This morning, from a cave somewhere in Pakistan , Taliban Minister of Migration, Mohammad Omar, warned the United States and Canada that if military action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's and Canada's supply of convenience store managers. And if this action does not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next, followed by Dell and Sprint customer service reps.


It's getting ugly.

Fortunately my favorite CS owner/manager:


Hails from India.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 11/7/2007).]

Ever the shining Christian example.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 11/7/2007).]

My thoughts exactly J.....

Matt Groening is a racist.

Nice try Rick.

Matt Groenig doesn't claim certain other beliefs either.

Hey Richard. How much does your employer pay you while you're posting crap on milescity.com at 1017 in the morning on a workday?

Well...

1. 10:17 is "break-time";

2. I have 350 hrs of OT and have generated $450,000 of income for the company this year, so I can take a 30 sec vacation no one will care;

3. prior to posting, I checked with my supervisor (myself) and he said it was okay.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/8/2007).]

Racism isn't racism if you're an atheist.

http://www.milescity.com/...84d4fb214b

Because 10:23 is morally superior to 10:17.

what does racism have to do with atheism? I have always thought of racism as "looking down on a certain group of people just because they belong to a certain race"....Sorta like the joke that started this thread....which is very racist in my opinion....

Everything is about context. If my buddy from the Navy sent that to me in an email I would just laugh it off as his stupidity. If he suddenly started preaching to me about his good Christian values and how important they are to his being then I would call him a hypocrite.

very well put J...

Linda,

I didn't think there was anything really racist in the topic. I'm not of Indian/Pakistani decent but considering that just about every time I go into a 7-11 or call a "Customer Service" line I need a Sanskrit dictionary I thought it pretty humourous.

Now if someone started telling Tennesse-redneck jokes.....

Well, them's fightin' woids!

Kyle,
to me (and this is just my opinion) singling out any group of people for derision or laughter is a form of racism....Racism doesnt start and stop with African Americans...It should apply to all.....

Singling out any group for derision is raciest? ... except for Christians. They are fair game. Only people who have standards and violate them are hypocrites. But you first have to have a standard...

Some of you people take yourselves WAY TOO serious. You should lighten up a bit.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/8/2007).]

"2. I have 350 hrs of OT and have generated $450,000 of income for the company this year, so I can take a 30 sec vacation no one will care;"

I have 36 people who work for me that developed a system that helps generate that much income in about.... as long as it took me to type those 4 dots.

If you met any one of them in person you'd probably smile at them while performing some Mr. Abu impression in your head.

Then you would go home and tell your children how God loves all men equally.

It's weird how non-Christians build up this ridiculous Ned Flanders caricature of how Christians are supposed to act. They like to then attack this ridiculous portrait as "out of touch" or "naive".

But the second you as a Christian don't live up to this effigy they've built up for themselves, they despise you for not living as a human confirmation to their own narrow world view.

J. You've seen this same joke said a million times in a million ways. Why is Richard where you decide to draw the line?

what is not being understood here apparently, Richard, is that you always make such a big deal out of being a Christian and then post things that are anything but Christian in behavior.....Either you are a Christian or you are not....but to use the "label" of Christian and then to post this mess isnt too consistent and is an insult to true Christians....I have found that most real Christians, dont brag about it, they just live it in a quiet and dignified manner while performing charitible acts daily and never ever is heard a derogatory remark about anyone else...

I wouldn't have said anything if you or any other of several people that frequent this site had posted that. Mr. Bonine has posted things on this site that have led me to believe he espouses certain beliefs to be VERY important to him and goes so far as to impress them upon other people. When I see actions or tendencies that are contrary to those supposed beliefs I'm gonna throw the BS flag.

"It's weird how non-Christians build up this ridiculous Ned Flanders caricature of how Christians are supposed to act. They like to then attack this ridiculous portrait as "out of touch" or "naive"."

BTW. I am a Christian but you wouldn't know it unless you knew me. That is a small demonstration of the point I am driving at.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 11/8/2007).]

Totally proves my point as well....Thanks J....

You may have a point with people making a "big deal" about being Christian, but at the same time, a person not living up to their own moral code at all times doesn't make them a hypocrite. It makes them a human. I guarantee that there is no one that never does something that they believe to be wrong. If someone has some ice cream, or even totally pigs out on ice cream, then tells you that eating healthy is the right thing to do, that doesn't make them a hypocrite. It just means that at that moment they failed to live up to their own ideal. On the other hand, if they jump on you for eating ice cream one time, or claim that they always eat healthy, then they're a hypocrite.

Because of that, I don't think this post, even if it was blatantly racist (it's pretty borderline in my book) makes Richard a hypocrite. If he had been jumping on people for making racist jokes he would be. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't make this post hypocritical. He is a Christian. I don't think he claimed to be a perfect one.

This is pretty much semantics at this point I suppose, but I don't think this claim stands up to logic, and I agree with Rick that the "hypocrite" line is often used incorrectly in reference to Christians (or in general) in the wacky world of internet message board debate hehe.

I am speaking specifically about Richard and not about Christians. That's just the label he has put on the platform he stands on. I agree completely with what you wrote Levi.

wow first time I was able to post one of these little things...glad it worked....

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 11/8/2007).]

"what is not being understood here apparently, Richard, is that you always make such a big deal out of being a Christian and then post things that are anything but Christian in behavior.....Either you are a Christian or you are not....but to use the "label" of Christian and then to post this mess isnt too consistent and is an insult to true Christians....I have found that most real Christians, dont brag about it, they just live it in a quiet and dignified manner while performing charitible acts daily and never ever is heard a derogatory remark about anyone else..."

1. Perhaps you missed that my original post is under the category of Humor. You live in MT and have never laughed at or told a joke about a North Dakotan? You have never laughed at or told a blonde joke? By your definition, to do such would be "racist". No wonder you seem bitter and apparently have little joy in your life. The joke I posted struck me as "funny" and I was trying to do my good deed for the day by bringing some levity into other peoples lives. I did not intend to insult or offend anyone. For what it is worth, I sent this joke to a very good friend of mine who was born in Pakistan. He thought it was funny.

2. When I "make big deal out of being a Christian" it has usually been because someone has made a statement about Christianity that is incorrect or is "trashing" the Christian point of view. I for one am going to speak up and defend my point of view. I am not ashamed to speak up. The practice is called Apologetics, which is something I believe more Christians should understand and use.

3. One of the sources of misunderstanding is that most non-Christians who post on MC.com have a "Ned Flanders" stereotypical view of Christianity. They believe that Ned represents true Christianity. The truth is that true orthodox ("orthodox" as in genuine) Christianity is a far cry from the Ned Flanders caricature. A non-christian telling a Christian how they should behave is like someone giving you direction on how to get back from a place that they have never been. You are probably going to end up lost.

"but to use the "label" of Christian and then to post this mess isnt too consistent and is an insult to true Christians"

4. I am really confused about this statement. All I did was post a joke and the respond to a question about how I use my time at work. If you read carefully most of the "mess" was created by others. If I have insulted any "true Christians" I am sorry.

Have a nice day!



[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/8/2007).]

well Richard, thanks for your personal attack on me....I questioned your beliefs in conjunction with what I considered to be a racist joke...I never attacked you personally....If that is another example of your "christian behavior" I am not impressed....what I have in my personal life in entirely my business as I don't ( as most posters on here know) get involved with personal attacks....You have no idea if I am Christian or not.....I feel incredibly sad for you...

How is what I just said a "personal attack"? Perhaps if you can explain this to me you can do your good deed for the day and help me be a better person.

3. One of the sources of misunderstanding is that most non-Christians who post on MC.com have a "Ned Flanders" stereotypical view of Christianity.

-------------

OK, Richard. Help me out here.

You seem to throw out the term "non-Christian" pretty easily.

Please define the term for me - thanks in advance. Hopefully it isn't everyone in the universe that doesn't agree with you and others of your ilk.

I never attacked you personally....If that is another example of your "christian behavior"

Linda, calling someone a racist and telling a Christian they're not a "real Christian" are nothing if not personal attacks.

I have found that most real Christians, dont brag about it, they just live it in a quiet and dignified manner

So your favorite "real Christians" are just the quiet "nice guys" that pretty much keep it to themselves.

That's funny, because my favorite "real Liberals" are also quiet and keep their opinions to themselves.

I'd say your definition of a "real Christian" might have more to do with you than them. Jesus was not the silent plodder you say those who try to follow him should be.

Besides, I'm not sure where the theology is on ethnic jokes being specifically non-Christian. You can claim poor taste if you like. Whether its a sin (dirty word, I know) has more to do with intention than content. That's something you're in no position to judge.

But I do surely know that ethnic jokes are a perfectly clear violation of the stated policies of the Democratic Church of Political Correctness.

