Gay Rights in Churches

[Evil Eye]

My point is that while I do not morally or logically approve of A or B, A is protected by the constitution and B is not.

 

[AltF4]

That sure would be an interesting court case, huh? Lawyers trying to argue back and forth whether a particular point is or is not theologically justified given a certain belief structure. I'd pay to watch that. Would be entertainment. In reality, it's probably not a legally decidable question.

I see where you're going. And I, too, entirely support the legal right of any private organization (including churches) to be as discriminatory as they wish to be. It's not within the power of the government to invade on private dealings and dictate what they have to do. That would be a terrible overreach of power. But once you take public resources, then you play by different rules. If you're being subsidized by the public, you have to be open to the public.

 

[Sucumbio]

But once you take public resources, then you play by different rules. If you're being subsidized by the public, you have to be open to the public.

Well, yes and no. Churches are different. They're supported by member donations, not the government. It just so happens that they do not have to PAY taxes. IRC section 501 (c)(3) explains in detail what exactly is meant by "tax exempt" status for churches, how it is applied for, and what the church has to do in order to qualify.

From that document:

■ the organization must be organized and operated
exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other
charitable purposes

■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any
private individual or shareholder

■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation

■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and

■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy

That last line is the real kicker in this whole debate. It's obvious that what is really being said here on behalf of the IRS is that churches may claim tax exemption so long as they're not lobbying Congress, or performing public executions. It also means that the status quo is in effect. Now you or I or EE seem to all agree that this is a poor excuse to allow Churches to discriminate, but until Gay Marriage is accepted Federally as a legitimate Union, I don't see any precedent for pulling their tax exempt status, even in courts.

It should also be noted that Church service is highly dependent on the specific congregation. The Church itself. If a gay citizen is being barred from attending service at a specific church, they need only find another church. If they want to get married, find a church that will marry them.

Here I think the wisdom of the First Amendment is valid over our instincts. If a religion - a protected institution - is to be allowed the freedom to practice, and in that religion, homosexuality is banned, then it is NOT the government's job to step in and force them to allow gays to attend, despite the fact that they are "open to the public."

stuff

Not at all. The Appeal to Nature

[COLLAPSE="tsk tsk"]Opinions differ regarding appeal to nature in rational argument. Sometimes, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that admits some exceptions, but nonetheless proves to be of use in one or more specific topics, (or in general). As a rule of thumb, natural or unnatural facts provide presumptively reliable good or bad values, barring evidence to the contrary. Failure to consider such evidence commits a fallacy of accident under this view.

An appeal to nature can sometimes be considered a fallacy of relevance which rejects the claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of informal fallacy, nature implies an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

General form of this type of argument:

N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.

U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.

In some contexts, the meanings of "nature" and "natural" can be vague, leading to unintended associations with other concepts. The word "natural" can also be a loaded term — much like the word "normal", in some contexts, it can carry an implicit value judgement. An appeal to nature would thus beg the question, because the conclusion is entailed by the premise [/COLLAPSE]

Sounds just like you.

 

[rvkevin]

Consistency within dogma makes plenty of difference, because it determines whether this is secular discrimination with flimsy and reaching attempts at religious justification, or a disagreeable but nonetheless codified aspect of the religious doctrine. One of the main facets of most religions is abiding by certain rules of conduct; stripping that away is in violation of the Constitution.

And that's regardless of whether I like or agree with it.

Where did you get this idea that religious members can do whatever they want as long as it is mandated by their religion and that this is protected by the Constitution? This is specifically not the case. If what you're practicing brushes up against somebody else's rights, your conduct can be limited, and religious practice is no different. Otherwise, you can have a religious exemption to every law and the court will have to take the position of determining which is a religion or not. Do you really think that this is the purpose of the first amendment, having the government deciding which are state recognized religions?

 

[Dre89]

Alt- There's a difference between a gay simply sitting in the mass and not taking communion, or a confessed gay taking communion, and a non-confessed gay expecting to receive communion, when non-gays who have committed the same level of sin aren't entitled to communion. I think most Churches (at least the reasonable ones anyway) only take issue with the latter.

Suc- That's a straw man. If you appeal to nature and don't show why nature= good, then yes you're committing an appeal to tradition fallacy.

If that article is saying everyone who appeals to nature doesn't show why nature= good, then the author of that article may not be educated in meta-ethics.

A good appeal to nature will have a meta ethical foundations (basically the metaphysics of ethics) to explain why nature= good. My ethics has one, but that's a different debate.

And of course there are various of types to appeals to nature, and not all of them are equally valid. An appeal to the animal kingdom could potentialliy justify infanticide, or run into the problem that differing species do conflicting practices. It also becomes arbitrary as to which species we look to (eg. just the apes, all mammals, all vertebrates etc.).

