Caliban of Sycorax Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/gay-marriage-legalized-new-york_n_884434.html?ir=Politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) I've never understood Biblical arguments against homosexuality. Leviticus is not actually clear. The original translation for the Hebrew actually is made equivalent to, eh, taboo. Like eating with foreign people, which I think is also mentioned in that chapter. If the writers wanted to make it an actual sin, they would have used a different Hebrew word than the one they used. Mind you, this is also stuck in with stuff like don't eat shellfish and don't wear clothes of two different materials, so I can't take it seriously that homosexuality is actually supposed to be a sin in that context. It does say that a man who lies with another man like he lies with a woman is an abomination and both should be put to death, but that's extremely vague. Lie how? Depending on how you translate it (literally or figuratively), it could either mean sex or simply two men having sex on a woman's bed. So the limitation is where men can have sex with one another, not the act itself. This is not to mention that some Biblical scholars think it's less about homonegativity or homophobia than it is about sexism. A woman was lesser and for two men to have sex, one would have to "take on the role of the woman" and receive, which weirded some people out. Why? Both examples that are writen in Vayik'ra (Leviticus to you) are both "sins". Or to be exact, the term is "mitzvot lo ta'aseh" (deeds that you don't do). And I could be wrong but I think that a death sentence is mentioned which would mean that it is supposed to take seriously. The Torah doesn't have much of an order with regards to "this law goes here and that one goes there" so your argument of "I can't take it seriously because it's along with the eating and clothing laws" is quite silly. As for the Hebrew translations, I'd have to read them in Hebrew but I think you understand the gist of it. Edited June 25, 2011 by God of SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 But it still doesn't get around the earlier point where people disregard anything they see as inconveniences them like the shellfish and clothes part but will fanatically enforce the parts which don't affect them at all. Point is if you're going to follow something because its in whichever holy book of your choosing but are perfectly willling to ignore other parts then they can not be used as the basis for any argument that holds water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Point is if you're going to follow something because its in whichever holy book of your choosing but are perfectly willling to ignore other parts then they can not be used as the basis for any argument that holds water Umm, isn't that YOUR standard of following the laws of holy books? I'm having problems figuring out how you came to such a conclusion. Don't you ignore some parts of your experience as you live your life all the time? And why is it that people cannot pick and choose from holy books in the same manner? A wealth of human experience is open to those of us who wish to experience it. Do we want to say Yes or No to all of it? What you said sounds like an argument that one should either be a fundamentalist or have no religion. Edited June 25, 2011 by SeverIan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Umm, isn't that YOUR standard of following the laws of holy books? I'm having problems figuring out how you came to such a conclusion. Don't you ignore some parts of your experience as you live your life all the time? And why is it that people cannot pick and choose from holy books in the same manner? A wealth of human experience is open to those of us who wish to experience it. Do we want to say Yes or No to all of it? What you said sounds like an argument that one should either be a fundamentalist or have no religion. I never said they can't pick and choose their own beliefs, personally I'd prefer that, what I was talking about was enforcing your beliefs onto somebody else. It would be hypocritical, I feel, to try and force others to follow something you only partially believe would be incredibly hypocritical. Not that I think you'd be right to enforce your beliefs if you followed it word for word mind you, I'm just not mentioning it because the pick and choose ideology seems to be more relevant to this debate. Edit: I did mean to acknowledge your poiint; that doesn't hold water is too strong a statement to make over that. Edited June 25, 2011 by mikethfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) I never said they can't pick and choose their own beliefs, personally I'd prefer that, what I was talking about was enforcing your beliefs onto somebody else. It would be hypocritical, I feel, to try and force others to follow something you only partially believe would be incredibly hypocritical. Not that I think you'd be right to enforce your beliefs if you followed it word for word mind you, I'm just not mentioning it because the pick and choose ideology seems to be more relevant to this debate. That's fine. I just think that to say that picking and choosing from various arguments crafts an argument that "cannot hold water" so to speak is a weak statement. I am, in fact, on your side in terms of allowing homosexuality, and I feel I should identify myself quite clearly as such. (I also believe that enforcing my beliefs word for word would be very foolish. Though, a more general message I believe I am getting across which favors existence over nonexistance is, I think, a good one, though I defend many of those who lead humanity in the direction of nonexistance. Seeing no organization which favors my beliefs explicitly, though all organizations may very well IMPLY them, I have chosen no organizations besides humanity to swear fealty to, and I will betray even humanity for larger causes.) Edited June 25, 2011 by Loki Laufeyjarson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/gay-marriage-legalized-new-york_n_884434.html?ir=Politics *sees Huffington Post* *runs the other way* If you can find something that's not as slanted as the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I'll read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Account Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 *sees Huffington Post* *runs the other way* If you can find something that's not as slanted as the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I'll read it. Without delving into the dark vortex that is news on the internet for an alternate source, the news is that New York has legalized gay marriage. (Yay!