Topic awaiting preservation: Persuasive Speech

We have to do a speech by the end of the term. And my topic is Homosexuality. I'm open-minded, I don't care whatever they think about that sexuality, I'm just trying to take some of your opinions.

Hmm...interesting debate topic, Yannah. But methinks Philosophy-silliness is a better place for this one.

--tiki

Look on the web, forums especially. Philosphy should have some information, more than enough.

k!, I'll go...bye!

Moved to Philosophy forum.

Jestah

What kind of speech? Do you have to take a position and then defend it? Or do you just have to describe information you find about homosexuality? It totally depends on what they are expecting you to say in the speech.

. . : slicePuzzle

And exactly what information are you looking for from us? Do you want to know if each of us personally is ok with it?

I've got no problems with anyone's methods of connecting with another human in any kind of meaningful relationship. I don't think that gay or lesbian relationships are any better or worse than heterosexual relationships. Having known a lot of gays and lesbians, I feel safe in saying that their relationships can be just as dysfunctional as anyone else I know.

However, as people, I tend to find gays and lesbians to be a lot more open minded to more than just their sexuality. It's as if living that way leaves them freer to express their other opinions as well as be more accepting of the oddities of the rest of us...
(if that statement makes much sense...)

Homosexuality has been prevalent throughout history, in particular in Greek history. I forget who the philosopher was who wrote an essay about how humans were originally two halves joined together, and were somehow split apart. We now spend our lives searching for our other half. His theory was that the other half was the same sex as ourselves - not the opposite sex, as we tend to think.

Dang - I wish I could remember who that was... I read it in college for an English assignment...

Bodhi - Cell 617

what?

Now, since this is a persuasive speech and not an informative speech, you have to consider exactly what it is you're trying to convince people of.

Are you trying to convince them that homosexuality is OK? That it is better? That they should try it?

Remember, a persuasive speech can't just cover a topic, it must attempt to change someone's mind about it.

I have to act (move) from time to time, my speech should have paces too. I'm not really good at these stuff.

What have you got so far? A little more detail about the assignment and what you're ideas are might help clue us in on what you're looking for. Shed some more light for us if you want some help on it.

Bodhi - Cell 617

wait, I've got to think...

Like Wes said, a persuasive speech is trying to argue a point, and the first thing you need to nail down is what exactly that point is. So, what is the point?

>waiting<

^^still waiting^^ *yawn*


Bodhi - Cell 617

Ok, here's the point:

I wanted people to think that Homosexuality isn't a porblem within this society, normal people's society, and that I wanted them to see that admitting them as human beings aren't a bad choice at all. That what bodhi23 are facts not just fantasies.


Thank god that we're not doing it in front of the class anymore, we're doing it on tape.

ummm... sorry to be rude, if it's the case. but uhm.. where's yannah from?

One of my favorite methods of delivering a persuasive speech is to take the other sides statements and show them to be inaccurate, misleading, or just plain stupid.

This should be fairly easy for your subject matter.

As far as a taped delivery goes, while it may alleviate stage fright, it makes connecting to your audience more challenging. Try to imagine one very interested person sitting in front of you and try to make a personal connection, eye contact, occasional smiles and questioning looks at the appropriate times. It is very important to speak 'To', not 'At' your audience. Persuasive speeches are very dependent on how credible the audience finds you, so try to come across as confident, and friendly.

quote:

---

I wanted people to think that Homosexuality isn't a porblem within this society, normal people's society, and that I wanted them to see that admitting them as human beings aren't a bad choice at all.

---

OK, first of all, how do you define "normal people's society"? Also, I think you will find very few people who will not admit that homosexuals are human beings.

As norm said, though, you need to poke holes in the statements that oppose your point. You also need to support your own statements, too.

Starting from all of ^that^ - exactly what are the opposing arguments you're facing? Lay their points out in front of you, and start shredding...


You can start by reading some of the public remarks made by such people as Rev. Jerry Falwell and the retiring NC senator Jesse Helms, both of whom have made it quite obvious over the last 10 years that they are not gay/lesbian friendly...

They'll help you get your bearings. Do a google search for transcripts of their speechs and public remarks.

Bodhi - Cell 617

It might help to narrow your focus to a particular topic of debate. If all you want to say is that homosexuals are people too, and should be treated as such, then you might have a very short speech. I'd advise you to delve into specifics. Talk about gay marriage, or anti-discrimination laws, or hate-crime laws, or specific hateful statements or actions. That way, it's easier to construct an argument and to find quotes with some content that you can rebut.

I did a survey at my school here in Brisbane. And they all got the same answer, "they're sick" I was about to pop up like something because they aren't open towards this kind of subject. Like what's with them? Don't they have brains or something?
I was just as mad as somebody else. Homosexuality are not that big deal towards this society. One of them thought that they're normal just like us, humans. That's what they are exactly.

a bit of a stretch here - Normal - if you consider that word to mean "like everyone else" or "like the majority" or "average" then they're NOT NORMAL. But even that does not render them worse than anyone else in any way. Today, we say "normal" any time we want to show that we do not see something with contempt, but it is unnecessary. So either define Normal (good luck at that) or stop saying that someone "not like the majority" is normal.

Lets admit, homosexuals and lesbians are Different (from heterosexuals). If you want to debate that we should accept them as equals - go for it. If your aim is to try and stop the people from looking at them with disdain - you will never succeed, for human ignorance renders them (humans) unable to look past the differences, and most "normal" people live by the motto "He's not like me - therefore I hate him"

And personally, I think "normal" means "like me" - because everything in this world you compare to yourself - big, small, it's always relative to your person when you start thinking about it. if you say someone's rich - he must be richer than you, but not necessarily richer than someone else. So normal would be just like yourself.

Hey look at my speech and tell me what's wrong and what's much appropriate to say.

Homosexuality: is it really a problem?

I don&#8217;t understand why can&#8217;t people be open-minded, mentally and physically. Act their age and be mature enough to understand this whole topic: Homosexuality.
It&#8217;s hard to change people&#8217;s opinions towards homosexuality if they are strong and balanced at the same time. Yeah sure, that we people are free to judge other people&#8217;s race and other subjects too, but is it possible that judging people by their own sexualities are to be made as right?
Some people are disgusted by them, like some people in this school thought that they are sick, some thought that they are normal but in the end disgusting. They think that it is unnecessary for them to have their own relationship by any means of sexual activity. This is to compare with Heterosexual relationship where you are attracted with the opposite person.
Homosexuality is a fact of life, yet some people still feel that it has no place in this society at all. People nowadays are so easy with judging and concluding homosexuals as discriminations within the human race. They are humans, just like us, they have the right to choose whether what gender of sex they want to have a girl, guy, a lesbian or even a gay.

not bad, but needs a lot of work. especially the "or even gay" part

thanks, I'll work on it.

It's not finished as yet.

Don't forget to mention "homosexual marriages" In the Netherlands it is now completely recognised, with the same legal status as a heterosexual marriages, and I thought this point of view was spreading over to other countries as well.

quote:

---

I don?t understand why can?t people be open-minded, mentally and physically.

---

Don't take this the wrong way, Yannah, but if you can't understand why people are close-minded, then you aren't as enlightened as you think you are. It is human nature, plain and simple. And if you are going to argue a point like this, you need to understand human nature and deal with the issue calmly and logically. If you approach this with the mindset you have expressed above, your arguments may end up doing no more than bashing those you don't agree with/can't understand--which is what you're trying to fight against in the first place, isn't it?

If you want my opinion, I think you do understand why people are close-minded, you just may not want to admit it. You need to recognize that you, as a human being, have the same capacity for close-mindedness and bigotry as the people you interviewed. If you don't recognize this, you will end up sounding holier-than-thou, and you will convince no one.

I hope I'm conveying my message properly. I'm not trying to get down on you, I'm just trying to get you to look at things from a broader perspective.

I think you may want to set yourself an outline before you get to writing. Divide your speech into at least 3 sections - an introduction, defense or reasoning, and a conclusion. Start the intro by stating what topic you are discussing. I think this sentence could be useful there:

quote:

---

Homosexuality is a fact of life, yet some people still feel that it has no place in this society at all. People nowadays are so easy with judging and concluding homosexuals as discriminations within the human race. They are humans, just like us, they have the right to choose whether what gender of sex they want to have a girl, guy, a lesbian or even a gay.

---

But please please work out your grammar, it's atrocious. I would probably say something like: "People nowadays are so quick in judging and concluding that homosexuals are to be discriminated against." and "They are humans, and just like everyone, have the right to choose who they will have sexual relations with."

Don't say "I don't understand why can't people be open-minded", instead say "why people can't"...

This is an odd sentence:

quote:

---

It?s hard to change people?s opinions towards homosexuality if they are strong and balanced at the same time.

---

How exactly do you mean "strong and balanced at the same time"? What's the point you are trying to make here?
And I can sort of tell what you mean by this sentence:

quote:

---

Yeah sure, that we people are free to judge other people?s race and other subjects too, but is it possible that judging people by their own sexualities are to be made as right?