Or you can just appeal to human biology.

Blazed- What I mean by nature in terms of my personal ethics isn't relevant here, what I meant by nature in my post addressing Suc was simply human biology.

 

[blazedaces]

If a man and a woman happened to be married under a different religion, then I'd say it was fine. However, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so in the gay example you gave I'd wouldn't consider it to be marriage, and consider the act of sex to be fornication.

Anyway, I think there are actually verses from the Bible that address the issue more directly, but I think the above works as an argument, so they aren't needed at the moment.

But marriage is only defined that way under YOUR religion, not under EVERY religion. You can't have it both ways. You can't accept all religious marriages that fit your religion's definition and disregard ones that don't. Being between a man and a women is only one of many traditions/rules that must be followed by your religion. Other religions have plenty of their own rules. Why would you care more about this one than any other? In reality I see now your issue with homosexuals having sex (at least in the way you present your argument) is the issue you would have with anyone not in your religion having sex EVER. If that's the way you want to be, fine.

Blazed- What I mean by nature in terms of my personal ethics isn't relevant here, what I meant by nature in my post addressing Suc was simply human biology.

You're lying. Human biology is a study of the physical body, not what aught to happen in a given situation. Making the claim that pulling out is "not human biology" makes absolutely no sense. You're using the word to imply ONE specific purpose for every activity (even though it has been shown that this is almost never the case).

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

An appeal to nature is using nature to determine moral values.

In this case it's using human biology to determine moral values.

For example human biology suggests that prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation isn't good for us, because not only does it cause blue balls, but it can lead to prostate cancer.

That's just one example. If it were natural to pull out, there'd either be something that forces us to pull out or gives us reason to, like pain or enhacned pleasure from pulling out.

That's not to say it's wrong to pull out, just that it's not something we're biologically structured to do.

 

[blazedaces]

An appeal to nature is using nature to determine moral values.

In this case it's using human biology to determine moral values.

For example human biology suggests that prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation isn't good for us, because not only does it cause blue balls, but it can lead to prostate cancer.

That's just one example. If it were natural to pull out, there'd either be something that forces us to pull out or gives us reason to, like pain or enhacned pleasure from pulling out.

That's not to say it's wrong to pull out, just that it's not something we're biologically structured to do.

Absolute nonsense. We have brains and utilize sex for pleasure as well as for reproduction. How about if it was natural to pull out, we would have brains that allow us to make the choice to pull out? We've been over this it feels like hundreds of times now.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Here I think the wisdom of the First Amendment is valid over our instincts. If a religion - a protected institution - is to be allowed the freedom to practice, and in that religion, homosexuality is banned, then it is NOT the government's job to step in and force them to allow gays to attend, despite the fact that they are "open to the public."

I just want it to be clear that this is not my argument. Simply being "open to the public" doesn't mean you have to obey governmental regulation. It's taking money from the public that does it. Which churches do, by way of being tax immune.

Though you could make an interesting argument in court (as you pointed out) that since gay marriage isn't recognized nationally, it's not considered a norm. (And wouldn't be discrimination.)

 

[adumbrodeus]

That sure would be an interesting court case, huh? Lawyers trying to argue back and forth whether a particular point is or is not theologically justified given a certain belief structure. I'd pay to watch that. Would be entertainment. In reality, it's probably not a legally decidable question.

I see where you're going. And I, too, entirely support the legal right of any private organization (including churches) to be as discriminatory as they wish to be. It's not within the power of the government to invade on private dealings and dictate what they have to do. That would be a terrible overreach of power. But once you take public resources, then you play by different rules. If you're being subsidized by the public, you have to be open to the public.

Freedom of religion (or lack thereof) is more heavily protected legally speaking then the ability to do business privately.

If you wish to dispute the tax exempt status of religions, that's fine but a separate issue, but keep in mind that many are functionally nonprofits.

 

[Nicholas1024]

But marriage is only defined that way under YOUR religion, not under EVERY religion. You can't have it both ways. You can't accept all religious marriages that fit your religion's definition and disregard ones that don't. Being between a man and a women is only one of many traditions/rules that must be followed by your religion. Other religions have plenty of their own rules. Why would you care more about this one than any other? In reality I see now your issue with homosexuals having sex (at least in the way you present your argument) is the issue you would have with anyone not in your religion having sex EVER. If that's the way you want to be, fine.

Look, you were asking me what I think is considered to be sin and would qualify as marriage and I told you, one man, one woman, no sex outside of said bounds. It doesn't matter if they're married in a Christian church, Muslim church, whatever, so long as it follows that simple guideline. The alternative you're suggesting is to accept anything people slap the word "marriage" onto, which would let almost anyone justify almost anything in that regard by going "Oh, I'm a new sect of religion X, with the exception that I define marriage as *insert whatever*".

