Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I also heard Tim Thomas is against cats and dogs getting married.

What at total jerk.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I also heard Tim Thomas is against cats and dogs getting married.

What at total jerk.

I hope to god you don't think these two things are similar.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by makarov

i'm not sure i understand your point.

Я также услышал, что Тим Томас - против женитьбы собак и котов.
Что в суммарном толчке.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What an odd request, honestly. especially considering that to this point the discussion has been very cordial and I think quite respectful with regards to a highly sensitive and contentious issue. If you want to rant, then go right ahead. most of us here are grown ups, and I for one am not about to allow my feelings to be hurt by an opposing viewpoint.

I hope that you can understand and appreciate where I am coming from: As a professionally trained biblical scholar I do feel compelled from time to time to teach and to correct others about the enormous amount of confusion and misunderstanding about the biblical text, which invariably is bound to enter into these sorts of conversations. It's nothing personal, but for those who choose to marshal "scripture" in support of their views, I don't believe that it is inappropriate for me to expect that they clearly understand the texts that they invoke as authoritative.

Well like many like him, he has a loose understanding of the bible, or deep down knows his views are not up to scrutiny. I get the feeling he and many others against gay marriage for religious reasons do the same, avoid tough debate because they have to answer some difficult questions.

I mean he did say this, and how often is this the type of person who walks away because the challenge to explain those beliefs is becoming harder and harder when exposed to real debate.

I'm religious, and I do not support gay marriage.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I also heard Tim Thomas is against cats and dogs getting married.

What at total jerk.

But its okay for them to live together.....

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

Wait, so marriages are only to benefit society?

Oh yeah, like the female astronaut who was with her same partner for 40 yrs receives no benefits, no hospital visitation rights, no spousal benefits...

Yep people can remain very happy in that state.

I'm not sure why you think that sleeping with someone for 40 years should entitle you to benefits. Did this lady just live off of the astronaut and make no provisions for herself?

Should the 35 year old sloth still living off his parents be entitled to benefits too? Or is the bar set at sex?

Originally Posted by Thor

By the way, do you have the courage to discuss the bible quotes you give for your beliefs of your bigotry, or you deep down know you have no leg to stand on when quoting the bible...

What has Textcritic suddenly become your knight in shining armour battling all the religious zealots for you? If I was Textcritic I'd be worried if my particular brand of faith became so popular with atheists.

I've got no problem discussing my faith and scriptures in particular. What i won't do is take one mans word as law. The interpretation of scriptures doesn't automatically change because someone steeped in the philosophy of german rationalism wants to take it in a different direction.

High religious councils and esteemed biblical scholars have studied and come to clear conclusions regarding the nature of marriage and the biblical view of homosexuality. These mens work have stood the test of time. Has yours?

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm not sure why you think that sleeping with someone for 40 years should entitle you to benefits. Did this lady just live off of the astronaut and make no provisions for herself?

Should the 35 year old sloth still living off his parents be entitled to benefits too? Or is the bar set at sex?

Are you for real? Seriously, have you ever been in an actual relationship or marriage?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've got no problem discussing my faith and scriptures in particular. What i won't do is take one mans word as law. The interpretation of scriptures doesn't automatically change because someone steeped in the philosophy of german rationalism wants to take it in a different direction.

High religious councils and esteemed biblical scholars have studied and come to clear conclusions regarding the nature of marriage and the biblical view of homosexuality. These mens work have stood the test of time. Has yours?

You won't take one man's word as law, yet the specific interpretations (noun: "a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style") of people from a specific type of society at a specific time with their own interests and agendas "stand the test of time"? Do they? For whom?

Here's an interesting article for you by a Baptist pastor who is also a professor of religious studies, who actually is an expert on the bible's perspective on sexuality and marriage:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on...al_morals.html

"If we do take the time to read the Bible, we are likely to discover that the biblical writers do not agree with us, whatever version of sexual morality we are seeking to promote. Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied.

...