But even in that case, you might want to be careful throwing the word "racist" around so loosely:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/A...linton.ap/

During an event here for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

Outrage?

If this guy got kicked out of the club, I missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...M19YOqs7hU

"I'm not joking" he said.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 11/8/2007).]

"Please define the term for me - thanks in advance. Hopefully it isn't everyone in the universe that doesn't agree with you and others of your ilk."

-Non-Christians are those who don't believe in the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ, that he is both God & Man.

-Non-Christians are those who believe that their individual good works are meritorious for salvation, rather than trusting Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sin and receiving the means of grace through Word and Sacrament.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/8/2007).]

So being a Christian means you're an ass as long as you hope you're forgiven and drink the bread and eat the wine?

Non-Christians sound way more Christian.

You know, I guess its all perspective. If any of you have ever been around cops out of public earshot, you would all be totally disgusted! And I think that everyone tries to be PC, but, are we really? Come on, everyone has something that they say or do that is "against the grain".

Glass house? Stones? Hmmmm....

Richard belongs to a church that believes that 90% of the rest of the christian world are heretics and schismatics, and isn't really all that sure of the remaining 10%.

standard standard

Are you still a Catholic, Richard? I know some pretty righteous people that would argue Catholics are not Christians.

"Please define the term for me - thanks in advance. Hopefully it isn't everyone in the universe that doesn't agree with you and others of your ilk."

-Non-Christians are those who don't believe in the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ, that he is both God & Man.

-Non-Christians are those who believe that their individual good works are meritorious for salvation, rather than trusting Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sin and receiving the means of grace through Word and Sacrament.

----------------

So a person could be pro-choice and still be a Christian?

No, you can't be pro or con. You can only go on through your life knowing that it's all pre-determined and that Jesus will forgive you since he made you do whatever you did or didn't.

sure removed any humor i thought i may find in this post...on to the next....

Give me liberty, or give me death!

"Are you still a Catholic, Richard? I know some pretty righteous people that would argue Catholics are not Christians."

No, I am not a Catholic. I left in 1982. I know some of those same people. Should I know you?

"Richard belongs to a church that believes that 90% of the rest of the christian world are heretics and schismatics, and isn't really all that sure of the remaining 10%."

No, that is not what the Church I belong to teaches. You are attempting to tell people how to get back from a place that you have never been.

"No, you can't be pro or con. You can only go on through your life knowing that it's all pre-determined and that Jesus will forgive you since he made you do whatever you did or didn't."

You are confusing justification and sanctification.

Richard:

Since you didn't answer my first question, I'll try another:

Can you be a homosexual and still be a Christian?

Homoseualismismismism is a Disease! Didn't you know?!!

Human nature is a disease.

Christianity is a disease.

"Richard:

Since you didn't answer my first question, I'll try another:

Can you be a homosexual and still be a Christian?"

I answered your first question. You evidently didn't like my answer.

In the spirit of, and getting back to the original post. It is said this happened some time ago when the Airlines were still flying propeller driven aircraft. On an overseas flight the plane experienced mechanical problems and lost 2 engines. After jettisoning the cargo and baggage as well as everything that was loose, the captain announced they were still loosing altitude and 3 people were going to have to jump out to save the rest. He asked for volunteers before drawing straws. Shortly there after an Englishman stood up and jumped out with the shout, "God save the Queen." Not to be out done a Frenchman followed with, "Viva la France.". After a short pause a lanky Texan stood up, grabbed a Mexican and out the door they went with, "Remember the Alamo."!!

Richard:

No, you didn't answer either question.

You're a linear thinker, you can figure it out. Two easy "yes" or "no" questions for you:

(1) Can you be "pro-choice" and be a Christian?
(2) Can you be a homosexual and be a Christian?

You can invade another country, unprovoked, murdering hundreds of thousands of people, and still be a Chri stain.

Why? because of being saved. What's going to save us from those who are already 'saved'?

I may be going to hell in a bucket, at least I'm enjoying the ride, and can see the humor in it all!

Your first question was: You seem to throw out the term "non-Christian" pretty easily.

Please define the term for me - thanks in advance. Hopefully it isn't everyone in the universe that doesn't agree with you and others of your ilk."

My answer was "-Non-Christians are those who don't believe in the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ, that he is both God & Man.

-Non-Christians are those who believe that their individual good works are meritorious for salvation, rather than trusting Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sin and receiving the means of grace through Word and Sacrament."

Your second question was "Can you be "pro-choice" and be a Christian?"

-The living, but unborn, are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Since abortion takes a human life, it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of another person, the mother. Being pro-abortion ( I assume this is what you really mean by "pro-choice") and killing the innocent person is not compatible with keeping the commandment "You shall not murder". Can God forgive the repentant mother who has had an abortion? Absolutely.

Does anyone have authority to take another person's life? Yes, lawful government, as God's servant may execute criminals and fight just wars. Within orthodox Christianity is the concept of two "kingdoms" or estates. There is the spiritual estate and the temporal estate in the form of civil government. These two estates are dependent on one another. Today, Christians support the temporal estate by teaching obedience, love for one's neighbor and and productive labor. They expect the temporal estate to support the spiritual estate by providing security and justice, so that churches may freely proclaim the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.

Your third question was: "Can you be a homosexual and be a Christian?"

-We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and what we do, and husband and wife love and honor each other. The homosexual lifestyle is nothing more than sexual sin and is incompatible with Christianity. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God". Can God forgive the repentant sinner who turns away from a sexually immoral way of life? Absolutely.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/10/2007).]

Bob L:

The appropriate response to your question is: Why are you asking?
Without knowing the intent behind the question it cannot be a yes or no answer. (It's like asking your doctor if cutting your arm is bad. Does this mean that you've done it and are worried about an infection or you intend to cut it so as to bleed to death.)

The way in which you have asked the question is based on the law. The law always accuses. The Gospel on the other hand sets us free from those accusations because Jesus kept the law perfectly yet he was still accused and condemned to death on our behalf. It is the gift of faith, given to us by God, which accepts this reality. A Christian is not motivated by the law (accusation) but rather is motivated by Gospel (what God has done for us).

That being said, it is true that homosexuality, like all other sins, is a real life struggle. That is why a Christian lives a life of repentance. They daily confess their sins and receive forgiveness for them. Living this daily life of repentance believing what God has done for them, in Jesus, is going to move them in a direction that desires not to yield to the temptations of sin but by God's Grace put away those sins of the flesh.

Acting in a way contrary to the Gospel (what God has done for us) is at its very root an act of unbelief. Remaining in that state of unrepentant unbelief is what will bring about judgment upon death.


Can you be "pro-choice" and be a Christian?
Can you be a homosexual and be a Christian?


Do you mean being unrepentant about taking the life of an unborn child or living a life of unrepentant homosexual behavior?

Richard: "Should I know you?" You would have no reason to know me, but it's no secret that you were raised Catholic. I left Miles City a couple of years before your parents moved, but as I recall, your mom was very active in liturgy planning at Sacred Heart.

Richard:

Interesting responses.

Two (no, make that three) more questions based on your responses:

(1) Where in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception? I think that would be central to your "abortion = murder" argument. I don't remember any reference to that in the Bible. And, believe it or not, I once led my local "Bible Bowl" team to the State finals.

(2) If homosexuality were such an offense to God, why wasn't "Thou shall not be a homo" (or some variation thereof) one of the Commandments?

(3) Wouldn't the ultimate decision whether someone is a Christian be made by - I don't know - Christ? Just wondering.

Bob L. Despite your extensive "Bible Bowl" background, it has become obvious that your "Problems" are troublesome to you. Instead of asking a layman like Richard for answers, maybe you should contact a local Priest or Pastor for help. Remember, Jesus died for your sins and God loves you. Ike

Ike:

Good job!

You're getting closer to effective sarcasm!

Now why don't you go sell a used car to some poor schmo? Oh yeah, that's right. Jimmy Carter foreclosed on your dealership. Sucks to be you.

Oh, I forgot.

Your pal,

Bob

Where in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception? I think that would be central to your "abortion = murder" argument. I don't remember any reference to that in the Bible. And, believe it or not, I once led my local "Bible Bowl" team to the State finals.

Hey, Bible Bob, I don't think the question of when life begins is so much a biblical definition as a biological one. That's the problem with you rand0m-thinker types. You have all the data, you just can't seem to put it all together. It's funny how you try to paint people into corners on moral questions you yourself would be unwilling to commit an answer to.

The opposite side of your question would be... If not at conception, when does life begin? Birth? That would seem to be central to your "abortion < murder" argument.

Are you saying a baby isn't alive until the cord is cut?