@AltF4
I realize a lot of the discussion I've been making is tangential to the topic, but I'm not going to let unfounded claims about Christian theology go unchallenged.

Also, I'd like to ask you, why do you believe in the theory of quantum physics? It sounds completely different from any day to day experiences. You haven't done any of the experiments to verify it yourself. In essence, you're believing what your teacher (or perhaps the scientific community as a whole) tells you, because you trust the source to provide reliable information.

Similarly, I believe the Bible's statements about any given topic because I trust the source to be accurate, for reasons covered extensively elsewhere. (If you think that shouldn't be a good reason, let me ask you something. If God were to appear personally to you, perform any miracles you asked, explained in detail His plan for the universe, etc. and then told you He considered homosexuality a sin, wouldn't you believe him? Obviously that's a lot more proof than I have, but the point is that if you're completely convinced the Bible is the Word of an all-knowing perfectly good God, you'd be insane not to follow it.) You might think my reasons aren't that great, fine, you have a right to think that. However, I'm sick and tired of people going "There's no way any intelligent person could hold position X" when that is demonstrably not the case. You might not agree with my reasoning, but at least admit I have arguable reasoning!

 

[AltF4]

Freedom of religion (or lack thereof) is more heavily protected legally speaking then the ability to do business privately.

If you wish to dispute the tax exempt status of religions, that's fine but a separate issue, but keep in mind that many are functionally nonprofits.

I think this is a good point. You might phrase it in the form of a question like "Should we grant religious freedom a higher weight than ordinary 1st ammendment protections". If we do, then we might very well conclude that it's acceptable to practice your religious services (even if they're discriminatory) while taking public funding.

A couple arguments for both sides of that question are floating around in my head and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Also, I'd like to ask you, why do you believe in the theory of quantum physics? It sounds completely different from any day to day experiences. You haven't done any of the experiments to verify it yourself. In essence, you're believing what your teacher (or perhaps the scientific community as a whole) tells you, because you trust the source to provide reliable information.

I actually disagree entirely with this. Science is not one big appeal to authority. Science works, and is trustworthy, specifically because it does not require your trust. Which means that both results and procedures from any experiment and theory are transparent and public.

There isn't a way to lie and get away with it in science. Anyone can just pick up and duplicate your experiments, and if they don't work then that's how it is.

So I believe that Quantum Mechanics is true (for some approximation of the word "true") because it produces tangible results. The theory makes bold predictions that no other theory makes, and is right about it. You are able to make new products and devices using Quantum Mechanics that other theories tell you that you shouldn't be able to. I believe it because thousands of independent people (who all have an incentive to be the one who disproves Quantum Mechanics) have not been able to do so. I trust them specifically because they do not demand that I trust them.

Now how does that contrast with basing a religious belief? Maybe you can make an argument (and I'm sure you do) but it really bears no resemblance to the belief that's placed in scientific theories. There is no comparison to be made.

 

[blazedaces]

Look, you were asking me what I think is considered to be sin and would qualify as marriage and I told you, one man, one woman, no sex outside of said bounds. It doesn't matter if they're married in a Christian church, Muslim church, whatever, so long as it follows that simple guideline. The alternative you're suggesting is to accept anything people slap the word "marriage" onto, which would let almost anyone justify almost anything in that regard by going "Oh, I'm a new sect of religion X, with the exception that I define marriage as *insert whatever*".

Do you support Polygamous Marriage, Levirate Marriage (from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning ‘brother-in-law.’ In the ancient near East, if a man died without having children, his brother was expected to marry his widow and produce children to continue the lineage of the deceased brother), Prisoner of war marriage, or Slave marriage? These are all marriages mentioned and approved of in the bible (SOURCE). Do you support them?

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think this is a good point. You might phrase it in the form of a question like "Should we grant religious freedom a higher weight than ordinary 1st ammendment protections". If we do, then we might very well conclude that it's acceptable to practice your religious services (even if they're discriminatory) while taking public funding.

A couple arguments for both sides of that question are floating around in my head and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Well it's not a matter of having higher protection then other first amendment rights, it's a matter of first amendment protections falling under strict scrutiny for pretty much any restriction whatsoever. Granted there are some exceptions, but generally the only question your point calls into question is the tax exempt status.

 

[Sucumbio]

@Dre. I am not exactly interested in debating with you on your use of an appeal to nature for your own purposes. The article I cited uses the argument from nature to justify claiming homosexuality is an aberrant human quality that can be more or less controlled. That it is a choice, a conscious one, that it is the product of environment and conditioning, that it isn't biologically imperative like having 2 arms or a beating heart. I find this argument flawed, not just because there is homosexuality in Nature (that was only one reason, and if you think it's a weak reason, fine by me, there are others.)

