Quote:
Originally posted by Kagome_Sakura
That wouldn't necessarily be the case. Homosexual marriage is strictly against the Christian religion, but heterosexual marriage is not.
A lot of things are against the Christian religion, jealousy, murder, etc., but priests are not allowed to discriminate based on those things. "All sins are equal," in the Christian religion, so why are killers, murders, rapists, child molestors, people who have cheated on their husbands, people who eat a lot, etc., all able to be accepted as "legitimate Christians" yet gay people are not? In a Christian-related marriage you are asking for the blessing of Yahweh, not the for Yahweh to join you, not the priest himself. If you ask for his blessing he has a right as a human being not to give it to you, but for the marriage itself what you are asking for is "God"... if that god exists and s/he wants to enter into your marriage, s/he will do it regardless of which particular priest you are using to contact him/her, and is s/he doesn't want to, s/he won't, again regardless of which particular priest. For similar reasons, (I think we can all agree that) it is wrong for a church that has a homeless help program to not help someone because they are Black... even if the church is a Muslim church, or to not help someone because they are not the same religion that the church is there for. I think telling a gay couple they cannot have a complaint if a priest does not want to marry them is taking away their rights as gay citizens same as it would be if they had red hair or whatever... unless of course the priest is also allowed to reject any couple for any reason, including straight couples.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ribitta
Funny you should say this yet you're the one grave-digging the dead topic on a should be "long-dead" issue.
Wow, the definitions of words must change so quickly! I wasn't aware that "grave digging" now also refers to a topic that is the 4th topic on the front page, can be applied to a forum where no one cares how old a topic is or isn't when you reply to it, and I also wasn't aware that message boards can make United States laws now!
Quote:
Originally posted by Ribitta
Quote:
Romans 1:26-28
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
This one does put a bit of a hamper on your "nothing wrong with lesbians according to the Bible" as it states that just as man has given up a natural love life in God's eyes, so also women have given up what is natural in God's eyes. This would also go against what you've said about "only sex is wrong" which sort of shatters alot more of the things you've said. At any rate, "shameful lusts" would imply both actions, thoughts, and wishes of homosexuality being sinful.
Let's first translate that passage into English: "Irrelevant sentence #1. Women performed unnatural sexual acts. Men started to have sex with each other instead of with women. Repeat of the last sentence and they were punished because of it. Then they decided to stop "following" Yahweh, and he therefore rendered them insane."
This passage says nothing about:
-marriage
-lesbian sex
-homosexual love
It says "Women exchanged their natural lusts for unnatural ones"... maybe they became dendrophiliacs.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ribitta
Quote:
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This one amplifies my aforementioned comment on both things. "Homosexual" infers both male and female, as in our current English language the two can now be broken down into Gay or Lesbian, but the term Homosexual still applies to both sexes. This also once more goes forward in the point that sex is not the only thing wrong here. As it is mentioned before that lusting for the same sex is considered a sin, it reminds you here that homosexual offenders in any area are sinners and not to be considered Christian. This will also shoot down those nice little whining arguements of "I have a gay Christian friend!" It's not true, according to the Bible. A Christian is one who will "Inherit the Kingdom of God" and clearly stated here, a homosexual would not recieve such privileges. I'm aware though that this has little to nothing to do with the topic, I just thought I'd throw it in.
Another quote which says nothing about anything you're trying to talk about; it says "homosexual offenders," not "homosexuals," therefore it is referring to those people who are both homosexual and have offended. In the context of
Holy Bible, since we know it has not previously referred to women but occasionally to men having sex with each other, it would logically go to say that in this case "homosexual" refers only to men... at the time this book was written things like that are frequently seen in languages. And again says absolutely nothing in any way about marriage, love, or Love.
So far as I know I do not have any gay Christian friends, I do however have a bisexual Christian friend. She is one of the people who apparently does not understand what Christian religion's rules are and says she thinks Yahweh thinks it is okay to be gay. She is wrong. However, she is still Christian. If being gay makes you "not a Christian", then no one on the entire planet is a Christian because the laws and rules of the religion are so entirely ridiculous that not a single person has not broken at least 40 of them.
Are you a virgin? If not, you're probably not Christian according to your own apparent ridiculous "logic"... most people who have had sex have not done so without some sexual-related feelings involved. Have you ever been divorced from someone who had not cheated on you? If so, then you're not a Christian (according to your own ridiculous "logic" and ad this parenthetical comment to every second sentence in this paragraph). Have you ever been jealous? You're not Christian. Have you ever eaten a brownie? You're not Christian. Have you ever hit someone for any reason whatsoever including a spanking? You're not Christian. Have you ever menustrated? You're not Christian... at least not unless you've asked to be "cleansed" and performed some sort of ritual to get it done every single time you've had your period. Of course that last one would not apply specifically to Ribitta.
