Abigail

Sheesh Rhino, you are a tough cookie and you make it difficult to have a civil conversation sometimes.

Here is a bit of my take, Rhino, for what it's worth. I am Jewish, though quite obviously not orthodox. I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuality. I also know the literal, orthodox view does not sit right in my heart. In SirG's posts I see Kaballah, that works for me. I don't know the ins and outs of SirG's studies or the path that led him to his current beliefs, but Kaballah sits well in my heart. In Eyes posts I see questions, logic, and argumentative reasoning. That too is Jewish and it sits well in my heart. Yet neither of them are Jewish and neither of them have followed the same field of studies, the same path. Clay uses shades of both and adds his own unique perspective. I struggle with the more literal views that you seem to have and Jeno does have. It tends to raise my hackles. Maybe that's not fair, but I am being honest about how I see it. That doesn't mean that the two of you don't have valid layers to add to this onion, though.

Peel an onion, Rhino. That is a large part of what Cman is saying. There are many many many layers to the Bible. You see one layer, Clay another, Sir yet another still. . . Sometimes we can share what we see and add a layer to someone else's vision, though their new perspective will not be exactly the same as the perspective of the one who shared. Sometimes we can share a layer and the person we share with won't understand it. Later, someone else will say the same thing in a different way, and the person will understand. So. rhino, what does doctrine say about how to treat homosexuals, or sinners, or whatever label you care to use?

Do you mind if Sushi joins us in that corner? While I may have the female parts, he looks maaavelous in the red dress!!!

I prefer hooker red, myself.

I'm game bump, but you have to go first. :P

If she didn't name you, how do you know she was even speaking of you? Unless of course, the shoe did fit???

and for the record, Jeno, I am not saying these things because I am all buddy buddy best friends with Eyes. In actuality I have known you much longer and been on much friendlier terms with you, than I have ever been with Eyes. I am saying them because I am completely frustrated. I actually am interested in the discussions on this topic, even if I have little to add by way of what the Bible does or does not say. Unfortunately all of the threads have become about Eyes, you and Rhino. Eyes won't answer, you two continue to ask, she still won't answer, so you ask again . . . and again . . . and again.

So your continued harassment is your response to your perception that she attacked you? Sheesh, I've called you worse things on these boards than anything she said in her posts to you and you haven't followed me around harassing me. So, I guess, in other words, I'm not buying your justification of your behavior. In the end, though, I guess it doesn't matter if I buy it or not. But its starting to look like maybe you simply have thing for Eyes and you know what they say - negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Doctrine is not limited to bible believing Christians, Rhino. This isn't the Christian only forum or even the Biblical discussions only forum. :blink:

Well, I already knew.

Whether you believe the Bible as we know it today is letter for letter the literal word of God, a book that has error but also contains the word of God, a history book, or even a book of fiction - it is the most influencial book in the history of mankind. It is a book that has to some degree or another influenced nearly every culture on our planet today. Scholars have debated the meaning of probably almost every passage for centuries and not reached a concensus. I doubt we are going to solve any big mystery here at the cafe. That being said, debate can be a great thing. It can be healthy, in can bring about new ideas, new thoughts, new beliefs. It can cause us to change our opinions and therefore even our lives. Unfortunately, if no one is really willing to consider the other side's pov, it really pretty much becomes a bunch of kids flinging sand at each other and ceases to become productive. I have considered the homosexuality is a sin side of things. I had it crammed down my throat while in TWI. I have also considered the other side - that maybe it isn't a sin, maybe those verses are really trying to convey a different message through figures of speech. In the end, I can only conclude that I don't know and that it really doesn't matter anyway. In the end, I don't believe I am going to change anyone, heal anyone, deliver anyone, but telling them they are sining. I don't believe it is my place to condemn anyone either. People are people and we are all screwed up in one way or another - or at least we have all made screwed up decisions at one time or another. If homosexuals want to marry, I say let them. It really has no effect on my life one way or another. Rhino and Jeno, my overall impression in these discussions is that your minds are made up and you are not going to be persuaded to a different pov, regardless of what anyone says to you. That is why I stopped posting in the threads on this topic in the open forum. Basically, it was a waste of time, because I wasn't convincing or persuading anyone of anything, nor was I being convinced or persuaded of anything. I am guessing that for those very same reasons, Eyes has no real interest in getting into a drawn out debate with the two of you on this topic and she has as much as said so. What I fail to understand is why the two of you insist on following her from thread to thread on this topic and hounding her, when she has already said she does not care to debate it with you? Do you think if you nag her enough she will give in??? Do you think you would like someone to follow you from thread to thread and hound you into engaging in a debate you have already said you have no desire to engage in??? People are free to express their opinions here. They are even free to express them and leave it at that, without debating them. There is no rule that says once you have expressed an opinion you are now bound to debate it until all parties have agreed the debate is over. In my opinion, your behavior is bording on harassment, and I fail to see how you are benefiting from it.

