Religion and LGBT Issues

[United Marxist Nations]

So? That makes the argument, not that it's the want to not be hurt that makes it wrong, but the possibility of harm to yourself.

Yep. As I said before, Mutual Reciprocation.

But that doesn't answer Marches' original question: if you can be guaranteed to not suffer repercussions, what makes it wrong?

[The East Marches]

Your ultimate defense is "feelings", thank you for answering honestly. That is what is ultimately what it boils down to. No different than the religious types here. "Secular" ethics are just as much a meme as the religious ones.

There is a difference. Secular ethics are a useful tool for building a functioning, harmonious society. No one is claiming that they are infallible or that they originate from some cosmic source of ultimate truth.

Not at all, they are predicated on feelings, just as much as religious ones are. There is no real difference between the two.

[Genivaria]

Yep. As I said before, Mutual Reciprocation.

But that doesn't answer Marches' original question: if you can be guaranteed to not suffer repercussions, what makes it wrong?

Well society may declare it to be wrong regardless of they get away with it or not.

[Uxupox]

Highly doubt that homosexuals are prostitutes.

[Grenartia]

In this context, everything is arbitrary. But, what you said is pretty much the best way to go.

What the individual chooses to consent to may be arbitrary, but the principle of consent is not. We can define consent and apply it with reasonable consistency.

Well, even the principle of consent is arbitrary.

Note that simply because something is arbitrary, does not make it a bad thing, or that it has to be done away with. Language is arbitrary, units of measurement are arbitrary, etc.

[The East Marches]

But that doesn't answer Marches' original question: if you can be guaranteed to not suffer repercussions, what makes it wrong?

Well society may declare it to be wrong regardless of they get away with it or not.

So we are back to feelings?

[Genivaria]

Well society may declare it to be wrong regardless of they get away with it or not.

So we are back to feelings?

Only because you keep bringing them up for some reason.

[Genivaria]

What the individual chooses to consent to may be arbitrary, but the principle of consent is not. We can define consent and apply it with reasonable consistency.

Well, even the principle of consent is arbitrary.

Note that simply because something is arbitrary, does not make it a bad thing, or that it has to be done away with. Language is arbitrary, units of measurement are arbitrary, etc.

Well yeah 2+2=4 only because that's what we declare them to be.
The dollar has value because people believe it does.

[The East Marches]

So we are back to feelings?

Only because you keep bringing them up for some reason.

But that is the only justification you have as to why banditry and murder are wrong. Thats no much of a justification or defense at all. You are the same as the religious types.

[Grenartia]

1. What a stunning and complete refutation of science!
2. But what reason does He have for saying its bad?
3. You're not using "anathema" correctly.
4. That's pretty damn gender-neutral right there.
5. Can be reasonably interpreted as describing the way things usually go, not the way they have to be.



Exactly.



1. That's actually a pretty sexist assertion.
2. No, there is absolutely nothing saying that any pairing other than man and woman was excluded.
3. There's also no cars, no computers, no guns, no planes, etc. Does that mean that all of those things are sins, too?



And really, that assertion is pretty blatantly sexist. That every woman ate the fruit, and then seduced every man into eating it, too.

Also, that interpretation doesn't really fit in with the whole part about Adam and Eve having Cain and Abel. I mean, did every Adam and Eve have 2 kids, and named them Cain and Abel, and then one killed the other?



I've always interpreted that story as basically, Adam and Eve were the first humans to evolve, and eating the fruit was how they gained sentience.



I've already debunked that assertion. He's condemning temple prostitution.



Really, we don't need or want to force a homophobic preacher to officiate our weddings. The big issue is when it comes to government employees. People who need to handle the legal paperwork.



This. Pretty much the entire set of what writings were inspired and which were not were decided 3 centuries after Christ.



1. Says who?
2. Why do so many people keep saying "decadence" like its a bad thing? And its always some vaguely-defined, nebulous concept.
3. Prove it. I want numbers, not anecdotes.



Same.



1. You know we can actually fucking cuss on this damn forum, right? Also, even if we couldn't, its not like putting dashes between each word would allow you to weasel your way out of it.

2. Please, by all means, elaborate. I want to be able to tell you how wrong you are without resorting to strawmen.



Indeed. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And inequality is a prime example of injustice.



