Gay Marriage Legal in New York!

[ZBomber]

As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.  However, I don't know if sin should be illegal, or if I should vote in accordance with making sin illegal, because we are all sinners and would obviously all be in jail if the government followed God's law.  

This is a great point. Especially since there are so many teachings/religions/ways of life, I don't know how, or why, a government could base all of their laws off just one set of them.

[Ħ]

To try and draw the subject back from getting as personal as it seems to be getting, I'm a bit curious as to the use of the term "immoral" to describe homosexuality, as I've seen it from multiple posters in this thread.  I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but I've not seen better reasoning against it than the fact that it's "in the bible."  I'd be interested seeing this point articulated by someone who has expressed it, just for clarity on whether it is strictly an "against the bible" thing or an actual immoral ground that you believe is being crossed.  And I'd rather not hear that it's "just...unnatural."

For me, it is strictly based on the Bible.  I believe that the Bible contains God's supernatural revelation of moral values to man.  So I just take it at face value.  

Without the Bible or God, I think that objective moral values do not exist.  If I put on an atheist/agnostic thinking cap, I don't know how I could reason that homosexuality is immoral, since "immoral" is a subjective adjective in a world without God.  So I simply trust God and leave it at that.  I don't feel I am obligated to justify God, if I even can.

There might be people who believe in the existence of objective moral values without God, and would therefore disagree with me, but I don't know how they could support their claim.

[Ravenheart]

Believing in a higher being doesn't make the morality of homosexuality objective.

[Ħ]

As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.  However, I don't know if sin should be illegal, or if I should vote in accordance with making sin illegal, because we are all sinners and would obviously all be in jail if the government followed God's law.  

This is a great point. Especially since there are so many teachings/religions/ways of life, I don't know how, or why, a government could base all of their laws off just one set of them.

It is one reason why I'm inclined toward conservatism in the traditional since (as opposed to modern social conservatism).  I guess you would call it "libertarianism" by today's standards--that people have the right to believe/do whatever they want so long as it does not impede on the rights of others.  I'm not completely sold on this, but I'm really considering it.

[ricky]

I say good for them and I bet all the lawyers are saying it too.  A new avenue for divorces and more money for lawyers.

yeah dude, definitely.

[Ħ]

Believing in a higher being doesn't make the morality of homosexuality objective.

I agree with that.  How does that invalidate what I'm saying?

[bosk1]

To try and draw the subject back from getting as personal as it seems to be getting, I'm a bit curious as to the use of the term "immoral" to describe homosexuality, as I've seen it from multiple posters in this thread.  I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but I've not seen better reasoning against it than the fact that it's "in the bible."  I'd be interested seeing this point articulated by someone who has expressed it, just for clarity on whether it is strictly an "against the bible" thing or an actual immoral ground that you believe is being crossed.  And I'd rather not hear that it's "just...unnatural."

For me, it is strictly based on the Bible.  I believe that the Bible contains God's supernatural revelation of moral values to man.  So I just take it at face value.  

Without the Bible or God, I think that objective moral values do not exist.  If I put on an atheist/agnostic thinking cap, I don't know how I could reason that homosexuality is immoral, since "immoral" is a subjective adjective in a world without God.  So I simply trust God and leave it at that.  I don't feel I am obligated to justify God, if I even can.

I was going to respond to C.C., but you put it perfectly.  So, yeah, what H said.

Believing in a higher being doesn't make the morality of homosexuality objective.

It does if the higher being has objectively laid out a bright line rule on the subject.

[Ravenheart]

I fail to see how that holds any water. There are plenty of opinions and beliefs out there that promote the freedom and tolerance of homosexuality. Using what your choice of God laid out as a rule as a crutch for what is objective is silly.

[bosk1]

I'm not following you.  Whether there are a variety of beliefs does not really impact whether or not something is objective. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

For me, it is strictly based on the Bible.  I believe that the Bible contains God's supernatural revelation of moral values to man.  So I just take it at face value.  

Does this apply to the "moral values" of the bible such as condoning slavery, polygamy, female inferiority, and a plethora of other values that would be considered immoral by today's standards?

Now, just to be clear, I don't think the moral values of the bible should be taken in such a cut-and-dried approach, as that would totally lose focus on the meaning of the book.  But when you start to take the fine details of the bible as objective moral values, such as the notion that homosexuality is wrong, that's what you end up with.  

[bosk1]

For me, it is strictly based on the Bible.  I believe that the Bible contains God's supernatural revelation of moral values to man.  So I just take it at face value. 

Does this apply to the "moral values" of the bible such as condoning slavery, polygamy, female inferiority, and a plethora of other values that would be considered immoral by today's standards?

I know that was directed at H, but I will briefly respond.  Big picture, I think you either misunderstand or are misstating what the Bible teaches on those subjects.

