Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[East of Eden]

America is a secular nation, and no law should be formed on the basis of religion.

Many of our laws are, and Christians have as much right to influence public policy as anybody.

Which laws would those be?

Our laws prohibit violating the 6th, 8th, and 9th Commandments, and if you're in the military, the 7th. Does that make us a theocracy?

If this were true, then yes, it would. However, the USA does not have any laws that prohibit violating any of the ten commandments. The USA does have some laws which do coincide with ancient religious laws. The laws were not enacted because they were seen to be voiced by God, but because they were deemed to be necessary for the orderly functioning of society.

You don't know, and it's none of your business, what the motivation for someone's vote is. There is no Constitutional violation here, short of the federal government establishing a national church.

I doubt McCulloch is suggesting that your rationale for your voting decisions is at issue. I agree, you can vote for whatever reason you wish.

However, your comment is avoiding the point. The point is not how people vote, it is what is enacted into law. A long tradition of court rulings says that if the primary purpose or effect of a law is to promote a particular religious view, that law is unconstitutional.

What Congress does and what motivates a voter in the privacy of a voting booth are two different things.

And to quote Justice Potter Stewart: "We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways."

I basically agree with both points.

I am not sure how this refutes, or even addresses my point.



Certainly religion has been an integral part of the history of the U.S. In my view this has had both beneficial and negative manifestations. However, it is also clear that this country exists largely because of people seeking to flee religious persecution in the form of governments and people imposing their religions views on others who did not share those views. It is also clearly a concern expressed by those who drafted the constitution.

Who simply said there should be no national church, period.

Part of freedom of religion is the freedom to follow one's own beliefs and NOT have to follow the beliefs of others. Thus, any law, whether enacted by the voters or by congress, that has the effect of making everyone follow the religious views of some, unless that law has a clear secular purpose, violates the spirit of the constitution, and we have many examples of such laws being officially declared unconstitutional.

This includes bans on gay marriage.

Where is the Supreme Court decision backing up your opinion?

[micatala]

America is a secular nation, and no law should be formed on the basis of religion.

Many of our laws are, and Christians have as much right to influence public policy as anybody.

Which laws would those be?

Our laws prohibit violating the 6th, 8th, and 9th Commandments, and if you're in the military, the 7th. Does that make us a theocracy?

If this were true, then yes, it would. However, the USA does not have any laws that prohibit violating any of the ten commandments. The USA does have some laws which do coincide with ancient religious laws. The laws were not enacted because they were seen to be voiced by God, but because they were deemed to be necessary for the orderly functioning of society.

You don't know, and it's none of your business, what the motivation for someone's vote is. There is no Constitutional violation here, short of the federal government establishing a national church.

I doubt McCulloch is suggesting that your rationale for your voting decisions is at issue. I agree, you can vote for whatever reason you wish.

However, your comment is avoiding the point. The point is not how people vote, it is what is enacted into law. A long tradition of court rulings says that if the primary purpose or effect of a law is to promote a particular religious view, that law is unconstitutional.

What Congress does and what motivates a voter in the privacy of a voting booth are two different things.

And to quote Justice Potter Stewart: "We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways."

I basically agree with both points.

I am not sure how this refutes, or even addresses my point.

First, while you are free to express your opinion regarding your very narrow interpretation of the establishment clause, SCOTUS has decades ago and repeatedly indicated your view is antequated.


Secondly, there is also the free exercise clause. If, for example, a religion included allowing gay marriage, and a church performed gay marriage, wouldn't the state be infringing on their religious freedom by banning or not recognizing those marriages, when they do recognize marriage performed in other churches?

Certainly religion has been an integral part of the history of the U.S. In my view this has had both beneficial and negative manifestations. However, it is also clear that this country exists largely because of people seeking to flee religious persecution in the form of governments and people imposing their religions views on others who did not share those views. It is also clearly a concern expressed by those who drafted the constitution.

Who simply said there should be no national church, period.

Part of freedom of religion is the freedom to follow one's own beliefs and NOT have to follow the beliefs of others. Thus, any law, whether enacted by the voters or by congress, that has the effect of making everyone follow the religious views of some, unless that law has a clear secular purpose, violates the spirit of the constitution, and we have many examples of such laws being officially declared unconstitutional.

This includes bans on gay marriage.

Where is the Supreme Court decision backing up your opinion?

We've been over this before.

First, one can argue an action is unconstitutional prior to the court taking a position. It happens all the time, and in fact, happens in arguments before the Surpreme Court.

Secondly, we have numerous SCOTUS rulings on marriage in general which, while not specific to gay marriage, do embody principles which either support allowing gay marriage, or are inconsistent with banning gay marriage. Courts have rules the freedom or marry is fundamental, and cannot be denied to convicted felons, even those incarcerated, or dead-beat dads, even in an effort to get that dad to comply with child-support laws.

Thirdly, we now have a number of lower court rulings and state court rulings declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.


Thus, there is ample, ample reason to consider such bans unconstitutional, and so far, over numerous threads, I have yet to see you or anyone else come up with a resonable secular justification for such bans which is consistent with the notion of equal protection under the law.




If you feel homosexuality is an abomination in a religious sense, that is your choice. Foisting your religious view on others through state power is unjust and unconstitutional.

[East of Eden]

America is a secular nation, and no law should be formed on the basis of religion.

