The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

Father_Time — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:23:51 -0000

It was repealed. You lose.

You really must understand that same sex attraction is a sickness not an equality issue.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

Father_Time — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:23:51 -0000

It was repealed. You lose.

You really must understand that same sex attraction is a sickness not an equality issue.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:56:26 -0000

Your faith was put here by God expressly to bring about mine.

No, it wasn&#39t.

(Totally avoiding the question)

No, not true. The meaning of words in the Bible matters. And since the writers of the Bible wrote it in an ancient form of Hebrew, the skill and accuracy of the translation matters a lot in understanding the meaning.

And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can&#39t the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc?

The underlying premise of this question is completely wrong. Reading the Bible -- and especially the Torah -- over and over and over and over, in a cycle every year, and studying it using other sacred and authoritative texts to provide guidance, is what Jews do. The concept of "revisionistically revisiting" the Bible, in the sense you mean that phrase (rewriting it and changing its meaning to suit the desire of the moment, on a whim) is a wrong-headed, mistaken, totally inaccurate concept to start with. It implies there is some other meaningful way to engage with the Bible, and that simply isn&#39t the case. The Bible cannot be meaningfully understood on a literal level. I know you don&#39t agree with that, but that is the truth as I see it.

As far as your question about the commandment against murder: murder is always wrong. The issue or question that arises is not, "Is murder still wrong, or is it okay now?" Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. The issue or question that arises then is that of what constitutes murder, what the Bible says, or doesn&#39t say, about the taking of human life in various contexts, as well as what other authoritative Jewish texts say. As well, the definition of lawful taking of life may change over time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery, or putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, is not something contemporary human society, as a rule, considers a lawful or legitimate taking of life.

Adultery is another good example of something that has been "revisionistically revisited" as you put it, in ways that you do not question. In our contemporary society, adultery is still considered to be wrong. In fact, it is wrong. However, we do not kill adulterers, nor do we sanction them by force of law in any manner whatsoever. We don&#39t fine them or put them in jail or impose any punitive consequences at a government level. And the reason for that is because we live in a society in which government and religion are two separate institutions. Furthermore, in our society, we have developed the concept of a private life, in which the government may not interfere, unless harm is being caused to others. We have decided, as a society, that adultery, as reprehensible as it is, falls into the category of a private issue to be handled by the people involved. It&#39s not a matter for government interference or control.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for supposing that the biblical ban on homosexuality is any different from this contemporary point of view. First of all, most people now understand that homosexuality refers to something a person is as well as something a person does -- that in itself is different from adultery. But in addition to that, homosexuality is a private matter that neither harms nor adversely affects anyone in the larger society. It does not belong in the realm of matters that should properly be proscribed or regulated by government.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:56:26 -0000

Your faith was put here by God expressly to bring about mine.

No, it wasn't.

(Totally avoiding the question)

No, not true. The meaning of words in the Bible matters. And since the writers of the Bible wrote it in an ancient form of Hebrew, the skill and accuracy of the translation matters a lot in understanding the meaning.

And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can't the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc?

The underlying premise of this question is completely wrong. Reading the Bible -- and especially the Torah -- over and over and over and over, in a cycle every year, and studying it using other sacred and authoritative texts to provide guidance, is what Jews do. The concept of "revisionistically revisiting" the Bible, in the sense you mean that phrase (rewriting it and changing its meaning to suit the desire of the moment, on a whim) is a wrong-headed, mistaken, totally inaccurate concept to start with. It implies there is some other meaningful way to engage with the Bible, and that simply isn't the case. The Bible cannot be meaningfully understood on a literal level. I know you don't agree with that, but that is the truth as I see it.

As far as your question about the commandment against murder: murder is always wrong. The issue or question that arises is not, "Is murder still wrong, or is it okay now?" Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. The issue or question that arises then is that of what constitutes murder, what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the taking of human life in various contexts, as well as what other authoritative Jewish texts say. As well, the definition of lawful taking of life may change over time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery, or putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, is not something contemporary human society, as a rule, considers a lawful or legitimate taking of life.

