Same Sex Marriage

[charles cure]

the marriage topic made me think of this.

what exact problem do christians have with gay marriage?

i hear a lot of arguments about how it will destroy the structure of the nuclear family and erode values and stuff but i haven't seen any kind of proof that gay marriage would contribute to this any more than the 62% divorce rate among "normal" families does.

i dont really know a lot of gay people, and definitely not any that are married so i dont have a paradigm, but i dont see them as wrong really, just different.

enlighten me, whats the problem with this?

i would like other general opinions on the subject as well, because i hear a lot about it in the news lately and ive always wondered if im the only one who just thinks its not a big deal either way.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

the marriage topic made me think of this.

what exact problem do christians have with gay marriage?

Well, Christians believe homosexuality (in action or as a lifestyle, not as an orientation) is evil. I'd think that the exact problem that Christians have with homosexual marriage is that it promotes an evil(s).

i hear a lot of arguments about how it will destroy the structure of the nuclear family and erode values and stuff but i haven't seen any kind of proof that gay marriage would contribute to this any more than the 62% divorce rate among "normal" families does.

Christians also assert that divorce is not acceptable.

i dont really know a lot of gay people, and definitely not any that are married so i dont have a paradigm, but i dont see them as wrong really, just different.

Christians would not say that the homosexual is wrong, per se, that is, evil/wicked. Rather, that the homosexual act (man/man sex, woman/woman sex) is what is wrong. Obviously homosexuals are different, just as you and I are different, just as the Dalai Llama and Saddam Hussein are different. It isn't the person who is put under question, or pressure, it's their actions.

enlighten me, whats the problem with this?

Would you like the religious answer, or the philosophical/ethical? The religious answer you may simply reject outright, out of mere disbelief in any kind of deity, etc. The philosophical/ethical answer could take some time to discuss, and due to the natural complexity of the matter, may not be accepted because of the multitude of variables for consideration.

i would like other general opinions on the subject as well, because i hear a lot about it in the news lately and ive always wondered if im the only one who just thinks its not a big deal either way.

I'm personally opposed to homosexual marriage. I will say immediately and outright that this is not due to "homophobia," because there is no fear involved. Futhermore, "homophobia" is a term that is abused in order to cast a primitive and emotionally unstable light on anyone opposed to homosexuality, where no such light should be. A phobia is an abnormal fear. Just because someone doesn't like spiders doesn't mean he's arachniphobic. At the same time, it isn't that I (specifically, I don't speak for everyone here obviously) don't like homosexuals. I don't like homosexuality. I've known people who are homosexual, and spoke to me about it openly. I consider those people friends. However, like any good friend, I don't accept their actions which I consider wrong. It's not my business until he/she brings it up in conversation, obviously, and I wouldn't comment on it until such an occasion. I don't care if people take this post and insult me for it. If they do then they are guilty of exactly what they accuse me of. My opinion is not without much consideration and thought. It has not been made lightly, and it has been made despite the conflict of interest it represents with some of my friends. I believe, just as anyone else here, that my own opinion and process of developing the opinion is correct and right and just, and so I will stand by it.

 

[rwelti]

As a gay man in a loving relationshiop for 22 years now, I try hard not to be hurt or offended by the Christian position that says I'm OK but what I do is evil. Really. Ask any homosexual if they "chose" to be one. I doubt you will ever find one who answers "yes". (I mean, who would willingly choose to be reviled, discriminated against, teased as a child and denied basic rights like visiting their lover on their deathbed in the hospital because they are not "family", or inheriting the estate of their decades long companion ??)

It was not that long ago that racially-mixed marriages were forbidden and now look how ridiculous that seems. I believe the same will happen with same-sex marriages and those fighting for it will be seen as enlightened in a few decades.

Ironically I don't even want to get "married". Why would I try to get something that society works so hard to deny me? In fact, I believe that some of the resistance to gay marriage is due to the fact that marriage isn't all it's cracked up to be, but by God they're not going to admit that or share it with someone. ;-)

If marriage is the hot-word, then many gays would be happy with civil unions. But there are a host of basic rights being denied gay couples with long years of committment, and that just isn't right, in my book.

Christians are supposed to honor LOVE above all other things. LOVE.