@others

I think this article will clear up a bit about what we're talking about. It didn't occur to me until today, for whatever reason. But it is true that both the Westboro Baptist Church and the Mormon Church could stand to lose tax exempt status, if they were less careful in how they do things.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Do you support Polygamous Marriage, Levirate Marriage (from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning ‘brother-in-law.’ In the ancient near East, if a man died without having children, his brother was expected to marry his widow and produce children to continue the lineage of the deceased brother), Prisoner of war marriage, or Slave marriage? These are all marriages mentioned and approved of in the bible (SOURCE). Do you support them?

-blazed

The polygamous marriage source might give examples of people having multiple wives, but the Bible never actually supports it. It simply states "and person X had this many wives", like it might about how much gold they had, or their worshipping idols, or any blunt historical fact. So yes, I'd condemn it.

The brother-in-law marriage is an example from Leviticus (and similar), and while I wouldn't condemn it, I also wouldn't require it. It was a different culture back then, the point being to produce a child to carry on the dead man's line.

I didn't really bother to read further down the webpage than that, since the pattern the site is following is clear. Take verses out of context, add a healthy dose of imagination, and ignore anything that might oppose your viewpoint.

@AltF4
You misunderstand. That's why the scientific community as a whole believes Quantum Theory. (I'm assuming you aren't a member of that. If you are, please pretend for the sake of the argument that you're not.) You personally haven't done the experiments or firsthand seen the results, what you have are research papers (and down the line textbooks) from the scientists who've done said experiments and accumulated said results. Theoretically, all the various physicists could just be trolling the world at large, and you wouldn't know the difference. However, you just laugh (and rightfully so) that possibility out of hand because you completely trust the source.

 

[Dre89]

Absolute nonsense. We have brains and utilize sex for pleasure as well as for reproduction. How about if it was natural to pull out, we would have brains that allow us to make the choice to pull out? We've been over this it feels like hundreds of times now.

-blazed

You're confusing what is morally acceptable with a basic appeal to human biology.

We have the mental ability to starve ourselves, or abstain from sex, but we're clearly not biologically structured to do so.

I'm not trying to say an appeal to biology is necessarily correct. I'm just saying that biologically we're not structured to do so. Using your brain to pull out isn't a sign of biological structure because then it would be equally biological to keep it in. It's like saying we're not biologically structured to nourish oursleves, or procreate, which is absurd.

You can believe that appeals to nature/biology aren't what should determine moral values, but that's not the point here.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Now I'd like to respond to a number of criticisms that have been directed at me in my absence.

Dre:

Before it was simply the idea of asking someone to ignore their sexuality that you said was wrong, now you've changed it to 'well it doesn't harm anyone'.

The fact that killers harm other people doesn't make their sexuality any easier to ignore, yet we still expect the same thing of them.

Because if it isn't ignored people die. I don't know how to make this any clearer. The point was to make a distinction between harmless acts and harmful ones. The notion is that it's wrong to repress someone sexually if what they do not harm anyone. That's the reason I don't think pedophiles should be allowed in schools to have free reign with kids.

Of course whether or not homosexuality is immoral isn't the topic. Simply not harming others isn't always enough, as drugs are outlawed yet technically don't harm others.

Which is partially why I'm in favour of legalising them.

The fact you think something not harming others automatically makes it permissable shows you're assuming a specific moral thought, but this isn't a homosexuality debate.

Freedom is a good thing, no?

So Bob do you still think that an unconfessed gay, or a gay who commtis any of the other standard sins should still be entitled to communion?

No. In the same way an unconfessed straight should confess before receiving communion. I think I've addressed the rest of that argument of yours rather nicely.

Nic:

If tanning and makeup actually worked to stop that kind of discrimination, it would have been done a long time ago. And your comment about being gay being uncontrollable only reveals that you didn't read the rest of my post.

It was a bad joke. Being a gay is something you can't control. I can't actually access your post, but I'm pretty sure that the science is on my side. If being gay was something you could control anyway, why would you choose to be gay?

Now to make some arguments of my own.

You misunderstand. That's why the scientific community as a whole believes Quantum Theory. (I'm assuming you aren't a member of that. If you are, please pretend for the sake of the argument that you're not.) You personally haven't done the experiments or firsthand seen the results, what you have are research papers (and down the line textbooks) from the scientists who've done said experiments and accumulated said results. Theoretically, all the various physicists could just be trolling the world at large, and you wouldn't know the difference. However, you just laugh (and rightfully so) that possibility out of hand because you completely trust the source.

