The aspect that I find to be sad and funny at the same time is everyone is debating about homosexual marriage when the Bible only speak on the matter of homosexual sex.
As far as I know nowhere does it say anything about not letting Steve marry Adam it only (arguably) says that Steve can't have sex with Adam. Yet somehow the debate is on whether or not to let them marry? When it comes to sin prevention the marriage issue doesnt apply. Making gay marriage illegal will not prevent gay sex. Gay sex is perfectly legal and happens quite frequently despite gay marriage being illegal.
It's a religious discussion because marriage, according to many churches, is a sacrament, not just a socio-political event. Conservative churches somehow have come to the conclusion that allowing gays to participate in their sacrament will defile the sacrament. Gays are hated on more than any other sinner (which we all are) because by failing to reject their homosexuality, they are openly displaying their lack of obedience to God's will. It's a giant red arrow over their head that says "Not only am I a sinner, I'm unrepentant about my sin."
[edit]Interestingly, other people in that exact same status in God's eyes are allowed to marry just fine.[/edit]
I totally get that. That's not even a thing. What I don't understand is how people think they can get away with being that openly and constantly judgmental without risking Heavenly Father's wrath -- because passing judgement on others' morality is a sin just as much as sticking your willie up some other dude's bum is. (Literally. Both of those things are directly attributable back to Paul, who said them both within a dozen verses of each other. If you don't give them equal weight, you're not really basing your beliefs off of the text.)
If you're going to take Christ as your personal savior and try to be like Him, you kind of have to remember that he's the dude who went out to the lepers and the whores and the other people that no one wanted any part of and told everyone that their job was to love those people.
Claiming a special exemption on forgiveness just for gay people is slapping Jesus in the face.
[edit]And claiming that you forgive/don't judge gays and then claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to marry is openly hypocritical. If you're going to allow, for example, Hinduists and Islamic folk to get married, you can't get all uppity about the gay people marriage thing. If they're openly refusing to follow God's will and that's your problem, apply your argument everywhere it applies, holmes.[/edit]
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Even if one assumes the prevalent "biblical" view on marriage (which I do not), what does a government definition of marriage have to do with the Biblical definition? Does God define marriage, or man? If you think God defines it, what does it matter how man defines it?
The only argument I have heard legitimizing governmental religious mandates was from a Baptist who claimed the intent was to societally stave off God's wrath.
No, that's seriously what people are worried about. They don't want the USA to become Sodom and Gomorrah all over again. Granted, these are largely the same people who believe that if we can actually manage to convince all of the Jews to move to Israel, it will bring about the Second Coming, but there's a surprising number of those people out there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
If the fundamentalists are saying 2+2=3, then you are a person who says, "You are wrong, 2+2=5." Again, just because someone else is wrong does not mean your argument is correct.
And that's pretty wholly the issue here. You not only didn't know about the New Testament, you also apparently couldn't be bothered to even look up the debate on Wikipedia to understand the arguments used by proponents of literal interpretations of the Bible against homosexuality (as demonstrated by your complete ignorance of Paul until it was explained to you), and to add insult to injury, it's pretty clear you're not even bothering to take the time to read what people have posted on this thread you created.
You keep posting this ridiculous shrimp vs. gay sex statement, ignoring that:
1. Jesus declared all foods clean
2. The Law is specifically for non-Gentiles, whereas to refrain from sexual immorality (defined by Paul as including homosexual acts) is to be obeyed universally
3. Paul specifically states to shun homosexuals
Your argument fails on at least three different levels, and yet you still have the gall to post that not only does it still stand, but that Paul agrees with you! How can Paul agree with your previous posts when your previous posts were made with you being completely oblivious to his existence and the distinctions he made between porneia and keeping kosher?
Yes, to ostracize and condemn gay people is against the spirit of the Gospel and of Christ's message, I agree. This doesn't exempt you from having to actually read and understand relevant matters of Scripture before entering into a Scriptural debate.
Jesus said he fulfilled the old law. The entire New Covenant is based on the idea that Jesus fulfilling the old law means that the old law is not in effect anymore. Paul says that homosexuality is not OK, but he never claims that his statement holds the authority of law.
He claims that his statements hold the authority of Jesus Christ who gave them to him. You'd know this if you read Galatians. This would have, of course, required you to have read Paul.
I understand this would require you to actually do research on this subject. I'm not actually expecting this of you, don't worry.
Although, it would be really cool if you were to actually do the research. You might actually be able to come into this thread with some level of understanding and not have to waste everyone's time using your haughty attitude to cover up your lack of knowledge, which wasn't working anyway, no one's fooled.
1. Jesus declared all foods clean
2. The Law is specifically for non-Gentiles, whereas to refrain from sexual immorality (defined by Paul as including homosexual acts) is to be obeyed universally
3. Paul specifically states to shun homosexuals
1) Jesus declares that no man can be defiled by anything that enters his body from without. You read that and think "food", but why not think "*****"?
2) Not arguing with that. I've never said that people should be gay -- just that you have no business discriminating against people for being gay. And that includes keeping them from marrying.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church. No one has been able to tell me why it is that we let women talk in church but we don't let gay people be gay people. OH WAIT! It's because our culture has evolved far enough that one is considered stupid, but the other isn't...yet. Seems like that's changing though, what with several US states allowing same-sex marriage. Once the gays get enough cultural momentum behind them, we'll look back at this debate with the same level of contempt that we look back at segregation and Jim Crow, and we'll (properly) give Paul's rants against homosexuality the same level of consideration we give his disrespect of women.
You can make whatever assumptions you want to about my level of knowledge vs. my level of attitude -- I couldn't care less. My arguments stand independent of how much you like or respect me unless you actually make a valid counterpoint, which so far, you haven't. There's a reason 'ad hominem' is a rhetorical fallacy.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
2) Not arguing with that. I've never said that people should be gay -- just that you have no business discriminating against people for being gay. And that includes keeping them from marrying.