---

but the structure is really weird. Do you mean that as individuals, we are free to make personal judgements about other people, but that judging someone by their sexual orientation doesn't say anything about who they are as people?

quote:

---

Some people are disgusted by them, like some people in this school thought that they are sick, some thought that they are normal but in the end disgusting. They think that it is unnecessary for them to have their own relationship by any means of sexual activity. This is to compare with Heterosexual relationship where you are attracted with the opposite person.

---

"Disgusted by them" and "thought they were sick" are in essence saying the same thing. Try not to make redundant statements. You might say something like: "In a recent survey of students in this school, the overwhelming response was disgust in the homosexual lifestyle. Even the few students who agreed that homosexuals had the right to choose that lifestyle, also noted that they were personally digusted by the idea.". The last 2 sentences there could be merged into one sentence, something like: "There is very little difference in the way people in relationships relate to one another, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual."

I think you've got a good start. Pay attention to your grammatical and sentence structure, and outline some clear points to make. The suggestion about the growing acceptance of same-sex marriages is a good one to make. Not only many European countries, but also several states in the US recognize same-sex marriages.
And do remember you are trying to persuade people to think differently, not chastise them for being close minded.

Keep it coming!


Bodhi - Cell 617
*edit my own spelling and grammar!*

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-05-2003).]

I have deleted that yesterday, I'm still working on it, it's due on tuesday.

I have changed the whole speech, I'm typing it still.

post the copy when you get it done - we'll give it a once over...

Bodhi - Cell 617

Yes, I would like to review it too.

Ok, here it is now...
So sorry if I adopted some sentences that Bodhi had.

The Essay:


Greetings:
Good Morning to you all, (teacher?s name)

The speech:

Look, I don?t really have any problems with anybody?s relationship, whether they are in homosexual or in heterosexual relationships. There are no differences between the two kinds.
As person, I tend to find gays and lesbians to be more open-minded to more than just their sexuality than from any heterosexual being that I ever known.
All I?m saying is that homosexuality if a fact of life. If you think that they are not normal as you compare them to yourself then perhaps you are the one who has problems not them.
If you?re wondering if I?m homosexual myself the answer would be NO. What made this topic so interesting for me is all the people who have experienced such insult all their lives. And what they are mentally as I had friends who are homosexuals before.
There have been gays and lesbians who wanted to be accepted as human beings by the public and by the Christian churches over the passed decades. It was such a hard effort for them to fight for their freedom and get respected by others.
Anti-homosexual activists like Senator Jesse Helms of U.S.A. have tried to prevent gays and lesbians from spreading. He even refused to support money to aid families with victims of AIDS, tried to either prevent pro-homosexual legislation from being passed or slipping anti-homosexual legislation into various senate bills. He then attacked school. Stopping them from counseling or teaching some facts about this kind of subject.
What he can?t see and realize is that homosexual teenagers who couldn?t get counseled are much likely to end-up committing suicide, which will only raise the death rolls of teenage people.
In most countries, same-sex relationships are recognized as legal nowadays, which I think is the right thing to do.
Moreover, some so ?religious? people who actually have read the whole bible says that homosexuality is an illness and is forbidden by GOD himself or is it really? Then if it is, why do some people who serves God commits such homosexual acts themselves?
Back then, in the ancient years. Homosexuality isn?t as big as it is now. It was actually practiced, like in Greece.
Back on senator Jesse Helms, people like him have no place within the government. Thank God that he?s finally out of his position.
Why can?t we be all open-minded and not be bigots?
All I meant by that is that we can?t be immature throughout our lives
These can be prevented from re-occurring if we could only understand them or try at least.

I actually did it, I know there are some grammar mistakes but...

[This message has been edited by Yannah (edited 06-10-2003).]

Yannah:

Grammar aside (and your grammar IS improving, keep up the good work), I would change the part where you suggest that your audience may have a problem if they feel homosexuality is not normal.

You don't want these people to be defensive or they will never hear a word you say. Try something along these lines-

" .... if you feel homosexuals are not normal people, take a minute and consider that not everyone else may view you as normal. Does that mean you are any less of a person? Of course not. Does that mean that you are not an individual of value, someone who has thoughts, feelings and abilities? Of course it does not mean those things, you are a human being."

Something like that may help some people in the audience identify that as humans, they share more similarities with homosexuals than differences.

It's over, I have done it.

Yannah, I'm glad you got through your speech. Now that the pressure is off, perhaps we can discuss some of the content you put into it.

First off, why do you think that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are identical?

They both are kinds of relationships and are somewhat attracted.

That is true. You said there were no differences though. I don't think that is true. There are a lot of different kinds of relationships that people can have with one another but I don't see how they are all exactly the same.

Let me ask you this. What do you think of two men and one woman marriages? Is that exactly the same as a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship in your view?

Yannah - a very good effort. I hope you received a good grade. I don't mind that you used some of the sentences I provided. And your grammar was much better the second time around.

Bugs - the idea that hetero/homo relationships are the same came from me, I believe. I stated it in a couple of places. And I wasn't referring to the sexual side of it, obviously there are differences there. I was referring to the human interaction of two people. And yes, they are amazingly similar. I have known and been close friends with couples of both persuasions. They have the same emotions for each other, and the same arguments with each other. The difference in sexes has no bearing in that area. In most relationships, there are both a dominant and submissive partner. Sometimes they switch places, but both sides exist. In homosexual relationships, the dynamic is the same.

People are people - regardless of sexual orientation. It's our individual idiosyncracies that makes us special...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

I don't know that I really disagree with most of that, bodhi23. But I am curious to know how you view relationships with more than two people. I ask because I have found that most people that have argued with me about legalizing gay marriages are dead set against recognizing marriages between more than two people and marriages between people and animals.

You didn't ask...but I've got an opinion anyway.

Two things are important:
1) Is the relationship a consentual one, where all parties entered the relationship not under duress and can leave the relationship at will?
2) Is the relationship among adult humans?

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.
Anything else is the state (in a democracy 'of the people', the state is, by definition, you and me) interfering in something that is none of its (our) business.

Bugs - if the people involved are ok with multiple spouses, who am I to say what they should be able to do? I know that in many African countries, there are still tribes where the men have many wives... Less of that as they become "westernized", but it still happens. And I also know that many Mormons believe in polgynous marriages, even here in the states. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe it's legal in Utah only.
You hear more about men with multiple wives (polygyny) than you do of women with multiple husbands (polyandry), but I understand that polyandry exists still too. I'd have to poke around to find any references... And I'm sure there are areas of the world where community "marriages" exist as well... (but I'm not sure what you'd call it!)

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man... (that's "you" general, not you, Bugs... ) I can't see how you can really compare a relationship between a human and an animal with a relationship between 2 (or more!) humans though.

Mobrul - I fully agree with that statement...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man...

These statements make me cringe. With thinking like this, its not a wonder that the state of the union would go to the dogs all in the name of the bill of rights.

I guess it would be ok for public sex too since its between two consenting human adults. I'll just have to look the other way and they are not harming anyone.

Jade - given most of your posts recently, I wouldn't expect you to understand or agree with any of this discussion. But you, too, are entitled to your opinions...

Free speech is one of the things that makes this country great.

And please do give humans some credit for common sense.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-12-2003).]

Bdi,

Your a very intelligent poster and I don't mean to point your lack of sense.

But is it COMMON SENSE for two men or two woman to have intercourse?

Its unnatural behavior. Its a CHOICE of unnatural behavior between same sexes. Lets call a spade, a spade. Lets not sugarcoat it and say its fine as long as it doesn't bother me. Well, it does bother me that it would be classified and considered normal its beyond me.

I have a a great love for people, even if they are homosexual or lesbian. And I sympathize. But that doesn't mean I think the way they are is ok. Ok, so you have a problem with your sexual identity but why is it so important for the cause to push for normal to compare with a heterosexual relationship?

Why should society be forced to accept the recgonizing of a marrige between the same sexes? What point is trying to be made here?

Jade, do you define the relationship with your husband strictly in terms of sex? Isn't there more to your family than sex? What makes you think it's any different for a homosexual couple? a polygamous family?
There's more to a relationship, there's more to a family than sex. Let's not make this about sex.

Sex is gross.

I have no idea what in the world social security, descrimination in the job market and joint property ownership has to do with having sex in a public place. It's not quite as ridiculous as Rick Santorum's recent statements, but yours are pretty close.

If we allow gay people to have legal rights, they'll have sex in the streets!
If someone isn't just like me they 'have a problem'.

Insane

The Bill of Rights is a wonderful document. It allows hate-filled bigots to spew their virulence in public and not get thrown in jail...or worse.
You, Jade, should be happy we have the Bill of Rights.

There's no need to argue about this anymore.

jade:

I'm curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that what gays & lesbians do is unnatural. It seems to me that there is is quite the varity of things that can be done with one's "god -given" equipment.

When I think of an unnatural activity the first thing I think of is..... Flying.

norm, I have to disagree with you on that one. There is nothing unnatural about flying. It involves air, gravity, a whole lot of screaming and then finally one-ness with the earth. (Unless you follow Douglas Adam's advice from The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy and simply jump at the ground and miss.)


