Same Sex Marriage

[one_raven]

Again, there is a drastic difference between not wanting to marry someone of your same sex (regardless of your reasons) and wanting to force others to live by your same rules.

I don't want to get lost in all the technical bullshit about old and new covenants, whether Leviticus still stands, what it means when Jesus said he cme to fulfil the law and the rest of it, because it serves to do nothing but muddle the actual issue.

The issue is not whether or not Jesus approved of homosexuality or whether or not YOU approve of homosexuality, nor why.
The issue, the ONLY issue, is what makes you think you have the right to dictate that others must abide by the rules and standards YOU want to live by.
Not a single reasonable person is saying YOU must marry a homosexual.
The question, is "Why, if you do, do you support banning of gay marriage?"
What gives you the right to dictate how others live their lives?
How, exactly, does it hurt you if gays get married?
Where do you get off attempting to legislate YOUR belief system and making others abide by it?

 

[windeater]

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?

I would not so quickly jump to such a conclusion. Are we talking here about the Old and the New Testament, or just the New, since you seem to take that one as your guiding scripture. Even if the time periods were different, the cultural was not. You cannot ignore the social-cultural ideas prevalent at that moment. They surely influenced the writers. Paul himself is a primary example of this, in his writings he on numerous occasions contradicts God himself (if you want me to look up relevant parts, give me some time. I am not too familiar in the English bible since its not my native tongue). Which makes it all the more difficult to take his writings as guidance. Cause who is talking here, Paul the Human or God?


Knowing the will of God is not as simple as reading the scripture as some people would like it to be.

Indeed. So how do you decide? What are your reasons for, for instance, taking Him serious when it comes to His writings about homosexuality, but not on, say, Pauls rule to not let women in the church? Or do you actually agree with that too? I'd be curious to know how and when you decide the scriptures are definite in how you lead your life, and how and when they are not.


One of the reasons we do not follow the Old Testament

Specify we. The church I grew up in took the Old Testament as just as important as the New Testament. Please do not generalize all Christians here.

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.

I've already pointed out the contradictions in specifically Paul's writing, and I wonder what you have to say about that. As for him having the whole picture in perspective, does that mean you also agree on his stance concerning the role of women?

But I'm astray here... I guess the reasons why some Christians object to gay marriage have already been outlined. However, I would like to point out that a stand against gay-marriages is not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, I know of plenty of churches in my country (the Netherlands) where homosexuals can indeed be married.

 

[Baron Max]

The issue, the ONLY issue, is what makes you think you have the right to dictate that others must abide by the rules and standards YOU want to live by.

Human societies have been dictating rules and laws for their own society since the beginning of societies ...tribes and clans, even. We have a gazillion laws and rules that dictate how each of us live to remain in the society. Why do you think it's so different with the same-sex marriage issue?

What gives you the right to dictate how others live their lives?

The very concept and principle of many people living together gives them that right. If everyone can do anything that they want, how well and how long do you think that society would last? It's no different to how some people are trying to dictate to others that they can't own handguns or that they can't drive a car before they're of a dictated age.

How, exactly, does it hurt you if gays get married?

Some feel that same-sex marriage would provide benefits to which gays should NOT be entitled ...the "benefits" of marriage via laws and rules of our present-day society. There are others who feel, in some ways, that same-sex marriage is harmful to the social fabric of the nation.

Where do you get off attempting to legislate YOUR belief system and making others abide by it?

There are about a gazillion rules and laws that we all must abide by in our society .....and that's nothing less than forcing others to live by certain standards and beliefs of others. That's how society operates. Most of the nation reduced the speed limits to 55mph because of the belief that it saves gas and that it reduces fatal accidents ...and others, who didn't believe that, were forced to abide by it.

Baron Max

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

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.

Actually, it has a lot to do with not legalizing gay marriage. What I've been talking about is that homosexual sex is wrong. This has everything to do with law. Law is an institution that is meant to uphold what is true, right and just. That is the purpose of Law as a tool of mankind. Some laws change, yes, such as seatbelt laws, copywrite laws, taxation laws, etc. These laws change according to circumstances, need, practicality, etc. What does not change is the underlying principles upon which these laws are founded. Principles of Justice, Life, Happiness, and the like.

