Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Blackdog said:

What does any of this have to do with Gay marraige? I mean if you want to continue this, we should move it to the "Church and State" forum.

Click to expand...

I suppose. My point is this--at moments of great change, there are always people afraid of the next step, but after a time their descendants come to see those changes as right and good, even inevitable. This sort of watershed happens repeatedly throughout history--and terms like "moral decay" are just fear of change. Seems like the decay is constant--is there ever a time when we have "moral build-up" or have we just been falling apart constantly since some ideal moment no one actually remembers?

If we want to talk about problems of morality, consensual sex is among the least important aspect of life, IMHO.

Rassales said:

I suppose. My point is this--at moments of great change, there are always people afraid of the next step, but after a time their descendants come to see those changes as right and good, even inevitable. This sort of watershed happens repeatedly throughout history--and terms like "moral decay" are just fear of change. Seems like the decay is constant--is there ever a time when we have "moral build-up" or have we just been falling apart constantly since some ideal moment no one actually remembers?

Click to expand...

Why is it with people like you and ADK etc anyone who does not agree with your view it's they must be afraid of something, Homophobic, or hate gay people?

In actuality it has nothing to do with being afraid etc and everything to do with standing up for what you believe to be right.

Rassales said:

If we want to talk about problems of morality, consensual sex is among the least important aspect of life, IMHO.

Click to expand...

OK.

Blackdog said:

I do care insomuch as I support Civil Unions, with all the rights of heterosexual marraige. I cannot and will not accept two men as a marraige.

Marraige is a religious institution to me. It would no longer be that if other than 1 man and 1 women were to make a marraige.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you don't care about the constitution.

That works at least.

If its a religious institution, then it has no business in government and as law. If its not a religious institution, not changing the definition and creating a "seperate but equal" terminology is ridiculous.

So what you're suggesting is it is religious, and to hell with the seperation of church and state and the equal protection clause, who cares about the constitution, we can't let gays have that term cause its holy to me.

I will say at least you flat out admit the reason you don't want to change it, instead of dance and skirt around it like others who know they'll look somewhat foolish or at the very least uncarrying about the constitution if they do so. The reason above is the exact reason why I think marriage as a term should be 100% stricken from law and replaced with "civil union", leaving marriage completely as a religious thing and be done with it.

However, I do hope I don't see you in a 2nd amendment thread at some point talking about how important and untouchable the constitution is and that the 2nd amendment should never be infringed upon in the very least...because cherry picking the constitution is as wrong as mangling it.

Blackdog said:

As I stated I was just going by the small blurb you linked to. It says nothing about any of that.



I agree with this.



He wanted a theocracy as I said, or at least that what it sounds like.

I do not want nor does the Bible condone a theocracy of any type. The laws in the Bible are for our personal lives, not a governmental system to run a country. That being said, it does not mean our mortality cannot be reflected in our society or government.



Creating beauty in and of itself and taking credit is not vain. Bragging about it would turn it into vanity.

Click to expand...

I don't think that his version of theocracy is quite the same as what we typically consider a theocracy:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Girolamo Savonarola

The French king, whom Savonarola at the head of an embassy of Florentines had visited at Pisa, now entered the city. After the king's departure a new and peculiar constitution, a kind of theocratic democracy, was established at Florence, based on the political and social doctrines the Dominican monk had proclaimed. Christ was considered the King of Florence and protector of its liberties. A great council, as the representative of all the citizens, became the governing body of the republic and the law of Christ was to be the basis of political and social life. Savonarola did not interfere directly in politics and affairs of State, but his teachings and his ideas were authoritative.

Click to expand...

Many people form the religious-right argue that this is the same thing that is stated in the Declaration of independence.

Blackdog said:

You don't have to do all that, but it does get boring repeating the same things over and over.

Click to expand...

I hear ya on that. You don't want to know how many times I've said the things I'm saying to you. I honestly don't know why I try anymore. I just have this drive inside me for some reason to protect the innocent.

I know that every normal person has that to some degree, but for me, it's ridiculous how much I just want innocent people to be able to be happy.

Blackdog said:

I ment the state, not the country. There are states that have legal gay marriages.

Click to expand...

Hm, then it might be best for me and my Christian family to pack up and move somewhere that's tolerant.