So why does a christian soldier who's just "doing his duty" get a pass when his government orders him to take the life of another human being, but if it's a woman who has to make the choice of terminating a fetus, then we get all sorts of bloviation (that, not to disagree with Russell here, sounds pretty accusatory) about sin and responsibility, as though that fetus is being aborted for reasons that are any more or less profound than those that any number of people are dying for in places that the average American couldn't find on a map prior to 9/11 - because someone has deemed it necessary or convenient that it be so.

I really don't have much interest in a God that only tells you is that sex is dirty and tax cuts are good.

Ah, what does it matter what I think.

[This message has been edited by Cory Cutting (edited 11/11/2007).]

[This message has been edited by Cory Cutting (edited 11/11/2007).]

Hey, Bible Bob, I don't think the question of when life begins is so much a biblical definition as a biological one. That's the problem with you rand0m-thinker types. You have all the data, you just can't seem to put it all together. It's funny how you try to paint people into corners on moral questions you yourself would be unwilling to commit an answer to.


-------------
Hey "Righteous Rick," you are against embryonic research.

When does life begin for you? Since embryos apparently have rights, I have no idea what you think. That's the problem with "random-thinker types" like you. Does life begin when you think about having sex?

This is the most unfunny humor thread ever, and considering some of the other threads that's really saying something.

Righteous? Please, I've never done anything quite as "righteous" as Captaining a Bible Trivia squad before. You've got me, hands down.

It seems though, for all your mention of Richard not answering the questions, you yourself have avoided answering by answering a question with a question. Worse, its a question you already know the answer to. I've spelled it out several times before. There's no need for me to help the obfuscation by doing so again.

Its easy to attack other people's opinions when you refuse to be open with your own. Again, if not at conception, when does life begin? Why?

Bridgier. Your statement seems, at best, based on a hearty dose of moral relativism. "These guys are wrong, therefore, it's ok for everyone to be wrong"

At worst, it seems biblically inconsistant. If war equals murder, what about Jericho or the intended fate of Gibeon? Is God a murderer? Did he command murder?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 11/12/2007).]

Righteous Rick:

Here's your earlier ramblings re: embryonic research.


Is killing an embryo "morally equivalent" to murder? That, along with most of Bridgier's points are obviously very tough. I have the same gut reactions as everyone else that say... well uh not really. But on the other hand, I believe that all things that are immoral are basically "morally equivalent." My view of being a Christian is that any rebellion against god's will is "morally equivalent."


Way to take a stand!

Are you really that afraid to answer Bob? I mean you have the double-protection of anonymity going for you, so you'd think offering an answer, no matter how marginal, would be pretty easy.

Are you really willing to ridicule others for their belief on when life begins while hiding your own opinion on the subject?

[moved thread to the politics forum]

To paraphrase a great man (Cory C.), nobody cares what I think.

Besides, I wouldn't be able to change the minds of self-righteous folks like you anyway.

Thanks Bob! I had a whole page of schpeel (hmm?) and decided it just wasn't worth it.

Nice Hillary Clinton answer - don't like the queston, ain't gonna answer!!

Actually John, the Hillary Clinton answer is the one she already knows the answer to having been prepaired by a member of the "Audience" who, coincidently, also happens to be a member of her staff.

"(1) Where in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception? I think that would be central to your "abortion = murder" argument. I don't remember any reference to that in the Bible. And, believe it or not, I once led my local "Bible Bowl" team to the State finals."

-Common sense teaches us that without conception there is no life, which is why abstinence works every time it is tried. The Bible says say in Ps 139:13 "For You formed my inward part; You covered me in my mothers womb. Ps139:16 "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them. Jeremiah 1:5 says Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. The Bible narrative in Luke 1:41-44 states that John the Baptist leaped for joy while in his mothers womb, which is hard to do if you are not alive.

(2) If homosexuality were such an offense to God, why wasn't "Thou shall not be a homo" (or some variation thereof) one of the Commandments?

-First of all in Genesis God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. So it is clear as a part of the created order that God never intended physical relations between man and man or woman and woman.

There ARE direct commandments about homosexuality. Much of Numbers and Leviticus is an explanation about the "10 Commandments" proper. It is heretical to attempt to separate the "10 Commandment" from the rest of the text. In Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a women. It is an abomination." The hebrew language (language of the original text) implies that women shouldn't lie together as they would with man. So there IS a commandment about "not being a homo".

"(3) Wouldn't the ultimate decision whether someone is a Christian be made by - I don't know - Christ?"

-Yes, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make the ultimate decision. Simplistically stated, we become one of the elect by truly hearing the Word of God and allowing faith to be created in our being so that we can grow as a child of God.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/13/2007).]

There ARE direct commandments about homosexuality. Much of Numbers and Leviticus is an explanation about the "10 Commandments" proper. It is heretical to attempt to separate the "10 Commandment" from the rest of the text. In Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a women. It is an abomination.

-------------

I knew you were gonna go there.

How about these passages from Leviticus?

Leviticus 11:10: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."

Just think about that one next time you order shrimp or lobster at the local fine dining establishment. Since it's heretical to attempt to separate the 10 Commandments from the rest of the text, you'd best avoid the shrimp and lobster, my friend.

Watch out for those stylish 60/40 cotton/poly blend shirts that you probably wear to church or work. Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear garments woven of two kinds of material." I'm a 100% cotton guy, myself. I guess I'm a WAY better Christian than you.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 11/13/2007).]

You are assuming that I eat lobster... never tasted it and I don't eat shrimp either. And there is no such thing as one Christian being better than another.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And you've never eaten clams or oysters or crab legs either. Not even clam chowder, I bet.

RE: the statement about being a better Christian than you, usually denotes sarcasm, which I included in my last post.

Have a nice day!

Make sure to look at the labels on all of your shirts, just to make sure.

The direct commandment against homosexuality:
"You shall not commit adultery."

Adultery is sexual relations outside of marriage.

Marriage is defined in Genesis 2:23-24
"Then the man said, This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

This is reaffirmed by Jesus own words found in Mark 10:6-9
"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

The author of Hebrews offers a "commentary" of this in Heb 13:4
"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous"[/b]

Simply put, any sexual relation that occurs outside of the marriage is sinful. This is true for both homosexual and heterosexual people.

Sin is forgivable, but it the remaining in the unrepentant sin that leads unbelief. As I said earlier, Christian are to live a life of repentance. Living this daily life of repentance, believing what God has done for them, in Jesus, is going to move them in a direction that desires not to yield to the temptations of sin but by God's Grace put away those sins of the flesh.

"Simply put, any sexual relation that occurs outside of the marriage is sinful. This is true for both homosexual and heterosexual people."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What a terrific argument in support of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Glad to see you are on board Russell!

very interesting discussion.....have enjoyed reading it....and an excellent point Denise!!!!!

What a terrific argument in support of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Glad to see you are on board Russell!



I am not sure what you mean, given that the definition of marriage is the "one flesh union of a man and a woman"

There cannot be a one flesh union (marriage) of the same gender.

Lighten up Russell. I know very well that you are not "on board". I was looking for some levity in this long and winding thread.



P.S. How do we sinners look from up there?

Why is it that man wants to put a ? (Question Mark), where God puts a period. All your questions are answered in the Bible. Starting with the first: Thou shall not have any other Gods before me.

Why is it that man wants to put a ? (Question Mark), where God puts a period.

You on the other hand, put a period where most people (I won't speak for God) would put a question mark in this sentence .









Don't mind me, I know grammar criticism is lame, but this was sort of ironic given the context. I'll shut up now .

P.S. How do we sinners look from up there?

From down here I thought you were the one who was levitating!

If faith can see every step of the way, it isn't faith.

Russell, Please read Psalm 1.

God loves you; pass it along.

What I find interesting is tht bible fanatics do not seem to beleive that something written centuries ago can't flow and change in it's meaning. Imagine what our country would be like without the constitution being considered a living, breathing thing. It's meanings are continually reviewed and defined by the Supreme Court for how life is NOW. If we lived by what was written in 1776, life would be quite different.

Cory:

Actually, the "Bible fanatics" are pretty much the same guys who look back reverently at the Founding Fathers and don't think the Constitution is a living, breathing document.

I'll give them an "A" for consistency, anyway!

Richard, stay away from the calamari!

Cory, without constructionism, what kind of government do you really have?

Basically, a tribunal of 5.

The legislative and executive branches are supposed to adapt for sure. But not at the expense of the bedrock of Constitutional principle.

What part of the literal Constitution do you think is an obstacle to a modern Republic?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 11/13/2007).]

Bob L. and Cory have some very valid points.

I am very interested in hearing from Russell, Richard and others (and I am not being facetious) as to how literal interpreters of the Bible justify living their lives based on some of the scripture, but not all. It seems to me that if you believe you should live your life by the Bible, that would mean all aspects of the Bible, not simply picking and choosing those with which you happen to agree. I feel fairly certain that selective adherence is the norm. I do not know of anyone who lives their life according to all of the passages in the Bible, such as those passages regarding serious issues of treatment of women, slavery, criminal punishment, as well as the myriad of ridiculous passages (some of which Bob outlined above). How is this reconciled? I'm sure a Bonine or two has been known to indulge in a tuna fish sandwich/salad now and then. Why is that okay but homosexuality is not? The Bible condemns both.

