "turn the other cheek" phrase has got to be the most fundamentally misinterpreted biblical reference of all time. Actual study would clarify the proper context for the utterance as well as to who and when this applies.

[ThorsHammer2]

But isnt the point that the bible can be "misinterpreted" the point. Whos interpretation is correct? Isnt this where the choice comes in.

[Amer]

the bible has been changed so many times by the christians its not a very good point for reference. theres many different versions contradicting each other in various matters.

the Quran is a far better references if your looking for what God thinks of homosexuality.

also, maybe the torah is a good reference. I dont know much about it, but heres a question for jewish people on this forum: how many different versions of the torah is there or is there just one like the quran?

[{TDC}FR33K]

No Thor,
ANYTHING can be misinterpreted. Doesn't mean there was a choice imprinted in the original text.

quick example: "Do not steal" should not be interpreted as "Maybe you shouldn't steal so much." But, it sure has been. Like the following:

"I shouldn't steal from my neighbor, but downloading mp3's is cool. No harm in that, right?"

Interpretation is the application of known rules to exact proper context and meaning. Too many ppl however only look for things they want to see. These two methods will yeild very different interpretations (usually).



Amer,

Ummmm. What proof do you have of this?
Even recent translations (not talking about compilations like Jefferson's Bible--where he decidedly ripped page after page of material he happened to not agree with, but the commonly accepted versions of the translated Christian canon) have been shown to convey the same intent/meaning and are EXTREMELY accurate when tested against originals dating back "thousands" of years.

However, that said, most Christians do not believe in the inerrancy of translation and are continually reading history and other dated material to exact proper context and meaning from phrases and texts, but most believe in the inerrancy of context/intent of the translated books. Which HAS been show to be EXTREMELY accurate


The Torah, as well as the Quran, have been translated in multiple languages. I've read the Quran:

on the matter of homosexuality:

It is forbidden.

"We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." - Quran 7:80-81

"Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males". "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" - Quran 26:165-166

[ThorsHammer2]

"No Thor,
ANYTHING can be misinterpreted. Doesn't mean there was a choice imprinted in the original text.

quick example: "Do not steal" should not be interpreted as "Maybe you shouldn't steal so much." But, it sure has been. Like the following:

"I shouldn't steal from my neighbor, but downloading mp3's is cool. No harm in that, right?"

Interpretation is the application of known rules to exact proper context and meaning. Too many ppl however only look for things they want to see. These two methods will yeild very different interpretations (usually). "

Well that may seem pretty clear cut but wouldnt you agree that there are passages that are more vague that would be much easier to misinterpret than the ten commandmets. I mean people have been debating the meaning of the bible (experts even you know those guys with white collars;) )for centuries and many still dont agree. Surely if they havent come to a conclusion, then there is still romm for discussion.

[Mahram]

It seems utterly ludicrous to me to marry someone who you basically don't know all that well. Even if you have been courting someone for several years, that's still not that big a glimpse into their life at home, because you're only seeing what they want to present to you, not what they are truly like 80% of the time. Living with someone is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from just seeing them outside their home every now and then, so I think that living with someone you're supposed to be with for the remainder of your lives should take place beforehand--just to get used to the idea, and learn a bit more about the other person as well.

That's my take on the whole thing anyways. I still say: Whatever floats your boat. :D

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
Well that may seem pretty clear cut but wouldnt you agree that there are passages that are more vague that would be much easier to misinterpret than the ten commandmets. I mean people have been debating the meaning of the bible (experts even you know those guys with white collars;) )for centuries and many still dont agree. Surely if they havent come to a conclusion, then there is still romm for discussion.

Well there's no denyin that. We are ppl afterall. Some ppl find the justification for wiping out Jews and other minorities within the bible. go figure.

But in my studies (and other's studies) when using proper hermeneutics, it is pretty easy to grasp most of the intended meaning throughout the bible. BUT, be prepared to learn a lot of Biblical history, idols, farming, etc.
Some of the phrases and sayings spoken in that age have somewhat different spins and background knowledge is extremely useful.

[Loki]

How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Does that mean we can't fight wars (even in self-defense)? That we can't execute criminals? That it is immoral to kill someone by accident (the commandment makes no exception for accidents)?