Adultery is another good example of something that has been "revisionistically revisited" as you put it, in ways that you do not question. In our contemporary society, adultery is still considered to be wrong. In fact, it is wrong. However, we do not kill adulterers, nor do we sanction them by force of law in any manner whatsoever. We don't fine them or put them in jail or impose any punitive consequences at a government level. And the reason for that is because we live in a society in which government and religion are two separate institutions. Furthermore, in our society, we have developed the concept of a private life, in which the government may not interfere, unless harm is being caused to others. We have decided, as a society, that adultery, as reprehensible as it is, falls into the category of a private issue to be handled by the people involved. It's not a matter for government interference or control.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason for supposing that the biblical ban on homosexuality is any different from this contemporary point of view. First of all, most people now understand that homosexuality refers to something a person is as well as something a person does -- that in itself is different from adultery. But in addition to that, homosexuality is a private matter that neither harms nor adversely affects anyone in the larger society. It does not belong in the realm of matters that should properly be proscribed or regulated by government.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:16:48 -0000

Kathy, I do not pretend to know your faith as well as you do. I know Judaism as it pertains to Christianity. Your faith was put here by God expressly to bring about mine. I only know levitical history as it pertains to my faith. I have no earthly idea how your faith has been perverted from its original form. I do know, however, how my faith has been perverted from its original form.

You said long ago:

"the time when this particular commandment had binding force is now over. " and
"the people should consult the authorities of their own place and time for guidance"

Using this logic, I then asked you that "thou shalt not kill" is subject to debate.

Then you said ,"No, it can&#39t. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It&#39s "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder."

(Totally avoiding the question).

And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can&#39t the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc? Or was that your entire point?

God&#39s will for his people just gets more liberal as time goes by? God is constant, the alpha and the omega. He just doesn&#39t change his mind like you assert He does.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:10:42 -0000

.... Are you saying that "Thou shalt not commit MURDER" is only pertaining only to those who were there with Moses?

I don&#39t even begin to understand this question. What are you talking about? I have not refused to answer this question because you&#39ve never asked this question before and I don&#39t understand what it means now that you have.

And you also refused to answer the question on Jewish authority. Yes we both meant Levitical authority. You went and found a lone Rabbi that agrees with your position. What do 99% of the other Rabbis say, Kat? What do MOST Jews follow? Your loose "interpretation", or the Levitical one? You performed the very act that you called "nonsense" about finding a "religion" that fits YOUR beliefs instead of believing and FOLLOWING a particular faith.

I did not refuse to answer the question on Jewish authority. I quoted the biblical cite and Friedman&#39s commentary on it -- if that doesn&#39t answer your question, there&#39s not much I can do.

No, we didn&#39t both mean Levitical authority. Again, read what I wrote. It&#39s clear.

No, I did not "find a religion that fit my beliefs." My religion is Judaism. I am Jewish. I have been since the day I was born and I will be until the day I die.

I did not "go and find a lone rabbi who supported my position." I have had the Torah, newly translated by and with commentary by Richard Elliott Friedman for about 3 or 4 years now. I bought it at Barnes & Noble when I worked there. Also, Friedman is not "the lone rabbi" who takes this position on homosexuality. As he himself wrote, almost every movement in Judaism is struggling with this issue right now and to one extent or another trying to make good faith efforts to reconcile the ancient biblical text with contemporary understandings of and knowledge about homosexuality. Even Orthodox congregations are doing this. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist synagogues all now permit openly gay and lesbian Jews to be ordained as rabbis.

There is, in fact, no such thing in Jewish tradition as "99 percent" agreement on anything. If you knew even one molecule about Judaism or Jewish history, you would know that.

It really would behoove you to make reasonably sure you know what you&#39re talking about before you start telling me things, with such absolute certainty, about Judaism and Jewish belief and Jewish tradition that you know nothing about. It&#39s a very offensive thing to do, and it makes you look really bad, as well.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:52:39 -0000

"By the way, nice new pic of you, JD. I meant to say that above. It&#39s a much better photo than the other one."

Thanks, Kat. I always thought desert cammoflauge matched my eyes better anyway. :)

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:49:22 -0000

Once again, Kathy - you attack symantics and do not answer the question.

I&#39ll ask again..... Are you saying that "Thou shalt not commit MURDER" is only pertaining only to those who were there with Moses? You obviously refuse to answer this because it undermines your entire argument.

