LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

(I've been away, but this thread seems to keep moving along.)

I did. I stated what I suspect. Others may conclude differently, but one cannot escape the assumption that they will conclude something.

The issue isn't about conclusion, but inclusion and representation. If you are not a representative of a group and speak as an individual, then the singular is the standard.

Yes, I understand that you refuse to answer my question, and I have a pretty good idea why.

No, refusing to answer, and giving a reason why not, even specifying a question you would rather answer, none of these are the same as answering. I asked you whether you would agree or disagree with the ruling in a set of cases, and you refuse to answer. I understand.

You are confused. I have said repeatedly: pick a case. I don't really care which. I have had multiple discussions with anti-Mormons where a series of questions are crammed together. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the questions themselves, but a shotgun approach of rattling off such a series typically indicates a lack of any serious interest in dialogue. If you really want to understand Constructionist Thought, then pick a case you are interested in and it can serve as a springboard. If you refuse or are unwilling to do this, then I don't really think you are/were interested, but were opting for the shotgun approach I've seen before.

I see. So the 4 sources I cited have no bearing; only the OED counts? Odd, since it's a British dictionary. I wonder why Merriam-Webster isn't good enough for you?

The OED is considered the standard for the English Language much like Dudens is for German or Larousse for French. If you wish to challenge the meaning of a term, then it is particularly helpful as it includes not only etymology but when terms were first used and when variants were introduced. Sources like Wiki are agenda ridden and not legitimate sources: anyone can post anything they want. As far as Merriam and similar fair, find me a citation from said dictionary from say before the mid 90s that defines marriage as including gays. Once Hawaii and the Massachusetts's court began their invention project with the law, dictionaries naturally began to note the new legal innovations. Were Courts to decide inter-species relations were also marriage, and people started rushing to wed their German Sheppards: dictionary's would reflect that. If one wants to know the meaning of a thing independent of legal imposition, then one must look to the meaning before those impositions. The base point is marriage has traditionally been understood as cross-gender. Challenges to that standard certainly exist and various authoritarians have tried to force their views as a new standard, but as has been explained: these are innovations and attempts to alter meaning, not something contained in the meaning originally.

Correct. Marriage requires human beings, as only human beings are capable of a marital relationship.

Actually marriage is cross-gender. The relations of the same gender, the relations of people with animals or rose bushes is something else.

There is no right to marriage in the California Constitution.

And yet many Californians enjoy it.

They do indeed.

Marriage under the law is provided equally: a man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. The fact a man cannot marry his German Sheppard does not constitute a breech. The fact a man cannot marry his sister (even though cross gender) does not constitute a breech).

A breech? What is that? Did you mean breach? Of what? What are you talking about? Now you're trying to assert that this law does not discriminate? Is that your argument? May I suggest that if the shoe were on the other foot, you might see that a little differently? A law that a man cannot marry his sister does discriminate, and that discriminatin is upheld, because it has been found to serve a legitimate government purpose. Discriminating against gay marriage does not.

Law by definition discriminates. "(D)oes not constitute a breech" refers to no violation of equity claims. Gay relations are not marriages. They are not similarly situated with marriage. They are distinct on an existential level. Incest relations claimants have a better case than does the gay advocate.

The government has no vested interest in gay relation advocacy. Any legal standing gay relationships may have under the law, must come via persuasion of the citizenry and the legislative process, as was done with Domestic Partnerships in Cali.

There was no gay marriage under Roman law. Homosexuality itself was suspect. We know from Polybius, homosexuality was punishable by death in the Legion. The enemies of Julius Caesar charged "Caesar is a man to every woman and a women for every man" based on the idea that early in his political career he allowed himself to be buggered by a fellow whose help he needed. Caesar always denied the charge. Of course there were certainly cases of homosexuality. The Emperor Tiberius was condemned for it. We also have the example of a Roman Senator who announced a wedding celebration for himself and his male lover. This is found in the works of the satirist Junvenal who lampooned for its absurdity.

Perhaps you should correct the wiki page, if you're so confident.

You do not know the subject matter. The Theodosian Code is after Rome had already adopted Christianity as the state religion. The sexual mores of the Judeo-Christian Tradition(s) were clear. Gayness was considered a sin. The Theodosian code notes clearly that when a married man is then buggered by men he should be punished severely. As to Martial: he was a poet and satirist. Thus, his epigrams are satire (i.e. ridicule), not a discourse on law. There was no recognized gay marriage in Roman law: zero. The wiki you cite is comical. It is an example of assertion void of substance. All too often those with agendas will sacrifice historicity for their purpose. Unfortunately, the Gay lobby has a history along these lines.