There is a difference between trusting peer-reviewed research papers that produced by countless authors and trusting the bible produced by well... people who are unknown. The Bible doesn't have current on-going experiments that you can visit and see (CERN for example) that support it. The bible's correctness on numerous things is also debatable, in fact it can be considered self-contradictory. Quantum Mechanics is not. And the web of those who collaborated to produce the source that have to be either all ******** or lying for the source to be a fraud or just plain wrong in the case of Quantum Mechanics is utterly giant. That web would be considerably smaller in the case of the bible, given that according to Christians, it hasn't changed very much.

And another thing. If we look to human biology for answers on various moral questions, what does one do when one encounters structures such as the appendix?

 

[blazedaces]

The polygamous marriage source might give examples of people having multiple wives, but the Bible never actually supports it. It simply states "and person X had this many wives", like it might about how much gold they had, or their worshipping idols, or any blunt historical fact. So yes, I'd condemn it.

The brother-in-law marriage is an example from Leviticus (and similar), and while I wouldn't condemn it, I also wouldn't require it. It was a different culture back then, the point being to produce a child to carry on the dead man's line.

I didn't really bother to read further down the webpage than that, since the pattern the site is following is clear. Take verses out of context, add a healthy dose of imagination, and ignore anything that might oppose your viewpoint.

Mind explaining to me exactly where in the bible it explicitly defines marriage? From what I gathered it was mentioned just as casually as any of the points brought up above. Also, mind explaining why leviticus doesn't apply to you? It still feels to me like you're very much picking and choosing which parts of the bible you believe and which ones you don't.

I just did a quick search and found some lines.

Eph. 5:23-32

For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

and

1 Peter 3:1-5, 7

In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News. Your godly lives will speak to them better than any words. They will be won over by watching your pure, godly behavior.

Do you support the notion that all wives must submit to the authority of their husbands in every way? These seem to be the same lines that explicitly discuss marriage as between a man and a women. (SOURCE)

You're confusing what is morally acceptable with a basic appeal to human biology.

We have the mental ability to starve ourselves, or abstain from sex, but we're clearly not biologically structured to do so.

I'm not trying to say an appeal to biology is necessarily correct. I'm just saying that biologically we're not structured to do so. Using your brain to pull out isn't a sign of biological structure because then it would be equally biological to keep it in. It's like saying we're not biologically structured to nourish oursleves, or procreate, which is absurd.

You can believe that appeals to nature/biology aren't what should determine moral values, but that's not the point here.

Dre, while I see the point you're making, that we indeed have a biological structure, I feel you're entirely loading the point with an insinuation. And that insinuation is that somehow there is an intention or direction that our biological structure is "pointing" towards. But the fact is that this is simply not the case. Our biological structure is a RESULT of whatever evolutionary course we have taken. And it could be argued that had we not had brains and the ability to reason and "pull out", in this particular context, then our evolutionary path might have been entirely different. The result, our biological structure, would be very different.

Human biology is the study of this result and really everything related to it to a degree. And when you realize this you will understand, that like consciousness in the other thread where Alt4 pointed this out to you, what we are biologically structured to do is a grey area, a degree perhaps in one direction or another. There is no true or false. So to say we are or are not biologically structured to do something does not make sense. And even with this grey area, we are ever more aware that we could be wrong. We have thought in the past we are structured one way because of reason x,y, and z, but then new evidence comes about and shows this theory to be wrong. It happens all the time.

And again I will point out that we have come to these conclusions about our biological structure after studying the evidence, not assuming a theory and afterwards finding evidence to satisfy it.

-blazed

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nic:


It was a bad joke. Being a gay is something you can't control. I can't actually access your post, but I'm pretty sure that the science is on my side. If being gay was something you could control anyway, why would you choose to be gay?

If being an alcoholic was something you could control, why would you choose to be drunk?

The answer would be that the impulses are stronger than the person's willpower to choose otherwise.

There is a difference between trusting peer-reviewed research papers that produced by countless authors and trusting the bible produced by well... people who are unknown. The Bible doesn't have current on-going experiments that you can visit and see (CERN for example) that support it. The bible's correctness on numerous things is also debatable, in fact it can be considered self-contradictory. Quantum Mechanics is not. And the web of those who collaborated to produce the source that have to be either all ******** or lying for the source to be a fraud or just plain wrong in the case of Quantum Mechanics is utterly giant. That web would be considerably smaller in the case of the bible, given that according to Christians, it hasn't changed very much.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. I wasn't trying to prove the Bible as a perfect source of information here. What I WAS trying to prove is that if you completely trust a source of information, it's natural to believe what they're telling you even when that seems absurd. Can you personally verify Quantum mechanics without using a scrap of evidence from the scientific community as a whole? No. Does Quantum mechanics seem absurd to someone who isn't familiar with it? Yes. However, because you trust the scientific community to do things correctly, you believe the theory it produces. In the same way, because I believe the Bible, I trust the claims it makes.

