PDA

View Full Version : Quotes for and against equality


ypsidan04
19-03-2004, 21:39
Post quotes that you like in support, or ones that you want to criticize for being closed-minded. I almost didn't bother with the quotes against, but we need both sides, and it's always best to know thy enemy.

SUPPORT:

"Each individual's journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships - maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation." - From the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa.

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." - The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Anon: "A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" Posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the author.

"JRT:" "Marriage is a sacrament that two loving people bestow upon each other. I do not regard gender as an issue here. What is important is their love and desire to live together in a committed lifelong relationship."

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: "...what two gay men do in the privacy of their bedroom is totally different. Unlike polygamy or incest, no rational person can argue that two men having gay sex is going to undermine the legal institution of marriage. Those that do are probably more interested in attacking gays than protecting marriage."

Anon, "There is no reason that the federal government, or anyone for that matter, should restrict marriage to a predefined heterosexual relationship. Because it is the right of the homosexual legally, socially, and economically, matrimony between lesbian and gay couples should be accepted in the United States. Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference."

And a comment made in another context, but very topical:
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy, 1966

AGAINST:

"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing. It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply 'live together'." - Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.

Family Research Council (FRC): Mark Regan, a policy analyst with the FRC said: "Civil unions are a counterfeit version of marriage that will diminish the value of marriage."

"Trixie1226:" "I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Period. God did not create Adam and Steve (they just think they are so smart by rhyming Steve with Eve :no: ). It clearly states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that this is an issue clearly shows how sick the world has gotten."

quotes found here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm) Feel free to comment or add any extras you know of.

forre
19-03-2004, 22:02
Originally posted by ypsidan04
It clearly states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that this is an issue clearly shows how sick the world has gotten."


There's a law in process in Sweden that may give up to 1 year jail for such statements.

"For" or "Against", bla-bla. It's like prohibiting black people to marry or the ones who stammer. :rolleyes: Now we can speak about the level of mentality! :ill:

shizzo
19-03-2004, 22:36
Posted by forre :
It's like prohibiting black people to marry or the ones
who stammer.

Exactly. :rolleyes:

I don't see the logic behind a lot of the comments which can
be made from either side, supporting or against. It's becoming
more of a competition than realistic points of view.

freddie
19-03-2004, 22:42
Originally posted by ypsidan04
[B]"If marriage means everything, it means absolutely nothing. It will mean nothing to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The current decline of the institution of marriage will be accelerated. Increasing numbers of couples will elect to simply 'live together'." - Dr. James C. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.[B]

James is full of shit. What should a marriage "mean" then? What's the difference between 2 people in a commited relationship and 2 people that are married? I find no significant differnences except economical ones. It's been a long time since a traditional marriage stopped being a holy institution... after all... more then 50% of couples get divorced.

russkayatatu
03-07-2004, 10:13
I am wondering what people here will think about the following: from Yosef Reinman, an Orthodox Jew, in a letter to a Reform Jew (the letters were published as a dialogue between followers of the two strands of Judaism talking about their faith; the points on which they agree and the points on which they don't):

The Torah forbids homosexuality, period. That is a fact. Does that mean we should be insensitive to the feelings of gay people? Certainly not. But sensitivity does not necessarily mandate approval.

Homosexuality results from a combination of internal and external factors. Both may often be subject to change and modification. Contemporary society, however, conspires to prevent any adjustment in sexual orientation. Positive messages about alternative lifestyles saturate modern literature and the visual arts. At the same time, science has been forced to abandon research into psychological techniques that might be effective in returning the homosexual to the heterosexual fold. In effect, by refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as a problem, society is forcing homosexuals to remain as they are, without the benefit of psychological or spiritual counseling. According to the Torah, this is wrong.

Understand me, Ammi. I do not advocate laws against homosexuals. I do not believe secular governments should regulate sexual morality. But the clergy should speak up on all moral issues, and their positions should be based on religious truth, not the changing attitudes of secular society. Indeed, if enough of them would do so, perhaps society would allow science to do serious research on the issue of sexual deviation.