When I talk about homosexual marriage being wrong, it has everything to do with law. When something is wrong, it goes against or breaks one of these underlying principles of truth... of reality. Sure, such a thing might be done for the sake of, or in the spirit of another of these principles, but it still breaks another. The principles of reality are one. If one breaks down, eventually all will break down. Laws are instituted both to uphold truth, reality, and to uphold such within the human sphere to uphold principles of justice, life, happiness, etc.

When a person asserts that homosexual sex is wrong, then they must necessarily assert that homosexual marriage, as an institution, is also wrong, as one of the most basic functions of marriage is reproduction, the uniting of two entities to make a new one. When one asserts that homosexual marriage is wrong, then what one is asserting is that it is breaking a principle of reality. If this is the case, then how could such a one support any law that gives allowance to that wrong?

So many people today think that if something doesn't do (at least immediately, outwardly perceived) harm to anyone outside the one performing an action, then it's ok. When, where, why and how did this become a principle, and what is there to support this? What is the underlying principle that makes this a reality? Do we not consider suicide an evil? Do we not even consider internal torment an evil? If a man is on an island, alone, with absolutely no contact with the outside world for the entire duration of his life, and he lives that life in constant and utter torment, would we not call that bad? Would we not look toward that man with pity and sadness? Is not what is happening to him to be considered something terrible? It's only causing harm to him, and no one else, so why should anyone care?

When any principle of reality is attacked, broken down, harm is caused. That is irreducably true. This is because to break something down is to deconstruct it, or to destruct. Any form of destruction is merely a breaking down of an existing thing. When we break down existing principles of reality, we begin to leave things unfulfilled. Those things that operate upon principles that stop working, or stop being upheld, will soon themselves begin to break down and disfunction.

When we talk about the fabric of society, what we're talking about are these underlying principles upon which any society functions, operates. If we attack these principles, then the society attacking them is doomed to disfuntion, destruction. If there is any sure way to tell when the "end of the world" is approaching, it'll be when the principles upon which the world itself operate are being attacked, destroyed. The same can be said of any reality.

The mind breaks down when the principles upon which it operates break down. The body dies when the principles upon which it operates go into disrepair. Mathematics stops working when you ignore those principles upon which it is founded. If your cars engine stops working, it is because the principles upon which it operates were not upheld. If underlying principles were not a reality, then there would be no coherency in in universe, no laws of physics, or thermodynamics, or mathematics, or anything.

When we say that homosexual marriage is wrong, we mean that it does not uphold, or it attacks, or it breaks down, certain principles of reality, immutable laws which, if not upheld, will only cause those things which operate by them to come to destruction.

This in turn, naturally, produces unhappiness. The harm may not be readily apparent, immediately of great magnitude, but it does exist. It harms the individual, and in turn, it harms a much wider sphere.

Sure, a homosexual man has just as much right to do whatever he wants as anyone else. Any man has the right to free choice. Every man has the right to choose to murder. Each man has the right to choose to cheat on his spouse. All men have the right to choose to lie. No man can be denied the right to choose to chop of his own arm.

This isn't about the "right" to choose actions. This is about whether or not certain actions SHOULD be done. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Just because you WANT to do something, doesn't mean you should. Homosexuals can go and do whatever they want, that's up to them. I certainly can't stop them. But I will never support homosexual marriage, because it violates princinples of truth, principles of reality.

To choose to block the principle of life for the sake of the principle of love is unacceptable. To choose to block the principle of perfection for the sake of the principle of happiness is unacceptable. Happiness entails perfection, love entails life. Putting happiness before perfection leads to imperfection and ultimately to unhappiness; love before life leads to death, and ultimately hatred. This will not be immediate, but it will certainly be effective.