And another thing. If we look to human biology for answers on various moral questions, what does one do when one encounters structures such as the appendix?

Um, what was your point with this?

@Blazed
Alright, time for a history lesson. Leviticus as a book of the Bible was given as a set of instructions by God to Moses for the Israelites way back before Christ. When Christ came, he established a new covenant that supersedes the old. So basically, the book of Leviticus is like a history textbook on the rules the Israelites had to follow (and the Jews of today still follow, most likely).

And regarding marriage, you can't take those verses in isolation. Going to the source you mentioned, you have to keep track of the verses about what husbands should do with respect to their wives, like these (the second parts of the references you gave.)

And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body.

In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard.

So basically, although the husband does have final authority (a decision which I'll explain in a minute), he's supposed to love and care for his wife and prioritize her needs instead of demanding his way all the time. Said final authority is only actually supposed to be used when the pair are at an irreconcilable disagreement over an important spiritual decision.

The reason the husband gets final authority... well, when it comes to something like that and no agreement can be made, someone has to get the final say. So basically the question is which sex to give said authority to. Why God picked the husband is a bit more complicated, getting into that would likely be a debate all its own.

TLDR: Yes the husband has authority, but he should always be looking out for his wife's benefit, and never use it except when not exercising it would result in the household making a very bad decision in some regard.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.

I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.

"Negrosexuals are not allowed at my church. That is, people who have sexual relations wherein at least one person is black are not allowed. Hey, I'm not discriminating against black people, I'm discriminating against the sinful act of Negrosexuality!"

Doesn't that seem like a ridiculously thinly-veiled attempt at discriminating against black people? Wouldn't that be immediately shown off as the racist bull**** it is?

 

[Nicholas1024]

"Negrosexuals are not allowed at my church. That is, people who have sexual relations wherein at least one person is black are not allowed. Hey, I'm not discriminating against black people, I'm discriminating against the sinful act of Negrosexuality!"

Doesn't that seem like a ridiculously thinly-veiled attempt at discriminating against black people? Wouldn't that be immediately shown off as the racist bull**** it is?

Does anyone else care if I start ignoring BPC entirely? Because after this particular post, let's just say I'm sorely tempted.

 

[Dre89]

Blazed- If you look at what our desires move us towards (non artificially manufactured ones, so not including things like junkfood), they all move us towards things that are good for us. We're clearly biologically structured. If we weren't, either our desires would be random, having no correlation to what's good for us, or we'd desire everything equally or nothing at all.

I don't see the relevance of the evolution point, that simply determines what our biology is.

 

[rvkevin]

Turns out that "ministers" are exempt from discrimination laws. Minister's being anyone who spreads the message/teachings of said religion (this applies to other religions who don't use the "minister" title). This means that churches can discriminate against homosexuals in regards to hiring someone in a position to teach their religion, but can't discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to other positions, such as secular teachers at a religious school (religious teachers would be considered ministers). However, if that teacher spends any amount of their time doing religious instruction, then they qualify, even if the majority of their time is spent on secular activities.

 

[AltF4]

Wow, guys. TMI. Let's not delve into each others personal lives like that. (referring to deleted posts in case you're confused)

 

[AltF4]

Well it's not a matter of having higher protection then other first amendment rights, it's a matter of first amendment protections falling under strict scrutiny for pretty much any restriction whatsoever. Granted there are some exceptions, but generally the only question your point calls into question is the tax exempt status.

I agree. I'm only really challenging the tax exempt status of churches. (It was done back in the 50's as a compromise in exchange for the rule that churches can't directly partcipate in political campaigns. But recent supreme court rulings effectively nullify that half of the compromise anyway)

 

[adumbrodeus]

I agree. I'm only really challenging the tax exempt status of churches. (It was done back in the 50's as a compromise in exchange for the rule that churches can't directly partcipate in political campaigns. But recent supreme court rulings effectively nullify that half of the compromise anyway)

Fair enough, I can agree that they shouldn't be able to directly participate in political campaigns.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Does anyone else care if I start ignoring BPC entirely? Because after this particular post, let's just say I'm sorely tempted.

I don't really see the problem; I was simply pulling the most obvious parallel. Your race is just as much a part of you as your sexuality, if not more so: beyond societal norms, your race doesn't effect you as a person, while your sexuality does. In any case, neither is a mutable trait.

