Gay marriage in... Utah? Update: on hold for now

[ninetailschris]

Zappykins said:

ninetailschris said:

Zappykins said:

ninetailschris said:

Zappykins said:

 

 

I have not in any way attaked Christanity.  Many if not most Christians and many of the Christian Churches support same sex marriage as a part of their holy sacraments.  Christ personaly never said a single word against it. 

I'm just going to respond to this because I need to correct you on this.

"

1 Corinthians 6:9 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"

 

 

In case you may not be aware Corinthians is in the New Testament and not Old.

The rest of the argument in the quote that needs to be corrected is that it's basically bandwagon fallacy. Because Christians think x even though it contradicts y passage in bible, doesn't mean x is ok. If we thought that than killing would be ok because x Christians agree.

Thirdly you say many if not most christian church's agree with same-sex marriage. Do you have source for that?

(merge double post if mod is watching)

Oh, man! Now you blew it!  Nothing like a mistranslation of Paul's letter.  Sorry dude, but you are just plain wrong.  Please study your history and Bible before slamming a group of people and trying to destroy the legal recognition of their families.

 Let's go and really look at Corinthans, King James Version. 

9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 It's only modern translators, such as 'the living Bible' that have turned in into homosexuals because of their personal agenda, they do not understand the context, and plain ol' sloppy work.

 The passage was written in a letter that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) wrote to the church at Corinth. The language used was Koine Greek.   In Koine Greek, the word literally means "soft." It was generally used to describe clothing worn by the Roman elite of Paul's time. Since the word was used in a list here, there is very little if any context to its usage. Therefore, it's difficult to see how these translators came up with saying homosexual in your version. The word's usage in I Corinthians is ambiguous at best. Some scholars believe that Paul simply meant persons with soft or very limited morals in general. Others believe that he meant persons who were spineless or cowards.

 In Greek ethical theory, which was adopted by the Romans, the idea of "softness" was used to refer to men who didn't have control over their desires.  It also referred to men who were too eager to avoid pain.

 So coward or 'player' would be a more accurate word in today's language.  But nice try.  You really have to ask yourself that a man who preached love, being true to oneself, and true to the one you are with, would have some issue with two men who want to be together and make a new family.  It goes on all the time, what benefit it is of any government to deny them their civil rights?

 Regardless, no relegious book has any effect regarding the government of the United States.   When women stopped being property and became full citizens, with the rights to work, own property and have jobs, why should any state deny them the right of marriage because of gender?  The answer is they can't.  Nor could they deny a man the same right of choice of the person he married because of gender.

 I understand this is hard for you to accept. It has been hard for many people to accept inter racial marriage, but they eventually realize they can only effect themselves and their choice of partner and not force their will on others.  If you personally don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender.  You can't force others to do as you personally wish.

 As I said, feel free to contact me privately if you wish you discuses this and have questions you would rather not answer in public.

You should be careful when saying someone doesn't know something definitely as this one of my main studies that I do. But let's see did I blunder? In the geek direct translation from the lexicon of geek words which the New Testament is based on, you find out that they use specifically the word  "OYTE ARCENOKOITAI" what does that translate to in original geek? "Nor sodomities" in our current langauge. What is sodomities according the dictionary terms which hasn't been changed in centuries?It's "sodomite - someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)". You using King James Verision makes absolutely no sense because the kJV is made for pubic use and not scholarly where they use Geek directly or direct translations.  

The argument from about scholars saying it could mean "soft" or "limited morals". Based on the lexicon the word "ARCENOKOITAI" is mainly used with homosexual acts and would be incoherent to use to be described as "soft" and doesn't even the narrative or time. Only place I found this was on Wikipedia page which is the worst source ever and has no sources to even confirm it. Strangely what you wrote looks word for word what you said which makes believe is this your source?

So, what do actual Scholars say about homosexuality and Paul in the New Testament?  Well known historian in New Testament history Geoffrey W. Bromiley who wrote in "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4" wrote the following : 

"These last terms( 1 Cor 6.9 " malakol which is "sexual perverts" ) (1 Tim 1:1 ARCENOKOITAI  which is "sodomites") terms raise the issue of homosexuality. In the first (1946) edition of the RSV, Gk, malakol and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9  were together rendered "homosexuals."

You are arguing a position in the minority of scholars as Bromiley would example:

"Boswell would translate these terms as" the wanton" and "make postitutes" respectively." Such translations are linguistically possible but hardly necessary. Most commentators and translators continue to understand these terms as reference as partners in male homosexual intercourse."

There we go if your willing to look between the lines of the lexicon and contextual passage in question to defend that homosexuality isn't allowed then your not basing it on rationality but a desire for the text to say something you want personally.

I have yet to bring up Romans 1:26 which it says "For this reason  God gave them up to  dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,  men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

The big elephant in the room is the Old Testament on homosexuality. Which both Paul and Jesus hold on to when it comes to moral laws. I highly doubt you will tackle the Old Testament because you can't make an argument from silence on it, which is a fallacious argument to make in the first place. I could on to detail why it's a bad argument and the society was high-context society but at this point it's beating a dead horse.

 

The rest of your stuff I will speed round, so this isn't a longer post than it needs to be.

"a man who preached love, being true to oneself, and true to the one you are with, would have some issue with two men who want to be together and make a new family.  It goes on all the time, what benefit it is of any government to deny them their civil rights?"

2 min video very short and fun on love in the biblical world. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIeltDuFXRI 

That should answer your question.

