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

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I have identified the history that caused our governments to licence marriages. It was to protect women who were at a disadvantage physically and economically in a marriage. The possibility of children resulting in the union added to this vulnerability. Also, this particular union was seen as a benefit to society and tax credits and such were added to help marriages.

In same sex marriages both people have the same economic advantages. They are equal to single people. Their relationship presumably benefits each of them personally and should help them financially as well. Why should the government be involved?

Even accepting your explanation of "the history that caused our governments to license marriages" (which, incidentally, I don't), you still have it completely backwards. The onus (certainly legally, and in my opinion, morally too) is on the government (or people like you) to justify the unequal treatment of homosexuals (there is a complex test pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter, for example). There is no onus on homosexuals to justify why they are entitled to equality. That is a right guaranteed by the Charter.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Your women pastor neglected to insert scriptures into her article. Moreover, she neglected to consider many important passages on the subject of marriage: Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind.

She does not at all neglect Ephesians 5. If you take the time to read her piece you will notice a brief—but not principally inaccurate—summation of Paul's instructions:

Originally Posted by Jennifer Wright Knust

"...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."

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is no time where the New Testament uses a masculine word for wife or a feminine word for husband. Also, most greek nouns have an artcle attached to it that is either masculine, feminine, or neutral. It is a very specific language. I have never seen a masculine article attached to "gune'" or a feminine artcle attached to the word "aner'".

The reason for this has nothing to do with "specificity" and is the product of the fairly simple and straightforward development of language. This is the ultimate strawman: you have basically presented an argument in contrast to such a ridiculously hypothetical premise that it could not possibly even exist.

You have said some pretty inane things, but honestly, this has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on this forum. Guess what? You will be hard pressed to find ANY human language in which there is gender confusion between constituent parts of speech. The fact that the New Testament follows basic conventions of language is not an argument against same-sex marriage. Besides, it bears further note that most words in ancient Greek are either masculine or feminine: "book", "day", "rock" and body parts are all feminine; "gold", "grain", "sky" and "star" are all masculine. So what??

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The fact remains biblical marriage is between a man and a women.

The only "fact" in this statement is that "biblical marriage" is derived through an interpretive construct applied to selections of individual and frequently unrelated biblical texts in an effort to provide some sort of definitive description for something that probably does not exist. "Marriage" as it is presented and endorsed in the Bible bears practically no resemblance to how it functions in the modern world.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...I think you will have to talk to Thor and others to find out why biblical interpretation was brought into this discussion. I'm just responding to his challenge.

What response???

All you have done is labeled me as a "German rationalist" and basically absolved yourself of providing any sort of actual reply to anything that I—or anyone else—have said about the Bible, all from safely behind your deductive shield of biblical authority.

All you have done is covered your ears and raised your own voice.

[FlyingDonutz]

Honestly, this can't be based fully in a scriptural basis.

1 Peter 2:17
"Honor men of all sorts"

Matthew 23:28
"OUTWARDLY indeed, [you] appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Firstly, it is a coherant(even if she doesn't get it) divinely inspired(even if she doesn't believe it) set of instructions that can easily be applied(even if she refuses to apply them).

It's coherence is contrived. The idea od "divine inspiration" is exceedingly vague and badly misunderstood. The application is entirely derived, and usually from a position of total ignorance with regards to the sensitive issues of culture, religion and politics that are engrained in ALL the biblical texts.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Secondly, acceptance is a little much to ask. How about tolerance and privacy?

Please explain why same-sex coupling is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thirdly, Greek is the original language of those ancient books. It is not a translation.

It depends entirely upon which of the ancient books she is referring. All the New Testament texts were probably first composed in Greek, but the early Christians adopted the Greek translation of the Old Testament as their "scriptures" long before they recognized the authority of the New Testament.

Yes, I realize that I am splitting hairs here, but one good turn deserves another.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

Matthew 23:28
"OUTWARDLY indeed, [you] appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Who is the hypocrite here?

