The Year of Same-Sex Marriage!

It was not necessarily supposed to be this way.

After California joined the agonizingly long list of states that barred same-sex marriage following a referendum vote last year, supporters of LGBT rights were frustrated and angry.

And it seemed as if America might not be ready for the future -- and for the demand that this country's promise of equality under the law be made real for all our citizens.

Then came the Iowa Supreme Court ruling striking down barriers to marriage equality in that state.

Shortly afterward, the Vermont state legislature legalized same sex marriage there -- overriding the veto of a Republican governor.

Then the District of Columbia voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, Connecticut and the growing list of states that allow them.

Around the same time, the New Hampshire legislator voted to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in that state and officials in New York and New Jersey signaled that their states would in all likelihood be following suit.

Now comes Maine.

Maine's lower house approved a same-sex marriage bill by 89 votes to 57, and the state senate voted 21-13 in favor of it.

The measure went to the desk of Governor John Baldacci, a Democrat who had previously been opposed same-sex marriage marriage.

Baldacci signed the bill Wednesday, saying that "the notes and letters sent to my office" swayed him.

Once again, a concerted campaign by marriage equality activists, in this case the sensitive and smart advocacy organized by EqualityMaine, paid off.

EqualityMaine, a 25-year-old LGBT rights group, ran a terrific campaign on behalf of this legislation, facing down harsh attacks in a state with a well-organized religious-right presence.

EqualityMaine put an emphasis on making heard the voices of native Mainers who said: "I want to get married."

That's what influenced Baldacci, who broke new ground by not just signing the legislation but explaining in a remarkably thoughtful statement why he knew it was "the right thing to do."

Here's what the governor said:

I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully. I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.

I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue. This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.

In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'

This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State.

It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine's civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.

Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word. Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.

While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.

Comments (248)

1. do we really need any more proof of how completely and utterly out-of-touch with reality the GOP is?

   they uses gay marriage as a wedge issue for at least the last 8 years, and will continue to do so, while intelligent and rational adults in the reality-based community grow up and do the right thing.

   and i heard limbaugh is pushing for palin to run in 2012.

   Posted by darladoon at 05/06/2009 @ 1:52pm

2. sounds cool.

   maybe i can tie the hitch with a good buddy of mine...

   nothing gay, you know...its all about the benefits, and i've known him a lot longer than i knew my ex...

   we would still date whoever we wished, never have sex, and get a quicky divorce as soon as one of us was ready to marry someone else...

   hmm...liking this more and more...like that movie i never saw...

   seriously though...government should not be sanctioning "marriage" at all in my opinion...

   civil unions, yeah. let your favorite church give you the marriage sanctioning...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/06/2009 @ 1:54pm

3. And the US continues it's descent into utter depravity.

   it won't be long until all morality disappears from the US and we look like a scene from Caligula.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:08pm

4. marriage......

   a word is but a collection of sounds.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:10pm

5. larry,

   will you marry me?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

6. will you marry me?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:11pm

   From what you've shared, you are a)the wrong sex, and b)the wrong skin color.

   I like my marriage partners female and dark skinned.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:19pm

7. I like my marriage partners female and dark skinned.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:19pm

   plural?

   tsk, tsk.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:36pm

8. larry,

   have you been doing some jimmy carter style sinnin'?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:37pm

9. larry,

   if that's what you like, fine.

   but please let others be.

   are they hurting you?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:38pm

10. if that's what you like, fine.

    but please let others be.

    are they hurting you?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2009 @ 2:38pm

    Certainly and I do. I just don't want them attaching their perverse behavior to the sanctity of the name marriage.

    They already destroyed the word gay.

    Now they want to destroy another word and the institution behind it.

    They are the attackers, not me.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:40pm

11. Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:40pm

    Right, Larry!

    Just like the word "citizen" used to mean "white, male, property owner" until them damn liberals got a'hold of it!!!

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 2:45pm

12. BTW, speaking of things being destroyed...let's look at the Republican Party. As Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Eric Cantor try to resurrect it, its nominal leader Mr Limbaugh...

    keeps cutting the head off of the zombie!

    "Cantor Bows To Rush: "This Is Not A Listening Tour" (VIDEO)"

    www.huffingtonpost.com

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 2:48pm

13. If it really bothers you that this small group might be able to get married it's because you have no life and not because you are more moral..My marriage is what my wife and I make of it and is not defined by who else is allowed to get married.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 3:11pm

14. Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 2:48pm'

    Rush was right-

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:15pm

15. If it really bothers you that this small group might be able to get married it's because you have no life and not because you are more moral..My marriage is what my wife and I make of it and is not defined by who else is allowed to get married.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 3:11pm

    Utter nonsense. So you are saying that words have no meaning, no relevance;

    You believe that all morality is relative?

    If so, that makes you an anarchist. Certainly if you are right, we need to apologize to Hitler.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:21pm

16. antisocialist-There are no sensible connections that one can make between gay marriage and Hitler.As we can see from here,words have little meaning and people tend to make up their own definitions for things and the history of words clearly shows that they do change meaning based on changing views.Getting married is supposed to be the moral thing to do and when it comes to the subject of consensual sex between adults no one is a moral authority since we all have things going on when it comes to that subject.An anarchist would not believe in gay marriage or any other form of marriage.Marriage creates too much order and not enough anarchy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 3:35pm

17. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:21pm </i>

    I agree with you that moral relativism is absurd and contrary to basic human moral experience and divine revelation.

    The further question, though, is one that you have been dodging for the last few times I've raised it: precisely why is gay marriage immoral?

    First off, even if you believe that it is theologically unsound, it's far from obvious that this translates into a legal mandate, any more than something like plea-bargaining (denying full punishment based on ratting out someone else) would. It's certainly not obvious that it would be ANYTHING on the level of Caligula; I would think you'd know better than to resort to slippery-slope arguments.

    Second, and more centrally, why is it theologically problematic to begin with? I've already argued, with STILL no effective response from you, that the Bible doesn't even address homosexuality because it doesn't have a concept of what homosexuality is. If you want to argue that the Bible does condemn homosexuality, it seems you have to explain:

    1) Where the Bible elucidates any concept of homosexuality that's not just "X and Y acts,"

    2) Why the Bible refers only to homosexual acts between males, and

    3) Why Jesus clearly leaves the subject alone. You've tried to infer otherwise from him being a Rabbi, but your own subsequent analysis (i.e. singles being alone in the same room or touching one another) seems to have undercut that line of argument.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 4:06pm

18. If it really bothers you that this small group might be able to get married it's because you have no life and not because you are more moral..My marriage is what my wife and I make of it and is not defined by who else is allowed to get married. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 3:11pm Utter nonsense. So you are saying that words have no meaning, no relevance; You believe that all morality is relative? If so, that makes you an anarchist. Certainly if you are right, we need to apologize to Hitler. Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    There are problems here. First you present a false dichotomy: either he believes all morality is relative and he's an anarchist or not. This is quite plainly wrong; there might be many other reasons he believes his marriage is not defined by other people, for example, he may believe marriage is just a legal union that has no bearing on morality. Second, you make an obvious factual error. Namely, anarchists believe in moral relativity. This is quite plainly false; they believe in morality quite strongly but feel that people should be free to develop their own sense of morality or principled behavior. In this sense, anarchists are moral pluralists but definitely not moral relativists. Now, if you said he subscribed to anomie or to nihilism, excluding moral nihilism, then your statement would at least make sense.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 05/06/2009 @ 4:11pm

19. "Second, you make an obvious factual error. Namely, anarchists believe in moral relativity. This is quite plainly false; they believe in morality quite strongly but feel that people should be free to develop their own sense of morality or principled behavior."

    Haha, did you read what you wrote at all?

    Funny stuff. Seriously, wouldn't you agree that people being free to develop their "own sense of morality" DEFINES relativity?

    "Whether ya like it or not!" - Gavin Newsome

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 4:57pm

20. And the US continues it's descent into utter depravity.

    it won't be long until all morality disappears from the US and we look like a scene from Caligula.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 2:08pm

    Really...?

    Come on now. This is insane. yeah gays are going to be the moral downfall of our society. First gays will get married, then rape will be legalized, next you will just be able to kill whoever you want in the street. Come on Anti, even you must think this is ridiculous a ridiculously overblown statement. At least I hope you do. For your own sake.

    I will repeat what Thrawn said so that you don't just ignore it this time. There is nothing in the Bible that says that homosexuality is immoral. Nothing. He is right in saying that they would have had no concept of homosexuality at the time and that the argument that because of Rabbinical teaching Jesus would have opposed it is inconsistent because otherwise he would have never let Mary touch him.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:01pm

21. Larry - do you mind if I call you Larry? If you do mind, I am more than happy to address you as your nom de plume.

    There's a train coming. Only stupid people stand on the tracks when a train is coming. You're not stupid are you?

    People get ready There's a train a-coming You don't need no baggage You just get on board All you need is faith To hear diesels humming You don't need no ticket You just thank the Lord Yeah yeah yeah

    People get ready For the train to Jordan Picking up passengers From coast to coast Faith is the key Open the doors and board them There's room for all Among the loved and lost

    Now there ain't no room For the hopeless sinner Whose hard on mankind Just to save his own Have pity on those Whose chances are thinner Cause there's no hiding place From the Kingdom's Throne

    Ohh people get ready There's a train a-coming You don't need no baggage You just get on board All you need is faith To hear diesels a- humming You don't need no ticket You just thank the Lord Yeah yeah yeah

    I'm getting ready I - I'm ready yeah yeah yeah Oh I'm getting ready oh - oh I'm ready yeah

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:18pm

22. Conservatives are just going to have to get used to the idea of gay marriage. The writing is on the wall. In ten years, gay marriage, like interracial marriage, won't be an issue anymore, except for a few right-wing extremists who think we're all going to hell. But they thought we were going to hell already, so what else is new? Even you, antisocialist, will get used to the idea, and it'll be the norm, and you'll stop bitching about it when you see that it really doesn't change anything. Gays are already in relationships; the law will just come around to recognize it and offer them equal treatment. You may see two guys wearing gold rings on their fingers. THE HORROR! You'll see dudes and chicks having wedding ceremonies. AN ABOMINATION! They'll clog up divorce court with the same frequency as heterosexual couples, who don't seem to take the sanctity of their marriage that seriously anyway.

    Posted by cheesebox at 05/06/2009 @ 6:19pm

23. Haha, did you read what you wrote at all? Funny stuff. Seriously, wouldn't you agree that people being free to develop their "own sense of morality" DEFINES relativity? Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 4:57pm

    I did read it. Apparently, you believe that by developing your own sense of morality you are somehow a moral relativist. I suppose if I didnt know what moral relativism or anarchism was, I too would consider it funny stuff. Now, moral pluralists such as anarchists do believe that there are moralities which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, a moral pluralist accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated whereas a relativist would not. Specifically for anarchist philosophy, they do not believe, for example, in economic or political coercion and would accept this as a limit to differences between people's philosophies.

    Isaiah Berlin: "I am not a relativist; I do not say "I like my coffee with milk and you like it without; I am in favor of kindness and you prefer concentration camps" -- each of us with his own values, which cannot be overcome or integrated. This I believe to be false. But I do believe that there is a plurality of values which men can and do seek, and that these values differ. There is not an infinity of them: the number of human values, of values that I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite -- let us say 74, or perhaps 122, or 26, but finite, whatever it may be. And the difference it makes is that if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it. Hence the possibility of human understanding."

    Posted by hdthoreau at 05/06/2009 @ 6:22pm

24. I am not sure if I support same-sex marriage. That was one of the breaking points in my marriage: the same sex, with the same person, over and over again!

    Posted by theo51 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:35pm

25. I think that gay marriage is a good step forward to give justice to this very repressed group. We also need to remember other repressed groups. I would like to see the federal government do more to address global poverty for strategic and humanitarian reasons.

    The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

    Posted by davidwaters at 05/06/2009 @ 6:41pm

26. Gay marriage will be followed by the polygamy rights movement. Then soon the morality of why adults can't have sex with, or even marry children will be questioned as judgemental. I mean, seriously, who are we to judge if a mother wants to marry her daughter?! Yep, pretty soon the whole barn yard will be up all night... Haha!

    This whole issue, in my opinion, has little to do with gay marriage. It is all about f**king with centuries of traditions and wisdom. It is simply an other secular attempt to deny God. To be sure there are thousands of monogamous, loving, wonderful gay people who would like to be able to say they are "married." Who in their right mind would want to deny them that? Not me! And I'm not even a caterer or a divorce lawyer.

    But in the same way abortion is truly about genocide of minorities cleverly shrouded in "womens' rights", I think gay marriage is about eroding tradition and eliminating religion (Christianity) shrouded in 'equal rights' language.

    Sure, gay marriage will eventually be shoved down our throats, as Gavin Newsome says, Whether ya like it or not!" Life will go on. Then, as I said, we'll start talking about polygamy rights and eventually debate why we would judge that woman down the street with an unnatural love for her golden retriever. Can't wait for the PETA weigh-in... Yeah, there is nothing in the bible that says fornicating with your house pet is immoral, unless it is abusive! LOL!

    Gay marriage will become the law. 10 years from now most people won't care. That's the secret goal of it proponents, in my humble opinion.

    Morality isn't the issue, it is the target.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

27. Rush was right-Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 3:15pm

    Yes, Larry...Heaven forbid the Republicans LISTEN to the people.

    They should be lecturing the mob on how they're wrong....right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

28. Morality isn't the issue, it is the target.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

    Wow. Did you take your meds today?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:55pm

29. Morality isn't the issue, it is the target.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

    How about I play your game.

    The attempt to shut down gay marriage is just the first stage in the attack by religion on our secular government. If they win this battle it's only a short step until they start imposing more of the "moral" codes on us. Soon enough the non-religious will not be allowed to marry each other. Then the non-religious won't even be allowed in the country. Then it's only a short step until we have theocratic government that is willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe what they believe.

    See I can make up INSANE theories too.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:02pm

30. Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 6:48pm

    "Slippery slopes", FREI.

    Why do you realize, if we were back in 1954 and Brown v. Board, that somebody like yourself might say "Yeah, sure. Wipe out 'separate but equal', the way God intended it, the way the Bible says that Ham and his descendents shall be the servants of his brothers...and what will it lead to?

    Some day them Nigras will want to vote...then use our restrooms and water fountains....and we'll wake up some day and one of 'em will be President!"

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 7:04pm

31. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:02pm

    Haha, good one! Actually, you're probably not too far off from the goals of the taliban and sharia law, so I don't see your theory as insane at all.

    But the flaw in your game is that's not how Christianity functions.

    CC, morality is the target. We don't have to agree.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:12pm

32. "Smug as always" Mask.

    That doesn't make sense, mixing the issue of homosexual marriage and racism.

    I find is especially odd considering we have a black president and a white vice president both on record as defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

    Even stranger is you're not saying I'm wrong, because in your illustration all of the things you attribute to Brown vs Board did eventually come to pass, thank God.

    So, are you saying an apprehension of morality surrounding polygamy, for instance, puts me in the same cartgory of a racist?

    Good stretch Gumby.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:26pm

33. Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:26pm

    So it's a "stretch" for me to compare your bigotry and believe in denial of rights to citizens to the Civil Rights Era racists...

    but NOT a stretch for you to say that "if we let gays marry, soon it'll be women wanting to marry their dogs"?

    Ah...ha.

    BTW, what exact basis for calling homosexuality "immoral" do you derive your opinion from? Would it be the Bible? Which didn't consider SLAVERY a sin?

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 7:55pm

34. But the flaw in your game is that's not how Christianity functions.

    CC, morality is the target. We don't have to agree.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:12pm

    When has the religions goal ever meant anything? As long as the goal of it's people it doesn't matter. Empires used to be controlled by the church. What stops it from returning to that?

    This has nothing to do with morality. This has everything to do with people misinterpreting their own religious texts to make it seem as if it forbids an activity that it in fact doesn't.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 9:02pm

35. Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 4:06pm

    I haven't dodged you at all. I've answered you very specifically. But let me remind you, I'm speaking not from the standpoint of world morality, but Christian morality as commanded by Jesus.

    I've never said anything about legal mandates; except that I want the religious term marriage (as it was brought here as a religious term) kept as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam define it.

    Your continued comment that the Bible doesn't address nor have a concept of homosexuality is without any merit or substance.