Blackdog said:

In the country I live in I have the same right to follow my moral compass as anyone else. If gay marrage became Federal law tomorrow, I would not really care, but if it was put to a vote, I would vote against it.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, that mentality is very...horrible.

Blackdog said:

As I have explained time and time again to others with closed ears. I have no fear or hatred of anyone who is gay. In fact I love them as much as anyone else, but I will not support the sin.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how it's a sin if they're not really even doing anything wrong. Why can't you just leave people alone?

Blackdog said:

No. I don't feel bad about it at all.

Click to expand...

Wow...I don't know what to say to that...
Well, I do. But I won't.
Just...wow. That's awful.

Blackdog said:

I assume that he would considering he torched entire city's including women and children for being disobedient. Lets also not forget his cursing people for many generations after. He is a loving God, but also demands his children be obedient.
The wages of sin is death.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I believe all that. Where is it all now? He's not doing anything. Things must have been much worse back then.

Blackdog said:

No, not one bit. I know this sounds bad but I and my wife have had, and do have many gay friends. I don't really care if they are gay. I treat them with respect and in return they do the same. They also know I do not condone the gay relationships they are in. I do not rub it in the faces of my Friends, but I also do not encourage it.
So I love the sinner and hate the sin. As I am commanded to do.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is bad. Why are they friends with someone who thinks the way you do? I don't understand it.

A lot of the people that I argue with about this claim to have gay friends. I don't know whether to believe them or not. I have a gay best friend, and I know that if I thought the way you did, he'd have been out of my life from the moment he came out to me.

If you have ever had anyone come out to you, you'd know there's no choice involved and there's nothing sinful about it.

Blackdog said:

I was rolling my eyes at the fact that you and many others constantly attack the example rather then the point. The point was about sin, and the fact I believe in no levels of sin. Sin is sin, whether it be a murderer, thief, liar or a homosexual relationship.

Click to expand...

Well, it's a bad example to use because it completely destroys any point you attempt to make.

Homosexuality doesn't fit in to the category of sin to me. To my ears, it sounds like, "whether it be an apple, orange, banana...or asparagus."

You can't not believe in sin. Sin is everywhere. Everyone sins. You sin, I sin, gay people sin. But the fact that homosexuals are homosexuals is not one of those sins.

Blackdog said:

Yes. As I said I don't care that much about the issue. I think it is wrong to allow it, so why would I care?

Click to expand...

You really just don't care that something you believe in is impeding on the lives of others?
I'm sorry for being repetitive, but it's just so unbelievable to me. I know that people can be cold, but it's tough to swallow when you're directly faced with it...

Blackdog said:

I do care insomuch as I support Civil Unions, with all the rights of heterosexual marraige. I cannot and will not accept two men as a marraige.
Marraige is a religious institution to me. It would no longer be that if other than 1 man and 1 women were to make a marraige.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that having a separate title for gay people would be considered equal. Not just because of the name, it's just that "separate but equal" is usually not equal at all.
We can just call religious marriages...uhm..."Religious Marriages." We can call anything else just an ordinary or non-religious marriage.

Blackdog said:

They are not a different type of human, they are simply humans. They are sinners like the rest of us. We are all born into it. I will not legitimize sin.

Click to expand...

Everyone's different. Maybe I should have said different type of person. That's what they are. Just different. Not any worse or better than anyone else.
Wait, born into it? I'm just curious and this is completely unrelated, but do you believe that babies are sinners until they're baptized?

Blackdog said:

That is fine, but that does not change or influence my decision not to support it.
I am one voice in a sea of many, they have as much say in government as I do.

Click to expand...

So, you, like many other Christians, are just believing what you do based on fear. I don't believe that's what God wants. I think he just wants everyone to be as good of a person as they can. Just be good to other people.

Blackdog said:

We have s system of laws in place. If the people want it, it can happen. If they do not, it will not.
I am one voice in a sea of many, they have as much say in government as I do.

Click to expand...

I know that everyone has an equal say in government.
I really just wish there was separation of church and state.

Blackdog said:

I have lots of gay friends, they seem to be having a great time down here in Florida. It does not look like they are suffering to me.
In fact a majority of them don't even care about the marraige issue. Much like myself. Hmmm... Birds of a feather.

Click to expand...

Again, not so sure if I believe that you have any gay friends. I just can't imagine it.

