I agree, there is nothing that gives all the answers(not that I believe we are meant to have them all), another reason I think its best for people to opt for MORE choices and not fewer....

As I've said here before, there was a time where everything you mentioned was ok.. King wanted a son, got a daughter, a number of times, the child was killed. We have already evolved PAST the time when those were considered ok.

Of course, I would have expected you to jump right over the main point I was making there. HOMOSEXUALS ARE PEOPLE TOO AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE GRANTED THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS YOU AND I. I hope that isn't too subtle.





Please tell me you really don't understand how changing the subject changes everything.

I'm still waiting for that non-religious reason, how about you try to do something different, and think of one on your own?

who said homosexuals arent people? every person, regardless of their preferences, is a person,,,,,but that is irrelevant to the point about marital guidelines,,


lol, ok,,, so to give a simple answer of my own about equal RIGHTS,,,homosexuals have the same PRIVILEGE as anyone else,,,,, to marry someone who doesnt have the same parents, who isnt under aged and who isnt the same gender,,,that their PREFERENCE isnt accomodated is no different than not accomodating any other preference

the guidelines are written with consideration to gender and biology,, not with consideration to emotions and preferences,,,

we dont all have the RIGHT to marry whomever we love,, or those who fall for their siblings and those children who fall for adults would have a go as well

the mistake in comparing marital rights is usually in some broad assumption that the guidelines have ANYTHING to do with whom people fall in love with


also,,my point about what is 'natural' was further magnified with your post,,,,"We have already evolved PAST the time when those were considered ok. "

this side of the conversation becomes inconsistent when you use the argument of what is natural in the animal kingdom to defend some 'evolved' acceptance of behavior but then continue on to say that 'evolving' actually was proven by people moving on from the idea of other things that are seen in nature being 'natural' for humana as well

so which is it?

are we evolved in our thinking, because we come to accept homosexual lifestyles on the basis that they are 'natural' or are we evolved because we stopped accepting infanticide, which is also 'natural'?

No, our thinking evolved when we stop believing in superstitions and started writing the law to eliminate religious bigotry and all its byproducts. Such as the miscegnation laws that were repealed in the last century. They are a perfect example of the Apartheid sanctioned by people hiding behind 'What God Wants' to make their bigotry more palatable with religious 'logic'.

Your point about infancticide is a logical fallacy-- you're comparing apples to oranges and NOT taking into account when harm is or isn't done and to whom and the principle of competence to give consent. It makes ALL the difference.

Even the Mormon Church's thinking on race 'evolved' once they could no longer hide behind religious dogma that they couldn't morally defend.

-Kerry O.

Gotta love it when homosexuality is ALWAYS compared to something horrid in order to make a point about it's naturalness.

Infanticide

Some people on both sides of the issue have a strange obsession with 'naturalness'. I mean, who cares what's 'natural'?

Judging ourselves (ethically) by the behaviors of other species is setting the bar really low; and limiting ourselves to the behaviors found in other species denies our creativity and potential.

I don't think homosexuality is at all immoral or inappropriate. But trying to say that it is moral or appropriate because other animals do it is a weak argument; the best way to show how weak this is, is to invoke the horrid behaviors that other species exhibit.

Actually I personally feel that's a "Backfire".

What I mean by that is that it's the religious people who START by claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore wrong.

Then the people who defend same-gender love attempt to point out that it's not unnatural anyway. Then the religious people turn this back around on them and try to claim, "Well just because something is natural doesn't make it RIGHT!"

It's just a viscious circle.

As far as I'm concerned the whole concept of a JUDGEMENTAL God causes religious people to become arrogant hypocrites. Especially when they are given a book that is supposed to be the "Word of God" and had crap like this in it.

The REAL IRONY is that this same book DEMANDS that women keep their mouths shut and do as the men say. But how many religious people do you see worrying about that? Not many!

The whole religious ideology is nothing but lame hypocrisy. Religious people just USE the Bible to support their predjudices whilst ignoring the parts that they disagree with and don't want to hear.

The REAL IRONY is that this same book DEMANDS that women keep their mouths shut and do as the men say.


can you please post chapter and verse,,,,this is not true

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=16

Women are to remain silent in churches.



Let the re-writing of the bible begin...


Edit: Oh, yeah, thats 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35.

from:

http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Timothy%202.11%E2%80%9312#ref=1%20Ti%202%3A11%E2%80%9312%2Chi%3D1%20Ti%202%3A11-1%20Ti%202%3A12&ver=NIV

Its been my experience that believers in the bible will go to great lengths to rationalize away what the bible actually says. During different periods of history, with different sets of culturally dominant beliefs, these pages are interpreted differently to suit the desires of the readers of the time.

I think we should just accept that Paul is a lier who saw a chance to advance his own agendas by co-opting a fledgling cult.