Seriously though, who is to say that homosexuality is unnatural? Humanity is not the only species on this planet to practice it. Perhaps the wiring/genetics that creates homosexuals is simply a mutation (not meant to be derrogatory! think evolution!) that is a built-in method of population control.

Yannah- Though you may have intended this thread only to give insight into your speech, it has sparked an interesting debate. Not argument. Perhaps the topic is no longer useful to you, but you could perhaps gain something more by listening to the debate.

This may sound strange but isn't it very "natural" to consider homosexuality to be "unnatural"?

This is a very difficult topic because it has so many facets and because it is such a focal point for much of the cultural civil war we find ourselves in. Nutshell time.

I have very little personal aversion to homosexuality. I am just as concerned for the well-being of homosexuals as I am about that of any other human being on this planet. But I am also a practicing Christian and there is no way I can see to read the Bible and not consider engaging in homosexual sexual acts as sinful.

My religious views are my own and need not be forced on anyone else in our society *unless* society feels the need to force certain behaviors that may or may not correspond to individual beliefs. Let me explain.

I don't think the government has any business dictating who can or cannot have sex with one another or with whom people choose to live with. But there are exceptions to this rule. We don't allow children to enter into these types of relationships because we as a society feel they are not capable of making those decisions yet. Society also has recognized heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman as the ideal. I believe this is the way it should remain. Not because I want my religious views to prevail, but because I think society has the right to maintain its survival and the nuclear family has been shown to be the brick that comprises society's foundation. It is by far the most successful institution for raising the next generation of citizens.

The bottom line for me is I think society should keep marriage what it is now but I have no problem with extending certain benefits to other arrangements as long as the traditional marriage remains the ideal.

I'm not entirely sure how coherently that came out.

bodhi23, thanks for the clarification. It's just that I love asking people about those other arrangements when I think they have a knee-jerk opinion about gay marriage and then seeing them become just as judgemental as the people who oppose gay marriage.

mobrul, I hope you can see from my point above that if society feels one (or more) marriage arrangements benefit society as a whole, that it (we) have the right to hold those up as preferred.

. . : slicePuzzle

Isn't sex for anything other then reproduction -- while not unnatural isn't "normal". If you consider the entire population of creation.

jstuartj:

If sex for any other reason than to produce offspring is not normal, than at any given time a large chunk of the worlds population is engaged in , or pursuing, the something that is not normal.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't trying to make a baby every time they get laid.

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 06-13-2003).]

Well that kind of my point, the majority of the animal kingdom doesn't engage in pleasureable sex. It's not perpetuating the species, so techinically it's unnatural to do so. It is part of our nature so there for natural for humans but abnormal when compaired to other mammals.

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 06-13-2003).]

Strangeness abounds...fact is, Nature is full of homosexuality...it seems to be as natural as heterosexuality...

Of course, there are those who, for whatever reason(s), ignore this...*shrugs*

Mbl.

Sex is gross? Are you serious?

We are sex from head to toe. Sex is written all over us in who we are. We know we are a product of the sexual act. And we are sensual by nature. As for some married men are concerned it is a big chunk of the marriage. I read a study awhile back that men think about sex or near to it on average 200 times a day even if they are not in their prime. I know that the libido is different in all persons and even woman during or after menopause have a heighten libido that could last years. And I think the majority of humanity will agree that sex is great but especially with the person you love it is super super wonderful great. But all of this is intended for the sexual pleasure in a marriage state of two persons, male and female. But in the culture of today human sexuality is used as pleasure for the senses in many ways and types that have degenerated the reason it exist. Sex is all over TV, movies, magazines & muisc videos. How many times have I seen my husbands car magazines with near naked women on top of the cars. Scantly clad women are used to sell just about anything. Sexuality dominates the culture of today where children are growing up are geared up for it as soon as they can experiment. Pornography is selling better than ever with homosexuality in it. Children can have access to this and what messages are they getting? That its ok to experiment with both & that there is pleasure in both. So the sexual culture of today can dictate the outcome of a persons preference out of confusion.

Well, I wanted to post that I don't want to offend any gay persons who are posters. I, for one hate gay bashing and am offened when remarks of ridicule are made about gays. I hate it. They are human persons who are connected to me and my heart goes out & hurts for them because their way in the world is difficult. Their sexual preference is not the part of themselves they want us to relate to or see. I can see their anguish at being looked upon different from the norm. But I cannot ignore the reality of their will in choosing a lifestyle that is contrary to the nature of life which is the will of common good for all people of society. Yes, good people are gay, but to say a gay society would work for society would be wrong and it disturbs the harmony. What can be gained by a homosexual marriage? How productive can it be for mankind? Can they be fruitful and multiply? No. Do they have a right to be married? I don' t think so.


My sisters best friend is a cross dresser and he knows we don't want to see that part of what he is, but he knows we love him dearly anyway. My best friends daughter is married with a child, but moved in with her boss who is a woman, and her reasoning is that this woman supports her better. She left her child & her husband for this woman? How is this good for humaity. I don't consider her gay. I helped raise her and she was boy crazy all her teen years.

But Morbul what about sexual realations between two consenting adults who are father and son or mother and daugher? Horrible as it is to conceive, it does happen. Would they have the rights also to do what they want. They are not hurting anyone. Shouldn't the bill of rights protect them?

Ok - we're talking about 2 different things here. Sex is one thing. There is no requirement to be married in order to have sex - unless your particular beliefs dictate that to be so. Jade - it's obvious yours do - no need for you to respond to that. Not everybody believes the way you do. We've determined that already.

Marriage is another issue entirely. There are 2 types of marriage: legally recognized, and married in spirit. People who commit to each other for the rest of their lives in front of witnesses, are married, even though the gov't may not recognize this. The Episcopal Church performs ceremonies for gay/lesbian couples all the time that may not be legally recognized. It's the act of commitment that is marriage. Even so, many businesses and insurance companies now offer benefits to "Significant Others", as opposed to "legal spouses". And hell - if three or more people decide to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, I don't see any reason they wouldn't be considered "married" either.

Sex is a big part of a loving relationship between humans. It's also a big part of simple personal pleasure. We were created with the ability to knowingly enjoy sex. What would make women have sex for procreation otherwise, considering the pain of bearing children? I'm not planning on, or interested in having children myself - I still have sex with my husband. But that pleasure has a side effect - we know it feels good, so we seek to express ourselves in that manner for the simple reason that it feels good. Granted - that has been and will continue to be exploited in such things as prostitution and rape, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. Don't be any thicker than you must.

Victorians were nortorious prudes. Sexuality is natural. It happens. It exists. Yet an entire era was spent covering up the human body and pretending sex was something that shouldn't be discussed or experienced except where procreation was concerned. It's not so surprising that the pendulum has swung to the opposite end of the spectrum.

Again - people are people. We intereact with each other in the same ways, regardless of our sexual orientation. Relationships are the same, no matter who you are. Exactly how many gay/lesbian people have you interacted with on a daily basis? How many do you consider to be your close friends? How many do you allow to be themselve around you? To try and pretend that part of a person doesn't exist diminishes that person in your eyes, and often in their own. What right do you have to judge that persons actions in that manner?

What goes on in your bedroom is no one's business but your own. Likewise, what goes on in my bedroom or anyone else's in no business of yours. Even if I choose to have sex in my living room or kitchen (!) - it's no one's business but mine. Don't you dare presume to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body in my own house.

That said - if one doesn't want someone to make statements about their sexual practices, one probably shouldn't be having sex on the street. That's just asking for trouble.

But the fact that a person chooses to have sex with another member of the same gender, doesn't make them a bad person, or even unnatural as far as I'm concerned. If I judge a person at all, I judge them based on their merits and personality. Not their choice of bed partner.

Again, I don't expect you to understand or agree with any of this, Jade. You have already shown yourself to be the type of close-minded fundamentalist that I prefer to avoid conversation with.

Bodhi - Cell 617

I can see that a human can not reproduce without at least one heterosexual act. I agree with that. The fact is, most people would engage primarily in heterosexual sex exclusively (or near exclusively) regardless the legal status of hetero, homo, or any other sexual relationships. We do not have to worry that if we stop ostracizing people 'like us' the whole world is going to suddenly turn gay and the human species will die off in a generation or three. That is silly.

Bugs, you've made good points and I actually agree (mostly) with all of them.
According to your religion, homosexuality is a sin. Great. I don't agree with you, but I will stand next to you and fight for your right to believe that.

The government has no right dictating with whom we may or may not have sexual relations. You go on to talk about children. I agree with both points. I'm not sold on the animal idea, mainly because I think animals can not consent to such a relationship. That is a topic for another time...

Heterosexual relationships are the ones that produce offspring. I agree. I'm not convinced that one could say without doubt that a polygamous family is more or less suited to raise children than a monogamous family. I don't have enough data. I would argue that a two parent homosexual relationship is better for raising children than a one heterosexual parent family. I think an abundance of time, dedication and love is more important to a healthy child than the nature of the parental relationship. We could argue all day and never come to a conclusion. But that's really not the point. As I said in the first paragraph, if homosexuality or polygamy suddenly became 'un-hated' there would not be a shortage of heterosexual sex. The species will live.