1. The guy who wrote this article, for one, and the people he references, for more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nich ... 07342.html As for why the Catholic and Orthodox disagree, that's because old misconceptions die hard, and the fact that this misconception dates back all the way to before the Great Schism. Invalidating the misconceptions would cast doubt on the legitimacy of both churches. Thus losing membership.

2. That "until all is accomplished" bit could easily refer to the Crucifixion and events preceding his ascension to heaven. After all, in Acts, we see a clear invalidation of the Jewish dietary laws.

3. Yeah, people back in biblical days were pretty damn sexist. But Paul's sexism doesn't necessarily translate to God mandating that trans people and crossdressers are sinning.

4. Source on the stoning bit? Also, it makes just as much sense on God abolishing the dietary laws.

5. No, the definition of crossdressing is wearing clothes associated with the opposite gender. There is a difference.



Indeed.



Technically, morality that depends on God isn't objective, either.



A definition which only reinforces what I just said.



In this context, everything is arbitrary. But, what you said is pretty much the best way to go.



Actually, it appears in all major cultures and religions, in some form or another. Only the label "Golden Rule" is Judeo-Christian. The secular/academic term is "Ethic of reciprocity".



Harming somebody does have an adverse effect on society, however.



When?

Also, what if I don't die? Should I see a doctor?



Lying is bad, honey.

1. It's not "gender neutral", because that sentence is describing the creation of Eve.

2. The entirety of Church tradition and ancient interpretation has been that it refers to homosexuality, and that 3. Christian marriage is based on the complimentary roles of man-and-woman.

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

[United Marxist Nations]

But that doesn't answer Marches' original question: if you can be guaranteed to not suffer repercussions, what makes it wrong?

Well society may declare it to be wrong regardless of they get away with it or not.

So, then, it is the consensus of society that makes it wrong?

Which is it? You've given three different reasons that make it wrong.

[Genivaria]

Only because you keep bringing them up for some reason.

But that is the only justification you have as to why banditry and murder are wrong. Thats no much of a justification or defense at all. You are the same as the religious types.

Then you haven't been reading what I've been typing, that or you're using the word 'feelings' very differently then I am.

[Lavan Tiri]

what makes religious ethics any worse for that purpose? One reason scandinavia does so well is because of its so-called Protestant virtues

Going by the opinions of those in this thread, they are entirely dependent on the caprices of a cosmic sociopath.

Or a collective of cosmic sociopaths.

Shall we move away from the morality threadjack and back onto topic? What gives Christians the right to impose their beliefs upon the rest of the world, but particularly LGBT folks (as that is the topic)? And don't try to counter with "Christians don't do that," because a ten-second Google search will prove you wrong.

[Uxupox]

1. It's not "gender neutral", because that sentence is describing the creation of Eve.

2. The entirety of Church tradition and ancient interpretation has been that it refers to homosexuality, and that 3. Christian marriage is based on the complimentary roles of man-and-woman.

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

That's why multiple councils exist. To verify and eliminate any misconceptions and agree on doctrine.

[Grenartia]

Highly doubt that homosexuals are prostitutes.

"Homosexuals" hasn't been in any translation since the turn of the last century. Also, did you miss the part where I said that there's no basis for arsenokoitai to be translated as "homosexuals" or any word/phrase that means it? There was an already existing Greek word for it. There's no need for Paul to make one up.

[United Marxist Nations]

1. It's not "gender neutral", because that sentence is describing the creation of Eve.

2. The entirety of Church tradition and ancient interpretation has been that it refers to homosexuality, and that 3. Christian marriage is based on the complimentary roles of man-and-woman.

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

1) The helper is Eve.

2) The appeal is to the source, which is the Church.

3) http://www.antiochian.org/node/17964

Whether it's sexist or not, has nothing to do with its truth. Complimentarianism has always been followed by the Church. Men and women have complimentary roles.

[The East Marches]

But that is the only justification you have as to why banditry and murder are wrong. Thats no much of a justification or defense at all. You are the same as the religious types.

Then you haven't been reading what I've been typing, that or you're using the word 'feelings' very differently then I am.

"Because they don't want to be murdered or robbed" - just feelings my man

[Southerly Gentleman]

what makes religious ethics any worse for that purpose? One reason scandinavia does so well is because of its so-called Protestant virtues

Going by the opinions of those in this thread, they are entirely dependent on the caprices of a cosmic sociopath.