When two people love each other deeply and for many years, what the @#%$ difference does it make where they put their willies or how they touch each other in their own privacy?

Here in the states Christians are not demonstrating a whole lot of love in my opinion. They would probably say that they love me, just not my acts. OK. Well I love them, too, just not their acts.

There are so many other issues of such greater importance facing our country than this one. Poverty, the rich-poor divide, environmental destruction, energy crisis, the looming bird flu threat, on and on. I wish we had the enlightened attitude of Canada, Spain, Netherlands, and the few other countries who have already put this issue to rest and moved on.

Thanks for reading this far, even if we do not agree. I think you would find me a very nice, honorable person and if you knew me well, I don't believe you would be unaffected in your position against me. Maybe you would move a few iotas toward allowing me some societal respect. Maybe not.

Stay well. Stay open to new ideas if possible...

rwelti

 

[charles cure]

Well, Christians believe homosexuality (in action or as a lifestyle, not as an orientation) is evil. I'd think that the exact problem that Christians have with homosexual marriage is that it promotes an evil(s).

right but the larger issue i was trying to pry open is how do you reach the conclusion that homosexuality is evil or antithetical to christian or other religious values?


Christians also assert that divorce is not acceptable.

thats not true, divorce is allowed by christian churches. what you mean is that it is acceptable but not preferable. despite this i dont hear a lot of right wing christians in the political arena harping on the single mother paradigm as the destruction of the nuclear family, at least not as much as they do about the perceived threat from homosexual marriage or civil union.



Christians would not say that the homosexual is wrong, per se, that is, evil/wicked. Rather, that the homosexual act (man/man sex, woman/woman sex) is what is wrong. Obviously homosexuals are different, just as you and I are different, just as the Dalai Llama and Saddam Hussein are different. It isn't the person who is put under question, or pressure, it's their actions.

right but as above, i would like to hear an arguement for why it is wrong in maybe a biblical or otherwise theological context.



Would you like the religious answer, or the philosophical/ethical? The religious answer you may simply reject outright, out of mere disbelief in any kind of deity, etc. The philosophical/ethical answer could take some time to discuss, and due to the natural complexity of the matter, may not be accepted because of the multitude of variables for consideration.

it doesnt matter i was looking to foster discussion. provide whichever answer you like. i dont think sexual orientation enters the realm of ethics just on its own.



I'm personally opposed to homosexual marriage. I will say immediately and outright that this is not due to "homophobia," because there is no fear involved. Futhermore, "homophobia" is a term that is abused in order to cast a primitive and emotionally unstable light on anyone opposed to homosexuality, where no such light should be. A phobia is an abnormal fear. Just because someone doesn't like spiders doesn't mean he's arachniphobic. At the same time, it isn't that I (specifically, I don't speak for everyone here obviously) don't like homosexuals. I don't like homosexuality. I've known people who are homosexual, and spoke to me about it openly. I consider those people friends. However, like any good friend, I don't accept their actions which I consider wrong. It's not my business until he/she brings it up in conversation, obviously, and I wouldn't comment on it until such an occasion. I don't care if people take this post and insult me for it. If they do then they are guilty of exactly what they accuse me of. My opinion is not without much consideration and thought. It has not been made lightly, and it has been made despite the conflict of interest it represents with some of my friends. I believe, just as anyone else here, that my own opinion and process of developing the opinion is correct and right and just, and so I will stand by it

well that is good, but what you haven't said really is why you are opposed to it. any type of answer will work.

 

[Cris]

rwelti,

Welcome to sciforums. Very nice first post, well said - I hope you stay around.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

I'm sorry if you think I don't allow you "some societal respect." I am certain (and I am sicerely honest in this) that I would find you to be a very nice, honorable person, even if I didn't know you well. I can already tell that you've got a good heart. I don't mean to hurt you with my words, they're not meant for that. That I have, and that you have responded so graciously is highly admirable.