    Sexual relations are so critical to understanding the relationship between man and G-d that often G-d would even speak of rebellion and pagan worship as adultery. Sex is a special gift from G-d between only a man and a woman according to Jesus; and only in marriage. He has condemned all other sexual practice. I have given you extensive citation from the Bible confirming this. Matthew 15:18-20 Jesus declares that adultery and fornication (which is all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman) makes you defiled. To be defiled means in the text to be in a state of unholiness. And nothing that is unholy can come into the presence of G-d. G-d also declares in showing John the New Jerusalem that all the fornicators (pornea) will be in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 14:8)

    As to the Caligula statement; it is actually well stated from G-d's standpoint. All that is immoral is depravity in His sight.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:12pm

36. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:12pm </i>

    For the sake of getting into the real dialogue (which is the part I'm interested in anyway), I'll engage the theological analysis.

    Jesus never says what you claim he does; he NEVER says that the marriage relationship is PURELY for a man and a woman. Moreover, I think the fornication analysis is actually interesting because of the very analogy (pagan worship) that you provide. It pertains to this discussion in two ways. First, God discusses pagan worship by believers as adultery by analogy; doing acts that betray the loyalty they promised to God. Second, God attacks it more literally because the worship in question often involved things like ritual sex with temple prostitutes. There seems to be good evidence that THAT is what God is condemning. He attacks the presence of relationships that undermine the relationship between himself and the individual.

    I think that's actually the most coherent theological understanding of its marriage. It's meant to establish a relationship built around mutual love, respect, and striving in a common pursuit for the good (which I think we both would agree is anchored ultimately in God). It's not reliant on biological complementarity, nor is it fundamentally rooted in procreation.

    The final problem that never gets addressed, though, is that an attack on homosexuality can never be rooted purely in sex. I'm sure you would say that a homosexual couple that held hands, kissed, but did nothing more is still in some way acting immorally. Why? Because homosexuality can't be understood simply as a specific set of acts. Anything that conceptualizes homosexuality as a set of acts isn't actually addressing homosexuality. Moreover, only male homosexual activity is ever addressed.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 10:15pm

37. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:12pm </i>

    The analysis on marriage is crucial here for two reasons. First, at no point does the Bible ever say, in a passage that is meant to be correct for all times and all places, that marriage must only be between a man and a woman. This is crucial because the fornication argument is the only defense you have; the Rabbi analysis has already been beaten (with no response) and the texts that you claim specifically address homosexual behavior address only MALE homosexual behavior. The basic absence of any coherent narrative specifically against homosexuality, coupled by the absence of any clear reason why it is actually a sin, makes your position difficult.

    Moreover, the impact you draw from it is dubious. First, the Caligula analysis works only if it is meaningless. From your analysis, the "plea bargain" analysis applies because we get "Caligula" ANYTIME society willingly permits an evil to occur. Second, if marriage is truly a fundamentally religious concept, the state should not be in the business of doing it (which I think you may actually have argued before), but if they ARE going to do it, they should do it across the board. Third and finally, the claim that all fornicators will go to hell is plainly false because it explicitly contradicts what Jesus said. The standard for getting into heaven isn't good works, which means that doing bad works doesn't send you to hell; otherwise, by your OWN STANDARD, no one goes to heaven.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 10:20pm

38. antisocialist-Christianity does not have a history of believing that marriage is a religious matter and have had both views.A gay couple can already get married by virtue of a religious ceremony.Anyone can if you find some preacher,priest,monk,shaman,etc to perform the ceremony.The question here is whether or not gay people can get a marriage license after the ceremony is performed and that is a civil matter.I see that you are selectively quoting Jesus, again.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 10:21pm

39. Soon enough the non-religious will not be allowed to marry each other.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:02pm

    Ya'll don't marry now. All you guys do is shack up and play house.

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 10:21pm

40. "Sex is a special gift from G-d between only a man and a woman according to Jesus"

    Where does Jesus say explicitly say this. I notice in the Bible when they don't want you to do something they generally explicitly say don't do this. It doesn't take interpreting ten different scripture to find the way to condemn murder. It is stated outright. So I imagine if homosexuality was explicitly condemned, it would be stated outright, it wouldn't take you piecing together 10 different pieces of scripture to try to make it make sense.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:25pm

41. Ya'll don't marry now. All you guys do is shack up and play house.

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 10:21pm

    Actually I know plenty of non-religious people who are married. Where do you get this stuff ACook? I have a feeling you live in a small place where you don't get much contact with the real world or something. Or you just have an amazing sense of sarcasm.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:27pm

42. Gay marriage? Okay. Then you cant complain about polygamy, or group marriage, or incest marriage. Who is to say those are wrong? "as long as it is between consenting adults...."

    Posted by mike63 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:29pm

43. Let me get this straight:

    asked to provide evidence of his belief that Jesus opposed gay marriage, asocialist quoted Matt 15 18-20, in which Jesus states that fornication is wrong, and then asocialist HELPFULLY ADDS HIS OWN PERSONAL DEFINITION OF FORNICATION.

    nice!

    for example, Jesus also encouraged me to consider not paying taxes this year! he said later in the same passage (Matt 15:26) "it is not right to take children's bread (clearly symbolizing my money) and toss it to dogs (symbolizing the IRS)"! sweet!

    aah, life as a biblical scholar! it's great.

    Posted by canaro71 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:31pm

44. "The standard for getting into heaven isn't good works, which means that doing bad works doesn't send you to hell; otherwise, by your OWN STANDARD, no one goes to heaven."

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 10:20pm

    You need to back up on that one.

    Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your "good works" and glorify your Father which is heaven.

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 10:37pm

45. Thrawn.

    You continue down the same path that just can't be substantiated by your arguments.

    I've surmised what really is driving your argument (and I would suspect CCC likewise) is an attempt to see these passages outside of their historical context.

    1. sex outside of marriage was a sin. I've also noted that there is no ambiguity from either scripture, or from the commentary of rabbis that marriage can be anything other than a man and a woman. And Jesus affirms this in Matthew 19 responding to the divorce question.

    The New Testament Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."

    Fornication (porneia)

    <illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

    sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

    sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,>

    I just had a fellow pastor here and showed him both my responses and the postings of others like yourself. He asked me how you can even suggest the things you are saying. he said he thought I had done a good job of summarizing the position of G-d on marriage, and all sex outside of marriage.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:03pm

46. Marriage-Baker's Theological Dictionary

    The relational aspect of God's image is reflected in the bringing together of male and female in "one flesh" ( Gen 1:27 ; 2:21-24 ). This oneness with sexual differences portrays various aspects of God's image: same nature and essence, equal members, intimate relationship, common purpose, and distinct personalities with different roles, including authority and submission. In the Trinity the Father leads, the Son submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. However, all three are fully and equally deity. Likewise, male and female in the marriage relationship are of the same nature and essence, equal as persons (cf. Gal 3:28 ), intimate in relationship, common in purpose, but distinct personalities with different roles: the husband leads and the wife submits to his leadership (cf. Eph 5:31 ). Marriage appears designed to reflect the same relational unity-in-plurality as the Godhead. Marriage, the most intimate human relationship, was appropriately chosen to reflect this relational aspect of the divine image. Each sex alone incompletely exhibits this part of the divine image. This open intimate relational aspect of God's image, reflected in marriage, was marred by the fall (cf. Genesis 3:7 Genesis 3:10 ), causing each mate to hide (cover oneself) from each other and from God. Marriage is the most basic and significant social relationship to humankind. This relationship must be nurtured and maintained for the welfare of all. Without marriage, society will fail.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:04pm

47. More on Marriage from Baker's Theological Dictionary

    <The Nature of Marriage. Complementarity. The woman was created as "a helper suitable" for the man (ezer kenegdo) ( Gen 2:18 ). The English "complement" best conveys the meaning of neged. A wife is a "helper" who "complements" her husband in every way. A helper always subordinates self-interests when helping another, just as Paul reminds us in Philippians 2:1-11. A helping role is a worthy one, not implying inferiority. The wife, therefore, helps the husband to lead their family to serve and glorify God. The husband also complements his wife so that together they become a new balanced entity that God uses in an enhanced way.

    One flesh ( Gen 2:24 ). "One flesh" involves the unity of the whole person: purpose, physical, and life a unity whereby the two become a new, God-designed, balanced life. They counterbalance each other's strengths and weaknesses. Sexually the two become "one flesh" physically as reflected in their offspring. God's ideal exclusiveness of the "one flesh" relationship disallows any other relationship: homosexuality, polygamy, adultery, premarital sex, concubinage, incest, bestiality, cultic prostitution. These and other sexual perversions violate the "oneness" of the marriage relationship and were often punishable by death ( Lev 20:1-19 ; Deut 22:13-27 ; cf. Rom 1:26-32 ). Becoming "one flesh" is used in Scripture for the consummating sexual act of marriage. These aspects of "one flesh" argue against premarital sex, promiscuity, and perversion of the sexual act. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Cor 6:19 ), so believers should be holy in their sexual conduct ( Lev 19:2 ; 1 Thess 4:3-6 ; 1 Peter 1:15-16 ), keeping marriage pure.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:06pm

48. "Actually I know plenty of non-religious people who are married."

    Yeah, they'll tell you they're "married" when in reality it's just the common law kind.

    "Where do you get this stuff ACook? I have a feeling you live in a small place where you don't get much contact with the real world or something."

    This "stuff" as you call it, comes from my personal experiences of meeting all kinds of people. You'd be surprised at how much people talk when a loved one is laid up in the hospital sick. And no, I don't live in a small town, I live in suburban Atlanta

    "Or you just have an amazing sense of sarcasm."

    At times, I do have occassional bouts of sarcasm.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:27pm

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 11:07pm

49. "for example, Jesus also encouraged me to consider not paying taxes this year! he said later in the same passage (Matt 15:26) "it is not right to take children's bread (clearly symbolizing my money) and toss it to dogs (symbolizing the IRS)"! sweet!

    aah, life as a biblical scholar! it's great."

    Posted by canaro71 at 05/06/2009 @ 10:31pm

    And Matt 22:21 states: Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God".

    The dogs belong to Ceasar!!

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 11:17pm

50. "Yeah, they'll tell you they're "married" when in reality it's just the common law kind."

    No I have been to non-religious weddings. You call it whatever you want lady. These people had a ceremony and signed the papers. You seem to just like making stuff up with no actual facts to back it up.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:20pm

51. The dogs belong to Ceasar!!

    Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 11:17pm

    But God created the dogs, so they are his in the end.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:21pm

52. antisocialist-Christians do not live by Torah law so quoting it is meaningless and hypocritical, as is quoting rabbis.Rabbis,like myself,cannot find Jesus in the OT and you do not quote them on that.The one flesh thing does not exclude homosexuals nor do your religious beliefs have anything to do with laws in America.There is no reason for you guys to be placing so much importance on gays and do so in order to point the sin finger at others so you can ignore what your side of the fence does as has been pointed out to you many times when you only come up with "sins" that you can lay at the lefts doorstep.Jesus never mentioned the subject,but did mention other subjects that you guys like to ignore.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/06/2009 @ 11:50pm

53. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:03pm </i>

    I understand that there are many pastors who share your understanding, but that alone is not a response to my arguments as to why your position is mistaken. With that said, let's get into the substance.

    The most important part of this discussion revolves around the notion of fornication. The definition you present is problematic in two ways. First, note that while the final 2 definitions are supported by a specific text the first is not. There is good reason for this; lesbianism is NEVER addressed at ANY point in the Bible.

    Moreover, I already showed in the previous discussion why rabbinical thought can't be the standard. Not only do we both clearly reject certain things that the rabbis taught about sexual morality (ex: 2 singles can't be alone in a room; your own example), but many of the ones you yourself listed would have been violated by Jesus himself. He clearly did not take rabbinical teaching as a definitive standard of morality. Note also that his use of the word "sinners" tended to occur most frequently when he was attacking particular sects for their obsessive focus on obedience to particular laws, so clearly he was not binding himself to the legalistic tradition.

    Next, to the marriage debate, because this is actually really interesting. Right off the top, at no point am I aware of the Scriptures ever suggesting (much less definitively establishing) a hierarchical relationship between the members of the Trinity. Second, there's already a clear disanalogy between marriage and the Trinity; marriage is only two people, not three.

    (continued)

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07am

54. (continued)

    Moreover, the "husband leads" paradigm, though defended by Paul, runs into a couple of problems. First, it lacks any clear theological warrant. Marriage cannot be fairly analogized to the relationship of Christ to the Church (as far as giving normative commandments for leadership v. submission) because both partners in a human marriage are necessarily fallible (equally so). There is no rational justification for the paradigm that the man must lead, nor does it flow by necessity out of any of Jesus' teachings. Generally, when he meant to exclude, he said so.

    Additionally, the "one flesh" argument doesn't do much work for you, and before I illustrate why, I think some framework analysis is necessary: Theological argument is very different from policy analysis. When crafting a policy, you design rules that will have the most net-beneficial effect, and for that purpose, generalizations are OK; the state is entitled to essentially "place its best bets." Any theological principle, however, must be necessarily true and go beyond generalizations to categorical truths.

    That said...marriage can't be related directly back to procreation because we have not the slightest hesitation accepting the marriages of infertile couples, even before we had the technology to make reproduction possible for them. The only other ground you have is then complementarity. The problem with that is that it presupposes particular attributes that are characteristic of all women or of all men. Even if that might be a fair generalization, it is not absolutely true, and I assume that you would not condemn a marriage between a man and a woman of virtually equal temperament, etc. Therefore, that clearly isn't the standard.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:18am

55. So here is my argument in a nutshell:

    First, reason is crucial in this debate (as you seem to agree), and concurrently, a standard which fails to adhere to reason is false. This works because God is the perfection of reason, both practical and moral. Aside from a clearly infallible authority, reason must therefore be the standard.

    Second, absent a clear argument, homosexuality should not be considered immoral. This also seems intuitive; we presume something is justified until there is a reason to presume otherwise. Nature certainly provides us none, nor does any cogent moral analysis, so absent a compelling theological argument, your position does not hold.

    Third, there is no clear theological argument that justifies your position. This position must either justify itself by reason or by infallible authority (for which Jesus alone qualifies). Your reasoned arguments fail because some of their obvious entailments are false, and your citations of infallible authority fail because Jesus does not clearly support what you say he does.

    Fornication doesn't mean what that dictionary says it does, nor does Jesus affirm any such thing. The "one flesh" paradigm never explicitly excludes homosexuals, nor does the underlying complementarity rationale do so. Procreation is not a necessary condition for a marriage either, so none of the theological arguments are left standing.

    Pastor, I completely agree with you that marriage is a crucial institution in society. I contend that it should be respected and nurtured far more than it often is. However, I think we follow Christ's example poorly by excluding individuals from this relationship and declaring their very being perverse.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:25am

56. <i>Posted by ACook at 05/06/2009 @ 10:37pm </i>

    That's not a warrant; saying "do good works" doesn't translate to "if you don't do good works, you go to hell." On the other hand, a couple of examples:

    <<We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved . . . "(Acts 15:9, 11). >>

    <<"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9).>>

    Meant to do good works? Yes. Judged by them? No. The paradigm is grace, not judgment.

    Moreover, if we were saved by good works, the Resurrection would literally be meaningless. Much of Jesus' teaching is specifically designed to undercut the notion that God is anything other than perfectly good and perfectly merciful.

    As a sideline to Pastor Larry...justice and mercy are still mutually exclusive by definition. The DEFINITION of mercy is withholding that which justice demands. God therefore cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful; if he embodies some of both, he is only partially just and partially merciful. However, this isn't a problem, because I argue that justice is not itself a perfection, but rather the imperfect version of mercy that we human beings employ in an imperfect world. This preserves God's perfection in a way that your framework cannot do.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:33am

57. Nobody's re-defining morality here. The legalization of gay marriages is simply a more consistent application of a very old moral principle, which is that if a particular deed does no harm and gives nobody an unfair advantage, it should be legal, because it would be mean-spirited and bigoted to penalize it by law.

    The legalization of gay marriage is less threatening to society than the decriminalization of marijuana, which I also support, because it does no harm at all, whereas smoking pot is in fact an unhealthy habit.

    On the other hand, the benefits of the prohibition of gay marriage are dubious and few. They include the following:

    (1a) If you are a hetero man, prohibition makes it slightly more likely that you will one day marry an ultimately unhappy lesbian.

    (1b) If you are a hetero woman, prohibition makes it slightly more likely that you will one day marry an ultimately unhappy gay man.

    (2) If you are a hetero of either sex, prohibition confirms the bigoted notion that you are, by accident of birth, morally superior to a whole category of people whose sexual orientation differs from yours.

    Admittedly, this second benefit (2) is one that many bigots would hate to lose, even if they could still get confirmation of their prejudice from their spiteful churches, only no longer from their government.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 05/07/2009 @ 06:55am

58. ah the governor clears this up somewhat for me. I wondered why marriage was so important if you could get a civil union. I guess that the marriage gives them more of the benifits and rights than a civil union.

