The passage I'm referring to is Leviticus 14: 33-57.

A good question.  You should consider, then, that precisely the same questions and comments can be raised about the passages concerning homosexuality.  For example, the passage from Romans can be seen as a critique of the orgiastic behaviors involved in certain religious rites present in the region, rather than homosexuality.  Why is it that you can choose to selectively apply this contextuality where you want?

I brought up the Paul/ Jesus distinction more as a bit of trivia than anything else.  But some also believe that certain letters thought to be written by Paul, including some of those used to make the case against homosexuality, were likely written by a student of Paul.

So, having a different interpretation of the scripture than you do is equivalent to being slanted against it?  Forgive me if I choose to disagree on this point.  Are Catholics "slanted against" the scripture because they have different beliefs and interpretations than Lutherans, or vice versa?

This, this is precisely what bothers me.  My whole point was simply this:  there are alternative interpretations of the Bible.  There are Christians, like me, who have no problem with homosexuality, who support gay marriage.  And yet, your response is to say, in essence, we're not really Christians.  You are not the judge and jury regarding my faith.  That is between me and God. 

And since there is no way to really resolve a religous debate in any meaningful sense, I'll say this:  our Constitution is intended to make sure the government doesn't make laws that unduly discriminate against or bias in favor of a particular religous belief.  If the only basis for banning gay marriage is a religious one, that's unconstitutional.  So let's try to focus on the other reasons for and against gay marriage.

Maybe I said it wrong.  But what I'm saying is there was a time when you could stand with one leg on either side because our world wasn't so far off when it came to the principles of God.   But as our world moved further away from God we can no longer comfortably straddle both sides of the fence. 

 You may be able to jump over before it gets too late and I think that's what you're referring to.  I agree. 

I actually feel sorry for you.  Love is most certainly an emotion, one that I feel every single day for my wife.  We have been married for almost 7 years now, admitedly a yough marriage but I feel love for her every single day of my life.  The word love may be a verb but that doesn't mean it isn't an emotion.  I do admit that Love and Lust are different emotions, but they are emotions nonetheless.  I still didn't choose who I love and if you have to actively choose to love someone I truly feel sorry for you.

I know it better than some but I am by no means a biblical scholar.  What I do know is that your bible is not the law of this land.  Whether you like it or not our founding fathers put protections in our constitution so that no religion would be imposed on anyone.  That's just the way it is.

That may be considered truth to you, but it isn't truth to me.  It's fine if you want to base your opinions based on your religion, that is your right, but those opinions cannot be used to make laws.  Laws in our country must be secular in nature.

If my god were to dictate that driving cars on Saturday is a sin does that mean I should lobby congress to disallow any driving on Saturday?  If my god were to dictate that drinking alcohol past 9pm was a sin should I lobby congress to force all bars to close by 9pm?  Of course not and that is why religion cannot be the basis of law, just because your god determined that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that it should be illegal for them to get married.

What I most want to know is beyond homosexuality being a sin why are you opposed to allowing homosexuals to get married?  Keep in mind the focus of the question here too, I'm not asking about whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children or anything like that I am simply wondering why they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Thank you bcshow.  This has been exactly what I'm trying to get at all along.  Religion cannot be the sole basis for any law in our country, whether you like that or not that is the way it is.  So please present arguments against gay marriage that are not relgious in nature, and as I pointed out in my last post please also refrain from the whole gays as parents argument as well since that could easily be taken as an argument against single parents.

thanks, I'll look it up. 

it's pretty clear and laid out that Paul is saying stay away from such practices because they are an abomination to God.  It has nothing to do with the region.  He's talking to the Roman Christians and saying they are in Christ and are not to partake in such behaviors.  There's more in Corinthians Chap 6 as well.  Both cities were known for some pretty ungodly behavior including homosexuality among other stuff.  So again, as Christians we are NOT to be following the world.   

You can believe what you want.  It doesn't make it true.  I can say Jesus was a homosexual because he never married.  But that doesn't make it true.  You want what you want.  You wish to believe homosexuality is biblical and ok because you are following the culture not the Word of God.  That's your choice.  There's only one interpretation but many applications.  So, for instance, while God says in his word that we should meet together and have fellowship and communion he doesn't dictate how that is to be done.  Some worship styles are formal and some are casual.  That's not an issue. 

First off, there is ONLY one interpretation of the bible but many applications.  God says what he means. 

There are many that "Say" they are Christians.  Christ made it quite clear that only those who 'DO" the will of his father can be considered his followers, Matt 7:21.