And the alternative is that they're based on the caprices of some human thinker, as if that's better

[The East Marches]

Highly doubt that homosexuals are prostitutes.

"Homosexuals" hasn't been in any translation since the turn of the last century. Also, did you miss the part where I said that there's no basis for arsenokoitai to be translated as "homosexuals" or any word/phrase that means it? There was an already existing Greek word for it. There's no need for Paul to make one up.

I think we've been down this path with RIG before.

[Genivaria]

Well society may declare it to be wrong regardless of they get away with it or not.

So, then, it is the consensus of society that makes it wrong?

Which is it? You've given three different reasons that make it wrong.

Well for it to have any real meaning in life as far as laws and behavior go yeah pretty much.

Which is it? You've given three different reasons that make it wrong.

You say that as if there can only be one.

[United Marxist Nations]

Highly doubt that homosexuals are prostitutes.

"Homosexuals" hasn't been in any translation since the turn of the last century. Also, did you miss the part where I said that there's no basis for arsenokoitai to be translated as "homosexuals" or any word/phrase that means it? There was an already existing Greek word for it. There's no need for Paul to make one up.

Again, this is either misguided or outright lying. Paul did not make up the word, he derived it from the Greek translation of Leviticus.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

There is a difference. Secular ethics are a useful tool for building a functioning, harmonious society. No one is claiming that they are infallible or that they originate from some cosmic source of ultimate truth.

Not at all, they are predicated on feelings, just as much as religious ones are. There is no real difference between the two.

At this point, you are basically saying "Both involve humans! They're the same!"

[Genivaria]

Then you haven't been reading what I've been typing, that or you're using the word 'feelings' very differently then I am.

"Because they don't want to be murdered or robbed" - just feelings my man

If that's what you want to view not dying as sure. 'just feelings'

[Grenartia]

Because I missed it:

Actually, Leviticus is pretty much the closest the Bible gets to saying homosexuality is wrong, and really, Leviticus can't be taken seriously by anyone. It uses the same word "abomination" to describe eating most forms of seafood. In addition to gay sex, it condemns, (again) most forms of seafood (there goes the Gulf Coast seafood industry), wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics (there goes most modern clothing, right there), eating pork (obviously), eating meat and dairy (so, in addition to not being able to put bacon on your cheeseburger, you can't have a cheeseburger at all), and the environmentally and agriculturally responsible practice of crop rotation (which has prevented a repeat of this).

Theologically speaking, there's a case to be argued that Leviticus was rendered obsolete by the events of the Gospels, anyways. So, basically, anyone who cites Leviticus is basically grasping at straws.

And, just because I enjoy doing it so much, I'm going to debunk everything else. Lets start with Sodom. The thing is, we know from Ezekiel 16:49 that gay sex had nothing to do with it. Just xenophobia, and refusing to help the needy. Of course, the attempted gangrape of the angels didn't help Sodom's case much, either. And, obviously, rape =/= consensual sex.

So, Sodom has nothing to do with two men getting married/having sex. Unless you'd like to argue that the angels wanted to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which is good well and fine, except for the part where you literally have to admit that God has no problem with openly gay (and sexually active) people in His service. Which defeats the entire purpose of the argument in the first place.

The only clobber verses left in the Bible are in the NT, and basically revolve around the words of Paul. Well, more accurately, one word. Arsenokoitai. It appears literally nowhere in the Greek record prior to Paul's usage of it. Which basically means he made it up. So accurate translations of it are pretty much solely related to contextual clues. Which seem to indicate some form of temple prostitution of young boys than an act of love between two adults.

The underlined is not true. Paul got the word from the Greek Septuagint in Leviticus.

So, you're saying that Paul got a Greek word from a Hebrew text, and that no other Greek writer used that word between Leviticus and Paul's writings?

I call so much bullshit.

[Uxupox]

Highly doubt that homosexuals are prostitutes.

"Homosexuals" hasn't been in any translation since the turn of the last century. Also, did you miss the part where I said that there's no basis for arsenokoitai to be translated as "homosexuals" or any word/phrase that means it? There was an already existing Greek word for it. There's no need for Paul to make one up.

Then why do all Bibles being NASB, NEB and NIV contain this phrase?