There are explicit differences between the old Covenant meant for the Jews and the new Covenant meant for the rest of us.

Matthew 15:10-11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What
goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean."

Acts 10 10-15
He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

In Acts 15, the apostles explicity relieved Christians from most (but not all) of the Jewish laws written in the old Covenant, and addressed diet specifically.

Acts 15 28-29
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

How about those Philadelphia Eagles? I think in last Sunday's game against the Redskins, they are finally turning their season around.

"There are explicit differences between the old Covenant meant for the Jews and the new Covenant meant for the rest of us."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't it the Old Testament, or "Covenant", that is being used above to explain why homosexuality is a sin?

C'mon Rick. You know better than that. The 'bedrock' of the constitution is exactly what the current interpretations are based on. I never said that the "literal Constitution was an obstacle to a modern Republic". In fact, I supported just the opposite.

If it was not a living document, we wouldn't have amendments. It was written with the idea that sometimes what is happening in the country will bring about the need for changes. But the spirit of the constitution is carried out in amendments. Each one is based on what the constitution wanted us to have but did not cover at the time it was written.

This is one of a list of reasons why I believe that things like gay marriage and abortion do not belong as constitutional amendments. The constitution is supposed to outline rights of people, not limit them.

I believe a modern Republic can not stand without a constitutional outline to be guided by. But unlike what bible fanatics believe about their book, the constitution was not intended to ever be a finished document. It was meant to be interpreted, but to assure the citizens of their rights.

As far as all that bible stuff goes, I don't want to get too deep into it because I am not all that into church and bible reading.

I think that bible fanatics of any belief are nuts. We should all be allowed to believe what we believe. Now THATS what the constitution says. But this current government sure doesn't believe that way.

Richard seems to believe, and wants us to believe, his bible is the only word of god. But my god may not be his god. And along the lines of Denise's question, how can one church or belief completely admonish something like homosexuality, yet the Methodists can welcome gays with open arms? Including into the ministry? Could it be..... an interpretation?????

There are explicit differences between the old Covenant meant for the Jews and the new Covenant meant for the rest of us.

Rick, you have an explicit confusion of Covenant and Law!

The laws or mandates described in scripture are broken down into 3 categories. They are the Moral Laws, the Ceremonial Laws, and Judicial or Civil Laws.

The Moral Laws are summarily understood in the 10 Commandments.

The Ceremonial Laws are those, which God through Moses, prescribed to the people of the Old Testament regarding the form of worship and dietary considerations. This consisted of such rites as what to eat, what to wear, when and what to sacrifice. All of this was done to point to the coming Messiah.

The Judicial or Civil Laws are those, which God through Moses prescribed to the people of the Old Testament as to the form of political government in order to establish a civil society. In part this consisted of the punishments for various transgressions made. For example,(a paraphrase of Exodus 21:29) if a man sells a bull that knowingly will gore people and the buyer is gored then both the bull and the man who sells it are to be put to death. Even when the Jews were under the governing authority of another nation they still kept these laws in place. They were carried out in their own court system.

Prior to the coming of Jesus the violation of any of the Moral, Ceremonial or Judicial Law was considered sin and was dealt with. There were those who sought to continue to mandate the adherence to the ceremonial and judicial laws in the early church. That is what Paul deals with in the book of Romans regarding circumcision. Some were demanding that it was required in order to become Christian, which Paul refutes.

Jesus came to fulfill all of these laws (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 7:6-13) and in doing so abolished the Ceremonial Laws and the Judicial Laws. (Galatians 5:1-4, Colossians 2:16)

We are still subject to the Moral Laws (10 Commandments) (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:8-10)

For clarification sake, the few passages that Rick mentioned relate to the Ceremonial Laws, as does the reference made by Bob L regarding the wearing of blended fabrics.

The law of the Old Testament is divided into three groups: -Moral law which still applies to us today, (i.e. law concerning sexuality) -Ceremonial law which cover dietary issues, the blood sacrifices for the remission of sins etc- which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and thus no longer applies to the New Testament church, and the Civil law (governmental law)which applied to the nation of Israel and no longer applies.

Thus, Christianity is not focused on keeping the law. We are all sinners and none of us can not keep the moral law perfectly. Rather, the focus of Christianity is on the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ, both God and man who was able to keep the law perfectly and paid for our sins. God in His benevolent mercy imputes the righteousness of Christ on those who live a life of repentance from sin and trust Christ as the savior.

Properly understood (we need to eliminate the word interpretation from our vocabulary and replace it with the word understanding) the focus of the Bible is on Jesus Christ. There are too many well-intentioned people who turn the Bible into things it is not. For example, the story of David & Goliath is usually turned into a moral lesson about "if you listen to God you can slay the giants in your life". Such lessons miss the point of Scripture. This incident point to Christ. The Bible says that David bury the skull of Goliath a short distance from Jerusalem. And where was Jesus crucified? At the place of the skull or Golgatha which is a shortened form of Goliath of Gath. Christ overcame the "giant" of sin in our life and set us free. All of Scripture points us to Jesus Christ.

Gunnar:

Take the Eagles if you like. But after wading through this entire wash of off-topic pseudo-Christian evangelism, I'm really pulling for the Lions...

The law of the Old Testament is divided into three groups: -Moral law which still applies to us today, (i.e. law concerning sexuality) -Ceremonial law which cover dietary issues, the blood sacrifices for the remission of sins etc- which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and thus no longer applies to the New Testament church, and the Civil law (governmental law)which applied to the nation of Israel and no longer applies.

-----------

Yeah, according to who?

You're a heretic.

"There are explicit differences between the old Covenant meant for the Jews and the new Covenant meant for the rest of us."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't it the Old Testament, or "Covenant", that is being used above to explain why homosexuality is a sin?

----------------------

Thanks, Denise!

Hmmm. I'm liking this line of thinking.

I think that I will tell my boss that I've decided to divide our Employee Handbook and Safety Manual into two parts. The first deals with those issues I care about and deem important, i.e. vacation, holidays, insurance, bonuses, overtime, etc. The second part of the manual I am deeming unimportant. These issues are those that are troublesome to me such as tardiness, absenteeism, confidentiality, code of conduct, etc.

My argument is going to be that this manual was first provided to a previous employee. Therefore, all obligations of the problematic second part have been addressed and fulfilled, therefore no longer applying to me. I am going to keep the first part because I want to. It has all of the "good stuff".

Now, if I tried this tactic with most employers, I am pretty sure I would be laughed out of the office, and I would think that everyone would agree it was well deserved. However, since in my case, I typed this manual, my argument wouldn't hold water. Oh well, I am sure there is always another road to ruin!

In all seriousness, is this the widely-held belief, that portions of the Bible can be arbitrarily discarded? And yes, I mean arbitrarily. I am disheartened by this. I would have much more respect for someone who says, yes, I pick and choose which passages I use to live my life, rather than spending so much time devising a self-serving thought process whereby he/she is directed to toss out the portions of the Bible which are troublesome. Troublesome indeed.

I don't think you read Richard's post very well if you think "arbitrarily discarded" is what he said.

Unfortunetly, there's no headings for "Civil Law", "Moral Law", or "Ceremonial Law" - they're sort of mixed together. Comes in handy when what you really want is two bins: "Stuff I like", "Stuff I don't like"

I know Levi. I am the one deeming it arbitrary. That is why I reiterated it.

Bridger, my point exactly, only more succinct.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (edited 11/14/2007).]

Unfortunetly, there's no headings for "Civil Law", "Moral Law", or "Ceremonial Law" - they're sort of mixed together. Comes in handy when what you really want is two bins: "Stuff I like", "Stuff I don't like"

------------

Ha!

Yeah, you'd think God (or Moses) would have been more organized.

So Bridgier, how many animal sacrifices have you performed this year? What, you don't keep the Law? How do you pick and choose so arbitrarily?

The "employee handbook" analogy is interesting to say the least. I wonder if employers realize that they're completely non-amendable. If the company existed back in 1906, and stated that the preferred method of financial transaction was Western Union wire, then so it shall be forever more. Any amendment of the rules to address new realities are deemed "arbitrary" If you change that rule, then any other prohibitions like those on employees stealing are out the window as well (depending on the random preference of whichever employee) Makes perfect sense.

Christ amended the Law. It's that simple.

Rick:

Blasphemy!

God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

God's laws cannot be amended.

You're a heretic as well.