And finally in your 6th paragraph you say the same thing I did. Those legal benefits should not be kept from homosexuals, etc. You have a condition that "the traditional marriage remains the ideal". That's not going to change.
If homosexuality suddenly became 'exepted' would you leave your wife and abandon your kids? I wouldn't.
I know sexuality isn't a binary thing -- there are shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality in almost everyone -- but most people are way on the heterosexuality side of the scale...and it's not because of social stigma.

Jade,
Sex IS gross. It's slimy and gooey, and it always leaves a mess. Then there's that whole touching and cooties thing...
[turns off sarcasm]
No sex isn't gross. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. My point was homosexual relationships aren't all about sex. Often, people make it out like homosexuals are simply indulging in some sort of 'unnatural' and 'immoral' desecration of their bodies for some pleasure and if they were 'normal' they'd have self control and limit themselves to heterosexual relationships...or something silly like that.

Your rant in your first paragraph there -- where you go on about the car magazines and so on -- illustrates my point. You somehow tried to relate a homosexual relationship to your husband looking at silicon-bikini-chicks and sex-sells consumerism and children having access to pornography...as if these were all examples of some disregard for the sacredness of sex.

I'm not arguing that sex-sells-consumerism is a good thing, or that children should have access to porn. But these are two entirely seperate issues from the issue of extending legal rights to homosexuals.

Homosexual relationships are very similar to heterosexual relationships. Sometimes they're passionate, lust-filled, hedonistic one-night-stands. Often times they are loving, caring relationships that involve sex, but also involve dancing and drinking coffee on the back porch, and cooking dinner and watching TV and going to a show and working in the garden. Those are the things my wife and I do, and I imagine those are the things that couples (heterosexual or otherwise) do all over the country.

My big problem with your stance comes from putting two things together. First, you say "But all of this is intended for the sexual pleasure in a marriage state of two persons, male and female." That is your belief. You are welcome to it. As I said to Bugs, I will stand next to you and fight to defend your right to believe that.
Where I must part ways with you is when you wish to use YOUR BELIEF to deny LEGAL rights to those with whom you don't agree. That is unacceptable.

That is the action of religious extremists, whether we're talking about the Iranian clerics, the KKK, the Taliban or Eric Rudolph. As soon as you start wishing to use your religious belief to push legal agenda, you are no different than any other religious extremists. You may not use violence (I suppose that is a positive) but the desired outcome is the same and it is wrong.

Nice posts, Bohdi and Mobrul! Well said! Couldn't agree with you both more.

Again, I don't expect you to understand or agree with any of this, Jade. You have already shown yourself to be the type of close-minded fundamentalist that I prefer to avoid conversation with.

Bodhi - Cell 617

That is the action of religious extremists, whether we're talking about the Iranian clerics, the KKK, the Taliban or Eric Rudolph. As soon as you start wishing to use your religious belief to push legal agenda, you are no different than any other religious extremists. You may not use violence (I suppose that is a positive) but the desired outcome is the same and it is wrong.


Bdi & Mbl
I do not consider my self an extreme fundamental religious fanatic and I know that is your opinion of me. I am more open minded that you think. Because my beliefs are contrary to yours or to anyone else that may have an opposing opinion with your extreme liberalism ideals you label us that way. You pigeon hole us and group us together as bigots. Contrary to what you think Christians have a deep love for humanity in all its misdirected forms. We seek for the common good of ALL people.

Because the USA & present culture of today dictates we observe the rights of every individual the liberty to happiness, we have allowed the liberties to run amuck. Gosh, we even have to consider Animal rights, gay rights, abortion rights, right to die rights and we have to consider children rights according to goverment, because parents can raise them right. So goverment steps in to show them how. Its easy to see how a young one growing up in todays world can get so warped and confused about who is charge of thier lives.
The USA Bill of Rights or the God Almighty.

quote:

---

Its easy to see how a young one growing up in todays world can get so warped and confused about who is charge of thier lives.
The USA Bill of Rights or the God Almighty.

--Jade

---

What about those living in other countries? What about Alah? What about my people, and their beliefs, on Nature and spirits? And what about all the others, who do not fall under those two catagories?

In your example, at least the Bill of Rights is tangable, and truly exists (though much only on paper, so it seems).

I don't lump all Christians together in one category. Just Christians who think their God should be in charge of everyone's lives. My mother is an Episcopal minister, and I was raised in a Christian church. I firmly believe in freedom of choice and belief for all people.

quote:

---

we have to consider children rights according to goverment, because parents can raise them right. So goverment steps in to show them how.
-jade

---

There are a great many parents in the world who cannot raise their children right - and who should not have been allowed to even have children. I can't find the link for it, but there was a thread here recently regarding a young man who had been repeatedly physically abused by his parents - and no one believed him... It's obvious that some parents don't know what it means to bring up a child.

None of that has anything to do with the legal rights extended to homosexual couples or the fact that folks have the right to make their own decisions regarding their
relationships with people.

There are grey areas of fundamentalism, just like anything else. The fact that you may not be on the extreme end of that curve, makes little difference to me. You still seem to think you know what's best for the rest of us, as regards our personal beliefs and choices.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-13-2003).]

Of course you don't see yourself as an extremist. Most don't.
Bugs is very close to you in religious beliefs. I've never called him a bigot. (For the record, I've never called you a bigot either. I alluded to it, sure. Maybe that's close enough...) I absolutely respect him. In fact, I respect Bugs' thoughts and opinions more than I do those of many people who agree with me!
Why?
Because he thinks. He communicates intelligently. He sees and understands the difference between religion and law. He knows that secular and sacred societies are BOTH stronger when they recognize their seperate spheres of influence.

I don't automatically respect those who agree with me and disrespect those who don't agree with me. You have my values all wrong. I respect people who are logically minded, who can see outside of their own box, who can communicate effectively, who can hold a reasonable conversation, who respect that people are different and see that is what makes us great!

I disrespect people who try to force others to to obey some arbitrary set of superstitions, who can't have a reasonable, logical conversation, who don't believe in the freedom of religion (or think that it only applies to one special group of people).

Bugs understands that my NOT practicing Christianity does not force his hand one way or another.
You do not.
Bugs sees past "I am a Christian, you are not."
You do not.
Bugs makes room for me to exist side-by-side with him.
You do not.

That is the difference. That is why I respect Bugs. That is why I disrespect many people who actually agree with me on many issues.
You don't have to live someone else's life. I don't ask that you change your beliefs one ounce. All I ask is that you not try to impose them on others. All I ask is that you walk a mile in someone else's shoes. You don't have to live in them forever, just a mile.
You can learn a lot in a mile.

I respect people who are logically minded, who can see outside of their own box, who can communicate effectively, who can hold a reasonable conversation, who respect that people are different and see that is what makes us great!

Thank you Morbul. Your disrespect for me is obvious. Why are you responding to my post(s). I happen to respect all, even the feeble minded and plain stupid and ignorant and have a hard time communicating or putting their thoughts into words. Just because Bugs has a different way of approaching subjects because he doesn't want to tread certain waters or step on feet makes him a better considerate person than I.

Talking about who has their nose up in the air.

I love you anyway.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-13-2003).]

You still seem to think you know what's best for the rest of us, as regards our personal beliefs and choices. Bdi


Bdi.

I don't go on my own personal assumptions. It is someone elses who I follow who dictates what I post. I fear not in stating what is truth. And am one who speaks for change when I see an evil and if that makes me look self righetous in your eyes, you are entitled to your own opionion of me.

I didn't say self righteous - I said close-minded.

You are entitled to your beliefs. My beef is that you continue to assume the rest of the world should believe the same as you. You refuse to allow that there are other paths that people may choose to follow. Your God may dictate your thoughts and statements, but your God does not dictate mine, nor Mobrul's, nor WebShaman's, nor those of many other people in the world.

I stand by your right to believe what you like - as I support religious freedom. But you have no right to state that what you think is what is best for all people in the world.

I have no problem with a difference of opinion, provided you can logically back it up. Religious thought is by no means the only way to think in the world. It just appears to be yours. I disagree with lots of people - but I can still hold a rational conversation with them. The problem I seem to have in talking to you is that you bring your God into every conversation. It gets a little tiring to see a perfectly good thread disemble into an argument like this one. Broaden your horizons a little bit. There's a whole lot more out there.


Bodhi - Cell 617

Bdi.

Believe me, your post and Mbls really do enlighten me. I admire your articualte way of getting your point across and seeing a view that I haven't before. Its a gift that I admire. In your statement that there is more out there than God, please tell me what it is in life that I am missing?

The different spiritual perspectives of other people and cultures - in addition to the scientific explanation of just about everything... While you can always state that God is behind it all, it's sometimes helpful to look at the world from a secular perspective... And at least open yourself up to the possibility that there are other ways of thinking...

I'm glad to hear you get something out of what I'm saying... perhaps there's hope.