-Slavery:  What is condoned in the Old Testament as "slavery" is more indentured servitude where a person who has a debt he cannot pay pledges himself.  It is not the abhorrent kidnapping for profit type slavery that was practices in the world in the not so distant past.  In my mind, there are HUGE differences between the two.  Slavery is not really addressed in the New Testament at all, other than observations in passing that the Roman government allowed it, and those who had slaves were to treat them as fellow human beings and not chattel.

-Polygamy:  Again, not really condoned.  There really isn't much said about it, doctrinally.  Just examples in the Old Testament of those who engaged in it.  The general "Bibilcal attitude" toward it seems to be that it is frowned upon by God, but not outright condemned.  IMO, the NT doesn't really speak to the issue at all. 

-Female inferiority:  Not taught in the Bible at all.  That is a misconception. 

[Ħ]

For me, it is strictly based on the Bible.  I believe that the Bible contains God's supernatural revelation of moral values to man.  So I just take it at face value.  

Does this apply to the "moral values" of the bible such as condoning slavery, polygamy, female inferiority, and a plethora of other values that would be considered immoral by today's standards?

Now, just to be clear, I don't think the moral values of the bible should be taken in such a cut-and-dried approach, as that would totally lose focus on the meaning of the book.  But when you start to take the fine details of the bible as objective moral values, such as the notion that homosexuality is wrong, that's what you end up with.  

The answer is: it depends.  The New Testament states that the law and the old covenant are done away.  That doesn't mean that objective morality change; it just means that God expects different things from us in this day and age.  God still views homosexuality as immoral, but he doesn't, say, view working on the Sabbath as immoral as was commanded in the law.  It's a hard distinction that I admit I don't understand in full, and like I said before, I don't know how a believer should express them politically.

Whether or not society views a biblically moral value as immoral is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned as a voter.

Also, it should be noted that God never condones polygamy, slavery (as we think of it in its modern connotation), or female inferiority (at least in terms of their political rights).   [EDIT: pretty much what bosk1 said]

[Quadrochosis]

-Slavery:  What is condoned in the Old Testament as "slavery" is more indentured servitude where a person who has a debt he cannot pay pledges himself.  It is not the abhorrent kidnapping for profit type slavery that was practices in the world in the not so distant past.  In my mind, there are HUGE differences between the two.  Slavery is not really addressed in the New Testament at all, other than observations in passing that the Roman government allowed it, and those who had slaves were to treat them as fellow human beings and not chattel.

So it's moral to allow yourself to be enslaved by someone else because you monetarily can't afford not to be?

[ClairvoyantCat]

-Female inferiority:  Not taught in the Bible at all.  That is a misconception.  

Ephesians 5:22-24?

I understand that was common thought for the time, of course, but as an objective moral code you'd think the bible would transcend that.  For polygamy, I remember there was also something about god offering wives to someone, but I can't quite put my finger on it.  

As far as slavery, I guess "condoning" was a bit too strong of a word, but as an objective book of morals wouldn't it think to address one of the more serious moral injustices?

[Quadrochosis]

-Female inferiority:  Not taught in the Bible at all.  That is a misconception. 

Not true.

1 Peter 3:1-5, 7
In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News.

So if a woman is married to a Satanist and she is a Christian, she can't even refuse his authority when her faith is being encroached on by the husband. That is how low the Bible thinks of women.

[bosk1]

Ephesians 5:22-24?

There's nothing in there about inferiority.  Same with the passage Quad cited (nice selective quoting there, by the way, Quad--you even managed to clip that one right in the middle of the sentence so as to be sure to completely twist the meaning).  There's nothing inherently or practically inferior or superior about anyone's particular family role.  (and funny that you stopped at verse 24 and left out the rest of the chapter)  

[Quadrochosis]

Ephesians 5:22-24?

(nice selective quoting there, by the way, Quad--you even managed to clip that one right in the middle of the sentence so as to be sure to completely twist the meaning)

Actually I just copied and pasted the verse from a website, so if anything you should blame the site and not me. Thanks for just assuming I'd do something like that though.

[Quadrochosis]

We must just have different interpretations of the word "Equal" than. For me, if two people are "equal", than one person isn't subjected to another person's will in any way, shape or form. That verse clearly says that, therefore according to my take on the word equal, the Bible promotes unequality among men and women.

Because the Bible says they are unequal, and then goes on to say that women need to do what men say, it's not hard at all to see how that is interpreted that women are inferior.

[bosk1]

Ephesians 5:22-24?

(nice selective quoting there, by the way, Quad--you even managed to clip that one right in the middle of the sentence so as to be sure to completely twist the meaning)

Actually I just copied and pasted the verse from a website, so if anything you should blame the site and not me. Thanks for just assuming I'd do something like that though.

