Same Sex Marriage Bans

[Darris Chambless]

"OK, Darris, I understand that you want to believe that the word "marriage" refers to a state which can be described only in religious terms."

It's not that I "want" to believe it. It simply is. Do you want to believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? It's not that you "want" to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow but that it simply is.

"I guess you can believe that if you want, but it's clearly not the normal usage of the word."

Not the normal usage of the word but rather, in many circles, an incorrect usage of the word, an incorrect definition and incorrect origin.

"If you want to call such marriages "civil unions", well, you're free to invent your own language, but don't be surprised if English speakers misunderstand you."

I didn't invent it and you understood it just fine (I can't vouch for you wanting to believe or accept it however.) So what am I to think of you then?

"As far as the Bible being the ultimate definer - or creator, as you put it, of marriage..."

Robert, does the Hammurabi condone same sex marriage and what does it define marriage as?

"and the Epic of Gilgamesh - which, as I recall, are believed (by actual scholars) to have been written a millennium or so before the Old Testament."

Good information but I have to ask by your term "actual scholars" do you mean that all the other intellectual PhD's, MD's, Ed.E's and Theologens aren't "actual scholars"??? People like Ravi Zacharias, Max Lucado, Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Lee Strobble, etc. aren't "actual scholars"? What constitutes an "actual scholar" to you? Also your actual scholars "believe" that these writings were written before the old testiment but if these scholars aren't even sure then why should I believe it? Because you said so or because they said so?

"Besides, marriage has existed in virtually every culture in the world since (literally) time immemorial, amongst peoples who have been completely ignorant of your Bible until rather recently, in historical terms."

Bravo! Now if we can just answer that nagging question of "Was it a marriage between a man and a woman or same sex couples or both?" We'll be doing all the good.

"In any case, no-one is advocating that same-sex marriages would have to be recognized by any religion"

Please explain since I've already said that a proposal was rejected that contained the words civil union but not "marriage" when by your original logic (in the use of the word "marriage") they're the same thing?

chm,

"Dr D: you seem to want to have it both ways:

-marriage should not be the province of government
-(governmental) laws should restrict marriage"

Um no. Marriage is not the province of government it's the province of the church. Laws don't restrict marriage, rather they do not recognize same sex civil unions or marriage. Same sex couples cannot get a marriage license and are not recognized as married couples, but if they want to have their own ceremony's they can do as they will in whatever fashion they see fit. No one's stopping them, not the law, not me or those that see this the way I do.

"If your church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, I'm sure the government won't force it to. At the same time, if my church does, the government shouldn't prohibit it."

I actually kind of agree with that in that government should not interfere on either point. If a church is willing to marry same sex couples that is that particular churches prerogotive and will only be recognized by that church and the members thereof as well as the couple themselves. However, by changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples you don't think that if a church decided it would not marry same sex couples that there would not be discrimination suits going out against any church with this stance??? I can guarantee this would happen at which point the judicial branch and governement would be involved and yes, would force churches in opposition to marry homosexual couples.

"The argument you present is rather disingenuous, to whit: the laws protect and reflect my religious beliefs; they should not be changed because government should be kept out of the religious aspects of marriage."

While some law may be fundamentally based on biblical law it does not reflect and in some cases most certainly does not protect my religious beliefs so your argument is silly at best.

"How does the government forbidding a recognized church from marrying homosexuals keep government out of the religious aspect of marriage????"

Come again? I think you may have worded that incorrectly because it looks like it says "How does the government forbidding a recognized church from marrying homosexuals keep government out of the religious aspect of marriage" It doesn't but when did the government forbid churches from marrying homoseual couples??? Not that I agree with the practice but I certainly don't recall the government having any say in the matter where churches were concerned. I've even stated that same sex couples can have whatever ceremony's they want to and if a church of whatever kind wants to officiate said ceremony sobeit, but presently (at least if and until the wording gets changed) the union can be recognized by whomever or not recognized by whomever and is not recognized under the law but does not deny them the right to be together, the right to be happy or even the right to a ceremony.