Nu? :gigi: Actually the thread of this thinking makes sense to me. Homosexuality was not unknown in the society under the Torah's laws, and its place in morality was made clear. If you accept that, and really believe that homosexuality is not as good and moral as heterosexuality, then what WOULD it be like to see "positive messages about alternative lifestyles" so prevalent? He is also right that secular societies have their own ways of indoctrinating people; in America definitely. :grustno:

And I agree, more scientific research by all means; it's an interesting topic and not everything is answered, of course. And in the meantime, compassion and legal recognition of same-sexual couples, who live in a world with clergy but under secular laws. Mr. Reinman's position becomes a question of the reconciliation of a faith with life in a secular world.

You know, until a few days ago I had no idea people still thought like Mr. Reinman. :eek: I think his wording is a little strong, but otherwise I respect what he says. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential conflict between fundamentalists and those who rely on reason and experience (or society) to guide them in their reading. Maybe especially in America, which is still puritan in a lot of ways.

In any case, he makes much more sense (to me) than James Dobson, whose book MARRIAGE UNDER FIRE I actually read (I was wondering what on earth he could be saying in so many pages, although it's not that long, maybe 20 minutes of reading - I wanted to see if he made any sense at all :p ). Dr. Dobson botches some of his argument in various points and I am not totally doing justice to everything he says (maybe I'll go into more detail), but the core idea that comes across is close to Mr. Reinman's: "The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is rooted not just in child rearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the state has a compelling interest in supporting this undeniable and ancient truth." This is basically the thrust of Dr. Dobson's thinking - at least Mr. Reinman expressly does not want to dictate to the state what to do.

I think that the secular and religious connotations of marriage should be finally and unambiguously separated. On one hand we are talking about a commitment that is legally recognized by the state and that carries with it certain benefits and corollaries, while on the other hand we mean a religious or spiritual sacrament falling under the provenance of the church. The United States is not a religious government, and so what the Bible - or any religious text - says or does not say about homosexuality shouldn't have any bearing on the issue.

Kate
03-07-2004, 10:26
It clearly states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.

Who cares what the bible says? :blabla: People who wrote the bible also said that sex is sick. It actually says in the Bible that people who had sex arn't allowed in church for 7 days after the act, that they need to wash all they clothes and bath everyday and pray to God to forgive them for their weakness. And every person they touch within the 7 days becomes "dirty" as well, and needs to wash his/her clothes as well and ask God for forgiveness. And any person who touches an object that came into contact with a person who had sex less then 7 days ago should also pray and wash his/her clothes. As I read it, I though to myself that there are bound to be people who had sex less then 7 days ago on this planet, and they all touch the Earth, so should we all clean our clothes and pray and not go to Church? I'm all for the very last bit. :gigi:

nath
03-07-2004, 12:29
Who cares what the bible says? :blabla: .... It actually says in the Bible that people who had sex arn't allowed in church for 7 days after the act, that they need to wash all they clothes and bath everyday and pray to God to forgive them for their weakness. And every person they touch within the 7 days becomes "dirty" as well, and needs to wash his/her clothes as well and ask God for forgiveness. And any person who touches an object that came into contact with a person who had sex less then 7 days ago should also pray and wash his/her clothes.
Kate...just asking for myself...are you sure it is in the Bible or Torah?...i mean Torah is comments about Bible, I think, and it's "stricter"....Really, I ask because I don't know....

russkayatatu
04-07-2004, 00:26
sunwalk, a definition I found on another site:

The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different contexts. In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

I don't know what Torah Yosef Reinman was referring to. And I don't know where Kate's quotation comes from. "Sex is sick" is not a Jewish concept, I am virtually certain - it does not have the ascetic traditions of other religions, like Christianity - but other than that I don't know.