Look, as the saying goes, "your biggest critic is yourself." That is certainly true of me. Again, I'm being completely sincere. I do things I am not proud of, and I recognize that I am wrong in those actions. I understand that I have a natural inclination toward certain things. I know it because I know my father. Just because I have this inclination, and always have, and that I didn't choose it, doesn't mean I'm going to say it's ok. This is the standard that I have set up for MYSELF. To recognize that there are faults of MY OWN, that I've always had, and will continue to strive to overcome, and that acting upon the impulses, or living in the lifestyle befitting those impulses, is not acceptable and good. Since this is a standard I have set up for myself, how can I expect differently from others? To do so would be to say that my own standards are arbitrary. I'm NOT going to go around accusing, blaming, chastising others because they don't live up to my standards, but when asked, I will assert it as the standard that I hold. I don't expect that a homosexual person has chosen to be such. What I do know is that homosexuals choose to live homosexual lifestyles. I won't, and can't, say any homosexual is going to hell, both because I don't know, and secondly because I would be entirely unjustified in such an accusation. I would hope with all I could hope that I would meet them in heaven after dead, whether they changed their lives or not.

Love, yes, Christians are to be devoted to love. Love, however, means many different things. Don't get me wrong, if a man loves a man, that's beautiful and wonderful. I would gladly honor that love. However, if a man has sex with another man, that is something I would not honor. Sex is said to be the "ultimate expression of love." I disagree. Sex is an expression of love between two people, but it cannot be the ultimate form. When a couple choose to share one another's beings to cocreate a new one, that is the ultimate form. To say, "I choose you, for all your good qualities, for the beautiful person that you are, despite any bad qualities that you may possess, I choose you to commingle with myself to make a child," is an amazing thing. I don't doubt that if you could say that to your partner, you would. THAT is the love that I honor. But that you can't, that the sex you have, being the natural expression of that, is frustrated by the irreducible fact that you CAN'T, it is that, that I cannot accept.

I understand that it is not your fault. And I understand also that what I am about to say is something that you probably won't agree with, and certainly not what you would consciously do. When two people have sex, willfully, and knowingly, and without any intention or ability to create a new life, then they are accepting implicitly that frustrating reality of sex imprefected and reduced from the ultimate expression of love, that one and the other are the choices for mutual union, to something less, then that is wrong.

This is why the Catholic Church does not accept birth control, abortion, and homosexual sex (as well as other things like polygamy, beastiality, etc..).

 

[Baron Max]

But there are a host of basic rights being denied gay couples with long years of committment, and that just isn't right, in my book.

I'm not sure what "rights" to which you refer that can't be obtained via civil union and/or legal, binding contracts?

But nevertheless, those "rights" are also denied to men and women who don't want to get married ...confirmed bachelors and bachorettes. Why should those "rights" be denied them just because they don't want to marry? Or, for that matter, if same-sex marriage becomes legal, why could two confirmed bachelors marry someone just for the legal "rights" without ever acknowledging the other? I.e., marriage for convienence? Or perhaps skirting the "letter of the law" so as to fuck the government?

And if I'm not mistaken, two bachelors in Michigan (I think?) are planning to "marry" if the same-sex law passes so they, too, can gain the benefits of marriage in tax breaks, etc.

Baron Max

 

[Hapsburg]

Christians are supposed to honor LOVE above all other things. LOVE.

They are supposed to but they don't, ever since the deaths of the original 12, they haven't. Crusades, Inquisitions, antisemitism, etc...This is why I think christianity is a bullshit religion with a bullshit concept.
That is why I am an agnostic, straddling the border 'tween athiesm and deism. It's more fuckin' sensible, and less offensive.

 

[one_raven]

I'm personally opposed to homosexual marriage. I will say immediately and outright that this is not due to "homophobia," because there is no fear involved. Futhermore, "homophobia" is a term that is abused in order to cast a primitive and emotionally unstable light on anyone opposed to homosexuality, where no such light should be. A phobia is an abnormal fear. Just because someone doesn't like spiders doesn't mean he's arachniphobic. At the same time, it isn't that I (specifically, I don't speak for everyone here obviously) don't like homosexuals. I don't like homosexuality. I've known people who are homosexual, and spoke to me about it openly. I consider those people friends. However, like any good friend, I don't accept their actions which I consider wrong. It's not my business until he/she brings it up in conversation, obviously, and I wouldn't comment on it until such an occasion. I don't care if people take this post and insult me for it. If they do then they are guilty of exactly what they accuse me of. My opinion is not without much consideration and thought. It has not been made lightly, and it has been made despite the conflict of interest it represents with some of my friends. I believe, just as anyone else here, that my own opinion and process of developing the opinion is correct and right and just, and so I will stand by it.