... Then you are arguing with that.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by repeating this. To a Biblical literalist, the response would be, "Correct, that is why our women are silent, or if they are not silent, we must take care to make them so."
It wouldn't be, "Hey, let's have gay marriage now." And it wouldn't be because Paul specifically wrote that gay people should be shunned from the community because they're sinful and turned away from God.
It's because our culture has evolved far enough that one is considered stupid, but the other isn't...yet. Seems like that's changing though, what with several US states allowing same-sex marriage. Once the gays get enough cultural momentum behind them, we'll look back at this debate with the same level of contempt that we look back at segregation and Jim Crow, and we'll (properly) give Paul's rants against homosexuality the same level of consideration we give his disrespect of women.
Hopefully, but notice how you're changing the argument.
I don't agree with Paul either, but recognize that arguing that we should not agree with Paul on homosexuality is not the same thing as saying that a Biblical literalist has no Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of it.
So the answer is no, your original argument does not hold. Again, just because people agree that fundamentalists are wrong does not mean they agree with your argument. Just because the people saying "2+2=3" are wrong does not make your argument that "2+2=5" correct.
You can make whatever assumptions you want to about my level of knowledge vs. my level of attitude -- I couldn't care less. My arguments stand independent of how much you like or respect me unless you actually make a valid counterpoint
Your so-called argument has been ripped apart repeatedly throughout this thread. You stated that opposition to gay marriage was the same as opposition to shrimp. Basic knowledge of the Bible refutes this, and as such it has been torn apart several times. The fact that you're in denial about it does not change the fact that it has been sufficiently proven that (A) your argument holds no Scriptural basis and (B) you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to the New Testament.
Now, none of this is, in itself, a bad thing. No one is born with an understanding of Christian theology, and the Bible is quite a long book, so it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not know what the Bible says on the subject.
The problem is the mind-boggling level of laziness you've exhibited.
You made a thread making completely erroneous statements, some of which are as ridiculous from a Christian Scriptural standpoint as "2+2=5" would be to a mathematician. It would be one thing if you just asked for clarification, but you run around with a smug, condescending attitude despite:
1) Not having the requisite knowledge of the New Testament
2) Not having any grasp of the other side's argument, or their basis for it
3) Not even demonstrating the willingness to spend all of five minutes on Wikipedia to look this topic up, which would have cleared up many of your errors as well as told you that there's this guy named Paul in the New Testament, and it might kinda maybe be important to know that he existed, let alone what he wrote.
4) Not demonstrating the willingness to even so much as read what people have written in response to you. For ****'s sake dude, this thread is three pages long and the majority of responses to you have been from two people, and you still can't even be bothered to read this?
It's insulting. It's an insult to this entire forum, it's an insult to this topic, it's an insult to informed discussion. Why are you here?
The Bible is antiquated garbage that has no business being applied to anything even remotely modern. Why anyone would ever take their cues from a bunch of bronze age peasants with an opaque understanding of our reality is beyond me. With every new generation religions grip on society loosens. Sooner or later whether or not something is defined in the Bible will be a silly question absent merit. Anyone with half a brain can give two ****s about whether or not gays are allowed to marry.
2) Not arguing with that. I've never said that people should be gay -- just that you have no business discriminating against people for being gay. And that includes keeping them from marrying.
... Then you are arguing with that.
No, I'm not. There is a distinction between arguing that "it's totally OK that some people are gay" and arguing that "gay people are totally OK getting married." If you can't see that, I can't help you there.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by repeating this. To a Biblical literalist, the response would be, "Correct, that is why our women are silent, or if they are not silent, we must take care to make them so."
Except no one I've ever met, no matter how fundamentalist, has ever tried to enforce this rule. Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I know plenty of self-proclaimed fundamentalists and not one of them has the balls to tell his spouse to be silent. And thus, the accusation of hypocrisy.
It wouldn't be, "Hey, let's have gay marriage now." And it wouldn't be because Paul specifically wrote that gay people should be shunned from the community because they're sinful and turned away from God.
Umm...no. Paul specifically wrote that:
Quote from Paul (bolding mine for easy later reference) »
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1)
...
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6)
...
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (1 Timothy)
That's the sum total of everything Paul wrote about homosexuality. Now, let's look at those. Romans 1 says outright that God gave those people over to their perversions and that God will punish them for it in His way, and goes on in Romans 2 to "spring the trap" and tell anyone listening that they're not allowed to judge or punish those people themselves. 1 Corinthians 6 just says that you can't be a homosexual man and go to heaven. And 1 Timothy references the fact that homosexuality is "contrary to sound doctrine".
Exactly none of that says anything about shunning gay people from the community, and one of them pretty much specifically forbids shunning gay people at all (Romans). If you're using any of Pauls writings as an excuse to shun gay people and you're NOT also using it to shun every other group he mentions -- adulterers, alcoholics, greedy people, lairs, slanderers, swindlers, and so on -- with equal fervor, you're a flat-out hypocrite, end of story.
I don't agree with Paul either, but recognize that arguing that we should not agree with Paul on homosexuality is not the same thing as saying that a Biblical literalist has no Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of it.
No. They don't, as per the above. They have things that they can point at and claim that they have a Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people, but unless they've managed to avoid not ever:
Lying
Disobeying their parents
Boasting
Gossiping
Being greedy
they have no business claiming any form of moral superiority to gay people. Nowhere in any of these quotes does Paul or anyone else ever create a moral hierarchy here -- you're either on the list or you're not, and I guarantee you pretty much everyone alive here is on the list.
So no. They have no proper Scriptural claim to hate on gay people -- they have the verses they've cherry-picked to back up their hatred of gay people, and that's a completely different thing.
So the answer is no, your original argument does not hold.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
No, I'm not. There is a distinction between arguing that "it's totally OK that some people are gay" and arguing that "gay people are totally OK getting married." If you can't see that, I can't help you there.