IN Christianity, ANY person can do ANY thing and still be admitted to heaven, as long as they say they are sorry... yes you are supposed to actually mean it and try not to do it and blah blah blah, but what that means is that no person will or will not get into heaven based on actual deeds done, and only one person knows if they have performed the correct things in the Christian religion, and that is the individual person who has done them. Gay sex does NOT make you go to hell, nor does murder, nor does jealousy. This may not be true of a particular individual's beliefs, but it is true of the book which was written to show what the "laws" of the religion are. Another thing I think everyone at this message board can agree on is that the vast majority of those who refer to themselves as 'Christian' (whether they really are a Christian, or just call themselves that), do not actually know what the "rules" and/or history of the religion is/are (such as Autumn, my previously-mentioned bisexual friend). So just because your individual beliefs so not agree with something, or even those of many Christians you know do not agree, does not necessarily mean it is true according to
Holy Bible (why in the hell doesn't that book have a name?!), and you cannot put down the "rules of Christianity" based on "what XXXX person said".... you can only say that you personally believe it to be that way or to mean that. In general most atheists know a lot more about the rules, history, and book of the Christian religion then those who call themselves Christian usually do.
Quote:
7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
This most definitely says nothing at all about the topic... it doesn't even mention homosexuality at all! How irrelevant can you get? (P.S. My mom told me not to "do bad things"... so when you ask me to pick up that garbage wrapper I can't.)
Quote:
So all this should give me enough support to say that if a Priest has any right to call himself a Priest, and if he believes what he's sworn himself to believe, then he should have every right to not marry a gay couple. If he believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he would not be forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple because it would conflict with his own beliefs. Constitution says we have a right to our own religions, and if the Priest believes it violates his religion to marry a homosexual couple, then they would just have to get married in court or find another priest or minister.
Again you have posted nothing that can even come close to having the possibility of being interpreted as related to loving or marrying to the same sex, but as I said earlier this should be true
only if it is true also for heterosexual couples. If a priest is allowed to not marry a couple because, for example, they are not of the same "race", or because one member has told him specifically she is marrying to become rich, then neither should there be a problem if he refuses to marry a gay couple. The money example obviously should go against his beliefs if he is a Christian.... or a human for that matter. But if he is required to marry those couples anyway then he also should be required to marry a gay couple. A judge should not be allowed to refuse any marriages as long as both partners are consenting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ribitta
I do firmly believe that this is one area the government should leave alone as there would be a plethora of other ministers, or one could just get married in court if it's legal in that state.
It is legal in almost no states, it should not be required for the government to specifically make a rule which states that gay couples can get married, but apparently, it is necessary. This means that a judge, who is doing nothing related to religion, would be required to marry a gay couple , and that any priest, rabbi, pastor, etc., who marries a gay couple would have that marriage required to be legally recognized by all states once it is performed.
Quote:
What I said before still stands, however, do not try to trace this case of homosexuality back and into the Bible, trying to argue that it "Doesn't actually say it's bad" Because you're not gunna find much to support your case.
Funny you say thta because I don't need to find evidence myself, it is a negative, you if arguing are the one who needs to find evidence, and so far you haven't done so.
It is entirely possible that there is a notice somewhere involving lesbians that I am not aware of, but if there is it is not generally mentioned in any debates, and it wouldn't make much sense for it not to be.
However there is no place that states anything about marriage or Love being a sin, and even if there was, no other sin is persecuted against other then "devil magic", which for one thing is inaccurate and for another thing is more commonly believed by modern Christians to be nonexistent then harmful. (It actually is nonexistent since those who practice magick don't believe in "the devil", or if they do believe in him, they are Christian themselves.) Even murders and rapists are "allowed" to be Christian by society - that's why they have programs for prisons.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ribitta
Quote:
Jude 1:7
7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
This one just rounds off once again what the others have pointed out in different ways. For those who don't know the full list, sexual immorality is considered to be containing the acts of: sexual fantasy, homosexuality, sex outside the bonds of marriage, furthermore adultry or sex with one other than your spouse, and finally lust toward a person.
Quote:
Originally posted by Necro
This doesn't apply to just Ribitta but to anyone who wants to try to debate what the morality of sexual prefences according to the Christian religion. I'm not a Christian myself but it's easy to see just by plainly looking at the religion that there are several interpretations for it. The various different denominations are the very evidence of this. Religion isn't a topic based in fact; it deals with faith. Anyone can interpret any religion any way they want because it will mean what it means to them. It isn't anyone's place to try and tell someone else that their version is wrong because you're dealing with a subject where there are no facts.