It'd be like you being friends with someone who didn't agree with your "choice" to be whatever race you are and personally didn't believe you should have the right to vote or be married. But they still loved you as a person.

Blackdog said:

That would depend on what they are pursuing to make themselves happy. Lets say a member of NAMBLA was seeking their form of happiness, would you still say yes? It is again an example.
I am not in any way comparing gays to child molesters.
I should not even have to say that.

Click to expand...

If their form of happiness was harming a child, then of course not. In fact, I'd want them dead.

I'm okay with anything that doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone else's rights.

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone else's rights. That's why I'm alright with that and do not see why this is even an issue.

Blackdog said:

:roll:

Click to expand...

Alright, really? Must you keep putting the "roll eyes" smiley here? It's not cool when I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you.

It's completely true, what I said. You, and anyone else can get married and do whatever the hell they want as long as they're heterosexual.

Everyone is basically being forced into Christianity.
It's not right or fair.

Rassales said:

I suppose. My point is this--at moments of great change, there are always people afraid of the next step, but after a time their descendants come to see those changes as right and good, even inevitable. This sort of watershed happens repeatedly throughout history--and terms like "moral decay" are just fear of change.

Click to expand...

Yep. For instance, interracial marriage was "moral decay" once.

MsCommonSensiality said:

Everyone is basically being forced into Christianity.
It's not right or fair.

Click to expand...

No, its really not. Are you being forced to worship Jesus Christ as your lord? To attend church on Sundays? To read the bible?

Not to mention its hardly just Christianity that views marriage between a man and a woman.

Is Murder being illegal forcing people into Christianity? Theivery? Is having legal punishment for adultery through divorce forcing Christianity onto people because you’re coveting they neighbor? No, because those notions existed before and outside of Christianity? Well so has the notion of man and wife.

People voting based on their morals and views does not mean we don’t have separation of church and state as you incorrectly try to imply. Nothing in our constitution forbids people to VOTE based on their personal beliefs be they religious, spiritual, scientific, or philosophical. Indeed, some of our earliest founders were inspired by morals, ethics, and philosophies of various religions.

The constitution prohibits the government from enacting laws forcing a specific religion, and this does not do it.

It’s also why the notion that “marriage” as its used in the government is a religious term and thus sacred and shouldn’t be changed ridiculous. Devil Worshipers can get married. Athiests can be married. People with no desire to procreate can get married. People who plan on swinging and screwing lots of other people can be married. Marriages can be ended in almost no time. None of it is requiring that the person be religious, let alone Christianity. Marriage, as it is under the government, isn’t and cannot be a religious thing and trying to argue that it shouldn’t be changed because it’s a religious thing is either ignorant of the constitution or willfully not giving a damn about the constitution. Not to mention it is a rather hypocritical stance since a HUGE plethora of sinners, including ones that actually fall on the Ten Commandments (which homosexuality doesn’t), have absolutely ZERO issue being married under the government.

Voting based on ones religious views is not a separation of church and state issue and I would dread the day we take away the freedom of people to vote based on their beliefs and views. Why then are you apparently so intolerant that you wish to forbid people from voting based on what they believe in. Why are you so intolerant to religion that you would allow philosophies to factor into why people vote, ethics to factor into why people vote, morals factor into why people vote, history factor into why people vote, but if any of those are influenced by religion you feel they shouldn’t because its not a separation of church and state. For all your talk of intolerance, you seem to have some intolerance towards religious people.

Blackdog said:

Why is it with people like you and ADK etc anyone who does not agree with your view it's they must be afraid of something, Homophobic, or hate gay people?

Click to expand...

Well... be cause... you're wrong. You're wrong to think it's ok to treat one group of people one way and another another way... no matter what your reasons, excuses or religious biases. This is a perfect example why there is a separation of church and state.

You really need to get a dictionary and look up bigot and discrimination. And really understanding Christ's teachings might help you to see the light also.

In actuality it has nothing to do with being afraid etc and everything to do with standing up for what you believe to be right.

Click to expand...

It is all about fear and ignorance that comes from blindly following a book that has been mis-interpreted for thousands of years. At some point common sense must take over.

Ugh, are you kidding me? Someone else who wants to tell me I suck when all I want is for everyone be equal? Awesome. Here we go.

Zyphlin said:

No, its really not. Are you being forced to worship Jesus Christ as your lord? To attend church on Sundays? To read the bible?

