Gay Marriage: Yes or No

[Shai Gar]

You know the will of god?

I know the will of god, as stated in the Bible.
I know the will of god, as stated in The Book of Shai Gar.
I know the will of god, as stated by Atheists.

The entire christian religion is based off the forgiveness of sins it is why Christ died.

Why harp on leviticus and ignore the gospels? Isn't that exactly what homophobic religious nut jobs are doing?

You don't know much about Christianity do you? Reread the bible.

Jesus is all about forgiving people sure, but he's also about obeying the law. The law holds that practising homosexuality is a sin. Therefore going into a Church, asking god to bless the union of something he's Dead AGAINST, is pure stupidity, and will not happen.

Jesus explicitly stated that he's there, not to break the law, but to make it stronger. To understand the law, that which Jesus is there for, you have to understand Leviticus and Deuteronomy.




Satya, feel free to argue at any time...

 

[Lucifer]

I know the will of god, as stated in the Bible.

Ultimate religious law in the old testament is love thy neighbor as thy self. But what if your neighbor is a guy and you're a guy.

Funny isn't it..

You don't know much about Christianity do you? Reread the bible.

Leviticus is more of a Hebrew text it largely addresses Hebrew traditions.

Jesus is all about forgiving people sure, but he's also about obeying the law. The law holds that practising homosexuality is a sin.

Which religious law is that?

Jesus said he wanted to hold up the law but he never actually says which laws. Which opens up the playing field for ambiguity.

Therefore going into a Church, asking god to bless the union of something he's Dead AGAINST, is pure stupidity, and will not happen.

When did god say that he is dead against homosexuality? Or Jesus Christ for that matter. Niether explicitly stated in either direction.

Jesus explicitly stated that he's there, not to break the law, but to make it stronger.

Yeah like working on the sabbath? When Jesus said to keep the law of God it is fairly obvious he met the ten commandments. He came to make sure that man kind adhered to the commandments. For instance in the book of Mathew when asked how to get into the kingdom of heaven he said.

"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments " (Matthew 19:17)

And he did.

Satya, feel free to argue at any time...

Yeah were is that monkey boy?

 

[Satya]

 

[Shai Gar]

Ultimate religious law in the old testament is love thy neighbor as thy self. But what if your neighbor is a guy and you're a guy.

Funny isn't it..

...

...

...

The Neighbours of the Jews at that time were the Samaritans. The Blood Enemies of the Jews, more bitter because they were kin. It could just as easily read "Love thy Enemy as thyself." There are many kinds of love, I love Satya and Motor Jax and Silently Honest and Haha and Wolfe and many other men, this does not mean I penetrate their anus with my penis. Love is not by necessity erotic.

Leviticus is more of a Hebrew text it largely addresses Hebrew traditions.

Jesus wasn't a "Christian", in the same way that John Calvin wasn't a Calvinist, or Martin Luther wasn't a Lutheran. Luther actually had people executed for heresy who said they were Lutherans. Luther was a Catholic.

In the same way, Jesus was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. You've pretty much destroyed any point of religion you can make here, with those statements, but I'll continue...

Which religious law is that?

Jesus said he wanted to hold up the law but he never actually says which laws. Which opens up the playing field for ambiguity.

That's exactly how fail you are.
Have you EVER READ THE FUCKING BIBLE? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE? OR is your knowledge explicitly second hand?

It's pretty god damned obvious that Jesus was talking about the only Law the Hebrew people had. Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Jesus knew these laws inside out, as evidenced in the story that as a 5 year old boy he had wandered away from Joseph his father, and was found arguing scripture with the rabbis and other learned men.

There's no ambiguity there. There's not a chance in hell he could have been talking about the Napoleonic Code, Persian Law, or Mongolian Law.

When did god say that he is dead against homosexuality? Or Jesus Christ for that matter. Niether explicitly stated in either direction.

*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

Go! Reread the bible. Or even bloody google it.
Baptists use the verse often enough for it to be in the top ten links of a google search.