These changes wanted by the gay/lesbian community can be summed up (imo) this way. They want the laws to be changed and have provisions and language added so that they can feel normal in they're relationships under the protection of laws that grant them more and special rights than they already have even more and special rights than heterosexuals have in some cases (e.g. if someone of the homosexual persuation assaults a heterosexual it's assault. If a heterosexual assaults a homosexual it's a hate crime.) Amazing how that works and it just keeps gettin' better every time I turn around. And Robert thinks we're more free by virtue of these things being done. You can say :hammer: again :hammer: and again :hammer: and so on.

These are my opinions not yours and "actual scholar" researched material for peoples' perusal. Take it for what it is. Agree, disagree, be meloncoly, be happy, be sad, be mad, be minor, be major, be whatever. I'm not for same sex marriages. You be for what you want to be for (and I'll be in Scottland before ye.)

Good night and God bless.

Darris C.

[keithbenjamin]

Darris is absolutely right about the whole Pandora's box theory and how legislating gay marriage could very well end up forcing a new definition of marriage on churches. To see this, you have to look no further than some of our socialy progressive neighbors where church leaders cannot speak the words homosexuality and sin in the same sentence for fear of being charged with a "hate crime!"

Now we're really getting into scary territory. We already have orwellian thought crimes in our legal system thanks to our friends on the left with all this hate crime nonsense. What difference does it make if I beat you to a pulp because you are gay, or I beat you to a pulp because you are black, or I beat you to a pulp because I wanted your shoes!? The fact remains, I beat you to a pulp, there are already laws against it, and I should be put in jail! But, no the court is going to go as far as to tell me what I was thinking while I was beating you to a pulp and punish me for that too! Since we've come this far why not, infringe on our rights believe what we want to believe and speak it as we wish. That may sound like a stretch to you, but that's where we're headed.

[shanbaum]

keithbenjamin said:
Darris is absolutely right about the whole Pandora's box theory and how legislating gay marriage could very well end up forcing a new definition of marriage on churches. To see this, you have to look no further than some of our socialy progressive neighbors where church leaders cannot speak the words homosexuality and sin in the same sentence for fear of being charged with a "hate crime!"

Now we're really getting into scary territory. We already have orwellian thought crimes in our legal system thanks to our friends on the left with all this hate crime nonsense. What difference does it make if I beat you to a pulp because you are gay, or I beat you to a pulp because you are black, or I beat you to a pulp because I wanted your shoes!? The fact remains, I beat you to a pulp, there are already laws against it, and I should be put in jail! But, no the court is going to go as far as to tell me what I was thinking while I was beating you to a pulp and punish me for that too! Since we've come this far why not, infringe on our rights believe what we want to believe and speak it as we wish. That may sound like a stretch to you, but that's where we're headed.

So... I guess that makes you a pessimist...

[keithbenjamin]

...or a realist.

How about a few examples:

http://glbtjews.org/newsletter/200308/jpost-bible.htm

[jediron]

As most of you know or don't know Shanbaun is not here to read
your posts or go to your address's that you put up to back up your point. All he is there for is to incite a reaction and then he comments on that reaction. He likes angry debate, it seems to fuel
his demented mind.
:hammer: :drop:

[Laurie]

A little about Shanbaum,

Although we named him a sexy, cantankerous (sp?) optical guy on his birthday, he has clearly given the best objective argument so far... Lets be serious...

?Only hetero's can marry and enjoy whatever benefits follow?


PS: To Chip (Oh Honey, are you still upset over my confederate flag burning comment a while back?)

Why thanks for asking:

#1: Yes, absolutely. Theodore R. and me.

#2: No, but I am considering it...where might I sign up?

: )

smooch,

Laurie

[jediron]

Laurie said:
Although we named him a sexy, cantankerous (sp?) optical guy on his birthday, he has clearly given the best objective argument so far... Lets be serious...

I was being serious!
:hammer: :drop:

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:

It's not that I "want" to believe it. It simply is. Do you want to believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? It's not that you "want" to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow but that it simply is.

Yes, that's characteristically Darris: what I believe is unassailable Truth, what others believe is their opinion.


Robert, does the Hammurabi condone same sex marriage and what does it define marriage as?