Click to expand...

Homosexuals are being forced to abide by Christian rules. That's my point. And it isn't fair.

Zyphlin said:

Not to mention its hardly just Christianity that views marriage between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

Look, I'm not really into the whole religious scene. I don't know about anything else other than Christianity, really. Even that, I don't know much about.

Zyphlin said:

Is Murder being illegal forcing people into Christianity? Theivery? Is having legal punishment for adultery through divorce forcing Christianity onto people because you’re coveting they neighbor? No, because those notions existed before and outside of Christianity? Well so has the notion of man and wife.

Click to expand...

Okay, for the umpteenth time, homosexuality does not harm anyone or infringe on the rights of others.
Murder does.
Thievery does.
Adultery does.
Is that not correct?

Zyphlin said:

People voting based on their morals and views does not mean we don’t have separation of church and state as you incorrectly try to imply. Nothing in our constitution forbids people to VOTE based on their personal beliefs be they religious, spiritual, scientific, or philosophical. Indeed, some of our earliest founders were inspired by morals, ethics, and philosophies of various religions.

Click to expand...

I don't believe we have separation of church and state. Gay people would be able to marry if we did. Without religion, there would be no argument against it other than bigotry.

Zyphlin said:

The constitution prohibits the government from enacting laws forcing a specific religion, and this does not do it.
It’s also why the notion that “marriage” as its used in the government is a religious term and thus sacred and shouldn’t be changed ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Yeah, religious term. Wait, what do you mean, "shouldn't be changed ridiculous?"

Zyphlin said:

Devil Worshipers can get married. Athiests can be married. People with no desire to procreate can get married. People who plan on swinging and screwing lots of other people can be married. Marriages can be ended in almost no time.

Click to expand...

And you don't believe anything like that is "destroying this country's moral fabric?"
My whole point is that, yeah, as you said, all those types of people can get married, but if the two people both have a penis or vagina then it's a no-go.

Zyphlin said:

None of it is requiring that the person be religious, let alone Christianity. Marriage, as it is under the government, isn’t and cannot be a religious thing and trying to argue that it shouldn’t be changed because it’s a religious thing is either ignorant of the constitution or willfully not giving a damn about the constitution.

Click to expand...

Wait, are you thinking that I'm saying something I'm not? I want marriage to be changed to include homosexuals.

Zyphlin said:

Not to mention it is a rather hypocritical stance since a HUGE plethora of sinners, including ones that actually fall on the Ten Commandments (which homosexuality doesn’t), have absolutely ZERO issue being married under the government.

Click to expand...

Yeah...I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. Why are you telling me this?

Zyphlin said:

Voting based on ones religious views is not a separation of church and state issue and I would dread the day we take away the freedom of people to vote based on their beliefs and views.

Click to expand...

If their beliefs and views impede on the lives of other innocent people, then I would not like them to vote.

Zyphlin said:

Why then are you apparently so intolerant that you wish to forbid people from voting based on what they believe in. Why are you so intolerant to religion that you would allow philosophies to factor into why people vote, ethics to factor into why people vote, morals factor into why people vote, history factor into why people vote, but if any of those are influenced by religion you feel they shouldn’t because its not a separation of church and state. For all your talk of intolerance, you seem to have some intolerance towards religious people.

Click to expand...

I'm not intolerant of religious people, I'm intolerant of people who are intolerant. People who think their way is the only way. If someone believes that blondes are tearing apart the moral fiber of society, they can believe that way, but they shouldn't try to stop blondes from being happy or doing what they want with their lives as long as they're not hurting anyone.
That's how stupid it all sounds to me.

Blackdog said:

Why is it with people like you and ADK etc anyone who does not agree with your view it's they must be afraid of something, Homophobic, or hate gay people?

In actuality it has nothing to do with being afraid etc and everything to do with standing up for what you believe to be right.

Click to expand...