Yeah like working on the sabbath? When Jesus said to keep the law of God it is fairly obvious he met the ten commandments. He came to make sure that man kind adhered to the commandments. For instance in the book of Mathew when asked how to get into the kingdom of heaven he said.

"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments " (Matthew 19:17)

And he did.

BFCB.

 

[HaHa]

 

[Satya]

He hardly meant that as a criticism.

He shoulda.

 

[NekoLove]

I'm married. I'm an atheist. I didn't get married in a church, but I did have a non-religious wedding ceremony. The thought of marriage as a religious thing never occurred to me until I started hearing people using religion as a reason against gay marriage.

I was allowed to marry who I wanted to. I don't see why anyone else shouldn't be allowed that right as well.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I'm married. I'm an atheist. I didn't get married in a church, but I did have a non-religious wedding ceremony. The thought of marriage as a religious thing never occurred to me until I started hearing people using religion as a reason against gay marriage.

I was allowed to marry who I wanted to. I don't see why anyone else shouldn't be allowed that right as well.

This is exactly my opinion, and precicely why I refuse to argue in this debate.

 

[GaiaGraha]

I think "Gay Marriage" is a joke to be honest. Call me closed minded, I don't care, but I will give ground to my opinion.

Marriage was something invented by religious groups, to symbolise exclusivity between two people. The two people are specified by the religious groups as a male and a female.
The religions that put stock into "marriage" are homophobic, and therefore I think it is an insult, and a provocation for homosexual couples to ask to be "married". I think it invites hatred and scrutiny because it is controversial toward the organisation that put marriage in place. Christians don't want homosexuals... but homosexuals don't accept that and expect people to "accept them for who they want to be". Well that's fine and everything, but the pendulum swings both ways. In asking Christians to accept homosexuality, Christians should have the right to ask homosexuals to respect their beliefs and views and stay away from anything that the Christians institution developed.

However, I do believe that homosexual couples absolutely have a right to a civil ceremony. Civil services are not religious in any way. It is a lawful agreement that does the same job... just without all that religious hocus pocus that really amounts to a load of pointless words.
I don't see anything wrong with homosexual couples whatsoever, and I am 100% comfortable around homosexuals and I am not scared that they are going to start hitting on me, because with all my time spent around them, they are actually not really attracted to heterosexuals.

My opinion is this; "Gay 'marriage' is wrong because it provokes hatred and animosity in the society that gives stock to marriage. Gay 'civil ceremony' is absolutely fine and a right to everyone and shouldn't offend anyone because there are no religios conotations involved".

I can't believe I have to say this again:
Religion did not create marriage.

You say Gay Marriage is wrong because it provokes hatred?
So we are punishing the victims? That's COMPLETELY fucked up.
They are not "inviting" hatred and scrutiny- that is ridiculous and unfair.

It's not fair to say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because someone else doesn't like it. It is an EXTREMELY un-Christian thing to control other people like that- and yet they do it ALL the time.

There are many things that Christians do not follow in the bible, and yet now homosexuals aren't allowed to be Christian?

Leviticus. 20:13 -

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

So sodomy and eating shellfish are both abominations.
Well I don't see Christians picketing at Red Lobster.

You may be right in the "matter of business" thing..... but you cannot deny that a church wedding is Christian... no matter what it was a couple of hundred years ago.
Christians don't like homosexuality (largely because they are ignorant) and so allowing it is an insult to them.

I am not Christian... but there are two sides to a coin. Whatever the 'original' thoughts behind it, it has developed into what it is NOW... and that is what is important.

A couple of hundred years ago we spoke a different kind of English entirely.
A couple of hundred years ago 'gay' meant happy.
A couple of hundred years ago the word 'computer' didn't exist.
A couple of hundred years ago... things were different... and this is a debate about modern society.

If you want to base things on modern society- then WHY would you say that we should stick to religious marriages as they were meant to be when they were created?

Plus the point I was trying to make was, once again:
Religion did not invent marriage.
It used to be a completely secular issue.