Hardly. I think the ancient Babylonians would have defined marriage as a relationship including a male and some number of females. That's rather besides the point: you claimed that marriage is "created" in the Bible, which was a pretty silly assertion.


People like Ravi Zacharias, Max Lucado, Joe White, Nicholas Comninellis, Lee Strobble, etc. aren't "actual scholars"? What constitutes an "actual scholar" to you?


I don't really know anything about any of those people, but from what I can see on the 'net, they appear to be latter-day Billy Sundays; if that's what they are, no, I would not consider them to be scholars.

There are academicians who study religions as others study the other aspects of humanity, shorn of the emotional attachment that derives from belief. Indeed, there are believers who aspire to intellectual rigor and objectivity (read, for example, Craig Hill's In God's Time, a scholarly response to the Left Behind foolishness).

And then, there are T.V. evangelists.


Also your actual scholars "believe" that these writings were written before the old testiment but if these scholars aren't even sure then why should I believe it? Because you said so or because they said so?


Are they "sure"? Only idiots are "sure". There are commonly-accepted means used for dating ancient documents, most of which I've forgotten (I may have been out of the religious studies business for longer than you are old). In any case, it's always possible that something will be discovered, or someone will make some innovative observation, that will shift the consensus about a document's age or import.


Come again? I think you may have worded that incorrectly because it looks like it says "How does the government forbidding a recognized church from marrying homosexuals keep government out of the religious aspect of marriage" It doesn't but when did the government forbid churches from marrying homoseual couples???


In Texas, that would be April 17, 1997, when the Family Code was amended to read thus:

§ 2.001. Marriage License

(a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.

[shanbaum]

keithbenjamin said:

Darris is absolutely right about the whole Pandora's box theory....

Please, never tell Darris he's "absolutely right" about anything.

I'm probably as staunch an advocate of free speech as one might find - you may notice a lack of political correctness in my posts on this board. Like you, I deplore attempts to muzzle people who espouse unpopular views.

But just as we don't want to allow people so much freedom as to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I believe that there's a line somewhere out there that shouldn't be crossed. I don't know exactly where it is. There are examples of limitations on free expression that I am inclined to support, like Germany's prohibition of the Nazi party - how can one argue that National Socialism is "just another point of view", given what happened? Wouldn't there be something profoundly stupid about allowing that particular episode in history to repeat itself?

I appreciate the "slippery-slope" argument - if we can limit speech in that context, doesn't that make all expression vulnerable to repression? Maybe. Even if that's so, I don't think that it leads inexhorably to the conclusion that nothing should be done at all.

While I'm suspicious of hate crimes legislation, I'm not quite as concerned about it as I am about hate crimes themselves. And yes, I think that there is a difference between beating someone up to steal his shoes, and beating someone up because he's black, or gay, or Jewish, or whatever. The former is pathetic, the latter, wicked. I have a smidgen of empathy for the former, but none for the latter.

In any case, I don't think that "beating up" is particularly representative of what I see as the difficulty. As you note, it's a punishable offense in any case.

But what do you think should happen when some moron hears a speech, or watches a movie, in which Jews are characterized as "evil", and then turns around and spray-paints swastikas on the local synagogue? Is that the same kind of crime as spraying graffiti on a highway overpass?

[chm2023]

I just finished reading "Hitler's Willing Executioners", a rather vulgar title for an excellent book. Food for thought. The National Socialists didn't wake up one day and say, "gee what do you say we start offing Jews." The culture of Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, promoted anti-semitism for centuries. Leading the charge was the Church (a bunch of inveterate Bible quoters), from Constantine on. It's a series of small steps from graffiti to genocide, which is why spray painting "kike" or "******" or "faggot" is worse than spraying "painting class of 2005". If this is condoning the "Orwellian thought police", tough. (Though I personally know no-one who has been nabbed on having politically incorrect thoughts I am sure it is just a matter of time. Time to look into that lobotomy)

I saw 2 things today that reminded me of this discussion: Bill O'Reilly was interviewing someone and talking about a fellow who was convicted of statutory rape of a 14 year male. His sentence was X years. Interestingly enough, had his victim been a female, the sentence would have been one third X. O'Reilly's comment: "Well certainly a male being raped by an older male is catastrophic, but with a girl, if she got pregnant, that would be catastrophic". In the face of violence committed against a child, we have to differentiate crimes to mollify our phobias??