Except for the fact that Paul says it is wrong to be gay. He is also saying we should discriminate against people who are gay, because that is, after all, what people who say that it is wrong to be gay do. You can't say it's wrong to be gay without discriminating against gay people.
So yes, you are disagreeing with Paul.
Exactly none of that says anything about shunning gay people from the community.
Again, this is the difference between academic laziness and just parroting whatever website you're getting your arguments from and actually doing the work.
No. They don't, as per the above. They have things that they can point at and claim that they have a Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people, but unless they've managed to avoid not ever:
Lying
Disobeying their parents
Boasting
Gossiping
Being greedy
they have no business claiming any form of moral superiority to gay people. Nowhere in any of these quotes does Paul or anyone else ever create a moral hierarchy here -- you're either on the list or you're not, and I guarantee you pretty much everyone alive here is on the list.
So no. They have no proper Scriptural claim to hate on gay people -- they have the verses they've cherry-picked to back up their hatred of gay people, and that's a completely different thing.
So is it your position that Christians should not react negatively to liars, disobedient children, braggarts, gossips, and misers, or seek to avoid being such a person themselves? Because if you were to think that a Christian should dislike liars and avoid lying, then surely it'd be consistent that they dislike homosexuals and avoid homosexual behavior. It doesn't strike me as relevant that the Christian may have broken some or all of these rules in the past; if I have run a red light in the past, that doesn't mean I shouldn't avoid running red lights in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, I'm not. There is a distinction between arguing that "it's totally OK that some people are gay" and arguing that "gay people are totally OK getting married." If you can't see that, I can't help you there.
Except for the fact that Paul says it is wrong to be gay. He is also saying we should discriminate against people who are gay, because that is, after all, what people who say that it is wrong to be gay do. You can't say it's wrong to be gay without discriminating against gay people.
Entirely false. I say it's wrong for my dog to eat my sofa, but I don't discriminate against my doing for doing so. I say it's wrong for people to be fat, but I don't discriminate against fat people. Discrimination is when you let some attribute of some other person affect the way you treat them -- it's entirely possible to believe that someone is wrong about something and yet treat them just like everyone else. It happens every single day.
Exactly none of that says anything about shunning gay people from the community.
There are so many problems with this that it's not even funny. 1 Corinthians 5 is a letter to the church of Corinth about a case of incest. A single case, to be precise. But that's not even the beginning of your failure with this quote -- just read:
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
This has exactly the same problem I've mentioned above: if you're going to use this passage to ostracize gays, you have to ostracize, with equal fervor, every alcoholic, every greedy person (goodbye, Wall Street, Capitol Hill, etc.), every slanderer (goodbye, Fox News and basically every other political pundit and most bloggers, teenage girls, and people on Facebook besides), every swindler (goodbye, every major corporate executive that magically avoided getting kicked out when we hit 'greedy'), and so forth.
I've never seen anyone holding a sign that says "God Hates CEOs". Have you?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
So is it your position that Christians should not react negatively to liars, disobedient children, braggarts, gossips, and misers, or seek to avoid being such a person themselves? Because if you were to think that a Christian should dislike liars and avoid lying, then surely it'd be consistent that they dislike homosexuals and avoid homosexual behavior.
There's a huge difference between "disliking" or "reacting negatively" and "banning them from participating in one of the fundamental acts of sociopolitical union in our country." I don't like the fact that people are gay -- but I strongly advocate for their equality and for their complete acceptance by all.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Entirely false. I say it's wrong for my dog to eat my sofa, but I don't discriminate against my doing for doing so. I say it's wrong for people to be fat, but I don't discriminate against fat people. Discrimination is when you let some attribute of some other person affect the way you treat them -- it's entirely possible to believe that someone is wrong about something and yet treat them just like everyone else. It happens every single day.
... Ok, try to follow along here. If Paul is saying that being gay is wrong, and in turn that we should expel them, then Paul is simultaneously saying that being gay is wrong, and we should discriminate against gay people. There may well be a distinction between those two statements, but that doesn't change the fact that Paul is advocating we do both.
There are so many problems with this that it's not even funny. 1 Corinthians 5 is a letter to the church of Corinth about a case of incest.
So you didn't read 1 Corinthians 5 either. Man, you really don't like reading things, do you?
Paul specifically says to not associate with those who are sexually immoral, and to expel them.
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
This has exactly the same problem I've mentioned above: if you're going to use this passage to ostracize gays, you have to ostracize, with equal fervor, every alcoholic, every greedy person (goodbye, Wall Street, Capitol Hill, etc.), every slanderer (goodbye, Fox News and basically every other political pundit and most bloggers, teenage girls, and people on Facebook besides), every swindler (goodbye, every major corporate executive that magically avoided getting kicked out when we hit 'greedy'), and so forth.
You're right, Paul does say we should expel a whole lot of people in addition to gay people.
... Did you notice how that still involves ostracizing gay people? Something you claimed Paul didn't advocate and yet clearly does advocate?
Therefore, your claim that the Biblical literalist does not have a case in ostracizing gay people is false. Moreover, he can do so while eating shellfish, because multiple sources within the Bible specifically say that they are, in fact, two completely separate things. Yet somehow you missed this (hint: it's because you didn't read it or do any amount of research on it).
Also notice how the passage that refutes your statement that Paul didn't say to expel gay people came right before the text you quoted. You quoted 1 Corinthians 6, and the passage that refuted you was 1 Corinthians 5. We can tell from this that you didn't actually read 1 Corinthians, but are instead just regurgitating an argument that you found on a website, something you probably just paraphrased without any real thought in the interim, and something you probably only skimmed given your distaste for reading.
This is where intellectual laziness leads you. It's transparent, anyone who's actually done research on the subject can see right through you.
I've never seen anyone holding a sign that says "God Hates CEOs". Have you?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll find this sentiment somewhere.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church.
