Thank you, Ginger. I forgive you and respect you, both as a person and a writer. I know its difficult to understand my beliefs, but I stand firm in them. I believe in loving and respecting everyone equally. But loving and respecting people doesn't mean I am forced to approve or promote all of their actions. I believe every viewpoint should be heard and respected. Just like the Supreme Court was divided, so are the American people. But we are united in our respect for everyone's freedoms.
With this I can agree in whole. I extend equal forgiveness for having called me immoral. I make that statement with the solemn pledge that it holds no irony or sarcasm.
While I appreciate the thought, I make no apologies for my beliefs, just as Ginger wasn't apologizing for her beliefs, but in her coarse verbiage toward people of differing opinions.
I'm just going to have to echo Dante's posts here as a third reminder. I'm sure it's not needed but it just satisfies my consciousness. If someone has a different philosophy or position of faith, and they personally consider you immoral, why be offended by this? After all, all it means is you are being judged by a different standard to the one you judge yourself by. I know some people will and do consider me immoral for my atheism and my advocacy of same-sex marriage, JJ might consider this immoral, I don't really care, I'm not a Christian, and so I just don't hold the same moral values. That's all it is really, just the fact I don't have the same philosophy. Edit: It seems this issue has been settled. Good job guys.
Not only that, one has to wonder if people making the argument, 'the current version of marriage is some traditional institution handed down from God', have actually read the Bible.
This is just my opinion, but homosexuality is not a moral issue. In fact, in any secular moral system, it's hard to imagine that anyone can present a logical argument condemning homosexuality.
The modifier "secular" demonstrates that it is a moral issue, however, since under a religious moral system arguments can be raised. Just because something doesn't adhere to a secular moral perspective doesn't take it out from under the broad umbrella of moral issues generally.
I disagree. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It can be a moral argument or it can be a religious argument.
That's a convenient definition, but of course religions do prescribe moral codes, which remains the case whether you recognize it or not.
Religions do prescribe moral codes, according to their own particular dogma. These might or might not be objectively "moral."
Because that leads to the question of the code of which religion will we apply? Buddhists seem very level headed on the whole. Shall we do away with the meat industry altogether?
Moral codes do not require religion. Using logic and reason, humans are perfectly capable of coming up with a moral code combining individual and joint interests.
I think George Washinton said it best in his farewell address: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." If I were to be associated with sharing the views of someone such as he, I would consider it an honor. As far as viewpoints on homosexuality, there is no logical viewpoint outside of God. Because without God, there is no authority, no consequence and 'morality' can be defined any way society chooses. And Ginger, I say, respectfully, that I have studied the Bible, both Greek and Hebrew and my position on homosexuality has not changed. There is a veritable ocean of out-of-context, ignorant and just plain silly websites claiming to disprove or debunk the Bible. However, please understand that an in-depth conversation of the Bible, debunking myths, correcting purposeful mistranslations would take an enormous amount of time and would derail this thread quickly. I honestly think the discussion is best left in the realm of law, because any discussion of the why's and how's concerning the biblical view of homosexuality, would prove unfruitful for all.
I agree with this two. But religions do promulgate moral codes with the teachings of their faith. They're still moral codes, whether one agrees with them or not, and whether they should serve as the basis for law or not (they shouldn't).
I can see it now... throng of protesters in front of the Supreme Court, picketing and chanting "LAY OFF OUR BUNS! OUR HAMBURGER BUNS!"
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Ezekial 16:49. Can't get much more clear than that. Sodom's sin was not homosexuality. It was not taking care of the needy (going so far as to rape strangers - a sin regardless of the sex of the victim and rapist). " their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another" Romans 1. For a person born gay, what is the natural use of a woman? All the other lies about homosexuality that the Religious Right (notice I do not use the term 'Religious Reich' here because I'm not referring just to those that fight against equality) tell are the same. They like to claim their position is Biblical and that God is on their side, but unless God sides with ignorance, they are clearly lying. Literacy and scholarship are two of the most powerful weapons the church has against the Religious Right. Another verse worth keeping in mind is 1 Corinthians 5 : 12 - 13, 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” Which means that we shouldn't judge those outside the church, only those in the church.
Justin, I respect your opinion, but please read my previous post. This is opening a whole can of worms that could go on for hundreds of replies, and would derail the thread.