Wanna push it off to the act of gay sex? Again, pull the parallel with race and see how far it gets you in a hypothetical religion. This is the rule of thumb for any homophobia-related argument, unless it is directly linked to the homosexuality (which is clearly not the case here): replace "gay" with "black". Does the position make sense, formally speaking, and would you be a racist for holding that position? Then congratulations, you are a bigot for holding your position.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The problem is that I've been explaining for half this thread exactly why gay =/= black and how the Christian stance on that is similar to its stance on pornography, and you see perfectly fit to ignore my posts on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself at the moment, so I'll just tell you to dig through the thread, it's only 5 pages.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The problem is that I've been explaining for half this thread exactly why gay =/= black and how the Christian stance on that is similar to its stance on pornography, and you see perfectly fit to ignore my posts on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself at the moment, so I'll just tell you to dig through the thread, it's only 5 pages.

So nich, compromise position.


Psychology states being gay is not a conscious choice, therefore being gay is a state of being.

One should not be discriminated against for their state of being, but instead for their actions?

Keep in mind, the identifier "gay" doesn't refer to somebody who necessarily had homosexual sex or ever will, it just refers to somebody who is attracted to the same gender as themselves. This is just as true as somebody with the common cold would label themselves as sick, or a person who is incredibly talented at the piano at a young age would label themselves a prodigy.

So attacking homosexuals in general isn't really fair. If you wish to say homosexual sex is immoral that's much more intellectually consistent at the very least.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If being an alcoholic was something you could control, why would you choose to be drunk?

The answer would be that the impulses are stronger than the person's willpower to choose otherwise.

I don't think that having homoerotic tendencies, ie. feeling attracted to those of the same gender (which is in essence being gay or bi) can be equated to alcoholism in any way whatsoever. Their brains happen to be wired in that way. If you're an alcoholic, your brain only becomes wired to depend on alcohol after it becomes a habit. Also, alcoholism isn't something you really decide to do, it sneaks up on you. It's like becoming overweight or addicted to Tobacco. Often all the consequences are not obvious immediately. With being gay however, it's pretty obvious. You know that people are going to call you a "***" or "gay" at least, and laughed at. Probably because your yourself have been doing that kinda thing to someone else. Pretty much boy does it at some stage.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. I wasn't trying to prove the Bible as a perfect source of information here. What I WAS trying to prove is that if you completely trust a source of information, it's natural to believe what they're telling you even when that seems absurd. Can you personally verify Quantum mechanics without using a scrap of evidence from the scientific community as a whole? No. Does Quantum mechanics seem absurd to someone who isn't familiar with it? Yes. However, because you trust the scientific community to do things correctly, you believe the theory it produces. In the same way, because I believe the Bible, I trust the claims it makes.

To be honest, I don't care whether you trust what the bible says or not. What matters is whether the bible is trustworthy.

Um, what was your point with this?

It was more addressed at Dre. My point is that human biology is stupid and I don't think we should be basing our moral system off it.

@Dre:

Blazed- If you look at what our desires move us towards (non artificially manufactured ones, so not including things like junkfood), they all move us towards things that are good for us. We're clearly biologically structured. If we weren't, either our desires would be random, having no correlation to what's good for us, or we'd desire everything equally or nothing at all.

That's not entirely true. The fact that we find junkfood tasty is not a manufactured desire. Junkfood is jam-packed with energy, the things our ancestors had in short supply. Therefore, we're structured to enjoy these kinds of food, to gain that energy. So you know, our desires aren't entirely perfect. Our desires evolved in a different environment to the one that we live in today. Logically, there ought to be at least some mismatch between our desires that were appropriate for us in the caveman days and what would be good for us now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The problem is that I've been explaining for half this thread exactly why gay =/= black and how the Christian stance on that is similar to its stance on pornography, and you see perfectly fit to ignore my posts on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself at the moment, so I'll just tell you to dig through the thread, it's only 5 pages.

Yes, and you know what? I just did. Every single argument you used to try to break down the analogy boils down to "hate the sin, love the sinner". I think I've sufficiently refuted this by pointing out how ****ed up it would be if you applied this principle to black people. You have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate why gay ≠ black in any meaningful way.

Also, I'd like to ask you, why do you believe in the theory of quantum physics? It sounds completely different from any day to day experiences. You haven't done any of the experiments to verify it yourself. In essence, you're believing what your teacher (or perhaps the scientific community as a whole) tells you, because you trust the source to provide reliable information.

Similarly, I believe the Bible's statements about any given topic because I trust the source to be accurate, for reasons covered extensively elsewhere.

Wow, you're funny.

Nic, do you know what the difference is between blind faith and trust? I'll give you a hint: I have blind faith that a stranger from off the street will give me candy if I step into his van; I trust that the prestigious scientist who is actively opening his work up to scrutiny on a vast front and asking, nay, demanding, that it be proven wrong by someone, the scientist who is working with the best and most recent information and data and who has made incredibly powerful and valid predictions with the model he is presenting...

Wait a minute.

WAIT. A. ****ING. MINUTE.