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Mahram
... I still say: Whatever floats your boat. :D

The funny thing is; so do I :D

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Amer

the Quran is a far better references if your looking for what God thinks of homosexuality.


That's only if you accept the Quran as the word of God. Muslims consider Jesus to have been a prophet, but few Christians accord the same position to Mohammed. Why would there be another prophet after the Messiah, after all?

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Loki
How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Does that mean we can't fight wars (even in self-defense)? That we can't execute criminals? That it is immoral to kill someone by accident (the commandment makes no exception for accidents)?
Quickly:

Okay. No (no). No. No (yes it does).


Longer version:

Perfect example!! another highly misquoted and misinterpreted biblical text!

This is where proper context is a must.
The context when read is; Thou shalt not "murder". The words killing and murder are interchangeable in so many ways that it is critical to understand/comprehend what you are reading.

by continuing to read the surrounding texts, it is obvious what 'crime' they are talking about, simply because the bible provides examples. Also in the exact same texts they talk about stoning (in essense"killing") the killer. The "murderer's" blood is on his own head. The enacters of the punishment are held guiltless of bloodshed. In the same way that a parent is not wrong in punishing their children when they break rules. No one charges a parent with unlawful detention when they ground their child, in the same manner, no one should hold blame against an executioner.

Wars and nations defending themselves are also covered in MANY other sections OT and NT texts. Believe it or not, the bible speaks of a country's right/responsibility to defend itself and the citezens under their care, up to and including, war, as well as to police itself and hold citezens accountable to their laws.

AND Loki, if you actually read genesis, exodus and leviticus, it does make exceptions for those that accidently kill someone.

[Miang]

{TDC}FR33K:

Fair enough, but it does seem to me that you're casting the charge of starting from a position of 'how can interpret x in order to...' on anyone who arrives at a different interpretation of the text than you have (Not to mention the author of said page said she went in believing the bible advocated the opposite conclusion of the one she ended up with).

Moreover, you're invoking the slippery slope arguement, if one bit of tradition should be changed then we'll be looking at a world in which "genocide, molestation, robbery, bestiality, slavery (the US type, not the actual 'permitted' bond slavery in the bible), racism, drunkedness, etc." are able to slide in as well. Rather than responding directly, you invoke a nightmare scenario as to what losing the familiar ground might lead to.

Not to mention it's simply odd to cite 'Jewish tradition' as a supporting point on one end, and turn around and talk about them having "created a multitude of bogus and flawed laws/justifications/rationalizations/other-than-God-centered-interpretations in addition to those handed down by God".

You're certainly free to disagree with me on the point, but I do like making people defend their positions as well.

On that tangent though, what about slavery? It's true slavery as in the bible isn't quite the same beast that existed in North America, slaves in ancient times tended to be people of conquered nations taken captive, people who'd sold themselves to pay their debts, children sold by their father to pay his debts, abandoned children brought up slaves, children of slaves, etc.

They're still slaves though. Their lives are in their masters hand, for the most part (They do enjoy a certain degree of protection from severe abuse, but I recall a bible passage stating that if a slave died within x number of hours after being beaten by their master, then no blood was on his hands). A master can freely use his unmarried female slaves for his pleasure, he owns the children of any of his slaves, whether they're his children or not, etc.

It's not bondsmanship.

Racism? What about the laws forbidding Jews to marry non-Jews? The punishments vested by god on other nations whose women 'tempted the flock of Israel' away?

Genocide? Surely god wrote the book on that, what do you call Noah's flood? The Israelite conquest of the Canaan?

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Amer
I dont know much about it, but heres a question for jewish people on this forum: how many different versions of the torah is there or is there just one like the quran?

There's just one version of the Torah, which consists of the first five books of what Christians call the "Old Testament". As far as I've ever heard, there have been no different versions or re-makes of the torah, mainly because it has continued to be used in the original Hebrew.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Miang

Fair enough, but it does seem to me that you're casting the charge of starting from a position of 'how can interpret x in order to...' on anyone who arrives at a different interpretation of the text than you have (Not to mention the author of said page said she went in believing the bible advocated the opposite conclusion of the one she ended up with).


true. I won't disagree with that. My point of argument is that non-christians look at the bible with a man-centered point of view, I (like many) do not. These two differing perspectives WILL yield different results. I look for understanding based on my knowledge of God, others do not.

ex: If I write a response to one person in this forum and this individual does not know me, then he may get an entirely different meaning from my worded response.