There is a drastic differnce between not liking, appreciating, approving of, understanding someone's desires and lifestyle, and wanting to make it illegal.

I would never tell anyone they should think homosexuality is anything more or less than they think it is. I wouldn't dare tell you that you are wrong for being disgusted by the thought of two men haing sex. I wouldn't ask, or expect, you to understand what one male can feel for another (or one female can feel for another). I wouldn't as you to accept and approve of homosexuals with open arms. That is not my right. It is not anyone's right to tell you what to think or how to feel.

None of what you said, however, supports the idea of banning gay marriage (and the same goes for Jesus' teaching, by the way). You have said how you feel about homosexuality, and that's just fine with me, even though I disagree with it.

What was asked, though, and what I would like to know, is why should it not be made legal. This has nothing to do with the church at all, nor what they should or should not do, accept or recognize. This is about the law.

I fully support the right of anyone to be turned off by a member of another race. I do not, however, support banning interracial marriage.
I, personally, would never want to marry most of the people I know, that doesn't drive me to want to ban others from marrying them.
I am not a Shintoist, that doesn't make me want to ban the religion.
I hate brocoli. I hate it so much I will not allow it to be cooked in my house when I am home. I am not, however, planning on voting to make cooking brocoli illegal.

Why do you support banning gay marriage?
What negative effect will it have on you?
What right do you feel you have to tell others how to live their lives?
I am not gay, nor do I want to marry a gay man. I do, however, believe that a gay man has just as much right as anyone else does to marry whomever he wishes.
Why, specifically, do you disagree with this?

 

[one_raven]

When a couple choose to share one another's beings to cocreate a new one, that is the ultimate form. To say, "I choose you, for all your good qualities, for the beautiful person that you are, despite any bad qualities that you may possess, I choose you to commingle with myself to make a child," is an amazing thing. I don't doubt that if you could say that to your partner, you would. THAT is the love that I honor. But that you can't, that the sex you have, being the natural expression of that, is frustrated by the irreducible fact that you CAN'T, it is that, that I cannot accept.

Does this not equally apply to sterile heterosexuals?
Heterosexuals who do not want children?
Heterosexuals who would rather adopt a needy child?
Do you think they should not be legally allowed to marry?

 

[charles cure]

Love, yes, Christians are to be devoted to love. Love, however, means many different things. Don't get me wrong, if a man loves a man, that's beautiful and wonderful. I would gladly honor that love. However, if a man has sex with another man, that is something I would not honor. Sex is said to be the "ultimate expression of love." I disagree. Sex is an expression of love between two people, but it cannot be the ultimate form. When a couple choose to share one another's beings to cocreate a new one, that is the ultimate form. To say, "I choose you, for all your good qualities, for the beautiful person that you are, despite any bad qualities that you may possess, I choose you to commingle with myself to make a child," is an amazing thing. I don't doubt that if you could say that to your partner, you would. THAT is the love that I honor. But that you can't, that the sex you have, being the natural expression of that, is frustrated by the irreducible fact that you CAN'T, it is that, that I cannot accept.

I understand that it is not your fault. And I understand also that what I am about to say is something that you probably won't agree with, and certainly not what you would consciously do. When two people have sex, willfully, and knowingly, and without any intention or ability to create a new life, then they are accepting implicitly that frustrating reality of sex imprefected and reduced from the ultimate expression of love, that one and the other are the choices for mutual union, to something less, then that is wrong.

This is why the Catholic Church does not accept birth control, abortion, and homosexual sex (as well as other things like polygamy, beastiality, etc.


so basically you dont have a reason, you have a rule. the two things are not the same. i would like to hear a reason that you think sex can only be meaningful for reproductive purposes. how can you claim to know the "perfect" form of sexual expression or emotional connection? thats like an artist trying to say one style of painting is the only "true" style. there isnt a reason for that, its just an opinion. even more than that, its an opinion that has been developed to accept the constraints of rules that have been handed down to you by some other authority. where do you perceive a claim of righteousness to come from in regard to these rules? god? if so, where is god to impart these rules to all people equally? furthermore, if god has established rules for sexual expression and has remained a perfect and infallible entity, why did god create people who are bound by their nature to constantly stand in violation of these rules (ie: homosexuals)? or is it just a facade of toleration that christians put up when they say that they understand homosexuality is not a choice but a biological imperative? does god amuses itself by tormenting human pawns and forcing their urges to be in direct contravention of the true and righteous moral path? or are the rules in fact hideously flawed? i want to know.