I'll bite, it's been quite a while since I've been down here in the basement. I don't have a Bible in front of me at the moment, but my memory of the first couple of chapters of Romans was, the point wasn't really that homosexuality was the sin - the sin was, there were those teaching it as a sin and condemning homosexuality, who were equally guity of worshiping the creation above the creator. In other words, it was about the hypocrites. And in the end, I go back to . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When I become perfect, then I MIGHT have the right to judge someone else's relationship with God. Until then, I figure it is between each individual and God to work it out.

Rhino, Your article appears to be nothing more than an opinion piece with nothing much to substantiate it. While the author does make reference to "research" we are never told what the research was, who performed it, etc. etc. etc.

Accept? I dunno, but respect, yes. I don't have to agree with someone's choices in order to respsect that they are an individual with a right to make a choice. For instance, I don't have to agree with your relgious beliefs, to respect the fact that you have a right to worship the God you believe in.Similarly, you don't have to agree with the lifestyle, but if someone else's fist is not connecting with your nose (so to speak) then I think you have to respec their right to choose. It is not the school system's job to teach moral values, nor (IMO) safe sex and abstinence. Likewise, I do not believe the school is the place to emphasis the importance of the "whole family." BTW, just what is the "whole family"? Is it mom and dad under one roof, does it include grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc? Because I know many famlies these days who seem to have no interest in the extended aspect, which is something I highly value. So, because I highly value the extended family, do I have a right to force that value on another? Some states now have laws forcing parents to allow grandparents access to the children. So, again, I wonder just how far we want to allow the government into our family lives. Do we really want them telling us who can and cannot get married? Who can and cannot have access to our children? Many, many, many things have changed since then. Women have fought for and pretty much won equality. No longer is it acceptable for a man to beat and rape his wife. No longer must a woman live her entire life financially dependant upon another.Add to that, movies and tv's, which have a huge influence on our culture. Movies that make marriage look like a fairytale where a couple becomes sexually attracted to one another and call it love, then ride happily ever after into the sunset. Movies like "Juno" which seem to romanticize teen pregnancy - make it cute and funny. And the radical right would still have women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, completely dependant upon the mood and whim of her husband. So what? I think most people are neither radical right, nor radical left, but somewhere in the middle - as it should be. And yet, there are couples who would like to get married and raise children together, who cannot, because they are of the same gender. hmmmmmmmmm. For the same reason that large corporations get better rates than mom and pop businesses do. The insurance business is a game of odds. The larger the pool of people on the policy, the more likely you stand to make a profit off the premiums from the majority of them, to off-set the loss on the few. If you have 10 people on 1 policy and 9 are healthy and 1 isn't - you still make a profit. If you have 20 people on a policy and 18 are healthy and 2 aren't - you make a bigger profit. If you have one person on a policy, and that person isn't healthy, you take a loss. Bramble, precisely. In other words, children and society could actually benefit by allowing homosexual couples to marry.