I would say if you're calling yourself a Christian but are not following or believing what is written down by God as his revealed word than you should examine your life.  Paul mentions this.  We should always examine our life to make sure we are truly in the faith.   If one tells me he supports homosexuality and considers himself a Christian and yet disregards the Word of God a red flag goes up for me. 

It is between you and God.  That's true.  I can't judge your heart only your words and actions.

The same can be applied to you as well.  You choose to believe in your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't make it true, "it's just like, your opinion man."

As I said I'm not biblical scholar but it seems to me that there are MANY interpretations of the bible: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Prentacostals, Unitarians, Baptists, the list goes on and on.  Each denomination of Christianity has their own interpretation of the bible.  Some believe in a literal interpretation, others don't.  Some believe that the earth was created in 6 days, others see that a figurative and claim it was more like 6000 years, others believe it was completely figurative and believe that science got it right.  The bottom line is that there are a number of interpretations whether you choose to acknowledge them or not is your opinion.

The same can be applied to you as well.  You choose to believe in your interpretation of the bible, that doesn't make it true, "it's just like, your opinion man."

As I said I'm not biblical scholar but it seems to me that there are MANY interpretations of the bible: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Prentacostals, Unitarians, Baptists, the list goes on and on.  Each denomination of Christianity has their own interpretation of the bible.  Some believe in a literal interpretation, others don't.  Some believe that the earth was created in 6 days, others see that a figurative and claim it was more like 6000 years, others believe it was completely figurative and believe that science got it right.  The bottom line is that there are a number of interpretations whether you choose to acknowledge them or not is your opinion.

Sorry for the double post it didn't look like my original had posted and now I can't remove the post.

First of all I'm looking at this totally opposite of you.  You're looking at this as we're attacking homosexuality and I'm looking at this as an attack on marriage. 

Marriage as intended is good for everyone, men, woman, children, society, the nation and the world.  Research consistently shows that heterosexual marriage is better in virtually every measure of emotional and physical health than people who are divorced or never married. Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy and well being for our children.

What the activists want is a new national policy saying that having a mom and a dad is no better than having two or more moms or two or more dads.  Parenthood could consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for a child.

When we depart from it we invite disaster.  I understand to warn against the dangers of homosexuality is to be labeled an alarmist, a bigot or a homophobe.  It's anything but true. 

A British medical journal back along reported that male homosexual relationships last on average about 18 months and that gay men have an average of 8 partners a year outside of their "committed" relationships.  How is this healthy and how does it help our society? 

In 1999 sociologists Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and Dr. David Popenoe released the results of a study that confirmed that the family as we have known it is passing from the scene.  This should have made headlines, but the very liberal media didn't touch it. 

In 2001 the U.S. Census Bureau released its report and confirmed the conclusions from Whitehead and Poponoe.  The data revealed that the tradional family is dying. 

James Dobson of Focus on the Family met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill about family issues for more than 20 years and never was refused until the issue of homosexual marriage came on the scene.  He writes about how these leaders all of a sudden are refusing to meet with him.  The politicians are scared to death of this issue and do not want to be seen with a Christian. 

Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a op-ed piece in July 2003 in the Washington Post titled "Abolish Marriage: Let's Realy Get the Government Out of Our Bedrooms."  Here's an excerpt:

"The solution is to end the institution of marriage or rather, the solution is to end the institution of goverment monopoly on marriage.  And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let em.  If you and your goverment aren't implicated, what do you care?  If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant." 

He goes onto say "otherwise it's going to get ugly." 

Judith Levine wrote in the Village Voice about Gay marriage not being radical enough.  She said:

"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark.  But it doesn't have to be that way.  In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.  Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders." 

The homosexual agenda is NOT about marriage for gays.  It is marriage for no one.  Legalizing it will change everything especially for the institution of the family. Like I said marriage is under attack.   It's just a stepping stone before the downward slope. 

Did you see the ugliness that came out of the California vote?  Did you watch the news this morning.  The homosexual activists are angry and displaying their hate and anger.   I didn't see that happening from the Reublican side when Obama won.  But what would have happened had McCain won?  We were promised or warned riots would ensue.  Pretty interesting.

Anyway this all moot because as soon as Obama gets in he will wipe away all the states rights and homosexual marriage will most like become the law of the land from a Federal standpoint. 

You wait and see. 

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."  2 Peter 1:20

I was born a Catholic.  I was an Episcopalian, a Mormon, A JW, A 7th Day Adventist.  I attended church in a Congregational setting, an Independant Baptist and even a Pentecostal.

Believe me I know about interpretations.  The bible has ONLY one interpretation and that is itself.  That's the most important thing I learned by studying with all these groups. 

There's a saying that goes something like this....in essentials, unity, non-essentials, liberty, and in all things love. 