I'm normally not one to call someone out just for being sloppy.  It's the Internet, after all.  We're just jawing--not writing a scholarly thesis.  But, seriously, if you are citing something as authority for an argument, especially something that's so easy to look up as a Bible passage, it's just a complete copout to chop out part of a sentence out of context and argue that it teaches something when you didn't bother to take 10 seconds to read at least the rest of the paragraph (or even the sentence for that matter) to see what it really teaches.  

[Ħ]

If I may add, whether or not the Bible supports female inferiority has no bearing on its objective morality.  And an atheist attack on a Christian's moral value holds no water, seeing as atheists (most of them) agree that there aren't any objective moral values.

[bosk1]

We must just have different interpretations of the word "Equal" than. For me, if two people are "equal", than one person isn't subjected to another person's will in any way, shape or form. That verse clearly says that, therefore according to my take on the word equal, the Bible promotes unequality among men and women.

Because the Bible says they are unequal, and then goes on to say that women need to do what men say, it's not hard at all to see how that is interpreted that women are inferior.

(ignores for the moment that you have shifted the terminology now)  Really?  So, when you're at work, you are of inferior worth as a human being than your boss simply because you are obligated in that relationship to be subject to him?  You are an inferior human being to your teachers/professors when at school because you have to follow their rules in the classroom?  I don't think so.  I certainly don't view you as inferior to me in any way even though on this forum, you have to follow my rules.  An authority structure/heirarchy is not necessarily a worth structure/heirarchy.  Do you see the difference.

[Quadrochosis]

Ephesians 5:22-24?

(nice selective quoting there, by the way, Quad--you even managed to clip that one right in the middle of the sentence so as to be sure to completely twist the meaning)

Actually I just copied and pasted the verse from a website, so if anything you should blame the site and not me. Thanks for just assuming I'd do something like that though.

I'm normally not one to call someone out just for being sloppy.  It's the Internet, after all.  We're just jawing--not writing a scholarly thesis.  But, seriously, if you are citing something as authority for an argument, especially something that's so easy to look up as a Bible passage, it's just a complete copout to chop out part of a sentence out of context and argue that it teaches something when you didn't bother to take 10 seconds to read at least the rest of the paragraph (or even the sentence for that matter) to see what it really teaches.  

Would you like me to find more verses that demonstrate the misogynistic properties of Biblical authorship?

[ClairvoyantCat]

There's nothing in there about inferiority.  Same with the passage Quad cited (nice selective quoting there, by the way, Quad--you even managed to clip that one right in the middle of the sentence so as to be sure to completely twist the meaning).  There's nothing inherently or practically inferior or superior about anyone's particular family role.  (and funny that you stopped at verse 24 and left out the rest of the chapter)  

If someone is expected to subject because of their gender under any means, that makes them inferior.  You have a point in that the examples given do not extend beyond family values, but I still view it as inferiority.  

[bosk1]

Would you like me to find more verses that demonstrate the misogynistic properties of Biblical authorship?

You are welcome to start a thread discussing that if you like, sure.  But I will say before you even get started that if your premise is that you hope to establish that the Bible is based on misogynistic principles, you won't find any support for that.  You can rip passages out of context to make that argument, sure.  But if you do, you are no better than the crusader who ripped passages out of context to justify his position on murdering muslims or the slave owner who ripped passages out of context to justify his position on kidnapping and profiteering.  I would like to think you are better than that.

[Quadrochosis]

We must just have different interpretations of the word "Equal" than. For me, if two people are "equal", than one person isn't subjected to another person's will in any way, shape or form. That verse clearly says that, therefore according to my take on the word equal, the Bible promotes unequality among men and women.

Because the Bible says they are unequal, and then goes on to say that women need to do what men say, it's not hard at all to see how that is interpreted that women are inferior.

(ignores for the moment that you have shifted the terminology now)  Really?  So, when you're at work, you are of inferior worth as a human being than your boss simply because you are obligated in that relationship to be subject to him?  You are an inferior human being to your teachers/professors when at school because you have to follow their rules in the classroom?  I don't think so.  I certainly don't view you as inferior to me in any way even though on this forum, you have to follow my rules.  An authority structure/heirarchy is not necessarily a worth structure/heirarchy.  Do you see the difference.

Well, the difference there is that it is something that I have contractually agreed to. I've agreed to subject myself to my boss because he is paying me for what I do. It is inferred that my temporary inferiority to my professor will be later sated by the fact that I am receiving knowledge.

The Bible says that women and men have roles in families: women are to basically subject themselves to their men, make babies and be a homemaker. That's why in Biblical times, women that did not do that were given no option other than prostitution. Women were seen as inferior to men, only to be used for sexual purposes and to clean shit. The Bible gives women no option- you either subject to your husband/father/brother, or you are stoned to death.