 

[charles cure]

Human societies have been dictating rules and laws for their own society since the beginning of societies ...tribes and clans, even. We have a gazillion laws and rules that dictate how each of us live to remain in the society. Why do you think it's so different with the same-sex marriage issue?

what are you saying here, that the process of making law and its application has remained unchanged since the beginning of laws in human societies? i mean in the beginning laws and rules among tribes and clans were rigid and exclusive and cruel and even baseless at times. just because they made laws that way in the beginning doesnt mean humanity hasnt developed a more enlightened social outlook that doesnt require legislation being passed to stop people from doing relatively harmless things in the privacy of their own homes and such. the truth here is that the christian political element in the US would like to force everyone to live under their rules because they believe they issue directly from god, and they think of homosexuality as at best a behavioral perversion or physical abberration and dont want the "wicked ways" of gay people to tear apart the fabric of our society. but like many things in the christian religion this is an utterly unjustified belief or at least not a demonstable one.

The very concept and principle of many people living together gives them that right. If everyone can do anything that they want, how well and how long do you think that society would last? It's no different to how some people are trying to dictate to others that they can't own handguns or that they can't drive a car before they're of a dictated age.

its actually a lot different than that. you can demonstrate the social need to control the ownership of handguns as they are an instrument of death and are used almost exclusively to cause harm to people. there is an observable reason to not want to let a 4 year old child drive a car, because they cant see over the steering wheel and would probably end up crashing it and hurting themselves or someone else. there are little grey areas involved in the regulation of issues like these that people dont agree on, but for the most part a majority of reasonable people agree that there is a social good done by regulating the use of those things in at least some way. there is no such implicit social harm caused by gay marriage. one could even argue that a social good could be done if it were legalized because it would move us towards a more free society for a segment of the population who have been striving for equal treatment. so if you cant point to what specific harm is caused by allowing same sex marriage, how can you conceive that laws against it would be fair or just or even appropriate?

Some feel that same-sex marriage would provide benefits to which gays should NOT be entitled ...the "benefits" of marriage via laws and rules of our present-day society. There are others who feel, in some ways, that same-sex marriage is harmful to the social fabric of the nation.

this is not a problem with gay marriage, its a problem with marriage. its unfair to EVERYONE who isnt married that married couples should receive extra societal benefits just because of the fact that they have wed. if you have a problem with people getting extra rights, the stance should be against the laws that allow married couples to have extra priveledges that no one else can have, and then same-sex couples wouldnt have access to them either.
as for the second part of that, i'd like to see someone provide any evidence that gay marriage is more harmful to our social fabric than straight divorce is. in fact i'd like to see any proof that gay marriage is harmful to anyone in any way at all.

There are about a gazillion rules and laws that we all must abide by in our society .....and that's nothing less than forcing others to live by certain standards and beliefs of others. That's how society operates. Most of the nation reduced the speed limits to 55mph because of the belief that it saves gas and that it reduces fatal accidents ...and others, who didn't believe that, were forced to abide by it. Baron Max

once again, youre confusing the issue, regulations are passed into law with the expectation that they will serve a social good, that they will protect people from harm or abuse. not to mention, people have to agree that the laws are desireable to the majority of the people before they are passed, especially states with referendum, but in the case of states without referendum, the people speak through their representatives who are elected based on their positions on the passage of laws and other issues. i dont believe that the majority of people in this country think that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, or an institution that would invite cruelty and abuse, so why should the law forbid it? because a bunch of christians are running around squaking about how the scripture forbids it and it will tear apart society even though theres no proof that it would result in anything like that? typical.

 

[Baron Max]

the truth here is that the christian political element in the US would like to force everyone to live under their rules because they believe they issue directly from god, and they think of homosexuality as at best a behavioral perversion or physical abberration and dont want the "wicked ways" of gay people to tear apart the fabric of our society.

It's not just the Christians. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, ....hell, I think every religious belief on Earth finds homosexuality an abberation and behavioral perversion.

there are little grey areas involved in the regulation of issues like these that people dont agree on, but for the most part a majority of reasonable people agree that there is a social good done by regulating the use of those things in at least some way. there is no such implicit social harm caused by gay marriage.

But some people, seemingly most people, think that there IS social harm in allowing same-sex marriage - even tho' YOU don't agree with that. And just like some of those other "grey area" laws, they'll likely enact the denial of same-sex marriage laws.

so why should the law forbid it? because a bunch of christians are running around squaking about how the scripture forbids it and it will tear apart society even though theres no proof that it would result in anything like that?