I agree that each person's beliefs is his or her own, and in general people will state themselves as a member of a certain religion while disagreeing with other members of their same religion - this is true even of atheism. However there are facts to most religons (Paganism excepted), and there is also a history. The history of a religion is also important as it is a basis to the beliefs. The various denominations of Christianity, from what I have seen, are about things that usually have nothing to do with
Holy Bible - for example, Catholics like to pray in a certain position, and often think it is required to go to church as well as Lutherans do. Other sects, or nondenominationals, know that going to a church or not going doesn't make you any "more or less" Christian. Why? Because
Holy Bible says things you do and don't have to do if you want to follow it, and going to church is not mentioned. I think not working on Sundays is mentioned, however, but you will VERY rarely find anyone who believes they should do this or actually does it. (To me it would make more sense *to* work on Sundays, "giving God a chance" to rest, but whatever... ). An individual can believe whatever they want to believe, however, that does not mean that the religion itself holds the same belief. Many people who go to church three times a week and say they are Christian, even those who really are Christian, have never looked at
Holy Bible at all, and have no idea what the "rules" even are... it doesn't mean they are not Christian, but it does mean they don't know what "Christian rules" are. Satanism in particular has an application process that you are supposed to fill out and be "accepted" to the Church of Satan in order to make sure you truly understand what the beliefs actually are... but I recently found a Satanist "friend" of mine who said "Christians are nessecary to my beliefs because without them we wouldn't have our own religion!" This is entirely inaccurate to the beliefs of Satanism itself, a religion which is much more "rigorous" with it's "rules" that you are supposed to be aware of if you want to be a member... yet here is someone who is entirely aware of the fundamentals and base beliefs of the religion, yet still believes in the Christian devil which is expressly stated not to be a belief of the religion! There are a few different possible interpretations of what "Satan" could mean to a Satanist, but none of them refer in any way to Christianity, Judaism, or their meanings for the same word. In other words
individuals can have any beliefs they want, and can attach themselves as part of a religion if they "mostly" agree with it... but the religion itself usually does have it's own beliefs as well. This is why some people may leave a religion after becoming aware of certain beliefs... so those ARE, in fact, the facts,
Necro as I have often stated I have no problem with a person for being Christian, my boyfriend and the guy who brings me the most peace is Christian (as well as Wind is all of a sudden again), and I was not discussing my own relgious beliefs or there would have been a lot of discussion about "pheonoma" and symbolism and energies invovled though you were probabaly refering to Ribitta with that statement. My post was based on this: The ONLY argument I have EVER seen against homosexuality or homosexual marriage is religion. Some state instead that it is "immoral", and if asked why its "immoral", "My God doesn't like it" is the answer. I have NEVER seen an atheist, non-Christian Pagan, etc., say they believe it is wrong to be gay or to have gay sex. The United States does not allow laws to be made based on religion, whether at state of federal or local level, and therefore there should be no laws at any level which in any way prevent gay people from having rights or having sex or marrying each other, and there should be no debate on the subject at all as far as laws go. The fact that
Holy Bible never says that a man loving a man or marrying a man is wrong was just a side note, because it is really annoying how all of these horrible things can be done that are also against
Holy Bible yet if you're gay, it's all of a sudden some big thing and you can't be Christian and you should be killed, even though no sin is worse then another and even though people do far more heinous things then that yet are not persecuted so badly for what they do, even though those things are written in
Holy Bible not to do them.
Quote:
It is important to note that discrimination against homosexuals isn't a practice exclusive to those within the Christian community and it'd be unfair to demonize an entire religion for something that they don't have a monopoly on.
Discrimination is not necessarily exclusive to Christians, but it almost is. Other religions that don't find it
"acceptable" tend to ignore them rather then persecute, at least in America in modern day. Discrimination can happen from anyone, but if it is not religious it is more along the lines of "iew that's gross stay away from me" then it of
you should all be killed and you cant marry each other". Non-religious people who think "it's gross" still don't believe there needs to be a law against the marriage or that they should "sit on the back of the bus," so to speak. Christianity is also not the only religion that nessecerily states such a belief, but the only people who believe there should be a forbidding law are of SOME religion and that is their only reason for it. They might possibly add "it's unnatural," but they only say that if they have a religion to "back it up with" in the first place. The "it's unnatural" debate holds no water anyway considering how many wild animals are bisexual... including *all* domestic dogs. Not that the domestic dog itself is a "natural" creature, but there are plenty of other bisexual animals.
Quote:
Originally posted by Necro
However, I don't feel that the critical attitude towards Christians is baseless. There are Christians who oppose gay marriage whom have posed a debate as to what the definition of marriage is. These critics of gay marriage cite the definition loosely as the holy(?) union between a man and woman under God. I've witnessed in my own experience these vary same people have no problem with the idea of homosexual people being given the right to civil unions but oppose the idea of the very same people being allowed to marry because it conflicts with what their belief of what marriage is.
