Should same sex marriages be legal?

[ShadowFox]

Perhaps he thinks that by somehow depriving them of natural human rights they'll stop sinning and come to Christ (Therefore showing them love)... :-/ I mean.. Makes sense to me.

I actually didn't think of that at all, but I'm not a Christian.. so whatever.

And besides, that is a dangerous line of thinking. You could use it to justify almost anything, and that has been proven in the past.

 

[Apos]

To be clear: I don't really care that much about calling gay unions "marriage" or not. That's a semantic debate that, like all semantic debates, is pretty much pointless. The definition of words is arbitrary, and whether we want marriage to imply any union or only particular pairings makes no real difference. If we wanted, we could have a different name for interracial unions. I would question WHY we need a separate word, and what motivates the need to make a distinction, but in the end, it's the rights and societal recognition that matters.

The best 3 reasons for simply calling gay unions marriages is are normative universality, separate-but-equal problems, and the harm done to straight marriages by not having gay marriages.

For normative universality, marriage is an institution that works best when it is a univeral norm: something that EVERYONE is taught to aspire to. If we all grow up expecting to form a committed lifelong partnership one day no matter whether we are gay or straight, the institution is much more powerful. Chopping it up into special situations is what weakens it.

For SbE, the problem is simply that if you create two supposedly equal but in reality separate bodies of law for unions, they will inevitably be treated differently merely BY being different.

Finally, if we give gay people the rights they deserve by creating a new civil union provision instead of simply including them in the institution of civil marriages, we won't be able to prevent straight couples from taking this route as well. This is already happening to some extent: the creation of all sorts of "marriage-lite" options that straight couples use INSTEAD of more comitted marriages. It is THIS, and not gay marriage, that threatens marriage as an institution. Giving gay couples the right to marry just like everyone else would not only help stem that tide of all sorts of special "marriage-lite" arrangements, but would help marriage return to that uncontested "universal" that I refferred to earlier.

 

[Phraxtion]

Perhaps he thinks that by somehow depriving them of natural human rights they'll stop sinning and come to Christ (Therefore showing them love)... :-/ I mean.. Makes sense to me.

There are plenty of gay Christians, and in my opinion they'll be going to heaven. But there would be a lot more homosexuals living for Christ if the Christian community wasn't so closed minded. If you want to show them love accept them as who they are.

Please.. dont get true Christianity confused with the one your distorting.

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1: 24-28
1 Timothy 1: 8-11
2 Peter 2: 6-10
ah.. forgot Jude 7

 

[Ikerous]

Leviticus 18:22 - Right.. cuz afterall, the livitican laws are so important to a Christian life...

As for the new testiment quotes; find me one quote from Jesus himself that is even remotely anti-homosexual. Just because Paul had an obvious prejudice against gay people doesn't mean Jesus did.

 

[qckbeam]

I believe you are wrong. Were are not talking about skin color but the status of the mind. Homosexuality is a choice, however it may be made easier buy a particular circumstance it still is a fundemental choice made by the individual. If I was born a crack addict, do I have a choice on whether or not I continue to use Crack when I get older. Sure using crack might be rather easy for me and i might even seem right, but should I use it?

Why do you insist on calling homosexuality a choice? Did you at some point in your life decide "You know what, I think I'll be straight"? I can tell you from personal, first-hand knowledge that it isn't a choice. When I was a very young boy I remember having feelings for other boys around my age. I was only six or seven years old. These feelings felt totally natural to me, and came about without provocation. One day, when I was only a bit older, something just clicked while I was watching a television program, and I that's when I realized that there was a name for people who had feelings towards members of the same sex just like the feelings I had had. I realized that I was gay. Throughout my entire life I've never felt any honest attraction to a woman, not once. I've been in the situations with women that would have aroused any straight man in some way, and trust me, I've never felt anything towards the opposite sex. It's something I can accept now, but I tried very hard to repress my natural feelings once I realized how people viewed homosexuals. The amount of hatred and bigotry in our world today is quite disgusting, and I didn't want to be a target. So I tried to conform to the norm and change. No dice. I've learned that you cannot change who you truly are. You may be able to suppress your feelings for a time, but it will bring you down into a deep depression, and eventually you'll lash out. Homosexuality is hardly a choice; sexuality isn't a choice. It's a fundamental piece of a persons identity and should not be repressed simply because it's different from the majority.