The second thing (and I don't really know why I connected this to this thread other than it ****** me off) was this University of Colorado situation. Apparently there have been allegations of using sex and alcohol as recruiting tools, several young women have claimed they were raped at a recruiting party. Now a young woman who was the place kicker for the football team a couple years back has come forward and claimed she was sexually harrassed and raped. The football coach was interviewed. First he says that "they haven't found anything and they won't find anything."

This is bad enough, but wait, he then goes on (did you notice how stupid people just never know when to shut up?) and says "Well, guys respect ability. If you are 90 years old but you have ability you'll get respect. Katie just wasn't very good; not only was she a girl, she was a terrible kicker."

How did this Neanderthal get to position of authority with young people? If this clown isn't fired, the alum of Colorado should raise holy hell.

[Darris Chambless]

"Yes, that's characteristically Darris: what I believe is unassailable Truth, what others believe is their opinion."

So then a rock is not a rock? The sun isn't going to rise tomorrow? These are not "my" truths they are truths as to what's happening with this subject all one needs to do is look around you and keep your ears open. If you don't look around you and keep your ears open then, unfortunately, yes yours falls into the catagory of "opinion." Intrestingly enough you could take out my name in your statement and put your own and it would make just as much sense and be just as rational.

"In Texas, that would be April 17, 1997, when the Family Code was amended to read thus:

§ 2.001. Marriage License

(a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex."

Robert, could you clarify something for me please? When did churches start issuing marriage licenses? I had to go to the Court house to get mine and then the church performed the ceremony. Sure would have saved me some time. This doesn't forbid churches from performing ceremonies if they take it upon themselves to do so it makes it illegal for the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples the same as in many other states.

"Please, never tell Darris he's "absolutely right" about anything."

Has a nice ring to it doesn't it :D In many cases what I say that I believe to be definitively true, I also wish wasn't true or wouldn't become true. "It's true but God knows I wish it wasn't."

"I'm probably as staunch an advocate of free speech as one might find - you may notice a lack of political correctness in my posts on this board. Like you, I deplore attempts to muzzle people who espouse unpopular views."

No one espouses more unpopular views than I do (well...at least unpopular to those that will come out and say something about it) but you having a "lack of political correctness" in your posts? Sarcasm yes, politically incorrect? I haven't seen any from you.

"But just as we don't want to allow people so much freedom as to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I believe that there's a line somewhere out there that shouldn't be crossed. I don't know exactly where it is. There are examples of limitations on free expression that I am inclined to support, like Germany's prohibition of the Nazi party - how can one argue that National Socialism is "just another point of view", given what happened? Wouldn't there be something profoundly stupid about allowing that particular episode in history to repeat itself?"

Agreed.

"But what do you think should happen when some moron hears a speech, or watches a movie, in which Jews are characterized as "evil", and then turns around and spray-paints swastikas on the local synagogue? Is that the same kind of crime as spraying graffiti on a highway overpass?"

While I don't condone either action I also don't see any difference in the two. In this area most graffitti is done to mark territory for gangs and incites and depicts just as much violence as the other. I have no tolerance for either and morons will always be morons regardless of where they decide to paint. It seems strange that you would pick the synagogue analogy since you are a non-practicing person. I would figure the two to be quite similar in their hatred fashions to you. One is just a bridge and the other just a building, right? In any case both actions are for destructive and or "no good" purposes only.

Gotta go. Take care,

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:

Robert, could you clarify something for me please? When did churches start issuing marriage licenses? I had to go to the Court house to get mine and then the church performed the ceremony. Sure would have saved me some time. This doesn't forbid churches from performing ceremonies if they take it upon themselves to do so it makes it illegal for the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples the same as in many other states.

Do we have to go over this word-by-word?

Paragraph (a) says that if you want to get married in a church (that's what "ceremonial marriage" means), you have to get a license first. That's what "must" means: have to. No choice. Not optional. Mandatory.

In other words: no license, no wedding.

