A Danger to the Constitution

Pah · Aug 27, 2004

Christy said:
Trishtrish - now watch the sparks fly.

You have been criticized for being too judgemental, too unloving, too hateful towards those people who are homosexual. You said that homosexuality was disgusting.

In the Bible, St. Paul called homosexuality an "abomination."

I just used the bible search resourcee available here at ReligiousForums and found no entry for abomination in the Pauline Letters nor in BibleGateway's NIV version. The only Pauline reference to homosexual is in 1 Corinthians 6:9 where it says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. In fact, none of the eight total references to abomination in Gateway's NIV deal with homosexuality.

So, with this little research, I am at a loss as why you say that about Paul - can you give chapter and verse?

-pah-

Christy · Aug 28, 2004

A thousand apologies, PahPaul did not call homosexuality an abomination Leviticus did. (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) What St. Paul said was that homosexual activity is shameless. (Romans 1:26-27) I think shameless is very close to Trishtrishs disgusting.

civilcynic · Aug 28, 2004

Pulling out selective verses from the Bible to support one's belief that homosexuality is wrong is not a very good argument for 2 reasons:

1. For every selective verse pulled out of the Bible to support a certain belief or way of life, there are other verses that are ignored and not followed. For example, children who disrespect their parents are to be stoned according to the Bible. Are you suggesting that we stone kids to death for being disrespectful? What about the story of Lot who offers his 2 young virgin daughters to a crowd to do with what they will so the crowd does not attempt to engage in homosexual acts with the Lord's messengers.
Would you condone parents offering their young daughters to men they suspect could be homosexual in hopes of mending their ways?

2. By quoting Bible verses, you have established that your opposition to homosexuality is a religious belief......How does that support the idea that homosexuality is a danger to the Constitution. Exactly how does homosexuality endanger our Constitution? You have every right to your religious beliefs in this country but what right do you or any other person have to impose your religious beliefs of what is right or wrong on others? Would you support Orthodox Jews if they wanted a Constitutional Amendment banning all pork products in the US because the Bible says one shouldn't eat pork? Would you support fundamentalist Muslims who believe that women have few rights and demanded a change in the Constitution to prevent women from voting?

The Constitution states that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No where does it state in the Constituion that the equality, the right to life, liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness should be restricted in terms of anyone's particular religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Again, please, someone explain to me how homosexuality is a danger to the Constitution?

trishtrish10 · Aug 28, 2004

i don't hate anyone. i hate sinful acts.

painted wolf · Aug 29, 2004

the number one defence of hate.... I don't hate (insert group here), I just hate the way they (look/act/believe/muck up the pure genepool... ect set)

so you don't like sin.... don't do it.

don't use the constitution to inforce religious dogma.

wa:do

trishtrish10 · Aug 29, 2004

the constitution was formed to be fair to all and enact just laws. since it was founded on Christian and Jewish morals, it stands to stay that way. we must have some type of advocate. that's why we all have one vote, so that hopefully good leaders will be elected to uphold good laws and legislate even better ones. since God's existence is proven, we must obey his law before man's law, which like in the case of abortion,euthanasia, and capital punishment; we are fallible. the Pope is the highest authority on laws or the difference between right and wrong, we have. i'm a loyal supporter and advocate of his. are u.

Pah · Aug 29, 2004

trishtrish10 said:
the constitution was formed to be fair to all and enact just laws. since it was founded on Christian and Jewish morals,

No, it was NOT founded on any other morality but that in common law. Common law has a history and a system of justice that has NOTHING to do with Christian or Jewish morality. Period. You have been a reader and poster to this and other threads where this has been stated again and again. Common Law!!! I think that if you want to contiune this lie you repeat with so many other Christians, you should prove that it was not founded on common law. No opinions, no bald assertions, but proof from the documents of the time and scholars of history that shown common law is NOT the basis of of the US Constitution

[it stands to stay that way. we must have some type of advocate. that's why we all have one vote, so that hopefully good leaders will be elected to uphold good laws and legislate even better ones. since God's existence is proven, we must obey his law before man's law, which like in the case of abortion,euthanasia, and capital punishment; we are fallible. the Pope is the highest authority on laws or the difference between right and wrong, we have. i'm a loyal supporter and advocate of his. are u.