 

[Pressure]

Ikerous what's wrong? Your sentence structure... it's so normal.

 

[Ikerous]

Ikerous what's wrong? Your sentence structure... it's so normal.

Yea i know Sorry..
I figured if i wanted people
To actually read my posts
(Or take them seriously
Like in a debate thread)
I'd have to type normally.
Or put em in spoiler tags

 

[ShadowFox]

Please.. dont get true Christianity confused with the one your distorting.

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1: 24-28
1 Timothy 1: 8-11
2 Peter 2: 6-10
ah.. forgot Jude 7

I thought you were done with this thread? Oh well.. I knew it was too good to be true.

 

[Phisionary]

Its not outlawing Pork, people can eat pork all they want, its eating pork and saying that they have a place in the jewish society.

No, it's eating pork and saying that they have no rights under the secular laws of the United States.

if two people of the same sex wanna be togther thats their choice but I dont think they should call it marriage because thats not what God intended for marriage.

It might not be what 'your' god intended for marriage. But it is was intended for other peoples' gods... This country was not founded to uphold the beliefs of a 'higher power'. It was founded to protect the rights of everyone and protect you from other people's 'higher power' mandating what things you can and can't do with your life. So, if jews did found this country, you could still eat pork if you wanted...

Given that many gay people can't even have OPEN relationships, and given that they are forbidden to join the very institution that helps straight people maintain lasting relationships, this is a very stupid argument. In addition, while gay men are indeed more promiscuous, lesbian women in partnerships are LESS promiscuous than straight couples.

Exactly. Men are the problem, not homosexuals. :E

Oh sorry, I didn'y meet your standard of how to do a real study....

Indeed. The opinions or a select few do not count as a scientific study.

 

[Ikerous]

I thought you were done with this thread? Oh well.. I knew it was too good to be true.

He was, but then the topic changed and he probably felt it was an important issue to address.

Indeed. The opinions of a select few do not count as a scientific study.

Pffh, according to whom.

 

[Phraxtion]

Leviticus 18:22 - Right.. cuz afterall, the livitican laws are so important to a Christian life...

As for the new testiment quotes; find me one quote from Jesus himself that is even remotely anti-homosexual. Just because Paul had an obvious prejudice against gay people doesn't mean Jesus did.

I used Lev as another point, I new someone would attack this.

As for the rest of your argument.. I dont know what to say, just keep making into whatever you want. Thats what most people try to do nowadays anyway.

 

[Ikerous]

Because faith in Jesus based solely on his actual teachings and not those of paul would just be silly. :rolling:

 

[Phisionary]

To be clear: I don't really care that much about calling gay unions "marriage" or not. That's a semantic debate that, like all semantic debates, is pretty much pointless. The definition of words is arbitrary, and whether we want marriage to imply any union or only particular pairings makes no real difference. If we wanted, we could have a different name for interracial unions. I would question WHY we need a separate word, and what motivates the need to make a distinction, but in the end, it's the rights and societal recognition that matters.

While I understand your point, I disagree with the reasoning.

"We are gathered here today, in the site of (a tolerant) God, to join Ms.White and Mr. Black in the holy bond of 'Interracial Juncture.' Ms. White, if you would pleas........[/size=0]"

There can be a lot of meaning, just by the change of a label... Heck, change 'black' to '******' (Edit: it appears that the n-word is not approved of here ) in the above sentance, it changes the meaning quite a bit...

So, what if you had to refer to your interracial friends as, uh, 'junctured', or whatever, instead of married.. I think there's a big difference, on principle if nothing else...

 

[Apos]

It's not even clear that Paul is reffering to gay people in particular, since the people he was condemning in those passages are also temple prostitutes. Of course, Paul wasn't too crazy about sex or even marriage either.

