Persecuting the Christians... again?

[STrRedWolf]

No, this isn't a Spanish inquisition. This is simply my reaction to the Dec 2nd comic, and I'll give you a few questions to think about. I don't need an answer.

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

Why is there a general disdain of homosexuality when science has proven that it's both a mix of natural inclination from medical condition, enviromental factors, and little nurturing by parents? Why encourage a change with someone who literally cannot change his/her/hir body makeup?

Why are Christian church leaders slow to recognize advancements outside their own circle?

and finally...

What happened to the tolerance origonally taught pre-King James edition? What ever happened to the love?

[Radarnocturn]

No, this isn't a Spanish inquisition. This is simply my reaction to the Dec 2nd comic, and I'll give you a few questions to think about. I don't need an answer.

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

Why is there a general disdain of homosexuality when science has proven that it's both a mix of natural inclination from medical condition, enviromental factors, and little nurturing by parents? Why encourage a change with someone who literally cannot change his/her/hir body makeup?

Why are Christian church leaders slow to recognize advancements outside their own circle?

and finally...

What happened to the tolerance origonally taught pre-King James edition? What ever happened to the love?

I got something to add to that. If they are so quick to quote Leviticus against gays, why are they not inclined to follow ALL of the sections from it.
for example, not taking a widow, a divorced woman, a profane or a harlot as a wife, but only a virgin.

Also, a friend informed me that in in two of the gospels by Christ, all of the laws of the old testament were named void.

[J4N1]

and no eating shrimps i believe, or any other seafood but fish

[BrockthePaine]

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

There are a few religions which would allow me to murder anybody I disliked, too. Why don't we religiously tolerate them as well? Why don't we let a Papuan slash open your chest and rip out your brain to eat it and gain power from your spirit aura? Simple: You do not have the freedom to do something that is morally reprehensible. When we believe something is wrong, we oppose it. You have the right to disagree with us. That's why we have a marketplace of ideas.

Why is there a general disdain of homosexuality when science has proven that it's both a mix of natural inclination from medical condition, enviromental factors, and little nurturing by parents? Why encourage a change with someone who literally cannot change his/her/hir body makeup?

Perhaps because science has "proven" nothing. Homosexuals are defined by an act they do; it is a behavior, not some magical "they're persecuting me because of my gay gene!" rubbish. You might as well adapt that argument to smokers and folks who eat pancakes for dinner.

[Deckard Canine]

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

From your wording, I'm not sure whether you're questioning only the movement... or the foundation as well. If the latter, I'd say it's not fair to claim that modern politicians' foibles reflect the intents of the forefathers.

What happened to the tolerance origonally taught pre-King James edition?

I never did like that edition so well, except for the poetry.

[Canis_lupus]

There are a few religions which would allow me to murder anybody I disliked, too. Why don't we religiously tolerate them as well? Why don't we let a Papuan slash open your chest and rip out your brain to eat it and gain power from your spirit aura? Simple: You do not have the freedom to do something that is morally reprehensible. When we believe something is wrong, we oppose it. You have the right to disagree with us. That's why we have a marketplace of ideas.

Perhaps because science has "proven" nothing. Homosexuals are defined by an act they do; it is a behavior, not some magical "they're persecuting me because of my gay gene!" rubbish. You might as well adapt that argument to smokers and folks who eat pancakes for dinner.

Your making it sound like being homosexual is a choice.

And the difference between letting gays marry and letting someone kill you for energy is that if they marry it does not personaly hurt or hinder you. believe what you want as long as it does not hurt others.

[Sapphire]

There are a few religions which would allow me to murder anybody I disliked, too. Why don't we religiously tolerate them as well? Why don't we let a Papuan slash open your chest and rip out your brain to eat it and gain power from your spirit aura? Simple: You do not have the freedom to do something that is morally reprehensible. When we believe something is wrong, we oppose it. You have the right to disagree with us. That's why we have a marketplace of ideas.