"Regardless, no relegious book has any effect regarding the government of the United States.   When women stopped being property and became full citizens, with the rights to work, own property and have jobs, why should any state deny them the right of marriage because of gender?  The answer is they can't.  Nor could they deny a man the same right of choice of the person he married because of gender."

Most if not all laws and the foundation of this country are based on the bible. The founders themselves admitted that. Women during Paul time played important roles and some where even Apostles themselves. Actual ironically during the time of Roman women were not allowed to vote, have business , and couldn't even give testimonies. Guess which religion was trying to push for woman testimony and had women missionaries. Which was illegal! Christianity and they treated them like equals and Paul credits one female apostle in his letters to Romans. Homosexuality isn't on the same level as women rights because in the bible women were already equal because it was not sinful to be a woman. The problem with homosexuality it is considered sin just like multiple marriages, beastilty, and incest. You can read my other post on rights and the abuse of the word or I can answer to further explain if you so desire.

" I understand this is hard for you to accept. It has been hard for many people to accept inter racial marriage, but they eventually realize they can only effect themselves and their choice of partner and not force their will on others.  If you personally don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender.  You can't force others to do as you personally wish."

Please don't do psychology examinations on me because it's really just arguing in circle. I could easily just say "I understand it's hard for to feel anything is wrong because your native and have no sense of what morality is." But discussion like that will go nowhere where because you have no clue what I'm thinking or why. Just like I don't with you. On racial marriage, was happening in the Old Testament all the time. It was common and it was ok if they turned Jewish or already were. The last two sentences I already argued about with someone else and how it is a self-defeating position and that nobody actually believes that in reality when pushed on issues or laws.

I will message you this but response will stay up for those who want learn something.

 

Ok, I have responsed privately, but quick summery:

1. Already showed that Paul's letter is only recently interpreded that way.

2. The United States of America is a Democratic Repepublic.  To suggest that it is or was founded as a religous Theocratcy, is not accurate.

3.  Ah the good ol 'Soddomite' modern spin (which does include oral sex.) Got to go back to the orginal, a bunch of guys wanted to rape angles and Lot offer's is virgin daughters.  Funny how modern people want to forget that whole dad gives virgin daughters for rape thing.

4.  I could remind you that some of the sexy love psalms that David wrote were to men.   But that would be too easy.

And have a great time at your friends and families gay weddings!  Enjoy some cake for me.

Going to respond by numbers and try to space out my paragraphs. I'm finally able to do this on my computer and not ipad. I'm going to try to keep my stuuf short and to the point for it's not pages long.

1. No, you didn't. You just asserted it is recently viewed that way. The majority of historians view it as it today. As the source a gave in my last. If you were to continue to read it, you would see that the word "sodomite" because in greek comes from the word "Sodom." Paul is giving a parallel to Sodom in which is reference to homosexual behavior. "Arsenokoites" is used in it's masculine form and in almost every translation besides KJV (Which says "is harm unto yourself") which is known for using incorrect modern words in comparision to ESV which one of the trusted and recomanded in scholar circles. It is the literal" translation without the need to modernize the words.  It is funny that the only defense you really have is using the KJV and air sourcing because I couldn't find any actual interpreation of this. I agrued this against someone else who did the same thing and told him to tell me one scholar who agreed and what he argued. Yet, to this day he hasn't. You can find donzons of books or scholarly articles that say it means "sodomite" or homosexual acts. They either try to argue around it accepting it means that or believe what the passage is telling.

2. Do you live in world where everything is black and white? So, your their have no religious influence or your theocracy? It almsot like saying you don't believe in democracy government? Well you MUST love communisim! There are dozons of systems besides theocracy and secularism. 

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

"[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824. ME 16:19

"Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights"
Declaration of Independence.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

I guess, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams when fighting theocracy government sercetly was for it! No, he understand the foundation of morality being based on the bible was better standard of morality because it assumes we were created for purpose and is a point to morality. Morality isn't some guessing game based on human personal opinions. One of the reason he was against democracy and was for republic.

3. I already dealed with "Sodomites". I don't know how you spin something said in almost every translation besides one KJV. Almost every scholar ( which I even sourced) agreed on that translation. I quote more scholar books or articles but will you say there spinning it?

" bunch of guys wanted to rape angles and Lot offer's is virgin daughters for rape thing.."

I assume your refering to Sodom. Which the people eventually punished and killed. On Lot's daughter your not even fully telling me what your implying even your last point doesn't. Explain your point because I don't want to argue a strawman on you. Show the passage and tell me how it implies that. Just saying there is rape somewhere in the bible isn't an argument it's just asserting without arguments or evidence.

4. Are you implying David is homosexual? The man who stole someones wife and who got married to her?  Ever heard of Bathsheba? Well David had sex with her. What are you going to argue that man who never had sexual relationships with other men but had clear sex with a woman even talks about her beauty is a homosexual because he sent talked to men in way you "feels" homosexual like? What is even that implys this. I tried looking for anything that imply any homosexual activity in articles,commentaries, random google search, and even sites that gays think bible supports. Where are you getting this information?

 

"And have a great time at your friends and families gay weddings!  Enjoy some cake for me."

Don't worry about but send some of that cake to this guy. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pedophile-free-court-rules-girl-love-article-1.1562229

Got to support that Jesus is for all love right! I'm bet he is real happy about love makes all right! Hope you attend there marriage! Right?