Truly amusing is the fact that I don't think anyone in the Bible acknowledges or even seems aware that gay WOMEN exist. Even the Paul passage seems to be talking about women engaged in sodomy, not lesbianism. Given how sexist society was back then, almost no one thought of women as having sexuality of their own, simply being a means to various ends for men. It's also important to realize that there WAS no concept of sexuality during those times, only particular sexual acts that people judged as good or bad. As such, the Bible remains entirely silent on the subject of gay women, even though it does pretty clearly condemn some vauge reference to male sodomy in Lev. Of course, as others point out... there's also plenty of other things that Lev says that don't seem to be taken to heart by most modern Christian sects.

 

[Apos]

So, what if you had to refer to your interracial friends as, uh, 'junctured', or whatever, instead of married.. I think there's a big difference, on principle if nothing else...

Well, I of course agree, which is why I said that I'd question the decision to create a different word for such unions. Semantics are arbitrary, but the distinctions we make DO imply something about the factors we consider to be most important, and raise further questions about why we should consider those factors so.

 

[Pressure]

I just don't get it. Why do people hate gays, certain religions, and other races? What makes some people better than others? If you claim you have nothing against them but you won't let them do something as simple as being married? It's their right as HUMAN BEINGS to be able to get married. By denying them their right you are implying that they are infact inferior to you and do not deserve that right. I believe in treating everyone as an equal, I don't care what your beliefs are or what color your skin is or what your sexual orientation is, you deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm all for civil unions, as they are better than nothing. I just find it foolish that the intolerance has to stick on the name like some sort of residue. The name thing is just petty exclusion.

And many people find it foolish that you can even think about gays being together. You do need to respect the vast majority of people in this country that are religiously opposed to it.

 

[Apos]

And many people find it foolish that you can even think about gays being together.

Yes, but so what? Gay people ARE together. There are lots of gay people, lots of gay animals, lots of gay. My message for these "many people" is to get over themselves.

You do need to respect the vast majority of people in this country that are religiously opposed to it.

I didn't respect the vast majority that were religiously opposed to interacial marriages either. I respect that they have strong beliefs. But I think those beliefs are wrong and harmful, and I'm not afraid to say so.

 

[Sprafa]

And many people find it foolish that you can even think about gays being together. You do need to respect the vast majority of people in this country that are religiously opposed to it.

When was the last referendum about it ?

 

[Yakuza]

Why do you insist on calling homosexuality a choice? Did you at some point in your life decide "You know what, I think I'll be straight"? I can tell you from personal, first-hand knowledge that it isn't a choice. When I was a very young boy I remember having feelings for other boys around my age. I was only six or seven years old. These feelings felt totally natural to me, and came about without provocation. One day, when I was only a bit older, something just clicked while I was watching a television program, and I that's when I realized that there was a name for people who had feelings towards members of the same sex just like the feelings I had had. I realized that I was gay. Throughout my entire life I've never felt any honest attraction to a woman, not once. I've been in the situations with women that would have aroused any straight man in some way, and trust me, I've never felt anything towards the opposite sex. It's something I can accept now, but I tried very hard to repress my natural feelings once I realized how people viewed homosexuals. The amount of hatred and bigotry in our world today is quite disgusting, and I didn't want to be a target. So I tried to conform to the norm and change. No dice. I've learned that you cannot change who you truly are. You may be able to suppress your feelings for a time, but it will bring you down into a deep depression, and eventually you'll lash out. Homosexuality is hardly a choice; sexuality isn't a choice. It's a fundamental piece of a persons identity and should not be repressed simply because it's different from the majority.

The physical and emotional response to members of the opposite sex migt feel natural and all but fundementaly you make the choice to act on it. Homosexuality is a lifestyle based on continuing choices, living in the frame of a homosexual mind. If I had sex with a guy does that make me gay or homosexual, No. Homosexuality is a state of being.

 

[Yakuza]

Yes, but so what? Gay people ARE together. There are lots of gay people, lots of gay animals, lots of gay. My message for these "many people" is to get over themselves.



I didn't respect the vast majority that were religiously opposed to interacial marriages either. I respect that they have strong beliefs. But I think those beliefs are wrong and harmful, and I'm not afraid to say so.

For one you have to know what the beliefs of the religous are and specificaly to what religion the belong to. Interacial marriages are not condemed in the bible in fact famous people of the bible were involed with others of a different race. However God condems homosexuality, God loves the homosexualy but does not condone their actions.

