The Observation Deck

Well I am pleased that the Council voted last night to have a Gay Pride Week. But I was disappointed that Councilman Demro voted against it.

I checked and Mr. Demro has voted for other resolutions - so it wasn't that he was philosophically opposed to resolutions. It is my understanding that he did so without any comment.

Mr. Salo,

You are saying that God created morality? What about the societies that didn't recognize God? Were they immoral? Do you believe Athesist to be immoral? Can't people want to live a good life and contribute the most to society in a positive way without fearing for hell? You seem to imply that the only reason people are good is the promise of heaven and the fear of damnation. That is a depressing thought. I find people to be intrinsically good.

Speaking of such, I answered your questions, but you didn't answer mine. The same book of the bible (Leviticus) that forbids homosexuality is the one that discusses the dietary laws. You accused me of picking and choosing - but you didn't share whether you also pick and choose. BTW, I do believe that is why we have so many different denominations - the interpetations of the Bible is different.

Lynn,

Here is a paragraph from another website with some other verses that address homosexual actions.

"Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “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 recompense of their error which was meet.â€Â

More recent interpretations note that this fails to account for the fact that the sexual practices between men that existed 2000 years ago typically took the form of prostitution, not mutual loving relationships. Therefore, these scholars argue, one may not conclude that Paul was condemning something that only came into open existence within our century.

Ryan: Only Paul condemns "homosexuality" in the new testament. And in the original greek, the word translated as "homosexual" actually means male temple prosititue which is completely different. In addition Paul codemned alot of things including women attending church without their heads covered. Do women cover their heads in your church? Should they be stoned if they don't?

But this comes to the fundamental difference in how Christians interpret the Bible. You, I assume, are part of the literal camp. I personally believe that it needs to be read in context of the historical period it was written with a full understanding of the original languages and their nuances.

Christ himself never condemned homosexuality.

I'm not saying God didn't create morality. What I'm saying is that it's rather presumptuous of us to assume God only created Christian morality or one denomination's rigid view of morality.

I am an Episopalian. You can read all about what I believe here:
http://episcopalchurch.org/

Ken: I shouldn't have been so broad in my claim. Sure there will be some cultures that deviate, but they tend to by far be the minority. I would still say that the majority of non-Christian cultures still practice the same morality standards as a Christian culture.

So when you say open existence does that mean people didn't even know that it was happening?

While we're discussing the Good Book, and good old Paul, here are a few verses I like. They happen to be KJV, but pretty much translate the same by most versions, I would guess:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto ALL, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.â€Â

Gary

Thanks for that post, I agree and in in dealing with people you need to do it in love. My whole post was about government acceptance and endorsement. Just because we are to love the individuals doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the movements that stand in direct conflict with our beliefs. To me it is the same as if Cox TV wanted to start airing pornography on public TV, I would get rid of my TV and stand to fight the acceptance of it, but I wouldn't judge people that still used the company nor those that watched the content I was fighting.

This blog turned very quickly into a Ryan/Bryan conversation which I didn't want it to be. I was hoping for much more involvement on both sides discussing the movement that I saw, not how Bryan lives his life. If I came across as non loving that was not my intent. To me this is an issue of folks trapped in sin and there are some very intelligent people trying to make this more and more accepted by society as a whole.

Thanks again to all who participated in this discussion.

I understand your reason for posting, Ryan. I think most of us did, as a matter of fact, but lets spread the logic out a bit further....

Many people on the right seem to want more and more, for government and religion to intertwine.

On the other hand, many on the left seem to want the government to endorse more social issues.

Both positions seem to mean well on their face. The difficulty is that all of us are not on the same page with respect to either religious or social issues.

Since the government is supposed to represent all of us, problems come up when we introduce any parochial interests into the governmental spectrum.

Has that, at times been both bad and good? Probably yes both ways.

Will we continue to speak our minds on this type of thing? I suspect so.

What say you all? Can there honestly be a middle ground where religious faith and social issues can be tolerated, without anyone feeling put upon?

I suspect that we'll either find it for this world, or some mushroom cloud might come around some day to ruin all of our futures...

I thought this debate was going to end on page 8. It would appear that Ryan just can not stop. Maybe an Observer 12 step program is in order.

Using the disclaimer "I say this in love" is not an excuse for making judgmental statements about others. Civil rights are supposed to be assured for all in the United States - to deny a person their civil rights or to use one's own belief system and doctrine to justify the condemnation (accusation of sin) to a group of people is to flaunt the intentions of the Constitution.

You can throw around bible quotations until the cows come home, but bottom line, many people have different belief systems and religious texts that they live their life by - the test is to do not harm.

A denial to equal rights under the law does harm

Do not refuse to acknowledge the harm that is done by denying civil rights to other people.

I do need a 12 step program, maybe Jim can write one up and sell it for $4.99. I know I would buy one!

Ryan Salo wrote:So when you say open existence does that mean people didn't even know that it was happening?

No, and I'd prefer to delete that phase as being inaccurate.

"Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by John Boswell details a number of liturgical ceremonies in antiquity.

Why is the government involved in the marriage business?

Why is the government involved in the marriage business?

So that divorce attorneys have something to do, besides write food columns?

Jeff

Gary says that the right wishes for religion and the government to become more intertwined. I don't think that is necessarily true many on the right wish government wish just get the heck out of our lives. If Bryan and others are correct that people are born homosexual (and I not smart enough to understand the science to even weigh in on that argument) then why do we need a government sponsored week to celebrate how you were born? I was born with a slower metabolism than some of my friends and family, should we have "fat" pride week to celebrate those of us who were born unable to keep off weight? Two of my best friends were doggoned at young ages with Asmara, there were born that way. When is the Asthma pride/awareness parade to celebrate the way they born. As idiotic as these ideas may sound the point is people usually go out and celebrate the choices they make not the way they were born. You can't have it both ways.

I'd actually love to see an Asthma Awareness week.

Weight Awareness Week? I can see the hospital jumping on that...

But I don't know if recognition and sponsorship are the same thing.