 

[jayleew]

the marriage topic made me think of this.

what exact problem do christians have with gay marriage?

There are several scriptures that literally say that homosexuality is sin. Since one of the purposes for marriage is the giving of all of oneself to another (which includes the body), marriage of homosexuals is sinful. That's the problem we have.

I believe we are all born unto sin. I was born a thief and a liar, what were you born as? The question is rhetorical, so don't answer.

 

[charles cure]

There are several scriptures that literally say that homosexuality is sin. Since one of the purposes for marriage is the giving of all of oneself to another (which includes the body), marriage of homosexuals is sinful. That's the problem we have.

I believe we are all born unto sin. I was born a thief and a liar, what were you born as? The question is rhetorical, so don't answer.

let me see the scripture.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Personally I couldn't get sexually turned on by a man. It just isnt a part of 'me' to feel that way.
But I do get turned on by the opposite sex. Do self-confessed homosexual men ever find women to be a turn on and if so, are the things that turn them on about men the same things that turn them on about women?
If not what is more attractive about the man than the woman?

Thanks. Trying to understand here and not wallow in ignorance.

peace

c20

 

[jayleew]

let me see the scripture.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Genesis 19:4-9: 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Leviticus 18:22-24: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you

Leviticus 20:13: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 22:5: 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

This is the most clear of them all:
Romans 1:26-31: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Like most of scripture, it is open to interpretation. Some argue these verses deal with boy prostitutes, like that is an excuse. It is clear the Bible is against sexual acts that are not between a man and a woman because of the volume of echoing ideas. It is like trying to reason out of the fact of evolution to believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and all other perversions of God's intention.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/267

 

[charles cure]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Genesis 19:4-9: 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Leviticus 18:22-24: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you

Leviticus 20:13: 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 22:5: 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

This is the most clear of them all:
Romans 1:26-31: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Like most of scripture, it is open to interpretation. Some argue these verses deal with boy prostitutes, like that is an excuse. It is clear the Bible is against sexual acts that are not between a man and a woman because of the volume of echoing ideas. It is like trying to reason out of the fact of evolution to believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and all other perversions of God's intention.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/267

well i dont agree with you. i think you have to read homosexuality into a large portion of these verses in order to get them to work, and especially with the crimes of the people in Sodom and Gamorrah. plus i dont know if youve noticed but these passages condemn a shitload more people than just homosexuals. i mean how come fornicators are allowed to marry, how come someone who has commited adultery and gotten divorced could be allowed to marry a second time? or a third time? if you take these passages at their literal meaning, do you take this passage from duetoronomy to be equally authoritative? and if so how come we dont kill people of other religions and burn their cities to the ground all the time:

Deuteronomy 13 6-16
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again

what are we supposed to do if we follow the bible and make it into law for society other than deride and destroy each other?

 

[jayleew]

what are we supposed to do if we follow the bible and make it into law for society other than deride and destroy each other?

Make up your mind what you are going to argue about.

You asked for scripture that is against homosexuality among other sins, do you deny their meaning? Because all the evidence points to evolution as the mechanism of the origin of life, can we say that that is not true? Likewise, there are several scriptures that point towards anti-fornication (and specifically homosexuality which is explicit in Romns), how can we say the scriptures say anything else?

Even if one piece of evidence is question of evolutionary theory, does not disprove the theory because there are several pieces of evidence that point the same way. Likewise, there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the Bible is against fornication of all types, including homosexuality.

Now, you have shifted the focus to whether we should adopt those ideals today, as though that is what I was implying! What a loaded question! :bugeye:

That is another matter, but what you asked for is scriptural evidence condemning homosexuality because you want to know why Christians are against it. I have given you the evidence of why Chrisitians think that way, so let's talk about the validity of their postition, not whether it should be adopted into society.

 

[charles cure]

Make up your mind what you are going to argue about.