"I wonder if employers realize that they're completely non-amendable. If the company existed back in 1906, and stated that the preferred method of financial transaction was Western Union wire, then so it shall be forever more. Any amendment of the rules to address new realities are deemed "arbitrary"."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This, my friends, is what my husband so lovingly deems a "Kuchynka-ism". The term can be used either to describe an argument that is completely off-topic, or that which is circular in nature.

"New realities"? Niiiccce. I want in on these new realities. I believe this term has uses for both sides in both constitutional and religious discussions.

On a more serious note, I have seen it said several times (most recently by Denzel Washington in this month's Reader's Digest) that to begin reading the Bible, one should begin with the New Testament and then move on to the Old Testament from there. Is this practical advice?

This, my friends, is what my husband so lovingly deems a "Kuchynka-ism". The term can be used either to describe an argument that is completely off-topic, or that which is circular in nature.

---------

As I've said before, just like a puppy chasing its tail...

Rick - my analogy was descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't have to rationalize my non-observance of portions of scripture, I simply don't observe those portions that have no bearing on present realities. I asked God and He told me he was cool with it, so no worries.

This is one of the most interesting discussions ever on milescity .com.....have enjoyed reading it.....Thanks to all the participants....

I agree with the posters that are saying, Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong in the Old Testament??

I always find it interesting how people can bastardize and interpret something, like passages in the Bible, to suit their own ends.

Such as this stellar example:

Swastika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Blasphemy!
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
God's laws cannot be amended.

God can't amend his own laws? Funny, because he didn't just promise that he could amend his laws, but that he would...

Jeremiah 31:31-34
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,"declares the LORD.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Was God blaspheming himself?

Is God's new contract "arbitrary?"

Is God's new contract "arbitrary?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More "Kuchynka-ism"s.

No where in my analogy did I talk about the employer editing its own handbook, which is what you are inferring in your Western Union yarn. My analogy dealt with the employee (i.e. believer) arbitrarily picking and choosing which rules (codes) to live by. Let's keep up. You are really lending credence to Murrey's belief that Kuchynka-isms are a real phenomenon!

I get what you and Bridgier are saying, but you are ignoring the point that in multiple places in the Bible God does say that (from this point forward) some of the old laws are still in effect and others are now null and void. Because of that it's not unreasonable for a present day Christian to say this. In fact it's exactly what they should say if they know anything about the bible.

On the other hand, which side of this homosexuality falls on I have no idea as I am not personally a bible scholar. Obviously some churches feel that it is ok, while others do not. I'd guess it's open to interpretation, but the analogy of the employees changing the rule book doesn't ring true to me at all in this case.

The inclusion or exclusion of homosexuality in the "not a sin anymore" category may indeed be arbitrary or open to interpretation but the fact remains that some Old Testament rules really do no longer apply and it wasn't just a case of the employees rewriting the book but on mandate straight from the boss.

Levi "thread referee" Forman

But I would hesitate to say that Rick & Co. represent the "faithful to scripture" contingent - According the Matthew, Jesus (I suppose he's the foreman in our ever more tortured analogy) had a lot of things to say on the topic of divorce, warmongering, women-watching and the nature of wealth - but nary a word on the specific topic of hot gay loving. How many people at Grace Bible do you think are on their second marriage?

Again Bridgier, that's a morally relative argument. I, among others I know, completely agree that homosexuality is no "more" wrong than any number of ways Christians fail on a day to day basis. Nobody's arguing that homosexuality is "worse" than adultery. Some argue that they are basically the same thing. I don't have any personal issue with a person in a homosexual relationship. I make no claim of superiority or of being a better Christian (should they share that faith). I do have an issue though when people start offering the false teaching that its consistant with the Bible.

Here's what Jesus had to say:

"For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

Jesus made it pretty clear that in order to become one flesh (which is what marriage symbolizes) a man and a woman are required. Follow this up with the fact that sex outside of this union is considered adulterous, and it's not hard to flowchart how most mainstream Christian faiths have arrived at this conclusion.

Also, look at the passage from Acts 15 I posted earlier. The Old Testament rules on sexual purity were mentioned, and the command was basically to keep them intact.

But its important to remember that Jesus held a higher standard on all adultery than our society does as well.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Its a test that almost everyone fails on a more-than-occasional basis. Should the fact that I fail lead me to teach that the Bible is wrong to say so?

Okay, so just to clarify, is this a correct summary of the thought process?

Old Testament - changed by the Word of God (for the most part), so therefore it is no longer pertinent whether some passages are followed, while others are not.
New Testament - the new Word of God. So, following the logic, this new Word is the final Word and that by which Christians live their lives.

If so, I do not see how this solves the base question as to how one can pick and choose which passages to live by and which to discard as unnecessary/unapplicable. It is the same scenario, only substitute the New Testament for the Old Testament. Both the Old and New Testaments contain passages declaring homosexuality a sin. Both the Old and New Testaments contain some very eye-opening and unacceptable passages/behaviors, by today's standards. Passages that are most certainly not followed by today's Christians, such as those dealing with slavery, treatment of women, etc. What is the difference? It still appears that believers are picking some commandments to live by, while deeming others unimportant. How is this decided?

Do not get me wrong, despite what I have said before, I have a lot of respect for those who stand by their convictions, and at least attempt to explain their rationale. What I do not understand are those people who hold a belief but don't know why. For example, I have heard so many people decry homosexuals/homosexuality. When you ask them why, they say "Because the Bible says so". When I ask why they do not live their lives according to the other tenents of the Book, they look at me with the strangest look, like what in the World am I talking about. I believe that most people use the Bible as a convenient excuse to explain their bigotry, but turn the Good Book on them and they are incredulous. It should work both ways.

I truly appreciate the open dialogue. I wish that everyone gave their opinions as much thought.

"I, among others I know, completely agree that homosexuality is no "more" wrong than any number of ways Christians fail on a day to day basis. Nobody's arguing that homosexuality is "worse" than adultery."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I beg to differ. I believe that the majority of Christians deem homosexuality "worse" than adultery. I would be willing to place a sizable wager on that fact, but not sure how we would test it out. However, that has just been my experience, so maybe that says something about the crowd I hang with.

I think that it goes back to the knee-jerk reaction of disgust that people have when discussing homosexuality, and so they use the Bible to justify their disgust. This is not the case with other sins. Like I have said before, the only difference between a heterosexual couple and homosexual couple is what happens in the bedroom, and that is nobody else's business!

When I ask why they do not live their lives according to the other tenents of the Book, they look at me with the strangest look, like what in the World am I talking about.

It's alot like why alot of the people you see talking to you in Movies and on TV about global warming fly from appearance to appearance on private Gulfstreams.

It's human nature

Denise, can't you and Rick just have this convesation over some family Christmas dinner?

Here is a passage from the New Testament concerning Gods thoughts on homosexuality:
Romans 1:18-30

" 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

If homosexuality is "OK" why would these people receive in themselves a penalty for their perversion?

What is interesting is the contrast between Romans 1 and Romans 12 where Paul outlines how we ought live:

" 1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will."

One other point that needs clarification: the Bible is not the focus of orthodox Christian worship. Rather it points us to the One who is to be worshiped.

"but nary a word on the specific topic of hot gay loving."

-Jesus is part of the Godhead. So if God says something about the subject, Jesus has in fact spoken because He doesn't speak independent of the other members of the Trinity

-You are attempting to argue from silence which doesn't fly here. There are many things Jesus never commented about. How do you know it is ok for you to drive? Jesus never said a word about it. Or perhaps the only cars we should drive are "Christlyers".


Part of the problem some of you are having is that you incorrectly assume that you are the center of your "universe" and "god" revolves around you, rather than the Triune God being the center and you revolve around Him.

>> . . . is what happens in the bedroom, and that is nobody else's business!

Bravo Denise! That should end the debate right then and there. It won't of course . . . but well said nonetheless.

Not to single anyone out who's posted here and not to put words the mouth of anyone who has posted here - this is an observation of what I see/hear in many forums and venues.

Much of the "anti-same sex marriage" rhetoric I see tossed about today is amazingly similar to the anti-miscegenation rhetoric that was tossed about just a generation or so ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in Montana until 1954. And that law was defended with many of the same arguments I see used today by those who oppose legalized same-sex unions.

Those against legalized interracial marriage claimed that it was an abomination in the eyes of God (and cited scripture to back up their claims). Proponents of the anti-miscegenation law claimed that to legalize such marriages would lead to societal decay . . . moral rot . . . and so on and so on. Today (fifty-three years after Montana legalized such unions) very few people stand up and speak out against mixed-race marriage, let alone claim that the doomsayers were correct. Fifty years after that law was taken off the books, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a scant handful of Montanans who'd tell you that such marriages are wrong and ought to be outlawed - let alone that they are responsible for societal decay and moral rot.