Kate
04-07-2004, 00:50
sunwalk, I read it myself in the bible. I'll tell you which part it is if you want...

nath
04-07-2004, 03:23
I'll come back about this subject later because i have to act quickly to get my plane in some hours...so Russkayatatu, yep ..i made a mistake : i thought about "Talmud" when i said "Torah"...i thought about the teaching and explaination of the "Old testament" for the Christians...
-->The Torah and the oral law
Rabbinical Judaism holds that the Torah has been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They point to the text of the Torah, where they believe many words are left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; they believe the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other, oral, sources.

This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as the oral law. At the time, it was forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law, as any writing would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and abuse. However, after great debate, this restriction was lifted when it became apparent that it was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved. To prevent the material from being lost, around 200 CE, Rabbi Judah haNasi took up the redaction of a written version of the oral law; it was compiled into the first major written work of rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah. Over the next four centuries this body of law, legend, ethical teachings and argumentation underwent debate in both of the world's major Jewish communities (in Israel and Babylon). The commentaries on the Mishnah from both of these communities eventually came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.

Most Jews follow the traditional explication of these laws that can be found in this later literature. Karaites, who reject the oral law, and adhere solely to the laws of the Torah, are a major exception.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Torah#The_Torah_and_the_oral_law

"Sex is sick" is not a Jewish concept, I am virtually certain - it does not have the ascetic traditions of other religions, like Christianity - but other than that I don't know.
Oh...I'm not so sure about that...I mean the big problem we have with this kind of religious written thing is the INTERPRETATION problem....we see that even in Tatysite...I mean everybody gives its own interpretation about "Bible"....some of us see it with a "general view" like a global moral guide, others see it just in "catching and sticking" to some words with a dictionnary definition...

Interpretation is the big problem of all religious books ...cause people , before , did't know to read ..so the oral translation...which gives power to a lot of people...
I mean the original "Coran" is very "good" with its approach about women ...they are very respected in it...and you see how it's applied in the reality ...with the oral transmission...not a lot of people understand litteral arab...and even when they learn it "by heart" (memory) , they don't understand what they say...

I saw a reportage on tv about very strict jewish religious: it was a bout women and jewish religion...it was very hard for them sometimes because they were in a family which was following very strictly the rules...so for exemple you could have sexual relationship just (i don't remember) a lot of days after your period...so there was the case of a woman who had a lot of problems to have children because her husband was a kind of "fanatic" about the religious rules ...so in a month , there were just a "few days" when she could have sexual relationship with him...of course , it's an extrem situation....but it seems it exists...

May be i'm wrong but i have the feeling that the "Fanatic Christians" are cooler than the "Fanatic Jewish"...it isn't a valor judgement here ... just I try to be objective...as I can...hi-hi.... :p

russkayatatu
12-07-2004, 22:00
sunwalk, I have been waiting to answer because I wanted to know more about what I was talking first :)

It is not at all a Jewish attitude to say that "sex is sick," and I am interested to see where katbeidar read that in the Bible.

"While sex fulfills the commandment of procreation, biblical laws also teach that intercourse, which is called 'knowing,' is an act of great holiness, a gift from God. Sex is as basic an obligation in marriage as food. Jewish texts, including the Torah, Talmud, and Mishna, are direct about ways to enhance sexuality. Some ancient laws of onah say that a woman's sexual passion is greater than a man's. To ensure a 'peaceful tent,' a husband must be attuned to his wife's sexual needs and 'pay her a visit' whenever she desires it. A wife has the right to regular sex; the frequency depends on a man's occupation. Students of the Torah, for example, are obligated to perform their marital duty once a week and the preference is Friday night."

That is for example. There are no "Jewish monasteries," and rabbis are married ... I was watching a film, a very good film, called "Trembling before G-d," about homosexuality among Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, and there one rabbi even expresses his opinion that human sexuality is so strong that celibacy is really not an option. It is in Christianity that you get the "Desert Fathers," the monasteries, the celibate clergy; Judaism is a religion of the community, of the family; it is about life "in the world" and how to live a decent and religious life as a Jew.