In what way, that actually relates to marriage. We have already established that child-bearing is not relevant, as fertility is not, and has never been, a requirement for marriage.

Equity claims turn on similar situatedness. Marriages and gay relations are not similarly situated. There is a base potentiality to produce with one that doesn't exist with the other. The state has a natural interest in the production and foster of citizens. Marriage is the most stable vehicle for that production and foster.


As an aside, what I find fascinating in our discussion is that you recognize the innovation of Roe, and I assume the social tension and division that has come in its wake, yet seem to be advocating a parallel vision for gay marriage. The California Supreme Court's Majority Opinion couched its rights' invention in terms of dignity. Dignity cannot be dictated by the bench. Persuasion in the public square is the only way to win hearts and minds. The authoritarian route via Judicial Imperialism is by definition divisive and will only lead to entrenched positions and greater hostility. Were I gay or an advocate for the cause, I wouldn't advise the farce of claiming one thing is another i.e. a dog's tail is actually a leg or gay relations are marriages, but seek social acceptance of what gay relations are in and of themselves. To illustrate: in India there is the common law and also religious law. Both have standing. One does not pretend a protocol of one must apply to the other. Domestic Partnerships via the popular will in California have legal standing. This is a natural springboard for increased social acceptance. Verbiage about a gay right to marriage or that gay relations are the same as marriages via the power of the court is not only invention and an abuse of language, but cuts against the socio-political thrust for social acceptance I think gay households desire.

 

[emiliano]

Are you honestly trying to argue that divorce is not prohibited? It's true, there are conflicting passages, one that prohibits it altogether, and two that prohibit it except for fornication, but surely we can agree that divorce for any reason other than fornication is strictly and explicitly prohibited, right? So I suppose you've put a lot of energy into making sure that Australia prohibits divorce except for fornication?

Now, are you trying to argue that some passage does prohibit lesbianism? Because, you know, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. btw, I am a Jew.

Yes, Romans says that sex that was unnatural for these women was a consequence of their irreligious actions--we agree on that. And that's the only place in the entire Bible that it's mentioned, right? So can we agree that there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that prohibits it? Unlike divorce, which is always prohibited except possibly in case of fornication?

Well, well, we are getting somewhere, now I hope that you grant me that the Pentateuch where the 613 statutes and ordinances are found has no references to women, it is as if don’t exist, but to take that fact as meaning that it does not condemn Lesbianism is a bit of a stretch , don’t you think? This issue is about the recent actions by Christian (LDS in particular) in support of the restoration of the proposition 22 definition of a valid marriage, in Christianity churches are organised mostly in accordance to the Epistles of Saint Paul, the letter on the OP is a call to rally in defence of this proposition that is clearly supported in the in the Bible, in fact Paul has a lot more to say in respect of the condemnation that those that dishonour their bodies by the use they make of it will incur , you must understand that when it comes to the conduct of the Church and its members, we Christian follow the organisational teaching of the Apostle Paul. At least that is what successful churches do.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, well, we are getting somewhere, now I hope that you grant me that the Pentateuch where the 613 statutes and ordinances are found has no references to women, it is as if don’t exist, but to take that fact as meaning that it does not condemn Lesbianism is a bit of a stretch , don’t you think?

You're mistaken. There are many references to women in the Tanakh, from Eve, through Esther. There are many, many regulations as to who one might have sex with, and who not. There's a very long list of people you can't have sex with, and many of them are women. But what's never prohibited is Lesbianism. Now this is your God, the omnipotent, setting out all the laws that He wants his people to follow. Do you think He just forgot? It's no stretch, emiliano, it's a fact. It's not prohibited. Period. Therefore, obviously, it's permitted. So please stop telling lies about God and saying that He prohibits it. He doesn't.

This issue is about the recent actions by Christian (LDS in particular) in support of the restoration of the proposition 22 definition of a valid marriage, in Christianity churches are organised mostly in accordance to the Epistles of Saint Paul, the letter on the OP is a call to rally in defence of this proposition that is clearly supported in the in the Bible, in fact Paul has a lot more to say in respect of the condemnation that those that dishonour their bodies by the use they make of it will incur , you must understand that when it comes to the conduct of the Church and its members, we Christian follow the organisational teaching of the Apostle Paul. At least that is what successful churches do.