He was making a point that female priest would not have been effective minsters in the time and place where he lived. It was nothing more than a practical consideration. He wanted his church to be as effective as possible at spreading the message and the fact that a priest may be a woman would impede the church's effectiveness.
He was not the sexist pig you are insinuating he is.
Except no one I've ever met, no matter how fundamentalist, has ever tried to enforce this rule. Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I know plenty of self-proclaimed fundamentalists and not one of them has the balls to tell his spouse to be silent. And thus, the accusation of hypocrisy.
They're definitely does exist churches who do not let women be ministers. There's also those who let women be ministers. If this is important to you it does not disqualify all churches.
I'm left wondering what exactly is Essence problem with the Bible. Every conceivable world view tries to attribute a type of morality to it's followers. So what is that is bugging you? Is the Bible not allowed to try and answers questions of what should be or are religious people just not allowed to have views on morality contrary to your own.
We let rapists, murderers, thieves, adulterers, persons that have sex before marriage, people that do not believe in god, (insert the 10 commandments)... all marry. Every single one of those groups of people is allowed to marry. They legally have the right to do so. Is being homosexual really worse than being a rapist? Is homosexuality somehow the #1 worst sin possible?
I dont understand how anyone can justify taking away someone's rights because of their sexual preference when we do not do so for many much worse sins and crimes.
I'm left wondering what exactly is Essence problem with the Bible. Every conceivable world view tries to attribute a type of morality to it's followers. So what is that is bugging you? Is the Bible not allowed to try and answers questions of what should be or are religious people just not allowed to have views on morality contrary to your own.
I dont believe his problem is with the bible. The problem is with the way it's followers interpret and apply it. As I state above, what about being gay is so special that Christian people feel the need to punish in this way? I really couldnt care less whether or not someone approves of homosexuality. You can look down your nose at them, you can truly believe that they will go to hell and be punished. I dont give a ****. To me that is no different than a vegan believing i am a monster for eating animal products. It's really none of my concern if that's what they want to believe. The problem is... they try to enforce it on those that do not share their views. There is a huge difference between, a vegan telling everyone about how bad eating meat is, and that same vegan actually trying to legally prevent other people from eating meat.
We let rapists, murderers, thieves, adulterers, persons that have sex before marriage, people that do not believe in god, (insert the 10 commandments)... all marry. Every single one of those groups of people is allowed to marry. They legally have the right to do so. Is being homosexual really worse than being a rapist? Is homosexuality somehow the #1 worst sin possible?
I dont understand how anyone can justify taking away someone's rights because of their sexual preference when we do not do so for many much worse sins and crimes.
This argument (and indeed the entire thread to a certain extent) belies a total misunderstanding of where the issue arises from many opponents of gay marriage.
Rightly or wrongly, the opposition to gay marriage arises from the people thinking that the union of two people of the same gender is quite simply not a marriage.
In the same way the car I drive to work every day is not a motorcycle. It is very similar, and even serves very similar functions. But they are not the same thing. This is how you can have people, in an entirely non-hypocritical manner, who simultaneously oppose gay marriage and support civil unions for all.
This argument is wholly overlooked often, but this isn't really the correct thread to go into it. Suffice to say that the opposition to gay marriage in most instances arise from the opponents not considering it to be a marriage.
We let rapists, murderers, thieves, adulterers, persons that have sex before marriage, people that do not believe in god, (insert the 10 commandments)... all marry. Every single one of those groups of people is allowed to marry. They legally have the right to do so. Is being homosexual really worse than being a rapist? Is homosexuality somehow the #1 worst sin possible?
I dont understand how anyone can justify taking away someone's rights because of their sexual preference when we do not do so for many much worse sins and crimes.
This argument (and indeed the entire thread to a certain extent) belies a total misunderstanding of where the issue arises from many opponents of gay marriage.
Rightly or wrongly, the opposition to gay marriage arises from the people thinking that the union of two people of the same gender is quite simply not a marriage.
In the same way the car I drive to work every day is not a motorcycle. It is very similar, and even serves very similar functions. But they are not the same thing. This is how you can have people, in an entirely non-hypocritical manner, who simultaneously oppose gay marriage and support civil unions for all.
This argument is wholly overlooked often, but this isn't really the correct thread to go into it. Suffice to say that the opposition to gay marriage in most instances arise from the opponents not considering it to be a marriage.
Sure for the religious definition of marriage. But if 2 atheists go down to the court house and just have a judge sign some paperwork are they really having a "christian" marriage?
I believe there are two definitions of marriage. A legal one and a religious one. For some people they are highly related (like a christian couple getting married). For others they are not related at all. Lets pretend there is a country that has no legal definition of marriage. The government does not recognize marriage at all. If my wife and I move there we would still be married under the religious definition but we are not married legally. The marriage that everyone is fighting about in the US is the legal definition of marriage which I believe has nothing at all to do with religion and is nothing more than a series of legal agreements and rights between 2 people and the government.
I would find it perfectly acceptable to rename legal marriage as civil unions but it would not be acceptable to have different names for it depending on what gender the people entering the agreement are because then you risk running into the same problems as segregated schools.
I would find it perfectly acceptable to rename legal marriage as civil unions but it would not be acceptable to have different names for it depending on what gender the people entering the agreement are because then you risk running into the same problems as segregated schools.
I agree, and in fact think this is the route we need to go, however a large portion of the gay marriage movement isn't actually interested in acquiring equal rights*, but are rather interested in acquiring societal acceptance -- which is a whole separate ballpark.
I would find it perfectly acceptable to rename legal marriage as civil unions but it would not be acceptable to have different names for it depending on what gender the people entering the agreement are because then you risk running into the same problems as segregated schools.
I agree, and in fact think this is the route we need to go, however a large portion of the gay marriage movement isn't actually interested in acquiring equal rights*, but are rather interested in acquiring societal acceptance -- which is a whole separate ballpark.