Moreover, you're invoking the slippery slope arguement, if one bit of tradition should be changed then we'll be looking at a world in which "genocide, molestation, robbery, bestiality, slavery (the US type, not the actual 'permitted' bond slavery in the bible), racism, drunkedness, etc." are able to slide in as well. Rather than responding directly, you invoke a nightmare scenario as to what losing the familiar ground might lead to.

I disagree. You should read the letters I've read in the past. They can make very convincing (if you look at them in a non-biased manner) arguments. They are examples of interpreting scripture while forgeting God and the intent of the message.

Not to mention it's simply odd to cite 'Jewish tradition' as a supporting point on one end, and turn around and talk about them having "created a multitude of bogus and flawed laws/justifications/rationalizations/other-than-God-centered-interpretations in addition to those handed down by God".

not at all. We're all human. I'm quite aware of our (mine in particular) shortcomings. This wasn't the first time the 'chosen' ppl were rebuked by God by following customs rather than having a 'relationship' with him or understandin the intent of the message/rule/law/custom. In words, and not deeds, so to speak.

You're certainly free to disagree with me on the point, but I do like making people defend their positions as well.

I know ;) and I enjoy your gracious debating style.

On that tangent though, what about slavery? It's true slavery as in the bible isn't quite the same beast that existed in North America, slaves in ancient times tended to be people of conquered nations taken captive, people who'd sold themselves to pay their debts, children sold by their father to pay his debts, abandoned children brought up slaves, children of slaves, etc.

They're still slaves though. Their lives are in their masters hand, for the most part (They do enjoy a certain degree of protection from severe abuse, but I recall a bible passage stating that if a slave died within x number of hours after being beaten by their master, then no blood was on his hands). A master can freely use his unmarried female slaves for his pleasure, he owns the children of any of his slaves, whether they're his children or not, etc.

It's not bondsmanship.


Yes there are some rights given to slave owners that do not seem fair but in answer to your points;

a. true, again the intent of the law is to protect the slave. If s/he survives a beating for at least 24 hours, it was considered a extremely good bet that he would survive period. Again, Jews were considered slaves to God, he is the Good Master. And he holds them accountable in their dealings with their slaves.

b. not true, they must be unengaged. If she is engaged, and she consents to sex, they are both in trouble. Remember, back then most women were engaged at 12 or younger (promised for another at a later date). It was considered doing the unengaged/unattached female a favor by granting her children that she would not otherwise have. ??? I agree, whew, different times to be sure.

c. well, technically, he paid for their room and board, for their mother's time away from 'duty', etc. He is entitled to 'compensation'. All slaves could buy there way out.

But the intent of all of these laws is "fair" treatment, good mastering principles, etc. Remember they were slaves for many years in Egypt, they were quite aware of what it meant to be a good or evil master.

Racism? What about the laws forbidding Jews to marry non-Jews? The punishments vested by god on other nations whose women 'tempted the flock of Israel' away?

Context, Everytime God warned Israelites to not marry or receive foreign wifes, the main focus was because they would bring in other gods/religions. AND it happened just as God said, time and time again. God will be the first to tell you He is a jealous God (actually quoted in scripture).

[B]Genocide? Surely god wrote the book on that, what do you call Noah's flood? The Israelite conquest of the Canaan? [/B

Genocide means the extinction of a race. But you make my point. ppl can interpret the flood as a justification for wiping out an entire ethnic group. Again, not based on God's reason or based on the why God did as he did, but on their own reasons, their own justifications.

When the Israelites were taken into slavery they were removed from their land. When they were rescued from slavery, God sent them back to their promised land. The new inhabitants of Canaan were warned ahead of time by Israeli scouts, prophets, etc.