    Posted by oldtinker at 05/07/2009 @ 07:57am

59. These and other sexual perversions violate the "oneness" of the marriage relationship and were often punishable by death ( Lev 20:1-19 ; Deut 22:13-27 ; cf. Rom 1:26-32 ).----Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:06pm |

    Larry, you cite that...but you (and all but the Fred Phelps types) don't BELIEVE that anymore.

    Or DO you believe that homosexuality should be punished by death?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 08:12am

60. You've all heard my opinions on this topic a hundred times so I won't bore you again.

    I'll just say that I applaud the voters of Maine for electing the kind of legislators who recognize that the children of homosexuals should recieve the advantages that a more stable parental bond provides to the children of heterosexual couples.

    Furthermore, I hope it causes the arrogant judges in Iowa to hang their heads in shame at thier disgusting abrogation of power they ceded to themselves because they believe the voters of Iowa are just too stupid to manage their own soverignty.

    Larry, I imagine it's disappointing to see a kindred spirit be so resigned to the moral decline of US culture and to accept it uncritically and without complaint. But I am. My experience with family leads me to believe that a stable, loving bond between the homes two adults provides intangible benefits to the children being raised beneath the roof and I am hopeful that the benfits will accrue to the children of homosexuals as well.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 08:42am

61. "And the US continues it's descent into utter depravity"

    how can something "depraved" occur in numerous species across the animal kingdom?

    and *anyone* who uses the Bible to support their arguments has no business......making arguments.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 09:41am

62. " the husband leads and the wife submits to his leadership"

    clearly, in the court of public opinion (in which we women have our own opinions), this statement goes nowhere......

    but the taliban would concur!

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 09:45am

63. "Moreover, only male homosexual activity is ever addressed."

    of course, 'cuz it makes straight guys freak out. but when two babes are involved? different story.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 09:48am

64. Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 09:48am

    Why is that? Serious question.

    Two guys kissing grosses me out.

    Two girls kissing and I'm mesmerized.

    So strange.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/07/2009 @ 10:23am

65. gay marriage? will someone tell that blockhead the satanic preacher, that the bible is not the law of the land. end of story. the satanic preacher deserves to be ignored. what is this here, the Vatican blog? merde. Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 09:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 10:44am

66. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 05/07/2009 @ 06:55am </i>

    There is one important difference here: on the issue of gay marriage, there is no criminalization involved. It's not a question of the state forbidding activity, it's whether the state should take positive action to convey specific benefits.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 10:44am

67. Two girls kissing and I'm mesmerized. So strange. Posted by Benchrest at 05/07/2009 @ 10:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is more than I wanted to know.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 10:44am

68. Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 09:48am

    Logical. Hetero males are hard-wired to want to impregnate as many females as possible, due to evolution. The two females would "seem" (even both are declared lesbians) to indicate to the male that they would be receptive to multiple pairings without the typical jealousy involved.

    This may, and likely is, a false assumption...but logical from a biological standpoint to hope for.

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 10:46am

69. it's whether the state should take positive action to convey specific benefits,

    WHICH IT CONFERS ON ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE, HETEROS.

    IT IS AN ISSUE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 10:52am

70. Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 10:46am

    Suddenly, it doesn't seem as much fun as it did before.

    Cold logic. Sorta like a cold shower.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/07/2009 @ 11:12am

71. Furthermore, I hope it causes the arrogant judges in Iowa to hang their heads in shame at thier disgusting abrogation of power they ceded to themselves because they believe the voters of Iowa are just too stupid to manage their own soverignty.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 08:42am

    I'm sorry you have such little respect for the ratifiers of the Iowa constitution. I personally think that the clause forbidding the legislature from enacting laws that privilege one group over another is quite a good one.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 11:14am

72. "You seem to just like making stuff up with no actual facts to back it up."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/06/2009 @ 11:20pm

    Since when is having "personal experience" not an actual fact? I can only go by what was told to me.

    Go back and reread what I posted and then restate you rebuttal.

    Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 11:44am

73. These and other sexual perversions violate the "oneness" of the marriage relationship and were often punishable by death ( Lev 20:1-19 ; Deut 22:13-27 ; cf. Rom 1:26-32 ).----Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:06pm |

    Larry, you cite that...but you (and all but the Fred Phelps types) don't BELIEVE that anymore.

    Or DO you believe that homosexuality should be punished by death?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 08:12am

    I've answered before that I don't believe in doing so. Again, I'm not advocating applying spiritual law to secular law.

    My argument is with using the term marriage outside it's religious background. I would be perfectly happy to see the word marriage stricken from all legal documents. Make all such licenses and contracts defined as civil unions however the states want to define that.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 11:46am

74. Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:25am

    Homosexuality is so clearly defined by G-d as sexual immorality that it is inconceivable that you even attempt to make the statement. This is again clearly linked to both the word fornication and to the reason why G-d created men and women as is stated in Genesis 2.

    You dismiss the Genesis argument, yet it was put forth by Jesus Himself to drive home the point. So, you are left with only your own bias and nothing to back up your contention

    Stating that fornication doesn't mean what all theological dictionaries say it does is not a rebuttal. You have offered no basis in hermeneutics, or language to back up your rebuttal. Whereas I have 2000 plus years of commentary, theological studies, and word studies in Greek and Hebrew that refute your argument.

    I have put forth the very clear statements of Jesus and you offer only that He doesn't really mean what He's saying. You offer nothing to substantiate your charge.

    We have further illumination to draw upon. John stated in chptr 21 that there was much more from Jesus in what He said and did than could be contained in books. The apostles themselves took as part of their commandment from Jesus, to write in more detail on what was required to follow Christ.

    Paul who states clearly that he was taught by Jesus, and not by man, gives us a clear understanding that all sex outside of marriage is sin. He addresses in detail the sin of homosexual behavior in Romans 1. Peter affirms in his 2nd letter that Paul's teachings are scripture and warns of not following them.

    For whatever reason, you seem to feel compelled to argue at length on this without anything behind your arguments but your own conjecture. I'm puzzled by your passion to argue this w/o any substance

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 11:52am

75. Posted by Benchrest at 05/07/2009 @ 11:12am

    Sorry about that, Chief.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 11:58am

76. Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 11:46am

    But again, you cited Bible passages that endorsed, and even yourself NOTED, homosexuality was punished by death....

    yet you don't believe in it?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 12:00pm

77. "Procreation is not a necessary condition for a marriage either, so none of the theological arguments are left standing."

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 12:25am

    I disagree with you on this.

    Starting with Genesis, God made a proclaimation on those of his creations to "be fruitful and multiply". And, I know you know this.

    Man is a creature different from all that had been made amongst all his creations. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him. God said, "Let us make man."

    Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. It is the soul of man that especially bears God's image.

    This is why we procreate to glorify the heavenly father.

    Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 12:03pm

78. antisocialist-I've learned to ignore all humans,like Paul, who claim to have more than just their human opinions since that is all that we humans have..Our opinions.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07pm

79. I'm sorry you have such little respect for the ratifiers of the Iowa constitution. I personally think that the clause forbidding the legislature from enacting laws that privilege one group over another is quite a good one.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 11:14am

    Marriage is not a privilege. The state's only legitimate interest in marriage is in-so-far as it is the best institution for raising health, emotionally well adjusted kids. If the voters of Iowa wish to extend that to the children of homosexuals, I think that would be super.

    If the IA supreme court judges are so contemptous of their citizen that it won't allow them to write their own laws, I think they have no business living in the state in the first place.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07pm

80. But again, you cited Bible passages that endorsed, and even yourself NOTED, homosexuality was punished by death....

    yet you don't believe in it?!??!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 12:00pm

    that punishment though applied under Jewish law and not our constitution.

    You know perfectly well that I do not want a theocracy in this country.

    Christianity is not called to establish govts on earth.

    What that passage does provide is how G-d sees that behavior. So what really matters to me is how He will judge that behavior; not what a govt does. So, it makes it clear that G-d will punish that behavior with separation from Him (which is spiritual death) in hell.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:34pm

81. Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 11:14am

    You know, driving is a privilege, but it is denied to blind people.

    I guess the judges better rule the issuance of drivers licenses as unconstitutional.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 12:37pm

82. I would be perfectly happy to see the word marriage stricken from all legal documents. Make all such licenses and contracts defined as civil unions however the states want to define that.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 11:46am

    I agree with you on that one.

    Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 12:41pm

83. Marriage is not a privilege. The state's only legitimate interest in marriage is in-so-far as it is the best institution for raising health, emotionally well adjusted kids. If the voters of Iowa wish to extend that to the children of homosexuals, I think that would be super.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 12:07pm

    So you agree with the Iowa Supreme Court that the state has a legitimate interest in marriage as an institution. Then unless you question the Iowa constitution's clause that "the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens," I don't see how you can disagree with the court's ruling.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 1:00pm

84. You know, driving is a privilege, but it is denied to blind people.

    I guess the judges better rule the issuance of drivers licenses as unconstitutional.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 12:37pm

    That's an odd choice for a counter-example. Surely you can recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing blind people from operating motor vehicles. On the other hand, as the Iowa Supreme Court was at pains to explain in its ruling, the state has no legitimate interest in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 1:06pm

85. Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 12:34pm

    Yes, I know you've stated that many times....but that's not what I'm asking you.

    YOU cited Leviticus as an authority for your position....do you endorse the view from Leviticus that, if it was possible, that homosexuals should be put to death?

    Or do you disagree with Leviticus' injunctions...contradicting your use of it as authority?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:17pm

86. YOU cited Leviticus as an authority for your position....do you endorse the view from Leviticus that, if it was possible, that homosexuals should be put to death?

    Or do you disagree with Leviticus' injunctions...contradicting your use of it as authority?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:17pm

    Your questions pose a false dilemma. the penalty can only be applied in a nation which is under the law of Moses. Since we are not a theocracy and I have no desire to see a theocracy, nor will we ever have one, the question is moot.

    The authority that it presents is to understand that there are behaviors that separate you from G-d.

    And no Mask, even if it were possible, I don't want to see homosexuals put to death. Christ said the purpose of the law is to reveal man's sins and our need for reconciliation with G-d. He said that from His time on earth forward, we were to declare that all the penalties the law prescribes can be removed through repentance and faith in Him. We are not to re-establish the Law in nations. But that doesn't remove the fact that the Law reveals what actions separate us from G-d so that we don't have a question about it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 1:25pm

87. All that is immoral is depravity in His sight. Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 9:12pm

    Such a bold statement. But it must not include people (or nations) who torture, right? The people who tortured or ordered torture in your name will go to Heaven but those fags who want to dedicate themselves to one person for their lifetimes won't?

    The Bible, for all its good intents (and they are many and varied), is a book written by fallible men, who said they were writing the word of an infallible god. Without getting into the logic of how that is even possible (unless they were all infallible men), suffice it to say that people who believe in a specific religion take it "on faith" that what they wrote is the word of god. That is the definition of the word "faith."

    And speaking of Leviticus (since that's the Biblical source for pretty much all anti-gay hatred)...here's an argument for you: Christianity states that Jesus is the Lamb of God and his sacrifice was (among other things) a lesson to everyone that no other sacrifices to god need ever be made because his was the Ultimate sacrifice. "He died for our sins." Right?

    So, the promised Messiah had arrived and everybody should listen to him now. Thus were the books of the Christ (the "new" Testament... the implication being that the "old" testament was, by definition, supplanted) written by these fallible men.

    With Jesus' sacrifice in mind and the fact he never said a word about homosex (that made it into the final edit of the Bible), then what's the point of ANYTHING in Leviticus, except to those of the Jewish persuasion who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah? And most Jews I know think Leviticus is full of crap anyway.

    I am so tired of people who use the Bible to discriminate against others. WWJD?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/07/2009 @ 1:30pm

88. to Leviticus it is an abomination to wear clothing made up of wool and linen. the penalty for that transgression is death by stoning.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 1:35pm

89. And no Mask, even if it were possible, I don't want to see homosexuals put to death. Christ said the purpose of the law is to reveal man's sins and our need for reconciliation with G-d. He said that from His time on earth forward, we were to declare that all the penalties the law prescribes can be removed through repentance and faith in Him. We are not to re-establish the Law in nations. But that doesn't remove the fact that the Law reveals what actions separate us from G-d so that we don't have a question about it.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 1:25pm

    So BOTH it is "authoratative" AND it is "no longer applicable"? God wants us to USE Leviticus to condemn homosexuality....but NOT actually DO what Leviticus calls for as a sanction against homosexuality?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:52pm

90. So BOTH it is "authoratative" AND it is "no longer applicable"? God wants us to USE Leviticus to condemn homosexuality....but NOT actually DO what Leviticus calls for as a sanction against homosexuality?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 1:52pm

    I cannot make it any more clear than I did. We don't stone adulterers either. yet I don't see you trying to get a long drawn out series of responses on that.

    We are not a Jewish theocracy imposing the Law of Moses as the law of the land. that doesn't mean that there are not spiritual consequences for the soul.

    All sin including those involving sexual immorality separates you from G-d and brings spiritual death.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 2:47pm

91. "Man is a creature different from all that had been made amongst all his creations"

    we share 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees. just because we can make complex machines, understand complex problems, and offer complex solutions to observable phenomena, etc, does not change or diminish the uncanny biological similarities we share. now, there is the danger of biological determinism, and we need to grapple with the significance of language and culture to fully understand our differences.

    now, on the subject of hetero male fears of men making out or having intercourse, but enjoymen of lesbian sex: there is the "danger" of lesbian sex evolving into love and long-term commitment, which can "backfire" on male pleasure and threaten to castrate him, to erase him from the possibility of exterting control over women, from impregnating women, from having a biological role in the development of children.

    all i have to say about that is: bullocks. we women have the power and the wisdom to control our own minds and our own bodies. we don't necessarily need men in our lives, and there are numerous examples of matriarchal and matrilineal societies throughout history, where women did not need the phallus or penis to survive.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:06pm

92. "All sin including those involving sexual immorality separates you from G-d and brings spiritual death"

    what is "sexual immorality"? does that mean putting a penis into an anus? or does it mean sharing your life with another person with the same sex organ, or should i even dare to say, the same chromosomes?

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:09pm

93. "Man is a creature different from all that had been made amongst all his creations"

    so if god created the earth (a long, long time ago, i presume) would not "man" have been more or less the same as his ape counterparts? at what point did god create the earth? 6,000? 4 billion?

    the general consensus is 7 billion. and back then, there was no "man".....sheesh, do i even have to say this??

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:11pm

94. " where women did not need the phallus or penis to survive."

    ok, they needed *just* the penis, but not the man.

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:12pm

95. Larry, why do you quote Leviticus if "the Law no longer applies to humans since Jesus came"? If somebody cited it for "wearing clothes of more than one cloth" as a reason for why YOU wearing a poly-blend shirt was "sinful"...would you support that "authority"????

    BTW, as for...

    "All sin including those involving sexual immorality separates you from G-d and brings spiritual death."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 2:47pm

    Except murder, for one example....I mean when God says it's okay to "defend yourself", it's okay to kill somebody, right? So it's occasionally okay with God to kill your fellow man...just not marry him, right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 3:13pm

96. It's about time The Nation, America's premier liberal/progressive journal, started covering the greatest civil rights issue of our era. Your coverage last year during the California and Florida fight for fairness was pathetic and practically non-existent. Let's hope this excellent article represents a change for the better and we see more articles on this subject in the future.

    Posted by renrets7 at 05/07/2009 @ 3:16pm

97. a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

    this one's for you, Darla.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/07/2009 @ 3:19pm

98. what is "sexual immorality"? does that mean putting a penis into an anus? or does it mean sharing your life with another person with the same sex organ, or should i even dare to say, the same chromosomes?

    Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:09pm

    I already stated that for G-d's standard, all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is sexual immorality.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:24pm

99. Except murder, for one example....I mean when God says it's okay to "defend yourself", it's okay to kill somebody, right? So it's occasionally okay with God to kill your fellow man...just not marry him, right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 3:13pm

    G-d makes a clear distinction between murder and killing. Murder is the planned taking of another person's life.

    Killing is not planned, such as an accident or self defense. It is not a sin to preserve your own life when it is threatened.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:26pm

100. so if god created the earth (a long, long time ago, i presume) would not "man" have been more or less the same as his ape counterparts? at what point did god create the earth? 6,000? 4 billion?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:11pm

     No Darla, man is not an ape's counterpart (although some try to act as if they are). God forbid, you should think a lowly animal, like a primate, is considered your equal.

     I have no idea how old this beautiful earth is.

     Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 3:45pm

101. I already stated that for G-d's standard, all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is sexual immorality.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:24pm

     I should probably stay out of this, but...