After I watched the film I read Leviticus, I think for the first time :) And there are all the laws that you mentioned, the 'purity laws' regarding menstruation and discharges and so on. I do agree that these are strict - I've even read that they prohibit sexual intercourse during a woman's most fertile period - but I don't see them as meaning that sex is inherently evil or sick ... it's analogous to eating, I think. If you wash your hands before and after eating, and have other rules or traditions like always keeping a napkin in your lap, not putting your elbows on the table, and moreoever eat at certain times: in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening, but not between meals, would you say that eating is "sick"? :confused: I don't see how it's any "sicker" to suggest that there are certain times sex is OK just as there are certain people with whom sex is OK, and vice versa ... you shouldn't have sex at a certain time just as you shouldn't have sex with a certain person. And just because after you eat you should clean up before you do anything else, it doesn't make eating any less respectable or desirable. Do you see what I mean?

Of course this is my view, that I don't see any inherent contradiction between the biblical laws and the Jewish attitude that sex is a vital and necessary and even holy part of a Jewish life. sunwalk, I know what you mean about interpretation, and for tatysite I agree completely ;) But there is a difference, I think ... people do not just pick up the Bible, or any other religious written text and pick out "dictionary definitions" without thought for everything else and call themselves religious ... at least not in Judaism. :eek: Religious texts don't exist in a vacuum; they exist within the context of a religion and should be seen in that regard.

One thing I love about Judaism is that in most other religions the ideal state is one of calm knowing - this is the way things should be, I know it, I believe it - while in Judaism often the holiest state is one of total confusion and struggle: not knowing what to think or what to believe. And to return to what I said about religious texts not existing in a vacuum, there is a rabbi that gives the following story:

There was a woman who came to a rabbi one day with a chicken; something had happened to the chicken, and she was worried and wanted to know if it was still kosher. And the rabbi began to ask her questions about herself. How old are you? he asked. Are you married? Are you rich or poor? Who were you going to serve this chicken to? And after he had gotten the answers, only then did he say, "All right, now show me the chicken."

What matters is not only law and precedent, but the human question. Rabbis do not interpret and teach the Torah abstractly, away from life, but are involved with it as a living tradition. And they are trained in listening to the people, in opening their hearts and being compassionate. God is having a conversation with human beings - he is influenced by Abraham, by Moses. And it makes a difference whether the woman is rich or poor, and what place this chicken would have had in her life.

To get a little back to the subject, I think "Trembling before G-d" is a film everyone should see. :) It's mostly about people who were brought up in very strict Orthodox and Hasidic families and communities who realized, as they grew up, that they were homosexual. Or I'll just paste from the movie's website (www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com):

"'Trembling Before G-d' is an unprecedented feature documentary that shatters assumptions about faith, sexuality, and religious fundamentalism. Built around intimately-told personal stories of Hasidic and Orthodox Jews who are gay or lesbian, the film portrays a group of people who face a profound dilemma - how to reconcile their passionate love of Judaism and the Divine with the drastic Biblical prohibitions that forbid homosexuality. As the film unfolds, we meet a range of complex individuals - some hidden, some out - from the world's first openly gay Orthodox rabbi to closeted, married Hasidic gays and lesbians to those abandoned by religious families to Orthodox lesbian high-school sweethearts.

Many have been tragically rejected and their pain is raw, yet with irony, humor, and resilience, they love, care, struggle, and debate with a thousands-year old tradition. Ultimately, they are forced to question how they can pursue truth and faith in their lives. Vividly shot with a courageous few over five years in Brooklyn, Jerusalem, Los Angeles, London, Miami, and San Francisco, 'Trembling Before G-d' is an international project with global implications that strikes at the meaning of religious identity and tradition in a modern world. For the first time, this issue has become a live, public debate in Orthodox circles, and the film is both witness and catalyst to this historic moment. What emerges is a loving and fearless testament to faith and survival and the universal struggle to belong."