Odds are, fifty years down the road folks are going to look back at this debate over same-sex marriage with the same disbelief that today's young people look back at the anti-miscegenation law. They're going to find it darned hard to understand what the fuss was all about. And yes of course, they will have their own hot button, moral decay issue that they'll be debating . . . that's just the way of the world.

Haven't read it, but I'd like to see somebody else try - http://www.amazon.com/Yea...294&sr=8-1

Denise: "If so, I do not see how this solves the base question as to how one can pick and choose which passages to live by and which to discard as unnecessary/unapplicable."

Answer:
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "

Hal, I have held this same belief for eternity. It would be interesting to know what the hot-button issue of their time will be.

Duncan, you've made my point exactly. There should be no picking and choosing.

And while I have at least two Bonines on here, could I get at least one opinion as to my prior question whether or not it is advisable to start the Bible with the New Testament first, or begin with the Old? Thanks!

but that doesn't explain which passages to reject and which ones to embrace....who decides...

Oh and Cory, I figure if I drag this thread out forever, we can avoid any and all discussions regarding GWB. Any time I can stave off that dead horse, I'm all for it!

"nary a word of hot gay loving." I don't know why, but that makes me chuckle each time I read it.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (edited 11/14/2007).]

"And while I have at least two Bonines on here, could I get at least one opinion as to my prior question whether or not it is advisable to start the Bible with the New Testament first, or begin with the Old? Thanks!"

My first thought is that you simply go to a church where the Pastor is properly trained in biblical hermeneutics. Secondly, I would start with the Book of Romans or the Gospel of John which are in the New Testament.

"I believe that the majority of Christians deem homosexuality "worse" than adultery. I would be willing to place a sizable wager on that fact, but not sure how we would test it out. However, that has just been my experience, so maybe that says something about the crowd I hang with."

From God's point of sin is sin. There are no "degrees" of sin or one being worse than another.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 11/14/2007).]

I understand God's point. However, I believe that a good portion of Christians do not practice what He preaches, or I should say they selectively practice what He preaches.

Thank you for your input. Seeing that quote in Reader's Digest earlier today, which I have also read in the past, reminded me that I've always wondered if starting with the New Testament is sound advice.

Since I think I've said my piece, and find myself repeating, I'm out.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled (GWB) program.

I made it wide, now it will probably die off.

OK - question for the folks on the board.

Why are some of you against civil unions for homosexuals?

The board consensus seems to be that homosexuality is no worse or better than any other sin.

Why couldn't the STATE issue a license to gay couples who want to enter into a contract to spend the rest of their lives with each other?

Just wondering.


P.S. - Please, no "slippery slope" arguments. We're talking two people of legal age and mental capacity to consent to a union. Not polygamy, man and dog, womman and caterpillar, etc...

Well Bob, if you are tossing aside all moral rational for not allowing same sex unions, then there is probably no reason why the state can't institute such a "program". (I believe there is some expanded health care issues if this is allowed.) The moral rational prohibiting homosexuality is NOT unique to Christianity.

On the other hand it is ironic that you acknowledge that there is in fact a slippery slope. If as you contend there morality doesn't matter, why put a limit on allowing unions between humans. Why can't I marry my horse? Why put limits on any kind of behavior?

Duncan: I think the plumbing in your next house ought to be done with all male fittings. You don't want to offend anyone, ya know

Nice non-answer.

I brought up the "slippery slope" argument because I knew you would use it. It's all you have.

"but that doesn't explain which passages to reject and which ones to embrace....who decides..."

Linda: At the end of the day, you have a point about some of this being a personal decision. It is not really a matter of cherry-picking individual passages, but of adopting an over all systematic theology. Most of this is accomplished through the doctrinal positions of a given denomination. They all have a "system". I believe i is unfortunate that in many churches that "system" have been changed by the culture.

I have been a member of several denominations. As I read the Bible and understood the individual doctrinal positions of a particular church I found that there were some things that didn't square up with what I understood to be the proper methodology for understanding the scriptures. I ended up leaving those churches. I turned to church history ( a 10 year process) to try and understand what doctrines could be traced back to Jesus and the Apostles. My thought was if a doctrine could be traced back to Christ then it was trustworthy. I am still a sinful work in progress.

"Nice non-answer.

I brought up the "slippery slope" argument because I knew you would use it. It's all you have."

No, I answered the question by stating that IF you throw out morality, civil unions would be permissible.

Actually, you are the one with the nice non-answer. Why should we limit such unions to humans? Why can't I marry my horse? And if you can, give me some "non-moral" reasons why we SHOULD allow such civil unions.

Go ahead, marry your freaking horse.

I always figured you were that kind of guy anyway.

How about if you give me the moral reasons why same-sex unions are so abhorrent?

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, "

Well, okay - but which scripture? Tobit? Baruch? The Book of Enoch or the Revelation of Peter?

Also, which hermanutic is the "proper" one? Should I listen to Barth, Balthazar or Bonheoffer? Monophysitism or Monothelitism?

I realize that for some people "God Said It, I Believe It" truly is a sufficient reason for them to believe whatever it is their pastor tells them that God has said. The reality, at least as I see it, is a little bit more complex.

Anyways, I think I'll join Denise in doing something else - give 'em hell Bob....

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 11/15/2007).]

Wimps...

To me, the question for gay marriage should not be whether homosexuality is moral from a Christian perspective, but whether it should be legal, which is not at all the same thing. I believe in Europe, the legal and religious aspects of marriage are kept separate. The you visit a government official if you want to be legally married (for insurance, tax, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc) and if you want to receive the religious sacrament of marriage, then you go to a church for that.

In the US it is possible to get married without any religious participation or acknowledgement at all. You can go to a government official, do the paperwork, and be legally married without one mention of any deity or religion. However, after doing this, you are considered to be married in the religious sense as well as the legal sense, and that part doesn't make sense to me. If the two were kept separate, then people could be legally married and no religion should feel that their ceremonies are being twisted or defiled. It's funny that while people seem to have a huge issue with homosexual marriage, most have no problem with atheists getting married, even though they are showing no more respect(probably less) for the sacred bond of marriage than homosexuals.

It is well established that whether an act is considered moral by Christian standards, or even by a more general attitude about what is right and wrong is not a litmus test for whether or not it should be legal. Many things that are considered sinful by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are completely legal. Heck 8 out of the 10 commandments can be broken at will with no legal consequences whatsoever, so in my mind even if God did condemn homosexuality, that doesn't argue for it being illegal. In my opinion, the only things that should be illegal should be acts that do physical or financial damage to another person or interfere with their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and I don't think gay marriage qualifies under that criteria. Despite fears that this would "destroy the family" or similar histrionics, I see no logical evidence of that and for that reason I don't see any reason that "legal" marriage should be denied to homosexuals (or people who want to marry their horse if those actually exist and the horse has given written consent). The real issue is the religious sacrament of marriage. Separate that from the legal contract of marriage, and I don't see any problem with the issue.

Thank you, Levi. Your post was outstanding.

Spoken like a true libertarian, unlike some of the poseurs who post on this board.

*cough*RICHARD*cough*

Wonderful post, Levi, and I completely agree....

If as you contend there morality doesn't matter, why put a limit on allowing unions between humans. Why can't I marry my horse?

------

One word. Consent.

If you're too young, you can't truly consent.
If you're mentally disabled, you can't truly consent.
If you're a horse, you can't truly consent.

I couldn't contain myself.

Levi, I think that was the most thoughtful and thought-provoking set of comments I have ever seen in this regard. Bravo!

Just to add my two cents to this debate I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I also belive that G/L/TG couples should be able to have "Civil Ceremonies" and thus Civil Unions.

That said however I do not believe that the rights that married people enjoy should be denied to same-sex couples. If they care/love one another then why shouldn't they should have all the rights that are afforded to married couples?

I see the argument coming back that "If you allow them to have the same rights as married couples, then why can't they be married?" to which I can only say I just think that there are some things that shouldn't be changed. Call me old fashioned if you like but I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Let the debate continue...

Kyle:

FWIW, I'm cool with your position.

I'm ok with it too, Kyle, because as Shakespeare says, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".....

"In my opinion, the only things that should be illegal should be acts that do physical or financial damage to another person or interfere with their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and I don't think gay marriage qualifies under that criteria."

So the rampant spread of HIV in the gay community is just "the cost of doing business"? It does physical and financial damage ( increased healthcare costs) which seems like a reason it should be illegal.

" Heck 8 out of the 10 commandments can be broken at will with no legal consequences whatsoever, so in my mind even if God did condemn homosexuality, that doesn't argue for it being illegal."

Another way to look at sin is that it is violating spiritual law and thus illegal. There are eternal consequences.

"In my opinion, the only things that should be illegal should be acts that do physical or financial damage to another person or interfere with their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and I don't think gay marriage qualifies under that criteria."