     Some (especially Catholics) believe the Bible instructs that non-procreative sex within marriage is sexual immorality (I'm not sure if that is just birth control or post-menopausal sex as well).

     I'm no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that all sodomy (oral and anal) is sexual immorality, even within marriage.

     Again, I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure forcible sex without consent (a.k.a. rape) is sexual immorality within a marrage.

     Masturbation is sexual immorality, even if you are married.

     Looking a pornography is sexual immorality, even if you are married.

     I may be reaching here, but I think the Bible instructs that divorce and remarriage is actually adultery which is sexual immorality.

     The US is awash in sexual immorality. I feel helpless to do anything about it. In God's eyes, is divorce and remarriage more of a sin than homosexuality?

     I don't believe so. Jesus instructs us that God views sin as binary. Sin is sin. Anger is the same as murder; lust is the same as adultery. A husband that accepts oral sex is no better than a homosexual who accepts oral sex. A husband that masturbates is no better than a homosexual who accepts anal sex from 20 different guys in the bar's bathroom in one night. In God's view, anyway.

     I believe that the benefits of a stable home environment benefit the children in that home. I believe that as social policy, gay marriage will help more children than it will hurt. And in God's eyes, gay marriage is no worse than a stepfather or stepmother after divorce.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 3:49pm

102. "I already stated that for G-d's standard, all sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is sexual immorality"

     that has nothing to do with two people, who happen to share the same chromosomes, spending their lives together.

     and, btw, "god's standard" is irrelevant. it has absolutely nothing to do with law or democracy.

     "No Darla, man is not an ape's counterpart (although some try to act as if they are). God forbid, you should think a lowly animal, like a primate, is considered your equal.

     acook, for starters, i never said that humans are "equal" to primates. i said we share 97% of our DNA with them. we are extremely similar. in fact, almost everything they do, we do, too. some primates can even speak english. we are closer to primates than any other species. we share common ancestors.

     "I have no idea how old this beautiful earth is"

     oy! are you f*cking kidding me? it's no wonder conservatives are so unnattractive to voters! they can't accept basic scientific facts.

     the earth is between 6-7 billion years old, acook, and god didn't f*cking create it. god doesn't exist. god is a figment of your imagination.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:08pm

103. man, when you have people like acook and antisocialist, who simply don't accept the FACT that the earth is several billion years old, then how can you possibly have a debate with them?

     debates should require, as a standard for engaging in them, certain basic scientific facts to be irrefutable.

     one of these facts should be that the earth as EVOLVED for billions of years. it's as certain as the sun rises and sets. as certain as 1 + 1 = 2. as certain as veronica lario is the hottest women on earth. ok?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:12pm

104. That's an odd choice for a counter-example. Surely you can recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing blind people from operating motor vehicles.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 1:06pm

     Apparently, you haven't read what I've written dozens of times so I'm happy to write it again.

     The counter example demonstrates that the clause is not absolute. Clearly the state does grant privileges to people (driving) that it does not grant to all groups (blind people). As you mentioned, as to whether "discrimination" is constitutional or not rests on a test that comes from a SCOTUS ruling that references a State's "compelling interest".

     The state of Iowa has a compelling interest in highway safety and thus can discriminate between the sighted and the blind in extending a privilege (driver's license.)

     Continued...

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:18pm

105. Now marriage laws clearly do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Let's review:

     Any single man, past the age of majority, can marry and single woman, past the age of majority, who is not a blood relative. (Oh, there used to be an additional requirement that started in NY in 1939. You used to have to pass a blood test that was based on RH factor (+ or -) so that your children would be able to survie pregnancy.)

     So the law very clearly does not even reference sexual orientation. A gay man can marry a straight woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman. And a gay woman can marry a straight man.

     The law does not prevent this. It does not discriminate based on sexual orientation because the State doesn't care if you love the person. The current laws only care that if you decide to procreate, (and you are successful) your children have a high probability of being healthy.

     Please remember that when the states wrote their marriage laws during the 1930s and 1940s, there was no birth control pills and it was illegal to purchase condoms if you weren't married.

     Here the state's compelling interest was that the state was financially responsible for a disproportionate share of illegitimate children and it had a compelling interest in preventing them.

     Continued ...

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:18pm

106. Okay, society has evolve a lot in the last 70 years. The US is awash in sexual immorality. The pill and condoms have eliminated 99% of the physical consequenses of sexual immorality. And while the pill and condoms don't eliminate any of the spiritual consequences of immorality, it seems the vast majority of Americans don't give a shit.

     When the laws were written, the state's interest was in procreation. And that is a legitimate, compelling interest for the state to distinguish/discriminate between heterosexual couples (that have the right blood type and aren't relatives) and homosexual couples.

     If there was a way, scientifically, for homosexual couple to procreate, maybe that advancement in science could render the law unconsitutional. But it hasn't.

     So, I think there is only one legitimate way to enact gay marriage: For the voters to decide that the state's compelling interest should be consciouly shifted from procreation to raising healthy, emotionally well-adjusted children. If the voters decide that this should be the new compelling interest to sanction marriage, then the benefits of marriage would also help children of gay people, and the law would have to be changed (through the legislature) to reflect that conscious decision to change the law.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:19pm

107. man, when you have people like acook and antisocialist, who simply don't accept the FACT that the earth is several billion years old, then how can you possibly have a debate with them?

     debates should require, as a standard for engaging in them, certain basic scientific facts to be irrefutable.

     one of these facts should be that the earth as EVOLVED for billions of years. it's as certain as the sun rises and sets. as certain as 1 + 1 = 2. as certain as veronica lario is the hottest women on earth. ok?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:12pm

     Darla, I have stated that the earth is at least 4-6 billion years old so I don't know why you lumped me in that charge. But it's not evolution.

     As to debate "requiring certain basic scientific facts to be irrefutable"? Who makes that determination. There are very few scientific facts that scientists consider irrefutable. Those would include the identity of known elements, gravity, the rotation of the earth, among the basics. But the age of the earth is hardly an irrefutable fact since by your own admission, we haven't been able to establish an exact date. We can only agree on a likely range period. And even that is not truly considered "irrefutable" by all scientists.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 4:19pm

108. there are numerous examples of matriarchal and matrilineal societies throughout history, where women did not need the phallus or penis to survive.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 3:06pm

     Name one where women procreated without men.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:41pm

109. "But the age of the earth is hardly an irrefutable fact since by your own admission, we haven't been able to establish an exact date. We can only agree on a likely range period. And even that is not truly considered "irrefutable" by all scientists."

     you didn't follow the thread after acook's comments. go back and read, then you'll see what i mean.

     uh, dude. ALL scientists know for a FACT that the earth is (at least) several billion years old. but many conservatives, including acook, do not believe that. by extension, they don't believe that humans used be primates. or that we came from the ocean. or that we used to be single-celled organisms.

     all of those are FACTS. there is no doubt, dude. that we are even having this conversation proves that you cannot engage in a debate UNLESS you accept what i just said as fact.

     "If there was a way, scientifically, for homosexual couple to procreate"

     lesbians can pro-create. gays can adopt.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:44pm

110. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 11:52am </i>

     Two overviews before I get into the core of the argument. First, I argue this because I care about the truth and for no other reason. Second, I knew that you were going to try a kind of source weighing, which is why I preempted it with the arguments for why reason must be the standard. In order to prevail, your position must be logically coherent. Past that basic hurdle, it must either be supported by the weight of reason or be clearly stated by an unassailable authority. Jesus is the ONLY person who qualifies for that position.

     Your citations of Paul and Peter are not sufficient for two reasons. First, your only justification for seeing them as ultimately authoritative is faulty. The fact that Paul was taught by Jesus does not mean that EVERYTHING he says is correct. Should a woman never talk in church, or become the pastor of a church? Same with Peter. In legal language, their teachings may be persuasive but are not independently binding. The same also applies to Leviticus, because many of its commandments and many of its punishments are understood (properly) as not only unfit for a constitutional democracy, but inappropriate period.

     With that said, you have two arguments left: the fornication definition and the Genesis framework of marriage.

     First, on the definitional debate: there is not a single verse in the Bible that says anything whatsoever about lesbian intercourse. Not one. No translation of the Bible does either. Simply saying "but the Bible says other things were taught too" does not justify concluding "and therefore these things I believe must have been the other things they taught."

     Continued

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

111. and btw, darin, the laws were not "written with procreation in mind." ok?

     second, even if gays and lesbians couldn't procreate, it doesn't matter one iota.

     if gay marriage is never legal, then gays and lesbians aren't going to suddenly pro-create. they are mutually exclusive issues.

     gays and lesbians, even if they never have an opportunity to tie the knot, will never, ever procreate.

     it makes no difference to humans' survival whether they do or don't, because they only make up about 10-15% of the population.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:47pm

112. So...what we have tagged historically as "illicit sex" (i.e. fornication) addressed only male homosexual activity. You can't rely on rabbinical preaching as an authority either, for reasons I've already elucidated (Jesus clearly rejected many of their modes of thinking, both in his message and in his actions). If only male homosexual activity was ever implicated, this is a problem for your theory because it's an anomaly. I can explain it based on extant norms of male superiority and the male's role (many of which, again, Jesus explicitly rejected); how does your theory accomodate it.

     The only other argument you have is the Genesis analysis. I've already shown why your theoretical argument (complementarity like the Trinity) fails, so the only thing you have left is Jesus' alleged affirmation of the Genesis story as the unique, specific paradigm for marriage. Unfortunately for you, though he clearly TALKS about a man and a woman marrying (logical since the overwhelming majority of his audience would have been heterosexual), he never uses the kind of explicit exclusive language you would expect.

     Ultimately, you can't just hang your hat on citation of sources, because any compelling theological analysis must ultimately be compatible with reason (God being the source of reason, etc.). That means that you can't simply ignore all of the arguments that call your position into serious question. That's especially true when you're attacking a mode of being that is never directly addressed in the Bible (acts don't equal homosexuality), for which there is no intuitive basis for moral criticism, and which has been and will continue to be endemic to the human species.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 4:54pm

113. "That's especially true when you're attacking a mode of being that is never directly addressed in the Bible (acts don't equal homosexuality), for which there is no intuitive basis for moral criticism, and which has been and will continue to be endemic to the human species."

     homosexuality exists in other species.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 5:03pm

114. they can't accept basic scientific facts.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:08pm

     debates should require, as a standard for engaging in them, certain basic scientific facts to be irrefutable.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:12pm *********************************************************

     Darla, is your college degree in science? I didn't think so. Contrary to popular believe, scientific facts don't exist.

     There are scentific theories, models, methods, conjectures, observations, etc. There can even be scientific consensus, but no scientific facts.

     Facts are used in courts, not labs.

     For instance was the statement, "the earth is flat" a fact? Okay that's too long ago.

     When I got my degree in physics in 1988, it was thought that atoms were comprised of indivisible particles called protons, elections, and neutrons. This "theory" was developed by Niels Bohr. It turns out this theory was wrong. The particle are not indivisible. They are made up of leptons and quarks and others, which are in turn, made up of 12 fundamental particles called strings. This is the most widely accepted current theory.

     The scientific consensus among astrophysists and geologists is that the earth is 6 billion years old (about half the age of the universe). That seems about right to me. But it is not a fact that the earth is 6 billion years old. It is a fact that many scientists BELIEVE it is 6 billion years old, but that is a different thing.

     Facts can be established from personal observation or testimony of personal observation. There are no personal observations regarding the age of the earth. So, the earth's age is not a scientific facts.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 5:05pm

115. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:19pm

     I've read this argument from you before, and it still doesn't make sense. Neither I nor the Iowa Supreme Court disagree with you that the equal protection clause is not absolute. Of course the state may treat some classes of people differently from others in a variety of situations. Where you and the ISC part ways is in your interpretations of the basis for the state's interest in marriage. Nothing in the Iowa Constitution or Iowa law requires that married couples procreate, or even that they can reasonably be expected to procreate. Rather, at least since the 19th century, courts have recognized that marriage is not just a contract for the production of children, or even for the financial support of one or both parties. As one 1894 ISC decision put it, "the marriage state is not one entered into for the purpose of labor and support alone. Considerations of the highest character, as the comfort and happiness of the parties to the marriage contract, and the welfare of their children, give to each the right to the affection, companionship, and society of the other." Thus, in this year's ISC ruling on same-sex marriage, the court states, "our marriage laws 'are rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.'" And it is on the basis of this broader state interest, rather than the much narrower interest of procreation, that state laws on marrige have been enacted, and court opinions decided, for more than a century.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 5:13pm

116. The law does not prevent this. It does not discriminate based on sexual orientation because the State doesn't care if you love the person. The current laws only care that if you decide to procreate, (and you are successful) your children have a high probability of being healthy.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:18pm

     And it is for this reason that the ISC disagrees with your conclusion that the law doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. A law was enacted that in both aim and effect served to deny to one class of people (one that has been historically discriminated against) the privileges given to another class (the majority). As the decision states: "the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class--their sexual orientation. [citations omitted] The benefit denied by the marriage statute--the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples--is so "closely correlated with being homosexual" as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class." And thus it violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 5:22pm

117. and btw, darin, the laws were not "written with procreation in mind." ok?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:47pm

     No, it's not ok because you are clearly wrong. Every single one of the 50 marriage laws prohibit marriage among siblings, parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles. All but a couple prohibt marriage among first cousins: Why?

     Because the children of blood relatives have a statistically proven incidence of birth defects far in excess of non related individuals.

     Up until medical science developed treatments for the fetuses of parents that have the wrong RH factors, every single state required a blood test in order to get married. Why?

     Because the children of parents with the wrong RH factors typically don't survive pregnancy without medical intervetion.

     The other requirement for marriage in all 50 states is age of majority (have to be 18). Well, civil marriage is ultimately a contract and contract law requires the age of majority. (That's not entirely true. Actually, the law allows minors to contract, but almost any contract is voidable by a minor once he reaches the age of majority.)

     And what do you know? There are also exceptions to this limitation. I've heard that in Kansas, minor above the age of 14 or 15 or 16, can legally marry without thier parrents permission, provided the woman is pregnant.

     Everything about existing marriage laws (well prior to changes for gay marriage) concerns sexual procreation.

     They do not estiblish fertility (because they didn't have such tests when the laws were written.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 5:23pm

118. Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 5:22pm

     Whoops, I didn't mean to quote you there, Darin. The "for this reason" in my first line refers to my previous post, not to your post.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 5:24pm

119. Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 5:22pm

     Your is by far the best response I have ever recieved on this topic.

     Now, here's a question: The ruling in 1894, was that a ruling on common law marriage? Becuase my understanding is that Iowa's marriage statute wasn't written until 1940, give or take a decade.

     Unfortunately I have to go so I will check for a reply tomorrow.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 5:36pm

120. darin, did you get your physics degree from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College? Quantum mechanics has been around since the early part of the 20th century, so you either got one shithouse education, or you were sleeping through too many classes.

     Posted by entropy at 05/07/2009 @ 5:46pm

121. Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

     Let's start with your 1st argument. Your premise is that only "red letter" words spoken by Jesus carry full authority? That premise is only accepted by very, very few individuals and no theologians. So, you have no weight of authority behind that premise.

     2nd which continues the 1st; On what authority do you exclude Paul and Peter? You only have your personal opinion and again, a very few individuals. To take this stand, you must dismiss the words of Jesus in John 16

     <"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.>

     So, either Jesus lied, or the Apostles, including Paul then wrote and spoke what Jesus revealed to them through the Holy Spirit.

     I would also direct you to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy

     http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

     And the 8 Rules of Interpretation

     http://www.digistat.com/gcf/8rules.htm

     <The same also applies to Leviticus, because many of its commandments and many of its punishments are understood (properly) as not only unfit for a constitutional democracy, but inappropriate period>

     Nowhere and at no time have I suggested implementing Mosaic law into the constitution. My comments have been about the spiritual state of people, not their legal status.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 5:52pm

122. also, you are reading too much brian green if you think that string theory is currently the most widely accepted theory of particle physics. the standard model still prevails.

     Posted by entropy at 05/07/2009 @ 5:53pm

123. Adults debating a childrens' fairytale. Outstanding. Rev. clusterbomb- if you discard one "fact" from the bible, such as the age of the earth being 6000 years, then your position is utterly inconsistent logically. Circa 6 billion fucking years seems an awful big goof up by an omnipotent entity. Shoddy work at best.

     Posted by entropy at 05/07/2009 @ 5:59pm

124. it makes no difference to humans' survival whether they do or don't, because they only make up about 10-15% of the population.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:47pm

     Actually, the figure is 1-3%.

     The CDC reported that a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth set the number closer to 2.8% of adults claiming homosexuality.