If that isn't inferiority than I don't know what is.

[Heaven Outcry Angel]

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1Cr 14:34-36 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Ti 2:9-14 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Eccles. 25:22 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Eccles. 26:9-10 The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.

Eccles.26:25 A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.

I Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

there's no misogynistic undertones at all

[Perpetual Change]

Like I've said countless times, I just don't get the Christian objection to homosexuality. Then again, not all Christians object to it. Those that do tend to be the ones that believe God guided the hands of the old-testament authors so that every word is perfect, even though nowhere in the Bible itself is any kind of assumed textual perfection expressed in any clear way. Personally, if someone tells my homosexual friends and relatives they're damned or morally deginerate I won't be too offended, as they're usually the same people who prop-up the Bible's infallibility at the expense of things God's shown us in the real world-- like the fossil record-- and so it becomes pretty clear to me early on that these people are just being grumpy, and are maybe a little bit immature still about their own faith and the way they act toward other people. And really, even in the Gospels Jesus barely-- if at all really-- mentions homosexuality. He just doesn't seem to be too concerned about it.

For a certain sect of religious people, it really does seem like it's always the people on the outside, who are built differently, that are in the wrong. For these Christians obsesses with enforcing these laws that come from the Old Testament or the later writers, it does seem to me like the man in the mirror is hardly ever the sinner.

[Ħ]

quotes ripped grossly out of context

I have to say, these quotes are ripped quite grossly out of context.

[Quadrochosis]

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1Cr 14:34-36 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Ti 2:9-14 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Eccles. 25:22 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Eccles. 26:9-10 The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.

Eccles.26:25 A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.

I Corinthians 11:8-9 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

there's no misogynistic undertones at all

Guess I don't have to go hunting anymore. Thanks dude.

[Heaven Outcry Angel]

quotes ripped grossly out of context

I have to say, these quotes are ripped quite grossly out of context.

how? Look up the verses, read whats around them and please tell me if it at all changes the meaning of what I quoted.

please, this board is not the place for strawman tactics

[Quadrochosis]

quotes ripped grossly out of context

I have to say, these quotes are ripped quite grossly out of context.

At what point is the context good enough? I don't understand why it isn't OK to quote one verse- everytime I quote a verse, I'm told I'm taking it out of context. Well, if that's the case then I guess when people tell each other "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life," I should be telling them that they are ripping quotes out of context.

Seriously though, what will it take, do we need to cite the entire Bible at once in order to get the right context?

[bosk1]

If someone is expected to subject because of their gender under any means, that makes them inferior.  You have a point in that the examples given do not extend beyond family values, but I still view it as inferiority.  

I strongly disagree.  And I don't mean this to be insulting, but I think you misunderstand the concept of inferiority if that is your stance.  Inferiority means something has lesser value or worth.  It does not mean subjecting oneself to authority.  Again, I point you to the examples above.  And to go back to the passage Quad cited, just as in the passage in Ephesians, immediately after saying wives are to submit to husbands, it says husbands are to "give honor" to their wives and treat them as "joint heirs" of salvation.  You don't generally give honor to someone who is inferior.  You don't treat them as a joint anything if they are inferior.  A very rough paraphrase of both of those passages, in their entirety might be something like:  "Okay, husbands, somebody's gotta be in charge, so I'm putting you in that role.  But remember, that doesn't make you any better.  Remember the golden rule and treat them as you would want to be treated, honor them, and look out for their best interests as though you were looking out for yourself."  Read the entire passages in either of those chapters and tell me you don't see that.  That isn't inferiority by any stretch, the way I read it.  Honestly, I don't blame you for having a knee-jerk initial reaction to a seemingly arbitrary assigning of authority given the history throughout the millenia of men abusing their roles and just being idiots.  But just because people have screwed things up doesn't mean the rule is bad.  You don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

[Ħ]

quotes ripped grossly out of context

I have to say, these quotes are ripped quite grossly out of context.

At what point is the context good enough? I don't understand why it isn't OK to quote one verse- everytime I quote a verse, I'm told I'm taking it out of context. Well, if that's the case then I guess when people tell each other "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life," I should be telling them that they are ripping quotes out of context.

Seriously though, what will it take, do we need to cite the entire Bible at once in order to get the right context?

First, this debate on whether or not the Bible is misogynistic is pointless because it has no relevance to whether or not it is objectively true.  Second, why don't we make a new thread?  It's obviously an issue that even various Christians have different answers for, and one that I'm not sure I have an answer myself.

[Quadrochosis]

If God just decided that men are in charge, isn't that chauvinistic?

[tjanuranus]

ok i will make the thread so this thread can actually be about the original topic...