Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[Ming]

Great there's that wall again. If you're going to use said opinion as a club to hypocritically judge other people, why not have the courage to defend it?

Not a wall... a simple fact. If others such as BK are going to use their opinion as their sole argument, why can't others do the same. You do the same thing so who is the hypocrit?

I'm not arguing against that. It's a perfectly valid point to attack Ben on if you feel he is acting differently especially compared to your "Judge not" BS.

It's not BS. While many christian web sites have tried to interpret Jesus's words to fit their needs, other sites interpret it in a different way.
It always comes down to opinion. Again, your opinion vs other opinions.
In reading through many different discussions on the topic, it is my opinion that Jesus meant what he said... let God be the judge, because all men are sinners and are not in a position to judge. Nobody is without sin, so who are they to judge the sins of others. In my opinion, those that use religion to justify their sins are the worst sinners of all.

[DinoDoc]

Not a wall... a simple fact.

Facts can be defended. Opinions can be supported with reason. Walls and handwaving are simply retreated behind as a refuge.

It's not BS.

What would you call a theological arguement from BK with no support in the Bible and little to none in Christian thought? Much worse things I imagine based on the tone BK's posts bring on themselves in response.

other sites interpret it in a different way.

Link one.

it is my opinion that Jesus meant what he said...

Indeed. Were it not for your zeal to use this arguement as a club to condemn BK as a hypocrite, you might come to realize it is the wrong track to use as it has little basis theologically (which I presume was the point of bringing it up in the 1st place) and logically.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. - John 7:24

Hell a mere five verses down from your weapon we have Matt 7:6 (Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.), to quote the article I linked earlier how are we going to know as undesirable the behaviors of "dogs" and "swine" if we do not judge?

In my opinion, those that use religion to justify their sins are the worst sinners of all.

Agreed.

[MrFun]

I'd like to point out that once a person digs down through all the muck, I have a very pure spirit.

aaawww

[Monk]

Elok, I can edit wikipedia myself.

It ain't a reliable source.

Okay, but at least we brought something to the table. Maybe now you can provide a source for your eros claim that's more reliable. After all you were the one making a claim to begin with. Who says eros is restricted to opposite-sex partners?

[MrFun]

Dipsh*ts like BK are the ones who say that there is no such thing as romantic love between two gay men or two lesbians, Monk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dipsh*ts like BK are the ones who say that there is no such thing as romantic love between two gay men or two lesbians, Monk.

Sigh.

Use the word. Eros. If by romantic, you mean courtly love, the answer is the same.

It really depends on who you talk to. Eros isn't defined that way by Plato, who coined the term in the first place. It's come to mean the same as libido which is a modern corruption.

The Christian understanding is that eros is in a sense ecstasy. It can be felt by anyone, including monks and nuns towards God, and between a man and a woman in marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

And being persecuted is no excuse to persecute back. I don't condone what they did, but i think if you look at it which came first, I think your persecution against gays came first. Great way to justify your persecution.

Calling out a need for repentence is hardly persecution. They are free to ignore. Everyone is in need of repentence.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know from plenty of other sources that the ancient Greeks were huge on pederasty, and eros was certainly inclusive of the NAMBLA stuff.

Which sources?

IIRC they actually thought boy-diddling was the best kind of relationship, since women could never be men's intellectual equals.

They never confused the two. They always kept the two separate from each other. The modern day concept would be entirely foreign to them, the idea that 'gay marriage' was even possible would be the same.

Greeks, like anybody else, disagree. There are multitudes of opinions. The way I see things is that there is a history of thought, where the Greeks built all the shelves. Every western idea is included somewhere on their shelves.

As for courtly love, I daresay you've been corrupted by the modernist interpretation. Moderns and post moderns have a profound hatred of the middle ages. Frankly I'm disappointed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is unable to acknowledge his sins. That's what will get him in the end

How would you know?

I have a confessor here. Very kind but I miss my priest friend from Vancouver.

[Ben Kenobi]

the context of that verse is a direct response to as question by the Pharisees asking Jesus if "it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" in verse 3 and unrelated to the issue of homosexuality. This is confirmed by the conversation continuing to be about the issue of divorce after your quote.