"Find somewhere else to live or stay at your own lethal peril."

basically:

"Listen to the God of the heavens and earth and do as I say or suffer Lethal Consequences" (which is the same as today, spiritually speaking, God makes lessons of the spiritual world through the physical)

Many many ppl listened (some still do). Most....

And at least one country did listen and tricked Israel into making an alliance.

Again, you look at this with a man-centered POV, God made these decisions for specific reasons, as told many times throughout scripture.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
There's just one version of the Torah, which consists of the first five books of what Christians call the "Old Testament". As far as I've ever heard, there have been no different versions or re-makes of the torah, mainly because it has continued to be used in the original Hebrew.

ummmm.... I OWN a copy of the translated-to-english Torah. And there are different english versions.

[Loki]

Originally posted by {TDC}FR33K
ummmm.... I OWN a copy of the translated-to-english Torah. And there are different english versions.

None of them are official. There is only one official version of the Torah, and there are more than one official version of a Bible.

[{TDC}FR33K]

Originally posted by Loki
None of them are official. There is only one official version of the Torah, and there are more than one official version of a Bible.

Technically that is true. I think the same is true for the Quran (or at least the stipulation that you can not understand the true meaning unless you read it in it's native arabic).

But, who can say any translation of any religious text is "authorized"?

[Miang]

But, who can say any translation of any religious text is "authorized"?

... KJV zealots?

[Dreadnaught]

There are many sects of Christianity that use different translations of the Bible. The Catholic Church uses the Vulgate, others are KJV nuts as has been said. Then there's the Eastern Orthodox versions...

Basically, while there are indeed a few large sects of Judaism as well (three IIRC) , all use the same original Hebrew text and interperate it differently. While many churches conduct services using a Bible in their own language, I've never seen a Jewish synogogue that didn't have Hebrew torahs being read by the rabbis.

[Hazir]

Translation can be very important when it comes to interpretation. Let's take the question of the veil in connection to the Koran.

One school of thought thinks women should cover up entirely claiming that the sentence that describes how women should dress contains a word that means 'headcover'.

Their opponent say the exact opposite on the basis that the word used does not mean 'headcover' but 'cover' in general.

[Moridin00]

Debating how much headcover to use is splitting hairs.

[Miang]

Sorry about the longish delay, I've been rather lousy over the past week.

true. I won't disagree with that. My point of argument is that non-christians look at the bible with a man-centered point of view, I (like many) do not. These two differing perspectives WILL yield different results. I look for understanding based on my knowledge of God, others do not.

ex: If I write a response to one person in this forum and this individual does not know me, then he may get an entirely different meaning from my worded response.

Well, on the one hand you are apparantly agreeing with me. Still, say regarding that article, on what basis do you suppose that the author of that piece isn't a Christian? Is it possible for someone to have a different understanding of a piece than you and still be a Christian?

I disagree. You should read the letters I've read in the past. They can make very convincing (if you look at them in a non-biased manner) arguments. They are examples of interpreting scripture while forgeting God and the intent of the message.

Well, seeing as far as I know I haven't... Is it possible that these letters are simply justifying your own prior inclinations though?

not at all. We're all human. I'm quite aware of our (mine in particular) shortcomings. This wasn't the first time the 'chosen' ppl were rebuked by God by following customs rather than having a 'relationship' with him or understandin the intent of the message/rule/law/custom. In words, and not deeds, so to speak.

We're all human, true. But my point was that it's odd to cite one part of Jewish tradition which agrees with you while at the same time simply dismissing another large part of it as 'tainted' or 'man made'.

Yes there are some rights given to slave owners that do not seem fair but in answer to your points;

a. true, again the intent of the law is to protect the slave. If s/he survives a beating for at least 24 hours, it was considered a extremely good bet that he would survive period. Again, Jews were considered slaves to God, he is the Good Master. And he holds them accountable in their dealings with their slaves.

Here's the passage,

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." --- Exodus 21:20-21

Note that the text doesn't say that he shall be killed (The ordinary punishment for murder), he shall simply be 'punished', one way or another. And if the slave hangs on a day or two after being beaten before dying, there are no consequences to the slave owner at all.

