Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Essos]

Actually? You are. Your detractor was not in any way, even by the most deluded stretch of your imagination, promoting rape as some sort of justification to promote homosexuality. Only excruciatingly bad reading comprehension skills could have led anyone to derive such a conclussion from that.

Rape is not homosexuality. I dont even...

Leviticus says that women who are raped should marry their rapist, providing that the rapist pays the father a sum of money(or goods of equivalent value). It also says women on their period should not be permitted within the camp or the dwelling. It also says that you should stone women who were raped if they are married, because it's actuially adultery, unless they screamed for help AND someone heard them. You're ok with all of these things, right? Because they're God's law, as hye laid out directly to the Hebrews. And we already established that God is infallible, and therefore you must think these things are correct, or am I wrong?

[Heltonia]

Rape is not homosexuality. I dont even...

Leviticus says that women who are raped should marry their rapist, providing that the rapist pays the father a sum of money(or goods of equivalent value). It also says women on their period should not be permitted within the camp or the dwelling. It also says that you should stone women who were raped if they are married, because it's actuially adultery, unless they screamed for help AND someone heard them. You're ok with all of these things, right? Because they're God's law, as hye laid out directly to the Hebrews. And we already established that God is infallible, and therefore you must think these things are correct, or am I wrong?

are you a levite?

[Liriena]

That's what I would have gone with, but someone else started that tangent so I've just stuck with it.




So you are saying the Bible is wrong? You don't think a girl should be made marry her rapist provided he pays the father?

Or you're saying the Bible is right only when talking about homosexuality, but wrong on other times?

If you are saying it is all right and we should follow all of Leviticus it is an all or nothing thing.

So you would overlook over all those sins just so you can let a man wed another man?

Are your reading comprehension skills really that poor?
You are the one overlooking "sins". You are the one overlooking the fact that the Book of Leviticus, which you quoted, also bans shrimp, shellfish, pork, shaving, mixing fabrics, mixing crops and having any sort of physical contact with a menstruating woman (including just hugging your own mother).

[Fnordgasm 5]

That's what I would have gone with, but someone else started that tangent so I've just stuck with it.




So you are saying the Bible is wrong? You don't think a girl should be made marry her rapist provided he pays the father?

Or you're saying the Bible is right only when talking about homosexuality, but wrong on other times?

If you are saying it is all right and we should follow all of Leviticus it is an all or nothing thing.

So you would overlook over all those sins just so you can let a man wed another man?

Literally no one but you has said that.

[Transhuman Proteus]

That's what I would have gone with, but someone else started that tangent so I've just stuck with it.




So you are saying the Bible is wrong? You don't think a girl should be made marry her rapist provided he pays the father?

Or you're saying the Bible is right only when talking about homosexuality, but wrong on other times?

If you are saying it is all right and we should follow all of Leviticus it is an all or nothing thing.

So you would overlook over all those sins just so you can let a man wed another man?

That doesn't make any sense, I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

You are the one wanting to say:

First - the bible is absolutely correct and never wrong
Second - So we should be against homosexuality because the OT says it is wrong

You are cherry picking. Either you think we should be living OT in every way, or you accept the Bible is not infallible, it is outdated and has no bearing on the argument.

As to the other sins - we don't base our laws off the Bible. We have laws against rape and murder and theft because we and the state want them because those things are harmful and need to be stopped, not because the Bible says. We have no laws against homosexuality because it is not harmful and we don't want them. Understand? Allowing homosexuality doesn't mean we allow other things, just because in your confused world the Bible says.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I was staying out of this for obvious reasons, but I'd like to make a general observation that everyone on what I would consider to be the sane side of this argument is trying to dissect a brick wall of obtuseness with a scalpel. Personally, I'd let it be for now and let events take their course, but I'll keep checking in for entertainment value in case you all keep deciding to keep up the good fight.

[Liriena]

Leviticus says that women who are raped should marry their rapist, providing that the rapist pays the father a sum of money(or goods of equivalent value). It also says women on their period should not be permitted within the camp or the dwelling. It also says that you should stone women who were raped if they are married, because it's actuially adultery, unless they screamed for help AND someone heard them. You're ok with all of these things, right? Because they're God's law, as hye laid out directly to the Hebrews. And we already established that God is infallible, and therefore you must think these things are correct, or am I wrong?

are you a levite?

No. Neither are you, obviously. By Biblical definition, you are a gentile, which means you don't have to abide by Leviticus, and neither do we. So why the fuck do you quote Leviticus as a reason to be against homosexuality?

[Fnordgasm 5]

Leviticus says that women who are raped should marry their rapist, providing that the rapist pays the father a sum of money(or goods of equivalent value). It also says women on their period should not be permitted within the camp or the dwelling. It also says that you should stone women who were raped if they are married, because it's actuially adultery, unless they screamed for help AND someone heard them. You're ok with all of these things, right? Because they're God's law, as hye laid out directly to the Hebrews. And we already established that God is infallible, and therefore you must think these things are correct, or am I wrong?

are you a levite?

Excuse Essos. The poor fellow clearly doesn't know his Leviticus from his Deuteronomy.

[Heltonia]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

[Liriena]

I was staying out of this for obvious reasons, but I'd like to make a general observation that everyone on what I would consider to be the sane side of this argument is trying to dissect a brick wall of obtuseness with a scalpel. Personally, I'd let it be for now and let events take their course, but I'll keep checking in for entertainment value in case you all keep deciding to keep up the good fight.

I refuse to let the uninformed and the obtuse remain that way. I'd be willingly allowing humanity to be corrupted.

[Essos]

That's what I would have gone with, but someone else started that tangent so I've just stuck with it.