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 And just for those that think it's just the Huffington misconstruing things... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43507672/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001 Behold, for most other news sources are reporting it. Where Fox sides right and Huffington slants it's own way, NBC slants towards Jack Danials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 That's Jack Daniel's! I've got a bottle on my counter! When in doubt, go check random newspapers in New York. Seems to be all over the front pages there, so I'm inclined to believe it! http://www.usnpl.com/nynews.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Umm, isn't that YOUR standard of following the laws of holy books? I'm having problems figuring out how you came to such a conclusion. Don't you ignore some parts of your experience as you live your life all the time? And why is it that people cannot pick and choose from holy books in the same manner? A wealth of human experience is open to those of us who wish to experience it. Do we want to say Yes or No to all of it? I have no idea what you're talking about. Religious people claim that their holy texts are the inerrant word of God himself (or something along those lines), but they disobey some of the rules and obey others. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I have no idea what you're talking about. Religious people claim that their holy texts are the inerrant word of God himself (or something along those lines), but they disobey some of the rules and obey others. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to experience. I think he was pointing out that I went too far as what I said could quite easily be manipulated so as to imply that the opinion of any religous person who wasn't a fundamentalist was invalid. I could've misconstrued his post though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire Emblem Addict Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Umm, isn't that YOUR standard of following the laws of holy books? I'm having problems figuring out how you came to such a conclusion. Don't you ignore some parts of your experience as you live your life all the time? And why is it that people cannot pick and choose from holy books in the same manner? A wealth of human experience is open to those of us who wish to experience it. Do we want to say Yes or No to all of it? What you said sounds like an argument that one should either be a fundamentalist or have no religion. Religious laws are supposedly the word of god(s). If these laws are to be followed for any reason, then it must be assumed that they are always relevant (since to the best of my knowledge, there is no passage in any holy book that says "disregard these laws if a certain degree of technological or cultural proficiency has been obtained") or not to be followed (since some of the laws do contradict the current moral zeitgeist). Basically, what I'm trying to say is that by following these laws because they come from god, then you are assuming they are the words of god. If they are, then you must follow all of them (because any holy book says so), and if not, you don't have to follow any of them. It doesn't make sense to say "I condemn homosexuality because the bible says so, but I condone working on the Sabbath even though the bible says that is a sin as well". Of course, the exception to this would be people who follow religious laws not out of belief in god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Without delving into the dark vortex that is news on the internet for an alternate source, the news is that New York has legalized gay marriage. (Yay!) This is a good thing, however there are some gay couples I know who aren't even interested in getting married. Way to go gays. Way to uphold life ceremonies and protect the sanctity of marriage. That being said, I say good for them. I always felt (maybe not always, but very quickly) that gays should be protected from marriage and not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Religious laws are supposedly the word of god(s). If these laws are to be followed for any reason, then it must be assumed that they are always relevant (since to the best of my knowledge, there is no passage in any holy book that says "disregard these laws if a certain degree of technological or cultural proficiency has been obtained") or not to be followed (since some of the laws do contradict the current moral zeitgeist). Basically, what I'm trying to say is that by following these laws because they come from god, then you are assuming they are the words of god. If they are, then you must follow all of them (because any holy book says so), and if not, you don't have to follow any of them. It doesn't make sense to say "I condemn homosexuality because the bible says so, but I condone working on the Sabbath even though the bible says that is a sin as well". Of course, the exception to this would be people who follow religious laws not out of belief in god. This is pretty much what I was saying. I laugh that people condemn homosexuality and say oh no it's a sin (again, questionable), but then they go and have shrimp cocktails and wear jeans with a polyester/cotton shirt. If you're going to condemn homosexuality because of Leviticus, at least be consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/06/court-orders-immediate-halt-to-gay-military-ban/?test=latestnews The buttmad is strong in this one. And IIRC, I can't find a source since I saw it on TV's The Fox Report With Shepard Smith today, the court ruled that not allowing gays into the military was unconstitutional since they are citizens