Context of "Homosexuality is an abomination"

[spantol]

... but the argument can be made that any allowance outside of Heterosexual marrage opens you up to all the other possibilities. And so the fear of people not wanting to do it is based somewhat on that quagmire. I can see that a series of documents could be put forth allowing Polygamy to keep their inheritance straight. It could be done.

I've yet to see a well-reasoned example of how nudging the terms of a legal contract from "one consenting man and one consenting woman" to "two consenting people" necessarily opens the door for polygamy. Civil marriage, and the myriad of laws pertaining to it, hinges on the two people part. The key to it is that it grants reciprocal rights to two people. I don't see how changing the qualifications for those two people necessarily opens the door for reinterpretation of the entire construct.

[cphilip]

My point is that the constitution specifically calls for a seperation of church and state. The primary premise for having "man and woman marriage" is based in Judeo-Christian beliefs. So those laws are tie our state (US law) to the Judeo-Christian faith.

Not realy.... it seperates them in action. It seperates them so that one of them cannot put undue influence on each other directly. It does not seperate them from morality being influencing factors in the "making" of law. It cannot and never will. And was never intended too. It was seperated so they would be able to be free of each other when they disagreed but could cooperate when they agreed. Not always are they in conflict with each other. As long as they are not unconstitutional their may be laws that are influenced by morality. If you want to label all morality church based you may do so. But that would not be something the Churches would protest either. Laws are formed to potect the majority and personal freedoms are sometimes at odds with that. For instance taking away a mans property is illegal. But if he steals or murders someone and his property is taken as compensation that is now legal if the law permits such restitution. And "an eye for an eye" is a biblical/church based phylosophy... but yet it found its way into law. Right is right no mater from where it came.

[Ov3rmind]

Even excluding the Bible verses that explicity condemn homosexuality, you still have the proscription of expressly non-reproductive sexual activity. As all homosexual sex is necessarily non-reproductive, homosexuality by extension becomes an abomination in the eyes of the Church.

You say that like all married straight couples never have sex just for pleasure.

[spantol]

Just a slight nitpick, 'cos I've been burned by this before. The Constitution doesn't mention a separation of church and state, what it prohibits is the establishment of a state chuch (See Also: Henry VIII). The pledge of maintaining a separation of church and state comes from a speech by Thomas Jefferson to, IIRC, a baptist church, wherein he sought to ease the congregation's fears that one particular flavor of Christianity would be endorsed by the government. Judeo-Christian beliefs do influence more legislation than I feel they ought to, but there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with that.

My point is that the constitution specifically calls for a seperation of church and state. The primary premise for having "man and woman marriage" is based in Judeo-Christian beliefs. So those laws are tie our state (US law) to the Judeo-Christian faith.

Edit: and cphilip, pickle answered my question pretty well. As far as I'm concerned this can be closed if it causes any problems.

[spantol]

You say that like I actually believe any of it. I'm just telling it like the Catholic Church sees it. Married Catholics are free to engage in recreational sex, just don't tell the Pope.

You say that like all married straight couples never have sex just for pleasure.

[Pickle]

NJPaint,

Many people refer to the ten commandments as if they are the end all of all commandments. They were merely the essence of all God's commandments.

Hebrews 8:6-13 "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers...because they did not remain faithful to my covenant...I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

So above we have God telling his people that he will make a "new covenant" with his people in the future. Basically he is preparing them. To paraphrase, "Look, we have an agreement now of what you need to do to obey me and to get into heaven. Well, I am going to make a new agreement in the future. In that agreement I will forgive you and remember your sins no more." I am taking some liberty here :) . Then Christ comes onto the scene.

"What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. " (Galatians 3:19a) The word "Seed" here refers to Christ. The transgressions mentioned are the same as mentioned above, "because they did not remain faithful to my covenant." So to paraphrase, the old laws were simply in place until Christ came.

Hebrews 8:13 When He said, "A new {covenant,}" He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
Hebrews is a New Testament book.

I hope this helps. And this is why I LOVE AO. This type of good conversation would NEVER happen on other forums. Even some christian ones I know of. Good job guys!

[Pickle]

Many Christians believe that sex is for procreation only. My thought on that is they are missing out on a lot If I remember correctly, the Catholic church considers any sexual act that does result in the chance of giving life (i.e. masturbation, oral sex...) a mortal sin. A mortal sin is defined as "an unpardonable sin entailing a total loss of grace."

I've yet to see a well-reasoned example of how nudging the terms of a legal contract from "one consenting man and one consenting woman" to "two consenting people" necessarily opens the door for polygamy.

Simple. After "nudging" the terms (as you put it) simply nudge it again to say "three consenting people". It is definitely a slippery slope theory but I beleive it to be accurate.

[spantol]

Heh. Those ones tend to be the troublemakers.

On the nudging, I don't think it's quite that simple. Every law on the books written with the assumption of two people in a marriage would have to be reworked. Property rights and inheritance would get quite a bit more complicated. There'd be a ton more work involved with changing definition of the union versus changing the qualification for membership. I suppose it's a matter of perspective--I see the latter as a simple find-replace, and the former as a huge legislative nightmare.