 

[f|uke]

Sprafa, while in some ways I agree with your sig, your Avatar seriously has to go. You do not know what that flag means. Conservatives wrap themselves in it and tout it as superiorty to the rest of the world, but that is not what that flag is about. It is about freedom, and represents the will of all Americans, who come from all countrys, religions, and cultures. By showing your disrespect for our flag, you are not just insulting those in power, but everyone who lives here and hopes to make America a force for progress, tollerance, and good will.


America was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom for all. While clearly many here have lost sight of this, it is still an integral part of what that flag represents. If will not get any of us Americans to respect what you have to say if you don't respect us in return.

 

[Yakuza]

Because faith in Jesus based solely on his actual teachings and not those of paul would just be silly. :rolling:

There are no contradictions between the two. And if you knew who Jesus claimed to be than lev. wouldn't be a question for you.

 

[Yakuza]

It's not even clear that Paul is reffering to gay people in particular, since the people he was condemning in those passages are also temple prostitutes. Of course, Paul wasn't too crazy about sex or even marriage either.

Truly amusing is the fact that I don't think anyone in the Bible acknowledges or even seems aware that gay WOMEN exist. Even the Paul passage seems to be talking about women engaged in sodomy, not lesbianism. Given how sexist society was back then, almost no one thought of women as having sexuality of their own, simply being a means to various ends for men. It's also important to realize that there WAS no concept of sexuality during those times, only particular sexual acts that people judged as good or bad. As such, the Bible remains entirely silent on the subject of gay women, even though it does pretty clearly condemn some vauge reference to male sodomy in Lev. Of course, as others point out... there's also plenty of other things that Lev says that don't seem to be taken to heart by most modern Christian sects.

Romans: 1

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[f|uke]

The Bible: its just a book.

 

[Yakuza]

The Bible: its just a book.

Written by the influence of the holy spirit.....so whats your point.

 

[Phisionary]

just curious:
to the many readers of this thread:
has anyone significantly changed their opinion on this issue due to something you've read here?

 

[falconwind]

Wow, im not suprised though. Most people are ignorant in this way.

Can you not see how objection to this would be love?

I believe he's talking about the "I have to help you, even if I have to beat it into you" philosophy.

[sarcasm]"You see, gays and lesbians have to learn that they aren't normal, and that they need to change. Hating them is simply a method of getting that across. So, really, we're crusading for the spiritual health of these sinners. We're trying to help you see the fact that you have a sickness."[/sarcasm]

 

[falconwind]

There are plenty of gay Christians, and in my opinion they'll be going to heaven. But there would be a lot more homosexuals living for Christ if the Christian community wasn't so closed minded. If you want to show them love accept them as who they are.

BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[f|uke]

has anyone significantly changed their opinion on this issue due to something you've read here?

I doubt it.. just our opinions of our fellow HL2 fans. (which, for me, is mostly is improved considering the poll numbers)

 

[falconwind]

I used Lev as another point, I new someone would attack this.

As for the rest of your argument.. I dont know what to say, just keep making into whatever you want. Thats what most people try to do nowadays anyway.

Historically speaking, people do this anyway. There are so many different denominations of Judeo-Christianity, and many think that their way is the right way. Let's see what we have...
Protestant
Baptist
Lutherian
Methodist
Presbyterian
Episcopal
Jehovah's Witnesses (it's pronounced Yahweh, but I guess that didn't "pop")
Anglican
Roman Catholic
Mormon
Orthodox
Mennonite
Seventh Day Adventists
Unitarian

And if that weren't enough, you've got geopolitical denominations!

Anglican Church of Canada
American Baptist Association
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Church of England
Church of Scotland
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark
Lutheran Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church in America
Reformed Churches in the Netherlands
Russian Orthodox Church
Southern Baptist Convention (US)
Uniting Church in Australia

I'm not going to even get into Judaism.

 

[falconwind]

Written by the influence of the holy spirit.....so whats your point.

I've heard that since God is perfect, the Bible then must therefore be perfect. BUT God is not infalliable, nor is he invincible in his endeavors. If he were, we'd all be living in blissfully ignorant, and Eve wouldn't have eaten the damn apple.