It is not anti-religious. It's an amazing documentary; I highly recommend it :done:

nath
12-07-2004, 23:41
Thanks a lot for your so complete and interesting answerrusskayatatu, as usual ;)
I 'll try to see this movie....and I'll try to reply a little longer later...Thank again or the quality of your posts :rose:

russkayatatu
13-07-2004, 00:06
And back to something completely different, on topic and from another angle completely.

I was reading a book several days ago called The Death of Right and Wrong, by Tammy Bruce, who is an openly gay feminist who is not particuarly religious. And she writes some interesting things. :D For example, "Instead of being about tolerance and equal treatment under the law, today's gay movement, in the hands of extremists, now uses the language of rights to demand acceptance of the depraved, the damaged, and the malignantly narcissistic." She is talking about the gay movement in America, of course. And she writes:

"Of course, there are those rare individuals who are born with a chromosome abnormality that produces legitimate gender issues. What I'm talking about here is something very different: men, and sometimes women, who have been so traumatized that they are unable to accept themselves. Psychologically they feel the compulsion to disappear themselves by changing their very existence. How all this works has not been studied with a serious and objective psychological eye. In fact, researchers supportive of 'reassignment surgery' readily admit that there is really no research addressing the possibility that 'gender identity disorder' is in fact a mental illness, to be treated as such rather than taken as a cue for surgical transformation [... quoting from a medical report ...] 'the question of whether distress is inherent to transvestism or imposed by social pressures is not resolved ... It is again not clearly defined who is ill and who is not, the judgment resting upon the personal values of the evaluator.' [in her own words] Theories that rest on the subjective 'personal values' of a researcher instead of on concrete scientific definitions are a cornerstone of moral relativism. They have condemned many who simply need psychiatric help to believing that mutilating their bodies will solve their problems."

When I first read James Dobson's book I thought he was being incredibly presumptuous and unfair when he said things like: "In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do NOT want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a life-time commitment to one person? THE INTENTION HERE IS TO CREATE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGAL STRUCTURE."

Or: "The shouting and blustering of homosexual activists is not unlike that of a rebellious teen who slams doors, throws things around, and threatens to run away. Most parents have had to deal with this kind of behavior and have learned that giving in at such a time can be disastrous for both parties. What's needed is loving firmness in the face of temper tantrums and accusations."

But now I am tempted to think that Tammy Bruce and James Dobson are talking about the same people, what Ms. Bruce calls the "Gay Elite," who have the attitude 'any-perversion-is-our-perversion.' She describes one instance when (I am paraphrasing) a young lesbian with almost every visible piece of skin pierced was talking at some sort of gay issues meeting about the kind of S&M practice she had with her girlfriend, and Ms. Bruce stood up and said that "the desire to cause pain to someone else is sick, S&M has nothing to do with homosexuality and the fact that no one at this meeting is saying anything in response is highly disturbing." She was shouted down, called names, etc.

I was wondering if anyone else has read this book, or her other book, The New Thought Police? She makes several good points, although I don't agree with everything she says.

I think that most people who are against gay marriage are against it for one or both of these reasons: 1) they are disturbed by the kinds of extreme Left attitudes The Death of Right and Wrong talks about, and 2) they think marriage is an institution that should be protected by the church. I get the impression, reading and listening to people opposed to gay marriage, that they would much rather deny homosexuality exists; they'd rather it just go away. "Man and woman were made for each other." "Being black or white, Hispanic or Asian, is not like being homosexual. The ban on interracial marriage was put in place to keep 2 races apart; that was wrong. Marriage is God's way, and society's way, of bringing 2 people together; that is right." Not everybody is "made for each other" like that. It is nice to go on pretending that God made everybody that way, but it denies the lives of many people; you can't do it for long without selectively not seeing whole parts of humanity. Homosexuality is a reality; it isn't something that you can go on denying, and compassionate, conscientious people should be willing to listen to other's experiences and struggles. I liked another part in "Trembling before G-d," where one said that at some level you know there's a difference between "this is something that needs to be fixed" and "this is who I am."