Many of our laws are, and Christians have as much right to influence public policy as anybody.

Which laws would those be?

Our laws prohibit violating the 6th, 8th, and 9th Commandments, and if you're in the military, the 7th. Does that make us a theocracy?

If this were true, then yes, it would. However, the USA does not have any laws that prohibit violating any of the ten commandments. The USA does have some laws which do coincide with ancient religious laws. The laws were not enacted because they were seen to be voiced by God, but because they were deemed to be necessary for the orderly functioning of society.

You don't know, and it's none of your business, what the motivation for someone's vote is. There is no Constitutional violation here, short of the federal government establishing a national church.

I doubt McCulloch is suggesting that your rationale for your voting decisions is at issue. I agree, you can vote for whatever reason you wish.

However, your comment is avoiding the point. The point is not how people vote, it is what is enacted into law. A long tradition of court rulings says that if the primary purpose or effect of a law is to promote a particular religious view, that law is unconstitutional.

What Congress does and what motivates a voter in the privacy of a voting booth are two different things.

And to quote Justice Potter Stewart: "We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways."

I basically agree with both points.

I am not sure how this refutes, or even addresses my point.

First, while you are free to express your opinion regarding your very narrow interpretation of the establishment clause, SCOTUS has decades ago and repeatedly indicated your view is antequated.


Secondly, there is also the free exercise clause. If, for example, a religion included allowing gay marriage, and a church performed gay marriage, wouldn't the state be infringing on their religious freedom by banning or not recognizing those marriages, when they do recognize marriage performed in other churches?

Certainly religion has been an integral part of the history of the U.S. In my view this has had both beneficial and negative manifestations. However, it is also clear that this country exists largely because of people seeking to flee religious persecution in the form of governments and people imposing their religions views on others who did not share those views. It is also clearly a concern expressed by those who drafted the constitution.

Who simply said there should be no national church, period.

Part of freedom of religion is the freedom to follow one's own beliefs and NOT have to follow the beliefs of others. Thus, any law, whether enacted by the voters or by congress, that has the effect of making everyone follow the religious views of some, unless that law has a clear secular purpose, violates the spirit of the constitution, and we have many examples of such laws being officially declared unconstitutional.

This includes bans on gay marriage.

Where is the Supreme Court decision backing up your opinion?

We've been over this before.

First, one can argue an action is unconstitutional prior to the court taking a position. It happens all the time, and in fact, happens in arguments before the Surpreme Court.

Secondly, we have numerous SCOTUS rulings on marriage in general which, while not specific to gay marriage, do embody principles which either support allowing gay marriage, or are inconsistent with banning gay marriage. Courts have rules the freedom or marry is fundamental, and cannot be denied to convicted felons, even those incarcerated, or dead-beat dads, even in an effort to get that dad to comply with child-support laws.

Thirdly, we now have a number of lower court rulings and state court rulings declaring bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.


Thus, there is ample, ample reason to consider such bans unconstitutional, and so far, over numerous threads, I have yet to see you or anyone else come up with a resonable secular justification for such bans which is consistent with the notion of equal protection under the law.




If you feel homosexuality is an abomination in a religious sense, that is your choice. Foisting your religious view on others through state power is unjust and unconstitutional.

It is also my choice whether to vote yes or no on a referendum on gay marriage, as is yours in foisting your views on society.

[East of Eden]

Good article here by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney against same-sex marriage. I maintain there is no constitutional barrier to a Christian voting in light of this reasoning, not that all who take this position are Christians. You who disagree, was it wrong for Christians to vote for leaders who wanted to end racial segregation?

http://sydneyanglicans.net/mediarelease ... o-churches

[McCulloch]

Was it wrong for Christians to vote for leaders who wanted to end racial segregation?

No. Racial segregation was a violation of human rights without respect to one's religious beliefs. If there are sound secular reasons to prohibit homosexual marriage then those reasons should be put before the legislators and the courts. But religious doctrine, by itself, is not enough to overcome the constitutional separation preventing religious rules from becoming law.

[PREEST]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

A very good highlight of precisely why religious fanatics do not believe their own divine word. That is to say, they pick and choose what they want to believe and disregard everything else.

[East of Eden]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

A very good highlight of precisely why religious fanatics do not believe their own divine word. That is to say, they pick and choose what they want to believe and disregard everything else.

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

[McCulloch]

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.

[...]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

Where in the Epistle to the Galatians does Paul set out the principle of how to separate the parts of God's law which no longer applies from the parts of God's law which is unchanging?

[East of Eden]

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.

[...]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

Where in the Epistle to the Galatians does Paul set out the principle of how to separate the parts of God's law which no longer applies from the parts of God's law which is unchanging?

I am leaving on a business trip for the rest of the week but would be glad to discuss Galatians later. In Mark 7 Jesus declared all foods clean:

Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’ After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ‘Are you so dull?’ he asked. ‘Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

See also Peter in Acts 10:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.�

14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.


In contrast, the moral law (murder, homosexuality, etc.) is reinforced in the NT.

[Goat]

You are either deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws with the unchanging moral law. See Galatians. Context is everything.

The Jewish faith dies not separate the law into 'ceremonial , dietary and moral'. The law is the law. splitting that up seems to be a Christian 'innovation' to try to excuse while some restrictions are followed, and others aren't.