*or rather, it's not their primary concern.
It's still a hell of a lot easier legally to just leave it being named marriage and tell people to stop whining because again... legal marriage has nothing at all to do with religion.
It's still a hell of a lot easier legally to just leave it being named marriage and tell people to stop whining because again... legal marriage has nothing at all to do with religion.
The thing I dislike about that, as a lawyer, is I don't like legal meanings being wonky and different from their colloquial meanings. It's unavoidable in some cases... I do not think this is one of those.
Within the legal community such instances do not provide much confusion, but I see it *all the time* where individuals without legal training think a law means something other than it does because the law uses a word in a way that is contrary to the colloquial meaning (Malice Aforethought is probably the biggest where it occurs).
It's still a hell of a lot easier legally to just leave it being named marriage and tell people to stop whining because again... legal marriage has nothing at all to do with religion.
The thing I dislike about that, as a lawyer, is I don't like legal meanings being wonky and different from their colloquial meanings. It's unavoidable in some cases... I do not think this is one of those.
Within the legal community such instances do not provide much confusion, but I see it *all the time* where individuals without legal training think a law means something other than it does because the law uses a word in a way that is contrary to the colloquial meaning (Malice Aforethought is probably the biggest where it occurs).
As an engineer I dislike the idea of having to have everyone suddenly not be legally married anymore and then apply a rule that everyone that was legally married is not legally in a civil union instead and then having to go through all of the laws combing over every instance of the word married or marriage and re-wording it.
It seems much easier to make it clear that the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with churches or religion. For example: "a private entity may refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any reason" covers churches not having to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony.
Edit: Really if done correctly the difference should not matter at all because the religious meaning would have zero legal standing anyway. Is someone going to try to sue a church for claiming that their marriage is not valid? What kind of damages can they really claim there? I would love to know because I am sure I could find someone to call me mean things so I can sue them.
(Malice Aforethought is probably the biggest where it occurs).
I know this is a bit of a sidetrack, but what don't people understand about Malice Aforethought? That's just one of the requirements for specific charges (as opposed to a crime committed in the heat of the moment), right?
(Malice Aforethought is probably the biggest where it occurs).
I know this is a bit of a sidetrack, but what don't people understand about Malice Aforethought? That's just one of the requirements for specific charges (as opposed to a crime committed in the heat of the moment), right?
Well, for one they think it actually requires malice... which it does not. Malice aforethought is essential pre-planning. Actual Malice is completely irrelevant.
Another good example is the concept of Moral Rights in copyright law, which is essentially just the right of an author to control his work even after it has been sold. Again, totally unrelated to morals but the word trips people up.
If the purpose of the law is to put people on notice as to what is prohibited and what is allowed (and it is), utilization of terms that the lay person will understand to have a meaning contrary to the legal meaning does not meet that purpose.
If Paul is saying that being gay is wrong, and in turn that we should expel them, then Paul is simultaneously saying that being gay is wrong, and we should discriminate against gay people. There may well be a distinction between those two statements, but that doesn't change the fact that Paul is advocating we do both.
No. You are reading verses that mention sexual immorality and assuming that that umbrella includes homosexuality -- but that's your reading. But here's a challenge: find anything Paul said (or anything in the New Testament at all) that explicitly and undeniably equates those two things (i.e. "homosexuality is sexually immoral"). You'll find lots of "it displeases God" in various formations, but nowhere do the two terms appear equated in the text.
What you WILL find, on the other hand, are a couple of lists that include, as two separate items on the list, "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" -- both of which were authored by Paul.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6)
...
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10)
Tell me, if homosexuality and sexual immorality are two distinct items on the same list, why would you assume when he says one that he's referring to the other? That's not how lists work.
The answer is simple: you do it because YOU want them to be the same. Not because the text actually says so. Paul does not ever say that we should shun gay people.
Quote from Highroller »
Therefore, your claim that the Biblical literalist does not have a case in ostracizing gay people is false.
Disproven. Again. Give it up, man. You're straight-up wrong here.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church.
He was making a point that female priest would not have been effective minsters in the time and place where he lived. It was nothing more than a practical consideration. He wanted his church to be as effective as possible at spreading the message and the fact that a priest may be a woman would impede the church's effectiveness.
He was not the sexist pig you are insinuating he is.
If you want to get into considerations of time and place and culture, let's talk about the fact that the concept of 'homosexuality' in terms of 'a devoted monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender' didn't even exist in Paul's time. He saw a lot of sexual misconduct to be sure, but homosexuality as we understand it wasn't seen at the time. He men he saw laying with other men were sleeping generally with slaves or with young boys (in the form of pederasty.) If you're going to make an argument that we should ignore some of Paul's words because they apply differently now than they did then, why would you not apply that argument in every case that it applies?
There's no way out here. Either you're a literalist and you think that women should be silent (because, remember, he said it outside of the context of church, too), or you're a contextualist and you need to actually do the work to understand the context of the word 'homosexuality' in Paul's time and how what we're seeing today is actually not the same thing at all.
***
As to the rest of what was written between my last post and here, I basically entirely agree with all of it.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
As far as I know nowhere does it say anything about not letting Steve marry Adam it only (arguably) says that Steve can't have sex with Adam. Yet somehow the debate is on whether or not to let them marry? When it comes to sin prevention the marriage issue doesnt apply. Making gay marriage illegal will not prevent gay sex. Gay sex is perfectly legal and happens quite frequently despite gay marriage being illegal.
How is this a religious discussion at all?
[edit]Interestingly, other people in that exact same status in God's eyes are allowed to marry just fine.[/edit]
I totally get that. That's not even a thing. What I don't understand is how people think they can get away with being that openly and constantly judgmental without risking Heavenly Father's wrath -- because passing judgement on others' morality is a sin just as much as sticking your willie up some other dude's bum is. (Literally. Both of those things are directly attributable back to Paul, who said them both within a dozen verses of each other. If you don't give them equal weight, you're not really basing your beliefs off of the text.)