Did you seriously just pull the old "Science needs just as much faith as religion"?

*deep breath*

Congratulations on completely missing the point. I wasn't trying to prove the Bible as a perfect source of information here. What I WAS trying to prove is that if you completely trust a source of information, it's natural to believe what they're telling you even when that seems absurd. Can you personally verify Quantum mechanics without using a scrap of evidence from the scientific community as a whole? No. Does Quantum mechanics seem absurd to someone who isn't familiar with it? Yes. However, because you trust the scientific community to do things correctly, you believe the theory it produces. In the same way, because I believe the Bible, I trust the claims it makes.

Here's what you can actually demonstrate that the bible has given you:

Spoiler

Misinformation. Lots and lots and lots of misinformation.

Here's what you can actually demonstrate that science has given you:

Spoiler

Computers; Cell phones; clean water; destillation; vaccination; mass transportation across long distances in incredibly short amounts of time; mass telecommunication; electricity; agricultural advances allowing about 1% of us to feed most of the rest of us; chemical advances that allow us to mass-produce the fertilizer necessary for such intensive agrigculture; better understanding of materials and structures, leading to better, larger, and safer buildings, cars, and ships; ballistics; DNA testing; understanding of our prehistory; understanding of our psychology; medication to help deal with diseases... NEED I GO ON?

 

[blazedaces]

@BPC Man, please relax. That post definitely sounds like flaming to me. You can disagree with someone and still have a civil conversation my man.

-blazed

 

[Nicholas1024]

@blazed
Now you understand why I want to ignore him, he doesn't raise any new objections (aside from ones that are... hard to take seriously, like the one that even if Jesus did all the miracles from the Gospels, it's more reasonable to believe he's an alien with super-tech than the Son of God.), and that's usually his default level of civility. Is there anything out of his rant that you think I should answer?

@adumb
You hit the nail on the head, that's what I've been saying. Basically, when I refer to "gay", it's about 90% likely that I mean someone actually committing the act of homosexual sex, not someone tempted towards said act. (Basically, my terminology has been slightly different, kind of how I use "atheist" to denote someone who believes there is no God and "agnostic" to denote someone who doesn't believe in a God.)

@Bob
If you want to debate whether the Bible is trustworthy, I'll gladly do it in a different thread. However, the point of that paragraph was to try and demonstrate that if you completely trust a source, it's therefore logical to believe what said source tells you, and act upon it, as someone was bashing people for "blindly following their religion". The Bible actually being trustworthy falls outside the scope of this debate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... No refutation of my analogy then?

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'll make one if someone else thinks it's worth refuting, but I only have so much time for these kinds of debates, and I'd rather prioritize important stuff over re-answering the same objection (except with 200% more cursing). You're hardly the first one to bring up that analogy.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumb
You hit the nail on the head, that's what I've been saying. Basically, when I refer to "gay", it's about 90% likely that I mean someone actually committing the act of homosexual sex, not someone tempted towards said act. (Basically, my terminology has been slightly different, kind of how I use "atheist" to denote someone who believes there is no God and "agnostic" to denote someone who doesn't believe in a God.)

Then what about the other 10%?

Frankly, even if it's not your intention the wording you use shifts to something incredibly discriminatory when people use it for self identification regardless of whether or not they're sexually active.

If instead of saying "being gay is wrong", you say "homosexual sex is wrong", then you can actually hold a reasonable dialogue. Your current way of saying it has none of that nuance and is just blatantly discriminatory.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Then what about the other 10%?

When I do remember the correct wording, and use the term "homosexual sex" instead.

Frankly, even if it's not your intention the wording you use shifts to something incredibly discriminatory when people use it for self identification regardless of whether or not they're sexually active.

If instead of saying "being gay is wrong", you say "homosexual sex is wrong", then you can actually hold a reasonable dialogue. Your current way of saying it has none of that nuance and is just blatantly discriminatory.

Alright, noted.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'll make one if someone else thinks it's worth refuting, but I only have so much time for these kinds of debates, and I'd rather prioritize important stuff over re-answering the same objection (except with 200% more cursing). You're hardly the first one to bring up that analogy.

To be honest, I even tried doing a little searching for refutations to the analogy, and came up with nothing. If it keeps on being brought up, what is the refutation?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you want to debate whether the Bible is trustworthy, I'll gladly do it in a different thread. However, the point of that paragraph was to try and demonstrate that if you completely trust a source, it's therefore logical to believe what said source tells you, and act upon it, as someone was bashing people for "blindly following their religion". The Bible actually being trustworthy falls outside the scope of this debate.

The whole "blinding following their religion" thing is not about whether it's logical to believe what bible if you think it is trustworthy. It's more about the fact that people just assume that the bible is trustworthy without really considering the possibility that it may not be.