I havn’t read this entire thread yet, but it started out to be a really great post, each giving their opinion and each presenting or touching on points of validity.

I agreed most with Message, but it was Wux’s post that gave me the following words.

Wux – makes the most important point of all. When we begin with societal issues we must throw light on the issues to reveal the longer and invasive global threads of divisiveness. In other words we cannot solve societal issues without considering the broad and sweeping consequences of our actions. Each poster has recognized one or more of these threads but Wux has shown the broadest light that encompasses the many threads of the singular issue of the OP – religion.

We are now living in a time of necessary global transition which will require adaptations of agricultural, industrial, environmental, educational, political, and technological proportions. All of these global issues stem from one fact which Wux has brought to light – population.

I cannot think of a single societal issue anywhere in the world that does not stem from those listed above. The problem is, not one of the major categories stands independently of the others. That one link of interconnectedness provides the affirmation of how our ethics (world view, world fingerprint, etc) links and drives our entire global system.

While we bicker and work to resolve issues that individually we see as major obstacles to our personal happiness, contentment, and well-being we ignore the broader implications and as MiddleEarthling so aptly implied, we fall into a major human flaw that Festinger called cognitive dissonance.

Economically the world is failing, not just an absence of thriving, we are failing. We are failing because of over population. Through our previous lack of knowledge we have extorted our non-renewable natural resources, through agriculture without respect for what the land requires to thrive and provide vegetation. Science and education gave us knowledge of minerals, oil, gas, coal and industrialization emerged. As with agriculture we pursued industrialization with little consideration for our environment and the only future we saw was how to gain more land, and more resources to sustain and make better the lifestyles of our growing populations. War is no longer about ideology, it is about resources and sustainability but we are STUCK in archaic moral mode.

Therefore, I would suggest that while we cannot stop working to make each of our major human categories better, we must do so in accordance to a much higher purpose than to serve our individual ideologies. That means we must begin every one of our efforts from a NEW TRANSITIONAL ETHICAL frame of mind. We must consider our efforts from the top down before acting.

The Ideologies that have driven spirituality and religions and the moral compass of every society must realign their focus to encompass, and in some cases supersede, archaic morality. The cognitive dissonance which permeates societal and religious cultures is the refusal to accept that their beliefs have undergone numerous changes and transitions which have effectively changed original beliefs, morals, and attitudes, to align with cultural acceptance. It is time for yet another VITAL transition for people of various beliefs to make in order for any of our efforts to relieve our failing world and provide a future of sustainability.

We do not have to GET RID of spirituality or even religions; we only need to find a way to change the cognitive dissonance which prevents people from allowing their religious moral compass from aligning to a new north.

How can we do that? How can we get the entire world into a classroom and show them what we have done, what we are doing to the environment, to the future of humanity, to the future of the only known living planet in our galaxy. How can we ALL accept the diversity of people’s beliefs and at the same time ALL work toward the same healing goals to provide a sustainable and ethical future?

Message brings a point of focus to my previous post. Nationalism is as great a threat as any fundamentalist religious view. Why, you ask? Because the carrying capacity of limited land and inadequit natural resoused to support portions of land are at stake. Nationalism became the greatest fundamentalism of all, because the Nation state is the umbrella of protection against invaders who would extort our natural resources.

The land does not belong to humans, it cannot be owned. But once it provided plenty for an entire world, but populations explosions required great protective measures.


The United States prodeces 25% of the worlds air pollution, yet what do we provide to the global community that outsiders should accept that percentage? We do not even provide for our own necessities - we live the greatest unsustainable lifestyle in the world, and yet we fight wars to make others like us. Does that not provoke questions of what ethics/morals drive the people of this country?

and yet, to throw out a WHOLE belief system because some interpretations give support to disagreeable things,, is kind of insane.


the simplest answer,, if you dont believe in a religion,, that should be fine,, and if you do,, that should be fine too


to blanketly suggest that religion should not exist for ANYONE,,,seems as overreaching as suggesting that it MUST exist for EVERYONE

whatever our beliefs are founded in,, however popular or unpopular they become,, we should never feel we cant congregate with like minded individuals (even if the premise of those similarities is 'religious')


,,as a sidenote,, the bible doesnt say women have to do what me say,, in terms of submission(except in the order of church service) a woman is to be submissive to her HUSBAND (not all men)

The above quote is one of the greatest examples of cognitive dissonence which appears all over this website in many threads in many forums and mostly by the same person.

The topic is LGBT rights, the quote is an excuse which absolves the maker (in his/her) own mind of any control over the issue of legal and human rights equality of the LGBT community.

Yet the truth is that a Christian morality is what backs the belief that LGBT deserve less than equality. Of course that means the maker of such a quote is disclaiming any responsibility for the horrors of discrimination which those beliefs uphold.