By that same token, I say that the Bible cannot be perfect, just as we are not. If the Bible were perfect, there would be no need for other christian sects, and indeed it would be so utterly compelling as to leave no room for other "false" religions.

God didn't necessarily screw up, the editor did.

Of course, the common explanation is "it is all in God's great design, and he works in mysterious ways." So, by that reasoning, the ambiguity within Judeo-christianity, is God's fault. And by fault, I mean "doing".

 

[Apos]

Romans: 1

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Unfortunately, you are reading this wrong. "In the same way" cannot possibly mean "gay" in this context, because there was no such concept in those times. People understood sexual ACTS as pure or impure, but there was no concept of "sexuality" that would make any sort of connection between the sexual acts between two men and between two women. The "same way" refers to anal sodomy, whether man/woman or man/man.

In addition, it shouldn't be overlooked that Paul is discussing temple prosititutes here: so it's not even clear exactly what he thinks is REALLY wrong about what they are up to. The fact that Paul thinks them indecent hardly even makes them legitimately sinful, given that Paul also finds straight sex and marriage to be imperfect and indecent: he counsels celibacy, with marriage being only an imperfect fallback.

 

[Apos]

There are no contradictions between the two.

If, of course, you dedicate your life to pretending that there are none, sure. But even with that standard, just because Paul thinks something doesn't make it right or wrong.

(of course, for that matter, neither does Jesus saying it)

And if you knew who Jesus claimed to be than lev. wouldn't be a question for you.

You've dodged the question. Jesus never explains what's changed from OT law, and like most things, is pretty ambiguous as to what the heck he means for the law. Indeed, this is precisely why later Christians battled so hard over what Jesus' teachings were supposed to mean. The ones who managed to kill off the others of course "won" the debate, but it's hard to see how that makes them correct in their interpretation, let alone in their selection of sources as to what exactly Jesus' teachings were in the first place.

 

[Apos]

For one you have to know what the beliefs of the religous are and specificaly to what religion the belong to. Interacial marriages are not condemed in the bible in fact famous people of the bible were involed with others of a different race. However God condems homosexuality, God loves the homosexualy but does not condone their actions.

You are simply ignorant of history. Many people did interpret the Bible as saying that interacial marriage was bad. The fact that this is no longer a popular view is simply because we shamed such people into giving up this interpretation, or at least ignoring the message of passages in question.

I don't know what God does or does not condone, but a being simply "condoning" something or not has nothing at all to do with morality.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Another long-ass post, because I'm not just going to sit back and give that 40$ away.

no (tencharlimit)

Excellent point. I have been swayed to your side by your irrefutable logic.

From what I have heard the majority of America is against Gay marriages, so is the majority of America religious?

Yes, the majority of America is religious. That doesn't mean that somehow non-religious people are less valid.

Its not [like] outlawing Pork, people can eat pork all they want, its eating pork and saying that they have a place in the jewish society.

It's exactly like a jewish majority oulawing pork. It's a decision that forces people to follow jewish rules. Just like a marriage ban forces everyone to follow christian rules.

There are jews who eat pork. They exist, and I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed a place in society because of it. It's called acceptance. I don't see why you'd be opposed to gays acting more christian.

Its not that people cant be together. I have two family members who are gay. They have lived with each other for some time now.

So if they wanted to marry and be accepted as only slightly different christians, you wouldn't let them?

The only reason gays are after this marriage idea is that it gives them benifits that otherwise they wouldn't have. So maggiage for gay people has nothing to do with how much they care for the other person rather how the can benifit from society. if two people of the same sex wanna be togther thats their choice but I dont think they should call it marriage because thats not what God intended for marriage.

Not everyone believes in god. I, for one, don't give a shit what 'god' thinks.

And if marriage is only about benefits, how's about you have a "civil union" too. After all, if we can keep christian gays from having rights, we should remove those rights from christian straights too.

Christian gays exist. Banning their marriage is a direct attack against their religion.

There's no clause in the constitution that says "everyone has freedom except when your interpretation of god says 'no'."

If homosexuality is okay and natural then why wouldn't they [ignore hatred].

So you're saying: "Gays are obviously unnatural because people hate them."? That's pathetic.