[FlyingDonutz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's coherence is contrived. The idea od "divine inspiration" is exceedingly vague and badly misunderstood. The application is entirely derived, and usually from a position of total ignorance with regards to the sensitive issues of culture, religion and politics that is engrained in ALL the biblical texts.


Please explain why same-sex coupling is unacceptable.


It depends entirely upon which of the ancient books she is referring. All the New Testament texts were probably first composed in Greek, but the early Christians adopted the Greek translation of the Old Testament as their "scriptures" long before they recognized the authority of the New Testament.

Yes, I realize that I am splitting hairs here, but one good turn deserves another.

Any religion that puts down or despises homosexuals are total hypocrites, because the entire basis of their belief speaks in a manner that shows you should respect one another no matter what you are. It's actually funny to me.

Edit

though it isn't accepted.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

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

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

Any religion that puts down or despises homosexuals are total hypocrites, because the entire basis of their belief speaks in a manner that shows you should respect one another no matter what you are...

Am I missing something here?

[FlyingDonutz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Am I missing something here?

You're missing the part where not supporting and putting down are two different things..

I.E. I'm not friends with that guy, but I don't have a problem with him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

You're missing the part where not supporting and putting down are two different things..

I think you are missing how difficult it is really to separate one premise from the other. Your passive rejection of equal rights for homosexuals is not altogether different from those who are more visibly outspoken in their bigotry.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think you are missing how difficult it is really to separate one premise from the other. Your passive rejection of equal rights for homosexuals is not altogether different from those who are more visibly outspoken in their bigotry.

Ohhh SNAP!

[FlyingDonutz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think you are missing how difficult it is really to separate one premise from the other. Your passive rejection of equal rights for homosexuals is not altogether different from those who are more visibly outspoken in their bigotry.

So to explain.

My stand is, I believe it is immoral to take those rights away from homosexuals. Every man deserves equal rights. The entire biblical premise here contradicts itself. It's blows itself up. Being married to another man is, of course, not accepted under biblical principle. However, putting down another non-religious man for being gay is not accepted under biblical principle. It's hard to make sense of.

It's not right to get married to another guy, however it's not right to stop them from doing so.

They should be allowed what all else are.

Confusing.

[Coach]

Hmm I actually find myself liking what FlyingDonutz is saying. It's refreshing to see a religious person who has found a way to keep their faith and beliefs while supporting the rights of others. You're saying that while you don't support gay marriage personally, you see no reason why the government should be allowed to deny them that right. Maybe pass this message on to your God-fearing bretheren.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hmm I actually find myself liking what FlyingDonutz is saying. It's refreshing to see a religious person who has found a way to keep their faith and beliefs while supporting the rights of others. You're saying that while you don't support gay marriage personally, you see no reason why the government should be allowed to deny them that right. Maybe pass this message on to your God-fearing bretheren.

I agree. FD's take is quite refreshing. Textcritic is taking no prisoners though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

So to explain.

My stand is, I believe it is immoral to take those rights away from homosexuals. Every man deserves equal rights. The entire biblical premise here contradicts itself. It's blows itself up. Being married to another man is, of course, not accepted under biblical principle. However, putting down another non-religious man for being gay is not accepted under biblical principle. It's hard to make sense of.

It's not right to get married to another guy, however it's not right to stop them from doing so.

They should be allowed what all else are.

Confusing.

Welcome to CP sir. A very good post.

[The Goon]

US Open champion Webb Simpson also stands with Chick-Fil-A.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/gol...843--golf.html

...I expect this thread to double in content.

In all honesty, I've never heard of the chain before this controversy, and despite being pro-gay marriage, I plan to go to one to see if their chicken is worth all this fuss. Plus, I love fast food chicken and I'm thrilled to hear of new places selling it.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hmm I actually find myself liking what FlyingDonutz is saying. It's refreshing to see a religious person who has found a way to keep their faith and beliefs while supporting the rights of others. You're saying that while you don't support gay marriage personally, you see no reason why the government should be allowed to deny them that right. Maybe pass this message on to your God-fearing bretheren.