Bodhi - Cell 617

I don't think anyone is saying we can't have our own beliefs on any of these things. I think what is causing unnecessary friction is respecting, or not as the case may be, everyone's right to hold said beleifs.

jade, you know that you and I agree on quite a bit of this stuff but we don't agree on how we regard others. mobrul, makes a very good point when he said that he has more respect for me than with some of those with whom he agrees with more. It is precisely the same with me. I know quite a few people, Christians, with whom I have much less respect because of the way they treat those with whom they disagree *and* because they refuse to *think* about what they believe.

I am very glad that you are still here with us, jade. It seems a very normal thing for people to sort of get used to how things work around here. I think that as everyone gets to know each other's positions better, the conversations tend to be productive.

bodhi23, you said a couple of things I wanted to comment on.

quote:

---

Just Christians who think their God should be in charge of everyone's lives.

---

From a Christian point of view, how can one want anything else for all humanity? If I'm misreading you, then disregard this.

I just want to be clear that Christians have every right to expect others to come to God. They have every right to tell others that. They have every right to explain that if you die without salvation, you end up in a very nasty place. What do not have a right to do is force people to become Christian or expect the secular government to force that on the populace.

I have said this in several other threads now but if God Himself does not force His will on humanity, then His followers are in no position to do so either. Our responsibility is to live our own lives as we see fit and to tell others of the way we think is right. It is up to the recipients of that message to respond as they see fit.

This is my understanding of how that should work in our modern society. The best I believe we can hope for in this world is a secular government and a religious populace. I am still very much in favor of continuing this grand experiment that was begun here in this country a little over 200 years ago.

Bugs,

What friction? Am I guilty of pushing Christianity on anyone?

If I disagree with an opinion, I am considered closed minded. How many times have I been called bad names on this thread. Am I so insolent, arrogant, etc..

I see your point that your suprised that I am still with this site, as it seems I cause friction or dissention and the majority of the times I stand alone. Maybe my post have not affected anyone in ay real postive way and I am posting against the wind. Or haven't contributed well thought out good views. I will have to think about this.


And I am seeing your point, but what isn't it fair to say that Morbul is guilty of the same. Because I don' t agree with his point of view, I live in a closed box and don't know the real world? Does one have to take the secular view to know the the way of the world? I never want to put anger in anyones heart and if that is what I am doing I apologize to anyone I have offended.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-14-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-14-2003).]

I'm sorry for implicating myself at this point in a debate I didn't enter, but I had a few things to say.

Jade, you have the right to speak here like everyone else, to expose your opinions, thoughts, and nobody shall be upset at you for this, this is your freedom. But there is a little problem. As you're a Christian, you constantly refer to religious values or feelings to discuss of the topics. This is not condemnable in itself I must say. I believe the problem is that you tend too much to praise these values. Furthermore, I think the religious values you use are rather...strict (in lack of a better vocabulary). I think people here search completely open-minded debates, and by constantly repeating the same religious arguments that refuse the other theories, you irritate people. I believe people here would be less upset if you considered more their opinions, if you accepted to think about it a bit more rather than just answering by the religious opinions. I think the problem is that people here search new thoughts, new ways of thinking, and the often close-minded opinions of Religion get them upset.

Yesterday as I was rereading Chapterhouse : Dune, I came accross an interesting comment. I think it applies very well to our problem. To be frank, it is a rather harsh comment on Religion. I submit it here because I think there are very interesting points in it. All I ask is that you think about this quote. To give you an hint, was is important for us here lies in the two last sentences.

"Religion (emulation of adults by children) encysts past mythologies : guesses, hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, pronouncements made in search of personal power, all mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always an unspoken commandment : Thou shall not question ! We break that commandment daily in the harnessing of human imagination to our deepest creativity."
--Bene Gesserit Credo

Hmm what was the original topic ?

Is there any chance we can collectively get off of jade's back? I have disagreed with just about all of her viewpoints in this and previous posts, not surprising since I am about as far from a Christian as it is possible to be. But she has not called me or any of you who disagree with her any names.

If she is a "....close-minded fundamentalist " because she won't see things from someone elses perspective, what does that make me (and some others here) who damn sure won't look at things from the point of view of a Christian?

Although many of the words and catch phases jade uses bother me, that is my reaction, my problem. I realize that she is not trying to offend me. All in alll, jade has been respectful of others here at the Asylum in her posts. I think we owe her the same courtesy and respect.

Let's play nice kids... or I'm gonna tell.

[This message has been edited by norm (edited 06-14-2003).]

It's true. She's curteous. And it isn't her lack of embracing another Point fo View that makes her a fundamentalist. It's her insistance that it should be law that makes her a fundamentalist. She can believe anything she wants and teach it to her kids too. She can try and influence us with her words and teach us by example. All that means is that she's as free as you or I. As soon as she starts recommending passing laws based on religious viewpoints, she starts breaking the rules of American Society. If you wanted to make your beliefs law, you'd be a fundamentalist too. There isn't anything wrong with that word. It's like calling me a heathen... I am, How can I be upset by that?

But you hav a point. I can leave her alone, knowing that she isn't going out of her way to irritate me. However... that means I'll have to ignore her. A situation I am a bit loath to be in. I think she has some valid viewpoints. And she brings to the table her own viewpoint of a deeply christian person. It's her insistance on, once stating her belief, not even allowing for other possibilities. If she would look at what I say, think about it and come back with 'I see what you mean, I don't agree and this is why. All of this would go away. Even if the thisis why was only 'because the bible tells me so'. She doesn't need to agree with it. Just acknowledge my POV and address it without repeating herself.

Ok - let me back up and punt here. Jade - my apologies for coming off harsh... obviously I have some issues with fundamentalism, and I chose you for a target. That was wrong.

Feel free to espouse your beliefs, no one's asking you to change them. There are some things I feel as strongly about, as strongly as you feel about your God. I can't fault you for that.

Let's go back to what set me off then:

quote:

---

If the answers to both those questions are yes, then that relationship should be given a legally equivalent status to 'marriage'. I don't care what you call it, but the partners must be able to share insurance, property, social security, etc as man-woman marriages do.

As for beastiality, my personal tastes are against it - but whatever floats your boat man...

These statements make me cringe. With thinking like this, its not a wonder that the state of the union would go to the dogs all in the name of the bill of rights.

I guess it would be ok for public sex too since its between two consenting human adults. I'll just have to look the other way and they are not harming anyone.

---

It's hard to emphasize "tongue-in-cheek" in text, but that's what my comment about beastiality was... (perhaps I should start appending that to some of my posts...) Bugs was checking to see if, in advocating the legality of homosexual marriage, I wasn't being hypocrytical in regards to other types of union. I try really hard not to speak in double standards. If you catch me in one, you let me know, ok? But that doesn't mean I expect the legalization of beastiality any time soon, nor that I advocate going out and finding yourself a sheep when you can't find a woman - make sense?

However, I feel the remainder of my points are valid. Simply to assume that the fact that somebody thinks it's ok, makes the world "going to the dogs" - is a typically fundamentalist response... And I truly was not surprised to see you post that, based on your responses in the abortion debate. Diversity is what makes this world a great place. The fact that everyone can believe something totally different, yet most of us still be good people is one of the things I really like about being alive. Just because you don't agree with what someone else does with their life, doesn't make it wrong, no matter what you think. It just makes us all different. This country exists so that we can all have the freedom to make our lives as we please.

Now this conversation started because Yannah had a speech about the acceptance of homosexuals in society. I have strong feelings about homosexuality being accepted as a reality that is not going away. I have many close friends, and even relatives who are homosexual. The are just people to me. Just because you don't like homosexuals or agree with the lifestyle, doesn't make them bad people, nor does it make it any more likely that it will just up and disappear. That's the point I'm trying to get across. But I refuse to butt heads with someone who simply can't agree to let people live the way they feel is best for themselves. I did state that I didn't expect you to agree or understand that idea. If you understand, but don't agree, that is your perogative, at least you understand.

I personally don't go in for proselytizing. I feel strongly that people should be free to make their own choices in regards to religion. It's one of the reasons that I do not profess to be a Christian (one of many, I might add). Yes, the Christian Church should make itself available, and it's information and beliefs available... it's a legitimate choice. But it's not the only choice. Even if your beliefs tell you it is. I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of my spirituality. Even if you feel like you need to, just don't. If you don't agree, then disagree. There's no need to always bring God into it.

All I ask - is that you give people with other perspectives a chance to make their case, before you close your mind to the idea. No one's trying to convince you to change your mind, just to accept that other people have choices to make as well. A conversation is just that, a conversation. No need to always turn it into a debate about who's right and who's wrong... or who's going to hell if they don't believe. Most of us are intelligent adults here, and should be able to hold a conversation intelligently, without stepping on other toes. I also think we should all be able to agree to disagree, no matter what the topic. There's no sense in going on and on about something we're never going to come to terms with.

That said, if you make an effort not to spoon-feed me Christianity, I'll make an effort to accept your opinion for what it is: your opinion.

We straight now?

Bodhi - Cell 617

Ms. Bdi.