Wrong again. God has not, nor ever will be proven to exist

Wrong again. Your bible says to obey Ceasar's law and that law in the US is the Constitution. Abortion, pornography, homosexual sex are all protected from your God!

Wrong again. The Papisty have been men of foul morals and deeds and that, my friend, casts a pale over this Pope.The Pope is not an official elected by the people of this country and, because he is of foriegn residence, he has NO standing in our courts

Support whatever and whoever you like, but your ideas have no bearing and are sometimes counter to the laws of the US

-pah-

Green Gaia · Aug 29, 2004

trishtrish10 said:
the constitution was formed to be fair to all and enact just laws. since it was founded on Christian and Jewish morals,

No, it wasn't.

Good post, pah.

painted wolf · Aug 29, 2004

I think that you (trishtrish) missed something in your own statement...

"the constitution was formed to be fair to all and enact just laws."

EXACTLY.... that is why passing unjust laws like the marriage ammendment is wrong. It is unjust and unfair and feeds on the neurosis of a population of americans to distract real political discussion in this most sensitive and important election season.

and the Constitution was founded more on the Iriquois great law than the bible.

wa:do

sankazhria16 · Aug 29, 2004

trishtrish10 said:
the constitution was formed to be fair to all and enact just laws. since it was founded on Christian and Jewish morals, it stands to stay that way. we must have some type of advocate. that's why we all have one vote, so that hopefully good leaders will be elected to uphold good laws and legislate even better ones. since God's existence is proven, we must obey his law before man's law, which like in the case of abortion,euthanasia, and capital punishment; we are fallible. the Pope is the highest authority on laws or the difference between right and wrong, we have. i'm a loyal supporter and advocate of his. are u.

sorry to bust your self-righteous, Christian bubble, trish, but the existence of God has not been proven nor can it be. It is also impossible to prove She doesn't exist. By definition, faith is based on uncertainty.

Just curious, but in addition to the immorality of abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment(with ya on that one), do follow God's law and Jesus' teachings against war(thou shalt not kill, love your enemies, turn the other cheek) or against amassing excessive financial wealth while others go hungry?

Yes, we are fallible. So is the Pope, no more and no less than we. He may have great intentions and may even do great things, but his interpretaion of scripture is no better than my own or any other Christian's, nor does he have any authority over me.

Feathers in Hair · Aug 29, 2004

Great point, sankazhria16, and well put.

And as for 'not hating anyone, just sinful acts', why hate anything? Hate cannot change the world one iota for the better, and merely causes more grief. If nothing else for the person doing the hating, since they're being the conduit of such negativity.

Love (among other things, but this is the only thing applicable to this situation) is the thing that can change the world for the better. Yes, I've heard the reply 'I love the sinner, but not the sinful act' a dozen times, but that tiresomely always leads back to the 'hate' factor. Is anyone asking you to love the 'sinful act'? Since (in the Christian theology) everyone is a sinner, this would mean everyone hating everyone else for their sinful acts.

And I don't think that was what Jesus had in mind. I think he was rather more keen on the 'love' idea.

Melody · Aug 30, 2004

<<Wrong again. God has not, nor ever will be proven to exist>>

Really? And you offer what proof that God "will never" be proven to exist? The most that can be said is that God does or doesn't exist and you choose to believe the latter. There is no more proof of God's existence than there is of His lack of existence.

Melody

Melody · Aug 30, 2004

>>Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; >>

If you think homosexuality is wrong, ask yourself "why." The overwhelming number of people who object to gay marriage cite the Bible as their evidence for why it should be condemned. That makes your objections "religious" objections...and has no place in our constitution.