Besides it doesn't matter what they do, they are teaching the child about homosexuality by simply being with some one of the opposite sex.

Oh, shit! Guess what. You've learned about homosexuality just from reading this thread. Are you turnng gay too?

I learned about nazism in school, but I'm not going to be Hitler.

Do you really think that teaching kids about "bad" things will automatically turn them evil?

You know its kind of interesting. From the amounts of gay marriages i have scene in real life as well as the movies it seems that the roles of gay people in a relationship seem to play out s if the are not gay.
I mean have you ever noticed that of two gay women one of them seems to be "more" masculine than the other. With two gay guys it seems one is almost allways more femenin..
Almost like a male and female relaionship between those of the same sex.

Although that is a stereotype, it does happen. So what?

Wait - did you just say that gay couples are extremely similar to straight couples? Well shit, you just proved my point.

Since when does not believeing in homosexuality mean hate against them.

It is hate once you try to make that belief into constitutional law. Law must remain seperate from religious beliefs.

You might believe that the homeless are better off dead, but that doesn't mean you can go down the street with a rifle and shoot them on sight.

Were are not talking about skin color but the status of the mind. Homosexuality is a choice, however it may be made easier buy a particular circumstance it still is a fundemental choice made by the individual.

What evidence are you drawing that conclusion from? It's certainly not from your experience as a gay. You can't just make shit up.

If I was born a crack addict, do I have a choice on whether or not I continue to use Crack when I get older. Sure using crack might be rather easy for me and i might even seem right, but should I use it?

Crack is medically harmful, and is sold by criminals for criminals. And no-one is born addicted. Even if they were, they should seek medical treatment, because crack adiiction is painful and deadly.

Gays harm no-one, and commit no crime just by being gay. Gays might be born gay, but they don't need treatment for it, since it doesn't kill them like drugs would.

Comparing gays to addicts is thouroughly insulting. I find it sad that you think being gay is a disease.

The physical and emotional response to members of the opposite sex migt feel natural and all but fundementaly you make the choice to act on it. Homosexuality is a lifestyle based on continuing choices, living in the frame of a homosexual mind. If I had sex with a guy does that make me gay or homosexual, No. Homosexuality is a state of being.

Right, so gays shouldn't be allowed marriage because they chose happiness over shame and repression? How tactful.

The next Ghandi, ladies and gentlemen!

For one you have to know what the beliefs of the religous are and specificaly to what religion the belong to. Interacial marriages are not condemed in the bible in fact famous people of the bible were involed with others of a different race. However God condems homosexuality, God loves the homosexualy but does not condone their actions.

NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD. I don't care if the bible says to kill every gay you see (which I think it does).

What you are essentially asking for is the right to subjugate every religion that has ever existed except for your interpretation of yours.

If we let you subjugate christians who see gays as normal because Jesus himself did not preach against them, then where will you stop? Who's next on the list of people who aren't christian enough? The baptists?

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Right. So gays are perverted and deserve to be punished. Do you support a death penalty for gays? Maybe we should just round them up into camps.

[The bible was] written by the influence of the holy spirit.....so whats your point.

The point is that the is a huge amount of people who believe otherwise. For every christian who believes in the Bible, there is a non-christian who doesn't. Non-christians fill the world, and christianity itself is divided into sects based on interpretation of the bible.

Let's see what we have...
Protestant
Baptist
Lutherian
Methodist
Presbyterian
Episcopal
Jehovah's Witnesses (it's pronounced Yahweh, but I guess that didn't "pop")
Anglican
Roman Catholic
Mormon
Orthodox
Mennonite
Seventh Day Adventists
Unitarian

And if that weren't enough, you've got geopolitical denominations!

Anglican Church of Canada
American Baptist Association
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Church of England
Church of Scotland
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark
Lutheran Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church in America
Reformed Churches in the Netherlands
Russian Orthodox Church
Southern Baptist Convention (US)
Uniting Church in Australia

See? There are christian gays. They are no different from your christianity than methodists are.

America is supposed to be a place that is "free for all good people". Not a place that is "free for some and the rest can (often literally) go to hell for all we care."