Paul doesn't prohibit it either. It's not prohibited. Period. In either testament. That's the fact of the matter. So what do you think the problem is with all those Christians? What do you think their true motive is? Why do you think they spend millions of dollars battling something that isn't prohibited (lesbianism) and not a penny battling something that is (remarriage after divorce.) Any idea?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I must say, Autodidact, I do not get your point.

Are you saying that the homophobia based on centuries of Christian tradition on the matter is not religiously based or motivated when you speak of there being some 'real motive'? Are you suggesting that they do not actually think homosexuality is a sin, but decide to act as though it is for some other purpose?

I just really think that people that think it is a sin think so for religious reasons, whether backed solidly by scripture or not.

 

[painted wolf]

For The Bible Tells Me So

wa:do

 

[Sententia]

The secular argument Orontes is presenting is that our government prefers marriages of differing sexes and has an interest in making babies to perpetuate the nation.

It is completely untrue and I would expect most to understand that government doesn't get involved in personal life matters like who you are allowed to love. The government's purpose is not to dictate who you are allowed to love or to sanction a relationship on the basis of whether of not you can make babies.

The government does though grant extra rights to people who are married and denying those rights based on the sex of the people entering into the agreement is sexism. It also contradicts equality of all men and women and is a founding principle our country was founded on.

What is confounding is the people supporting this logic don't understand what it implicates and how immoral it is to enforce your beliefs onto others. It is repression and unamerican.

Emiliano's argument is the bible says its wrong and we should listen to the bible because its god word. The bible also says do not assume you know the word of god. It says its ok to keep slaves. If a child disobeys its parents the bible says they are to be slain. If a woman is raped and does not call out she is to be slain. Emiliano's argument is fallicious. In order for Emiliano to prove his argument that the bible is correct as it was written by god and perfect he must prove all those claims. That the bible is the word of god, that god exists and that how gods inspiration was interpreted and translated and ultimately how emiliano read and interpreted it and is arguing with us here and now is perfect. Since that is literally impossible to do we can discount emiliano until a real argument is presented. The bible says its wrong is laughable at best if it is the only offered evidence.

Orontes argument is more disturbing. Our nation should actively choose how our family life is to be made up. This is an argument that government defines acceptable family and bedroom behavior and discriminates against those that disagrees and enforces the discrimination by law.

I see the religious overtones and selfish argument there but I also see intolerance and hate. I do not see the morality, respect or understanding. I do not see a support for the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal.

It seems like someone is going out of their way to enforce their religious beliefs on others who in no way would otherwise interact with them. It seems like intolerance of lifestyles you dont understand. Not long ago people kept slaves and thought nothing of it and we had a revolution to right the obvious immorality of treating others as less than equal and now in 2008 a new argument is emerging and trying to steam roll americans into again thinking that others because of their life partners are not equal... Their crime is not against another human but against someone's religious belief.... We have a seperation of church and state for many, many reasons.

 

[DeepShadow]

O.K. try this. Find the woman you love. Then propose to her that you all sign some legal documents such as power of attorney, and only get married in the church, and see how that goes over.

I wouldn't accept the state's authority on baptism, confirmation, ordination etc. If they got out of the marriage business, this would just be one more religious ordinance that I would go for in a religious setting. What's so strange about that?

 

[fantome profane]

I must say, Autodidact, I do not get your point.

Are you saying that the homophobia based on centuries of Christian tradition on the matter is not religiously based or motivated when you speak of there being some 'real motive'? Are you suggesting that they do not actually think homosexuality is a sin, but decide to act as though it is for some other purpose?

I just really think that people that think it is a sin think so for religious reasons, whether backed solidly by scripture or not.

By definition homophobia is based on fear, extreme irrational fear. People can come up with all kinds of things to try to rationalize the irrational, but there is a difference between a rationalization and a reason. In this case there are no reasons.

 

[painted wolf]

So the non-religious shouldn't get married?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I must say, Autodidact, I do not get your point.

Are you saying that the homophobia based on centuries of Christian tradition on the matter is not religiously based or motivated when you speak of there being some 'real motive'? Are you suggesting that they do not actually think homosexuality is a sin, but decide to act as though it is for some other purpose?

I just really think that people that think it is a sin think so for religious reasons, whether backed solidly by scripture or not.

