Obama Gambles On Gay Marriage - Page 6

Traak · 2012-05-20, 12:08 PM

Leviticus 20

Lev 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
Lev 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
Lev 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Lev 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Once again, a passage dealing with sexual purity. This wasn't an agglomeration of scriptures from 45 different books of the Bible. It's all there in one passage.

And, there are other sections that deal with other things. The things regarding sex, at least, are laid out in detail. And in these sections. There are other scriptures that mention sex, but to say that we, the Christians, just gather a letter from various words, or just words from various passages, and make them say what we want is not valid.

God is an intelligent being, and he knows how to communicate with man. Especially regarding what are right and wrong sexual practices.

Warhound · 2012-05-20, 01:58 PM

So ya... I smell troll and poor troll at that.

Also lets see one big contradiction here.

The bible says "Thou shalt not kill" right?
Some posts later you said "Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " So in essence the bible is contradicting itself?

Or are you going to be a good faithful little christian traak and start a crusade against the gays? Ya know since your book tells you to kill homosexuals essentially?

Figment · 2012-05-20, 02:53 PM

The nice thing is it says they will be put to death and that it's also their own fault for being put to death.

Sirisian · 2012-05-20, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

So you are in favor of brothers and sisters marrying, fathers and daughters, fathers and sons, Fathers and grandsons getting married, as long as everyone is 18 or over?

Just because two adults agree to do something doesn't mean it's right, sane, or good for society.

Who are you to decide what is good for society? Personally I believe marriage should at the government level be a contract with little to no obligations. You seem to assume something is happening between two married people. There are many married aesexual couples that have never had sex. I understand if certain relationships might make you uncomfortable. The ones you listed are taboo in modern society. I think you summed it up though that this is a fairly arbitrary line. To see how arbitrary it is you can look at the cousin marriage laws. I think the only legit concern about some marriages is birth defects (which are rare if it only happens once). The problem doesn't really happen in homosexual couples since reproduction isn't possible. They tend to choose adoption which helps children that are stuck in orphanages.

Originally Posted by Traak

Stating that something that involves consenting adults is okay because of that? I don't agree.

You need to stop using the slippery slope logical fallacy. Your arguments are already covered by other laws. Duels were outlawed because they still fall under homicide laws. Cults are legal for instance because they fall under the same guidelines as religions. Mass suicide is illegal in most of the US because it's illegal to encourage someone else to kill themselves. You didn't list it, but should one consenting adult be able to get someone else to kill them is open for debate still and is legal in some states. I know you're trying to make this simple, but really these are case by case laws and broad sweeping laws don't work for consenting adults.

Originally Posted by Traak

But, us not agreeing with you or anyone else on what is right and wrong doesn't make us bigots. But slinging the term "bigot" around for anyone who believes something you don't and is using his legal rights to oppose it, just like you use your legal rights to oppose things you don't like, is being hyprocritical.

It's the point that your arguments are parroted with no justification. When asked "why can't two men/women that love each other get married?" the Christian right is quick to say "Because God said so". That kind of logic shows someone who can't think for themselves and can never critically think about the issue. They are prejudiced against homosexuals and justifiably labeled a bigot for their intolerance.

Regarding the cherry picking passages. You don't see the Christian right vocal about Leviticus 19:28 where people live their whole life in "sin". The hilarious thing is that for Christians their prophet died for their sins yet they still worry about every sin they make and others, even outside their faith, make. That and the Biblical laws were only for Christians (or in some cases Israelites). It's really odd that religious fanatics try to take their laws and apply them to people of other faiths. From an outside perspective it looks really odd that they can't create reasoned arguments without relying on the Bible. If you've ever taken a philosophy course and covered universal morals this comes up a lot. The necessity to analyze why some boundaries are created. Religious fanatics usually have a mental wall that stops them from thinking about certain subjects critically and objectively.

Red Beard · 2012-05-20, 10:16 PM

Who are you to decide what is good for society?

Isn't that just a wee bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

Sirisian · 2012-05-20, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Red Beard

Isn't that just a wee bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

I meant that in the stance that even I don't have that right to decide what is good for society. I doubt the people that first created the government idea of marriage foresaw these problems they would cause as society became more tolerant.

It's interesting that I've been reading these topics as restricting rights. On the other hand Traak and others usually view it as giving rights. I was going to bring up the idea that there's a group that wants to get rid of marriage all together as a government concept. That is the government shouldn't be giving special rights to a few people that sign a contract to say they are together since it brings these kind of social problems to the government level. Our tax code and such is intertwined in the idea of marriage though so it's obviously a bit complicated to get rid of it. (I think).

// Edit: I guess it would make green card marriages impossible.

Red Beard · 2012-05-20, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I meant that in the stance that even I don't have that right to decide what is good for society. I doubt the people that first created the government idea of marriage foresaw these problems they would cause as society became more tolerant.

It's interesting that I've been reading these topics as restricting rights. On the other hand Traak and others usually view it as giving rights. I was going to bring up the idea that there's a group that wants to get rid of marriage all together as a government concept. That is the government shouldn't be giving special rights to a few people that sign a contract to say they are together since it brings these kind of social problems to the government level. Our tax code and such is intertwined in the idea of marriage though so it's obviously a bit complicated to get rid of it. (I think).

Yeah I see what you mean; I think part of the problem (as I've been trying to get people to think about) is that the nature of government has changed fundamentally over the past 100 years. Back in the day, as long as you had the mutual consent of the parties anything was *Lawful* (duels for example). People were free as long as they didn't harm other people or their property.

The way it is now, we are technically the property of the state (through registration), and can't own anything because everyone is a member of the UNITED STATES corporation, and as such is an employee of it and is rendered bankrupt (it's a giant bankruptcy trust). People just have use rights, with no perfected titles in anything (which is why your mortgage says you're a tenant, even if you pay it off).

People argue over public policy, not even realizing all they have is benefit privileges (without any rights), and people that want to gain a feeling of control over others are simply sucked into supporting this system and investing their identity in it, which frankly makes me sad.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-21, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

It's better that way. Imagine what would happen if politicians did exactly what people wanted (which is usually uninformed and delusional)...the entire system would implode.

I think those used to be called monarchies. They weren't the best idea, no.