How would you possibly know if it does or does not hurt them? If the purpose of marriage, or at least the financial benefits of marriage, is to assist in supporting the family unit, then not being married may very well hurt them. For instance, if the one with the better paying job also has better healthcare benefits, but the child they are raising cannot have access to those benefits because the women are not allowed to be married, then yes it may be hurting them.If the purpose of marriage is to provide stability within the family unit, then not allowing these two women to marry hurts them and the child. I have to wonder, given how high the divorce rate is, if marriage truly is of such high value or if we simply idealize and romanticize it. Now, I am in no way in favor of teen preganancy, but I have no problem with a financially and emotionally stable ADULT deciding to raise a child without a spouse. I think a partner is tremendously beneficial for the parents and the children, but the partner does not have to be a spouse, does not have to be of the opposite gender, and does not even have to include a romantic relationship. I don't think I understand what point you are trying to make with this last part??? Edited to add . . . . I wonder which of the following is actually more difficult for a child: 1. Growing up with a financially and emotionally stable single parent from birth into adulthood. 2. Being born into a family with married parents who at some point during your childhood, get divorced. 3. Being born into a family with married parents who are constantly fighting and shouting at each other, because they can't stand each other anymore but are unwilling to end the marriage. Now, are there other options? Of course there are. There are parents who get married, and stay happily married for their entire lives. However, those families are very few and far between. Heck, by the time I graduated high school I only had one friend whose parents were still married, and her parents got divorced as soon as their last kid was done with school.

I am still waiting for someone (perhaps you because you keep bringing it up) to tell what the great tax breaks are. I'm married and I am not getting any tax breaks for it. In fact, I pay more now than I did when I was single. As far as work benefits go, most companies can choose whether or not they wish to provide coverage for an individual only or if they wish to include spouse and children. Where I work, they would pay for my insurance and I would pay the difference (nearly $1,000 per month) to add my husband and children. Thankfully, where Sushi works, the cost to him to put the boys and I on his policy is only about $100 per month. Property taxes are usually someone tied the the value of the home and has nothing to do with whether or not the owner is married or single. So again, where is this great tax break?? And, FWIW, I would bet money that the vast majority of people who are opposed to homosexual marriages are opposed to it based on religious beliefs. Thus, they wish to impose their beliefs on other people. One more thing . . . I suspect in the long run, it benefits the employer to provide coverage for the whole family when it is possible (i.e. larger companies can get better group rates so it is more affordable to them than to a smaller company). If an employee is able to maintain their health and the health of their family through regular check ups, to have the peace of mind of knowing their healthcare needs are taken care of, etc., then the employee will probably be more motivated and productive. An employee whose job does not cover basic needs is not going to be motivated or well focused on their job.

***Sorry, posted by SUSHI, not Abigail*** Well, as far as it goes for Christians, it seems to have started from the founder. Didn't the guy on the cross say that only those who believed in him would come unto the Father? Sounds fairly divisive to me. Therefore, you really can't blame present day Christianity for being just like their 'ideal'. I'm not sure how this serves people day to day. Seems to me, it is a self imposed exile from the world. They're right, and everyone else can go to the hot place. This black and white thinking is what got us into trouble in the first place, didn't it? :)

Ron brings up an interesting point. Rhino the states can and do regulate and protect the children financially, outside the confines of marriage, all of the time. There are millions of unwed mother's and fathers who were never married. Despite the lack of a binding license, the state decides who has the kids when and who pays and how much for support.

I can't help but wonder why those who are so passionately opposed to homosexual marriages, because they believe it is against Gawd's laws, don't appear to be equally passionately against adultery, divorce, the pornography industry, etc. etc. Aren't those things against God's laws too?