     In 1993, USA Today reported that only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 30 said they had a same-sex experience in the last decade.

     In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that respondents who claimed they were active homosexuals only numbered .7%.

     As far back as 1988 a Canadian survey found that 98% of first-year college students under 25 indicated they were heterosexual.

     And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

     in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.

     In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian."

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 6:07pm

125. "Because the children of blood relatives have a statistically proven incidence of birth defects far in excess of non related individuals"

     this has *nothing* to do with your claim that "marriage laws were written with procreation in mind."

     and you actually want to debate how old the earth is? re-read the thread with acook, and then get back to me.

     please, i'm not going to get into a debate over semantics when all i was trying to prove was that the earth is older than when humans evolved from primates. WAY older.

     "Everything about existing marriage laws (well prior to changes for gay marriage) concerns sexual procreation."

     this is FLATLY FALSE. if i want to get married, i don't need to procreate. that statement, in and of itself, utterly demolishes your claim that "everything about existing marriage laws" CONCERNS sexual procreation.

     what does "concern" or "in mind" even mean? absolutely f*cking NOTHING, that's what they mean.

     why? because, as i just said, i don't have to procreate in order to get married.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:09pm

126. antisocialist, even *if* your bullshit statistics were correct, you are proving my point even further that homosexuality is NOT A THREAT TO THE SURVIVABILITY OF THE SPECIES.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:11pm

127. darin and antisocialist:

     incapable of going to the entire point of the matter: the laws of the land guarantee equality under the law for all human beings regardless of sexual orientation.

     period.

     whether people procreate, or not; whether they fornicate with members of the same sex, or not; whether they are into deeply into porn or BDSM, or not; whether they dig black, lesbian, transsexual hermaphrodites, or not; whether they have sex out of marriage, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with anything, other than your own deranged curiosity.

     homosexuality, even in and of itself, has nothing to do with "marriage," per se. to be able to marry in america, you only need be: a) a human; and b) of a certain age, and c) american.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:15pm

128. antisocialist-We have no idea who Jesus was referring to in John 16 and have no reason at all to assume it was Paul and the books with Peters name on them were,probably,not written by him.In fact,the same person may not have written both books.It is unfortunate that we do not have all of the teachings and writings and nothing original or even close to original.We are not even sure if the apostles taught the same things.One does not need authority to explore other views since Jesus said that the Way was narrow and few would find it and those authorities are the majority opinions so it is good to explore the roads less traveled.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/07/2009 @ 6:18pm

129. antisocialist, even *if* your bullshit statistics were correct, you are proving my point even further that homosexuality is NOT A THREAT TO THE SURVIVABILITY OF THE SPECIES.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:11pm

     I have never said that homosexuality is a threat to the survival of mankind.

     As to the stats, you are arguing with the US census and LAMBDA among the list.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 6:35pm

130. the stats are, first, irrelevant in this case. second, even if they were relevant, they don't take in mind how many homosexuals are *prevented from being homosexuals* because of bigots like yourself. third, regarding your comment that you never said homosexuals were a threat to the survivability of the species: darin remarked that marriage laws were "written with procreation in mind," assuming he obvious meant "to prolong the species."

     well, this simply isn't true. and even if it were true, it has nothing to do with preventing homosexuals from marriage.

     please, read the continuation of threads which you missed in order to adequately address my points.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:42pm

131. Murder is the planned taking of another person's life.

     Killing is not planned, such as an accident or self defense. It is not a sin to preserve your own life when it is threatened.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 3:26pm

     Doesn't an army PLAN to kill the enemy???

     Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 6:52pm

132. Doesn't an army PLAN to kill the enemy???

     Posted by Mask at 05/07/2009 @ 6:52pm

     No, an army (at least ours) plans to defeat an enemy; killing them is done if it must be; but Army plans always involve the possibility of an enemy surrendering.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:05pm

133. "No, an army (at least ours) plans to defeat an enemy; killing them is done if it must be; but Army plans always involve the possibility of an enemy surrendering."

     do we really need any more proof that antisocialist will say whatever, just to have to avoid admitting that he is so, so wrong about almost every major topic?

     an army doesn't plan to kill, it just plans to defeat?

     uh-huh. right.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 7:17pm

134. isn't the building of bombs, tanks, and weapons part of the "planning phase" of building and army?

     ergo, wouldn't the "planning" involve the "preparation for killing"?

     duh

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 7:26pm

135. isn't the building of bombs, tanks, and weapons part of the "planning phase" of building and army?

     ergo, wouldn't the "planning" involve the "preparation for killing"?

     duh

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 7:26pm

     That does not equate to the necessity of killing.

     And to add to both you and Mask. War still comes under the moral principle of self defense. And as such is not considered murder.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:32pm

136. I disagree with Mr. Nichols's use of the phrase "marriage equality." The issue of gay marriage is an issue of equality, period. In the phrase, "gay Americans," the only legally relative word is Americans. Every American is entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other. Anything less is discrimination.

     And I must say, I was moved by Gov. Baldacci's public statement on the matter. Here's a guy who cares more about his state, his country, and the rule of law than he does about his own personal feelings. You have to applaud a guy like that.

     Posted by bushleeg at 05/07/2009 @ 7:37pm

137. why don't we just call antisocialist.......

     The Great Obfuscator

     ??

     or, Reverand Poopy Head

     ??

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 7:50pm

138. incapable of going to the entire point of the matter: the laws of the land guarantee equality under the law for all human beings regardless of sexual orientation.

     period.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 6:15pm

     And under a strict interpretation of the law you have perfect equality. The law says a single woman past the age of majority (such as yourself) can marry a single man past the age of majority, that is not a blood relative.

     Are you legallay able to marry a single man? Yes you can. there is not discrimination given a strict interpretation of the law.

     In order to claim discrimination you have to invent things that aren't in the law. You have to invent the right to marry the person you love. Show me one damn law that says the people getting married must be in love. Or that they must have the option of being in love. There isn't one. There is no right to marry the person you love. it's not in the law. You have to make it up.

     Yes, I did have the opportunity to marry the person I loved, but the law didn't require it.

     But just suppose that I loved my wife so much that I had an orgasm every time I looked at her and we got married. Would that make the law unconsitutional? I got to do something you couldn't so it must be discrimination according to your interpretation.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:08pm

139. Quantum mechanics has been around since the early part of the 20th century, so you either got one shithouse education, or you were sleeping through too many classes.

     Posted by entropy at 05/07/2009 @ 5:46pm

     I didn't need Quantum mechanics for the degree and I lost interest after E&M so I didn't take it. (I actually double majored with math and concentrated on the math part my senior year. Better prep for the actuarial exams.)

     I did enjoy Brian Greene's book though.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:12pm

140. "y! are you f*cking kidding me? it's no wonder conservatives are so unnattractive to voters! they can't accept basic scientific facts."

     "he earth is between 6-7 billion years old, acook, and god didn't f*cking create it. god doesn't exist. god is a figment of your imagination."

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 4:08pm

     Darla, what science guessed about the earth's age is not a fact, it's only a theory.

     Also, you may not believe in God, but this earth was created by something far greater then the human mind could ever possibly conceive and science understands that.

     Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 8:29pm

141. Adults debating a childrens' fairytale.

     Posted by entropy at 05/07/2009 @ 5:59pm

     Have you taught your 5-year old calculus yet?

     5-year olds are told the "fairytale" version of God because that is the limit of their understanding. As the child developes intellectually, they are instructed in the history in the Bible, but they are still too intellectually immature to fully appreciate religion and spirituality.

     As the person matures into adulthood, they are encouraged to continue to study the Bible and explore their faith. This is a life-long journey of discovery.

     Some people lack the ability to think in abstract ways and never get beyond the "fairytale" explaination: that doesn't mean they aren't well-served to accept the fairytale explanation that, as best it can, captures eternal truths that bring comfort, joy, peace, and a sense of purpose to billion of people the world over.

     To the people who can understand abstract concepts such as perfect selflessness, a humility to accept the wisdom of the ages, what it means to live a moral life, they are well served to continue their journey, continutally challenging thier faith in an effort to achieve a deeper understanding of the eternal Truths of the universe.

     The zeroth law of thermodynamics states...

     The zeroth law of politics is never belive your own bullshit. Yes there are adults with childlike understandings of God. It may help feed your need to feel superiority to those you disagree with, but these people are not representative of all people of faith, which is too bad.

     "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Luke 18:17

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:33pm

142. <i>Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 5:03pm </i>

     Right; that was part of the points. I'm saying when you have a mode of being that exists throughout nature (i.e. in multiple other species), for which there is no clear moral wrong, etc., the burden is on you (meaning those condemning homosexuality) to say that it is wrong.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 8:34pm

143. So entropy, the law of entropy states that systems of order degenerate into systems of disorder over time.

     The big bang was a spontaneous burst of order out of nothingness, and ever since we have been on a downward slope to equilibrium.

     Brain Greene can explain how the heavier elements are formed in the cores of super massive stars and are then distributed throughout the galaxy at nearly the speed of light after the super massive star goes supernova.

     Can you explain how heavier elements spontaneously organize themselves into a human brain?

     Evolution doesn't cut it. You need to explain why evolution violates entropy.

     At a minimum, I need God for that. God doesn't have to be conscious, and doesn't have to exhibit human emotions like anger, love, pity, etc. I need to know why evolotion violates entropy, and how my actions relate to that.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:42pm

144. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:33pm

     I still disagree with the Feds and the state getting involve in the marriage business.

     I believe they've overstepped their boundaries. And I'm of the belief that the main reason the writers of the constitution did not include a statute for marriage is probably due to the idea that marriage was considered a religous ceremony that needent involve them.

     As I recall, marriage and divorce were performed by the church. Why that changed, I don't know.

     Posted by ACook at 05/07/2009 @ 8:54pm

145. this just in:

     JESUS IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE

     The J-man himself has spoken. in Matt 15:19, he clearly points out that "fornication" is evil.

     There is only one possible interpretation. Jesus wanted gay people to get married, because by being married, they are no longer guilty of "fornication", defined as "sex outside of marriage".

     Posted by canaro71 at 05/07/2009 @ 9:13pm

146. Now, here's a question: The ruling in 1894, was that a ruling on common law marriage? Becuase my understanding is that Iowa's marriage statute wasn't written until 1940, give or take a decade. Unfortunately I have to go so I will check for a reply tomorrow. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 5:36pm

     It's possible that the current form of the marriage statute wasn't written until then, but as an amateur genealogist, I can tell you that every state (and former territory) in the US that I've ever done research in has had some sort of civil marriage law since its inception. I'm unaware of any state or territory that did not allow for civil marriages before a judge or a justice of the peace as well as before a minister of the gospel (early Iowa law allowed marriage before a city mayor as well; I'm not sure if that's still on the books). Iowa (which became a state in 1846) had a requirement for a state-approved marriage license by the early 1850s, if not earlier.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 9:13pm

147. And under a strict interpretation of the law you have perfect equality. The law says a single woman past the age of majority (such as yourself) can marry a single man past the age of majority, that is not a blood relative.

     In order to claim discrimination you have to invent things that aren't in the law.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:08pm

     And in the Jim Crow South, everyone was allowed to vote provided they passed a literacy test or paid a poll tax, with exceptions granted to anyone whose grandfather had been allowed to vote before 1866 or who had lived in a foreign country then. This law applied equally to everyone, so it was perfectly just, right? Just because a law, under a strict interpretation, applies equally to everyone doesn't mean that it doesn't have the effect of unconstitutionally denying certain groups the same rights or privileges enjoyed by others.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 9:39pm

148. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 5:52pm </i>

     Now that things seem to have distilled themselves into a couple of issues, I have to disagree with you about the majority opinion. First off, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that inerrancy is NOT the dominant paradigm. Second, I KNOW that the kind of inerrancy you're defending here isn't the majority; virtually no one, for instance, says that women have to cover their heads and be silent in church, though taking everything Paul says as authoritative would necessitate that conclusion. Third, truth doesn't work by majority-rule anyway; that which is logically flawed is false, regardless of how many or how few people adhere to it.

     That, I think, is the real problem you run into here. Since God represents perfection of (among other attributes) reason, it follows that if a position is logically incoherent, he would not hold or endorse it. Therefore, logical incoherence is a trump card. Moreover, you can only defend your position by either infallible authority or compelling argument.

     Your attempt to use infallible authority fails. Paul and Peter are NOT infallible authorities. They make statements which are morally problematic, AND the quotation you give from Jesus does not suggest otherwise. It says that he will inspire them to write and say things, but does not say that everything they write and say is necessarily inspired. One really clear indicator of this is that some of Paul's statements about women run directly contrary to how Jesus treated women during his life.

     The Leviticus stuff had nothing to do with legal implementation. My point was that the fact of Leviticus prohibiting X is not an open-and-shut justification for X being immoral.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 9:39pm

149. "Also, you may not believe in God, but this earth was created by something far greater then the human mind could ever possibly conceive and science understands that"

     science doesn't hold that God created the universe. and there is no evidence that God (whatever that is) created the universe. unless you can prove otherwise.

     "I still disagree with the Feds and the state getting involve in the marriage business"

     so, you must be opposed to straight marriage, too. and until straigh marriage is outlawed, you must, ipso facto, support gay marriage.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 10:15pm

150. thrawn, just curious why you lend any credence whatsoever to biblical "testimony"?

     you reason with great care and diligence, so why even go there?

     isn't it like giving credence to theories of "intelligent design"?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 10:23pm

151. <i>Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 10:23pm </i>

     Quite simply, I find much of the testimony credible. As I've said to antisocialist, I think that many of the texts represent a combination of inspiration and fallible human opinions, but I do think that the testimony of a person who claimed to be God, did miracles and forgave sins in God's name, and (by accounts that seem credible) was worshipped after being resurrected from the dead, is extraordinarily compelling. It's an interesting area, certainly, and I can understand why many people don't find the accounts credible; I just disagree.

     First, I think Jesus definitely existed; history seems to point emphatically in that direction. I also think there's good reason to conclude that he said what the gospel writers say he did, and that he was executed, raised, and that his resurrection and subsequent appearances provide the most reasonable explanation for the subsequent birth of Christianity.

     As far as the miraculous parts, that engages the more fundamental question of whether God exists. I think there are strong arguments that he does, and in addition to thinking that his creation of the universe seems to be the most plausible explanation of its origin, see no reason why he couldn't also tamper both with its natural evolution and with particular events in history.

     One important note, by the way, is that much of the reasoning for the above positions is theological and philosophical rather than scientific. Science is incapable of disproving God, but I think science also falls short in proving his existence even if it can indicate it.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 11:04pm

152. "Science is incapable of disproving God, but I think science also falls short in proving his existence even if it can indicate it"

     i can't believe you just said that. sorry, but i just lost a lot of respect for your intellect.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:13pm

153. War still comes under the moral principle of self defense. And as such is not considered murder.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:32pm

     tell that to the souls haunting you....

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/07/2009 @ 11:36pm

154. "Quite simply, I find much of the testimony credible"

     "credible" in the sense that jesus's teachings allowed one to relieve oneself of suffering, in the same sense that buddha's teachings had?

     or "credible" because the testimony was ostensibly accurate?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:47pm

155. thrawn,

     2000 years ago, people were a lot less nice.

     so, if some dude shows up and gives food to the sick, people were like "whoa"!

     ••••

     if someone came down from the mountain today and said they were the son of god, it's off to bellevue.

     ••••

     two taxis crash. minor scrapes. but mr. witness tells his buddies, "broken arms!". and they tell their buddies, "blood everywhere! six dead!".

     the bible was written long times ago.....

     ••••

     just one more wacky book. if god is so smart, why does she write so many contradictions? "god" doesn't write books.

     ••••

     god is a moth. and ragweed. god is you. even larry.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/07/2009 @ 11:47pm

156. frosty,

     god is raptor!

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:57pm

157. <i>Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:13pm </i>

     Why? Which part? I made 2 claims:

     1) Science cannot disprove God. Seems pretty intuitive.

     2) Science cannot prove God. Also seems pretty reasonable.

     3) Science has the capacity to indicate that God exists. What do I mean by this? For instance, if science were to establish that time and space had a beginning, that would lend credibility to the argument that the universe was caused rather than eternal, which naturally raises questions about the nature of the cause (especially since any such cause would have to, by definition, transcend space and time). Why is this problematic?

     <i>Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:47pm </i>

     The latter; my standard is objective truth rather than mere utility.

     <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 05/07/2009 @ 11:47pm </i>

     If someone came down from a mountain and claimed divine sanction for their actions, skepticism seems like the most rational response. That's not the real question, though; the real question is whether such skepticism could be overcome. The question underlying that is: could anyone possibly convey a message from God? The answer to that isn't obvious, but I would argue that there exist good grounds for saying yes.