Let's begin with an easy target: "biblical marriage." Despite frequent claims to the contrary, not a single biblical book endorses marriage between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation. Directed at men, the laws attributed to Moses assume that Israelites will marry as many wives as they can reasonably support. By contrast, when Jesus speaks about marriage, he largely warns against it, presenting family life as a distracting waste of time. The apostle Paul follows suit, teaching that celibacy is the best choice for Jesus' followers. He recommends marriage only as a concession to those unable to keep their sexual impulses in check. Later New Testament writers do sanction marriage, but not for the sake of procreation and romantic love. Instead, marriage is portrayed as a venue for testing the fitness of male church leaders, who are told to love their wives and to be kind to their slaves. Wives, children and slaves, however, must obey the men in charge, no matter what, and this in a culture where the sexual access of masters to their slaves was simply presupposed. Biblical books never speak to marriage as currently practiced in the US and what they do say is totally contradictory."

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm not sure why you think that sleeping with someone for 40 years should entitle you to benefits. Did this lady just live off of the astronaut and make no provisions for herself?

Should the 35 year old sloth still living off his parents be entitled to benefits too? Or is the bar set at sex?

I really don't understand your argument. This issue has nothing to do with sex or "making provisions for oneself" (whatever that means). Same sex marriage advocates (or equal marriage advocates) are simply saying that this lesbian couple should be entitled to the same treatment as a man and woman in a similarly committed relationship. You have still not provided a principled or rational reason why they should not.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What has Textcritic suddenly become your knight in shining armour battling all the religious zealots for you? If I was Textcritic I'd be worried if my particular brand of faith became so popular with atheists.

I've got no problem discussing my faith and scriptures in particular. What i won't do is take one mans word as law. The interpretation of scriptures doesn't automatically change because someone steeped in the philosophy of german rationalism wants to take it in a different direction.

High religious councils and esteemed biblical scholars have studied and come to clear conclusions regarding the nature of marriage and the biblical view of homosexuality. These mens work have stood the test of time. Has yours?

In my view, this talk of biblical interpretation is really a red herring. Your bible and its interpretations (or Textcritic's interpretations) are irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The fact that 50% of Americans (and let's not forget that not very long ago it was 50% of Canadians as well) also support absurd and unjustifiable inequality just happens to be an even bigger, even more embarrassing controversy.

Well, that's about the same number that still think the concept of evolution is fake/an active conspiracy.

Originally Posted by fotze

It is a curious topic, pretty much every person I have worked with in the patch is a lot more harsh that Thomas has been, yet I get along famously (is that a gay enough word) with them. I just sort of nod like a coward, yet on the Internet, I am hardcore homophobe hater.

As much as I know that in a generation this will all be a no brainier, I am to much a pus to help.

At the risk of calling Fotze a good person, this reminded me of Edmund Burke's quote. Joking aside, I hope you are right about the generational thing.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by calgaryborn

what i won't do is take one mans word as law.

l-o-l.

[SeeBass]

I believe in the traditional Olympics no women and held in honour of Zeus.

It is older than christianity so it should not be changed

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...If I was Textcritic I'd be worried if my particular brand of faith became so popular with atheists.

Why should I be worried about this? Unlike you, I do not envision the world embroiled in some sort of cosmic battle between the forces of God and Satan, with humanity falling sharply on either side. I do not consider atheism and atheists to be my "enemies."

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've got no problem discussing my faith and scriptures in particular. What i won't do is take one mans word as law. The interpretation of scriptures doesn't automatically change because someone steeped in the philosophy of german rationalism wants to take it in a different direction.

It is not often that I am accused of being too heavily influenced by "german rationalism", but when it does happen, these charges always stem from those whom I would consider to be fundamentalists and biblicists. As always, this crowd is about fifty-years behind the rest of us and are still fighting intellectual battles that all ended before the Vietnam War. It's typical, so you will forgive me if I reject your "observation" as utterly vapid, and completely beside the point—any point—that has been made in this thread or others like it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

High religious councils and esteemed biblical scholars have studied and come to clear conclusions regarding the nature of marriage and the biblical view of homosexuality. These mens work have stood the test of time. Has yours?

It is also quite typical for biblicists to construct their arguments from authority. Again, why should any of us care about the opinions of "esteemed biblical scholars" and "high religious councils"? Maybe this sounds odd coming from a biblical scholar, but no one—you included—should ever adopt a theological position because of what we say, or because it is enshrined in some creed. You do so because our arguments are highly plausible and grounded in evidence. If they are unconvincing or do not meet an acceptable burden of proof, then you should reject them.