If you're going to take Christ as your personal savior and try to be like Him, you kind of have to remember that he's the dude who went out to the lepers and the whores and the other people that no one wanted any part of and told everyone that their job was to love those people.
Claiming a special exemption on forgiveness just for gay people is slapping Jesus in the face.
[edit]And claiming that you forgive/don't judge gays and then claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to marry is openly hypocritical. If you're going to allow, for example, Hinduists and Islamic folk to get married, you can't get all uppity about the gay people marriage thing. If they're openly refusing to follow God's will and that's your problem, apply your argument everywhere it applies, holmes.[/edit]
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Even if one assumes the prevalent "biblical" view on marriage (which I do not), what does a government definition of marriage have to do with the Biblical definition? Does God define marriage, or man? If you think God defines it, what does it matter how man defines it?
The only argument I have heard legitimizing governmental religious mandates was from a Baptist who claimed the intent was to societally stave off God's wrath.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
No, it IS you don't know what's in the Book.
If the fundamentalists are saying 2+2=3, then you are a person who says, "You are wrong, 2+2=5." Again, just because someone else is wrong does not mean your argument is correct.
And that's pretty wholly the issue here. You not only didn't know about the New Testament, you also apparently couldn't be bothered to even look up the debate on Wikipedia to understand the arguments used by proponents of literal interpretations of the Bible against homosexuality (as demonstrated by your complete ignorance of Paul until it was explained to you), and to add insult to injury, it's pretty clear you're not even bothering to take the time to read what people have posted on this thread you created.
You keep posting this ridiculous shrimp vs. gay sex statement, ignoring that:
1. Jesus declared all foods clean
2. The Law is specifically for non-Gentiles, whereas to refrain from sexual immorality (defined by Paul as including homosexual acts) is to be obeyed universally
3. Paul specifically states to shun homosexuals
Your argument fails on at least three different levels, and yet you still have the gall to post that not only does it still stand, but that Paul agrees with you! How can Paul agree with your previous posts when your previous posts were made with you being completely oblivious to his existence and the distinctions he made between porneia and keeping kosher?
Yes, to ostracize and condemn gay people is against the spirit of the Gospel and of Christ's message, I agree. This doesn't exempt you from having to actually read and understand relevant matters of Scripture before entering into a Scriptural debate.
He claims that his statements hold the authority of Jesus Christ who gave them to him. You'd know this if you read Galatians. This would have, of course, required you to have read Paul.
I understand this would require you to actually do research on this subject. I'm not actually expecting this of you, don't worry.
Although, it would be really cool if you were to actually do the research. You might actually be able to come into this thread with some level of understanding and not have to waste everyone's time using your haughty attitude to cover up your lack of knowledge, which wasn't working anyway, no one's fooled.
1) Jesus declares that no man can be defiled by anything that enters his body from without. You read that and think "food", but why not think "*****"?
2) Not arguing with that. I've never said that people should be gay -- just that you have no business discriminating against people for being gay. And that includes keeping them from marrying.
3) Paul also specifically states that women should be silent in church. No one has been able to tell me why it is that we let women talk in church but we don't let gay people be gay people. OH WAIT! It's because our culture has evolved far enough that one is considered stupid, but the other isn't...yet. Seems like that's changing though, what with several US states allowing same-sex marriage. Once the gays get enough cultural momentum behind them, we'll look back at this debate with the same level of contempt that we look back at segregation and Jim Crow, and we'll (properly) give Paul's rants against homosexuality the same level of consideration we give his disrespect of women.
You can make whatever assumptions you want to about my level of knowledge vs. my level of attitude -- I couldn't care less. My arguments stand independent of how much you like or respect me unless you actually make a valid counterpoint, which so far, you haven't. There's a reason 'ad hominem' is a rhetorical fallacy.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
... Then you are arguing with that.
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by repeating this. To a Biblical literalist, the response would be, "Correct, that is why our women are silent, or if they are not silent, we must take care to make them so."
It wouldn't be, "Hey, let's have gay marriage now." And it wouldn't be because Paul specifically wrote that gay people should be shunned from the community because they're sinful and turned away from God.
Hopefully, but notice how you're changing the argument.
I don't agree with Paul either, but recognize that arguing that we should not agree with Paul on homosexuality is not the same thing as saying that a Biblical literalist has no Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of it.
So the answer is no, your original argument does not hold. Again, just because people agree that fundamentalists are wrong does not mean they agree with your argument. Just because the people saying "2+2=3" are wrong does not make your argument that "2+2=5" correct.
Your so-called argument has been ripped apart repeatedly throughout this thread. You stated that opposition to gay marriage was the same as opposition to shrimp. Basic knowledge of the Bible refutes this, and as such it has been torn apart several times. The fact that you're in denial about it does not change the fact that it has been sufficiently proven that (A) your argument holds no Scriptural basis and (B) you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to the New Testament.
Now, none of this is, in itself, a bad thing. No one is born with an understanding of Christian theology, and the Bible is quite a long book, so it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not know what the Bible says on the subject.
The problem is the mind-boggling level of laziness you've exhibited.
You made a thread making completely erroneous statements, some of which are as ridiculous from a Christian Scriptural standpoint as "2+2=5" would be to a mathematician. It would be one thing if you just asked for clarification, but you run around with a smug, condescending attitude despite:
1) Not having the requisite knowledge of the New Testament
2) Not having any grasp of the other side's argument, or their basis for it
3) Not even demonstrating the willingness to spend all of five minutes on Wikipedia to look this topic up, which would have cleared up many of your errors as well as told you that there's this guy named Paul in the New Testament, and it might kinda maybe be important to know that he existed, let alone what he wrote.