And you also refused to answer the question on Jewish authority. Yes we both meant Levitical authority. You went and found a lone Rabbi that agrees with your position. What do 99% of the other Rabbis say, Kat? What do MOST Jews follow? Your loose "interpretation", or the Levitical one? You performed the very act that you called "nonsense" about finding a "religion" that fits YOUR beliefs instead of believing and FOLLOWING a particular faith.

"Biblical Literalism" is a term invented by Liberal humanists to undermine Christianity. I am not surprised that you used it. This is not my opinion or interpretation. The rule book in which my faith is supposed to govern itself specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior by its members. Period. The rule book by which Muslims govern themselves specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior. There&#39s no interpretational defense to that since the book has not changed languages since its beginning. The FACT of the matter is that God&#39s people should not engage in or condone this behavior. God outlines rules. People think they know better and attempt to change them. My goodness, how arrogant is that?

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:16:48 -0000

You said long ago:

"the time when this particular commandment had binding force is now over. " and
"the people should consult the authorities of their own place and time for guidance"

Using this logic, I then asked you that "thou shalt not kill" is subject to debate.

Then you said ,"No, it can't. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It's "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder."

(Totally avoiding the question).

And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can't the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc? Or was that your entire point?

God's will for his people just gets more liberal as time goes by? God is constant, the alpha and the omega. He just doesn't change his mind like you assert He does.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:10:42 -0000

.... Are you saying that "Thou shalt not commit MURDER" is only pertaining only to those who were there with Moses?

I don't even begin to understand this question. What are you talking about? I have not refused to answer this question because you've never asked this question before and I don't understand what it means now that you have.

And you also refused to answer the question on Jewish authority. Yes we both meant Levitical authority. You went and found a lone Rabbi that agrees with your position. What do 99% of the other Rabbis say, Kat? What do MOST Jews follow? Your loose "interpretation", or the Levitical one? You performed the very act that you called "nonsense" about finding a "religion" that fits YOUR beliefs instead of believing and FOLLOWING a particular faith.

I did not refuse to answer the question on Jewish authority. I quoted the biblical cite and Friedman's commentary on it -- if that doesn't answer your question, there's not much I can do.

No, we didn't both mean Levitical authority. Again, read what I wrote. It's clear.

No, I did not "find a religion that fit my beliefs." My religion is Judaism. I am Jewish. I have been since the day I was born and I will be until the day I die.

I did not "go and find a lone rabbi who supported my position." I have had the Torah, newly translated by and with commentary by Richard Elliott Friedman for about 3 or 4 years now. I bought it at Barnes & Noble when I worked there. Also, Friedman is not "the lone rabbi" who takes this position on homosexuality. As he himself wrote, almost every movement in Judaism is struggling with this issue right now and to one extent or another trying to make good faith efforts to reconcile the ancient biblical text with contemporary understandings of and knowledge about homosexuality. Even Orthodox congregations are doing this. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist synagogues all now permit openly gay and lesbian Jews to be ordained as rabbis.

There is, in fact, no such thing in Jewish tradition as "99 percent" agreement on anything. If you knew even one molecule about Judaism or Jewish history, you would know that.

It really would behoove you to make reasonably sure you know what you're talking about before you start telling me things, with such absolute certainty, about Judaism and Jewish belief and Jewish tradition that you know nothing about. It's a very offensive thing to do, and it makes you look really bad, as well.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:52:39 -0000

"By the way, nice new pic of you, JD. I meant to say that above. It's a much better photo than the other one."

Thanks, Kat. I always thought desert cammoflauge matched my eyes better anyway. :)

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:49:22 -0000

Once again, Kathy - you attack symantics and do not answer the question.

I'll ask again..... Are you saying that "Thou shalt not commit MURDER" is only pertaining only to those who were there with Moses? You obviously refuse to answer this because it undermines your entire argument.

"Biblical Literalism" is a term invented by Liberal humanists to undermine Christianity. I am not surprised that you used it. This is not my opinion or interpretation. The rule book in which my faith is supposed to govern itself specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior by its members. Period. The rule book by which Muslims govern themselves specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior. There's no interpretational defense to that since the book has not changed languages since its beginning. The FACT of the matter is that God's people should not engage in or condone this behavior. God outlines rules. People think they know better and attempt to change them. My goodness, how arrogant is that?