That is cognitive dissonance! And with that mentality there can be no balance between the believers and the non-believers.

But how can we make such people see the falicy in their thought processes? How can we get their religious beliefs to transition to a more ethical position and still allow the believer to have dignity and a belief system?

Of course this is one of the societal issues which dulls in comparison to Global problems, but if we cannot get smaller groups of people to transition, how can we get the world to change?

actually, the statment is factual and logical, nothing in the logic is inconsistent,, which is the basis for something to be considered cognitive dissonance

The belief that Men and Women deserve equality,,is a legal one. The idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals deserve less than equality is a personal one. I dont agree with the latter, I do agree witht he former....HOWEVER

the laws have not now nor have they ever been determined upon something as fleeting and inconstant as sexual preferences. The laws are set in cultural beliefs and values and it is an old argument , anytime one of these values happens to align with something religious,, that the religion gets blamed as the culprit. It is not RELIGION that states an adult is 18 years old,, it is culture that decides that. It is not religion that states weed is sinful, it is culture that decided that. It is also culture that decided to promote and encourage the union of man and woman (which creates life) through the institution of marriage. This happens to also coincide with the values of the bible,, but how can anyone assume to know or prove that one wouldnt happen without the other,,,?

people have always (thank goodness) valued life,,,not everyone,,, but thankfully many have and as a result people have valued the union which creates it,,,,,this is not the FAULT or RESPONSIBILITY of religion.


the law doesnt allow us to marry whomever we love,, the law set guidelines based upon the unions the CULTURE chose to promote; namely, the union which creates life, man and woman, with the exception of those male and female unions which might cause harm to life,,,such as brother and sister unions, or union between ADULT and CHILD

I agree with this statement with one exception, answers do not come from books (of any kind). Answers are formed subjectively with the information we get from many sources. Religion has one specific goal – to unite and formalize the moral underpinnings of a groups belief system. To do this most religions rely of written volumes and require word and action of its constituents to support that belief system. Therefore, all the options in the world will not provide answers, unless the individual forms them through the most critical of thought processes which often means questioning current beliefs. Furthermore, individuals will cling to cognitive dissonance as long as social groups, communities, and society as a whole continues to embarrass, bully, or otherwise discredit the dignity and value of each individual just for changing their attitudes and behaviors based on their critical though of all the options.

I agree with this with one interpretive exception,,,

Personally, I consider myself a Christian,, I dont feel REQUIRED to be a Christian,, I just am.

Its my choice, of course , to hold certain values and beliefs(again, nothing I feel is being mandated by anyone) and those values and beliefs are most consistent with those of the church or religion around which I was raised. I feel no need to change them, what I observe in the world actually does more to reinforce them than to cause me to change my mind. But all this is and will always be my choice,, and not a mandate.

I am not one to question for the sake of questioning,, so when things make sense to me(religious or non) I am not apt to question them. My faith makes sense to me,, and logic follows, I feel no reason to question or change it.

The mistake is in critical thinking. How many people in the world marry without considering love? How many people in the world marry only according to religiouly held beliefs surrounding marriage?

Just becasue individual claim a religious belief does not mean they follow the guidelines of marriage as upheld by those beliefs.

The prove is in the divorce rate, and in the absense of responsibility of parents (who claim a religious perspective). More proof can be found specifically by comparing biblical guidelines of marriage and adultary to current day standards. Examples include, under what conditions is divorce biblically acceptible, who may remarry and who may not after divorce. What are biblical views of a woman/man marrying another from their previous spouses family?

Of couse it's easy to say BUT those things have change according to cultural acceptance.

Now comes the critical thought part - what changed those things, why did they change, and what prevents you and other Christians from effectign yet another cultural change to accomodate the human rights of newly acceted part of society?

I think we agree on cultural vs religious affects upon the law. The divorce rate , and the personal religious beliefs of those in marriages, is further evidence to me that the BASIS for the laws in this country are not religious.

What prevents me from changing the definition of marriage is the same thing that prevents me from changing the definition of a man or a woman,,,,its PURPOSE

we defined marriage because of its PURPOSE to the culture and community at large(to form the foundation for family and from family, everything else)

we define gender for a purpose as well,, to identify the role of one person from another, one is the plug and one is the socket. There is a rational concept of one COMPLEMENTING the other. As I would not start wanting to define gender by what someone FEELS they are,, I also would not want to define marriage by how people FEEL.


I am all for equal rights, I would never oppose some LEGAL union for homosexuals to be legally aknowledged as partners in life, to hoin their assets and all those legal issues,,,,but I am not supportive of changing what MARRIAGE is or what it is defined as. A husband and wife complement each other, become a whole, a unit which is TANTAMOUNT and uniquely significant to our very existence as humans and as a culture,,,,I will always oppose tampering with that as an institution to promote the foundation upon which life exists..