Poll

What are your views on homosexuals and/or letting them wed?

I accept them.
51 (66.2%)
I tolerate them.
6 (7.8%)
It's flat out wrong.
7 (9.1%)
I don't really care.
9 (11.7%)
I have mixed views. (Describe)
4 (5.2%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Print

Author Topic: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage  (Read 129099 times)

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #405 on: October 23, 2012, 11:51:41 PM »
...Touche.  Now I'm sorry for all the questionable things I once said.  It's disturbing how so many examples immediately jump into my mind.

Although I hope you don't think I'm changing my opinions in order to win the favor of more TMK'ers!  That would be waaay too shallow and pathetic and accurate.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 11:54:17 PM by Markio »
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Suffix

  • Steamed
« Reply #406 on: October 24, 2012, 12:04:29 AM »
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational. When opinions change for no identifiable reason, fallacious reason, or reasons too petty to put into words, that's when you can smirk and be suspicious.

I'm not saying that we should clear the slate of all past bigotry, I'm saying that the reasons that propped up that bigotry should be explored, at least by the person who once made that stake.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2012, 12:06:34 AM by Suffix »

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #407 on: October 24, 2012, 05:54:10 AM »
Quoting for Post of the Year nomination.

The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future.

“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #408 on: October 24, 2012, 09:32:41 AM »
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational.

This would have been a good response image:
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Koopaslaya

  • Kansas
« Reply #409 on: October 24, 2012, 09:40:43 AM »
Hey, guys. Sorry I haven't responded in a while. Midterms are this week, and I've ben in over my head with papers and the like. When things settle down, I hope to jump back in.
Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #410 on: October 24, 2012, 01:51:12 PM »
The way I see it, our previous comments are excused when we say something different in the future. 

Excused, maybe not. A man's past is the only thing his peers can use to gauge his character... but if people change does that mean people cease to be who they were and become someone new? You are who you are today, not who you were last year? I think so.
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #411 on: October 24, 2012, 03:13:26 PM »
Our previous statements are "updated?"  "Rendered obsolete when we admit to having changed our minds since then?"  "Discarded when one's actions demonstrate a different perspective on the issue?"  Perhaps "excused" was simply to inaccurate.  However, by recognizing that my original statement was flawed, wouldn't this post demonstrate that my previous statement is being updated?
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #412 on: October 26, 2012, 01:18:17 PM »
My excuse is similar to Koopaslaya's in terms of category if not intensity.  Can't say I'm under as much stress as him, but yeah, kind of foolish of me to start debating over fall break when I'd be back doing things at school before long.  Been feeling guilty over what seems like a cop-out, so sorry for lack of response lately.  Probably won't be able to continue this afterwards, but I did want to present a couple thoughts to clarify my position - to be fair, I'm not always the best at articulating it.

How I view the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is decided by how I view Jesus' teaching on the law, with the idea that certain aspects of the law (the ceremonies and rituals, and things that deal with cleanliness) are pointing toward what is later fully explained in the New Testament.  Jesus' teaching on cleanliness does not repeal the need to be clean - the law has not passed away, not anymore than Mario passes away when he gets a Fire Flower - but he does change what it means to be clean and unclean (this, along with Peter's vision in Acts, which tells us that Jesus has made the unclean foods clean).  What are still counted as unclean are things like murder, theft, sexual immorality... etc.  In the interest of taking things in their historical context, what one has to realize here is that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses for His definitions of all these things (as is Paul, really - remember, he was steeped in the law his whole life and knew and referenced it constantly).  Keep in mind who He's speaking to, and their background studying the law.  Specifically relating to this issue, it's easy to say that what He means here is ambiguous now, but His audience knew exactly what behaviors He referred to with the shorthand of "sexual immorality."  The biggest thing to take away from this, of course, is that no one can just "be cleaner."  That's where Christ comes in.  But just because He frees us from sin does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as a sinful action.

That is to say, the moral law is just as present now as ever, predating and persisting through every covenant.  The difference comes from our reason to obey it.