4) Not demonstrating the willingness to even so much as read what people have written in response to you. For ****'s sake dude, this thread is three pages long and the majority of responses to you have been from two people, and you still can't even be bothered to read this?
It's insulting. It's an insult to this entire forum, it's an insult to this topic, it's an insult to informed discussion. Why are you here?
No, I'm not. There is a distinction between arguing that "it's totally OK that some people are gay" and arguing that "gay people are totally OK getting married." If you can't see that, I can't help you there.
Except no one I've ever met, no matter how fundamentalist, has ever tried to enforce this rule. Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I know plenty of self-proclaimed fundamentalists and not one of them has the balls to tell his spouse to be silent. And thus, the accusation of hypocrisy.
Umm...no. Paul specifically wrote that:
That's the sum total of everything Paul wrote about homosexuality. Now, let's look at those. Romans 1 says outright that God gave those people over to their perversions and that God will punish them for it in His way, and goes on in Romans 2 to "spring the trap" and tell anyone listening that they're not allowed to judge or punish those people themselves. 1 Corinthians 6 just says that you can't be a homosexual man and go to heaven. And 1 Timothy references the fact that homosexuality is "contrary to sound doctrine".
Exactly none of that says anything about shunning gay people from the community, and one of them pretty much specifically forbids shunning gay people at all (Romans). If you're using any of Pauls writings as an excuse to shun gay people and you're NOT also using it to shun every other group he mentions -- adulterers, alcoholics, greedy people, lairs, slanderers, swindlers, and so on -- with equal fervor, you're a flat-out hypocrite, end of story.
No. They don't, as per the above. They have things that they can point at and claim that they have a Scriptural basis for ostracizing gay people, but unless they've managed to avoid not ever:
So no. They have no proper Scriptural claim to hate on gay people -- they have the verses they've cherry-picked to back up their hatred of gay people, and that's a completely different thing.
Disproven. Please try again.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Except for the fact that Paul says it is wrong to be gay. He is also saying we should discriminate against people who are gay, because that is, after all, what people who say that it is wrong to be gay do. You can't say it's wrong to be gay without discriminating against gay people.
So yes, you are disagreeing with Paul.
1 Corinthians 5.
Again, this is the difference between academic laziness and just parroting whatever website you're getting your arguments from and actually doing the work.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Entirely false. I say it's wrong for my dog to eat my sofa, but I don't discriminate against my doing for doing so. I say it's wrong for people to be fat, but I don't discriminate against fat people. Discrimination is when you let some attribute of some other person affect the way you treat them -- it's entirely possible to believe that someone is wrong about something and yet treat them just like everyone else. It happens every single day.
There are so many problems with this that it's not even funny. 1 Corinthians 5 is a letter to the church of Corinth about a case of incest. A single case, to be precise. But that's not even the beginning of your failure with this quote -- just read:
This has exactly the same problem I've mentioned above: if you're going to use this passage to ostracize gays, you have to ostracize, with equal fervor, every alcoholic, every greedy person (goodbye, Wall Street, Capitol Hill, etc.), every slanderer (goodbye, Fox News and basically every other political pundit and most bloggers, teenage girls, and people on Facebook besides), every swindler (goodbye, every major corporate executive that magically avoided getting kicked out when we hit 'greedy'), and so forth.
I've never seen anyone holding a sign that says "God Hates CEOs". Have you?
There's a huge difference between "disliking" or "reacting negatively" and "banning them from participating in one of the fundamental acts of sociopolitical union in our country." I don't like the fact that people are gay -- but I strongly advocate for their equality and for their complete acceptance by all.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
... Ok, try to follow along here. If Paul is saying that being gay is wrong, and in turn that we should expel them, then Paul is simultaneously saying that being gay is wrong, and we should discriminate against gay people. There may well be a distinction between those two statements, but that doesn't change the fact that Paul is advocating we do both.
So you didn't read 1 Corinthians 5 either. Man, you really don't like reading things, do you?
Paul specifically says to not associate with those who are sexually immoral, and to expel them.
You're right, Paul does say we should expel a whole lot of people in addition to gay people.
... Did you notice how that still involves ostracizing gay people? Something you claimed Paul didn't advocate and yet clearly does advocate?
Therefore, your claim that the Biblical literalist does not have a case in ostracizing gay people is false. Moreover, he can do so while eating shellfish, because multiple sources within the Bible specifically say that they are, in fact, two completely separate things. Yet somehow you missed this (hint: it's because you didn't read it or do any amount of research on it).
Also notice how the passage that refutes your statement that Paul didn't say to expel gay people came right before the text you quoted. You quoted 1 Corinthians 6, and the passage that refuted you was 1 Corinthians 5. We can tell from this that you didn't actually read 1 Corinthians, but are instead just regurgitating an argument that you found on a website, something you probably just paraphrased without any real thought in the interim, and something you probably only skimmed given your distaste for reading.
This is where intellectual laziness leads you. It's transparent, anyone who's actually done research on the subject can see right through you.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you'll find this sentiment somewhere.
He was making a point that female priest would not have been effective minsters in the time and place where he lived. It was nothing more than a practical consideration. He wanted his church to be as effective as possible at spreading the message and the fact that a priest may be a woman would impede the church's effectiveness.
He was not the sexist pig you are insinuating he is.
They're definitely does exist churches who do not let women be ministers. There's also those who let women be ministers. If this is important to you it does not disqualify all churches.
I'm left wondering what exactly is Essence problem with the Bible. Every conceivable world view tries to attribute a type of morality to it's followers. So what is that is bugging you? Is the Bible not allowed to try and answers questions of what should be or are religious people just not allowed to have views on morality contrary to your own.
We let rapists, murderers, thieves, adulterers, persons that have sex before marriage, people that do not believe in god, (insert the 10 commandments)... all marry. Every single one of those groups of people is allowed to marry. They legally have the right to do so. Is being homosexual really worse than being a rapist? Is homosexuality somehow the #1 worst sin possible?