So you are saying the Bible is wrong? You don't think a girl should be made marry her rapist provided he pays the father?

Or you're saying the Bible is right only when talking about homosexuality, but wrong on other times?

If you are saying it is all right and we should follow all of Leviticus it is an all or nothing thing.

So you would overlook over all those sins just so you can let a man wed another man?

Who says it's a sin? As we may have indicated previously, Jesus is conspicuously silent on the subject. So only the word of God, which you may or may not follow, at your leisure(as indicated by yourself), and the opinions of a few guys in Roman times say homosexuality is wrong. Either Leviticus and Deuteronomy are valid in their entirety, or invalid in their entirety. Which is it?

[Anachronous Rex]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

Wrong fallacy. You were looking for, "false dichotomy."

[Heltonia]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

Wrong fallacy. You were looking for, "false dichotomy."

thank you.

[Essos]

are you a levite?

Excuse Essos. The poor fellow clearly doesn't know his Leviticus from his Deuteronomy.

Shut up, I'm tired, and also doing this while I'm at work. DON'T JUDGE ME! Also, yeah... Shut up... <_<

[Liriena]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

You seem to be insinuating that you know what the hell you are talking about.
Nobody claimed that homosexuality not being actually banned by the Bible made it "right". But it obviously does not make it "wrong", which means your initial argument (that Leviticus is a valid source to declare homosexuality "wrong") was FALSE.

Let that word sink in for a while.

It hurts, doesn't it?

[Essos]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

If the verse are what make it wrong, then necessarily homosexuality is not wrong if the verses are wrong. That's pretty easy to figure.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I was staying out of this for obvious reasons, but I'd like to make a general observation that everyone on what I would consider to be the sane side of this argument is trying to dissect a brick wall of obtuseness with a scalpel. Personally, I'd let it be for now and let events take their course, but I'll keep checking in for entertainment value in case you all keep deciding to keep up the good fight.

I refuse to let the uninformed and the obtuse remain that way. I'd be willingly allowing humanity to be corrupted.

That's fair. However, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to trot out two shopworn yet apt quotations.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -Robert A. Heinlein

[Anachronous Rex]

Wrong fallacy. You were looking for, "false dichotomy."

thank you.

That said, all they are pointing out is that homosexuality is not wrong, because these verses are wrong.

Saying homosexuality is right would imply that homosexuality was a moral imperative.

So... what you said is stupid.

[Liriena]

thank you.

That said, all they are pointing out is that homosexuality is not wrong, because these verses are wrong.

Saying homosexuality is right would imply that homosexuality was a moral imperative.

So... what you said is stupid.

That's the gentle way of saying it.

[Heltonia]

thank you.

That said, all they are pointing out is that homosexuality is not wrong, because these verses are wrong.

Saying homosexuality is right would imply that homosexuality was a moral imperative.

So... what you said is stupid.

Let me put it this way. Just because something isnt blue, it doesnt necessarily mean it can only be red.

[Transhuman Proteus]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

No, you are the one wanting to give the Bible some relevance in the argument. In many ways the Bible is nothing but a big old fiction. Or a pile of bullshit, depending on how you feel. It is irrelevant. Homosexuality is not wrong because there is nothing wrong with it.

See, murder, rape, theft, fraud, disease, mental illness, pedophilia, bestiality - we can come up with excellent arguments about why they are bad or negative things that need to be avoided or stopped. Not so for homosexuality. In short - the Bible is irrelevant to the argument.

[The Grim Reaper]

Why does the church demand that the state protect the precious, precious institute of marriage while still supporting the notion of church/state seperation?

IMHO, the state needs to grow up and realize it can't hide "we're too lazy to change the status quo" behind a guise of "religious tradition" and just swallow the bullet and drastically rework the entire obsolete concept of marriage.

If marriage is a religious rite that homosexuals should not want to take part in if it is conducted by a church that disagrees with it, then why the fuck does the church want to pull the state into it?

Hell, we can deal with polygamy now. Everyone's happy except for some right-wingers who want to be able to use the church to protect their constituency and vice versa.

[Anachronous Rex]

That said, all they are pointing out is that homosexuality is not wrong, because these verses are wrong.

Saying homosexuality is right would imply that homosexuality was a moral imperative.

So... what you said is stupid.

Let me put it this way. Just because something isnt blue, it doesnt necessarily mean it can only be red.

Yes, that's what a false dichotomy is. I get it.

That's not what happened here. Essentially, it was said that something is blue, because something else says that it is blue. It is pointed out that said something else does not really say that it is blue, or blue in all circumstances, and so there is no reason to think that it is blue.

Or to put it more simply, "nu-uh."

[Heltonia]

you all seem to be insinuating that homosexuality is "right" because these verses are "wrong".
Correlation does not equate causation.

No, you are the one wanting to give the Bible some relevance in the argument. In many ways the Bible is nothing but a big old fiction. Or a pile of bullshit, depending on how you feel. It is irrelevant. Homosexuality is not wrong because there is nothing wrong with it.

See, murder, rape, theft, fraud, disease, mental illness, pedophilia, bestiality - we can come up with excellent arguments about why they are bad or negative things that need to be avoided or stopped. Not so for homosexuality. In short - the Bible is irrelevant to the argument.

my beliefs are no less valuable than yours because you dont believe in the same god. This is discrimination.

[Essos]

That said, all they are pointing out is that homosexuality is not wrong, because these verses are wrong.

Saying homosexuality is right would imply that homosexuality was a moral imperative.

So... what you said is stupid.

Let me put it this way. Just because something isnt blue, it doesnt necessarily mean it can only be red.

Because it is not wrong, it can only be not wrong. Being not wrong does not necessarily make it right. Can you understand that?