Many Christians believe that sex is for procreation only. My thought on that is they are missing out on a lot



Simple. After "nudging" the terms (as you put it) simply nudge it again to say "three consenting people". It is definitely a slippery slope theory but I beleive it to be accurate.

[spantol]

While trying to Google for that article I mentioned earlier, I came upon this: Slippery Slop: The maddening "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage. A good read, even if you disagree. Here's my favorite paragraph:

Now, slippery slopes are not to be sneezed at. Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school has done some extremely serious thinking on the subject and, while he does not himself oppose gay marriage, he cautions that one ignores slippery slope effects at one's peril. But he also reminds us that slippery slopes are only metaphors. They are not intrinsic principles of law. Each step in the slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its merits. And that is happening only at the very margins of the gay marriage debate.

[Pickle]

I really don't want this to be a political thread debating gay-marriage. (it will be closed) I want a realistic religious perspective of the Bible and its condemnation of homosexuality.

I agree. That can be another thread. We have taken this a bit too far already . Of course, I have yet to see a topic stay on track

[cphilip]

Many Christians believe that sex is for procreation only. My thought on that is they are missing out on a lot If I remember correctly, the Catholic church considers any sexual act that does result in the chance of giving life (i.e. masturbation, oral sex...) a mortal sin. A mortal sin is defined as "an unpardonable sin entailing a total loss of grace.

One would wonder why God gave us the ability to enjoy it at any time we chose rather than like all the other beasts which is only when in estrus....

and maybe the real meaning of that is its hard to be "gracefull" with a genitalia in you mouth!

[spantol]

Huh. She must have been doing it wrong.

and maybe the real meaning of that is its hard to be "gracefull" with a genitalia in you mouth!

[Miscue]

It's okay if it is two hot chicks. That is ALWAYS ok, and I do not have to get into ethics or the Bible to explain this - it is self-evident, we all know why this is. And with equality of gender in mind, it's okay for the opposite - although to me it's kinda gross. But two hot chicks going at it, that is ALWAYS ok and there should be channels on TV dedicated to this.

[ScatterPlot]

I think the Catholics are a bit off in much of their teachings. They determine a lot of their stuff from what people like the Pope say. I'll probably get some angry thoughts for this one, but I believe that the Pope has no authority over me, and I don't think anything he says has any bearing on what's right or wrong. Bear in mind here that when I say the Pope I really mean any of the Catholic "High-up guys". I'm not Catholic and therefore don't know the names of all those guys that make up rules and all. ANYWAYS, I don't know of any place in the Bible that says sex is only for procreation. However, I do know that all the laws that whoever it was that posted the thing against Dr. Laura (who isn't a very good role model if you ask me) are invalid, as they are part of the Old Law. However, homosexuality is wrong no matter how you look at it. I'll try to get some scriptures on that tomorrow. All the talk on if someone is born with homosexual tendencies or not, I'm not real sure, but I bet there could be some hinting of homosexual desires in people's genes. However, it does not matter if someone has the tendencies to like people of the same sex, it does NOT make it right! Animals may do that kind of thing, but animals don't have souls or cognizance. People could have the tendency to want to kill someone else, be an alcoholic, lie, steal, cheat, overeat, whatever you may want to say, it just means you're a little weaker there, and that there is where Satan will try to hit you the most! What tempts me most won't necessarily tempt you the most, and vice-versa. People naturally are more susceptive to one thing than another. Be it homosexuality or anything else, being tempted by something does not in any way make it right to do so. Also, what everythone has said about Christians not following all the rules, being hypocritical, well, duh! Nobody's perfect (although we always must try to be). If everyone always always always did the right thing, then why would we need saving? There is only one person who did that, and it was Jesus Christ, who saves us fron when we do break the law (of God, which does coincide with the law of man, but that's off topic-let me know if anyone wants to talk about why breaking the US law is a sin).

About what someone said about homosexuality being worse treated by society, but not a worse sin, and everyone's a hypocrite anyway, well here's the thing.
All the little sins are indeed just as bad, however homosexualtiy is just something that is more outspoken. One cannot be both a Christian and a homosexual. You must give up that lifestyle when you become a Christian, just as you must stop doing everything else. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (that is wrong) but still it is a very open sin that everyone else can see very easily.

Miscue, you really need to change. While you may think lesbians are hot and all they're as sinful as a couple of fat gay guys going at it. Be careful what you pollute your mind with.

[Dirty Dakota]

For that reasoning, masturbation and contraceptives are just as sinful as homosexuality. But you don't see the same fanatisism against those as you do against gays.

Religion is Man Made.

The reason that you see such fevor in terms of anti-homosexuality or other current moreys is that religion is man-made.

There is no sin is worse than another.

The Pharasees tried to trap Jesus with such questions. He said it all in his reply; Love the Lord thy GOD with all your heart and all your mind and love thy neighbor as thyself (you got the idea anyway).

He didn't say don't love gays, democrats or owners of Smart Parts Products. :)