     I don't think God wrote the Bible, and I also don't think that the Bible should be understood as a book of rules. What I think it tells, however, is how God acts for good through fallible human beings endowed with free will and capable of both great good and great evil.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 12:30am

158. Evolution doesn't cut it. You need to explain why evolution violates entropy. At a minimum, I need God for that. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 8:42pm

     Evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. If the earth were a closed system, I'd admit there was something curious going on, but the banal scientific explanation is that the earth isn't a closed system. We're continually getting massive amounts of energy from the sun, so any localized decrease in entropy here is compensated for elsewhere in the system.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 01:14am

159. "So, either Jesus lied, or the Apostles, including Paul then wrote and spoke what Jesus revealed to them through the Holy Spirit."

     Well the problem is, Jesus didn't explicitly say in that quote that the this person is the Apostles. He didn't name a person eplicitly. On top of that he DID explicitly say it would be ONE person, not more than one. So it isn't consistent with the thought that it denotes all of the Apostles.

     You can make the argument that it was the Holy Spirit passing the message to people, but then how do we know who had the message passed to them by the Holy Spirit and who just drank a bit too much wine?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 01:43am

160. so any localized decrease in entropy here is compensated for elsewhere in the system.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 01:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

     And your proof is...... oh none as usual!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 05/08/2009 @ 01:49am

161. "Science is incapable of disproving God, but I think science also falls short in proving his existence even if it can indicate it"

     i can't believe you just said that. sorry, but i just lost a lot of respect for your intellect.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/07/2009 @ 11:13pm

     This is perfectly accurate actually Darla. Just because you an I choose not to believe doesn't mean you can disprove this. Let me ask you. If God doesn't exist then scientifically prove it.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 02:36am

162. Here I must repeat myself: the law as written does not make any distinction between heterosexauls and homosexuals. The institution is availble to both and clearly the impetus for writing the law was not discrimination against homosexuals.

     In order to conclude that the law is defective you must assume it means things that aren't in the text.

     The Liberal judges is forced to speculate that in the Penumbra to marriage laws there must be some consideration of love. Oh really, why? In the US there is a long history that includes arranged marriages. I wouldn't say it is common, but they are not non-existent and they are every bit as valid as marriages based on love. So why is one forced to believe that the authors of the marriage law must have implied that marriage is to be based on love?

     In fact, you are not forced to make this speculation about missing motivations in the test of the law. If you choose to, it is because you believe that your opinions carry as much weight as the law. Just like the racist sourthern judges did in upholding Jim Crow.

     Society is changing. There is a much broader acceptance of homosexual relationships. Just because a new law would be better does not mean the old law is automatically unconsitutional. The arrogant judges should give The People of Iowa the opportunity to write a better law rather than writing the new law for them because they are just too stupid to be trusted to get it right.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 07:26am

163. And in the Jim Crow South,

     Posted by richcarl at 05/07/2009 @ 9:39pm

     The problem with the Jim Crow analogy is that The People elected to change the laws of this representative republic in the constitutionally appropriate way and amended the Constitution on 12/6/1965, 7/9/1868, and 2/3/1870 to abolish slavery, enact the 14th amendment, and protect voting rights of blacks, respectively.

     The People were not a homogeneous group and there were many on the losing side of the vote (and history) and Jim Crow was an explicit attempt to get around the new Law in areas of the country where the new Law wasn't supported. Unfortunately, activist judges were all too happy to read into the new law their own opinions which clearly weren't in text of the laws, but the racist southern judges pretended that their opinions and values must be in the penumbras and such.

     When marriage laws were written in 1940 ± a decade, they weren't written to exclude gays. They were written to address evolving issues related to civil law (I know I said procreation, be patient).

     For at least 6000 year (which is recorded history, please I know the world is 6 billion) the nuclear family has been the most basic social unit of society. The vast majority of all humans are hard wired for life-long pair bonding which, scientists speculate, evolved as a biological advantage for child rearing.

     Marriage laws were intended to clarify "marriage" because common law marriage wasn't completely clear as to what it meant in each state's civil courts. The reason the state got involved at all is because of the 6000 year legacy of this "contract" that is the most common for the vast majority of humans.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 07:26am

164. Posts out of order again. Sorry.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 07:27am

165. You know, It is highly appropriate for this type of a forum to discuss what the laws should be; everyone has an opinion on that, but it is kind of ridiculous that we argue Consitutional law when almost no one is a consitutional lawyer here.

     For instance, how can we even begin to discuss this without the proper context of the other laws in existence when the laws were written. Again, I'm no lawyer, but it is my understanding that the marriage laws were intertwined three other laws that I beleive were present in all 50 states.

     I believe the marriage laws were written after the other three laws that were already on the books.

     First states had laws against fornication: Any man having sex with an unmarried woman is guilty of fornication.

     Then there was the adultery law: Any man having sex with a married woman who is not his wife, is guilty of adultery.

     Then there was the sodomy laws which did not have an exemption for married couples. Texas's sodomy law was declared unconsitutional in the last decade or so based on the right to privacy which is contained in the non-existent text of the constitution.

     All of these laws were perfectly constitional when the marriage laws were written. Then public opinions changed and apparently the text in the non-existent portion or the Constitution chaged also.

     That's one pretty fucked up way to run a legal system, when non-existent texts change and only the prevailing opinions and whims of the countries most liberal judges get to tell us how they changed.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 08:08am

166. No, an army (at least ours) plans to defeat an enemy; killing them is done if it must be; but Army plans always involve the possibility of an enemy surrendering.-----Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:05pm

     "if must be"???? Sorry, Larry, but what war in history was won by NOT killing the enemy?

     (BTW, folks, another example of Larry trying to parse his words so that he doesn't contradict himself. "Planning on killing is a sin" but "An army doesn't plan on killing the enemy...just defeating them"?!?!?!????....ROFLMAO!)

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 08:21am

167. And the US moves a little closer to the ideal of the Constitution.

     Posted by annakis at 05/08/2009 @ 08:42am

168. If God doesn't exist then scientifically prove it. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 02:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you cannot prove a negative.

     god exists in the mind of the believer. that's good enough for me.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 09:03am

169. "if must be"???? Sorry, Larry, but what war in history was won by NOT killing the enemy?

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 08:21am

     Point one, you are taking advantage of Larry's lack of characters (only 1800). For brevity, he described "murder" as "planned killing" as opposed to reacting in self defense. But if your life is threatend and you go and get a gun and then shoot the person who threatens your life, you made plans but that doesn't make it murder, it's still self defense and Larry indicated that when he said that war is considered a form of self defense.

     If an alien comes to earth and takes you 20 years into the future and shows you that you are murdered by a person who is a baby now and then returns you to the present and you kill the baby in his crib is that murder or self-defense?

     Who the hell knows, but it does show that the concept of murder, which is heavily intertwined with motive and intent, cannot be perfectly described in a 1000 page book yet when Larry tries to explain it in two words you jump his shit because it isn't a perfect explaination. For general discussion that doen't inlcude how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, planned killing is an acceptable was to distinguish it from self defense.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:06am

170. darin, your understanding of entropy is extremely superficial if you believe that the second law applies to an open system such as the earth. Your anthropocentric assessment of evolution as somehow trending towards greater order is also highly flawed.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 09:07am

171. Here I must repeat myself: the law as written does not make any distinction between heterosexauls and homosexuals. The institution is availble to both and clearly the impetus for writing the law was not discrimination against homosexuals.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 07:26am

     You may be right about the impetus for writing the original marriage laws (though again, marriage laws have been around since Iowa became a state, if not earlier, not just since the 1940s). But the late 1990s Iowa law specifying that marriage was between one man and one woman was clearly intended to discriminate against homosexuals. That's why the Iowa Supreme Court found it unconstitutional.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 09:09am

172. Darin, you seem to at least have some intellectual curiosity and some ethics, so why do you persist in defending the odious reverend? The man is obviously a willfully blind sociopath who will perform any semantic gymnastics necessary to maintain his cognitive dissonance.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 09:14am

173. Point two: The US military's weapon of choice for the vast majority of its combat troops is the M-16.

     I'm not in the military, but a friend of mine who was told me that the M-16 fires a .226 caliber round. That is 6 one thousands of an in larger than a .22 caliber round that is suitible for hunting squirels and almost nothing larger.

     The purpose of using such a small round is to incapacitate the target as well as any personnel needed to care and transport the wounded soldier. With one shot you can incapacitate three soldier (two to carry the one shot) without killing anyone.

     Mask, in Dessert Storm, how many of those laser guilded missles did we drop on soldiers as compared to munitions plants, elecricty generating station, bridges, railroad infrustructure, etc.

     The US has fought a number of wars where the objective was not the killing of soldier but the disabling of the enemies command structure and ability to prosecute war against others.

     In the GWOT, we are fighting an enemy we consider irrational with the ultimate goal being the murder of US citizens, against that kind of enemy, killing is the only way to save US citizens because the probability of reasoning with such a person is nil. But this war is very different from the first Gulf war were th objective wasn't killing soldier (although that was necessary in some instances) the objective was to disable the miliatary abilities of Saddam.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:16am

174. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:06am

     No, Darin, I take advantage of him ...wanting it both ways.

     Did ANY of that post of yours explain how going to war an army isn't "planning on killing the enemy"? Which IS Larry's definition of "murder".

     It's not about the "self defense" aspect...it's about WHAT HE SAID.

     Again, can you name a war that was won by NOT killing the enemy, since he seems to think it's an "option"???

     "No, an army (at least ours) plans to defeat an enemy; killing them is done if it must be..."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:05pm)

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 09:26am

175. Darin-Those bullets are designed to tear you up and kill you in a most painful fashion.They tumble once they enter the body and rip you to shreds.It is impossible to claim self defense if you go to someone elses house or country and attack them when they did not attack you first.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 09:35am

176. so any localized decrease in entropy here is compensated for elsewhere in the system.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 01:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

     And your proof is...... oh none as usual!

     Posted by comancheamerican at 05/08/2009 @ 01:49am

     For evidence, just read any basic biology textbook. Mine says that the earth receives energy from the sun totalling 1.3 septillion calories per year (that's 13 followed by 23 zeroes). Of this, about a third is reflected back into space in the form of light. Much of the rest is converted to heat and fuels the water cycle and other atmospheric processes on earth. Less than 1% is required to fuel all of the life processes on earth, including evolution. In fact, life on earth is possible precisely because of the second law of thermodynamics. If the sun weren't spewing off heat and light into the coldness of space in unimaginable quantities, exactly as the second law predicts, we wouldn't be here now.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 09:35am

177. darin, your understanding of entropy is extremely superficial ...

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 09:07am

     I readily concede that. Mathematicaly I know what it means to say that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area and not it volume; however, I lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate what the implication of that statement mean.

     But I'm okay with that because the entropy of one balck hole versus another doesn't really affect me in my day-to-day life.

     But I do understand that shuffling a deck of cards mixes them up. I do understand that sharp things become dull if you scratch them against harder objects. I also understand that a can of pop get warmer in the Iowa summer air, but a freshly cooked steak gets cooler.

     I don't understand why life gets more and more complex. Random mutation doesn't seem plausible to me. Neo-darwinism (which I also have a very superficial understanding of) seems more plausible. (My understanding of neo-darwinsim is that bacteria placed in an acidic environment will mutate and adaptive change much faster than random mutation can explain. Why?)

     I don't understand what the eternal Truths tell regarding my actions with respect to future evolution.

     First there was Neandrathal then Homo Sapien. There seems evidence of interbreeding between the species, but eventually Neandrathal man died out. Is that because he had a moral obligation to die out? was it random chance? Did Homo Sapien hunt him to extinction?

     If we discover a "tribe" of say 10,000 in the amazon with IQ's of 500 and heartier immune systems and computer technologies far in excess of anthing Homo Sapien possess, all running on cold fusion should we exterminate them out of self defense? Interbreed? Should we committ mass suicide?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:41am

178. But the late 1990s Iowa law specifying that marriage was between one man and one woman was clearly intended to discriminate against homosexuals. That's why the Iowa Supreme Court found it unconstitutional.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 09:09am

     I don't see it that way. I see it as an attempt to defend the traditional definition of marriage as being primarily about procreation. It was an attempt to preclude activist judges from rewriting the laws with is the province of the legislature not the judges.

     Again, historical context. The defense of marriage act was passed after an assult by liberal judges was thwarted on other states. As someone who struggle with word much more than math, I am very forgiving if they didn't explicitly say procreation but felt it was inextricably intertwined in the definition of man and woman.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:48am

179. Again, can you name a war that was won by NOT killing the enemy, since he seems to think it's an "option"???

     "No, an army (at least ours) plans to defeat an enemy; killing them is done if it must be..."---Posted by antisocialist at 05/07/2009 @ 7:05pm)

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 09:26am

     Mask, the objective of the first gulf war to eliminate Saddam's ability to make war on Kuait.

     We achieved that objective by targeting infrustruture in Bagdahd. Yes, thousands of soldiers were killed, but that was not the objective, and had we been able to kill fewer, we would have.

     So the soldiers who were killed as the unavoidable consequense of destroying infrustructure were not murdered.

     Is that your point? That Bush 41 should be convicted of murder for the deaths of the Iraqi soldiers that were unavoidable in achiving our objective of disabling Saddam's ability to make war on Kuait?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:55am

180. It is impossible to claim self defense if you go to someone elses house or country and attack them when they did not attack you first.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 09:35am

     I wouldn't say impossible. Women have gotten away with shooting their husbands in their sleep, by claiming self defense. I wouldn't say impossilbe.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:59am

181. If an alien comes to earth

     what the f*ck? this is an intelligent discussion?

     let me tell you about my toenail ....

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:04am

182. Again, historical context. The defense of marriage act was passed after an assult by liberal judges was thwarted on other states. As someone who struggle with word much more than math, I am very forgiving if they didn't explicitly say procreation but felt it was inextricably intertwined in the definition of man and woman.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:48am

     I think that a lot of the problem is that no one--legislatures or courts--has spent a lot of time defining precisely why state-sanctioned marriage exists. We inherited the practice from England as a matter of tradition, and it was never thought necessary to precisely define what the state's interest actually is (or is not) until challenges to various restrictions on marriage made the questions explicit. To be honest, I'm not comfortable with legal decisions based on "penumbras" either (though these really aren't as common as conservatives would have us believe), but I also recognize that courts can't ignore the real world when trying to assess the constitutionality of legislation. Read the Iowa Supreme Court's decision (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF) and see whether you disagree with their reasoning.

     Posted by richcarl at 05/08/2009 @ 10:11am

183. not snowball, goofball

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 10:22am

184. Darin-The woman did not go to someone elses house to kill her husband.She was in her own house with the husband that was a threat.If her husband lived in another state and the woman went there to kill her husband I doubt that anyone would view that as self defense.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 10:27am

185. Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 9:39pm

     Interesting that you attempt to refute the authority of scripture with a Strawman argument, women and silence and their covering. I will address the speaking issue 1st because it is more important.

     This approach you take comes from exactly the issue I have been addressing for some time here with you, Mask, and others. Teaching accurately the Word of G-d is not left to those who lack spiritual discernment as explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:13,14

     <These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.>

     Now Mask calls this a convenient copout, but it is the reality of G-d's world which mankind doesn't have authority to define.

     The reason that G-d gave the office of Pastor/Teacher is that those individuals have a gift from G-d to bring understanding where there is a potential for error or confusion.

     Your citation of a "problem" in the text on women keeping silent is exactly that kind of example of misunderstanding the context and the original text.

     This is not an injunction against all women speaking in Church or even speaking with authority. In the passage you also cite on head covering, Paul acknowledges that women are praying and prophecying in the church and he doesn't condemn it. Acts 21 says that Phillip's 4 daughters had the gift of prophecy and were not condemned for it. Phoebe who served at the Church in Corinth was praised by Paul for her ministry service. Priscilla was acknowledged by Paul as a minister with her husband Aquila.

     contin

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:31am

186. Darin, why do you persist in defending the odious reverend?

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 09:14am

     Because I see in him a lot of qualities that are very admirable. (Again, sometimes I get things confused here, but this is what I remember about Larry.)

     He has the courage of his convictions, and a strength of character that I only wish I had.

     He isn't afflicted with racism: his is a mixed race family.

     He isn't afflicted with materialism. He lives a modest life not boasting of his possession nor his moral superiority for not having them.