Here are a few reads
http://www.same-sex-gay-marriage.com/
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1034938/posts

Ugh. Keep your hate sites out of here. That first site says gays discriminate against straight people by not having sex with them.

That's utterly retarded. Speaking of which:

Can you not see how objection to [gay marriage] would be love?

Right, you love them so much that you'll take their freedoms away because you don't want them to be equal to you.

"I love them, so I will punish them until they force themselves to be straight like me so they won't go to hell like everyone who isn't like me will."

Are you going to discriminate against muslims until they choose christianity too? Jew? Atheists? Do you want to give every non-christian on earth this perverse "love" of yours?

The constitution is designed to protect the world from people like you.

Please.. dont get true Christianity confused with the one your distorting.

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1: 24-28
1 Timothy 1: 8-11
2 Peter 2: 6-10
ah.. forgot Jude 7

Right. Do you eat lobster? Shrimp? Do you work weekends? Do you cut your beard into a curve?

If so, you're as much a "false christian" as the gays who are "distorting" christianity.

Outlaw shellfish! Leviticus says so!

Beat your slaves until they are blind, but no more than that! The bible commands you!

I dont know what to say, just keep making into whatever you want. Thats what most people try to do nowadays anyway.

Right. Everything in the bible should be taken literally. You're probably a minority in that aspect of christian belief. Maybe we should pass a law forcing you to understand metaphor? Or to understand that policy from thousands of years ago might not apply today?

The fact is, there are tons of different interpretations of the bible. Even you'd be hard-pressed to discriminate against them all.

And many people find it foolish that you can even think about gays being together. You do need to respect the vast majority of people in this country that are religiously opposed to it.

Of course we should respect the opinions of religious people too.

But law is secular. If we can make defying christianity illegal, then what's stopping every other religion from making defying them illegal too?

Oh, but christianity is the majority, so we can treat them better by giving them influence over law and excluding everyone else.

But isn't giving christianity preferential treatment tantamount to giving every other religion worse treatment?

And if we treat religious minorities worse, why not treat race minorities worse? Goodbye, blackie. Let's treat the differently-abled minorities worse too, while we're at it.
After all, the majority is not paralysed from the waist down.

Let's ban wheelchair ramps because people with injuries are just trying to weaken the concept of "stairs".

 

[qckbeam]

Let's ban wheelchair ramps because people with injuries are just trying to weaken the concept of "stairs".

I had no plans on making anymore posts in this thread (no use arguing against the religious). But Mecha, that was one of the funniest things I've read all day. Thanks for that one!

 

[Yakuza]

If, of course, you dedicate your life to pretending that there are none, sure. But even with that standard, just because Paul thinks something doesn't make it right or wrong.

(of course, for that matter, neither does Jesus saying it)

If there are than show me. You say i am the one pretending yet can you back up a reality that there are contradictions.

You've dodged the question. Jesus never explains what's changed from OT law, and like most things, is pretty ambiguous as to what the heck he means for the law. Indeed, this is precisely why later Christians battled so hard over what Jesus' teachings were supposed to mean. The ones who managed to kill off the others of course "won" the debate, but it's hard to see how that makes them correct in their interpretation, let alone in their selection of sources as to what exactly Jesus' teachings were in the first place.

Jesus claimed to be God, God can not violte his own nature. Jesus fullfilled the law for us, he is perfectly clear about what the law is.

 

[Yakuza]

Another long-ass post, because I'm not just going to sit back and give that 40$ away.


Excellent point. I have been swayed to your side by your irrefutable logic.



Yes, the majority of America is religious. That doesn't mean that somehow non-religious people are less valid.


It's exactly like a jewish majority oulawing pork. It's a decision that forces people to follow jewish rules. Just like a marriage ban forces everyone to follow christian rules.

There are jews who eat pork. They exist, and I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed a place in society because of it. It's called acceptance. I don't see why you'd be opposed to gays acting more christian.


So if they wanted to marry and be accepted as only slightly different christians, you wouldn't let them?


Not everyone believes in god. I, for one, don't give a shit what 'god' thinks.

And if marriage is only about benefits, how's about you have a "civil union" too. After all, if we can keep christian gays from having rights, we should remove those rights from christian straights too.

Christian gays exist. Banning their marriage is a direct attack against their religion.

