The Goat Pen

aTm wrote:Im sure JD is traditional marriage, ultra-religious by inclination. He just has to root for his team since that's the "side" they are on. It's like having to root for Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett just because he's on your home team.

Start rational poster mode

Maybe this should go in the theology forum, but honestly, this whole affirmation of LGBTQIA is a bother to me. It was MUCH easier when they would just stay in the closet and hide in shame.

It bothers me watching Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend. It bothers me watching men make out on Scandal (not so much watching chicks make out on The L Word or OITNB). My wife made me watch Joan River's old show and one of the guests was some ice skater (ostensibly a dude) who was wearing a dress, high heeled shoes, lipstick, etc - looking at him was just disturbing and made me want to stone him.

However, when I devote brain power to it:

- In America, consenting adults should and do have the legal right to do disgusting, disturbing things to each other if they want. Are two women cleaning each other's carpets more of an abomination than a man and a woman urinating/defecating on each other, or a guy taking his wife to a sex club and letting 12 dudes ejaculate on her face?

- Historically, marriage between ONE man and ONE woman is really a Roman model, adopted by the church after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. ALL of the heroes of Biblical Judaism were polyganous and the Romans made special exceptions for Jews that allowed them to keep multiple wives. In the areas of Christian Europe that Rome hadn't conquered, plural marriage was debated (if not outright allowed) up until the late Middle Ages, so the claim that the traditional model of marriage is the ONLY one EVER allowed by God is thin.

- There is a theological argument that supports same-sex relationships. How strong an argument it is depends on one's perspective.

- Some people are absolutely born gay and unless we stone them at birth, forcing them into a hetero-normative (I'm using that in-perpetuity) box will not merely fuck them up, but the unintended consequences are horrible. I've had to help people deal with the consequences of living with a "boxed-in" person. I've seen women who married men who tried to conform to heterosexuality and - even if they never gave in to their true nature - I've seen how tortured their marriages were and the impact on their kids.

- I'm by no means a universalist, but the notion of God condemning someone for a condition that he gave them at birth is the same theological construct that allowed for blacks to be enslaved because they "bore the mark of Cain" and is totally incompatible with the concept of grace.

- Human sexuality is extremely complex. For many people - from the dawn of history until today - the sex act is not a gift from God to be shared in the sacramental relationship of marriage, it's a means of exchange (you kill a bird for me to eat and I fuck you, you protect me from monsters and I fuck you, I bring you sparkly rocks and you let me fuck you, etc.). Or it's an expression of power, a way to kill time or a biological imperative.

So, yes, as a matter of choice, culture and faith tradition, I'm a one-man-one-woman supporter and push traditional marriage strongly. But it's complicated.

end rational poster mode

You are correct on the one man one wife after NT Roman times; however, that doesn't equate to the allowance of homosexual relations which is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. You also know that the stretch by Southerners in interpreting the mark of Cain was theologically careless. It is more theologically careless to say the the Bible is ok with homosexuality.

We are way passed the legalizing of homosexual marriage and are now in the realm of whether a religious organization should be able to believe that homosexuality is wrong and will not support or allow same sex unions within their religious institution. Your side is promoting the disallowance of such freedom.

To be fair, religious conservatives argue that capitalism is Biblical because they are on the side of the Republicans. Capitalism and limited governments are the best way, but by no means does the Bible promote any forms of government.

You and IB should start a club JD.

I'd like to club you...

hedge wrote:I'd like to spank you...

FYP

Take the bible out of it.....it's still wrong(deviant) behavior. Not saying outlaw it either, just call a spade a spade, so to speak..

Deviant from what?

"Deviant" is a meaningless term in this context since it is defined in relation to an "accepted standard". If you accept gays, then its not deviant, and if you don't, then it is deviant.

Interracial marriage and dating has been considered deviant, unaccepted behavior by most of society in the past but that does not mean that it is, or should be, considered deviant in 2015.

Where does deviant start? Porcupines and electrodes?

No borders.....no country.

No standards.......everything's in play, thus there is no right/wrong....whatever vice I want to indulge in, should be paid for by society(insurance) when I hurt myself.

My farts are deviant

sardis wrote:You are correct on the one man one wife after NT Roman times; however, that doesn't equate to the allowance of homosexual relations which is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. You also know that the stretch by Southerners in interpreting the mark of Cain was theologically careless. It is more theologically careless to say the the Bible is ok with homosexuality.

We are way passed the legalizing of homosexual marriage and are now in the realm of whether a religious organization should be able to believe that homosexuality is wrong and will not support or allow same sex unions within their religious institution. Your side is promoting the disallowance of such freedom.

To be fair, religious conservatives argue that capitalism is Biblical because they are on the side of the Republicans. Capitalism and limited governments are the best way, but by no means does the Bible promote any forms of government.

Acts 2:42-47
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe[e] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4:32-37
32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

"Where does deviant start? Porcupines and electrodes?"

For some reason this reminded me of what an old, somewhat embittered bartender on Haight Street told me one time. He said, "there's not a problem out there (on Haight Street) that couldn't be solved with a fire hose and a couple of wolverines"...

Johnette's Daddy wrote:

sardis wrote:You are correct on the one man one wife after NT Roman times; however, that doesn't equate to the allowance of homosexual relations which is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. You also know that the stretch by Southerners in interpreting the mark of Cain was theologically careless. It is more theologically careless to say the the Bible is ok with homosexuality.

We are way passed the legalizing of homosexual marriage and are now in the realm of whether a religious organization should be able to believe that homosexuality is wrong and will not support or allow same sex unions within their religious institution. Your side is promoting the disallowance of such freedom.

To be fair, religious conservatives argue that capitalism is Biblical because they are on the side of the Republicans. Capitalism and limited governments are the best way, but by no means does the Bible promote any forms of government.

Acts 2:42-47
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe[e] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4:32-37
32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

That was through the church, not the government. The church took care of each other and provided for the furtherance of the gospel. I am all for that. That's how it used to be in this country.

sardis wrote:That was through the church, not the government. The church took care of each other and provided for the furtherance of the gospel. I am all for that. That's how it used to be in this country.

How it used to be and how it is now are two hugely different things. Regular church attendance is below 20% of all Americans - the largest protestant denominations have lost 50% of their membership since 1960. Four thousand churches close each year and 3,500
members quit the church every day. The church as a safety net is a losing proposition.

So is putting your hopes in Butch.

Ben Carson, Monday morning QB, says he would have rushed the Oregon shooter. Way to go, tough guy.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=U142DHP

10ac wrote:Chris Mintz is awaiting the offer to meet the President.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... itter_page

Actually the president is coming to meet Mintz and others wounded and the victim's families.

Ironically, in the Carson article the candidate blasts oprama for making the Oregon visit and "politicizing" the tragedy. Carson says he probably would skip the trip as prez...would "maybe make the next one." If any of you Carson fans can make sense of his remarks, please let's hear it.

Carson>fallon>Leno