edit: sunwalk, thank you ... I am trying :rolleyes: :) :rose: But yes, see it if you can, it's great. And with the DVD there's another feature, a short film called something like "On the Road with 'Trembling'" and it's very good too, about the response to the film.

cirrus
13-07-2004, 00:14
. As I read it, I though to myself that there are bound to be people who had sex less then 7 days ago on this planet, and they all touch the Earth, so should we all clean our clothes and pray and not go to Church? I'm all for the very last bit.

katbeidar, I should really read it for myself, but I will take your word for it. I cannot believe how utterly silly that is! :p It's crazy. Another reason to take the Bible with a huge grain of salt. Personally, I don't put any faith into the Bible anyways, seeing as how it was written by people and people have a habit of screwing up anything :rolleyes: Unless you've spoken to God personally, don't assume you know what his/her "word" is.

It's beautiful when people use their faith to help the needy and improve the world around them, but I don't see why "God" has to be a part of that process.

nath
13-07-2004, 08:35
It's beautiful when people use their faith to help the needy and improve the world around them, but I don't see why "God" has to be a part of that process.
Cirrus ...I don't think even 10% of the members of Tatysite has read "The Old and the New Testaments"...For eemple, me I have no problem to say I've never read it fully...some years ago I began to read it and I hope in some years I would read it completely...
I'm Catholic , in the meaning I was baptized, but i didn't have my confirmation and I'm not praticant...
Of course, we all know that, during centuries, a lot of people used Religious texts to scare other people (a strong fear of Hell is still very present in some cultures..in muslim culture , for exemple) and get a power on them...but I'm enough surprised by the kind of "hate" , some people could have when the names "Bible" or Religion are pronounced or written.. :)
It's , for some of us , systematically linked to the meanings of Sins and Interdictions ...
which, of course, exist....but in religion , as other things , you could find both things: the good you an keep and the bad you have to left....

So...instead to take the "Bible" and put it directly to the bin without having reading it..may be people could try to read it with another look, with another kind of lecture...not only as strict rules you have to follow if you don't want go directly into the Hell....;)

I mean you can read Bible with an agnostic vision , even with the angle of ""God" has to be a part of that process"...if you wish...
I say that because it seems to me that "The Bible" is a very interesting book about its Psychological aspect....I mean you find into it all the different behaviours/feelings we can find in our society right now: vanity, humility, ambition, jealousy, love, hate...
It's like a description of a mini society and that's why I have interest for this book...

All I read about religion , here, was most often about Censorship and interdictions...
So i wonder how Religion is installed and developped , for exemple in The States...
So I wonder too what is the Proportion of those SECTES which say speaking the langage of Religion but which , indead, have other goals (as power & money) and deform the original message of Religion!

I said i'm not a practicant; I think Jesus Christ ( I speak here as a Christian) , for exemple, has surely existed ...as a kind of philosopher but not as a supernatural creation...
I feel these prophets or patriarch as (Abraham, Moïse, Mahomet, Jesus-Christ) -First Religious Leaders- more as Philosophers...
So you see, Bible could be read with different angles....not only "Everything is in the hand of God" ..
The other thing I would say about that is what I've met , in France, when i went in different religious offices (when you go to Church) isn't a speach of INTERDICTIONS....i've heard words of Love, words which said you have to be better and attentive to the people who are around you...yes, what i've heard is an encouragement to love better the others...
So Religion is , of course interdictions....but not just that .... :bum: ...it's main philosophy is to Love and Respect the others ...isn't it ? :coctail:

