Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Fishteacher73]

A big question here is how rules have changed. The Kosher rules, for example, were changed in Acts. Why? Or the sex during menstration I wouldn't see as "morally wrong."

 

Here lies the falicy of the "moral absolute" of the Bible. We have picked and chosen what rules are to be upheld. The biggest problem I see is that most of all these taboo's have some legitimate basis (health concerns mainly) yet the one that have become obsolite have been pretty much dropped. This is not the case with homosexuality. I forget exactly who brought it up, but perhaps the reason that it is fervently "immoral" for so many is that it is an easy sin for them to avoid. :)

[Biochemist]

Here lies the falicy of the "moral absolute" of the Bible. We have picked and chosen what rules are to be upheld....

I don't think this is a fallacy as much as it is a complexity. The Bible covers 4000 years of revelation, ending 2000 years ago. Reading this text in context takes some work. Contemporary translations do help with some of the work, but there is much work remaining for an individual to build a coherent framework for morality from the Bible.

 

I do not think it is reasonable to expect that morality should be simplistic. I do think it is reasonable that God would give us direction on the journey to discover it.

[bumab]

Here lies the falicy of the "moral absolute" of the Bible. We have picked and chosen what rules are to be upheld. The biggest problem I see is that most of all these taboo's have some legitimate basis (health concerns mainly) yet the one that have become obsolite have been pretty much dropped.

 

It's not that simple- they've not been dropped, but rather superseeded. The point of them (that it does matter how we treat our bodies, etc) is still around. Sanitation has ruled those laws unecessary, but not pointless. These rules are not arbitrary, so they can be dropped for no reason.

 

This is not the case with homosexuality. I forget exactly who brought it up, but perhaps the reason that it is fervently "immoral" for so many is that it is an easy sin for them to avoid. :)

 

That was me :)

 

My point was not that "it's unfair" or anything, rather, that the focus of many groups on homosexuality as the ultimate sin was because it's so easy NOT to be homosexual, as opposed to not lust or not lie.

[Biochemist]

My point was not that "it's unfair" or anything, rather, that the focus of many groups on homosexuality as the ultimate sin was because it's so easy NOT to be homosexual, as opposed to not lust or not lie.

This is really an interesting point, and I agree that it is part of the problem. I think the larger issue is that Christians are as likely to fall into group-think as anyone else.

 

As an example, I was sitting in my church a month or two before the last election, and one of my friends (a thoughtful, 45-ish guy) came in and advocated that we really ought to be supporting the local version of the defense-of-marriage act "because homosexuality is sin". I responded (in this group of 20 or so) that there must be some other reason to support it because that doesn't make any sense. The group asked what I was talking about, and I offered that we generally do not suggest that sins ought to be illegal (they all agreed) and that the reason one might support this legislation would have to be for some other reason.

 

This spawned a pretty good discusison about how we choose which behaviors might be candidates for legal constraint, and which jurisdiction might be the appropriate candidate for the rule (e.g., Federal, state, county, etc).

 

My point here is that this set of folks appeared to have never thought about it. But a reasonably straghtforward discussion helped a set of 20 conservative folks acknowledge that the decision to legislate against a behavior is not particularly straightforward.

 

5% of people think, 10% think they think and 85% are looking for a slogan. Our job is to drag people into the 5%. Heck, maybe we can make it 6%.

[niviene]

I acknowledge that some Christians sound like this, but I don't think this is commonly the intent of Christians. It is certainly not mine...

 

Bio, this is a great point. I often forget that there are religious people and then there are extremists. You are certainly right, and I know some religious and/or spiritual people who are capable of pursuing their religion and yet are amazingly capable of accepting all different kinds of people. I consider people like that to be truly admirable in their religion, because I think it personifies the good nature of both man and God, everything that religion should be, without judging or denying others of making their own choice in the matter.