But what I find really irritating and unacceptable is the sort of dismissiveness that you have shown here. If you have any problems with anything specific that I have said, then say so, instead of covering your ears and retreating behind your deductive shield that protects you from the impossibly vague notion of "German rationalism".

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Red Ice Player

But its okay for them to live together.....

Sure, if you like disasters of biblical proportions. Old Testament, real wrath-of-God type stuff.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I believe in the traditional Olympics no women and held in honour of Zeus.

It is older than christianity so it should not be changed

Totally not on topic, but your post reminded me that this is the first Olympics where every country had at least one woman in their Olympic delegation. That seemed crazy to me when I heard it.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Totally not on topic, but your post reminded me that this is the first Olympics where every country had at least one woman in their Olympic delegation. That seemed crazy to me when I heard it.

yeah you can thank religion for that too

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

yeah you can thank religion for that too

No. You can thank culture, where the powers that be use religion as a scapegoat.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by etherealgirl

No. You can thank culture, where the powers that be use religion as a scapegoat.

This is really just wordplay, both religion and culture are very much in this together. They are part of each other, more or less in all regions of the world, some where religion dominates culture, and some where culture is not ruled by religion.

But for practicality sakes, there is no denying the male dominated religious books which give justification and moral justification for holding back women throughout history and in parts of the world today.

[etherealgirl]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is really just wordplay, both religion and culture are very much in this together. They are part of each other, more or less in all regions of the world, some where religion dominates culture, and some where culture is not ruled by religion.

But for practicality sakes, there is no denying the male dominated religious books which give justification and moral justification for holding back women throughout history and in parts of the world today.

Culture and religion are locked in a crazy, eternal, two-step, but if we're going to split hairs, they are two different concepts, and religion is part of a larger culture. Sometimes it is a very predominant part, but there are many other factors that make up a socio-cultural system.

Religious texts are products of the (mostly) men who created them, and dependent on and informed by the culture of the day. There are messages in those texts that still resonate for many people thousands of years later, but there are also aspects of the texts that are used to justify many practices that are arguably out of place in our culture in 2012. The Bible/Koran/etc., are like buffets: people (consciously or not) choose which aspects to use - to promote their agenda, as a weapon, or to build bridges.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is really just wordplay, both religion and culture are very much in this together. They are part of each other, more or less in all regions of the world, some where religion dominates culture, and some where culture is not ruled by religion.

But for practicality sakes, there is no denying the male dominated religious books which give justification and moral justification for holding back women throughout history and in parts of the world today.

Pointing the finger soley at religion is to ignore the fundamental flaw in humanity that begat religion, and that is the desire to control others, and be it for good or bad purposes. The removing religion would just leave something else in its place

[Devils'Advocate]

I was out on the bike today, listening to Brian Burke speak about "You Can Play" on TVO. As much as I dislike Brian Burke as a GM, I think this is a great endeavour.

What I really, really, really liked about what he had to say about 'tolerance". I'm paraphrasing from memory, but it was along the lines of:
"I dislike this whole notion of 'tolerance'. They say we should have a 'tolerant' society. And that's just totally wrong. What is 'tolerance'? It's where we say "I don't like you but I'll put up with you and maybe try to avoid you." It's the way I feel about cats. And probably the way they feel about me. But we shouldn't treat other PEOPLE like that. What we need to push for is ACCEPTANCE. We need an ACCEPTING society. People are not going to feel good about who they are if they are only TOLERATED. Equality and respect will come only with acceptance."

And it's funny... he PARTICULARLY singled out the Boston Bruins as having players that wanted to help out with "You Can Play". He requested from the Bruins if they could ask certain of their players to help out. And he said some of the players were actually upset. Upset that they were not asked to help. He said once they started inviting a player here and there to speak on behalf of the organization, they started getting calls from other players saying "Why wasn't I asked? I love what you are doing and would really like to help out in any way I can." And he said particularly, he wanted to thank Chara and the Bruins for all their support.