Homosexual Marriage

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

No, not at all.

I don't recall ever being granted the "freedom" to have the government recognize my religious union (or provide a secular union).

We have the freedom to get married and that will never change.

We certainly are not guaranteed a "freedom" to have the government recognize (or provide) all marriages because the government is not obligated by the constitution to do so. It gets to pick and choose, which is why heterosexual marriages are given full faith and credit while gay marriages are not.

Nowhere are we guaranteed recognition of marriage, so not recognizing them all is not violating any freedom of ours.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I'm talking about discrimination mainly. I just thought that the same government who said that all should be created equal should not be able to pick and choose who gets the benefits and who doesnt based on one "uncontrollable" aspect of their life.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

I don't even understand the religeous point of view on this. My best friend is a pastor and he says there realy isn't anything in the bible saying homosexuality is wrong. He brought it up with other pastors and such and all they could come up with is 2 or 3 verses that somewhat relate to homosexuals if you stretch it out a bit. He said there realy isn't anything in the bible saying its wrong.

Then you have a VERY liberal pastor who is certainly not indicative of the majority of Christian religious leaders.

Just because you're ignorant of Christian teachings doesn't make them nonexistent. If you ask me, the Bible's pretty damn clear on the matter.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Yeah, but the bible's also damn clear on all manner of other things that most people today, even very conservative christians wouldn't support.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by devonin

Yeah, but the bible's also damn clear on all manner of other things that most people today, even very conservative christians wouldn't support.

And that is where the fault in religion lies... Many people claim to be supporters of the church but choose and pick which part of the religious teachings that they will follow through convenience.

However dont get me wrong, religion brings great things for people. I'm mormon and i would like to think that if i wasnt i would have a harder life if i didnt have the teachings of the bible and book of mormon in my life

[devonin]

A 2000-year old book being outdated isn't a fault in religion. It's logical sense. Blind adherance to a 2000-year old book is a fault in -some- religious people, but for a 2000-year old book, a surprisingly large amount of what it has to say is still perfectly applicable now.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

I'm talking about discrimination mainly. I just thought that the same government who said that all should be created equal should not be able to pick and choose who gets the benefits and who doesnt based on one "uncontrollable" aspect of their life.

Look, if you think this is true, then you must be against other things like it, where the government benefits somebody based on something they can't control, like welfare (for the most part). Look, personally, I don't care about the marriage benefits, as long as they recognize our marriages as legitimate in places BESIDES Massachusetts.

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

And that is where the fault in religion lies... Many people claim to be supporters of the church but choose and pick which part of the religious teachings that they will follow through convenience.

Yes, because that's what religion is about.

[devonin]

as long as they recognize our marriages as legitimate

What do you mean by 'they' 'recognise' 'marriage' and 'legitimate'?

Please everyone, we -really- need to make a better effort to pick our topic and stick with it here, we're going back to the religious end of it, which is a bit of a jacob's ladder. No matter how often we move up a step, we just fold another step onto the end. We can go in circles and circles for 50 pages in no time at all this way.

In fact, would it maybe even be more clear if we roped Guido into making a second "Homosexual Marriage [Religious]" thread, rename this one to "Homosexual Marriage [Political]" and seperate out the topics? Because it almost seems like I can read a nice discussion about the religious aspect of gay marriage on odd numbered pages, and a nice discussion about the political aspects on even numbered pages.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

I don't even understand the religeous point of view on this. My best friend is a pastor and he says there realy isn't anything in the bible saying homosexuality is wrong. He brought it up with other pastors and such and all they could come up with is 2 or 3 verses that somewhat relate to homosexuals if you stretch it out a bit. He said there realy isn't anything in the bible saying its wrong.

This is what i came up with last time we had an arguement about homosexuality.

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Leviticus 17:22 reads:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
If you look at the footnotes for this scripture it is spelled out as it speaks "With the male you shall not lie as one lies with the woman"

Also look at Isaiah 3:9 which says, "The shew of thier 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."

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."


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.

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

Originally Posted by devonin

A 2000-year old book being outdated isn't a fault in religion. It's logical sense. Blind adherance to a 2000-year old book is a fault in -some- religious people, but for a 2000-year old book, a surprisingly large amount of what it has to say is still perfectly applicable now.

If you dont like following a book that old, then maybe you should read up on the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants which are more recent when compared to the bible. They deal more on modern day revelations.


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.

[devonin]

They deal more on modern day revelations.

That statement assumes I believe -any- religious document to be genuine revelation from God, which I don't.

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

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. ><

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

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]

Originally Posted by BumOnStreet

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]

Originally Posted by Pikachu655

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

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]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

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]

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...