Admittedly, I don't have every single answer ever.  Like everyone else in the world, there's always room for me to read more.  Unfortunately, I'm not so great about reading on this sort of thing during the school year.  But thank you for the discussion, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a bit.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Markio

  • Normal
« Reply #413 on: October 26, 2012, 10:10:35 PM »
I found this interesting video on YouTube, thought it was relevant.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRt04pElH4s" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRt04pElH4s</a>
"Hello Kitty is cool, but I like Keroppi the best."

Red Lewd Uganda

  • A Link to the Post
« Reply #414 on: October 29, 2012, 12:02:18 AM »
Good grief. Nobody is chained to their opinions when they put them into words, even politicians. If opinions change from experience, new evidence, or some sort of enlightenment, then the change should be accepted as rational. When opinions change for no identifiable reason, fallacious reason, or reasons too petty to put into words, that's when you can smirk and be suspicious.

I'm not saying that we should clear the slate of all past bigotry, I'm saying that the reasons that propped up that bigotry should be explored, at least by the person who once made that stake.

At the risk of a fallacious appeal to authority (You be the judge.):

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Ante up.

Suffix

  • Steamed
« Reply #415 on: October 29, 2012, 01:21:33 AM »
Nice quote! Who said that? EDIT: Thomas Jefferson, eh? I wonder if I had read that in the past, and then forgot it. Anyways, I'm glad to see my own thoughts put so eloquently.

And appeal to authority, ha! You're free to argue with or back whoever you please, regardless of whatever underused privileges he or she may have. Frankly, I was hoping to see somebody strike back at my boat-shaking.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 01:23:32 AM by Suffix »

Red Lewd Uganda

  • A Link to the Post
« Reply #416 on: October 29, 2012, 05:00:00 PM »
In the 'marketplace of ideas':

'If there be any among us who would wish to [see things differently], let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.'

I also share his love of macaroni and cheese.
Ante up.

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #417 on: October 30, 2012, 06:51:37 PM »
I apologize in advance for my post being kind of disorganized.

How I view the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is decided by how I view Jesus' teaching on the law, with the idea that certain aspects of the law (the ceremonies and rituals, and things that deal with cleanliness) are pointing toward what is later fully explained in the New Testament.  Jesus' teaching on cleanliness does not repeal the need to be clean - the law has not passed away, not anymore than Mario passes away when he gets a Fire Flower - but he does change what it means to be clean and unclean (this, along with Peter's vision in Acts, which tells us that Jesus has made the unclean foods clean).  What are still counted as unclean are things like murder, theft, sexual immorality... etc.  In the interest of taking things in their historical context, what one has to realize here is that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses for His definitions of all these things (as is Paul, really - remember, he was steeped in the law his whole life and knew and referenced it constantly).  Keep in mind who He's speaking to, and their background studying the law.  Specifically relating to this issue, it's easy to say that what He means here is ambiguous now, but His audience knew exactly what behaviors He referred to with the shorthand of "sexual immorality."  The biggest thing to take away from this, of course, is that no one can just "be cleaner."  That's where Christ comes in.  But just because He frees us from sin does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as a sinful action.

That is to say, the moral law is just as present now as ever, predating and persisting through every covenant.  The difference comes from our reason to obey it.
I think it's hard to draw lines between what's the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law". There's no clear indication in the OT that they're split up like that (they're certainly not delineated in the text -- moral-sounding stuff and ceremonial-sounding stuff are often mixed together in the same chapters).

So here's Matthew 5:17-19.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

But then we have circumcision and feasts and cleanliness codes and dietary rules and the Sabbath being thrown out by Paul (and some of it also being thrown out by Jesus personally). Some questions here:

- When Jesus says "these commands", is he referring to the 613 rules of the Torah, or is he referring to the commands that he's giving at that moment?
- When he says "until everything takes place" (also translated "until everything is accomplished / fulfilled / comes to pass), is he talking end-of-the-world stuff, or could he be referring to the same thing as when he said "It is finished!" on the cross? Could that be the moment where "everything is fulfilled"?

I'm not sure where I come down on this exactly. Clearly the whole law is no longer binding on us, unless Paul (and Luke and/or Peter (and also Jesus)) were wrong (incidentally, though, we should remember that the point of the story in Acts 10 and 11 is a lot bigger than shrimp). With that in mind, how do we interpret "not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place"? The most obvious reading would be "all 613 rules of the Torah will be in effect until the end of time," but clearly that's not the case, so one of the assumptions in there has to be wrong.

