Same-Sex Marriage

[Alg]

While we're bringing up how people are 'made' lets bring up how they are not made. They're not made with wings so flying should be unnatural. They're not made with a sword or a gun in their hand. They're not made with the information about how to pilot a jet and bomb a city. They're not made able to breather underwater or in space. They're not made to see after dark very well.

 

You terribly misunderstood my point. First of all, I wasn't saying anything was sinful simply because it was unnatural. I used the counterexample of 'murderers and perverts' to explain that people were, in fact, not created sinless. Nowhere do I state that something not created by God is sinful; in fact, I argue the opposite - people (even though they were created by God) are all created sinful.

Wasn't that also the reason that Jesus died though? To forgive all of our inherent sinfulness?

I've always assumed that it meant that God wouldn't really care unless you were blatantly evil (evil defined as more damaging to society than beneficial to it) for the fun of it. Because otherwise humanity would have had to strive for absolute perfection, which is impossible.

[RSBDavid]

I do not agree with it.

[Nenga]

I do not agree with it.

Reasons?

[Romy]

 

That's just intolerantive and dumb. I can't believe human beings really believe these things (even if that particular one was a joke, I'm certain some believe it to be atleast partly true).

 

 

 

To all you gay haters, here's a question-

If you saw any graphical/real gay act, heard of it, or had the ability to perform such acts- Would you become gay? Even the slightest? If your answer is yes- newsflash- you already are gay.

I assume most of you would answer with "no", in which case I've got another question- If you wouldn't become gay, what makes you think other straights would?

Wow, the irony. You didn't get the point of the picture, didn't you? It's supposed to mean that when gays marry there won't be any negative effect to match the paranoia of society. Think a little bit before you judge a picture on the spot.

 

And what's up with the second question?

 

 

Well, throughout my gay-propaganda-career I've met some who believe that discussing 'gayness' or enforcing any formal rules to their advantage (such as gay marriage), would cause havoc and chaos and simply make people 'become gay'. Each time I met such opinions I countered them with "Would YOU become gay under these conditions?' and 'Well, if not, what makes you think others will?'

 

 

As for the picture, I was wrong about that specific one, but the situation exists- Many believe, for some reason, that discussing gayness would 'cause' more gayness.

[Giordano]

Oh okay I get your question now. Issues cleared.

[RSBDavid]

I do not agree with it.

Reasons?

 

 

Yes, but I do wish to disclose my views.

[Saru Inc]

As a Christian, I believe that acting in homosexuality is a sin.

 

With that said, we are all pretty serious sinners. Sexual immorality of any kind is a sin; even fantasizing about sexual immorality is a sin. Why, then, does the government not illegalize sexual immorality as a whole? The answer is, because it is not the GOVERNMENT'S job to determine who our god is or to play God for us. Our personal decisions and sins, as long as they do not affect unwilling others or take our own life, should be left to ourselves to decide, therefore gay marriage, while I am not in favor of the whole thing, should be legal.

 

 

Note: I'm not trolling, or being an [wagon] this is a serious post:

 

 

If I am a Christian... and I believe Gods ok with Homos since, well he makes them, why do you think it is a sin? I mean obviously people get different things from the Bible (thus the need for different denominations) but I'm saying what are your personal views based on what you've garnered from reading it?

 

 

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

These are all sinners, yet they are forgiven by God. So while I feel it is wrong, I believe God will be the judge of that, not our government, as I previously stated.

 

And to the argument that God is ok with it because he makes them, that's pretty murky water. God makes serial killers, thieves, and all other perverts too.

 

As a final note, I really hope to not sound preachy. I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone, just explain my beliefs.

 

 

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

 

Read the site ^^ rly good read (you too Y Guy)

 

Key pointers:

[spoiler=LONG QUOTE]

First off:

Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex.

 

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

 

So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

 

 

And:

Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?

 

Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom.

 

Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

 

Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate.

 

I admit, there are a lot of gay folk who are Sodomites (and a lot of straight folk as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more. While millions are hungry, homeless, and sick, Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts.

 

Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are "unnatural." They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don't lead to having children:

 

couples who are unable to have children

couples who are too old to have children

couples who choose not to have children

people who are single

 

Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) "unnatural"? There's nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other.

 

ften, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times. During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation, that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences, and that it is dangerous and inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should attempt to change his or her sexual orientation

 

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.

 

Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

 

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

 

The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

 

 

 

^^if that seems... scattered around, its becsause iti s. I saw the site, and remembered this topic and decided to put it in.

 

Now to the 1 cor 6-9

 

Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

 

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

 

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

 

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

 

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

 

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

 

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

 

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

 

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

 

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

 

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

 

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

 

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

 

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

 

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

 

Bam.

[Romy]

I read the above... and unfortunately, even though it's very interesting, I doubt it's going to change anyone's opinions towards gays. :(

[Saru Inc]

Yea, I know it was more about the Christian side. Tbh I actually do understand how people hate gays since I'm a bit of a, not rly heterophobe but something along the lines. As weird as it sounds, a man and a woman creeps me out.