I see your point in working on our attempts in trying to convey our perspectives without becoming too personal. As per your gracious request, we are straight. But I never took your comments in a personal way because I know there is no ill will behind your words. Through your post(s) I see a kind person. Never intended to spread any ill feelings on my part. As norm and GD commented I needed to try to use a better choice of words without disturbing anyones peace. Everyones reflective points matter. I want to clarify, my comment about the feeble minded, stupid, ignorant was not intented for this site, but people in general one runs accross in life that are not able to see or their intellect is lacking. I feel we have to be compassionate because all have something important to add in life. This being said I didn't want to be treated any different than the way I was. Contrary to the way it seems, Mbl was right when he stated on a post in earlier days, that I would learn much from this site. There are a few of you that I wait for to see a post. So I have my favorites.

This issue of bringing God into most comments or debates usually is when the issue called for it. Well, at least that is the way I saw it. The comments made to me about walking in secular shoes so I could take a different perspective about issues would mean I would have to stop trying to walk in the ones shoes that I follow. I know whats out there. To me its like I know if I put my hand in the fire, it will burn me so why would I attempt to go even put it there. Its hard to separate myself from God in me and that is the real issue. I don't go everywhere wearing Christianity on my shoulder and try to spoon feed it to everyone. I try to think if God or how one sees their Gods was a poster on this site, what would he post or respond. Would he say, " its ok not to believe in me. Go your own way as long as you co-exist in socieity you will be fine because I am able to see your view too" or "its right for my sons to lie down next or one another lustfully, I give it my blessing". You see, it would be wrong if I remained silent and not spoke on the will of Gods behalf. So herein lies the problem if this view is accepted by all here as a should be accepted social norm as opposed to one seeing it as a social ill, which is how I see it and maybe one other that I know of.

Well, regardless, I will think about how I could relate better and am off for awhile.

Thanks again for your explanation.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-16-2003).]

It's threads like this that prove that the heart of the Asylum is still beating...

Just got to love it!

Asylum hug!

hmm... ok.

I think I understand all of that jade. You are one of those people who is so engrossed in your spiritual beliefs, you cannot separate yourself from them at all. Even in the interest of accepting human nature as human.

Homosexuality is a "social ill"?

I see we have a serious difference of opinion here. There are a great many other things in the world that I would consider "social ills" over homosexuality: child abuse, homelessness, violence against innocents, rape, theivery, war...

Most homosexual folks I know are pretty good people on the whole. They care for their fellow humans, devote time, money and energy to charity, are kind to animals, and fight for the rights of their fellow humans... male and female alike. They make every effort to be productive, contributing members of a society that consistently shuns them. And because they choose to express themselves differently in their physical relationships, you will condemn them as people? That's a pretty uncharitable judgement from the spiritual corner you should be sitting in.

Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. I can only shake my head that you would judge a person solely on their sexual orientation, rather than on their merits as a person in general.



Bodhi - Cell 617

I, too, must beg to differ with Homosexuality is a social illness. This is...incorrect, on every level. The fact that the Bible mentions homosexuality, indicates just how old the behavior is, and I suspect that it is much, much older still. In fact, a glance at nature informs us that it is a natural part of nature itself!.

To put it bluntly, Jade - could you just drop being attracted to men, and start a sexual relationship with a woman? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting that homosexual people should do. Homosexuality is namely not an illness! It is also not a choice! It is the way one is - it's that simple.

Thus, judging one on just this principle alone, is not only extremely intolerant, but it opens the door to also being judged, on the very same principle yourself.

Jade, try putting yourself in other shoes for a minute - what if it was hetrosexuality that was being considered here - and the Bible was against it. How would you then feel? Cope? Could you then hold your belief, knowing that you were 'sinning'? That God had prohibited your type of sexuality? How could you ever possibly change to becoming a homosexual? And would being a hetrosexual change the worth of your person, based soley on this?

Man, I thought this kind of stuff had died out...looks like it is alive and kicking, within the Christian faith...that would, indeed, then support the accusation that the Republicans are mostly homophobes...those that Believe, anyway (of course, this doesn't shut-out Democrats who believe likewise).

Ooo.... damn - caught myself in my own logic. Of course homosexuality is not a choice... In fact, there have been reports that scientists have linked it to particular genes... my bad!

However, living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice... Many homosexual people choose not to live as homosexuals simply because of the derision they might face...


Bodhi - Cell 617

Bugs and Jade (and any other Christian),

Reading through Leviticus, it is clear there are LOTS of regulations for living. One of them is to "...not lie with mankind as with womankind...". This is one of the five or six places in the Bible often cited as proof that homosexuality is sinful. There is another reference in Leviticus, one in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrah) and finally Paul makes a few mentions (I'm sorry, I don't remember which letters off the top of my head). The Gosples mention nothing on the subject, as far as I remember.

Leviticus also mentions other laws -- men not shaving their beards, a prohibition against eating pork, wearing clothes of mixed material (that 50/50 poly/cotton blend T-shirt is a no no), and a description of how and when to sell slaves.
One does not hear great outcry against the horrible 'unnatural' Hanes underwear company, nor the desire to remove legal rights from those who shave their beards. BBQ pork is a summertime favorite in the bible belt. Selling slaves, today, would be 'an abomination'.

Why?

I've heard this question asked before, but it was always done sneeringly and never answered by Christians. Please believe me that I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I really would like an honest answer.

Why are some of the Biblical regulations demanding of modern attention and most not?

Excellent question... not easy to answer briefly... I've put it into my oven to bake... as soon as the timer goes off we'll have some

Oooh, yes, I would be very interested in hearing the answer to that, as well...

sits back to relax and wait for the timer to go off

Popcorn anyone?


Cell 617

give me some of that popcorn bodhi. Please?

passing popcorn around...


Cell 617

*Munches down on popcorn*

Thanks Bohdi!

Peacepipe, anyone? *puff, puff*

Pass me that peacepipe WS - doncha know peacepipes and popcorn go together? Anyone got a beer?

How's that roast coming, Bugs?


Cell 617

I think we got that on the house.
passing beer around

[This message has been edited by Yannah (edited 06-26-2003).]

A bit after the fact... and I'm not the most determined debater to begin with, when it comes to religious topics. But to answer Jade's hypothetical question, if God were a poster here, I assume he'd say something along the lines of "I know all, I comprehend all, and thus I understand why you choose the things you choose. When you choose poorly, I will attempt to show you the way. But I gave you two great gifts: faith and reason. Only when you feel no conflict between them will you truly be walking my path."

If God were to post that here, it wouldn't actually answer any of our questions, of course. But it would cheer me up quite a bit, personally.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

coming along... should be done RSN... (real soon now)

Honestly, I've been swamped lately and haven't had time to post. But I most assuredly have been working on this explanation as to why it looks like we "pick and choose" from Moses' Law.

. . : slicePuzzle

Mbl.

I don't have time to research like Bug as I returned from vacation, and maybe with more thought I will get back with some more on this question later, but right off the top of my head I will post this.

In Christian circles this inquiry comes up all the time. Because some Christians are themselves confused. Why do we adhere to some OT laws and disregard others? In your comparison one involves sexuality and the others you mentioned appearance and diet. As most Christians know the sins of the flesh lead to greater evil and why most souls perish. There are 2 OT commandments that refer to sins of the flesh.

Thou shall not commit adultery
Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife

To compare the act of homosexuality to the wearing of beards and eating forbidden pork, etc should not be considered as comparable sins for the times in which the writers were trying to convey messages. In the early Church, rites and ways of observing laws were respected. I remember when I had to observe certain rites when I was youger which the church no longer considers necessary, like wearing of veils (that too is mentiond in scriputre, but it also has a symbolic meaning), mandatory fasting and oberving holy days. The Christian church oberves the laws of Christ, even if they are in conflict with the US laws of the times. Christianity is evolving into what it will be till the end of time and rites of jews in the early days B-4 the savior or the rites in what Christians considered necessary rituals can be changed because the belief is that the Holy Spirit has guided and is still guiding all Christian churches.

There are many scripture verses that convey a hidden meaning. For example, " if your brother slaps you on one cheek, turn the other, or don't try to remove the splinter in your brothers eye when you have a board in your own, or what about if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out, or if your hand causes you to sin, cut if off." Are we called to really do those things then and today? We know thru faith that those laws observed in the Old Testament, God worked thru people and prophets to fullfill a meaning and a calling of a people. And it all centers around obedience to the will of the greater. I know there is a deeper symbolic meaning of beards and diet of pork for the chosen people because I read it somewhere, but have forgotten. Maybe Bugs knows. Or I will find it.

Christians view any sex outside of marriage as contrary to
Gods law. So this would also refer to homosexuals who have relations. Is a sexual act between male/male and a sexual act between male/female in reference to degree of sin different? Christianity says no. They are both morally wrong in they eyes of God. To be homosexual is not sinful. To act sexually loving in the homosexual way is sinful. And this applies to hetersexuals outside of marriage too. And if your choice is to choose both ways of loving, meaning bisexual, the sin is no greater or less either. Those acts are considered harmful to the soul in equal degrees.