     He's a great father. He was very involved in his children's lives (I think four?) and continues to support them and his grandchildren. From what I've read, he gave them unquestioned love, but did not coddle them and rob them of the adversity that is required to build strong character. He instilled them with a respect for faith. He wrote once that his children remained chaste until marriage. (You may be skeptical. Okay, maybe one or all didn't and we can never know for sure. What is certain is that there was absolutely no question what-so-ever that Larry had the highest expectation of them and they knew that.) I believe that a person who learns the control to say no to base desire will be well served in life. I believe a person who treats sex as serious and something sacred within marriage will have a very strong marriage and a much, much reduced risk of divorce. I wish I had the courage to expect as much from my sons or even myself.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 10:37am

187. He is selfless in the manner commanded in the Bible. He doesn't spend his working hours as a whore for the employer willing to pay the most like I do (it helps that I enjoy my work). When working Larry generally has an immediate view of the person his work is helping. (Yes, even when building cluster bombs, you are surrounded by military personnel whose lives are in danger and need weapons in order to survive the fighting in war). And more often than not, those people are society's most disadvantaged people such as the Mexican immigrants he has helped through his church. I spend some of my days helping multi-millionaire use tax provisions to defer income from taxation.

     He has the humility to subjugate himself completely to higher authority. This may be the ultimate in selfless actions.

     Also, there is temperance. When I have lost it and start littering The Nation's playing field with f-bombs galore, you haven't even begun to scratch Larry's patience.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 10:38am

188. antisocialist-If God gave us preachers/ teachers to guide us then why do they say different things and why are some in prison?Of course,reality tells us to ignore anyone claiming that they speak for God,ordained by God,or making any claim of being more than just a human with a humans opinion.It is braindead cult followers and megalomaniacs who believe that a human has more than just a humans opinion.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 10:42am

189. To Thrawn on authority questions and supposed contradiction (women in the church)

     The context of this passage deals with non believer wives who were disruptive in services. We know this by the context, the history of the city, and the greek text. The following link provides an excellent teaching on this passage and the supposed problems.

     http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/women/silent.shtml

     I also recommend CK Barret's commentary on 1 Corinthians

     the covering text deals mainly with the specific church at Corinth and the problem with being identified with the Diana Temple prostitutes. Women there who went uncovered were considered to be one of the prostitutes from the temple.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:47am

190. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 09:55am

     Darin, how do you defeat a enemy country in a war WITHOUT planning for the destruction of its soldiery? PLAN to bomb their bridges and HOPE that they're standing on them? PLAN to napalm a big stretch of desert and HOPE that the 4th Revolutionary Guards tank battaliion just HAPPENS to be there?

     Do you REALLY believe that a war is fought WITHOUT planning on killing the enemy's forces....or just want to help out a "kindred spirit" (as you called Larry the other day) against mean ol' MASK???

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:51am

191. The reason that G-d gave the office of Pastor/Teacher is that those individuals have a gift from G-d to bring understanding where there is a potential for error or confusion.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:31am

     How does "bring understanding" differ SPECIFICALLY from "speaking for God"?

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:53am

192. thrawn and others,

     the burden of proof is on the believers, not the atheists. how can one prove that something does *not* exist?

     if you say god exists, then prove it.

     if i say god doesn't exist, then i mean there is no evidence of its existence. when i hear, see, feel the evidence, then i will admit it exists.

     it's really as simple as that. sheesh, i can't believe thrawn actually believes in god.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/08/2009 @ 10:57am

193. Darin, how do you defeat a enemy country in a war WITHOUT planning for the destruction of its soldiery?

     Do you REALLY believe that a war is fought WITHOUT planning on killing the enemy's forces....

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 10:51am

     A couple of days ago someone asked about Biblical distinctions between killing and murder. Then linguistic sophistry led us here.

     Can the objective of war be achieved "without planning on killing the enemy's forces".

     What does it matter? It sheds no light on the Biblical distinction between killing and murder.

     Biblical scholars have concluded that the Bible teaches war is not murder because God views it as self defense. (Again, an abstract view of God does not imply the literal interpretation of a being experiencing the chemical reactions that light cause in the retina as "veiwing" nor does in imply the human condition of cognition associated with understanding as "viewing".)

     In an effort illuminate the subject of death in war I tried to distinguish between wars like GWOT (where the objective is the extermination of individuals who's sole objective in life is to please Allah by murdering American Civilians) and the first Gulf War (where the objective was the destruction of infrustructure that allowed Saddam to prosecute war on Kuait).

     In the GWOT killing is the objective. In the first Gulf War, killing was an unavoidable consequence of destroying infrustructure.

     Neither was murder according to the Bible and no amount of sophistry in the world will change that.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 11:07am

194. Gotta Go. Catch you all later.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 11:12am

195. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:31am </i>

     Before getting into the substance, I am absolutely thrilled with the discussion that has taken place here, both between you and I and between others on the forum. I think that some fascinating issues have been raised and fleshed out.

     I'm a little confused, though, by the "natural man" verse, because I'm not sure who the "natural man" is that it singles out. It's clearly not the whole class of human beings, because then the gospel would be meaningless. I don't think there's anything to indicate that it's only teachers and preachers, because then the gospel enterprise(forgive the pun now that Star Trek just came out) would be equally meaningless, AND it would give all power to a small subset of people, something I don't think Jesus ever intended. When Jesus was on earth, he didn't just give his message to a select few; he spoke to crowds, and unless my memory fails me, gave them not only the Beatitudes and so on, but also spoke to them in parables. Certainly there were things about his upcoming death and resurrection that were spoken of only to his disciples, but he spoke at great length to the crowds. Surely you're not arguing that he then did a 180 and removed from the common believer the capacity to reason through what God willed. Indeed, this was an issue that most Protestant denominations had with the Catholic Church, the notion that we needed some form of intermediary (namely a priest) between God and human beings. Your interpretation here simply replaces a sin-forgiveness intermediary with a theological one, changing rather than curing the problem.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 11:29am

196. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:31am </i>

     Before getting into the substance, I am absolutely thrilled with the discussion that has taken place here, both between you and I and between others on the forum. I think that some fascinating issues have been raised and fleshed out.

     I'm a little confused, though, by the "natural man" verse, because I'm not sure who the "natural man" is that it singles out. It's clearly not the whole class of human beings, because then the gospel would be meaningless. I don't think there's anything to indicate that it's only teachers and preachers, because then the gospel enterprise(forgive the pun now that Star Trek just came out) would be equally meaningless, AND it would give all power to a small subset of people, something I don't think Jesus ever intended. When Jesus was on earth, he didn't just give his message to a select few; he spoke to crowds, and unless my memory fails me, gave them not only the Beatitudes and so on, but also spoke to them in parables. Certainly there were things about his upcoming death and resurrection that were spoken of only to his disciples, but he spoke at great length to the crowds. Surely you're not arguing that he then did a 180 and removed from the common believer the capacity to reason through what God willed. Indeed, this was an issue that most Protestant denominations had with the Catholic Church, the notion that we needed some form of intermediary (namely a priest) between God and human beings. Your interpretation here simply replaces a sin-forgiveness intermediary with a theological one, changing rather than curing the problem.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 11:29am

197. Continued

     Sorry for the double-post there; I have no idea why it did that.

     The reason why I went into the incredibly long argument above is simple: I don't understand why the natural-man verse has any real impact on our discussion here. Should I not be able to use the mind I have been given to discern truth from what has been provided?

     I also want to make a quick distinction here. I recognize that as a pastor, you have studied the scriptures in great detail, and thus it's probable that you have access to a lot more factual background information than I do. I have no problem conceding that. I don't see, however, why that impedes my ability to make rational arguments about the material in question.

     <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 10:47am </i>

     This is fascinating, actually, and honestly changes my view of that part of Paul. I concede that my understanding of Paul and women may have been mistaken. However, one caveat is important: all of the verses you've cited about the woman being subservient (more or less) to the man within a marriage relationship don't really match up with Jesus' own behavior; he never treated women as inferiors, and consistently rejected the ways that society treated them.

     The bigger point I want to make, though, is that Paul isn't infallible. Why should he be? Jesus never told any of his apostles that whenever they opened their mouths to speak about him, they would be infallible. They preached what they were inspired to preach, but threw in some of their own material, some of their own prejudices and biases. For instance, there was a conflict in the early church on whether Gentiles and Jews should eat together; if both Peter and Paul were perfectly inspired, why any disagreement?

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 11:40am

198. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 10:42am

     Why do they say different things?

     Many aren't really called and annointed with the gift of teaching. Paul describes that it is a good thing to desire to teach and pastor. But the desire (whether sincere or for selfish gain) is not sufficient to demonstrate that you are actually called.

     I have witnessed many people in pastoral roles who have no ability to teach. Some were not even called to one of the 5 fold offices. Some are in the wrong role.

     The evidence of true gifting is demonstrated by two essential evidences; a) a strong reaction in the spirit of those receiving the teaching as Paul would describe "having the eyes of your understanding enlightened; that you would know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches glory of His inheritance in the saints." (Eph 1:18) This reaction should be as if you were hearing Jesus Himself teaching, b) lives being changed to reflect the maturity and fruit of a true Christian life.

     There are all kinds of "successful" ministries that in fact have nothing to do with "growing in Christ". Look at Mr Osteen, perhaps one of the most popular and followed ministers in TV and print today. By his own admission, he has no theological training and knows very little about Christian doctrine and theology. He is unfortunately teaching a feel good, prosperity doctrine.

     There are others who love the power. Like a Benny Hinn whom I know and refuse to have anything to do with him or his ministry.

     It is no different in the education system. There are teachers there who illuminate learning and further people's lives. There are others that are useless and offer no help to students in their educational progress.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 11:59am

199. antisocialist-In other words,there is no way to know who the real preachers/teachers are because even those with different views appear to be real and can look alike so we must assume that none are real or that there is no one true path.You can have two very good teachers who have different views.We would not have a clue as to what it would be like to hear Jesus teach or how we would react to that..We know for a fact that people who do not share your views make the same claims about miracle healings and other such miracles and they have just as much evidence of their miracles as you do so one must wonder why God would reward people with miracles which would reinforce their views and convince them that they are on the right path if your path is the only correct one.Would a parent reward a child for being wrong?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 12:21pm

200. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 10:37am

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 10:38am

     Darin,

     Thank you for the kind and generous words.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 12:24pm

201. Why do they say different things?

     Many aren't really called and annointed with the gift of teaching.---Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 11:59am

     But YOU are, right? YOU are one of the ones with the only correct interpretation?

     See my post some time ago that you said was "distorting" you.

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

202. Can the objective of war be achieved "without planning on killing the enemy's forces".

     What does it matter?----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/08/2009 @ 11:07am

     Yeah, that's what I thought.

     You're just arguing me...to argue with me and help out Larry.

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 12:59pm

203. But YOU are, right? YOU are one of the ones with the only correct interpretation?

     See my post some time ago that you said was "distorting" you.

     Posted by Mask at 05/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

     I think my record of being validated by other theologians and pastors is pretty solid. At the end of the day, that is more important in determining my credentials than what those who are not recognized by any significant body of organizations conclude.

     Do I ever make mistakes? yes. and I go back and review to see where I erred in my research and conclusions. I also note it to all who had received my teaching(s). I don't dismiss the human element in my teaching. I recognize and utilize accordingly, 3rd party observers to review what I teach. My ministry has always had outside board members to provide me with unbiased observation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 1:50pm

204. Rev. clusterfuck, you erred in your research and conclusions when you chose to utilize a book written 1800 years ago by dirt farmers, then edited by myriad self serving Machiavelis as your sole reference. Garbage in, garbage out. Theologians agree with you huh? First off, who gives a shit- this isn't the dark ages. Second, even the fucking hitler youth pope admits that evolution is real you dullard. Try basing your worldview on books that don't predate agriculture, you know, books written by people who don't think dashing childrens' skulls on rocks is such a swell idea.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 2:15pm

205. Darin, I find very little to admire in the Quixotic belief in outmoded ideas... something about a foolish consistency being the hobgobblin of small minds. I certainly don't share your victorian aversion to sex, so i find little to admire in abstaining from said activity until bonded by arcane ceremony. On the clusterbomb issue- pure, unmitigated cognitive dissonance. As for humility, would it enoble me in your eyes if i were to subjugate myself before zeus? The sun? At least the latter is tangible.

     Now, back to your misunderstanding of the second law. Exactly what part of the earth not being a closed system, and evolution not being a linear march towards greater order aren't you comprehending? Simply because you need an anthropomorphic god to explain away your ignorance does not mean that the experts in physics and biology suffer the same intellectual malaise. Your lack of understanding is not a very persuasive argument for the existence of an omnipotent deity.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 2:25pm

206. antisocialist-Pastors and priests with other views are,also,validated by other theologians and have credentials.People who have much formal training in any subject have credentials and are validated by others with credentials,but have different views.Of course,we have all learned that formal training and credentials do not mean that one can apply any of it to the real world nor does it mean that one is correct.Jesus had no formal training and was not recognized by most with credentials and that is true of other people with great knowledge..Of course,lots of them Marxist professors have credentials,too.Cannot go by validation or credentials.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 2:26pm

207. btw, i realize the bible doesn't actually predate agriculture. simpsons fans might get the reference.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 2:27pm

208. Jesus had no formal training and was not recognized by most with credentials and that is true of other people with great knowledge..Of course,lots of them Marxist professors have credentials,too.Cannot go by validation or credentials.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 2:26pm

     Jesus didn't need any formal training since as G-d and as the Word of G-d, He was the one who gave the Word to the writers of the Bible. I realize that you don't accept that; but that is the view of the historic church.

     As to validation and credentials. To take your view, no one in the world has any credibility or validation. you are back to your anarchist view of life itself. And we are back to Hitler could not have been wrong using your viewpoint.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 2:55pm

209. How on earth do you make the logical flight (leap is too grounded a word) between nobody's assertion that credentials are not necessarily a good measure of a man, and your inane "hitler could not have been wrong"? Your vapidity truly knows no bounds.

     Posted by entropy at 05/08/2009 @ 3:02pm

210. Right; that was part of the points. I'm saying when you have a mode of being that exists throughout nature (i.e. in multiple other species), for which there is no clear moral wrong, etc., the burden is on you (meaning those condemning homosexuality) to say that it is wrong.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/07/2009 @ 8:34pm

     Talk about logical fallacies, this is a great example. In order for your logic to apply, non humans must have souls with the ability to know right from wrong and the ability to make moral decisions. The commandments from G-d not to sin were given to mankind because a) they had disobeyed G-d. Prior to their disobedience, sin did not exist. b) only mankind had the ability to make the decision whether to obey or disobey G-d.

     Thus, there is no burden on those of us who cite G-d's law on homosexuality as a sin.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 3:05pm

211. "So, either Jesus lied, or the Apostles, including Paul then wrote and spoke what Jesus revealed to them through the Holy Spirit."

     Well the problem is, Jesus didn't explicitly say in that quote that the this person is the Apostles. He didn't name a person eplicitly. On top of that he DID explicitly say it would be ONE person, not more than one. So it isn't consistent with the thought that it denotes all of the Apostles. You can make the argument that it was the Holy Spirit passing the message to people, but then how do we know who had the message passed to them by the Holy Spirit and who just drank a bit too much wine?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 01:43am

     How do you derive that conclusion? The word you in the text is ymas which can be either you singular or plural and is determined by the context. Since Jesus was speaking collectively to the disciples as they walked to the Garden of Gethsemane. Furthermore the promise of the Holy Spirit speaking is to all believers, not just the disciples. That does not mean that all believers were called to be used to communicate scripture. As to whether the Holy Spirit or too much wine, that is the test of scripture. It is validated not by the church or people, but by it's evident truth and consistency with all of scripture.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 3:06pm

212. antisocialist-What I'm saying is that you never take someones word for something simply because they have validation and credentials because we know that such people are not always right,disagree with one another,and we know that people who have no credentials are frequently correct.This has nothing to do with hitler or anarchy,but is a statement of fact..If a doctor tells me that I have cancer I will get another opinion or two because I know for a fact that those doctors with tons of credentials and validation have misdiagnosed people.I would,also,get more than one credentialed doctors opinion if I had cancer when it came to the subject of treatment because it is a fact that patients die despite the number of credentials that the doctor has.It is ,also,a fact that others,like the Tibetan Buddhists monks,who have no credentials have healed people who had diseases that the doctors with all of the validation and credentials could not heal.I go by reality.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 3:16pm

213. antisocialist-If God or Jesus had anything to do with writing the Bible then it would have included all of the teachings of Jesus and would not have included some of the laws in the OT,and would have been more consistent and made more sense and it is quite irrelevant what the church said because when it came time to vote on whether or not the Bible was the word of God or not it did not get good votes on several occasions and God could have done better with the voting if it really was the word of God..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 3:22pm

214. antisocialist-You had claimed that Jesus had clearly defined homosexuality as a sin,but as you discovered that was not the case so credentials do not always mean anything.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 3:57pm

215. liverty's Jesus is different from yours and mine. he has a sword in his hand.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 4:08pm

216. you cannot prove a negative.

     god exists in the mind of the believer. that's good enough for me.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/08/2009 @ 09:03am

     Precisely my point. Darla is basically saying science can disprove God. But it can't. It can't prove God or disprove it. That's why God is taken on faith. I have no problem with whatever anyone wants to believe. As long as it doesn't hurt others.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 5:45pm

217. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 3:22pm

     Again and without any evidence to dispute the record, you are calling Jesus and the apostles liars.