Christians, no matter the denomination HAVE to be united when it comes to the essentials. 

I'm going to write a separate piece on this.  Stay tuned.  There was very much a Christian consenus among the Founding Fathers.  You need to read history books that are at least 60 years old to get the real truth.  Did you know that? 

You didn't choose whom to love?  Of course you did.  Who chose for you? 

If you are basing your relationship with your wife on emotion then I feel sorry for you.  Talk to me in 15 years when the warm fuzzies might dissapate some.  I've been married 27 years.  Believe me there were days......but my love has grown deeper for my husband with each passing year and it's not based on emotion.  It's not about warm fuzzy feelings.  It's based on commitment, service and sacrifice on each of our parts.  If the warm fuzzy's are there, even better. 

Besides you're even admitting to a tough marriage.  Could it be that warm fuzzy emotions aren't quite enough?  Go see Fireproof! 

Gotchya.  Just checkin in case you had some sort of Floridian conversion or sompin. 

Nope.  I'm not looking at this as an attack on anything I am merely asking if there is a reason, beyond religion, for disallowing homosexuals to marry.  In all that you have said I still can't find one.  You say that allowing homosexuals to marry is attacking the family, how?  You have already said that the census among other sources indicate that the notion of the family is changing, women are working rather than staying at home to raise children, there are more single parents than ever.  All of these things happened long before homosexuals got onto the scene so how exactly is gay marriage going to do any more damage to your notion of a family than what has already been done?

You cite some rather shocking statistics about gay men but I would have to inquire about the bias of the research group because I have heard numerous reports of gays and lesbians being together (and faithful to one another) for decades.

I may not be familiar with the inner workings of the groups trying to legalize gay marriage but I find it hard to believe that this is what they are trying to accomplish.  What is so wrong with allowing two consenting adults to express their love for each by making the ultimate commitment to one another by getting married?  They aren't asking for your approval of the marriage simply the legal ability to do so.  As I have said before no one is asking the law be made that all people who can perform weddings must perform them for anyone with a marriage license.  As it is today if a Rabbai is approached to do a wedding for a couple who aren't jewish he has every right to refuse, and the same would be true if he were approached by a gay couple wanting to get married.  All the gay couples want, as far as I'm aware, is legal status to make filing taxes easier, to make dealing with estates after death easier, to allow one another to be present in hospital rooms when one of the partners is ill or dieing.

From a legal standpoint marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people and as such it should not be influenced by religion which is what it seems people are doing when they argue against gay marriage.

I keep asking for a reason that is NOT based in religion for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed and I have yet to read one.  You point to the structure of the family but those arguments could easily be made against single family homes as well as gay couples, are you saying that single parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children?  Of course not so that argument against gay marriage is null and void. 

Please provide one that doesn't involve religion or an argument that can just as easily be applied to single parents.

I don't deny that the founding fathers were predominantly Christians, I don't think anyone would deny that, however what can't be denied is that we have the constitutionally protected right to follow whatever religion (or lack of religion) that we want and the government canNOT imose any religious sentiments on us.  So it doesn't matter how many of the founding fathers were Christians or not what matters is what our constitution allows for our government.

There was no choice made.  I fell in love, plain and simple.  I didn't ask for it, at the time I wasn't even looking for it, it just happened.

When did I say anything about a tough marriage?

I thought I gave plenty of reasons why homosexual marriage is devastating for society.  So let me be very clear then with a few thoughts. 

1.  Children will suffer the most.

2.  Legalization of homosexual marriage will destroy the traditional family.

3. Government schools in every state will  be required to teach that homosexuality is equivalent to traditional marriage.  So if you're a Christian teacher, guess what?  Your rights are being violated.  What did you say about the consitution not imposing any certain religion on another?  Secular humanism is a religion.  All your isms are religious in nature. 

4.  Adoption laws will be changed.

5.  Foster care programs will be impacted.

6.  Health-care will be affected and may collapse.

7.  Religious freedom will be jeopardized.

8.  The world will be over as promised in scripture (which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book). 

1. I just don't see how children will "suffer" at all.

2. No one is saying that the "traditional" family should go away.  If gay marriage is legalized it doesn't mean that heterosexual marriage is abolished.

3. Marriage isn't taught in schools so why would a teacher have to say that gay marriage = tradition marriage? 

4. Why?

5. So what?

6. This one really confuses me.  How in the hell would the health-care system be negatively impacted and/or collapse?

7. I don't see how.  If gay marriage is legalized it doesn't mean that all ministers/priests/rabbais/etc would have to perform the marriages.  So I don't see how this is possible.

8. This is a religious based impact and has no application to the law.