Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. If anything, one could conclude he was quite liberal on issues of a sexual nature. If you recall, a similarly taboo sexual subject of his time, adulterous prostitution, was tackled by Jesus. Most of the negative views Christians have on homosexuality were authored by Paul. I do welcome any correction to the preceding statement.
Jesus did not exclude the prostitute from his ministry. That doesn't exactly mean that he approved of prostitution. "Go forth and sin no more."
Very true Coel, and I did not wish to suggest such (although I did - i am sorry). It is a great example of Jesus' loving, forgiving, and understanding nature. I think church and state should be separate, so I side with those that wish these unions could be legal. But I also think polygamy should be okay, and I know people think I'm crazy for that.
Coel, has it ever occurred to you that maybe your replies are insulting? I am not going to engage in a discussion which not only has no end, but revolves around fairy tales. No 'but' even needed. Yes, I conclude sometimes - its awesome, try it out. Take care
CrazyFoo, you made me laugh. Jesus did talk about the proper use of sexuality, and he clearly defined marriage. He also stated the adulterous woman had sinned, just that he did not condemn her to death for it. Which is kinda the point of Jesus' life, as he offers forgiveness by nature Who He is and what He accomplished.
Is your supposed "right" to marry more important than my Constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but NAIU is attempting to shame me because of my religious beliefs. He's suggesting that my religious views cause me to support a discriminatory policy. Now, this does not necessarily indicate that he thinks the discriminatory policy itself is a result of other peoples' religious views, but one might ask: if the discriminatory policy is not a function of popular religious views, then what does he think it's a function of? If it's not a function of religion, then it must be a function of some rational thought. And if it's rational, then I have additional support in my argument against JohnnyM. Or, if the discriminatory policy is a function of religious belief after all, then he's suggesting that religious views should be subordinated to his own sense of how marriage should be defined.
And by the way, since this thread was started based on an article by Ted Boies, and since he wrote that as a precursor to his trial to overturn Prop 8, I'd like to point out that it's all over but the crying at this point. Closing arguments will be held soon, probably in March, but all witnesses have been called for both the prosecution and the defense. The defense called two witnesses, both of whom admitted under oath that gay people are hurt because of the laws currently in place. One of them would not have been admitted as an expert in a jury trial, and proved why he wouldn't have while on the stand. It was a pretty pathetic showing by the defense. You can read the transcripts, if you are so inclined at: The Link
Coel - I think you are correct that if the Court applies a rational basis standard, the limitations on marriage will likely withstand the test. I don't like that outcome, but I do think that would happen because the rational basis test is extremely easy to meet. That being said, I do not think it's a given that the RBT will be applied and I think the marriage limitations will have a very, very difficult time meeting any standard that is more strict than RB. Over time, I hope individual liberty is successful because I personally don't see any good reason for limiting marriage. Your argument that our liberty as people to vote our conscience is infringed when the courts uphold individual liberties is laughable, at least to me. I value individual liberty to act in a way that is not detrimental to society over the liberty to legislate religious-based morality.
NAIU- For the record, I am in complete favor of gay marriage and think it is one of the worst causes that the conservatives fight over.