I dont understand how anyone can justify taking away someone's rights because of their sexual preference when we do not do so for many much worse sins and crimes.
I dont believe his problem is with the bible. The problem is with the way it's followers interpret and apply it. As I state above, what about being gay is so special that Christian people feel the need to punish in this way? I really couldnt care less whether or not someone approves of homosexuality. You can look down your nose at them, you can truly believe that they will go to hell and be punished. I dont give a ****. To me that is no different than a vegan believing i am a monster for eating animal products. It's really none of my concern if that's what they want to believe. The problem is... they try to enforce it on those that do not share their views. There is a huge difference between, a vegan telling everyone about how bad eating meat is, and that same vegan actually trying to legally prevent other people from eating meat.
This argument (and indeed the entire thread to a certain extent) belies a total misunderstanding of where the issue arises from many opponents of gay marriage.
Rightly or wrongly, the opposition to gay marriage arises from the people thinking that the union of two people of the same gender is quite simply not a marriage.
In the same way the car I drive to work every day is not a motorcycle. It is very similar, and even serves very similar functions. But they are not the same thing. This is how you can have people, in an entirely non-hypocritical manner, who simultaneously oppose gay marriage and support civil unions for all.
This argument is wholly overlooked often, but this isn't really the correct thread to go into it. Suffice to say that the opposition to gay marriage in most instances arise from the opponents not considering it to be a marriage.
Sure for the religious definition of marriage. But if 2 atheists go down to the court house and just have a judge sign some paperwork are they really having a "christian" marriage?
I believe there are two definitions of marriage. A legal one and a religious one. For some people they are highly related (like a christian couple getting married). For others they are not related at all. Lets pretend there is a country that has no legal definition of marriage. The government does not recognize marriage at all. If my wife and I move there we would still be married under the religious definition but we are not married legally. The marriage that everyone is fighting about in the US is the legal definition of marriage which I believe has nothing at all to do with religion and is nothing more than a series of legal agreements and rights between 2 people and the government.
I would find it perfectly acceptable to rename legal marriage as civil unions but it would not be acceptable to have different names for it depending on what gender the people entering the agreement are because then you risk running into the same problems as segregated schools.
I agree, and in fact think this is the route we need to go, however a large portion of the gay marriage movement isn't actually interested in acquiring equal rights*, but are rather interested in acquiring societal acceptance -- which is a whole separate ballpark.
*or rather, it's not their primary concern.
It's still a hell of a lot easier legally to just leave it being named marriage and tell people to stop whining because again... legal marriage has nothing at all to do with religion.
The thing I dislike about that, as a lawyer, is I don't like legal meanings being wonky and different from their colloquial meanings. It's unavoidable in some cases... I do not think this is one of those.
Within the legal community such instances do not provide much confusion, but I see it *all the time* where individuals without legal training think a law means something other than it does because the law uses a word in a way that is contrary to the colloquial meaning (Malice Aforethought is probably the biggest where it occurs).
As an engineer I dislike the idea of having to have everyone suddenly not be legally married anymore and then apply a rule that everyone that was legally married is not legally in a civil union instead and then having to go through all of the laws combing over every instance of the word married or marriage and re-wording it.
It seems much easier to make it clear that the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with churches or religion. For example: "a private entity may refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any reason" covers churches not having to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony.
Edit: Really if done correctly the difference should not matter at all because the religious meaning would have zero legal standing anyway. Is someone going to try to sue a church for claiming that their marriage is not valid? What kind of damages can they really claim there? I would love to know because I am sure I could find someone to call me mean things so I can sue them.
I know this is a bit of a sidetrack, but what don't people understand about Malice Aforethought? That's just one of the requirements for specific charges (as opposed to a crime committed in the heat of the moment), right?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, for one they think it actually requires malice... which it does not. Malice aforethought is essential pre-planning. Actual Malice is completely irrelevant.
Another good example is the concept of Moral Rights in copyright law, which is essentially just the right of an author to control his work even after it has been sold. Again, totally unrelated to morals but the word trips people up.
If the purpose of the law is to put people on notice as to what is prohibited and what is allowed (and it is), utilization of terms that the lay person will understand to have a meaning contrary to the legal meaning does not meet that purpose.
No. You are reading verses that mention sexual immorality and assuming that that umbrella includes homosexuality -- but that's your reading. But here's a challenge: find anything Paul said (or anything in the New Testament at all) that explicitly and undeniably equates those two things (i.e. "homosexuality is sexually immoral"). You'll find lots of "it displeases God" in various formations, but nowhere do the two terms appear equated in the text.
What you WILL find, on the other hand, are a couple of lists that include, as two separate items on the list, "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" -- both of which were authored by Paul.
Tell me, if homosexuality and sexual immorality are two distinct items on the same list, why would you assume when he says one that he's referring to the other? That's not how lists work.
The answer is simple: you do it because YOU want them to be the same. Not because the text actually says so. Paul does not ever say that we should shun gay people.
Disproven. Again. Give it up, man. You're straight-up wrong here.
***
If you want to get into considerations of time and place and culture, let's talk about the fact that the concept of 'homosexuality' in terms of 'a devoted monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender' didn't even exist in Paul's time. He saw a lot of sexual misconduct to be sure, but homosexuality as we understand it wasn't seen at the time. He men he saw laying with other men were sleeping generally with slaves or with young boys (in the form of pederasty.) If you're going to make an argument that we should ignore some of Paul's words because they apply differently now than they did then, why would you not apply that argument in every case that it applies?
There's no way out here. Either you're a literalist and you think that women should be silent (because, remember, he said it outside of the context of church, too), or you're a contextualist and you need to actually do the work to understand the context of the word 'homosexuality' in Paul's time and how what we're seeing today is actually not the same thing at all.
***
As to the rest of what was written between my last post and here, I basically entirely agree with all of it.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.