What I'm saying is that they're mistaken. They've been told by pastors that it's a sin, and the great majority of Christians never read the Bible and don't know what's in it. Rather they have their cultural prejudices and taboos, and assume, wrongly, that the Bible supports them in those. They have never thought about the fact that the Bible permits slavery, divorce and polygamy, and prohibits trimming the corners of beards, because they haven't read it. They're ignorant of what they think their religion is. In reality, often their religion is just a confirmation of their preconceived notions, which are essentially their personal prejudices.

I've had had Christians tell me that their Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. Of course, it doesn't, and when challenged they usually quietly disappear. The truth is that the common marriage system in Biblical culture was polygamy and the Bible is full of it.

 

[emiliano]

You're mistaken. There are many references to women in the Tanakh, from Eve, through Esther. There are many, many regulations as to who one might have sex with, and who not. There's a very long list of people you can't have sex with, and many of them are women. But what's never prohibited is Lesbianism. Now this is your God, the omnipotent, setting out all the laws that He wants his people to follow. Do you think He just forgot? It's no stretch, emiliano, it's a fact. It's not prohibited. Period. Therefore, obviously, it's permitted. So please stop telling lies about God and saying that He prohibits it. He doesn't. Paul doesn't prohibit it either. It's not prohibited. Period. In either testament. That's the fact of the matter. So what do you think the problem is with all those Christians? What do you think their true motive is? Why do you think they spend millions of dollars battling something that isn't prohibited (lesbianism) and not a penny battling something that is (remarriage after divorce.) Any idea?

Oops, I am not a Tanach Christian, so please quote those scripture that have “many regulations as to who one might have sex with, and who not” and specifically those that show females having sex with females and that it’s OK. The list of females having sex with other women would be interesting. Adam lay with Eve a female, not a man, Eve did not have sex with a woman, but Adam. Ester? Deborah? Why did the Lord reminded the Jews that God create humans male and female? And why He rose the subject when discoursing on marriage?
The Apostle Paul is clear in Rom 1:32 That those that know the righteous order of God, that is that “From the beginning God the creator create them male and female” and dishonour their bodies are spiritualty dead, Paul goes even farther and says that even condonation of such act leads to spiritual death. I am sorry but it is clear to me that hosexuality and lesbianism are equally condemned in the Bible. And consider that at any rate the majority of people that cast a yes vote for proposition 8 were not Tanach followers, they are not as numerous as Christians, thus the result, the definition of marriage is the union of a man to a woman.
Auto most divorces are caused by infidelities/fornications sooo. ?????????
You can start a campaign agaist divorce if it is so important to you.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

What I'm saying is that they're mistaken. They've been told by pastors that it's a sin, and the great majority of Christians never read the Bible and don't know what's in it. Rather they have their cultural prejudices and taboos, and assume, wrongly, that the Bible supports them in those. They have never thought about the fact that the Bible permits slavery, divorce and polygamy, and prohibits trimming the corners of beards, because they haven't read it. They're ignorant of what they think their religion is. In reality, often their religion is just a confirmation of their preconceived notions, which are essentially their personal prejudices.

I've had had Christians tell me that their Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. Of course, it doesn't, and when challenged they usually quietly disappear. The truth is that the common marriage system in Biblical culture was polygamy and the Bible is full of it.

I grant you, the stance on homosexuality in the Bible is not as clear as some make it out to be, but it is certainly one that can be supported in interpretation of scripture. Remember, just because a passage has multiple interpretations doesn't mean that one take on it is suddenly absolutely wrong, just that it is more questionable than before. People are free to take that as they like. Obviously the LDS stance against homosexuality is a lot more strongly justified given that we have prophetic counsel against it.

Thus, I see your point, but this understaning of homosexuality is still rooted in the Christian faith, be it biblically justifiable or not. I do not see what other mechanism the view of homosexuality being wrong could really have been propagated with. I do not really support a view that if this aspect of theology were not taught to people, that they would still be particularly averse to homosexuality. Remove religion from the equation and I do not think any discrimination would exist.

 

[Autodidact]

Oops, I am not a Tanach Christian, so please quote those scripture that have “many regulations as to who one might have sex with, and who not”

Hmmm, isn't all scripture of God to you? O.K. I'll help you out. It's in Levitucus 18.

and specifically those that show females having sex with females and that it’s OK.