[Sheepish]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

[Romy]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

 

Who are you to decide for them?

 

Just because you think living together is enough, doesn't mean everyone else agrees. I don't know about you, but if I were gay I believe I'd want to marry just as much as I do as a straight.

 

As for your religion comment. Personaly I agree, but I'm also practical and know it's not going to happen.

[Azvareth]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

 

Ah, if only you would have also put some thinly veiled misogynistic "women are shallow, self-absorbed vacuums of dead neurons" comment into your post you'd fill all the stereotypes of the Internet Male.

[Plugpoint]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

If you said the first two lines of that to the gay people I'm friends with they would rip you to shreds (verbally, not physically... although some of them may [female dog]-slap you a bit).

 

As for the comment about religion - that is such a ridiculous generalisation. Sure, you only have to look at The Crusades to realise that religion can and does cause trouble, but it also brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Whilst not being religious myself I listen to a few Christian bands, mewithoutYou in particular, and I can't relate to some of the lyrics but I like hearing how passionate they are about religion and how the thought of God fills them with joy. It's not all trouble-causing and gay-bashing.

[Romy]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

If you said the first two lines of that to the gay people I'm friends with they would rip you to shreds (verbally, not physically... although some of them may [female dog]-slap you a bit).

 

As for the comment about religion - that is such a ridiculous generalisation. Sure, you only have to look at The Crusades to realise that religion can and does cause trouble, but it also brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Whilst not being religious myself I listen to a few Christian bands, mewithoutYou in particular, and I can't relate to some of the lyrics but I like hearing how passionate they are about religion and how the thought of God fills them with joy. It's not all trouble-causing and gay-bashing.

 

Religion is not ALL bad, but personaly I think the world could be better off without it. It has it's "cons & pros", and personaly I think the cons overcome the pros (by far).

[Saru Inc]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

If you said the first two lines of that to the gay people I'm friends with they would rip you to shreds (verbally, not physically... although some of them may [female dog]-slap you a bit).

 

As for the comment about religion - that is such a ridiculous generalisation. Sure, you only have to look at The Crusades to realise that religion can and does cause trouble, but it also brings a lot of happiness to a lot of people. Whilst not being religious myself I listen to a few Christian bands, mewithoutYou in particular, and I can't relate to some of the lyrics but I like hearing how passionate they are about religion and how the thought of God fills them with joy. It's not all trouble-causing and gay-bashing.

 

 

The Crusades were never religious, but the army made it religious so the church would let them fight, because the Church was part of the gov't.

[Alg]

Religion is not ALL bad, but personaly I think the world could be better off without it. It has it's "cons & pros", and personaly I think the cons overcome the pros (by far).

Even then it's people taking it way too far that would make the cons. Set of beliefs that define how one should live a moral life? Good. Set of beliefs that one should use to live a moral life that are then abused by corrupt organizations/individuals? Bad. Hey, just like politics!

[magekillr]

Gay people care not for gay marrige but for equal rights.

 

There is no need to actually get married, if they are living together that is fine.

 

Edit: Religion only causes trouble, without religon the world would be a better place.

 

Ah, if only you would have also put some thinly veiled misogynistic "women are shallow, self-absorbed vacuums of dead neurons" comment into your post you'd fill all the stereotypes of the Internet Male.

 

Haha, well done, Azvareth. You're one of my favorite posters. Well done, well done.

[Romy]

Religion is not ALL bad, but personaly I think the world could be better off without it. It has it's "cons & pros", and personaly I think the cons overcome the pros (by far).

Even then it's people taking it way too far that would make the cons. Set of beliefs that define how one should live a moral life? Good. Set of beliefs that one should use to live a moral life that are then abused by corrupt organizations/individuals? Bad. Hey, just like politics!

 

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

[1_man_army]

I do not agree with it.

Reasons?

 

 

Yes, but I do wish to disclose my views.

 

Why post then? If you're embarrased or uncomfortable in sharing the reasing behind your views then why enter the discussion in the first place? If you have an opinion you shouldn't be afraid of explaining it. Stating an opinion and then avoiding explanation makes no sense to me.

[Alg]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

[fakeitormakeit2]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

Just like that South Park episode with like the Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist League and the other one (I forget the name) all were fighting because they thought their name answered the "great question" better lol.

[Nenga]

It doesn't matter. Bottom line is - the cons exist because religion exists. Period.

But the same can be said for the pros.

Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows.

But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else.

 

This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think...

Just like that South Park episode with like the Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist League and the other one (I forget the name) all were fighting because they thought their name answered the "great question" better lol.

No the great question was what name all atheists should unify under.

[fakeitormakeit2]

^ Really? Thanks for straightening that out, I couldn't quite remember exactly. That makes it even more so ironic [for obivous reasons].

[Tim]

Last I checked Marrage was between two "Partners", so on that note I say let 'em do what they want; they are still human beings after all.

[Omar]

They can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect me.