Homosexual Marriage

[Kamunt]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Also look at Isaiah 3:9 which says, "The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hid it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

How about this one? 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." Abusers of themselves as it is put has a footnote that relates them to Homosexuals/Homosexuality.

Jude 1:7 - "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." With yet more footnotes relating to homosexuality.

Forgive me, but I really don't understand these three passages at all. I GUESS I could see how they could relate to homosexuality being sinful, but also note how nowhere in those three passages is there anything mentioning lesbians being sinful. That just confuses me.... Also, about the 2 bolded things, what exactly do you mean by "footnotes"? Is that a CliffsNotes-styled shortened interpretation of sections of the Bible available in some editions or something? Sorry, I'm a terrible Catholic, haven't looked in a Bible in a good 4-5 months. ><

Perhaps the New Testament? Romans 1: 27 - "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

So i believe that the bible indeed DOES show that it is a sin.

Now...see, here's where I have a problem with taking everything in the Holy Bible literally without regards to the culture of the time(s) in which it was written. You say that, according to these passages, the Bible is saying that homosexuality, in particularly "men laying with men", is sinful but:

Perhaps the New Testament? Romans 1: 27 - "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

...correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this passage also saying that the natural use of women...is to have sexual intercourse with them solely for the purpose of furthering your species? "The natural use of woman;" my personal "footnotes" I get from that is that the Bible is saying women are to be "used" by men to have sex with to make babies. Now how exactly is that fair to women? (<-- Feminist criticism alert, look out.)

I'm not trying to derail the debate, but merely show that one has to consider the cultural perspective of the writers of the Bible: things that were not, in fact, considered "immoral" or "unethical" during that time are what is in the Bible. How could the Bible have possibly predicted that Humankind would eventually allow women to be more baby-makers and housewives if that's basically all that the average woman was back then? Remember that the Bible was written by human beings, and not by God or Jesus Themselves. Though the words of the two of Them may be what was written, the messages still had to be processed through the brains of the men writing each book (is that the correct term? A "book", one section, like Exodus, Isaiah, 1 John, Revelation, etc.?). Also, the Bible was not originally written in English, or even Latin, if I remember correctly. Whether it was Hebrew or whatever, the Bible had to be translated maaany, many, many, many times to become the Bible as we see it today. And no offense to anyone who might take it, but it's literally impossible for the exact same words as written 2000+/- years to be perfectly translated with no words "fudged", "changed", or "left out", intentional or otherwise. That's just the basic random variable of Human Error.

And no, i dont really think that religion is about following one aspect of it or one subject you agree with but then purposely not following another teaching purely cause its not convenient to you.

Well, while I could agree with what you say here, I think religion is all about finding your own religion that fits in with your morals and your soul. I mean, you don't have to follow EVERY belief in the Holy Bible in order to be a Christian; if you did, you'd get arrested at some point in time. <.>; LMAO.

[Pikachu655]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I dont really care about homosexual marriages because all it means is that there is less competition for the ladies ;D

Hah truely one statement to agree with... also i don't mind it but would they just Shut the **** up about not haveing any rights? i know they have none and i don't mean to be rude but i'm a person who HATES it when people complain more than i do... lol?

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Hah truely one statement to agree with... also i don't mind it but would they just Shut the **** up about not haveing any rights? i know they have none and i don't mean to be rude but i'm a person who HATES it when people complain more than i do... lol?

...really? Because you seem like you are intending to do so.

So, basically, you're saying that we THINK that we have no rights? Utter bull. We're depraved of marriage throughout most of the country, but that's it. We're still normal, functional members of society who possess all the same rights as others besides the right to marry (once again, outside of MA).

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

If your religious beliefs tell you that homosexuality is wrong, then by all means don't be a homosexual. Any religious belief that requires you to crusade against another persons liberty is corrupt and I think the best definition we have of evil. If someone is not harming you or someone else with their actions then you have no right to stop them.

(this is to all the people using the religious beliefs argument)

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Forgive me, but I really don't understand these three passages at all. I GUESS I could see how they could relate to homosexuality being sinful, but also note how nowhere in those three passages is there anything mentioning lesbians being sinful. That just confuses me.... Also, about the 2 bolded things, what exactly do you mean by "footnotes"? Is that a CliffsNotes-styled shortened interpretation of sections of the Bible available in some editions or something? Sorry, I'm a terrible Catholic, haven't looked in a Bible in a good 4-5 months. ><



Now...see, here's where I have a problem with taking everything in the Holy Bible literally without regards to the culture of the time(s) in which it was written. You say that, according to these passages, the Bible is saying that homosexuality, in particularly "men laying with men", is sinful but:

...correct me if I'm wrong, but is not this passage also saying that the natural use of women...is to have sexual intercourse with them solely for the purpose of furthering your species? "The natural use of woman;" my personal "footnotes" I get from that is that the Bible is saying women are to be "used" by men to have sex with to make babies. Now how exactly is that fair to women? (<-- Feminist criticism alert, look out.)