There's no clause in the constitution that says "everyone has freedom except when your interpretation of god says 'no'."


So you're saying: "Gays are obviously unnatural because people hate them."? That's pathetic.


Oh, shit! Guess what. You've learned about homosexuality just from reading this thread. Are you turnng gay too?

I learned about nazism in school, but I'm not going to be Hitler.

Do you really think that teaching kids about "bad" things will automatically turn them evil?



Although that is a stereotype, it does happen. So what?

Wait - did you just say that gay couples are extremely similar to straight couples? Well shit, you just proved my point.


It is hate once you try to make that belief into constitutional law. Law must remain seperate from religious beliefs.

You might believe that the homeless are better off dead, but that doesn't mean you can go down the street with a rifle and shoot them on sight.


What evidence are you drawing that conclusion from? It's certainly not from your experience as a gay. You can't just make shit up.



Crack is medically harmful, and is sold by criminals for criminals. And no-one is born addicted. Even if they were, they should seek medical treatment, because crack adiiction is painful and deadly.

Gays harm no-one, and commit no crime just by being gay. Gays might be born gay, but they don't need treatment for it, since it doesn't kill them like drugs would.

Comparing gays to addicts is thouroughly insulting. I find it sad that you think being gay is a disease.


Right, so gays shouldn't be allowed marriage because they chose happiness over shame and repression? How tactful.

The next Ghandi, ladies and gentlemen!


NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD. I don't care if the bible says to kill every gay you see (which I think it does).

What you are essentially asking for is the right to subjugate every religion that has ever existed except for your interpretation of yours.

If we let you subjugate christians who see gays as normal because Jesus himself did not preach against them, then where will you stop? Who's next on the list of people who aren't christian enough? The baptists?



Right. So gays are perverted and deserve to be punished. Do you support a death penalty for gays? Maybe we should just round them up into camps.


The point is that the is a huge amount of people who believe otherwise. For every christian who believes in the Bible, there is a non-christian who doesn't. Non-christians fill the world, and christianity itself is divided into sects based on interpretation of the bible.


See? There are christian gays. They are no different from your christianity than methodists are.

America is supposed to be a place that is "free for all good people". Not a place that is "free for some and the rest can (often literally) go to hell for all we care."



Ugh. Keep your hate sites out of here. That first site says gays discriminate against straight people by not having sex with them.

That's utterly retarded. Speaking of which:



Right, you love them so much that you'll take their freedoms away because you don't want them to be equal to you.

"I love them, so I will punish them until they force themselves to be straight like me so they won't go to hell like everyone who isn't like me will."

Are you going to discriminate against muslims until they choose christianity too? Jew? Atheists? Do you want to give every non-christian on earth this perverse "love" of yours?

The constitution is designed to protect the world from people like you.



Right. Do you eat lobster? Shrimp? Do you work weekends? Do you cut your beard into a curve?

If so, you're as much a "false christian" as the gays who are "distorting" christianity.

Outlaw shellfish! Leviticus says so!

Beat your slaves until they are blind, but no more than that! The bible commands you!



Right. Everything in the bible should be taken literally. You're probably a minority in that aspect of christian belief. Maybe we should pass a law forcing you to understand metaphor? Or to understand that policy from thousands of years ago might not apply today?

The fact is, there are tons of different interpretations of the bible. Even you'd be hard-pressed to discriminate against them all.



Of course we should respect the opinions of religious people too.

But law is secular. If we can make defying christianity illegal, then what's stopping every other religion from making defying them illegal too?

Oh, but christianity is the majority, so we can treat them better by giving them influence over law and excluding everyone else.

But isn't giving christianity preferential treatment tantamount to giving every other religion worse treatment?

And if we treat religious minorities worse, why not treat race minorities worse? Goodbye, blackie. Let's treat the differently-abled minorities worse too, while we're at it.
After all, the majority is not paralysed from the waist down.

Let's ban wheelchair ramps because people with injuries are just trying to weaken the concept of "stairs".

You need to identify what the word Christianity means to you.

 

[Ikerous]

Religion shoudnt have anything to do with if this is legalized or not.
We dont live in a theocracy (And praise God that we don't)