Essay talk:Homosexual acts are not on the same level as eating shellfish, and so?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm going to wait until Heart is finished before I start with commentaries and such. I'll probably also write an essay of mine own, not so much to comment or rebut but to show that this sort of thing (Heart's Essay) is a Good Thing. Okay it's a Good Thing in an odd way but nonetheless Good. Cracker 20:23, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I hope I left that in there - there's nothing wrong with HG's essay. Except that, to me, the argument he makes is pointless and irrelevant.
Remember, the next step is to ask "why should anybody's religion be allowed as an argument in public policy?" humanbe in 22:07, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Gay Marriage[edit]

If I could get my brain together a little better, I'd write something along the lines of "What's Wrong With Changing the Definition of Marriage?" --Kels 20:25, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah! The Mormons did it to get Utah into the union, eh?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mitt Romney is such a fucking tool. humanbe in 22:07, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I totally wish I knew what that was all about... --Kels 22:09, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Remember when the people in texas tried to warn us about GWB? because they "knew" him? Well, I live just over the line from Massachusetts, and until recently read a major Boston paper. Unindenting to list salient points:
  • Massachusetts legalized gay marriage
  • Mitt Romney is a Mormon
  • Until about 100 years ago Mormons practiced polygamy (stopped to get the state they were driven to into the union)
  • Mitt Romney runs as a moderate and gains one term as governor of MA (mostly spent running against MA on the Pres. campaign trail)
  • Mitt condemns gay marriage as going against thousands of years of history of marriage being between one man and one woman.
  • Mitt is a tool, QED.
    • He's either a lying sonofabitch or completly ignorant of the history of his own religion. Either way, that makes him about as qualified as Alberto "I forgot my homework" Gonzalez.

If I can try to understand (I think I figured it out) what you mean by "pro Union", you'll have to suffer once in a while, and have us explain our provincial politics. (NB, see my new user box, "more than this") humanbe in 23:36, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Haha, the "pro Union" thing on my page refers to me being in favour of Trade Unions and the like. I used to work for one, and my family have always been Union supporters from way back. It's pretty easy to get most of the ins and outs of US politics, thanks to the intertubes, but there's still the occasional gap. --Kels 07:59, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Glad you cleared that up, in my ignorance I thought it meant you tdidn't think Quebec should secede! humanbe in 12:07, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I don't think they should, mostly on practical grounds. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot, right up to the pelvis. --Kels 12:08, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

something[edit]

Human, you have pretty much said what I was trying to point out on HoG's discussion page. ɱ@δ ɱ¡ɳHello?/I did this! 23:48, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

What - when - where -how,,, ow! Oh... Really? You mean the essay discussion, or his talk page? humanbe in 01:17, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Meaningless?[edit]

It is not meaningless. Liberal websites are dedicated to showing how conservatives "quote mine." My essay will show that citing the Bible in an attempt to make homosexuality no worse than eating shellfish is a quote mine, deceptive, and disrespectful. My essay will not show that it is okay to stone homosexuals (unless the stoning is being done by Orthodox Jews who still follow levitican law, I suppose.). HeartGold tx 00:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Begging pardon, but the "god hates shrimp" people are not trying to make homosexuality no waorse than eating shrimp. We already believe or know (take your pick) that it isn't. The "god hates shrimp" thing is a joke - a parody. And it is a parody of what appears to be likely hypocrisy. In other words, if those quoting Lev. to defile the humanity of gays then do not follow all of Lev. rules, what are we to think of them? And the shrimp riff was the one that gained traction, because it is so funny. You mention "Orthodox Jews who still follow levitican law" - what does that mean, exactly, in this context, where some Christian sects claim "Levitican law" as justification for their position? Are those Christian sects following Levitican law, or just picking a choosing from it where it suits their purposes?
I guess I don't know how the Christian Old Testament (Pentateuch, anyway) differs from the books by the same name that Orthodox Jews follow. Will you be explaining that?
I don't know where your essay will end up, obviously, but I wrote what I have so far based on what appears to be your general premise - that the prohibition of certain foodstuffs is on a different "level" of some sort (by showing different word choices) than that of homosexual acts, and so the rules against men lying with men are different than those against, say, eating shellfish. What boggles my mind is the chutzpah in claiming God's word as written in a book (by those sects) to make one rule we all must follow (even non-adherents), without even explaining to the rest of us how we are to determine which of those rules matter, and which don't.
I am also trying to avoid, out of respect, the rather obvious personal question that comes to mind.
If I have to rethink my essay, or add more to it, when yours nears completion, I certainly will. humanbe in 01:12, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
My delving into word choice was a response on the talk page. It is not even necessary to go down to the connotations and nuances of the word choice for "detestable" in Lev in the essay proper. I think another user brought up synonyms because this is a common red herring, probably a response to some anonymous writer to GodHatesShrip (speculation on my part). The complete context of Lev is all that is necessary. HeartGold tx 13:50, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Come on HG - cut to the chase - can Christians eat shrimp or not?[edit]

Human's essay asks the direct question, "In other words, is it all right to eat sea critters without scales or fins? And if so, why?". So what's the answer?--Bob_M (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Umn, I am still working it out on the sea critters. Most christians believe it is okay, from what I know....however, eating shrimp, even if not okay, is not on the same level as sacrificing your children to idols or sleeping with your neighbor's wife. I'll have to get back to my essay. HeartGold tx 23:53, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
The tough part is that Lev. is Jewish Law, and is taken in varying amounts by Christian denominations (Ashfly schooled me that if you say "sects", there is a 90% chance you are a liberal, deceitful atheist) as canon. Having read the latest draft of HG's essay a few weeks ago, I came to the rough conclusion (accepting his scholarship and accuracy of his biblical cites) that touching another boy in "that way" was a kind of permanent sin, excluding one from ever attaining heaven (Good Jews go to heaven, right?), whereas eating shrimp (etc. - no fins or scales) made one "unclean" for a short period of time - sort of like a one day block from Temple or rituals. So it's more like "don't eat shrimp, but if you have to, don't eat it on the Sabbath or the day before". Or, more colloquially, "stay out of our Temple, lobster breath". humanbe in 10:11, 21 June 2007 (CDT)