You asked for scripture that is against homosexuality among other sins, do you deny their meaning? Because all the evidence points to evolution as the mechanism of the origin of life, can we say that that is not true? Likewise, there are several scriptures that point towards anti-fornication (and specifically homosexuality which is explicit in Romns), how can we say the scriptures say anything else?

i though i made it clear that i was denying their meaning. i dont think that those little chunks of scripture imply any requirement to deny homosexuals any more legal rights than are denied to other people who sin in a similar manner. the point i am making with the inclusion of the section of deutoronomy is that at least in that piece of scripture you find a clearly defined directive that issues from God himself to the people. you find no such similar imperative in your scriptural selections except one of the ones from Leviticus, and i dont see christians out putting gays to death like god clearly wants them to. you dont act on the passage from deutoronomy or the one from Leviticus so why act in accordance with the other pieces of scripture that you have selected? thats part of the issue and part of why i cant comprehend the objection to gay marriage.

although i feel the evolution debate is getting somewhat played out, lets review it. evolution is an observable natural process, the evidence that points to it is copius and continues to manifest itself no matter what the time period. however the scriptures are not like this. they are continuously used to justify themselves or each other and there is no evidence of their original intent so they are always open to interpretation. evolution is not subject to interpretation because it has its basis in fact and tangible or at least observable reality. your analogy has failed in that regard. theres no explicit mention of why homosexuality is evil here or how important of a sin god perceived it to be or anything other than "dont do it". well if we are to follow every "dont do it" that shows up in the bible and punish it with a denial of legal rights in society to those who choose to live in cantradiction of it, we would all lose a lot of our rights. so im saying where do you draw the line? and if this is where you draw the line, then why here?


i wasnt trying to change the issue, just make you explain how youre able to pick and choose little chunks of dogma to justify a political stance. if you were a "true" christian dont you think you would have to adhere to the word of god in whole and not just in part or risk perverting it? if you dont think this, why dont you?

 

[jayleew]

Make up your mind what you are going to argue about.

You asked for scripture that is against homosexuality among other sins, do you deny their meaning? Because all the evidence points to evolution as the mechanism of the origin of life, can we say that that is not true? Likewise, there are several scriptures that point towards anti-fornication (and specifically homosexuality which is explicit in Romns), how can we say the scriptures say anything else?

i though i made it clear that i was denying their meaning. i dont think that those little chunks of scripture imply any requirement to deny homosexuals any more legal rights than are denied to other people who sin in a similar manner. the point i am making with the inclusion of the section of deutoronomy is that at least in that piece of scripture you find a clearly defined directive that issues from God himself to the people. you find no such similar imperative in your scriptural selections except one of the ones from Leviticus, and i dont see christians out putting gays to death like god clearly wants them to. you dont act on the passage from deutoronomy or the one from Leviticus so why act in accordance with the other pieces of scripture that you have selected? thats part of the issue and part of why i cant comprehend the objection to gay marriage.

Ahh, so you are objecting to the validity of the scripture because Christians are picking and choosing the law? And because Christians do not take the whole thing as truth, then the whole thing is in question? Is that your position?

For the sake of argument, let's seperate what Christians do with scripture, and just read it for what it says. Doesn't the Bible have authors that have the same consistent idea of anti-fornication, based on the selected texts above? The time periods are different, the dialect is different, everything is different, but the underlying theme is the same, right?

Whether Christians are taking bits here and there from scripture (making their own truth or not) that is the answer to your question of why they feel the way they do. Is it wrong? I don't know. There is a lot in the underlying equation to discerning the will of God. Does he really want us to kill the foricators as it says? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Knowing the will of God is not as simple as reading the scripture as some people would like it to be. We must remember that the Bible is, after all, recorded words of humans, of Godly ideals and historical figures in the history of Christianity, in the sect of Christianity. We cannot substitute the will of God with the Bible. God is not subjective like we are, and sometimes it is just to kill, but God looks at your motivations, more than your actual actions.

One of the reasons we do not follow the Old Testament, as it is written to kill the homosexuals, is because Jesus paid the price so that all can be forgiven, and he will come again and judge the living and the dead. Because of Jesus, even the unbeliever can be saved. Thankfully, we have the idea repeated under the new law in Romans; however, this time our executing judgement is left out because of Jesus. Jesus said that we all are equals because we all sin, and it is not his intention that any should perish. The stark difference between the Old and New Testaments is the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was God and a man. Because of his sacrifice, God sees everyone differently now, than before. He sees faith, hope, and love. That is why we should do likewise, and not as the old laws commanded. Everything was black and white until Jesus came and said that being "good" is relative to your perspective. "I am the way, the truth, and the light," he said.