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:07:10 -0000

By the way, nice new pic of you, JD. I meant to say that above. It&#39s a much better photo than the other one.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:02:54 -0000

This is the main flaw in your argument. "Thou shalt not kill". That statement, in your logic, could be translated as "you people who are reading these commandments RIGHT NOW shalt not kill, but your children can if they want to."

No, it can&#39t. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It&#39s "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder.

When "homosexuality is abomination" is stated in Leviticus and in Romans and Timothy; you want me to believe that they were talking jargon that was intended for that generation only.

Again, there is a potential problem with your word usage. I realize that the proscription on homosexuality uses the word "abomination" in many translations; however, the Hebrew word can also be translated as "offensive" -- and, in turn, according to Friedman, whose authority I respect, the Hebrew word for offensive (or at least, this particular word) has a *relative* meaning. In other words, it connotes something that may be offensive to some but not to others -- like, say, women who smoke. In the long-ago past, some people thought that was offensive (as opposed to just lethal, which they didn&#39t even know then, ironically); others didn&#39t. Hebrew is a much more nuanced language than English, in part (as I understand it) because it has far fewer words. One word can have many shades of meaning. That&#39s why, unless your fluency in biblical Hebrew is on that level, you have to turn to wise authorities for guidance.

You mention "consulting the authorites of their own place and time" in Deuteronomy. Which authorities, Kathy?

You should very well know which authorities I meant, JD, since I explained it at length in my comment. Your response here tells me you either didn&#39t read or don&#39t understand the meaning of, what I wrote.

Once again.... You keep saying "Biblical literalism". Taking the commands of God as fact is nothing less than observing the faith you proclaim.

Once again, indeed, JD, *you* continue to beg the question of what "fact" is with regard to scripture. Your "fact" is nothing more than an interpretation -- a literal interpretation, but an interpretation none the less. You cannot justify (rationally or logically) your position on homosexuality by referring back to the literal language in the Bible. You cannot use a line in the Bible as its own prooftext, JD. You can&#39t use a biblical text as its own literal proof for the meaning you ascribe to it. It doesn&#39t matter that you are 100 percent convinced you can. You can&#39t.

Want to get drunk? Chose a denomination that doesn&#39t frown upon it.
Want to engage in sexual promiscuity? Chose another.
Want to gamble? Hey, there&#39s a congregation down the street that holds casino night.
Want to be gay? There&#39s a denomination for that too.

This is just nonsense. Doubtless you sincerely believe it, but it&#39s still nonsense. It&#39s not anything even close to what the argument against biblical literalism is saying. At best, it&#39s a profound misunderstanding -- at worst a willful perversion. I won&#39t pretend to know which of those applies in your case.

Sorry about the "Talbot". I meant "Talmud". I was wrong. (ya see how easy it is to say that?) :)

Yeah, JD. It&#39s easy to say you&#39re wrong about the spelling of a word.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:58:05 -0000

They have. I&#39m seeing this 14 hours after you posted it. It&#39s a crushing disappointment. I don&#39t say that lightly. It&#39s a truly devastating outcome.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:07:10 -0000

By the way, nice new pic of you, JD. I meant to say that above. It's a much better photo than the other one.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:02:54 -0000

This is the main flaw in your argument. "Thou shalt not kill". That statement, in your logic, could be translated as "you people who are reading these commandments RIGHT NOW shalt not kill, but your children can if they want to."

No, it can't. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It's "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder.

When "homosexuality is abomination" is stated in Leviticus and in Romans and Timothy; you want me to believe that they were talking jargon that was intended for that generation only.

Again, there is a potential problem with your word usage. I realize that the proscription on homosexuality uses the word "abomination" in many translations; however, the Hebrew word can also be translated as "offensive" -- and, in turn, according to Friedman, whose authority I respect, the Hebrew word for offensive (or at least, this particular word) has a *relative* meaning. In other words, it connotes something that may be offensive to some but not to others -- like, say, women who smoke. In the long-ago past, some people thought that was offensive (as opposed to just lethal, which they didn't even know then, ironically); others didn't. Hebrew is a much more nuanced language than English, in part (as I understand it) because it has far fewer words. One word can have many shades of meaning. That's why, unless your fluency in biblical Hebrew is on that level, you have to turn to wise authorities for guidance.

