I turned in a journal to my philosophy teacher regarding homosexual marriage. In #1, I basically reiterated what I had said in my journal. Her response was, "What about adoption?" The comic is an imitation of the journal communication.

My question is, do you think this is too disrespectful to turn into my teacher?

Yes, it's too disrespectful. However, her views on the subject are disrespectful, and when have you ever paid attention to where the line was, anyway?

__________________
I think all women really want is to be proven wrong about men.

I'm not sure how adoption fits into the argument. Is your argument solely that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they want to raise children, or is that a separate matter?

As to whether or not the cartoon is too disrespectful, I think that depends on your teacher's sense of humor.

__________________

My journal entry:

I agree entirely with your point of view. I just don't understand his/her adoption question. I don't see the relevancy. Maybe it made more sense in conversational context.

I could help you strengthen your biblical argument if you want, depending on how deeply you'd like to get in to it.

__________________

Go for it.

You could attack the passage in the bible that calls homosexuality a sin by pointing out that their have been liberties taken with the translation. What it really says is "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" rather than "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman".

Actually, there are several different translations of this verse, but the original meaning is obviously unclear.

The text is often translated to includ ethe word "homosexuality", a word which didn't exist until the 19th century, and whereas the original text seems to be referring to male-male acts, a lot of translations also condemn lesbian acts. No one cared enough about women to condemn lesbian acts in biblical days.

Also, since women were considered property pretty much on par with animals and lacking most human rights afforded to men, it goes to follow that to lay with another man as you would a woman would be to denigrate him, to treat him as less than human. This passage may have said more about the biblical views towards women than it does about homosexuality.

Your argument about the bible being written by man (rather than God) cannot be proven nor disproven, so I would probably argue that point more along the lines of the bible possibly being a good reason for conservative religious believers to personally condemn homosexuality, but not a good enough reason for a "secular" government to adopt that stance.

__________________

Very nicely said.

Well, what about this:

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

__________________
I think all women really want is to be proven wrong about men.

Also, to call the act an abomination or a sin is a mistranslation. The original renders the act "ritually impure".

__________________

Haha - Giga beat me.

__________________

Proof ?

The Hebrew word for "sin" is zimah, which is not in the original text, but really it has more to do with the fact that in other places where the Hebrew word "to-a-vah" is used, the practical application is not so severe. As Giga pointed out, the same word is used when forbidding the eating of shellfish, but you don't see Christians all up in arms about people eating shrimp. The eating of shellfish renders one ritually impure, but it is not necessarily a moral infraction.

__________________

Er.... The original shit was in Aramaic, wasn't it?

Where is the ORIGINAL? That's what I'm asking. Where can you point out to me, "say nigga dis shit up in hurr is liek... lolz!11"

BTW - in all fairness, I should point out that Orthodox Jews also buy into the sinfulness of homosexuality. It isn't *just* the conservative Christians, although there are a hell of a lot more of them and they tend to be more vocal.

__________________