who deserve equal rights. Anyway, based on what the ruling was and how law works, it should also be illegal to ban gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirron Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Doubtless Fox News is going to be upset. I'm personally glad, given I'm gay myself. Even if I'm not going to get married anytime soon (I have someone I want to be married to, but a number of issues prevent this from happening even remotely soon), any push for gay rights makes me happy. Eventually it'll become mainstream, with minor holdouts against it, but that's just how civil rights works most of the time. As much as some people may fight against it, eventually it'll change, it's just a matter of how fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 As if we needed another reason to hate Bachmann: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/12/whats-going-on-at-the-bachmann-clinic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Bachmann's social views are pretty much the only legitimate reasons to hate her, IMO. But this isn't exactly new news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Bachmann's social views are pretty much the only legitimate reasons to hate her, IMO. But this isn't exactly new news. I would argue that her entire life's record (it's not the most unbiased write-up, but so long as you cut out the partisan hackery, there's enough factual base in this Rolling Stone write-up to be taken seriously) is reason enough to hate this Stepford Wife turned useless politician. The fact that she's currently polling second among GOP hopefuls depending on which poll you read (Iowa's the big polling ground right now) is frightening, and shows peoples' absolute ignorance about the world around them. Her Neanderthalic views on homosexuality are just the tip on the iceberg. Somehow, Minnesota has given political office, in the past decade plus, to Jesse Ventura, Michelle Bachmann, and Al Franken. That's astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirron Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I pray she doesn't make it into office. I have no desire to see any Republican just about though as President, if just because they'll make things much more difficult for anyone who is gay. Not saying all would, but sadly the ones who are against it seem to get the most push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 It needs to be born into mind that the GOP itself is highly polarized. You basically have a battle of establishment vs. Tea Party assholes. The Tea Party assholes came to power on the promise of fiscal conservatism, but the only things they've accomplished have been social law changes (against homosexuality, against unions, etc.). The big deal is that both sides are trying to cater to the churches, who are both likely voters (they turn out in fucking droves) and strong revenue because they donate to political campaigns. Since the religious right tends to go very hard to the right, they've favoured the Tea Party. So the GOP primary - which at this point is Bachmann vs. Romney - is really a good litmus test to see where the party is at this point. Though I must say this: bear in mind that the Tea Party guys are the ones that have cut even friendly gay voices out of their influence (they've disinvited GOProud to events). They're the ones - led by Bachmann - that have stated you can't be fiscally conservative if you're not a social conservative. What interests me is that their main supporters tend to be poor, uneducated people in the midwest, which is funny because the GOP's fiscal policies are *directly inverted* from their own financial interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Somehow, Minnesota has given political office, in the past decade plus, to Jesse Ventura, Michelle Bachmann, and Al Franken. That's astounding. It is, especially considering how nice the twin cities are. I really like those places and think that they'd be a great place to live. Hope they don't go down in the dumps. Though I must say this: bear in mind that the Tea Party guys are the ones that have cut even friendly gay voices out of their influence (they've disinvited GOProud to events). They're the ones - led by Bachmann - that have stated you can't be fiscally conservative if you're not a social conservative. What interests me is that their main supporters tend to be poor, uneducated people in the midwest, which is funny because the GOP's fiscal policies are *directly inverted* from their own financial interests. The economic explanation for this tends to be something along the lines of, that when we dig up about people's expectations, though in the lower tax brackets EXPECT to be in this higher tax brackest. For my part, I tend to (try and) go against my own self interest when I can because I'm just a perverse motherfucker, and I admire treachery in the right circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirron Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I may be moving to Minnesota soon. And why do you feel you're a bad person? And I do realize that a lot of the Right wing doesn't need to be against gay people, it just tends to be the majority of them are, or at least say they are, which is the issue. Means I for the most part want anyone on the left side in just about, because they're less likely to make things worse. And of course, can't really support any of the socially conservative right wing people, just... bothers me so very much, which tends to make me ignore them at least. If they weren't so... extreme, I'm sure I wouldn't mind it as much, since then it's more of a what's best for the country, and that varies from time to time (though I hope anyone elected would be capable of making things better, regardless of their political leaning, and wouldn't just go for one method or the other). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippoman Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Being a Catholic, I can confirm that we aren't all morons. LBGT rights FTW. Some people just try to use whatever shit they can speculate about to try and rationalize prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts