As have I.
Some want the bible and the bible and constitution to as pliable as play dough.
Others want to actually understand the authors intent and live accordingly.
They are not likely to be both correct.:shock:
Feel free.
The authors no longer live here, and no longer get a say in the matter.
Not relevant.
For the constitution, use the proscribed method for changing it.
For the bible, get real, If one believes it’s God’s words to humanity how can we change it without making ourselves higher than He.:roll::roll:
Herein lies the crux of my arguement, well made for me by others.
If a country does not live by its founding document, then it is not living up to its defining principles and sefl-definition.
When people state that they are “Christians” or “Jews” (i.e., religious Jews, remember Jew is also an ethnicity) or Muslims, yet act, openly and in defiance of their “founding document”, then they are not living up to their founding document and are just kidding themselves that they are.
Words represent things and have definitions. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, by definition, two men or two women cannot be married.
They can, and are, joined in a civil contract, recorded by various states, and recieving many, if not all as is the case in California, “benefits” that the state chooses to bestow on them in accordance with that civil contract. This is fine and is within the descretion and authority of the state.
But Marriage is a different thing and has already been long defined and was not instituted or created by the state. The state does not have the authority to marry, only the authority to record a marriage (or a civil union, which is the thing the state does).
As you can see, the only gripes that homosexuals have are:
-
That they cannot get the people to accept them as normal (which, by definition, they are not). They have had to get selective courts, bending and stretching logic and reason and law out of all sembelance of reality, to tell some states to record their civil unions and call the marriage.
-
Since, in many states, they already have all the benefits that the state can bestow on them through civil unions, in those states, they already have equal rights. But, for them, that is not good enough. They demand to be equal.
Here is an on point analogy:
Women and men already have equal rights in front of the law. (Yeah, I know that some feminists claim otherwise, but at least the laws are written that way).
Lets say that some men want to bear children. Now, by definition, this is impossible. But these men consider this discrimination. They do not have the “equal right” that women enjoy to have a baby. They besiege government to right this wrong. Legislatures do not do this and the people understand that it is just plain crazy, but simpithetic courts rule that men can have babies, just like women.
But that does not, in any way, make it so.
It is beyond the power or authority of govrnment to do this.
Same with homosexual marriage.
Theree is a profound difference between men ane women. And it is NOT just the “plumbing”. Anyone who is married or has had sisters or brothers know this.
So, the relationship between a man and a woman (i.e., Marriage) is NOT and can never be the same as the relationship between two men or two women. And all the laws and coutr rulings cannot change this.
Case closed No religious arguement.
Homosexual marriage, just cant be done.
You’re doing a real good job at offending everyone on this public side of the BB, if I was a Catholic, and I came here and saw your post, there is no way I would hire a iNACHI inspector. You need to get a life. :roll:
Your case is only valid is a static unchanging world, the fact is that we live in a very dynamic world that both the authors of Bible & Constitution would not recognize today, that fact by and of itself does not disprove your case but based on what has transpired in the last 2,000 years it makes it very untenable.
The question many would ask is why should the vast expanse of knowledge gained throughout history not be applied to society as it has been to each & every other branch of knowable things? There simply no longer exists any logical or moral case against homosexuals or homosexual marriage.
In regards to founding documents and living up to defining principals, the Constitution has previously been amended and the vast different Bible interpretations since its inception has caused many schisms and forced new dominations to arise out of fundamental differences which could not be resolved within the text, this is nothing new and will continue unabated.
The idea that the meaning of words are sacrosanct is simply wishful thinking on your part, word meanings have changed much in the timespan since these documents were written.
That leads me to refute your last comment, homosexual marriage is a reality that will be adopted worldwide, it is simply a matter of time. I predict that when it finally does arrive it will be accompanied by an almost unanimous adoption by most religious dominations.
Peace.
Yes of course word meaning change hence the need for periodic translations to update them for current word usage and meaning.
You simply will have a hard time(really impossible) making the case that the words and phrases used to describe homosexuality and it’s sinfulness never were in the original documents.
Homosexual was not a word before the 1800’s. 
And “gay” meant something entirely different until recent history.
Do you also question the translations of Homer’s Iliad and many other books of antiquity?:roll::roll:
“The question many would ask is why should the vast expanse of knowledge gained throughout history not be applied to society as it has been to each & every other branch of knowable things? There simply no longer exists any logical or moral case against homosexuals or homosexual marriage.”
I challange you to develope any moral code without any referance or relying on the Bible. Can’t be done.
What new “…branch of knowledge” would change the moral message of the Bible? (And don’t bring out those old red herrings about slavery. I disproved that long ago.)
Fact: Homosexual men have a much higher mortality and morbidity because of their preferred sex acts.
Fact: Homosexuals, at best, represent less than 5% of the world’s population. They represent an abnormality, not the norm, by defintion.
Fact: Homosexuals are defined by their choice of sex acts. All action is a choice.
Fact: The New Zealand Twins Study, years ago, proved that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.
So, our whole society, and our marriage traditions and all the world’s major religions have to radically change simply because a small group of people who practice abnormal sex acts want to feel normal?
No religious arguement. Just verifiable facts.
In regards to founding documents and living up to defining principals, the Constitution has previously been amended and the vast different Bible interpretations since its inception has caused many schisms and forced new dominations to arise out of fundamental differences which could not be resolved within the text, this is nothing new and will continue unabated.
There is a great difference between what a book says and how people “interpret” (mainly, ill-informed misinterpretation) it. It says what it says that that has been unchanging.
Please, do not blame the book for people’s faults.
This is a religious, but also a logical, arguement.
Wow Will, with that “logic” you would think more of the ten commandments would be laws.
PS God was ok with slavery.
joe believes that because people can change the meanings of words, it automatically makes it morally acceptacle. It will never be acceptable to most normal people. Even the ones who say they don’t care, still tell Queer jokes all the time, but they want to be politically correct, so they lie and say it is O.K. with them. I bet joe and kevin are like that.
Slavery back then would be closer to employee today than it would to slavery. Look at Joseph, he ran the Pharoahs Kingdom, he was not exactly like Bojangles in the cotton fields back home. The issue is just another way for atheist to deny God.
Homer answered to differnt Gods. Some of which may have been more enlightened.
Old argument explained many times.
Look up indentured servant.
deflect deflect deflect:roll::roll::roll:
*When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.* (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Brian;
-
Either take up the challange and prove me wrong or shut up. That is what a challange is. Put up or shut up.
-
The slavery practiced by the Jews was not what we think of (chattel slavery) but was an indentured servitude in order to pay off a debt. The person who owed threw himself on the mercy of the Sanhderin and they paid his debt, but indentured him to a person who would pay the Sanhedrin back. The term was never for more than 6 years (the Sabbath Year). But you would not know this, having never studied scripture or Hebrew or History. The only time that the slavery was permenant was if a person agreed to become a bond servent. If so, he became like a member of the family.
Hope this helps;
Little of what you say helps Will. You sir are a revisionist, and as such, you tend to interpet things to suit your narrow minded views. :twisted:
I would not like being part of a family where if you beat me and I lived for two days and then died, it would be considered ok.