So the rampant spread of HIV in the gay community is just "the cost of doing business"? It does physical and financial damage ( increased healthcare costs) which seems like a reason it should be illegal.


So, homosexuals aren't getting medical treatment now? They only would receive treatment if civil unions were legalized? Try harder. Or, are you advocating that homosexuality should be illegal? Maybe you should move to Iran, where there are no homos.


-----------------------------------------

"Heck 8 out of the 10 commandments can be broken at will with no legal consequences whatsoever, so in my mind even if God did condemn homosexuality, that doesn't argue for it being illegal."

Another way to look at sin is that it is violating spiritual law and thus illegal. There are eternal consequences.

Last time I checked, the U.S.A. was not a theocracy. Thank God.

So the rampant spread of HIV in the gay community is just "the cost of doing business"? It does physical and financial damage ( increased healthcare costs) which seems like a reason it should be illegal.

------------

Oh, and another thing - lesbians have a much lower rate of HIV than heterosexuals. So, I guess you have no problem with lesbians getting married.

"So the rampant spread of HIV in the gay community is just "the cost of doing business"? It does physical and financial damage ( increased healthcare costs) which seems like a reason it should be illegal."

Richard, I'm disappointed in you. You're arguments are better than that. That can be shredded at so many levels.

For starters, is the spread of HIV rampant in the gay community? You might check that, since I'm pretty sure it's a lot higher in the straight community.

Second, if it has increased health care costs, then how about:
Financially unable mothers?
Financially unviable premies and newborns with illnesses
AUTOMOBILES
McDonalds
[Added Tobacco]

I think the argument for fast food is by for more applicable than the homos. Smoking and Obesity being the number 1 and 2 killers in the US and costs BILLIONS and BILLIONS in health care. Besides, gluttony is a sin

[This message has been edited by Eric Brandt (edited 11/15/2007).]

So the bottom line is religious fanatics wish to have their beliefs become the law of the land....

Eric: Cigarettes. I'm sure a LIBERTARIAN (ha!) like Richard is for the criminalization of cigarette smoking.

So the bottom line is religious fanatics wish to have their beliefs become the law of the land....



Luckily for us that we're not a Jewish theocracy. No pork chop sammiches for me!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 11/15/2007).]

>>Another way to look at sin is that it is violating spiritual law and thus illegal.

American Ayatollahs . . . Sharia law in the good old U.S. of A.

I guess we can't expect Bomber Bonine to call for carpet bombing their rug factories this time.
= = = = = = = =

But seriously . . . When I hear people talk about shoving their church / religion down my throat, I just have to borrow a line from "W" himself, "Bring it on." 7.62x51 ;-)
= = = = = = = =


p.s.

Levi, Kyle, good posts.

[This message has been edited by Hal Neumann (edited 11/15/2007).]

Levi, you said it all. I think that is the best response to the question that I have ever heard.

Richard, you are small minded. While I know you are educated and intellegent, your statements in this thread show otherwise. You have bought into the entire christian thing without your brain.

I have become so pissed at your responses that I am giving up on this thread. You obviously feel that it's ok to use fear, misrepresentation and closed mindedness to "preach" your beliefs.

Before you spout off more of your "opinion", why don't you buy a book, google, or ask some questions and learn a bit.

Bob, HMMMMMMMM, HMMMMMMM...... I pass all my anger and quesitons to you to pass on. Continue on with the fight my friend as I no longer have the ability!

Richard, Richard, Richard. I think you've proven in the past with your malaria statements that you should probably stay off of the topic of HIV/AIDS, a topic about which you are sorely undereducated/misinformed. As Eric stated, your comment could be shredded at so many levels, the foremost being the fact that the argument is dead wrong. Do you know where HIV originated? Do you know when? Do you know in what species it originated? Do you know how it was first transmitted to humans?

A little hint. Not one of the answers to these questions involves "hot gay loving".

Cory:

Nice try!

I will pledge to stop posting to this thread if Richard and Rick K. pledge to never post a verse from the Old Testament ever ever ever again.

Another way to look at sin is that it is violating spiritual law and thus illegal. There are eternal consequences.

But those are God's to administer, not ours, correct?

One more post - I was writing it but Levi stole my thunder - here's a small excerpt:

Hal's earlier post is right on the money. 50 years from now, there will be civil unions for gay people. Guys like Richard and Rick K. are on the wrong side of history, just like they would have been with interracial marriage. Or slavery.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but I believe if more people were exposed to people actually living the lifestyle, they would be more accepting of it.

A short anecdote is in order. I know a gay couple that has lived together for over 20 years in a monogamous relationship. They have a more loving relationship than many of the married couples I know, and have an infinitely better relationship than Richard and his horse. I can think of no reason why they should not be able to join in a civil union. If you knew them, I bet you couldn't think of any reason either.

p.s. 2

Denise, Bob L, good posts.

My Prayer for today:

Dear Lord, if love and concern for those around me is a disease, let me be a carrier. Not just for today, but every day. Amen

Why not go out on a limb? That's where all the fruit is.

Jesus is not dead, He is alive and very well.

Jim D

That Donovan McNabb, he looked awfully good at practice today.

True but have you seen the Steelers lately?

Funny, I thought undereducated/misinformed was pretty much the unwritten subject of this thread.

Nice to see that if you can't silence someone with the "racist" tag, we can move seemlessly onto the homophobia. Open minded and tolerant indeed!

Haven't seen this much piling on since the last Democratic debate.

Poor Hil. BTW, Linda, still waitin' for the outrage. Or is the double-standard really that transparent?

As for those who hail the libertarian view. A real libertarian would wonder why the government categorizes people based on living situation and/or sexual conduct at all. If it's not my business what you do in your bedroom, why is it the government's?

Bob:
THANK YOU! For spelling naïve correctly! You made my day!

Rick:
Very good point.

Questions...

What damage will Civil Unions do to America?

What doe NOT having them do?

Since it is very clearly obvious that NOT having legalized civil unions for same-sex couples DOES CAUSE serious harm and a barrier to Live, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, does it not therefore stand to reason that some sort of legal status is necessary? Especially since it causes no harm to the rest?

Why is legal status necessary? Without the church, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Why all the pomp and circumstance?

It all depends on how you interpret the bible. I got this off the net.

Overview of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 8

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example: The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.


The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bibler translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.


Which is the correct translation?
Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
All sexual behavior between two men, or
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.



English translations of this verse:
These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.

Some translations are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.


Various groups' interpretations of this verse:
The most comm on conservative Christian Interpretation: This verse condemns homosexual behavior of all types including consensual sex between two adults and monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on religious radio and TV programs. "Abomination" is defined in Webster's New World dictionary as "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome." It is a strong word indeed!

Mark Howerter writes: "The American Heritage Dictionary says this is what abominate means: 'To detest thoroughly; abhor.' A thesaurus uses : a. hate b. despise c. loathe d. detest and e. execrate as synonyms for abominate. Lest we should ever forget how God feels about homosexuality, i.e., sodomy, the whole story of Lot in Sodom as found in Genesis chapters 18-19 should be read by every person in America at least once a year." 2
Some liberal Christian Interpretations: Some English translations of this passage condemn both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.
This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice. 3
The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above t

This should blow a few minds. It is also from http://www.religioustoler...m_bibl.htm

Daniel and Ashpenaz
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

Various English translations differ greatly: "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)


Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

[This message has been edited by Kelly (edited 11/15/2007).]

Funny, I thought undereducated/misinformed was pretty much the unwritten subject of this thread.

Nice to see that if you can't silence someone with the "racist" tag, we can move seemlessly onto the homophobia. Open minded and tolerant indeed!

-----------------

You know something, Rick. People would respect you more if you didn't play the victim all the time.

I know I would.

>>Without the church, marriage is nothing more than a contract.

Yup. And that's why I don't see that this should be a big problem.

As Levi mentioned earlier today, all it takes a tweaking of existing law.

Just change the law so that (on the civil side of things) a couple would sign a matrimonial contract issued by the state. This purely civil contract would give the couple (whether same or opposite sex) the same legal rights and responsibilities currently enjoyed by those with a marriage license.

Those who opt for religious sanctification could still go that route and seek out clergy to handle the religious aspects of their joining. The mechanics of it wouldn't be all that different from that the way it is now. And no church or clergy person would be forced to sanctify a marriage they believed to be wrong.

If the hang up is over the term "marriage" word the legislation so that the term only legally applies to church sanctioned unions.

It's seems just darned simple, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to it.



>> Why is legal status necessary?

For the very same reasons that opposite sex couples need legal recognition of their status.

You know something, Rick. People would respect you more if you didn't play the victim all the time.

I know I would.

And more people would respect you if you weren't the Bruce Wayne of milescity.com and were willing to answer the same questions you ridicule others over.

Some things just aren't in the cards.