Paragraph (b) says, only a heterosexual couple can get a license.

So, the effect of these two paragraphs is: a homosexual couple can't get married, not even in a church.

Is this sinking in?

[Darris Chambless]

For me yes, for you obviously no. But I'm tired and the day is almost done so I'll leave you and this subject now. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Have a nice day Irving,

Darris C.

[chm2023]

No one espouses more unpopular views than I do

If I have this right, you are for capital punishment, for guns, for tax cuts, against gay marriage, for invading Iraq and identify yourself as a conservative. Each of these is a majority or plurality position.

Oh to be an iconoclast now that spring is here!!!!

[Night Train]

Let me first say that I approach my response as a Christain. I have Homosexual friends and I would truely want for the Bible to allow for their relationships to be OK. In many ways their relationships outshine many Christian Man/Woman Relationships I know of. However, I cant find a way around what the Bible seems to be clear on. So what do I do? Well lets take a look at what the church has been doing. They condemn it and make no allowance for it. How has that strategy worked? It has failed miserably on many levels. The church has completely failed in response to almost ALL sexual issues/problems. I would suggest that the church offer to help homosexuals in their relationships. they should take an "OK, if you are going to do this, then let us help you stay in ONE relationship for the rest of your life. Let us help you be a family." This should also be their approach to sex outside of marriage. Lets stop using the Bible as a tool to prove whos right. There were Christians on BOTH sides of the civil war who could tell you why scripture taught slavery was OK. Pretty soon, there was war. I hardly think homosexuality is "The Hill of Mral Decay" God would call anyone to die on. There is TRUE evil in the world that requires our immediate attention.
Thats my thoughts
Dwayne

[varmint]

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we
don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied
equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just
because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we
are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me
and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us
getting married together is the only way that we can
express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for
couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the
better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees
equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two
together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

[chip anderson]

The latest in this never ending foolishness.
The first of the week aproximately 250 folks turned out for a wedding. The bride and groom, two trees. (Supposed to make it rain or something.)

Now we don't know if these trees were the same gender or of different gender. We also don't know if they were the same species.

Perhaps the problem is when the genes are very different we call it a hybred. If we called it a lowbred, things might be different.

chip::finger:

[mrba]

RS said,

"I don't really know anything about any of those people, but from what I can see on the 'net, they appear to be latter-day Billy Sundays; if that's what they are, no, I would not consider them to be scholars.

Since some have a PHD, M. Div, MA, BA, BS next to their names from universities called Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Temple etc. I would consider them scholars! And so would any other of their acedemic collegues! If these published people aren't scholars, who do you consider a scholar???!!!

"There are academicians who study religions as others study the other aspects of humanity, shorn of the emotional attachment that derives from belief. Indeed, there are believers who aspire to intellectual rigor and objectivity (read, for example, Craig Hill's In God's Time, a scholarly response to the Left Behind foolishness)."

So an emotional attachment to one's course of study deprives one of the description of scholar? Pehaps every time a professor or PHD publishes a study, they should preface it with a disclamer of emotional ties to the topic?

Sorry Robert, you missed on this one.

Are you a PHD or equivalent? Just curious what your education consists of and where you are coming from in that regard?
You speak as though you have never had a good professor (albiet I doubt that in reality).

[mrba]

varmint

That was absolutely hilarious and to the point... and in fact what could anyone say to it?

:cheers:

[chm2023]

Saw Jon Stewart the other evening, very smart, very funny show. He does a bit on same sex marriage, ending with "what these folks who oppose gay marriage being legalized don't seem to understand is, if it does become a law, that won't mean everyone has to do it." There was a poll in the paper some weeks ago that made the point the the acceptance of gay marriage is very strongly correlated with age. Younger people having no problem with it, older people having problems. This would appear to be one of those things that time will fix.

[keithbenjamin]

This would appear to be one of those things that time will fix.

Exactly, when those young people age, they'll come to their senses.

There's those fish in a barrel again. :D

-KB

[Darris Chambless]

With the gay marriage issue, thinka bout this.

First "Civil Unions" are not what the homosexual community want as is evident in states where they are willing to make the compromise for this underlaw and it is being rejected because they want to be recognized by EVERYONE including churches. There is only one way to do this and that is to have government force churches to recognize these unions as a marriage.