This is what we call moving the goalposts. I never said that the Bible specifically authorizes this, (unlike, say, slavery, which it does) but that it is not prohibited. Are you trying to argue that everything not specifically authorized in the Bible is immoral? O.K., but don't use your computer to do it, it's not authorized. It's now time for you to agree or appear dishonest.

The list of females having sex with other women would be interesting.

Maybe you're thinking of some other book?

Adam lay with Eve a female, not a man, Eve did not have sex with a woman, but Adam. Ester? Deborah? Why did the Lord reminded the Jews that God create humans male and female?

You're really reaching now.

And why He rose the subject when discoursing on marriage?

The Biblical model for female love would be
"Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me." (Ruth 1:16-17 NKJV)

The Apostle Paul is clear in Rom 1:32 That those that know the righteous order of God, that is that “From the beginning God the creator create them male and female” and dishonour their bodies are spiritualty dead, Paul goes even farther and says that even condonation of such act leads to spiritual death. I am sorry but it is clear to me that hosexuality and lesbianism are equally condemned in the Bible. And consider that at any rate the majority of people that cast a yes vote for proposition 8 were not Tanach followers, they are not as numerous as Christians, thus the result, the definition of marriage is the union of a man to a woman.

I realize that you enjoy hallucinating this, but you're just substituting your base prejudice for God's actual words, because it's not. If you say that God prohibits lesbianism, you're lying about God. And we have a word for that, emiliano, and it's not a nice one.

Auto most divorces are caused by infidelities/fornications sooo. ?????????

Stats? Point?

You can start a campaign agaist divorce if it is so important to you.

Why would it be important to me? I'm neither Christian nor heterosexual. It's supposed to be important to you and your brother and sister Christians. Any idea why it isn't? How about sheer hypocricy?

Here I'll make it easy for you to do the right thing, or show us that you have no integrity. Either cite the verse where it's prohibited, admit that it's not, or demonstrate your utter lack of integrity. Or, I suppose a fourth choice would be to flee the thread, which is pretty much the same as #3.

 

[Autodidact]

I grant you, the stance on homosexuality in the Bible is not as clear as some make it out to be, but it is certainly one that can be supported in interpretation of scripture. Remember, just because a passage has multiple interpretations doesn't mean that one take on it is suddenly absolutely wrong, just that it is more questionable than before. People are free to take that as they like. Obviously the LDS stance against homosexuality is a lot more strongly justified given that we have prophetic counsel against it.

I didn't say homosexuality, Clown, I said lesbianism. The argument about homosexuality is more complicated and depends on translation. The argument about lesbianism is not. There's nothing to interpret or translate, because it's not prohibited.

Thus, I see your point, but this understaning of homosexuality is still rooted in the Christian faith, be it biblically justifiable or not. I do not see what other mechanism the view of homosexuality being wrong could really have been propagated with. I do not really support a view that if this aspect of theology were not taught to people, that they would still be particularly averse to homosexuality. Remove religion from the equation and I do not think any discrimination would exist.

Wow, this is a dynamite post. I don't know whether I agree, but what a condemnation of Christianity. Here Clown tells us that there is no Biblical justification for this bigotry, but it's still religion, specifically Christianity, that is responsible for this immoral discrimination, for inflicting suffering on millions of people throughout history, without any justification even in their own holy texts. Wow.

Meanwhile, as I say over and over, not even attempting to abide by what is in their holy book themselves.

So, Clown, do you think Christians are especially hypocritical, or is this your view of most people?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I didn't say homosexuality, Clown, I said lesbianism. The argument about homosexuality is more complicated and depends on translation. The argument about lesbianism is not. There's nothing to interpret or translate, because it's not prohibited.

Wow, this is a dynamite post. I don't know whether I agree, but what a condemnation of Christianity. Here Clown tells us that there is no Biblical justification for this bigotry, but it's still religion, specifically Christianity, that is responsible for this immoral discrimination, for inflicting suffering on millions of people throughout history, without any justification even in their own holy texts. Wow.

Meanwhile, as I say over and over, not even attempting to abide by what is in their holy book themselves.

So, Clown, do you think Christians are especially hypocritical, or is this your view of most people?

The biblical justification against lesbianism is found in Romans 1:26. When read continuously with v 27 as well, we get:

"[FONT=arial,helvetica]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Granted, this is not exactly crystal clear, but I do support the notion that this can be read as 'they were so bad even the women were at it, as well as the men' - if I may be so blunt in this assessment. Again, not crystal clear, but it does give the standpoint some justification.