Most God loving people don't refer to homosexuals as strange or weird or sick. They are beautiful human creations of God as we all are. We consider ourselves all sinners and love all sinners (us) but in the choices we make to sin againt God, which comes from evil, we find we must rebell against because it is not of Gods making, it comes from Gods adversary, Evil. And we make no mistake in believing the evil one hides and confuses the times we are living in to conceal and package in the name of "if it make you happy, its ok."




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-26-2003).]

In my experience, most people who use Biblical text to back up their point of view, use whatever verse(s) they can find that most matches what they're trying to say - regardless of whatever else might be in there. The Bible says many different things in many different ways. If you look hard enough, you'll find something that works, no matter what it is. It's all a matter of perspective.

quote:

---

Jade- Christians view any sex outside of marriage as contrary to Gods law. So this would also refer to homosexuals who have relations. Is a sexual act between male/male and a sexual act between male/female in reference to degree of sin different? Christianity says no. They are both morally wrong in they eyes of God. To be homosexual is not sinful. To act sexually loving in the homosexual way is sinful.

---

After reading this paragraph, it appears that you're saying it's not homesexual relations that are the problem here, it's sex outside of marriage.

Ok, do you mean marriage that's considered legal? Or marriage that's sanctioned by a church?
Because I know a pretty good number of homosexual couples who have been married in a church service, even though it is not legally recognized by the state...
The Catholic church itself may not recognize same-sex marriages, but there are other Christian denominations who do.

What I gather from what you just said is: if a homosexual couple is married, then their sexual relationship is ok.
Do I read you right?


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-26-2003).]

Once you start talking about Christan churches performing gay marriages, you immediately run into the age-old argument over what's true Christianity and what's not. Ask the Albigenses how much place reason has in such discussions. (That's not to say that the cases are directly comparable -- but I hope my point is well-taken.)

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

bodhi23, I can't speak for jade but I'm pretty sure the point is that the only sanctioned sex is in the context of marriage between one man and one woman. It is also my understanding that any sex outside of that union is sinful. I think what jade was pointing out is that there are a great deal of hypocrites in our circles who berate those who engage in homosexual acts while tacitly condoning fornication.

PT - point taken... mayhap we won't get into that argument!

Bugs - I was afraid of that... and if that's the case, I really have nothing else to say about it. I think it's wrong to think that way, but a person's beliefs are their own... I can only shake my head and walk away...


Cell 617

Christian belief is that same sex marriages are sinful. Any christian church who performs or ministers to a same sex marriage is in great error and it is against Christian biblical teaching. Just because these churches see nothing wrong with these marriages doesn't mean its ok. They are misquided in judgement. And they have divided their congregrations. They do a very grave error because, they give the homosexual marriages a stamp of approval so they misquide believers in to thinking God blesses these marriages. So they lead there members astray.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-26-2003).]

[patiently awaiting Bugs' response]

Be careful Jade, what you define as a 'Christian belief'.

Many Southern Baptists would say "Christian belief is that gambling is sinful. Any christian church who hosts friday night bingo games is in great error and it is against Christian biblical teaching. Just because these churches see nothing wrong with these games doesn't mean its ok. They are misquided in judgement."

There are many Catholic Churches where I live that host these sinful gambling games every Friday night...big church money-makers they are.

bodhi23, shake your head and walk away? huh? Are you saying that you don't see how a study of the biblical text would yield that position? Or are you just so disgusted with what you already knew it said? I'm just a little surprised by your reaction that's all.

Ah, so many open minds, such liberalness, so much tolerance and understanding. Seeing that homosexuality is possibly so natural then, I wonder and have to ask how many here that have children when teaching them about the 'birds and the bees' include a chapter ot two on same sex sexual acts? How many here say to little Johnny: 'Son, one day you'll grow up and may have a boyfriend of your own, and you'll start a family (somehow) and live happy ever after...' or 'Hey little Sarah, one day a beautiful princess will come and sweep you off your feet and she'll be wearing.. er...the same dress as you and you'll have a little family.. in some complex fashion with borrowed or frozen sperm cells...and er.. How many here will honestly instill these 'alternative' options and re-inforce these modern values with bedtime stories like 'Sleeping Handsome' ...and The Frog Princess? or how about Romeo and Romeo...

..and one cannot say that they are too young to think such things.. because every childrens story I ever heard re-inforced hetrosexual relationships...

well?

...and that question about Law in the bible concerning all the little rituals, regulations and specifics that are no longer applied today it seems, opens up the whole massive topic on the purpose of the Mosaic Law. I too am going to wait till Bigimus's cake has baked...

There were different parts to the Law. There were very specific ceremonial laws for the priests concerning beards and fabric construction that did not apply to the rest of the nation of Israel. There were specific laws for women, for men in war, food preparationn, in fact for all sorts of situations.

Quote:
~ "It is common to divide the Mosaic Law into three parts but though this is helpful for analysis and the study of the Mosaic Law and the way it functions, such a division is never stated as such in Scripture. Rather it is seen as a unit.

The Moral Law or the Ten Commandments. This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17).
The Judgments, or the Social Law. This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life (Exodus 21:1?23:13).
The Ordinances or the Ceremonial Law. This was the religious portion of Law which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices (Exodus 25:-31: Leviticus). "~

meanwhile for those that have the appetite here's a little taster. http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/misc/law.htm

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 06-27-2003).]

Let's take a closer look an some of the great wisdom that God gives humanity.
What does this great, wise God say about the common situation of unsolved murders? What should humanity do about this if they run across it in their lives?
These are the instructions of what should be done in such cases directly from the mouth of God:

Deut 21:1-9
If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:
Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain:
And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;
And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley:
And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:
And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley:
And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.
So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.

All of that certainly sounded wise didn't it? People who find a dead body and classify it as murder must measure which town is closest to the dead body and then the leaders of that town must select a young cow, take it to an valley with a stream running through it, that is not plowed or planted, behead the young cow, and then wash their hands over the carcass of the dead young cow.
God's priests must go there also, and they will say incantations(blessings) in God's holy name.
After all these inane actions, the people of the town which was nearest the discovered dead body would be absolved from whatever guilt was present.
All this nonsense is deemed doing what is "right in the Lord's sight".

also


The problem to be investigated is that of adultery and unfaithful spouses.
God is quite clear about what should be done if a man or woman is caught in adultery.
Deut 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

This is part of God's Holy Law and there are no exceptions to this rule. The evil must be purged.

What does God say to someone who suspects their spouse of having an affair or of being unfaithful?
What great wisdom does the holy and wise Creator of the Universe give to humans who have this particular situation in their lives?
Let's take a detailed look at the Word of God and see:

Num 5:11-14
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

Note:
If a husband simply suspects a wife of being unfaithful, he can subject her to this trial by ordeal to determine if she has really been unfaithful.
Suspicion alone is sufficient to set this procedure in motion. This law is also only applied to women.
A woman can't demand the same trial if she suspects her husband of being unfaithful. Men could have multiple wives and concubines(sex slaves) so God has instituted a double standard here.

Continuing with:
Num 5:15-17
Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

Note:
The priest will concoct this magic potion which will help determine if the woman has been unfaithful.
"Holy" water and dust from the floor are what the Bible God wants his female followers to drink in order to appease the suspicions of their husbands. Happy Hour anyone??

Continuing with:
Num 5:18-22
And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;(any fetus will miscarry)
And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

Note:
The woman who is suspected of being unfaithful must take an oath and drink the holy cocktail made of holy water and dust from the floor. If she is guilty, she will miscarry any fetus inside her, become infertile, and get sick. If she is innocent, drinking the water won't affect her.
This is called trial by ordeal. It's the same procedure that was used by the Spainish Inquisition, which was also doing the work of the Bible "God".
Are any bells and alarms going off yet?


Num 5:23-28
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

Note:
The women is MADE to drink the potion.
If nothing happens to her, she was innocent. However, if she gets sick, she was guilty.
This is the way God does things and this is his Law.


***You won't hear Christians talking about this law in their preaching or see it included in their sermons.

***You won't hear teenage fanatics for Jesus talking about this law.

***You won't hear Christian singers singing about this law.

***You won't hear about it in organized Bible study groups or at Christian seminars.

***You won't hear it from Christian missionaries who want to conquer the world for their God.

Yet, you will hear Christians saying that they give their praise to this God and spend most of their time serving him and doing his will. They say the Bible is the Word of God.


taken from: http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/


ohh yeah I am gonna go wipe my ass now.

Webs your tutor rules!


6 steps to happiness!


[edit]ohh and man gays are so freindly, they are better than saints [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 06-27-2003).]

wow, you guys made this topic go up to 100!
Live it up!

Xpirex - I most certainly would teach my children about all forms of love. I would answer their questions openly, and honestly, and I would accept them and love them no matter what choices they made in their lives about who they wanted to be with and how they wanted to express their love.
As long as my children know and understand what love is, I would consider my job well done.