I'm not trying to derail the debate, but merely show that one has to consider the cultural perspective of the writers of the Bible: things that were not, in fact, considered "immoral" or "unethical" during that time are what is in the Bible. How could the Bible have possibly predicted that Humankind would eventually allow women to be more baby-makers and housewives if that's basically all that the average woman was back then? Remember that the Bible was written by human beings, and not by God or Jesus Themselves. Though the words of the two of Them may be what was written, the messages still had to be processed through the brains of the men writing each book (is that the correct term? A "book", one section, like Exodus, Isaiah, 1 John, Revelation, etc.?). Also, the Bible was not originally written in English, or even Latin, if I remember correctly. Whether it was Hebrew or whatever, the Bible had to be translated maaany, many, many, many times to become the Bible as we see it today. And no offense to anyone who might take it, but it's literally impossible for the exact same words as written 2000+/- years to be perfectly translated with no words "fudged", "changed", or "left out", intentional or otherwise. That's just the basic random variable of Human Error.



Well, while I could agree with what you say here, I think religion is all about finding your own religion that fits in with your morals and your soul. I mean, you don't have to follow EVERY belief in the Holy Bible in order to be a Christian; if you did, you'd get arrested at some point in time. <.>; LMAO.

First off, i use the King James version of the bible (from my experience the standard one among christians) and in my copy (and everyone i have ever used) there are footnotes at the bottom of the page that give a clearer definition of words and phrases that my be hard to understand. Usually they contain cross references of the same subject but sometimes when there is controversy over the intention of a word there is a clear definition which is at the bottom of that page.

Also, although the bible was written so long ago there have since been new books like the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that re-emphasis doctrine for more modern time. Granted it was still back in the second great awakening but it was based on revelation that, as you suggest, relates more to modern times. Dont forget to take into account that these books were as well written from revelation from God and the Book of Mormon was translated (NOT WRITTEN, common misconception) by Joseph Smith which talks about the Nephites and other such dealings in the Americas (if im not mistaken).

Keep in mind that i quoted these versus from the bible purely because everyone in the other thread said that they did not believe in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the Book of Mormon but instead only held what the bible said to be true (for whatever reason). So if you would like me to post some passages from these "more modern" oriented books then let me know.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

If someone is not harming you or someone else with their actions then you have no right to stop them.

(this is to all the people using the religious beliefs argument)

You're right in that nobody has any right to stop them, but it's not an issue of rights.

Christians have personal moral obligations to try to prevent their friends from going to hell. You know how if your friend is about to walk out in front of a train you would probably pull him back, saving his life? Yeah, same principle.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Yea...we really do need to make separate threads for this topic. One for the religious arguments and one for the political, because we all agree that religion and government need to stay separate, but somehow we all keep spinning in circles, simply BECAUSE of that. This would be much clearer for all of us if we had 2 threads for this.

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Religeon ruins peoples lives. I grew up without religeon for most my life. Religeon only holds you back. Live life how you want it to be lived. Not what the bible says. To be honest no one here is fully religeous. Like the donating to religeous thing and stuff like that. If your with someone then your not suppose to even think about someone else. If you see someone elses stuff like a shiny TV, and you want it? Your sinning now. You idolize your favorite sports player. Thats a sin as well. And do you have any idea how many people defy thier parents? Sinners are everywhere. You can't just pick out homosexuals and say its all thier fault and they're horrible people. Religeon is messed up and messes with our lives. I don't care what you say about this post, its my opinion.

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Religeon ruins peoples lives. I grew up without religeon for most my life. Religeon only holds you back. Live life how you want it to be lived. Not what the bible says. To be honest no one here is fully religeous. Like the donating to religeous thing and stuff like that. If your with someone then your not suppose to even think about someone else. If you see someone elses stuff like a shiny TV, and you want it? Your sinning now. You idolize your favorite sports player. Thats a sin as well. And do you have any idea how many people defy thier parents? Sinners are everywhere. You can't just pick out homosexuals and say its all thier fault and they're horrible people. Religeon is messed up and messes with our lives. I don't care what you say about this post, its my opinion.

This is going to be a short post and maybe not CT worthy, but it's "religious" and "Religion". Just wanted to point that out. It's not an insult just...started annoying me lol

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

To be honest no one here is fully religeous.(sic)

I wasn't aware that in order to be "religious" you had to be perfectly perfect in every way...I'm pretty positive that the whole "forgiveness" and "repentance" thing exists because humans -do- sin, and the religion understands that, and doesn't damn you for it if you feel bad for what you've done...

[lord_carbo]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

You're right in that nobody has any right to stop them, but it's not an issue of rights.

Christians have personal moral obligations to try to prevent their friends from going to hell. You know how if your friend is about to walk out in front of a train you would probably pull him back, saving his life? Yeah, same principle.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

It's usually not a matter of saving people from going to hell but making their God's word law.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well...their God's word is "Go out and save people from damnation" so uh...I think it's kinda both.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Religeon ruins peoples lives.

Tell that to the innumerable lives that religion saved. You have absolutely no justification for these inane statements you're making; you're just spewing religious bigotry in YOUR OWN THREAD that's not even about religion.

We're trying to have a rational debate here, so would you mind letting us since you clearly can't be a part of it yourself?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reikobi]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Marriage is a formality. Surely, without extremist laws being put into effect, you can't hope to stop homosexuals from loving one another. So let them have their formalities -- and their tax benefits. The only thing holding this back is "Christian" tradition.

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Tell that to the innumerable lives that religion saved. You have absolutely no justification for these inane statements you're making; you're just spewing religious bigotry in YOUR OWN THREAD that's not even about religion.

We're trying to have a rational debate here, so would you mind letting us since you clearly can't be a part of it yourself?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I told you that, it was my opinion. I don't have to justify myself in my own opinion.

Its mostly religeon stopping the U.S. from homosexual marriages. Thats why I brought it up.