Christians should think past their knee jerk reaction of trying to legalize their beliefs, because it could just as easily go the other way in the future since Christians are in the minority. For example, do you really want someone to make it a law banning the Bible because it promotes intolerance (in their view)? I don't.

In Pres. Bush's speech on making an amendment banning gay marriage, he says, "America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."

It absolutely is a contradiction. Nowhere in the constitution does it define what marriage is. To create an amendment that would so obviously define marriage based on religious beliefs goes against the "separation of church and state."

Melody

true blood · Aug 30, 2004

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If gays want to have some type of special union, between themselves, they are going about it all wrong. They need to create some other type of union besides "marriage". As I see it, this amendment to the constitution, will "preserve" the traditional marriage that is for a union between a man and a woman.

Melody · Aug 30, 2004

<<Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.>>

I'm sorry, I must've missed it. Where exactly is this definition to be found? Traditionally, this may be so, but there was a time when it was traditional to sacrifice children on an altar, to own slaves, etc. Nowhere do I find a legal definition of marriage. Please educate me.

Melody

painted wolf · Aug 30, 2004

in my tradition (native american) it was common for gays to marry... so long as you could provide for one another you could get married.

for any tradition you can come up with I can find an opposite that is also very traditional.

My tradition is just as 'American' (if not more so) than any other and just as valid, the law provides it so that I have the right to live my traditions just as you can yours.

That is the definition of a free country.

wa:do

Melody · Aug 30, 2004

<<in my tradition (native american) it was common for gays to marry... so long as you could provide for one another you could get married.>>

While it was common for gays to marry, was it common for two "warriors" to marry or did one partner take the female role...having to dress like the female, etc. Pardon my ignorance, but I thought I saw or read this somewhere but didn't know if it was fact or someone's interpretation.

Thanks.

Melody

painted wolf · Aug 30, 2004

that depended on the tribe and thier particular tradition.

yes in some tribes one partner was more the 'man' role and the other more the 'woman' role for simple logistics... Someone had to take care of the lodge and its posessions.

as far as having to dress like a woman, I think that may have been the tradition of at least one tribe but certenly not all. There is a lot of variation of culture and tradition among the 300+ tribes here in the US/Canada.

hope this helps

wa:do

true blood · Aug 30, 2004

Melody said:
<<Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.>>

I'm sorry, I must've missed it. Where exactly is this definition to be found? Traditionally, this may be so, but there was a time when it was traditional to sacrifice children on an altar, to own slaves, etc. Nowhere do I find a legal definition of marriage. Please educate me.

Melody

Some "legal" definitions I've found. A legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. a King and a Queen of the same suit. See common marriage, royal marriage. The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society a civil contract between a man and woman. A man and woman legally living together as husband and wife. etc..

Pah · Aug 30, 2004

true blood said:
Some "legal" definitions I've found. A legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. a King and a Queen of the same suit. See common marriage, royal marriage. The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life A set of cultural rules for bringing men and women together to create a family unit and for defining their behavior toward one another, their children, and society a civil contract between a man and woman. A man and woman legally living together as husband and wife. etc..

The motive behind many of the types of marriages was to protect the male interest in property and family conrol. Most royal marriages of a male to the Queen did not confer the title king to the male so the crown passed to her eldest son. Homosexual; marriages, recognized by the Church, were more of a "blessing" and surprisedly much the same as heterosexual marriages (i.e., no sacrement involved). We know that biblical tradition did not entirely support the exclusivity you would like to include in your modern definition. Nor does the modern family comprise a clear majority (about 50%, I believe) of one man, one woman. There are many single parent families, homosexual families, families headed by relatives (the older sibling, the grandparent, the aunt or uncle) and even families created around the commune concept.

You have a long way to go to define traditional families that meets all these structures.

-pah-

A Danger to the Constitution

Uber all member

Member

Member

Active Member

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Uber all member

Veteran Member

Grey Muzzle

Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Well-Known Member

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Uber all member