So, we know homosexuality is sin because it is in the old and new laws, but we also know we are no better than homosexuals and have no right to judge, from the law of Christ.

In short, the whole perspective Christians take on homosexuality is based on both the new and old testaments, not just the old. As I said before, Romans is clear cut on the issue and it was written AFTER Christ, so we need to listen more closely to Paul's message, who had the whole picture in perspective.

theres no explicit mention of why homosexuality is evil here or how important of a sin god perceived it to be or anything other than "dont do it". well if we are to follow every "dont do it" that shows up in the bible and punish it with a denial of legal rights in society to those who choose to live in cantradiction of it, we would all lose a lot of our rights. so im saying where do you draw the line? and if this is where you draw the line, then why here?

I'm not saying that we should deny the rights to anything. Did God deny the rights to the "bad apple?"

You asked why Christians feel the way they do. We will stand against it because we are subjective to what the scripture teaches. If we had it our way, this nation would be un-American. But, remember we are the balance to chaos with no lines.

if you were a "true" christian dont you think you would have to adhere to the word of god in whole and not just in part or risk perverting it? if you dont think this, why dont you?

Define "Christian". Obviously, it is an adjective for one who follows Jesus Christ's teachings. If we are a "true" Christian, we have to adhere to the word of Christ in whole and not just in part or risk perverting it. The old law was impossible to follow. So, Jesus came and followed the whole thing to demonstrate his character. Then, he told us to follow him because you will make it to heaven through him.

Jesus himself said that if you follow a small part of the old law, then you must follow the whole law. No one was worthy because of the nature of humans to want to be in control, so God made a way through his son.

 

[charles cure]

jayleew

Ahh, so you are objecting to the validity of the scripture because Christians are picking and choosing the law? And because Christians do not take the whole thing as truth, then the whole thing is in question? Is that your position?

no my position is that the bible is at best an poorly written and nearly incoherent set of myths.
my point however, is that if you believe the book is divinely inspired then you should be able to explain with clarity the reason for its abounding contradictions. and if you do not believe the book is divinely inspired then why take it to heart at all? in addition to this if you believe the book is divinely inspired and chalk up the contradictions and imperfections in it to god's allowing human subjects to write it, then why dont you feel this calls into question god's ability to choose someone who could convey the divine thoughts correctly? that doesnt sound like much of an omniscient and omnipotent being to me, choosing people to write down his thoughts when he knows they will misinterpret or malign them.
so thats where i find the biggest fault with christian thought. they will openly admit to mistakes in the bible, though it is believed to be divinely inspired, and still claim that god is all powerful and all knowing and that the document is authoritative in some way. they chalk the mistakes in the bible up to man's fallibility but fail to see mans fallibility as an extension of what must by logical connection be god's failure to impart the knowledge correctly or to the right people. they will say that they have to take some things literally and some things figuratively but never specify exactly which parts are which, making for a convenient and open ended document that can purport to confirm or deny any claim that anyone makes about anything. that to me makes it worthless on the whole. so i would say that if christians cant even agree among themselves to follow the bible and its teachings in part or in whole,figuratively or literally, how do you expect the rest of us to understand how or what it is that you really think and believe? and furthermore, even if we do begin to understand it, why should it matter any more than any other half-baked irrationality?

For the sake of argument, let's seperate what Christians do with scripture, and just read it for what it says. Doesn't the Bible have authors that have the same consistent idea of anti-fornication, based on the selected texts above? The time periods are different, the dialect is different, everything is different, but the underlying theme is the same, right?

yeah but fornication only means sexual intercourse out of wedlock and thats it. so on the whole the bible is far more forceful in its position against fornication than it is against homosexuality, so why inst there a movement afoot in the christian community to deny marriage to fornicators? this is a political stance i asked what the problem was that christians had with same sex marriage. i dont accept as an answer that the problem is that scripture forbids it when scripture forbids so many other things that the christian political agenda turns a seemingly blind eye to.