Don't need no stinkin' proof! As you've stated, some laws are in that "grey area" of law and they're passed anyway. It's one of those things were "the majority" seems to have a stronger will than others. And that's what makes a society and what determines the "greater good".

It's just like the anti-handgun advocates ....they continue to rail against personal handguns and the 'right to carry' laws EVEN while the statistics PROVE that the 'right to carry' has consistently show no increase in violent crime, but in many areas has even reduced violent crime.

What "the society" doesn't want, they should not be forced to endure.

Baron Max

 

[Hapsburg]

Herr Max, why do you think homosexuality is necisarilly wrong? I've never witnessed homosexuality have adverse effects on people. I honestly don't see what is wrong with thier lifestyle.

 

[Baron Max]

Herr Max, why do you think homosexuality is necisarilly wrong? I've never witnessed homosexuality have adverse effects on people. I honestly don't see what is wrong with thier lifestyle.

Well, it could be that people don't like or approve of men stickin' their dicks into dirty, filthy, disease-ridden male assholes. But then, maybe it's something else, too. Maybe people just don't like the idea of one male suckin' the dick of another male. But then, maybe it's something else, too.

Why, Hap, is it that most people have such aversion to porno? Why is it that we have such an aversion many things that seem to go on in life? We just don't like it ...is that a good answer? Hell, I don't know?

Baron Max

 

[charles cure]

But some people, seemingly most people, think that there IS social harm in allowing same-sex marriage - even tho' YOU don't agree with that. And just like some of those other "grey area" laws, they'll likely enact the denial of same-sex marriage laws.

first of all i dont think thats true. i think most people dont care either way because it doesnt affect their lives in a real direct way. and yeah, people used to think there was a social harm done by interracial marriage too, but that proved not to be true, and should have resulted in people learning that denial of marriage rights for no demonstrable reason other than some superstisious nonsense isnt a good idea.

Don't need no stinkin' proof! As you've stated, some laws are in that "grey area" of law and they're passed anyway. It's one of those things were "the majority" seems to have a stronger will than others. And that's what makes a society and what determines the "greater good".

no i said there are specifics of the regulation that are in a grey area, like whether some 15 year olds are as capable of being responsible drivers as 16 year olds are, or whether a person should be able to carry around a BB pistol but not a 9mm Glock. those ar ethings people squabble about when they seek to scale back or strengthen the regulation. this issue doesnt fall into one of those grey areas. this is an argument where a bunch of people are saying that if a small segment of the population is accorded the same rights as everyone else, it will tear apart the social fabric. this is one of the same arguments that was used to support slavery and Jim Crow laws in the south, and our society has only benefitted from the resulting repeal of those ill-conceived pieces of legislation to the point where people of my generation would probably be embarrassed to go back into the 1940s or 50s and witness the ignorant attitudes of our forbears towards people whose only difference from themselves is color. thats how people of the next generation will view your attitude towards same sex marriage, whether it is legalized or not

It's just like the anti-handgun advocates ....they continue to rail against personal handguns and the 'right to carry' laws EVEN while the statistics PROVE that the 'right to carry' has consistently show no increase in violent crime, but in many areas has even reduced violent crime.

so what. people rail against laws all the time. some people cant stand the fact that there is an age restriction on drinking, or voting, or whatever, these issues become their pet causes and they wail on and on about it to anyone who will listen, but they are in an obvious minority. the gay marriage issue, however, unlike those issues involves mass discrimination against an entire cross-section of the US population who are denied rights based on some arbitrary criteria. there is no proof at all, statistical or otherwise that same sex marrige would have a negative impact on society, and our nation is polarized nearly equally in its views on whether it should be allowed or not. the entire crux of the issue for religious people is that scripture takes a negative view of homosexuality. well pardon the expression, but Thank God we didnt have to turn to scripture and see that it supported unfettered handgun ownership, or slavery, or nuclear arms proliferation, because we would have wound up pretty fucked when all the christians in this country came out in support of those causes to our utter destruction.

 

[charles cure]

Well, it could be that people don't like or approve of men stickin' their dicks into dirty, filthy, disease-ridden male assholes. But then, maybe it's something else, too. Maybe people just don't like the idea of one male suckin' the dick of another male. But then, maybe it's something else, too.