You mention "consulting the authorites of their own place and time" in Deuteronomy. Which authorities, Kathy?

You should very well know which authorities I meant, JD, since I explained it at length in my comment. Your response here tells me you either didn't read or don't understand the meaning of, what I wrote.

Once again.... You keep saying "Biblical literalism". Taking the commands of God as fact is nothing less than observing the faith you proclaim.

Once again, indeed, JD, *you* continue to beg the question of what "fact" is with regard to scripture. Your "fact" is nothing more than an interpretation -- a literal interpretation, but an interpretation none the less. You cannot justify (rationally or logically) your position on homosexuality by referring back to the literal language in the Bible. You cannot use a line in the Bible as its own prooftext, JD. You can't use a biblical text as its own literal proof for the meaning you ascribe to it. It doesn't matter that you are 100 percent convinced you can. You can't.

Want to get drunk? Chose a denomination that doesn't frown upon it.
Want to engage in sexual promiscuity? Chose another.
Want to gamble? Hey, there's a congregation down the street that holds casino night.
Want to be gay? There's a denomination for that too.

This is just nonsense. Doubtless you sincerely believe it, but it's still nonsense. It's not anything even close to what the argument against biblical literalism is saying. At best, it's a profound misunderstanding -- at worst a willful perversion. I won't pretend to know which of those applies in your case.

Sorry about the "Talbot". I meant "Talmud". I was wrong. (ya see how easy it is to say that?) :)

Yeah, JD. It's easy to say you're wrong about the spelling of a word.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

kathykattenburg — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:58:05 -0000

They have. I'm seeing this 14 hours after you posted it. It's a crushing disappointment. I don't say that lightly. It's a truly devastating outcome.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

ProfElwood — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:26:41 -0000

I understand your point on biblical authority, and agree with you when it comes to, say, the recent controversy in the Lutheran church. The problem is that we&#39re talking about the law, and I, for one, don&#39t like what the law has done to marriage. I believe that if that gays were serious, they&#39d reject trying to make marriage legal and work on good boilerplate mutual power of attorney documents. For that matter, it may be a good idea for heterosexual marriage, especially in two income families.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

DaMav — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:21:35 -0000

Maine rocks! It wasn&#39t even that close. I was won over to oppose state recognized gay marriage by the vicious attacks on Christians and churches after Prop 8 passed. I&#39m glad our President is on record as being opposed to it as well. Weren&#39t people saying we should support the President? Well, when he&#39s right I certainly will.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

AustinRoth — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:15:55 -0000

Indeed it looks like the tide turned on this vote. Other than the side which seems to be prevailing, though, it doesn&#39t change my fundamental position, which is that the legislatures and voters need to make the decision.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

Father_Time — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:33:39 -0000

Screw religion. Same sex marriage is sick and horribly unnatural. Hopefully the Democrat party will drop the issue entirely. It’s a terrible weight on the real issues that need to be addressed.

I don’t give a flip what any religion thinks about the any issue, this one included.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

ProfElwood — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:26:41 -0000

I understand your point on biblical authority, and agree with you when it comes to, say, the recent controversy in the Lutheran church. The problem is that we're talking about the law, and I, for one, don't like what the law has done to marriage. I believe that if that gays were serious, they'd reject trying to make marriage legal and work on good boilerplate mutual power of attorney documents. For that matter, it may be a good idea for heterosexual marriage, especially in two income families.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

DaMav — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:21:35 -0000

Maine rocks! It wasn't even that close. I was won over to oppose state recognized gay marriage by the vicious attacks on Christians and churches after Prop 8 passed. I'm glad our President is on record as being opposed to it as well. Weren't people saying we should support the President? Well, when he's right I certainly will.

Re: Marriage Equality: Maine and Washington, D.C.

AustinRoth — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:15:55 -0000

Indeed it looks like the tide turned on this vote. Other than the side which seems to be prevailing, though, it doesn't change my fundamental position, which is that the legislatures and voters need to make the decision.

However, anyone who has remotely followed the overall battle over gay marriage knows that regardless of which side won this vote, lawsuits are coming. The only question was who would be the plaintiffs.