People are saying "So what's the big deal?!!!"

Here's the big deal:

Gay couple: Pastor we want you to marry us.

Pastor: I'm afraid our church does not recognize these types of unions.

Gay couple: So you won't marry us then?

Pastor: I'm afraid not.

Couple leaves.

Two months later:

Associate pastor to Pastor: Did the mail come in yet?

Pastor: Yes and we were sent a cerified letter.

Associate Pastor: For what?

Pastor: It appears the church is being sued for discriminating practices for not performing same sex marriages.

Associate pastor: That's rediculous! We don't recognize same sex unions in our church and that is our and our parishiners right.

Pastor: Unfortunately not according to the new law impossed by the state government declaring legal recognition of same sex unions as marriage.

Associate pastor: How much are they suing us for???

Pastor: Since there is no precedent set for this the sky could be the limit and it could take years for these suits to be issued a cap. Even then it will tap our resources for mission work and many churches will spend an inordinate amount of time in courts.

Just what I can see happening.

chm,

"Saw Jon Stewart the other evening, very smart, very funny show."

Jon Stewart is very funny but as to the show being "smart" even Jon Stewart did a commercial for the show saying that in a poll 70% of the people said they get their news from news shows like The Daily Show. To which he responded "Don't do that people!! We make this stuff up!!"

Take care folks,

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

mrba wrote:

Since some have a PHD, M. Div, MA, BA, BS next to their names from universities called Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Temple etc...


I'm not sure to whom you're referring. I saw that Lee Strobel has a law degree from Yale, which certainly wouldn't get him a job as a "religious scholar". Joe White is apparently a creationist, and an engineer by training, who edited a book published by Oxford University Press, which may have confused you. Some of them don't have biographical information on their web sites, so I have no idea what sorts of degrees they have. But if you know that any of those guys have degrees in religious studies or related disciplines from Harvard, Yale, or Oxford, please identify who, and from where.


So an emotional attachment to one's course of study deprives one of the description of scholar?


I prefaced my remark with the disclaimer that I didn't know anything about the guys Darris mentioned. I searched the Internet for information on them, and what came back suggested that they are what I would call populist preachers, or evangelists, and not scholars. I suppose one could be both. In any case, these fellows don't appear to claim to be scholars, or anything other than what they are. You can make contributions to their ministries on their web pages, if you like.

The particular domain of religious studies is bifurcated: there are people who are in it as an academic discipline, no different from, say, well, proctology comes to mind; and then there are those who are in it because they are primarily interested in bolstering or exploring their faith (hence the reference to "emotional attachment"). Not surprisingly, members of these two groups study at different schools; they study differently and write differently, about different subjects.

I would submit that one characteristic that distiguishes a "true" religious scholar is that he works with source documents in their original languages. That is, to be a bona fide New Testament scholar, one must, de minimus, be literate in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I do happen to have an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies; I did graduate work in Religious Studies, and I was planning on being a scholar in Religous Studies, so I have some familiarity with the subject (since you asked). Admittedly, that was a long, long time ago...

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that none of my former professors frequent Optiboard; I'm sure they'd be crushed by your final comment. But you really shouldn't blame them for my literary shortcomings. I accept full responsibility.

[chm2023]

This was his stand up act, live and it was very smart, as is his show. (Consider for a moment the possibility that the Daily Show promos might be tongue in check....)

And I really doubt young people will change their minds on this issue; social change historically starts with the young--integration, women's rights etc. Can't see why this would be different. Think about how much more open people are about homosexuality now that 20 years ago, a real sea change.

This whole business is an example of shutting the barn door after the cow has fled. Let it go.

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:
With the gay marriage issue, thinka bout this.

First "Civil Unions" are not what the homosexual community want as is evident in states where they are willing to make the compromise for this underlaw and it is being rejected because they want to be recognized by EVERYONE including churches. There is only one way to do this and that is to have government force churches to recognize these unions as a marriage.

I would be interested in seeing so much as a single piece of evidence that anyone, anywhere, is advocating having the government force any church to recognize anything.