Why, Hap, is it that most people have such aversion to porno? Why is it that we have such an aversion many things that seem to go on in life? We just don't like it ...is that a good answer? Hell, I don't know?

Baron Max

people in judeo-christian society have an aversion to sex on a level that doesnt exist in other societies except for possibly islamic ones. the reason for this is that the religion itself almost criminalizes sexual expression for any purpose other than reproduction. some people have an aversion to porn, but it has been found in several studies (which i am unable to locate at the moment but will try to post once i find them) that in the states where the population is majority christian, the per capita sales of pornographic materials are larger than in places where vast groups of unwashed heathens (like new york city) make up the population. the reason postulated for a phenomena like this is that christianity is a huge promulgater of hypocrisy among people, and that sunday school teachers who sit down and teach kids that they shouldnt be looking at porn are in fact going home and looking at it themselves.
what kind of perverse sexual attitude has caused the massive outbreak of priest molestation cases in the US? they clearly do not practice what they preach, which im sure is a doctrine most heartily denouncing homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, and pornography.
in my town, the sunday school teacher eventually turned out to be a bank robber. yet he was in church every weekend blasting it into kids heads that the ten commandments forbid theft. its curious how that works, how a person can tell people to do one thing and do another. the holier-than -thou attitude that christians allow themselves makes it so much easier for people to point out their every fault when it becomes clear they are in fact normal people who sometimes give into their urges like everyone else. maybe you shouldnt be so quick to judge the worth of another persons lifestyle, especially when you arent being forced to live it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

what exact problem do christians have with gay marriage?

I think you are over generalising, there are people who profess to be christians who see no problem with gay marriage, as there are non religious people who have problems with gay marriage.
If a christian has a problem with gay marriage, I guess the basis of their distaste would be that the sexual act of homosexuals is an abomination to God, and as such, a union of marriage cannot exist under these circumstances, as marriage is a vow made before God between a man and a woman. But somehow I think you know this already.

....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.

Homosexuality and feminism together, is said to be the potent destroyer of the nuclear family structure.

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?

The problem is obvious, some people see homosexuality as a sexual perversion, an unatural state of affairs. To cut to the chase, they are sickened by the idea of a man shagging another man up the backside.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Qorl]

Let them live

 

[jayleew]

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.

God did choose the right people, the best that were available, but it is still the words recorded by man. I, for one, am not willing to take any word of man (God inspired, or not) for truth unless it fits with the whole scripture, the spirit as defined by God's actions and motives, and the logic is undeniable. Everything else is commentary. God could have chosen the best scholar in the world, but because of human communication, it is impossible to precisely convey the meanings of God for many reasons, including human's natural subjectivity and perception. If all the people in Christianity thought they had it all figured out and there was no arguments pertaining to scripture, what can we say about God? If we are able to figure out the scripture completely, is it not simple-minded? Still, the scriptures are simple and complex at the same time, as they should be.

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?

By my arguments? How strong of a Christian would you be if it was me who convinced you of God's truth in scripture?

I don't expect anyone anymore to understand what I think and believe. I will try to explain if asked, but if you don't understand, I don't expect it to matter more than any other half-baked irrationality. Believing in scriptures/God's word is irrational if you do not believe in God, and believing in God is irrational because of the lack of evidence. You asked why Chrisitians feel the way they do, I answer with irrationality. Are you surprised? Do you expect anyone to give you the answers you seek? If you aren't finding the answers, maybe you are looking in the wrong place.

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.

The English word fornication means that, yes. What about the original text? Also, taken in context, the underlying theme is not just fornication, but it talks about sex with beasts (check the scriptures I gave). All sorts of sex outside of marriage.

Also, how can there be a Christian marriage between anything but a male and female, as defined by scriptures?

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.

The problem has always been us. From the beginning, godly men laid well-meaning traditions and laws to honor God. They made all sorts of sacrifices in the name of God. They created the old testament law based on the intentions of God. The concept you have to get your mind around is that anything can honor God, depending on your true intentions and whether your intentions fit within what God wants. "Good" and "Evil" are defined by God's will. If you do something like help me when I lose my job, and it is not God's will, and you didn't listen, (as good as the action could be), you have sinned. If you help me out and surprise God, it may change his will if you do it for him, and hence you change the future. If you help me out and do listen to God, you have done righteousness.