I lean toward the belief that the specific code of law laid out in the Old Testament was "fulfilled" with Jesus' death, and it is no longer binding on us. This does not mean that everything it outlawed is now okay.

Quote from: "Shellfish Logic and the Defense of Homosexual Marriage"
Leviticus 19—between the anti-homosexual passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—prohibits stealing and lying, oppressing neighbors and robbing them, withholding wages from a laborer, cursing the deaf and tripping the blind, showing partiality in judicial matters, slandering, and taking vengeance. Leviticus 20 repeats prohibitions against child sacrifice, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Are we to conclude, using shellfish logic, that these laws no longer apply today because they are found in the Holiness Code?

The logic here is not "The Old Testament law is fulfilled and no longer binding on us; therefore, homosexuality must be good now, because it was wrong back then and now everything is the opposite!" The logic is "The prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament is no longer binding. Are there other reasons it should be immoral? If not, then it's okay." There are plenty of reasons that stealing, lying, and sacrificing children are wrong. Just because the law portion of the first five books of the Old Testament is no longer telling me not to murder people doesn't mean that I can ignore the rest of the Bible and my conscience telling me murder is wrong anyway.

(Sidenote (though I've mentioned it before), Leviticus 19 also forbids landowners from harvesting their fields to the edges, for the benefit of the poor, and demands that aliens and sojourners in the land not be discriminated against and be treated the same as citizens. Why, among those who support using the government to outlaw homosexuality, is there so little support for using the government to make the rich help the poor, and such strict immigration policies?)

However, even if specific parts of the law (rather than the principles behind them) are still binding on us, Leviticus 18 says that it is about "uncleanness". Again, this does not mean everything in there is okay now. Something can be both unclean and immoral, like sacrificing children to Molech. But if something is just unclean (by Levitical standards) without being immoral (which could be reiterated in other parts of scripture, or could be apparent through observation), then does it still apply in the new covenant?

Admittedly, I don't have every single answer ever.  Like everyone else in the world, there's always room for me to read more.  Unfortunately, I'm not so great about reading on this sort of thing during the school year.  But thank you for the discussion, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a bit.
Same here. I always enjoy monopolizing a few pages with you.



I found this interesting video on YouTube, thought it was relevant.
I've always found these cases really interesting.

Incidentally, could that be considered a legitimate reason for divorce under strict biblical standards?
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #418 on: October 31, 2012, 10:32:30 PM »
Holy crap, Lizard Dude, I just read a bit from the thread you linked earlier.

That's because the Senate is terribly afraid of offending the weirdo gays. The gays want to make this a civil rights issue, comparing themselves to blacks. How dare they compare themselves to people as respectable as blacks? They don't know how sickening it is to think of 2 men or 2 women married. It's just wrong. There's a reason why Adam & Eve were a man and a woman. Because that's how it's supposed to be in marrige. The gay protesters nagged at the senate to not say yes to the ban like any gay person does. Woe to the gay that asks me for support against the traditionalists...

I never said gays should change their ways. I'm just speaking my mind about their ignorance.

Look. Gay marraige is absolutely wrong. It says in the Bible that its wrong. God thinks its wrong. There's no " you just have to live with it". Besides, it wasn't Adam & Steve in the Garden of Eden. If everyone grew up being gay, then there would be less babies then ever before. Alot of people say that its an alternate life style, when they're wrong. All it is is sin.

I love how he/she uses the stupid "Adam and Steve" thing.
These quoted posts almost literally make me sick.
By the way, nintendofreak's favorite show is The O'Reilly Factor. Well, no wonder...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 10:58:06 PM by TheMightyThor »
Relics.

« Reply #419 on: October 31, 2012, 11:33:00 PM »
He's probably changed his views by now. That thread's almost a decade old. Most kids just regurgitate their parent's opinions until they're old enough to think for themselves (speaking from experience). I used all of his "arguments" and didn't think twice about how ridiculous they sounded.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 11:44:30 PM by PaperLuigi »
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Print