"Funny, I thought undereducated/misinformed was pretty much the unwritten subject of this thread."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know, you really need to work on that.


"As for those who hail the libertarian view. A real libertarian would wonder why the government categorizes people based on living situation and/or sexual conduct at all. If it's not my business what you do in your bedroom, why is it the government's?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't this exactly the point we have debated to no end? It is NOT the Government's business. "Conservatives" always want limited Government when it suits them, but want to pull out the big Government guns to enforce every morality issue possible.


"Why is legal status necessary? Without the church, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Why all the pomp and circumstance?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Do you really want to go there? It is the contract that is important. And a mighty important "detail" it is, or did you never pay attention in Business Law classes? With few exceptions, if it isn't in writing, it isn't worth ****. Nothing is enforceable anymore if not in written contract form.

whatever outrage you are referring to Rick, cannot be there cause my health sadly won't support it....Would be nice, however, Rick, if you could keep personal attacks down....this discussion has been going along really well mostly without them....

"Why is legal status necessary? Without the church, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Why all the pomp and circumstance?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marriages happen in this country everyday without church involvement. It is not the church that is the necessary ingredient.

If you take away the family/one flesh/church dynamic, what is marriage, really? It's a contract of obligation.

I'm sure though, that all you newfound libertarians will be perfectly ok with employers with conscienscous objections refusing to offer healthcare to domestic partners. Correct?

I mean it's all about freedom, right?

You know something, Rick. People would respect you more if you didn't play the victim all the time.

I know I would.

And more people would respect you if you weren't the Bruce Wayne of milescity.com and were willing to answer the same questions you ridicule others over.

Some things just aren't in the cards.

------------

Plenty of people respect me, Ricky.

Keep on whining, little man!

You got it, Brucey.

Seriously, that's the best you can do?

I almost feel badly for you.

I'm off to the Bat Cave!

See ya tomorrow, little fella!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 11/15/2007).]

Are you talking to me, or are you saying good night to little Bobby?

I'm sure though, that all you newfound libertarians will be perfectly ok with employers with conscienscous objections refusing to offer healthcare to domestic partners. Correct?

--------------

Um, that would be fine with me.

Most businesses don't offer free healthcare to spouses or families either.

You must not get out much.

Whoosh!

Back to the Bat Cave! I hope Alfred has made dinner!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (edited 11/15/2007).]

Most employers subsidize health insurance for your spouse. Glad to hear you're firmly against forcing that for Civil Unions though.

Please accept my apology for my personal attacks against Bob in this thread. It's obvious we bring out the worst in each other. As I think Bridgier has said before, its probably an itch best left unscratched.

I moved the original post to it's own thread entitled "Gay Marriage"

http://www.milescity.com/...5&tid=4138

[This message has been edited by Eric Brandt (edited 11/15/2007).]

Numerous inacurate translations, political and social influences have left the bible to rely on ones own heart for truth.

Which of Miles City's Fortune 500's subsidizes healthcare? And Brian and Rick bring out the worst in each other, Bob. I'm glad that drama can carry over for however many years. Until you attack someone's momma or John Elway you aren't under anyone's skin.

When I was in 1st grade with Mrs. Albrecht (sp) all of us kids sat in a circle on the floor and the teacher leaned over and spoke a sentence in the ear of the child sitting on her right. That kid in turn repeated the sentence and on and on going to the right until it got back to the teacher and was something totally different than what she had said to begin with. That is kind of where I think this thread has gone. Funny how one thing can be turned into something else. I am not saying this is bad but the original post was funny and not meant to be harmful. We as a society have lost enough but do we have to loose our sense of humor also?

Which of Miles City's Fortune 500's subsidizes healthcare?

---------

I was thinking about that this morning, Buckaroo. My statement above was inaccurate - it related to smaller companies in our region that I work with - a majority of these companies subsidize a flat amount for each employee or subsidize 100% of a single plan.

Anyway, you may be surprised to find that over 50% of the Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner health insurance benefits. The horror!

Link: http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=18656

Ah, heck, here's the whole page - it's short.

July 03, 2006

Most Fortune 500 Companies Offer Domestic Partner Benefits

A majority of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health insurance benefits, according to a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) report.

The HRC's The State of the Workplace report found that nearly 51 percent of Fortune 500 companies are providing benefits to employees' same-sex domestic partners in 2006. The number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic-partner benefits increased from 246 in 2005 to 253 in 2006, according to the report.
Eighty-six percent of Fortune 500 companies also include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policy, according to the report.

The report also noted that seven states prohibit discrimination in private sector employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity -- California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington, plus the District of Columbia. Ten additional states ban workplace discrimination on sexual orientation.

The HRC is an advocacy group for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. You can find out more about the report at the HRC's website.


Rick and Richard, you'll have to find a listing of the 253 companies so you can boycott them all. Lots o' luck, one of them is Microsoft.

Oh, Kelly:

I finally got around to reading your posts.

They are very interesting! Thanks for posting!

I agree with Lisa - let's get this thread back on track: aren't those dark people just so damned funny?

Yeah - because we're better than them?

"So the bottom line is religious fanatics wish to have their beliefs become the law of the land.... "

No more than the non-religious fanatics wish to have their beliefs become the law of the land.

If this were simple a case of two people doing whatever in the privacy of their home it would be none of my concern. I obviously wouldn't not condone such behavior, but I would tolerate it. Unfortunately, the gay community wants to flaunt their lifestyle in everyone face and demand preferential treatment. They want to tell me that if my Pastor speaks out about what we hold to be sin in the confines of church it is "hate speech". This is happening regularly now in Canada (Federal law) and is soon to arrive here if it hasn't already. It seems like such actions infringes on my religious freedom while I am required to accept the worship of their "gods". Why does the gay community get a pass on their not being tolerant of my point of view? Theoretically, tolerance should be a two way street. More than anything I dislike the double standard.

Finally, we all have a dual citizenship and live in under both a civl government and a theocracy. Some choose to recognize this fact now and live their lives accordingly so that can spend eternity in liberty others will figure it out later and pay an eternal price. How sad!

How sad indeed.

Richard:

Wow. That argument is "Ricklike" in its incoherence.

"Why can't those darn homos be tolerant of me and my bigoted views about them?"

It seems like such actions infringes on my religious freedom while I am required to accept the worship of their "gods".

------------

OK, I'll bite.

Who are "their gods."

KY Jelly?
Elizabeth Taylor?
Elton John?
Bea Arthur?

Help a guy out, for goodness sakes!

and what "preferential treatment" would that be that they supposedly are demanding.....to be treated equally??? How bizarre....

"And what "preferential treatment" would that be that they supposedly are demanding.....to be treated equally??? How bizarre...."

No... they are attempting to obtain rights that none the rest of us receive simply because they "do it" with another guy or gal. For example, they will receive preferential consideration for federal and state contracts because of their "status" even though they may not be the most qualified.



It is pretty obvious that my position is the minority view here. Perhaps I DO qualify for some minority status.

No... they are attempting to obtain rights that none the rest of us receive simply because they "do it" with another guy or gal. For example, they will receive preferential consideration for federal and state contracts because of their "status" even though they may not be the most qualified.

----------------

C'mon Richard.

No one here is advocating this.

You're reaching even more than usual.

I agree that no one here is explicitly advocating this. But it is implicit in the whole preferential treatment argument and history teaches that it will happen at some point. I have a lot of first hand "experience" with preference laws so I am probably a little too sensitive.

So on the off chance that they might demand minority rights in the future, you are denying them equal rights now?? Interesting logic....

It is apparent to me that Logic is playing no part in Richard's decision making. Fear and ignorance however are clearly taking a leading role in that process.

Equal rights certainly do not equate to special privelages. If you don't see the irrationality in recognizing same sex marriage using Richard's 'logic', then you certainly wouldn't want to recognize Women's Sufferage or Racial equality. Before it was attempted (notice I didn't say eliminated) these two groups certainly weren't allowed the same rights as Protestant Males (I would assume you fit this demographic Richard?).

But hey, we live in Eastern Montana... and that's just the way it's always been. Why should we have to change??

Wow. This thread now holds the new record for most posts of any topic in the News, Politics, & Issues Forum.

It tops:

"Stop the Wal-Mart Supercenter" with 178 posts
"Bush vetoes SCHIP" with 136 posts
"Graduated in May, dead in February" with 123 posts
"BULLET PROOF VESTS FOR CCDHS" with 114 posts
"See...there such things as smart republicans" with 109 posts

What's really sad to me is that we even have to discuss something like this....Equal rights should be a foregone conclusion, but sadly it isn't for that particular part of our society....Heres hoping it will get better soon!!!

What's really sad to me is...........that this thread started with a good joke and some idiot types made it in to something else. It was a good joke at post #1, it's a good joke at post #201 and it will still be a good joke at post #300.