Bugs - Why should my reaction here be so surprising? I'm not going to beat my head against a wall trying to convince someone that something they firmly believe is a sin, could in fact be an ordinary, acceptable and natural occurence. The fact that it exists in the world as an expression of the love 2 people have for each other should be enough for that. I've already made my arguments.

quote:

---

Just because these churches see nothing wrong with these marriages doesn't mean its ok. They are misquided in judgement. And they have divided their congregrations. They do a very grave error because, they give the homosexual marriages a stamp of approval so they misquide believers in to thinking God blesses these marriages. So they lead there members astray.

---

This statement right here reinforces that close mindedness and fundamentalism I referred to earlier in this debate. All I can do here is remind myself that both of us are entitled to our own beliefs here, and if any of you refuse to open your minds to the possibility that perhaps God made homosexuals the way they are the same as he made you and me the way we are(If you must think about it in Christian terms...), it's your perogative to believe that way.
It is also my perogative to believe that you are wrong. Let's just agree to disagree here...

I'm still interested to hear your answer to Mobrul's other question regarding the picking and choosing of laws to follow, but as for the debate for or against homosexual union, I'm done.


Cell 617

Ruski: your examples are just a few. It's easy to bring up dozens, probably hundreds of Biblical quotations which seem to contradict any rational system of ethics.

I view this as more evidence that the Bible is a historical document, written by imperfect mortals who were at many times inspired by God, and as such it contains divine truths, irrelevant historical matter, and outright flaws in equal proportion. Many devout Christians feel the same way -- they treasure the most relevant and inspired portions of the Bible as being the undoubted word of God, while discarding other portions as being flawed, written by mortals lacking divine inspiration, or written by a mortal who only partly expressed God's true word. Biblical scholars believe that most of the Bible was written by a patchwork of priests, historians, and revisionists throughout time; it's not in the least unreasonable to suspect that the Bible as we know it now is not the Bible as it burned in the minds and souls of those who first put quill to papyrus.

Unfortunately, all discussion of Christianity comes back to the Bible, not to rational standards of right and wrong. Thus, it's impossible to argue that the Bible has flaws without removing the common ground upon which the discussion is based.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

Mbl.

I wouldn't compare gambling to homosexual marriages. I don't consider gambling a sin. I think your pulling straws. Your intelligent enough to know there are different sects of Christianity, that differ on some views. But on the view of same sex marriages or living as a homosexual with a partner the majority of Christian churches hold to biblical teaching and consider it sinful. Some Christian churchs are in error as their interpretions of bible teaching is misguided. Since a lot of Christian churches are pastor centered, they preach what they feel is the right interpretation for their community. Being that their own personal opinion of what scripture means should be truth, they give false truth to their followers. This being the case in which the Anglican/Ecopistal(sp) church elected a open homosexual priest living with his partner as being Ok. This is terrribly wrong. Its is contrary to scripture as an example of how a spiritual person should live. It has split the congretation and will further split the demonination. These are not Christ centered churches. I would go futher and say to affiliate with these sects who embrace these beliefs is morally wrong. To be kind to the homosexual commumity and not alienate them, the demonination choose to give in instead of taking a stand on religious biblical issues.

I went to a 'class' on Christianity this past weekend. It was held at a Lutheran church, presided over by a Lutheran pastor. I'm not entirely sure why I went. I saw an 'ad' for it in the newspaper...it was free...haven't been to a Christian church (minus weddings and funerals) in more than 10 years...thought I'd brush up on some of my Christian mythology and socialogical studies of a mid-western church...I was bored and they had free food. Pick one.

As I said, it was held in a Lutheran church. The point (stated from the beginning) was to convert us to Lutherans. At least they were open with their intentions.

The pastor started by describing the 'big picture' differences between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Evangelical Protestants. (I realize -- and I'd guess the pastor does too -- that lumping 'everybody else' into the category 'Evangelical Protestants' is neither fair nor representative...also it ignores Anglicans and Orthodox churches...still, that was the way it was done.)

Roman Catholics = Bible + Tradition
Evangelical Protestants = Bible + Reason
Lutherans = Bible + Bible

That is what the preacher wrote on his whiteboard.
I would agree that RC values the Bible and tradition. There are many papal papers that are regarded, if not as highly as, at least pretty close to the value of the Bible. Furthermore, I would agree that Evangelical Protestants value reason. Their views on the sacraments (especially baptism and communion) show that clearly.

Lutherans are the more 'pure' of the Christian churches because they value 'only' the Bible. He actually used the word 'pure'.

Later in the day, while discussing sacraments, he explained why it is that Lutherans don't consider Extreme Unction, or Last Rites, to be a sacrament. He said, "It is not Bible based. There is no mention in the Bible of someone performing or receiving this annointing action...unless you count that obscure passage in James...but that doesn't count. It is not Bible based, therefore it is not a sacrament."
It took me a bit of digging through James on Saturday night, but I finally found the passage to which I think he was referring -- James 5:14-15. (If any RC wants to show me the correct passage I'd be happy to learn! This was my best guess.)

So, what's my point?

He (or Martin Luther or somebody) used REASON to determine that passage in James is 'obscure' and 'doesn't count.' It clearly is in the Bible. That very thing (reason) for which he came down on Evangelical Protestants, he then used as a defense of his own belief! He is not 'Bible-based' any more than anyone else...nor any less, I suppose. Worse yet, he doesn't even realize he made a value judgement, based on reason, about the validity of some passage or another. He doesn't even realize he used logic. In his own mind, he is 'simply' reading the Bible. 100% Bible-based. He's a fool.

The point is every religion, every sect of every religion, is an evolutionary set of doctrines and rituals, based in tradition, sacred text AND reason. It is inescapable.

So, Jade, when you say things like "Some Christian churchs are in error as their interpretions of bible teaching is misguided" you are falling into the same trap into which this preacher fell. He tried to define 'Biblical teaching' in terms of his own beliefs, pretending his own reason had nothing at all to do with the equation. Foolish.

The fact is, your reason, your logic leads you to your beliefs just as much as mine does to mine. That pastor's logic, Martin Luther's reason lead each of those gentlemen to their beliefs just as much as any of us.

I am intellegent enough to know there are different sects of Christianity that differ on some views. I'm also intellegent enough to know that each of these sects has been around for a very long time, and each has been studied and contributed to by many very intellegent and dedicated people...each led to make their contributions based on some pretty solid logic, some pretty old tradition and some pretty in-depth reading of that/those book(s) they each consider sacred. To make statements then that define Christianity strictly in terms of those views with which you agree seems pretty arrogant. I'm intellegent enought to know this is a losing proposition.

Many of those Southern Baptist preachers could run circles of Biblical verse around you and your "I wouldn't compare gambling to homosexual marriages. I don't consider gambling a sin."

It is alright for you to take the stand that homosexuality is a sin. I don't agree, but I'm not going to debate that point. It is alright for you to take the stand that gambling is not a sin. It is alright for you to take the stand that clergy shouldn't marry or that only men can lead the church. You are welcome to all those opinions.

You are not welcome to define Christianity exclusively according to your beliefs, your reason, your logic...worse yet to then hide behind some facade of so-called Biblical authority, pretending your judgement, your reason, your logic played no part in your decision.

Mbl.

If you wrote a book about the life of you and your family which took you many many years to write. And you put your whole heart and soul into this book. It contained all of who you were as a person and about all your family. It contained all the events that happend in your lives. It is determined to be a masterpiece and becomes a bestseller. And you become famous and are asked to explain your book and give interviews. And its stays a bestseller long after your death. After your death, when you are longer living someone comes along and says the views you gave on your book were wrong and you didn't mean what you said or you did not explain youself right. This person takes your book, re-edits it and thinks he is making a correction to explain your lives better. Instead of asking your family to explain your lives, this person becomes a spokes person for you and your family like he authored the book. Your family is hurt and upset. And the public believes him instead of asking your family for the the real true version of your lives. He becomes famous & rich off your re-edited book. Could he have done this while you were still living? You would be turning in your grave at the injustice of it. Later on someone else comes along and disagrees with the guy who re-edited your book and says he was explaining it wrong too and was in error, so gets a following to believe his version, still neglecting to ask your surviving relatives the real truth, and this happens over and over again, till there are thousands who claim they know the real truth of your book. This is what has happend to the bible. Now there are hundreds of edited versions out there and sects who claim they hold the real truth in the meaning of scripture.

But the first version and its guardian are out there.

Since the Bible is a historical and inspirational meaningful book authored by the early christians, only they hold truth in the revealing of what messages are contained in scripture, meaning they alone can interpret it, because they put it together and 2000 years later their meaning has not changed and never will. The bible was intended to be a living word for people to follow as a handbook to know who God was, is and also a guide for moral living. Were these bible books randomly put together? No. It took over 1000 years in writings from the OT(Torah & early writings) to end of the NT. And if you study scripture, the NT is a fulfillment of the OT. How can you explain and reason this? How does one guard the truths of the bible? How does one insure that nothing will be added to it or taken out of it or taken out of context? Would God let us decide for ourselves or would God spiritually guide so we wouldn't stray off the main road. This is something we have to think about.


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 07-01-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 07-01-2003).]