Perhaps because science has "proven" nothing. Homosexuals are defined by an act they do; it is a behavior, not some magical "they're persecuting me because of my gay gene!" rubbish. You might as well adapt that argument to smokers and folks who eat pancakes for dinner.

An interesting phenomenom in American culture is that something need only meet the requirement that something is not damaging to society or, as has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, must have benefits that objectively outweigh the harm. A net value greater than or equal to zero, if you will.

Thus, if you believe that there's a a net loss to society, it is up to you to prove it. Due to the nature of freedom, similair to 'innocent until proven guilty,' we work on a system of 'free to do so until proven harmful to society.' In turn, the burden of proof is on the negation; You, sir, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that same-sex marriage is harmful to society.

I have seen no such arguments that have not had complete and adequate refutations. The evidence seemse to point towards the affirmative rather than the negative.

[MikeVanPelt]

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

Once again, this is not Christians pushing for a change, it is Christians objecting to a change. Same sex marriage has never existed in the entire history of the United States, nor in Western Civilization in general, ever, until the last couple of years.

The change is not being made through the democratic process. It is being imposed by authoritarian fiat by an unelected, unaccoutable judiciary.

If you want same-sex marriage accepted, make the arguments, convince people, and get them to vote for it. Don't use anti-democratic methods to get your way. That causes people to dig in their heels.

[Wanderwolf]

Before I make my point, allow me to post a link to part of STrRedWolf's point:

From "The Biology of Homosexuality":

These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.

If the United States of America was founded on religious tolerance, then why is there a movement by Christians to ban same sex marrage (prohibited in the Bible) when it may be allowed by a different, unknown religion?

Forget "unknown religion"; some branches of the Unitarian church recognize gay marriage and female preachers. (The Fundamentalists aren't sure which to be more apoplectic about.) Also, same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the Bible, much less prohibited; the prohibition, in Leviticus 20:13, is specifically against same-sex sex. Same-sex marriage was never even contemplated.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Sapphire]

Also, same-sex marriage is not mentioned in the Bible, much less prohibited; the prohibition, in Leviticus 20:13, is specifically against same-sex sex. Same-sex marriage was never even contemplated.

There are some theologists and Biblical exgesisians who would disagree with this point; A strong minority suggest that two characters in the Bible had a homosexual union that was sanctified before God. Namely: David (of defeating Goliath fame) and Johnathan.

The dissertation takes passages throught the books of Samuel, especially in comparison with parallel phrasing and wording in other books. "Confused in his Mother's nakedness" springs to mind. However, much of the idea comes from a... liminal interpretation of 1st Samuel 18 1-4:

1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

4And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

[The JAM]

And yet, both David and Jonathan had wives and children of their own.
Erm....drat, I need to dig up that teaching about the Armor Bearer Covenant...
Still, if you're a guy and your best friend in the whole world is also a guy, does that make you a homosexual?

[RHJunior]

And you people wonder why I have such a terrible temper.

Mince about as you like, use your barmy "research" to self-justify, lisp from the highest mountaintop of your equality, nay, NOBILITY as sodomites, but have at least the bare minimal courtesy to not pretend to know the teachings of a Book which you would rather die than study properly, much less honor.

Prior to the "sexual revolution" (all hail the pelvis!) people remembered that one could have platonic friendships that were deep and profound in their own way as a romantic one.

Only a person who gets their entire identity from their CROTCH thinks that "loved one another dearly=fuckbuddies."

And only a historical and biblical illiterate thinks that the laws throughout Leviticus held identical weight, consequence and punishment.... or that laws regarding universal morality were identical to ones tied to cultural identity(mixed cloth, etc) or preparatory/symbolic for the coming of Christ (the sacrifices)

Even ignoring Leviticus entirely, God's repeated condemnation of homosexuality was marked throughout the bible, in both the old and new testaments. It was repeatedly referred to as an abomination. And God's judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah is included as a visual aid for the wilfully stupid.

Believe the bible, or don't. Just quit trying to retroactively edit it to suit your personal peccadilloes.