I do not wade into these debates typically because the only people more militant in their opposition of gay marriage are those who feel any religious person mentally handicapped in some way.

There are a lot of people who believe in Christ that feel the same way that FD does but are not about to get into an electronic mud slinging to say it.

I have the same struggles myself being raised a certain way in the Church but knowing how I feel about rights and equality.

I don't really know what I was trying to say here, but the feelings and struggles of FD are more common that the internet would reveal because most of us do not feel like exchanging words with the vehement atheists who think they are talking to a child because I talk to the ceiling at night and wonder if anyone is listening...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

My stand is, I believe it is immoral to take those rights away from homosexuals. Every man deserves equal rights. The entire biblical premise here contradicts itself. It's blows itself up. Being married to another man is, of course, not accepted under biblical principle. However, putting down another non-religious man for being gay is not accepted under biblical principle. It's hard to make sense of.

I agree with you, insofar as it is absolutely "unChristian" to persecute others for their refusal to endorse the same moral principles as we do. You are absolutely correct that the Bible "contradicts itself"—as you say—on the issue of homosexuality and acceptance, but this is because of a deeper, two-fold problem that I believe all Christians need to address: 1) The historical nature of the biblical text, and 2) the practical function of "biblical authority" in the post-modern, Western world. You will often see me taking a hardline against fellow Christians, but this is because of my own frustration with how poorly so many of us have thought through some of these issues for so long, and how our own conception of biblical authority has failed us. If it is not working, then it needs to change, and my goal is to discover how to do that.

Originally Posted by FlyingDonutz

It's not right to get married to another guy, however it's not right to stop them from doing so.

The problem with so many modern conceptions of biblical authority is that it has become arbitrary. The statement here is a perfect example of this: "It is not right to get married to another guy" because the Bible says so. In my own model of biblical authority that I am developing and refining, I am much more interested in why the Bible says the things that it does, and how these can then be applied positively and beneficially in the modern world.

Without going into a lot of detail, I have become convinced that the injunctions against homosexuality are primarily cultural, and were formed from a primitive worldview that is no longer relevant or useful in today's day and age. It makes perfect sense in its own context, but with how much our world has changed, the plain application of these rules is now wholly impractical. There comes a point—even under the umbrella of biblical authority—when we are obligated to recognize the failures of our institutions, and to change them. I maintain my own commitment to biblical authority, but I am also convinced that we must reject the Bible's fairly universal intolerance of homosexuality—we do so because this intolerance was borne from a mindset that is now irrelevant and completely impractical.

I challenge you with this:
· Think carefully about why you believe homosexuality is wrong.
· Think carefully about why the Bible consistently legislates against homosexuality, and whether or not this rationale still works in the modern world.
· If you are a Christian, then form your opinion about homosexuality on the basis of Jesus's own vision for the Kingdom of God—the perfectly just and idyllic rule in which all the best things about humanity are finally and fully realized for the benefit of everyone and everything.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I do not wade into these debates typically because the only people more militant in their opposition of gay marriage are those who feel any religious person mentally handicapped in some way.

Ah, the internet, where everyone feels free to take their position to it's most extreme possible conclusion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I agree. FD's take is quite refreshing. Textcritic is taking no prisoners though.

I'm probably being a little harsh, and if anyone is personally or spiritually battered by what I have said than I really am sorry. I think that in the "real world" I am actually a pretty friendly guy.

The reason I come down so hard on the religious crowd sometimes is because I am so tired of the bad ideas put forward by religion. I am so tired of the bad arguments for the philosophical entrenchment of religion. I am so tired of being religious in a culture in which traditional religion increasingly does not work.

I want a revolution.