An instance of this happened when Mary Magdalene poured ointment over Jesus. The disciples complained that they could have sold the ointment and fed many poor people instead. Jesus told them that they were wrong, Mary's intentions pleased God's will and he saw the action as actually preparing his body for burial, because he would rise before they would be able to prepare his body.

Another instance was the disciples picking wheat in the fields to eat on the Sabbath.

Jesus was unorthodox.

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?

Politically? We stand against what we perceive as sin. It says in scriptures that all accounts are recorded for the judgement seat. We will be accountable for every stray word we say. Our voting record will definitely be subject to our judgement and could be used against us. So, although we stand against injustice, we must allow all God's people to be free of our judgement. It is not an easy thing to do (to stand for what's right, without judging the faulty), and all of us Christians screw that up. If we were silent on the issue, it would be the same as condoning the behavior.

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.

He was a man who found the truth of God in the rawest way, while fighting God tooth and nail. He persecuted the Christians, went on a quest to do that, he then became one. It is similar to the atheist scientists and philosophers today who consciously set out to disprove God's existence and end up becoming Christian.

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.

If we said nothing against the issue, it is the same as accepting or worse, condoning the issue. We must accept the person, not the practice, if people choose to do it, but when we are asked about the practice, we must speak up or forfeit our chance to speak. If people wish to marry as homosexuals, they should be allowed to do so, the trouble is...we must speak against it if we are asked by politics. How do you get it past the Christians because we are stuck in a conundrum. We can't win either way.

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.

If we had it the Christian way, you couldn't sell rated "PG-13" movies on the market, you couldn't sell more than one or two beers to one customer, the governmental body would be comprised of all Christians, the Bible would be taught in schools, and many many more laws would be made to shape Americans into godly people. That is completely un-American, and un-Christian. However, currently in America, Christianity is the basis for its morals and if we are taken out of the picture, a system of morals must be set in place. Otherwise, you couldn't expect anyone to be law abiding citizens. Laws are not the same thing as morals. A society must have a set of adopted morals to exist outside of chaos, unless the government has the power to control the people. Freedom goes hand-in-hand with personal responsibility. Could this nation be free if no one had a sense responsibility? We would have chaos, and require more socialism to control the ones who do not have responsibility. An adopted set of morals is required for a self-governing society, a "free" society.

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.

Ethics are not a rigid thing and are relative to the situation, what you are talking about is a perfect society like Christian heaven. You want this world to be more like "heaven." Not a bad view, but it is unrealistic and unacheivable.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So, how can we have objective ethics? Without a sense of unity and peace, we can't. And we are losing our sense of what it means to be an American and fly one banner, or maybe it has always been that way and I'm slowly waking up to those that are un-American.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[jayleew]

Again, there is a drastic difference between not wanting to marry someone of your same sex (regardless of your reasons) and wanting to force others to live by your same rules.

I don't want to get lost in all the technical bullshit about old and new covenants, whether Leviticus still stands, what it means when Jesus said he cme to fulfil the law and the rest of it, because it serves to do nothing but muddle the actual issue.

The issue is not whether or not Jesus approved of homosexuality or whether or not YOU approve of homosexuality, nor why.
The issue, the ONLY issue, is what makes you think you have the right to dictate that others must abide by the rules and standards YOU want to live by.
Not a single reasonable person is saying YOU must marry a homosexual.
The question, is "Why, if you do, do you support banning of gay marriage?"
What gives you the right to dictate how others live their lives?
How, exactly, does it hurt you if gays get married?
Where do you get off attempting to legislate YOUR belief system and making others abide by it?

If we don't stand against the issue, we are accepting (or condoning) the issue. No person should have to accept our morality. Our faith condons free will to choose to all men, regardless of morality. But, because our faith demands us to speak if asked, when our politicians ask where we stand, we must speak. We speak against the adopted action of homosexuality in the same way we speak against adopting murder.