My main wish in this post was just to say : you can have several and different looks/ visions/ ways to read the Bible....in keeping more distance, even without religious feelings....just as an instructive book about the different characters which could build a society and about the things which are the BASES of our present laws and present moral, ethic (with the notions of GOOD & BAD)....
Morever, there are a lot of references with The Bible in Arts & Cullture : in paints, sculptures, books....if you don't know the references are about , you miss a lot in the comprehension of the Cultural things ,
Historical point of view is too interesting: we could explain why the Egypian Pharaons who were so powerfull could diseappear so quickly thanks to the Bible and even discover changements of the climates thanks in reading it,
....and don't tell me that Bible is just "History & Past"...:kwink:....it could even be futurism & Science Fiction: creating an human with the part of another human as it was "done" with Adam & Eve isn't so far from our present "Clonage"(clones)...isn't it ? :heh:

Russkayatatu...
What I'm talking about here is something very different: men, and sometimes women, who have been so traumatized that they are unable to accept themselves.....
....
that 'gender identity disorder' ....
....
I think that most people who are against gay marriage are against it for one or both of these reasons: 1) they are disturbed by the kinds of extreme Left attitudes The Death of Right and Wrong talks about, and 2) they think marriage is an institution that should be protected by the church.
..all that is so interesting!!! :p ....yep....i think too that a lot of "good intentions" from people who wanted that Homosexuality was accepted and not anymore considerated as a crime or an illness, indeed had DOUBLE consequences: of course the things have changed a lot ( now , in some countries , you could be homosexual without going directly to jail or psychiatric hospital or even without be killed... :p ) but , in the same time, is the IMAGE OF GAY PEOPLE that the "NORMAL" citizen ( who doesn't know directly homosexual persons) could "catch" in seeing tv or by the newspapers the TRUE ONE ? (I think here to the GAY PRIDE and the impact , consequences that it could have above people for whom HOMOSEXUALITY = just GAY PRIDE...) ....Is there just ONE way/stereotype to be homosexual ?....

So much questions for me now....so i go to sleep now and I'll come back after ...hihi-hi....
And sorry for my long post ::::

cirrus
13-07-2004, 18:11
sunwalk, I totally agree with you. The Bible isn't only a religious story, but is also a very human story about human emotions and dilemmas. It has both good and bad, the good being it can teach people forgiveness and caring. So yes, when people read it with an open mind and don't take it so literally, it can be very positive :)

I guess it's just that here, where I live, most people are conservative Baptists who take every word of the Bible as the "truth". God becomes a part of everything, for they can't separate the good lessons of the Bible and God. They cannot see it from different angles.

Your post was really interesting. I find your beliefs open-minded and very intelligent :rose:

russkayatatu
22-07-2004, 23:03
www.marriagedebate.com

noki_the_cat
22-07-2004, 23:58
In the name of peace. :)
Equality of all people is the base of peace.
Freedom of individual thought is a right of life it self.
The right of ones belief of the interpretation of entity is a result of our existence.
To Impose on others our convictions is oppression.

In the name of мир. :) Равностью всех людей будет основание мира. Свободой индивидуальной мысли будет право жизни оно собственная личность. Правом одних верование толкования реальности будет результат нашего существования. Для того чтобы навести на других нашими осуждениями будут утеснение.

以和平的名義 :) 。所有人民的平等是和平基地。單獨想法自由是生活權利它自已。一□的權利個體的解釋的信仰是我們的存在的結 果。強加給其他人我們的信念是壓迫。

평화에 맹세하여 :) . 모든 사람의 평등은 평화의 기초 이다. 개인적인 생각의 자유는 생활의 권리 그것 각자 이다. 그들의 권리는 실재물의 해석의 신념 우리의 실존의 결과 이다. 다른 사람에 부과하기 위하여는 우리의 확신은 탄압 이다.

Im Namen des Friedens :) . Gleichheit aller Leute ist die Unterseite des Friedens. Freiheit des einzelnen Gedankens ist ein Recht des Lebens es Selbst. Das Recht von einen Glaube der Deutung des Wesens ist ein Resultat unseres Bestehens. Um anderen aufzuerlegen ist unsere Überzeugungen Unterdrückung.