Ya know, Ducttape. I could care less if people have multiple spouses. I fail to see how it is any of my damned business if someone is married to 2, 3, or more people of the same or opposite sex at the same time as long as they are all CONSENTING ADULTS. However, forcing 13 and 14 year old children into marriage, forcing them to have sex, that is an entirely different topic that again, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals should marry. Straw man arguments - that is the best the opposition can come up with.

I have to say, I find the whole example of animals in nature to be rather hilarious. For every type of animal that mates for life, there are at LEAST two more that do not. Similarly, there are plenty that do not care for their young, or only care for them for a very short period of time. Indeed, there are even some that will eat their own young. I could very easily take the argument you and Kimberly have presented and say we should all eat our young. Look at rats, they do it, therefore God must have designed us that way. I want to know what these big tax breaks for married couples are!!! Really, I am married and I do not get big tax breaks. In fact, I lost $5,000 on my return from the earned income credit when Sushi and I got married. The only "extra" tax break I get is the deductibles for my two children (deductibles I would still be eligible for even if I were not married) and those aren't huge. I certainly do not get back what I spend to feed, clothe, and house them. Nor do I even get back what I spend for childcare while I work. Regardless, people will reproduce with or without tax breaks. Those who want children (homosexual or heterosexual) and cannot have them naturally, will still look to adopt them with or without tax breaks. So I guess I agree with you here, I don't see the point in big tax breaks for married people, nor am I convinced they even exist. Are you being intentionally dense or can you just not help it? The point was simply to point out that allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to harm the traditional family unit and the argument saying it will is completely flawed and lacking in logic. Thank you for making my point. What does allowing homosexuals to marry have to do with laws for proper parental care or the protection of the fictionalized and overly romanticized traditional family unit? Homsexuals do not threaten the family unit and I fail to see why those opposed to homosexual marriage continue to try to argue that it does. I still don't see why or how history shows the reall mother and father raising the children has been historically proven to be what works best. I think one can find millions and millions of situations where that was not the one that worked best for the child. The unit that works best for the children is the unit where there are adults (ideally more than two counting an extended family unit and/or support system of concerned adults) who are willing to give the child the proper love and care, regardless of gender or biology. Indeed, I'm betting there are a large number of people who have adopted kids, who would argue the biological parents would NOT have been the best parents for the child. Again, it is a flawed argument and really, has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals marry. Homosexuals do not threaten the traditional family unit. Heterosexuals are the ones who have threatened that. No, it is not obvious. One could argue that IDEALLY the real parents would have that, but in reality many do not. How many stories does one have to read about abused and neglected kids before one realizes we are not born with instincts on how to properly parent. Hell, all I have to do is spend a week or so at any public school in this city to realize a large number of parents do not have an instictive drive to care for and protect their children. Many of them have never even seen the inside of the school building or met the person they "entrust" their child to for 7 hours a day 5 days a week.

Fertilizing a woman's egg and/or giving birth may make one a biological parent, but it doesn't make a person a good, decent, fit parent. Not by a long shot!!! If the fear is the destruction of the "typical" or "old fashioned" family unit - look around you. In most states homosexual marriages are not legal and are not recognized. Despite that, the family unit, as it was once known, is by and large gone. That is not the fault of homosexuals, that is the fault of heterosexuals. If the goal is to preserve the family unit, then we need to turn time and laws backward. We need to make it darned near impossible to get divorced. We need to make unwed pregnant girls either abort, give the child up for adoption, or marry the father. Yet, even if we do those things, it won't mean the family unit is good, healthy, or best for the child. So we better come up with some laws governing what is and is not acceptable parenting. Is it okay to feed the kid three squares, house them, send the to school but not be in any way shape or form involved in their education, moral upbrining, etc.? Is it okay to spank them? Is it okay to refuse to spank them? Do we allow them to play video games instead of making them play outdoors? Is it okay to let them eat unhealthy junk food and if so, how much? Who and what governs what makes a family a whole unit (as opposed to the broken one you refer to)? Is simply having two parents of opposite sex under one roof all it takes or is it, perhaps, a bit more involved than that?