It does not hurt anything if gays get married: to each his own.

But if we do not stand against the issue, we are saying the act is okay to do. If you don't get out and vote against Bush, then you are saying it is okay if Bush gets elected. Would Christians be sending a mixed message to Christians about homosexuality if we did not speak against the issue?

 

[(Q)]

God could have chosen the best scholar in the world, but because of human communication, it is impossible to precisely convey the meanings of God for many reasons, including human's natural subjectivity and perception.

Then, your god is seriously flawed in that he couldn't even figure out a way to convey his message to everyone equally. He has failed.

If all the people in Christianity thought they had it all figured out and there was no arguments pertaining to scripture, what can we say about God?

He did his job well. Of course, that doesn't mean a thing until Muslims and every other religion agree as well.

If we are able to figure out the scripture completely, is it not simple-minded?

No, it would mean gods message could be understood by all equally - isn't that what your god would want?

 

[jayleew]

Knowing the will of God is not as simple as reading the scripture as some people would like it to be.

Indeed. So how do you decide? What are your reasons for, for instance, taking Him serious when it comes to His writings about homosexuality, but not on, say, Pauls rule to not let women in the church? Or do you actually agree with that too? I'd be curious to know how and when you decide the scriptures are definite in how you lead your life, and how and when they are not.

You must decide by the influences I mentioned above: God and prayer, other scripture, history, cultural influences, and other people's arguments.

Paul specifies when he is teaching God's ideas, or Paul's interpretation. He says things like "I, not the Lord". Paul is the only author who specified when he was interpreting, and when he was relaying God's ideas.

One of the reasons we do not follow the Old Testament

Specify we. The church I grew up in took the Old Testament as just as important as the New Testament. Please do not generalize all Christians here.

Orthodox Christianity who believes in Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven, and are more like the early Christian church than not. Those that follow only two commandments, which Jesus Christ taught as the encompasing commandments to all the commandments. These are true Christians: stemming from Christ's teachings, and named after his name by others, and not themselves.

But I'm astray here... I guess the reasons why some Christians object to gay marriage have already been outlined. However, I would like to point out that a stand against gay-marriages is not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, I know of plenty of churches in my country (the Netherlands) where homosexuals can indeed be married.

Those churches that name themselves Christian and do not teach that homosexuality is wrong are not Christian churches. Christ himself defined marriage as a male and female, and any sex outside of marriage is defined as fornication in scriptures.

Matthew 19:4-6
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If you do not follow all the teachings of Jesus Christ you cannot be called a Christian, unless you name yourself as a Christian.

 

[rwelti]

I appreciate that no one has attacked me personally and a couple nice comments were made.

A few items come to mind as I read this interesting thread.

The bible contains all kinds of strange and outdated rules, for example doesn't it say that a menstruating woman in unclean and unfit for entering a church? That all kinds of foods are forbidden? There are all kinds of sins in the bible that are ridiculous, and most all of them go unpunished and unnoticed at thousands of churchs every week.

To systematically *forbid* the recognition of a couple who have demonstrated loyalty and devotion far and above what ought to be necessary to prove they love each other is just plain wrong. It really reminds me of nothing more than the adult equivalent of the playground bullies I endured growing up. "We don't like you, you are different. And we're going to punish you for it."

It is NOT a matter of choice. Anyone who says so is obviously not gay themselves, even if they choose to say they once were. Obviously they did not know their own mind. Their have been several high profile cases of poster men for the "ex-gay" people, who "fell of the wagon".

Think of this: people who face their fears and admit to themselves and their family and coworkers that they are gay spare needless tragedy and pain when people try to get married, have kids, and then end up in an ugly, hurtful divorce. It is a courageous thing to NOT lie to a prospective mate and use up years of their life in a self-centered experiment of your trying to go straight. {There may be some small percentage who effectively "go straight" but not significant, in my opinion. They must have been merely confused.}

Another point: alot of the "protections" of marriage come from an ancient time when people had to be "rewarded" for bonding so that (straight) men would not just carouse their life away, humping any and all available holes. The population of the world is now sufficiently huge that we are sure to survive now. Having children is NOT a heroic deed. Anyone (almost) can do it. A woman in Arkansas was in the news last week for delivering her 16th child, and she said she wants MORE? Give me a break. Give the mother planet a break!

