Believing that a marriage is between a man and woman makes you a bigot. Really?

[MachZer0]

That's what's called a "stereotype"

If someone were to come in and make a claim about the sexual habits of asians or blacks, they would be roundly denounced. It is no more acceptable to me to make such sweeping statements about gays.

But then, being Asian or black has nothing to do with behavior

 

[SolomonVII]

I am sure that there are statistics on homosexual monagamy and fidelity.

 

[JoyJuice]

I spelled out what you had wrong already, in the very post you responded to here.

I noted how per Deut, what becomes of those who rape a married woman. You making note of how a woman must yell out or else is seen as complicit is really irrelevant. Whether the woman yells out or not (btw what happens when two men are not around to be a witness to the yell?) but regardless how the woman responds, the man is STILL put to death. So you didn't correct anyone.

And it is the Talmud that keeps the detailed records that are the key to understanding the law of Moses. Generally our OT merely references a thing briefly, so for us to think we can grasp its meaning from that is more than a bit odd

.

You made an exact statement, here, let me post it again:

" Well, you almost have this one right. If she was married, she would have to resist the rape by crying out for help, otherwise she would be considered complicit and also stoned to death. Detailed records were kept, how many times was this punishment actually imposed?"
​

So where in the Talmud are thos detailed records of that punishment being meded out to be able to keep track of "how many times was this punishment actually imposed".

....I will wait and remind you.

Ok, so you've proven not to be familiar with Judaism, and now you divorce yourself from any "Christian worldview." What sort of understanding or value do you expect to get from the Holy Bible? Proverbs and the wisdom books to be sure, but other than their general guidance, what?

As a mere academic pursuit or intellectual assent it will yield results that vary greatly from what's intended, and psych wards are filled with such people. The Bible speaks of a "valley of decision"

You have attempted to separate the Bible from God Himself, as well as His people. You have every right to own the book and do with it what you wish, but you have left off from any meaningful communication by severing Scripture from its context this way.

To say and reference Christian values is one thing, to reference the Bible is something completely different. What you referenced is the Bible which means replete with the way marriage is layed out in the TOTAL Bible, and not just slicing out sections that comport with your particular faith view.

 

[[serious]]

I am sure that there are statistics on homosexual monagamy and fidelity.

The question is not do such figures exist as what they say.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

You don't understand tradition do you?... But I don't blame you. We as Americans have been raised to treat everything as a commodity. We've been taught that we're somehow better than everyone because we have the strongest military and the most opportunities, but remember that there's nations out there, Christian or not, who will disagree with your views. What you think is moral may be immoral to them. Not everyone thinks the same. And calling someone a bigot for having a different view is the real bigotry here.

I agree that calling someone a bigot for having different views is bigotry. I respect your views. I simply think your beliefs should only bind those who actually hold them.

I don't agree with you on gay marriage, but I for one am willing to see your side of the argument and make compromise, as I said in one of my earlier posts about agreeing as long as the church can keep it's rights. And that makes me a bigot somehow?

I don't think you're a bigot. If you're willing to compromise, but you think the Church should keep its right to decline to conducting gay marriages there, I think that you're being very reasonable.

No.. bigotry is calling someone else a bigot and not even attempting to see the argument from their point of view, just because you think that their religion and God are false.

I am willing to consider your point of view. It has nothing to do with your God and your religion. I supported SSM when I was a Christian, which has been for most of my life (roughly 15 years out of my 16 years and 5 months).

 

[SolomonVII]

The question is not do such figures exist as what they say.

Of course.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Actually, I thought it was more of the rapist had to marry the woman and couldn't divorce her, or he faced execution for being a rapist...

Does the passage state whether the woman has a say in the matter?

 

[I Eat Pie]

@rainbow, cool then, we're on the same page . Thank you

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

@rainbow, cool then, we're on the same page . Thank you

Good. No problem.

 

[[serious]]

Of course.

So we agree that an unsourced assertion that gays are more promiscuous than their straight counterparts would be wrong?

 

[SolomonVII]

So we agree that an unsourced assertion that gays are more promiscuous than their straight counterparts would be wrong?

There was no unsourced assertion. Just because someone makes an assertion, does not mean that he made it without his own sources.

You are making assumptions that what people write is unsourced.

 

[[serious]]

There was no unsourced assertion. Just because someone makes an assertion, does not mean that he made it without his own sources.

You are making assumptions that what people write is unsourced.

No source was given, hence unsourced.

Words mean things.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

No source was given, hence unsourced.

Words mean things.

I'd have to agree with Solomon. I'm not sure, but I think unsourced more means having no source instead of not having the source given. I may be wrong.

Regardless, I'd like to see the source, if there is one.

 

[SolomonVII]

No source was given, hence unsourced.

Words mean things.

No source given means no source given. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have no idea what the source of the statement was. It is premature to say otherwise. We simply do not know.

Words indeed do have meaning.

The statement is either correct or incorrect. It has neither been supported nor refuted by any sources. To say that it is wrong or bigoted in itself requires a source to support such a contention. Otherwise it is in itself bigotry to assume that the poster was acting from a position of prejudice rather than facts.

 

[Maren]

You don't think the primary role of government given by God is a moral one? You don't think they are to punish the wrongdoer and commend those who do well?

No, my thoughts are more aligned with Jefferson's thoughts on government: “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”

Given the history of government, this is not the organization we want promoting morality. This becomes particularly true when you look at the "Christian" governments of European history -- one of the primary reasons the founders of the United States sought to separate government and religion.

This has virtually no applicability, and certainly pushing for legalization of SSM is in no way the opposite of your stated concern here. Or do you think we earn our way to heaven by our own righteousness simply by hot being married to someone of the same sex?

Again, it is not the (USA) government's job to enforce morality -- but morality is the only valid reason I've ever heard for denying same sex couples the right to marry. If it isn't to enforce your (Christian) morality, then what is the reason for your opposing SSM? Especially since you keep bringing up Christian morality, and the need to protect people from sinning, as your reason for opposing SSM. As such, my comment is applicable.

 

[elephunky]

I am sure that there are statistics on homosexual monagamy and fidelity.

I'm not sure how that's relevant

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm not sure how that's relevant

You would have had to have been following the flow of the conversation for it to have been relevant.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Yes I think it makes someone a bigot.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I noted how per Deut, what becomes of those who rape a married woman. You making note of how a woman must yell out or else is seen as complicit is really irrelevant. Whether the woman yells out or not (btw what happens when two men are not around to be a witness to the yell?)

Already answered that.

but regardless how the woman responds, the man is STILL put to death. So you didn't correct anyone.

Obviously you are responding without really reading what it is you are responding to.

To say and reference Christian values is one thing, to reference the Bible is something completely different. What you referenced is the Bible which means replete with the way marriage is layed out in the TOTAL Bible, and not just slicing out sections that comport with your particular faith view.

You've already demonstrated not being able to keep up with a couple posts, I won't expect you to be able to rightly divide the word of God.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Does the passage state whether the woman has a say in the matter?

Regarding Moses' law on rape - no it doesn't. It only makes brief reference to the item, which is the norm for this section of Scripture. To know what it means one has to familiarize themselves with the whole Talmud - which basically means being a Rabbi.

Therefore all these "armchair Rabbis" rendering opinions on it is ... amusing, at best.