-- I think it is best for these two bits to be a little separate --

My 'dynamite' wasn't intended to be a criticism of Christianity as a faith, though I would agree there are many uneducated Christians out there. I would not extend to call them hypocritical as much as just unaware of a lot of theory behind their own faith, and thus they only practice and reflect something of a partial element of their faith.

I'll put it this way. I could use my laptop as a club with which to beat someone around the head. Certainly it can be used in that way, but the laptop being used as a club is in no way a reflection of it's technological brilliance and other capabilities. Rather it would be a bad reflection on me for abusing the laptop by not understanding its use and acting accordingly.

In this way, people can use what elements of Christianity leap out to them to ends that do not reflect either well or fairly on the principles of Christianity. Homosexuality is just one example of where such abuse occurs. People take things at face value when told that homosexuality is a sin, and thus conclude that homosexuals need controlling or indeed worse things done to them, when in fact Christianity would call for a loving response, as per the lines "judge not lest ye be judged" and "hate the sin, not the sinner"

Thus I do believe that the hateful discrimination often poured on homosexuals by Christians is a poor reflection on them, yes. Hypocritical? Perhaps in some cases, but most often merely miseducated.

It would not be fair to assert that this is a bad reflection on the Christian faith, however.
[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, you're right, the only place in the entire several thousand pages that lesbianism is mentioned is Romans 1:26. I think if you read this sort of objectively, try to set aside that you've been told over and over that lesbianism is a sin, what it says is that these people turned away from God. As a punishment, God caused them to do all these horrible things, including having sex with each other. However, I would add that, even looking at it from a strictly Christian point of view (as opposed to actual history, below) homosexual sex would be unnatural for heterosexuals, and vice versa. The writer is not crazy about these activities, but they are not actually prohibited.

In fact, we all know what was going on. The Bible was written by men who never heard of or thought about or possibly even knew of the existence of lesbians, so they just left it out. Finally we come across one who has heard of it, and finds it weird and bad, no doubt to the same kind of narrow, prejudiced attitudes around him that we see here.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate your thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't have said anything about the Christian faith, only about Christians. "Christianity" here should have read "Christians." These pro-divorce, anti-gay Christians are pure, unadulterated hypocrites, best symbolized by Ted Haggard.

 

[McBell]

Yes, you're right, the only place in the entire several thousand pages that lesbianism is mentioned is Romans 1:26.

And even then one has to make certain assumptions that said verse is actually talking about lesbianism and not beastiality, or prostitution, or adultry, or masturbation, or doggie style sex, or oral sex... ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, this is a dynamite post. I don't know whether I agree, but what a condemnation of Christianity. Here Clown tells us that there is no Biblical justification for this bigotry, but it's still religion, specifically Christianity, that is responsible for this immoral discrimination, for inflicting suffering on millions of people throughout history, without any justification even in their own holy texts. Wow.

To be fair, though, not all of Christianity considers the Bible to be the sole source of doctrine.

For example, AFAIK, the Catholic Church's stance against lesbianism could be argued to be based on Tradition, which they consider as valid a source of doctrine as the Bible.

The biblical justification against lesbianism is found in Romans 1:26. When read continuously with v 27 as well, we get:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Granted, this is not exactly crystal clear, but I do support the notion that this can be read as 'they were so bad even the women were at it, as well as the men' - if I may be so blunt in this assessment. Again, not crystal clear, but it does give the standpoint some justification.

Far from crystal clear, IMO. The Bible's not so keen about lust generally. I'm sure you could find plenty of passages where heterosexual lust is condemned, but that doesn't mean that heterosexuality in general is condemned as well.

I think to take that passage as a blanket prohibition on lesbianism, you have to first decide that romantic love between two women must only be lust and not "real love", which is a baseless (and, IMO, untrue) assumption found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[DeepShadow]

So the non-religious shouldn't get married?

wa:do

On the contrary, I have no problem with people going to a secular authority if they want to declare their feelings for each other. Just like I have no problem with atheists celebrating Christmas. I DO have a problem with the government getting into the business of telling people what is or isn't "official" Christmas tradition.

 

[painted wolf]

uh... I don't think I've had the government tell me what 'official' Christmas traditions are...
but what does that have to do with your statement that the Government shouldn't marry people?

Where do the non-religious go to get married?

I'm also sure that the government doesn't tell churches what rites to perform for their own marriages... so what is your point?

wa:do