 

[GaiaGraha]

Fair enough, I'm interested in different perspectives. But I am allowed my own opinion on the subject and I don't think that it's an ideal environment for kids to be brought up in. That's not to say it wouldn't be loving, or that the kids would have issues with it in adulthood. I just would say that an easier background would be to have the same family dynamics as the other children around. That's just my thought on the subject.

If you care so much about children having an easier background growing up then why don't you focus on REAL problems: like the fact that the United States has the highest child poverty rating of all 'developed' countries, or that there are children being sold into sex slavery around the world, or that in some places children aren't even safe to play outside without getting shot.
Maybe those kids need your opinion in their favor more than a kid who has two loving moms, or two loving dads.

 

[parkerlindsey]

Hi Everyone

I believe in marriage because all persons live in different society and have their different religion. The thoughts of marriage as a religious thing have never occurred to me until I started hearing people using religion as a reason against gay marriage.
So As per my opinion, Marriage is good thing for everyone who live in society.

 

[Shai Gar]

I'm married. I'm an atheist. I didn't get married in a church, but I did have a non-religious wedding ceremony. The thought of marriage as a religious thing never occurred to me until I started hearing people using religion as a reason against gay marriage.

I was allowed to marry who I wanted to. I don't see why anyone else shouldn't be allowed that right as well.

Non religious wedding ceremonies are different. They're non religious.

If Christians want to picket them, they should also pickets temples and mosques.
And yes, red lobster.

 

[Rudy]

I have to state that the titular question is only even an issue due to an unfortunate conflation between church and state in the U.S., something which is supposed to be avoided by the establishment clause.

Specifically, government is officiating "marriage", which has a religious connotation to begin with. It should not be doing anything of the sort. If there has to be some sort of legal option made available, make it civil unions for everyone, with the same benefits for everyone. Make this the only legal institution of the sort.

Leave "marriage" as a cultural institution, and leave it up to private establishments. Some churches will want to "marry" homosexuals, and they should be allowed to. Some churches will not want to "marry" homosexuals, and they should not be forced to. As private institutions, that is how it should be.

So, to recap, everyone should get equal treatment under the law with civil unions for all. "Marriage" should be a private, cultural institution with no legal benefits whatsoever, and be left up to the individuals in question.

 

[Shai Gar]

Rudy, that's precisely my idea.

 

[Rudy]

Rudy, that's precisely my idea.

Oh, sorry. *chagrined* I ashamedly admit to not reading the entire thread before posting.

 

[Shai Gar]

it's cool. you summarised

 

[Pristinegirl]

Except you're all arguing that marriage isn't religious, and yet the argument is for homosexuals to get married within an institutionalised religion.

If they've found a religion that isn't against it, or have formed their own, fine. However institutionalised religions are against it in their dogma and should therefore not wed them.

Your arguments are moot.

I don't think it should be in regards to religion. I think that one should get marride out of love and not for the sake of god.
I don't think institutionalised religions should be forced to change, so if they dislike it then they can find one who isnt against it!

 

[Ketsugi]

If the definition of "marriage" as put forth by the Constitution is indeed religious, then we have a big issue here. Church and state are supposed to be separate and it's a moot point. The churches can do what they want and EVERYONE, hetro or homo, gets civil unions.

However, if it means something else (I was married in a courthouse once without religion), then that's another story. How does the U.S. gov't define MARRIAGE? It is hard to answer this question without knowing.

Whatever the case, I believe that any couple regardless of sexual orientation should have the ability to be joined legally so they can have all the rights that go along with the union. LOVE is so important and TRUE LOVE seems so rare. How can we go against love??? (I am not using religion here because there is more than one religion and you cannot hold everyone to the standards of your own religion).

We should celebrate LOVE.

Religion is a completely separate issue.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I actually agree. I think of marriage more of a ceremony/gathering/party. So if everyone made civil unions for the legal process then they could have a ceremony or not and still be able to marry.

 

[Shai Gar]

precisely.
Posted via Mobile Device