And as for the rejection of the physical act itself, plenty of straight men dream of giving it to their woman up the backside, too, don't forget. And the incidence of prison rape suggests that it is not the act itself but just different thresholds of attraction / desperation. {Reminds me of the high class whore who bristles at the suggestion she might accept a certain low fee. The gentleman says "madam we've already established what you are, it is now just a question of your price".} Just because a man loves another man does not even prove they have sex!! Love is not just sex, and for the most part sex is not the main ingredient in love (IMHO). Overactive and oversnoopy imaginations just running wild with all the evils that are surely going on between gay men. Never mind that it has been generally priests, boy scout leaders, and other community figures or supposedly straight males that have been doing the harm. Jack and Joe average are very boring individuals who generally don't even like kids much less want to kidnap and molest them.

Anyway scripture and legalities and all the complexities aside, it really does boil down to why forbid the states from granting rights to a group of people, when it cannot be shown to have any harm whatsoever to another group of people?? So it offends you. Well they said that about black/white marriages.

Thanks to all the enlightened folk who have shared their views here. It is really stimulating. I respect your opinions and I'm learning a lot here.

I'd end by wondering if it is safe to say that most of those who oppose gay marriage probably have never known or been related to a devoted, happy, and yes healthy gay couple. Otherwise they wouldn't have the heart to say some of the things they do. Gay is fine as long as it's "Will and Grace", but when it's real people it's a different matter.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

If we don't stand against the issue, we are accepting (or condoning) the issue. No person should have to accept our morality. Our faith condons free will to choose to all men, regardless of morality. But, because our faith demands us to speak if asked, when our politicians ask where we stand, we must speak. We speak against the adopted action of homosexuality in the same way we speak against adopting murder.

It does not hurt anything if gays get married: to each his own.

But if we do not stand against the issue, we are saying the act is okay to do. If you don't get out and vote against Bush, then you are saying it is okay if Bush gets elected. Would Christians be sending a mixed message to Christians about homosexuality if we did not speak against the issue?

*************
M*W: I believe that someday soon the issues and the prejudice against homosexuals will cease to be. Why must you feel that you have a political right to "stand against" homosexuals? Aren't "all men created equal?" Do you also feel that you have a political right to "stand against" the issues of women? Even now in the 21st century, only the tip of the iceberg has been touched by women's healthcare research! Do you also feel that you have a political right to "stand against" other races, creeds, religion, national origins, since you have openly admitted you "stand against" gender issues. Psychologists have proven that when one is biased against something/someone, he is most likely biased against many things/people.

Did you "stand against" President Bush's re-election? Isn't he the "compassionate conservative" opposed to the "bleeding liberal?" You are definitely not a "political liberal." Liberal's generally accept everyone. Conservatives "stand against" the equalities of humankind.

You speak of "morality." Where is yours?

 

[Baron Max]

...why forbid the states from granting rights to a group of people, when it cannot be shown to have any harm whatsoever to another group of people??

But many people say that it DOES harm them and society. And just so we understand each other, .....what do you (or they) mean by "harm"??? Harm can be and mean many things to many different people ....so who are YOU to say that something is not "harmful"? Hell, water is harmful ....if you inhale it.

...a devoted, happy, and yes healthy gay couple.

Well, I did know several, as a matter of fact. And in a very short time, they all found someone else!! And, interestingly, when I saw a couple of them last, they had even different partners than I'd known earlier. Promiscuous, indeed.

I'll vote against allowing same-sex marriage. I would, however, agree to a special "contract" between gays to permit any of the marital benefits accorded married couples. But they'll have to have their partners name tatooed on their foreheads! (That last was a joke, of course! ...LOL!)

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I believe that someday soon the issues and the prejudice against homosexuals will cease to be.

Well, I'm willing to wait patiently for it to happen "some day" ....but until then, I'm gonna' vote against permitting same-sex marriages.

Why must you feel that you have a political right to "stand against" homosexuals?

Because I have the right to vote as I see fit .....even if you don't like it.

Baron Max