Well that's what you say, but the evidence says otherwise. It is the vigour with which religious people oppose gay rights that indicates there is something different about it. Rassales touched on this earlier in the thread: OT scripture is chock full of rules of behaviour, but the vast majority of them are ignored these days. There are no movements, as far as I know, to have shellfish consumption outlawed, but scripture says it is an abomination. It is also against scripture to defile one's body with tattoos or piercings {see Leviticus 19:28--which is the very next chapter after the one that anti-gay Christians usually cite as God's will on homosexuality} and yet I don't know any devout Christian woman who doesn't have pierced ears--I'm not saying there aren't any, I just don't know them. And even if most Christians obeyed these laws--which they don't--they certainly don't obey the laws directing them to stone their children to death for disobedience. No, the way that scripture pertaining to homosexuality is immutable, when almost everything else can be transmuted into meanings which no longer apply as they were only applicable in the context of the time when the bible was written... well hypocrisy is too small a word for it. 'Homophobia' seems far more appropriate.

MsCommonSensiality said:

Ugh, are you kidding me? Someone else who wants to tell me I suck when all I want is for everyone be equal? Awesome. Here we go.

Click to expand...

Nope, don't watn to tell you you suck. Want to tell you you are apparently ignorant of what "seperation of church and state" means.

Homosexuals are being forced to abide by Christian rules. That's my point. And it isn't fair.

Click to expand...

No, they're not.

Marriage as its defined in our law is not religious, let alone christian, so they're not being forced to abide by Christian rule.s

Furthermore, marriage being between a man and a woman is not unique to simply Christianity, so again, no you can't say simply because that's the definition they're being forced to abide by Christian Rules.

Even further, there are some agnostic and athiests that still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, further showing that no, that notion is not simply Christian and thus it being law does not mean they're being forced to be Christian.

Look, I'm not really into the whole religious scene. I don't know about anything else other than Christianity, really. Even that, I don't know much about.

Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't make comments like stating that if the term marriage remains as between a man and a woman its essentially forcing gay people to be Christians. OR, when someone informs you of the error of that, you should look into it or acknowledge it.

Off the top of my head I believe Jews and Muslims also believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Okay, for the umpteenth time, homosexuality does not harm anyone or infringe on the rights of others.
Murder does.
Thievery does.
Adultery does.
Is that not correct?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, not the argument I'm making. YOU stated that because there was a law on the books that happened to coincide with Christian thinking on the matter that somehow that is "forcing" people to essentially be Christian. If that was the case then all those things above ALSO coincide with Christian thinking and thus would apply also.

I don't believe we have separation of church and state. Gay people would be able to marry if we did. Without religion, there would be no argument against it other than bigotry.

Click to expand...

First, you don't apparently know what seperation of church and state is. You can "believe" we don't all you want, that doesn't make it true. People voting based on their religious beliefs does not have anything to do with Seperation of Church and State.

Here, I'll help you.

Point me out the law where the government establishes a state religion, mandates a following of religion, or forbids a following of religion.

I'll wait.

Second, that's extremely narrow minded of you. I'm not even against gay marriage but I'm not so bigoted against anyone that dares disagree with me that I hyper stereotype them. Do you honestly believe 100% of non-religious people either agree with you or are bigots? Here's a few off the top of my head:

1. Believing the government interest in marriage is related to the raising of a family and believing a traditional family offers the best chance for a child

2. Someone who is a staunch traditionalist, that realizes while perhaps "Seperate but equal" the attempt to use that phrase to harken back to the civil rights age is a bit dishonest as at those times the facilities/benefits under a different name were actually worse which would be different from this case where everything else would literally be equal.

3. Someone that believes the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and thus is against adding more to it, thus making it harder to remove

Are they great reasons? No. But at times some of the reasons people who want it give also aren't great. But they're at least legitimate opinions that aren't simply "bigotry". Lest you want to simply say "bigotry" is anyone that disagree's with you which seems to be the MO here.

The next bit of stuff was actually addressing the other side of the argument, such as Blackdogs comments, and why focusing on it from a religious stand point on either side is wrong.

If their beliefs and views impede on the lives of other innocent people, then I would not like them to vote.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, so if they're religious and would vote based on their morals you don't want them to vote. Got it, you're intolerant to religious people. They have as much right to vote based on their views, morals, and philosophies as you or anyone else.

I am not even going to bother to respond to most the lunacy I have witnessed today.

In the end, I will still vote and rally against it. I have no idea how this puts me at odds with the Constitution, and it's not like I care. I will continue to stand up for what I believe in and you can save your rants for someone who mite care.

Blackdog said:

I am not even going to bother to respond to most the lunacy I have witnessed today.

Click to expand...

Huh? There have been four posts quoting you since your last post--all of them strikingly different--are you lumping them all together as "lunacy" or is it just certain ones? Enquiring minds need to know...