(Also, incidently, you couldn't ask for a more explicit phrasing, slaves are property.)

b. not true, they must be unengaged. If she is engaged, and she consents to sex, they are both in trouble. Remember, back then most women were engaged at 12 or younger (promised for another at a later date). It was considered doing the unengaged/unattached female a favor by granting her children that she would not otherwise have. ??? I agree, whew, different times to be sure.

Not true? She must not be married to anyone else, that's the only qualification. Adultery is the crime of sleeping with another man's wife. A married man can fool around with other women, so long as they aren't married. An unmarried man can certainly do the same.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. --- Leviticus 20:10

For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the LORD. --- Jeremiah 29:23

"You adulteress wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband! --- Ezekiel 16:32

(It might help put things in perspective if you remember that a wife is property as well. A man who sleeps with another's man's wife is infringing upon his property.)

I will agree that society at this point might well have looked upon giving an unmarried slave children as a favor, but what about say a pair of slaves who marry, have children, etc. The female slave belongs to her master until he decides to set her free or sell her to another, the male slave goes free after seven years. Any children they might have belong to the master as well.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. --- Exodus 21:2-6

... is this really doing that slave a favor?

c. well, technically, he paid for their room and board, for their mother's time away from 'duty', etc. He is entitled to 'compensation'. All slaves could buy there way out.

With what? With what their master decides to pay them, if anything? As I recall the master has to provide for his slaves, he does not have to give them a salary.

But the intent of all of these laws is "fair" treatment, good mastering principles, etc. Remember they were slaves for many years in Egypt, they were quite aware of what it meant to be a good or evil master.

Er, actually, I'm rather dubious of the historicity of the exodus. The Levites, perhaps, but not quite as described. My hunch would be that Israel was settled in about four primary waves. Those people tracing their decent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Later on a fourth group arrived, remembering being freed from captivity by a prophet named Moses and the help of his god, Yahweh. Rather than fighting (or perhaps after a little bit of it) the two groups agreed that El and Yahweh were the two names of the same god, and the Levites settled into a primarily landless, priestly role.

Context, Everytime God warned Israelites to not marry or receive foreign wifes, the main focus was because they would bring in other gods/religions. AND it happened just as God said, time and time again. God will be the first to tell you He is a jealous God (actually quoted in scripture).

Except again, the punishment isn't vested upon the unfaithful Israelites, it's upon the home nations of the women who 'tempted the flock'.

Genocide means the extinction of a race. But you make my point. ppl can interpret the flood as a justification for wiping out an entire ethnic group. Again, not based on God's reason or based on the why God did as he did, but on their own reasons, their own justifications.

When the Israelites were taken into slavery they were removed from their land. When they were rescued from slavery, God sent them back to their promised land. The new inhabitants of Canaan were warned ahead of time by Israeli scouts, prophets, etc.

"Find somewhere else to live or stay at your own lethal peril."

basically:

"Listen to the God of the heavens and earth and do as I say or suffer Lethal Consequences" (which is the same as today, spiritually speaking, God makes lessons of the spiritual world through the physical)

Many many ppl listened (some still do). Most....

And at least one country did listen and tricked Israel into making an alliance.

God's reason? The people displeased him, they were sinful, immoral, vile, etc. etc.

I don't recall warnings. There's the story of Rahab but the Israelite pair in that story were spies, not messengers. The nation that settled with Israel (I forget its name off the top of my head) did so after stories of the destruction had reached them.

And do mind that there are nations, religions, great cities, groups of people, etc. which seem very well entrenched into the area. Just how long had the Israelites been away, anyways?

And even if these people were as bad, fully in the wrong, etc. as the pre-flood people must have been, would that really make Moses' command to "Kill every little one" among the Mideanites justifiable?

Again, you look at this with a man-centered POV, God made these decisions for specific reasons, as told many times throughout scripture.

Certainly, a human-centric (My inner feminist rebels against man-centered, sorries) is the only one that works. If murder's wrong then it's because it harms another person, by the same token it's wrong no matter who does it or for what reason.

Hazir:

Their opponent say the exact opposite on the basis that the word used does not mean 'headcover' but 'cover' in general.

I've also heard some liberal muslems say that the custom wasn't required originally of all muslem women, only the wives of Muhammed specificly. The mass part of it was picked up later from the persians.