     Does the Bible have a record that has Jesus affirming to the Jews that He is the same I AM that appeared to Moses?

     Where is your evidence that John is lying when he states that Jesus is the Word of G-d?

     Where is the evidence that Paul and the writer of Hebrews are lying when they declare that everything in creation was created by Jesus?

     Where is the evidence that John is lying in the book of Revelation when he sees Jesus on the White Horse and His Name is the Word of G-d (Rev. 19:13)?

     you can certainly say that you don't believe the Bible. But you have no proof that it is lying.

     And certainly I cannot provide absolute proof that every word is true. There is an element of faith. However, the reliability rests mostly in Jesus Himself. He made it clear that besides paying the price for sin, by having in Himself the power to raise Himself up from death, He would be validating the truth of what He said.

     As I said previously, the Bible is not the Bible because men voted on it. It is the Bible because

     http://tinyurl.com/qdfx73

     Canonicity is the process by which the books of the Bible were gathered and collected so that they came to be regarded as the standard and norm for Christians. This means that canonicity refers to the church's recognition of the authority of the inspired writings.

     Canonicity does not MAKE a book into the word of God. Rather, canonicity is the process of RECOGNIZING that a book is the word of God.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 6:08pm

218. That does not mean that all believers were called to be used to communicate scripture. As to whether the Holy Spirit or too much wine, that is the test of scripture. It is validated not by the church or people, but by it's evident truth and consistency with all of scripture.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 3:06pm

     This is the problem though. The original scriptures written were not all neccesarily consistent. Thrawn cites one example, whether Jews and Gentiles should eat together. Then you have the lost Gospels claiming to have been written through the authority of other people around Jesus. The Gospel of Judas for instance. So in the end it IS validated by a the church or people because if it says something that Church doesn't agree with it is immediately thrown out.

     Then it becomes, maybe when they assembled the Bible wrong in the first place, maybe they chose the wrong Gospels, since it was assembled by man. If the church concedes that the Bible was assembled from many choices and they were the ones to make the choices of what's included, then how do we know they made the right choices to begin with?

     So it is not determined by consistency with ALL supposed Gospels, it is deteremined by consistency with the Gospels that that the CHURCH chose, this is proven by the fact that there are even multiple Bible version depending on if you are talking about east or west. Each contains books that are considered apocryphal to the other. So it still comes down to a choice of the people and the church and since both are fallible how do we know any is right?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 6:08pm

219. Canon continued

     The apostles themselves were given their authority by Jesus Christ, both to teach and to preach in His name. The early church fathers recognized that they themselves did not have this kind of authority.

     "The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent from God, so then the apostles are sent from Christ." (Clement of Rome, 95 A.D.).

     "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles. I am but a condemned man." (Ignatius, 117 A.D.).

     The church did not create the canon. The canon created and still creates the church. The origin of the canon is not the same as its reception by the church.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 6:22pm

220. (Oh, there used to be an additional requirement that started in NY in 1939. You used to have to pass a blood test that was based on RH factor (+ or -) so that your children would be able to survie pregnancy.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/07/2009 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     Darin, you keep trying to craft this argument that the "state's compelling interest" in having marriage laws is based on reproduction - and that plainly isn't true. The state has many other "compelling interests" that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with procreation. Now, your whole arguement clearly doesn't pass even a rudimentary smell test (old people have always been allowed to marry as have those who are infertile) but seriously Darin, your citing of blood tests above is ***dead wrong***.

     The reason many states enacted laws regarding blood tests had nothing whatsoever to do with RH factors or health issues related to pregnancy. Check your history. The reason states required blood tests for marriage was based on the effort to combat diseases - specifically, Syphillis and Rhubella.

     http://tinyurl.com/pdexeu

     http://tinyurl.com/qh3tvm

     I know that whole 'blood test' thing underpinned your entire arguement about states compelling interest in marriage being based on procreation, but really, when your argument is based on a myth...

     ...maybe it's time to admit your error and grant that recent states enacting 'between a man and woman' clauses for defining marriage was motivated purely by a desire to exclude granting it to same-sex couples.

     (In other words - discrimination.)

     Posted by Lillian at 05/08/2009 @ 6:29pm

221. These and other sexual perversions violate the "oneness" of the marriage relationship and were often punishable by death ( Lev 20:1-19 ; Deut 22:13-27 ; cf. Rom 1:26-32 ).----Posted by antisocialist at 05/06/2009 @ 11:06pm |

     Geez, Louise, these guys take the fun out of EVERYTHING.

     Glad they're not running the show.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/08/2009 @ 6:59pm

222. I find is especially odd considering we have a black president and a white vice president both on record as defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 05/06/2009 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I'm not sure I'm getting the linkage between these guys' respective races and their views on sex.

     ???

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/08/2009 @ 7:01pm

223. ACOOK, I don't know what department you work in but, have you ever witnessed a nurse drop a baby? I just read an interesting fact, that in a year on average 2500 hundred newborns are dropped, just made me curious.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 7:56pm

224. The church did not create the canon. The canon created and still creates the church. The origin of the canon is not the same as its reception by the church.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 6:22pm

     I am not saying that the canon was created by the Church, BUT there are more than just Matthew, Mark Luke and John that traveled with Jesus. Why is the Gospel of Judas not included? He too was an apostle. Or how about the Gospel according to Mary? She was not an apostle but she certainly learned from and witnessed the acts of Jesus. Those are just two, and then why is it some churches accept certain scripture but others don't. Like I said the typical eastern church accept more of the scripture than the typical western church. Why?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 7:59pm

225. antisocialist-Actually,I never called Jesus or the apostles liars and it is silly for you to read that into anything I've said.Actually,I've stated that I do believe in the truth of the Gospels and many of the lost Gospels.Not one of the quotes that you provided have anything to do with anything I've said.God did create things,Jesus is the Word of God,etc as I have agreed to many times.Of course,the OT may not have anything to do with the Word of God and is bits and pieces of information that have been redacted together. The Bible is the Bible because men suppressed ideas and other books and voted on this and we now know that those men had many views that have proven wrong.Your nonsense about how the Bible came into being is propaganda and BS. We have no idea what some of the apostles taught and can only guess about a few.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 8:46pm

226. antisocialist-You've been taught the white washed version about how the Bible came into being as well as the white washed version about how the church came into being.Study the rest of the story.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 8:49pm

227. <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/08/2009 @ 7:59pm </i>

     There's two important parts for any book. It's not just the question of whether it calls itself by the name of someone who was with Jesus, but whether it's actually independently credible (ex: was it written in 500 C.E., does it bear clear evidence of embellishment, etc.) The texts you cite, as far as I know, do not pass basic tests of historical credibility.

     <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/08/2009 @ 3:05pm </i>

     Your response here isn't responsive at all. All I'm saying is that all else being equal, we presume conduct to be morally justified rather than unjustified. Clearly, there are things that are immoral, and this can be established by clear moral intuition, sound moral argument, sound argument from legitimate authority, etc. What I'm saying is simply that you have the burden of proof. I fully grant that moral precepts are anchored in God, but when there is reasonable dispute (as there clearly is here) as to what God commands, argument is necessary.

     So what do we look to? I've already made clear (with no response) that Paul and Peter clearly don't have infallible authority (see the dispute on table fellowship), so the only indisputable authority is Jesus. Unfortunately, he's basically silent on the matter. Leaving aside for the time being the nice argument that an opposition to fornication would actually suggest allowing gay marriage in order to foster the kind of committment you describe, you are left to provide some kind of reason-based argument. None has succeeded. The Bible never addresses homosexuality as a concept (it can't be reduced to X and Y sex acts), and the actual arguments against it seem to be pretty shoddy.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 10:18pm

228. antisocialist-On several occasions you have accused me of claiming that Jesus lied,but only you have done that.I told you that I was obeying Jesus and was seeking the Truth and that Jesus assured me that God would lead me to the Truth and I told about some of the things that God has had me study,but you responded by saying that God would not lead me to study those things even though Jesus said that God would lead me to the Truth.You contradicted what Jesus said and not me.I'm just obeying Jesus and you say that that is the wrong thing to do.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 10:41am

229. antisocialist-You've been taught the white washed version about how the Bible came into being as well as the white washed version about how the church came into being.Study the rest of the story.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/08/2009 @ 8:49pm

     Nonsense. All you offer is your opinion. I have cited the vast weight of evidence including the quotes from some of the disciples of the Apostles. Even some liberal theologians as I noted like John AT Robinson were at least honest enough to admit that their prior misconceptions were in error.

     By every legal rule on the laws of evidence, the Bible has been validated as authentic to the original texts.

     I don't see how or why we should argue this further when all you do is say I and the vast majority of scholars, theologians, and historians overrule your OPINION.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 12:18pm

230. antisocialist-No copies of original texts exist.In fact,we do not have anything in their original languages nor would we understand much of it since we are far removed from that place,culture,and time.We have no verified quotes from apostles or their disciples.Like me,all you have is an opinion that is based on little information since so much was lost or suppressed.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 12:30pm

231. antisocialist-As we all know, many of the majority opinions given by authorities over the years on different subjects have been proven to be wrong.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 12:34pm

232. Your response here isn't responsive at all. All I'm saying is that all else being equal, we presume conduct to be morally justified rather than unjustified.

     So what do we look to? I've already made clear (with no response) that Paul and Peter clearly don't have infallible authority (see the dispute on table fellowship), so the only indisputable authority is Jesus. Unfortunately, he's basically silent on the matter. Leaving aside for the time being the nice argument that an opposition to fornication would actually suggest allowing gay marriage in order to foster the kind of committment you describe, you are left to provide some kind of reason-based argument. None has succeeded. The Bible never addresses homosexuality as a concept (it can't be reduced to X and Y sex acts), and the actual arguments against it seem to be pretty shoddy.

     Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 10:18pm

     Same goes for you Thrawn as with Imnobody.

     Your arguments merely stem from "you don't believe" even the clear statements.

     Your arguments against the authority of Paul and Peter go against every precept of Christianity since it's foundation. Even most liberal denominations would not support your claim. The very recent attempts by a few liberal pastors and theologians are tied specifically to their own homosexual behavior.

     You have no evidence to refute Peter's statement that Paul's letters are scripture and to be followed. As Peter himself said;

     There is no record of the early church not following the Apostles letters as carrying the authority of Christ.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 12:39pm

233. antisocialist-Jesus said that the Way is narrow and few would find it and you keep quoting the majority opinion which only reinforces my viewpoint..You have avoided the most important question.People who do not share your views have all of the same miracles performed for them as you have performed for you so why would God reinforce these peoples beliefs by performing miracles for them if they are on the wrong path?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 12:45pm

234. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 12:30pm

     While we do not have the original texts, all but a few verses of our current bible are contained in the writings of the Apostlic Fathers. Those Pastors, and theologians of the first two centuries following the Apostles and some who were disciples of the Apostles.

     http://tinyurl.com/o3pw84

     http://tinyurl.com/38v7c

     You need to be able to refute the father of much of liberal theology John AT Robinson who's honest research led him to apologize for his view that the Bible was not reliable and not of early origin.

     <How good are these New Testament records? They handsomely fulfill the historian's requirements of transmissional reliability (their texts have been transmitted accurately from the time of writing to our own day), internal reliability (they claim to be primary-source documents and ring true as such), and external reliability (their authorships and dates are backed up by such solid extrinsic testimony as that of the early second-century writer Papias, a student of John the Evangelist, who was told by him that the first three Gospels were indeed written by their traditional authors). Harvard's Simon Greenleaf, the greatest nineteenth-century authority on the law of evidence in the common-law world, applied to these records the "ancient documents" rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are "fair on their face" (i.e., offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in "reasonable custody" (i.e., their preservation has been consistent with their content). He concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law.>

     http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 1:00pm

235. antisocialist-I do not care what labels you assign to a theologian nor do I care about what a theologian thinks.Why would God perform the same miracles for people who do not share your beliefs that God performs for you people when God would know that doing that will reinforce what those people believe?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 1:06pm

236. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 12:45pm

     I haven't ignored your statement. I just didn't want to venture off on an entirely different tangent.

     The miracles perfomed outside of Christ are not of G-d. Jesus was clear that those who follow Him would do the works that He did by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is only given to those who are born again through repentance and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

     Scripture is clear that the Devil and whomever he empowers have the ability to do miracles deceiving people away from the truth.

     Exodus 7:11, "Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments."

     Luke 4:6,"And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."

     Power of the Anti-Christ

     Rev 13:14, "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."

     Rev 16:14, "For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

     Rev. 19:20, "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 1:14pm

237. antisocialist-In other words, no one knows if a miracle is being performed by God or if it's being performed by the devil because all believe that it is their faith in God and Jesus that causes the miracle to happen so there is no way to know what the right road is because your God and the devil can do the same things and your God allows the devil to duplicate what your God does so that no one can know what path to follow.Would a good parent allow their children to hang out with criminals in order to have those criminals lead their children astray?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 1:23pm

238. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 1:23pm

     IM,

     It's obvious that there is no area of agreement so we should just agree that we disagree.

     There is no room in Christianity for the idea that you can follow other paths to G-d. There is no acceptance to the idea that G-d will show Himself in miracles or any other means of acceptance outside of following Christ as given in the Bible. We will simply continue going in circles on this.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/09/2009 @ 1:41pm

239. antisocialist-There is simply nothing that makes your side stand out or that even implies that you know the Truth.Most of you make the same claims,perform the same miracles,look the same,act the same,,but disagree with one another, and none of you can do what Jesus did.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 1:42pm

240. antisocialist-Actually,it is irrelevant what Christianity says since Jesus said that if you seek the Truth then God will lead you to the Truth and is a fact that seekers are led on different paths.It is the fact that you guys can never answer the hard questions and that lets the rest of us know that you are not filled with the Holy Spirit and do not speak for God because you could answer the hard questions if you were speaking for God..All you can do is regurgitate Bible verses,but when those do not answer the question you get confused.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/09/2009 @ 1:48pm

241. Posted by Thrawn at 05/08/2009 @ 10:18pm

     I see, I stand corrected but then why are there passages that made it into Eastern Bibles but not Western?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/09/2009 @ 6:01pm

242. "The miracles perfomed outside of Christ are not of G-d. Jesus was clear that those who follow Him would do the works that He did by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is only given to those who are born again through repentance and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior."

     I think his point is that he follows Christ anti. It just doesn't lead him to Christianity. I don't think Christians are the only ones who can be saved. As long as you believe in Christ and follow his word it doesn't matter which religion you are. Technically a Buddhist could still be Christian if you made the beliefs jive in your mind. Christ never said you had to be a baptised Christian to be saved. He said follow him and his truth and you will be saved.

     I think nobody's point is basically that God works in mysterios ways. Maybe God is smart enough to know that Christianity doesn't work for everyone and some he leads to other paths.

     I think the thought that Christianity is the ONLY path to God is just a method for Christians to keep their church going. Christianity did not exist during the time of Christ. So as long as you following the words of Christ and you believe in him it doesn't matter what religion or philosophy you prescribe and I think that God and Jesus, being all knowing would and without ego would see that.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/09/2009 @ 6:13pm

243. "There is no room in Christianity for the idea that you can follow other paths to G-d."

     Therein lies you problem Anti. Christianity did not exist. I don't think Christ even was attempting to create a religion per say. I think what he was doing was passing on a message. All you had to do was follow the message not the Church.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/09/2009 @ 6:15pm

244. I mean LVL, does it say anywhere in the Bible that Christianity is the only path to Jesus?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/09/2009 @ 6:17pm

245. two god threads

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 12:38pm

246. enough wid da god thang. god people go f*ck yoself, je suis fed up, as we say in France.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 12:41pm

247. I have no problem with folks filling up the vacant threads with all kinds of subjects, personal and otherwise, but enough is enough.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 1:25pm

248. I may have strayed a bit into Barry25 territory. I can assure any readers that the above expletives were not intended in any derogatory way. they were verbal exclamation points, and were not meant to offend anyone.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2009 @ 7:09pm