The question is not, "is marriage for gay people?"

The real question is, "what is the purpose of marriage?".

This applies to both the question asked of him, about divorce. He is rejecting divorce because it is contrary to the Christian ideal of marriage, the ideal of which is adam and eve, man and women, bound together until death do you part.

He very clearly says, "male and female". That's a very important point, and he quotes directly from Genesis, to defend the model of Adam and Eve in marriage. This is why God created both men and women to be different and complementary to one another.

This is used to counteract divorce, but when coupled with Romans 1, I can't see how anyone could interpret that Christian marriage includes sodomy.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I'd like to point out that once a person digs down through all the muck, I have a very pure spirit.

Have you seen "Spirited Away", Sloww? There's a pretty cool scene in that animated movie where they're washing a really disgusting mud spirit in a public bath, and the stench is revolting. But underneath all the muck, a pure dragon spirit emerged.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's easy to hide behind those rules when engaging in bigotry.

So you assume that anyone standing up for their private property is engaged in bigotry? Why is this?

Even though the articles strongly suggest that both partners wanted to be around each other? Even quoting them?

The article said no such thing. The closest they came is that she said she was afraid of dying. I'm sure the nurses informed her that no one else was allowed in the ICU, (for very good medical reasons), which they bent when death was imminent. All of these are inconvenient facts left out by the NY Times.

It is a tragedy, but to blame the hospital is to spit in the face of those who tried their very damn best to save the life of this woman. Calling them bigots is a huge insult. I sure wouldn't want to be the nurse caring for someone who thought I was a bigot when I'm trying to save their damn life. Wake up and smell the coffee, and be thankful!

Your grandmother is not at issue here. Nice try, ****wit.

Ooh. ****wit. Is that worse then a ****head? Is there a sliding scale?

If I were your dad, I wouldn't want you around on my deathbed either.

Such class.

If there are examples of straight families being allowed in, then it is bigotry. And that's what we'll find out with this lawsuit.

No one is more important then their policy. Only certain parts of a hospital are accessible, and from what I'm reading, this lady was nevrer in a regular hospital bed.

I said that she loved truly, and the man she was in love with did not love her back. I did not say she necessarily needed to be liberated, because it worked for her, no matter how disagreeable and reprehensible I find the situation. Sure, if I were there, I'd've advised her that the husband was no good, as he clearly wasn't, but if she wanted to go back to him, I'd've stepped out of the way.

I respect that. Why don't you?

So you don't think I'd step out of the way of a gay couple? What a joke. If that's the relationship they want, that's fine. Just don't force me to accept your relationship. Acceptance is not a part of 'live and let live. Tolerance is the name of the game. This means I don't like you, but I put up with your liberties. Acceptance is a whole nother ball of wax.

[Elok]

Which sources?
As for courtly love, I daresay you've been corrupted by the modernist interpretation. Moderns and post moderns have a profound hatred of the middle ages. Frankly I'm disappointed.

Not going to touch the rest of your tripe, but seriously? Le Roman de la Rose? Gigantic, long-winded allegory plainly describing a young man's attempt to get it on with a little girl? Hugely popular work in the middle ages? Inspired a knock-down, drag-out fight between Christine de Pizan and its supporters for alleged lewdness? Not ringing a bell?

How about Chretien's Lancelot? "The Art of Courtly Love?" It's not a matter of "interpreting" anything. The earliest texts quite explicitly say that Love is an institution of extramarital sex in which a man subordinates himself to the "lordship" of a woman so he can get past her garter. Andreas spells it out in a bloody catechism.

[Arrian]

You speak of tolerance, but you only tolerate because you have to. If it were still politically acceptable to take a more authoritarian stance, I have no doubt at all that you would. A few decades ago you'd have been defending sodomy laws.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

In 2002 or 2003, the federal government in United States finally outlawed the stupid sodomy laws. I cannot remember if BK actually expressed his opposition to the repeal of those discriminatory laws? If he seriously did, I bet that was ****ing amusing.