Antagony said:

Huh? There have been four posts quoting you since your last post--all of them strikingly different--are you lumping them all together as "lunacy" or is it just certain ones? Enquiring minds need to know...

Click to expand...

Mostly the page long diatribe about Christians and myself being horrible for following our moral compass.

Some of the posts were good like Tuckers and Zyp's etc. Even if I don't agree.

Homophobia is such a poorly thrown around word.

Seriously, I know very few people under the age of say 40 that are "scared" of homosexuals.

Zyphlin said:

Homophobia is such a poorly thrown around word.

Seriously, I know very few people under the age of say 40 that are "scared" of homosexuals.

Click to expand...

What can ya do? If people want to think I and other Christians etc are scared of the evil homosexuals, or a homophobe nothing I can do about it. They are free to think what they like as are the rest of us.

Blackdog said:

I have no idea how this puts me at odds with the Constitution, and it's not like I care.

Click to expand...

Finally you admit it.

Blackdog said:

Mostly the page long diatribe about Christians and myself being horrible for following our moral compass.

Click to expand...

Follow it then.

Just don't require others to follow yours instead of their own.

Antagony said:

Huh? There have been four posts quoting you since your last post--all of them strikingly different--are you lumping them all together as "lunacy" or is it just certain ones? Enquiring minds need to know...

Click to expand...

PS your post was not good at all. It shows no understanding of the Old and New Testaments, or how the laws are applied to the covenants.

Zyphlin said:

Homophobia is such a poorly thrown around word.

Seriously, I know very few people under the age of say 40 that are "scared" of homosexuals.

Click to expand...

Okay, if it's not fear, then what is it? Why do religious people readily ignore great swathes of scripture that would put them--and their lifestyles--on the wrong side of God's will, but anything pertaining to homosexuality MUST be adhered to? I've heard it argued it's revulsion rather than fear, but what is revulsion based on, if not fear?

misterman said:

Finally you admit it.

Click to expand...

I have admitted everything honestly from the beginning. And the reason I don't care is because I am in no way at odds with the Constitution.

misterman said:

Follow it then.

Just don't require others to follow yours instead of their own.

Click to expand...

Please point out where I have required others to follow?

It's funny how you want to believe the worst so badly, you imagine people said things they have not.

Ridicules to say the least.

Antagony said:

Okay, if it's not fear, then what is it? Why do religious people readily ignore great swathes of scripture that would put them--and their lifestyles--on the wrong side of God's will, but anything pertaining to homosexuality MUST be adhered to? I've heard it argued it's revulsion rather than fear, but what is revulsion based on, if not fear?

Click to expand...

Again your understanding of the Bible is quit limited. You apply things that do not in any way apply to modern Christians or even the Jews since the destruction of the Temple.

Before you try to tell Christians about our own Bible, you may actually want to study it so you don't appear uninformed.

Blackdog said:

PS your post was not good at all. It shows no understanding of the Old and New Testaments, or how the laws are applied to the covenants.

Click to expand...

Oh please... I was born and raised Catholic (strictly) so don't lecture me on what I do or do not know about the bible. The fact is that interpretation has been changed markedly over the years--usually to try and get it to fit in with the thinking that was current at the time--but the only passages which most churches refuse to re-interpret are the ones pertaining to homosexuality. Why? Just answer this question: Why is it okay for Christians to eat lobsters and have tattoos or body piercings but not to be homosexual? Why?

Antagony said:

Oh please... I was born and raised Catholic (strictly) so don't lecture me on what I do or do not know about the bible. The fact is that interpretation has been changed markedly over the years--usually to try and get it to fit in with the thinking that was current at the time--but the only passages which most churches refuse to re-interpret are the ones pertaining to homosexuality. Why? Just answer this question: Why is it okay for Christians to eat lobsters and have tattoos or body piercings but not to be homosexual? Why?

Click to expand...

Because you are trying to take the old covenant between God and his chosen people (BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE <----- VERY IMPORTANT) and apply it to those who follow Jesus. Jesus made a new covenant with us all upon his death. So the old laws did not pass away, but they are not for Christan's to follow and they never have been.

The fact that you do not know this says allot about your general Bible knowledge.

Even Noachide (righteous gentiles who observe The Seven Universal Commandments) were not bound under Leviticus law.