Quote:
You are my hero <3
Originally posted by
T&A1987
arguments that rely completely upon a holy book oftentimes ring hollow at best. For one, there so many rules are disregarded without the same anger that gay marriage seems to evoke. leviticus 19:28 "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or
...
more
arguments that rely completely upon a holy book oftentimes ring hollow at best. For one, there so many rules are disregarded without the same anger that gay marriage seems to evoke. leviticus 19:28 "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." or ""'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean." or "It is a sabbath of rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath." Not to mention the parts that ban blended fabric, or shaving.
Ours is not a society that adheres to every aspect of the bible, there is a lot of choice in the process, which brings up some issues. For one, why is it acceptable for someone to be tattooed, but not gay married? are one of these rules more important than the other and if so, what is the basis for this distinction?
If there is a basis for one part of leviticus to be more relevant than another, then using the bible as an argument fails. The main arguments against gay marriage that evoke the bible simply state that the bible forbids it. to make distinctions between rules not based upon scripture defeats the very basis of having rules. If they're all His law, then they must all be followed. If human logic is used to differentiate between the rules, then "the bible forbids it" is no longer a sufficient answer for why gay marriage is wrong. The bible forbids many things we don't consider "wrong" so what makes one superior to the other? The Rule of Law collapses when people pick and choose, because their weight, especially in regards to religion is based upon God's decree, to disobey would argue that we know better than God.
Yet, it seems that we do think we know better than God. Another issue is how these distinctions always benefit those making them. There's always a reason why I may break these codes, but other must not. People hold others to a moral code (not necessarily the bible) without any room for error or deviation, yet when it comes to themselves, there's always flexibility. Moral codes are never absolute when applied to ourselves, only when imposed upon others, but why? If discretion is allowed for one, why not all? Why is one person's infraction okay, while another person's is an affront?
Given these contradictions, simply references the bible is not a legitimate argument against gay marriage, unless it calls for strict adherence to all codes. Until the argument against gay marriage is made by someone who follows the bible completely, it will ring hollow. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." less
Ours is not a society that adheres to every aspect of the bible, there is a lot of choice in the process, which brings up some issues. For one, why is it acceptable for someone to be tattooed, but not gay married? are one of these rules more important than the other and if so, what is the basis for this distinction?
If there is a basis for one part of leviticus to be more relevant than another, then using the bible as an argument fails. The main arguments against gay marriage that evoke the bible simply state that the bible forbids it. to make distinctions between rules not based upon scripture defeats the very basis of having rules. If they're all His law, then they must all be followed. If human logic is used to differentiate between the rules, then "the bible forbids it" is no longer a sufficient answer for why gay marriage is wrong. The bible forbids many things we don't consider "wrong" so what makes one superior to the other? The Rule of Law collapses when people pick and choose, because their weight, especially in regards to religion is based upon God's decree, to disobey would argue that we know better than God.
Yet, it seems that we do think we know better than God. Another issue is how these distinctions always benefit those making them. There's always a reason why I may break these codes, but other must not. People hold others to a moral code (not necessarily the bible) without any room for error or deviation, yet when it comes to themselves, there's always flexibility. Moral codes are never absolute when applied to ourselves, only when imposed upon others, but why? If discretion is allowed for one, why not all? Why is one person's infraction okay, while another person's is an affront?
Given these contradictions, simply references the bible is not a legitimate argument against gay marriage, unless it calls for strict adherence to all codes. Until the argument against gay marriage is made by someone who follows the bible completely, it will ring hollow. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." less