tzor wrote:
But it was the protestants who originally approved all sorts of offenses against chastity, from divorce and remarriage (forbidden directly by Jesus in the Gospels) to contraception. Thus, being "Bible" based, they are forced to play "scripture poker" with the Bible, pulling out one offense from a law which called a number of offenses equally wrong and use this like a sledge hammer against those who are attracted to their own gender. It's almost like a guilt trip, which is why it tends to be the most argumentative.
Not so fast...
What Jesus actually said was that to divorce was wrong because in so doing you made a woman a prostitute. In that time and day, this was essentially true. Even so, he also said "for anything except adultry". In that case, even the Roman Catholic Church has always approved divorce.
The issue of homosexuality is a bit more complex. Chastity is only one aspect. You ignored the part where Roman Catholic Doctrine also held for many years that the only purpose of sex was to procreate, that even heterosexual couples who could not procreate were to remain chaste. The Old Testament has clear laws against homosexuality. However, when Christ came he set up a framework that moved us from strict legalism, which as he showed many times, can easily be misinterpreted and skewed, into a greater understanding of the true intent of the law -- namely to love God and each other.
It is that doctrine to which Protestants and others look when they say not so much that some laws should be simply discarded, but that we need to look at why the laws were there and then work towards the intent, rather than just the strict adherence. In the case of divorce, just as an example, at one time, everyone was essentially abused. When a man could be beaten by his employer, then a man beating his wife was not such a grave ill. Now, though, we call that abuse/violence and (mostly) agree that no woman should have to endure a husband who is abusive. There are other similar situations where fulfillment of the law actually violates the intent.
Anyway, to get back to homosexuality. Religiously, I am on the fence. That is, I believe the primary reason why homosexuality is decried is that we are essentially 2 parts of one whole. We need both the male and the female to be fully complete. That said, evidence is clear that such linear definitions don't apply to everyone. Old ideas of what men are and women are just are not correct, plus there are likely people who are more, well, "mixed" than used to be thought or acknowledged. I mean, just as a clear example, some people are born with both types of genitalia or parts of different genitalia. A child who looks like a boy on the outside, but is actually female on the inside is clearly biologically different from a "standard" girl or boy. It makes sense that such changes might be found in the brain, etc. This means there is clear ambiguity in our ideas of gender. Is this reason enough, belief/faith-wise to say homosexuality is OK? That is an individual decision with each faith/church. Faith is not always about what is easy. For churches, this is one of many difficult decisions/choices. We may, in the future, see this much like the transformation that lead many living in slave-holding societies to see that slavery was wrong until it has become a new paradigm. Or, we may see it as more of a choice of conscience about which there is just disagreement, similar to how faith lead some to become conscientious objectors to war and others to join armies and fight.
Legally, though, I am well over the fence. Laws are about protection, not religious morality. Religion is individual. Too many today want to cry "freedom for me" when what they really mean is "right to deny others". Sorry, your freedom ends when it interferes with someone else. Allowing homosexuals to live as they wish is no different from allowing both Roman Catholics and Protestants practice as they wish, along with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and any other religious practitioners. So homosexuality disagrees with your religion? Fine.. don't do it. That doesn't give you the right to tell others not to do so. (and sorry, if you take a job to issue marriage licenses and it violates your religion.. QUIT YOUR JOB!!!! When you work for taxpayers, you are a public official responsible for ALL, not just those in your church.)
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."
lol quid?
-TG
I am not sure where you think this is happening, except that the internet is allowing it. The internet is also pretty quick to find all sorts of growing negative trends.
What I require is factual data. The data I have seen does not show an increase in this.
Then again, less than a century ago, women were commonly married at age 17, and the standard "fix" for a woman who got pregnant, even unwillingly so, was for her to get married. So....