It's just yet another baseless religious argument, if "marriage" requires "God" then why don't these people oppose atheists getting married, anyone getting married by a judge or Wiccan priestess, all divorces that don't involve adultry, and all marriages that were done before Christianity existed? Which, according to that argument, is impossible, yet happened. In addition their idea of "civil union" does not grant the rights. It would be far more accurate if reversed - "marriage" being anyone vs. "holy union" being Christian, if married by a Christian/Jewish/Muslim priest, and not having anything to do with the legal system. Of course "holy" refers to any religion I think, not just monotheistic ones.
Quote:
Originally posted by Necro
the members of this board who are Christian and supported the idea of gays being allowed to marry is proof of this.
Highly untrue, they may believe YVWH thinks gay marriage and/or gay sex is perfectly fine, they may believe in the idea of separation of church and state, they may believe "God thinks gay marriage is wrong but I personally don't see a problem with it," or they may be pseudo-Christians.
Quote:
Originally posted by Necro
Although the western world has welcomed a large number of people from outside it's traditional barriers, does this mean it should sacrifice its very identity to accomodate these outside influences?
The "Western World" is not "historically Christian," United States itself which I believe is the topic of this debate since 1) OP is American and 2) I am not aware of this particular debate being of legal significance in other English-speaking countries, U.S. itself has specific laws about religion not being allowed to be involved in laws. Much of Europe is historically PAGAN, as can be seen still today in countries such as Ireland where many of it's Christian practitioners still practice Paganism to a much higher degree then stolen holidays (as an example it was cited in a book where the authors found a "prayer to the virgin Mary" hanging on a string tied to a tree and other magickal elements were present as well). The land on which the United States rests is historically of unnamed religion related to great animal spirits, which may not be the same culture who came and slaughtered those religion's practitioners however it was specifically stated to not be a legal issue. Christianity itself was created as a political tool, which is something that even studied Christians are aware of "the modern form" of Christianity being used for this purpose. Why else would Jesus' birthday be celebrated so far away from his "actual" birthday, for example? For those who are Christian this knowledge doesn't take anything away from the religion, because originally Christians lived in harmony with the Pagans of the land.
Quote:
Furthermore, if a significant percentage of a population supports and believes an idea, should they not be allowed to perserve it as a way of their culture? If a large body of people predominantly Christian desire to live in a society where their interpretation of marriage being a union between man and woman protected, should they be denied this? Would there be any harm if they wanted to govern themselves so that they could restrict marriage to those confines in their society?
Religion is not allowed to be used for law in the United States, period, and everyone is allowed to practice their own religion. A "way of culture" has nothing to do with your next-door neighbor... if your next-door neighbor believes he is a werewolf and comes outside naked at night and hunts small animals in his backyard, it doesn't affect the apple pie you baked at 3 p.m. while your happy smiling children talked about what they learned in school today in the least bit. Nobody is being forced into anything, except for the gay people, and previously gay people *have* always been allowed to marry... if it had not been happening, states would not have made it illegal in the first place.
I'm sorry Necro I wasn't aware of any heterosexual marriages becoming "unprotected" or any heterosexual couples that had lost their rights to marry, inherit, etc., based on a gay couple being present somewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by Necro
In some senses I am a nihilist and I don't really see the value the practice has in our culture anymore. In my eyes it has become nothing more than a silly, outdated tradition during the last generation.
Being cynical about this would be natural, but marriage has value for those who believe it has value. If you are monotheistic you believe God is invited to make your live with your spouse more pleasant. If you are Wiccan or Pagan, the marriage is to some degree a ritual or spell like any other which is all the influx of energy that binds you together (willingly) as well as ensuring you will find each other and be able to Love each other in subsequent lives, if you choose to include that. If you are an athiest it could be the symbology of the ring in the shape of a circle, or a declaration to your family that HEY I LOVE THIS GUY!!. I used to believe (as an atheist at the time) that marriage had basically no meaning, was stupid and just a piece of paper, yet Wind (also an atheist) thought of it as having importance, maybe a promise, just some feeling that gives you all of that Love. My boyfriend sees marriage as a "promise to God," and for some reason he sees marriage as changing just about everything about the way you treat somebody even if you are already engaged or know there could never be anyone else you'd want. For example when I wanted help with legal problems surrounding my 1 year old son, though he agreed I should be the one winning the battle, he would not help because he "did not want to get involved." If we'd been married, that would have been different, even though we already know we want to be married a.s.a.p. To some people, regardless of religion, marriage means pretty much nothing personally, but that doesn't change what it does mean for those who involve energies or gods or personal importances into their Union. Same way as whores existing does not change the incredible, Loving, joining, meaning that sex has for me and anyone I've done it with, though I believe they should be dissected for corrupting that meaning, people in general do not approve of marriages for money etc., then again people in general do not know what Love is anyway and are incapable of it, think it is a bad thing, or have not experienced it, but that doesn't mean that those who do have Love with someone do not feel the meaning of it.