Whether Christians are taking bits here and there from scripture (making their own truth or not) that is the answer to your question of why they feel the way they do. Is it wrong? I don't know. There is a lot in the underlying equation to discerning the will of God. Does he really want us to kill the foricators as it says? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Knowing the will of God is not as simple as reading the scripture as some people would like it to be. We must remember that the Bible is, after all, recorded words of humans, of Godly ideals and historical figures in the history of Christianity, in the sect of Christianity. We cannot substitute the will of God with the Bible. God is not subjective like we are, and sometimes it is just to kill, but God looks at your motivations, more than your actual actions.

how can you say sometimes yes and sometimes no? who can interpret that correctly if the human conduits that god felt he could trust to transmit his word to paper couldnt even do it in an unambiguous way? and the old testament isnt a christian document at all, its a jewish one, so the bible is not a document specifically of that one sect recording only its history and dogmas, making it even more rife with confusion. how do you subjectively interpret the words "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " from Leviticus. that seems extremely clear to me. if youre saying that those pieces of scripture you gave me DEFINITELY mean that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of god, how can you say that that phrase doesnt mean that you DEFINITELY should kill them or that they at least deserve death as punishment? you contradict yourself if you cant admit that.
and then if you dont follow through on it how are you not ignoring the word of god? and if the word of god through jesus in the new testament says something different and contradictory how does that not make god a failure because he set up a system originally that was too rigid for his subjects to live by and was forced to alter it in order to save them from the damnation that he would have wrought on them with his own hand? explain that to me because it does not make any sense. thats why you cant take it as sometimes yes sometimes no, because it all turns out to be an endless maze of confusion that way.


One of the reasons we do not follow the Old Testament, as it is written to kill the homosexuals, is because Jesus paid the price so that all can be forgiven, and he will come again and judge the living and the dead. Because of Jesus, even the unbeliever can be saved. Thankfully, we have the idea repeated under the new law in Romans; however, this time our executing judgement is left out because of Jesus. Jesus said that we all are equals because we all sin, and it is not his intention that any should perish. The stark difference between the Old and New Testaments is the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was God and a man. Because of his sacrifice, God sees everyone differently now, than before. He sees faith, hope, and love. That is why we should do likewise, and not as the old laws commanded. Everything was black and white until Jesus came and said that being "good" is relative to your perspective. "I am the way, the truth, and the light," he said.

see above response.

So, we know homosexuality is sin because it is in the old and new laws, but we also know we are no better than homosexuals and have no right to judge, from the law of Christ.

so then how do christians purport to justify their political stance against gay marriage if it is god and not man who is fit to judge what is ok to do and what isnt?

In short, the whole perspective Christians take on homosexuality is based on both the new and old testaments, not just the old. As I said before, Romans is clear cut on the issue and it was written AFTER Christ, so we need to listen more closely to Paul's message, who had the whole picture in perspective.

Paul is a whole other subject. why the word of that man has ever had any credibility is beyond me.


I'm not saying that we should deny the rights to anything. Did God deny the rights to the "bad apple?"

no but are you saying that it isnt true that overwhelmingly the christian position on gay marriage rights are that they should be denied? if it werent true i doubt there would even be a thread on this topic. the oppostition to laws allowing gay marriage is almost completely concentrated among groups of christian conservatives.

You asked why Christians feel the way they do. We will stand against it because we are subjective to what the scripture teaches. If we had it our way, this nation would be un-American. But, remember we are the balance to chaos with no lines.

that doesnt make a lot of sense to me.


Define "Christian". Obviously, it is an adjective for one who follows Jesus Christ's teachings. If we are a "true" Christian, we have to adhere to the word of Christ in whole and not just in part or risk perverting it. The old law was impossible to follow. So, Jesus came and followed the whole thing to demonstrate his character. Then, he told us to follow him because you will make it to heaven through him.

i meant true christian, true believer, follower of god unconditionally and in whole. not interpreter of scripture to define convenient situational ethics.

Jesus himself said that if you follow a small part of the old law, then you must follow the whole law. No one was worthy because of the nature of humans to want to be in control, so God made a way through his son.

right so how is this compatible at all with the christian god concept of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence? it seems an obvious game of trial and error to me.