Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NaTaS

Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Posts

This is a HUGE quarrel that I have with Christians (even back before I got smart and became an atheist); if you cannot use the Old Testament in religious discussions, why is it still included in the Bible. You can't simply pick and choose what to believe when it best suits your argument. That is kind of like picking and choosing words to acknowledge in a dictionary.

 

It's not picking and choosing what to believe when it best suits the argument. I explained it, Favre explained it even better, guess I'll have another go at it...

 

As stated earlier, as far as civil and ceremonial laws go B.C. (before Christ), once Jesus dies on the cross they all become pretty much irrelevant. Having said that, the Old Testament is still full of morals, parables, wisdom, etc...which is why it's still included in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 years people are going to look back on this issue and think of it the same way we think about how we used to not let women vote, or we that we used to segregate black people from white people. It's crazy to think about these things now, and back then I'm sure there were a lot of people that were not in favor of equal rights.

 

It's absurd to try and run a country with a religious iron-fist. Because not everyone shares the same religion, and many don't believe in anything at all.

 

And if someone wants to quote Leviticus:

 

Why don't they quote this:

 

Oh you mean like tattoos? How come nobody ever quotes that one?

 

Or how about:

 

So....like football? You know, tossing around the ol' pigskin.. and screw giving up bacon.

 

Just saying....

most people who use Leviticus to support their claims don't realize that Leviticus is essentially the laws of ancient Israel, I don't think anyone really wants to take the laws back 3000+ years, I just don't think many people realize that's what they're doing when they advocate laws from Leviticus, the main use I find for Leviticus is to understand the context for the rest of the Old Testament

 

This is a HUGE quarrel that I have with Christians (even back before I got smart and became an atheist); if you cannot use the Old Testament in religious discussions, why is it still included in the Bible. You can't simply pick and choose what to believe when it best suits your argument. That is kind of like picking and choosing words to acknowledge in a dictionary.

Mav and F4E have both touched on this, but I'll still add my 2 cents, the Old Testament continues as an example, but it is not what salvation depends on, the Old Testament provides an impossible standard to which we should aspire, but one which we inevitably cannot meet, it's also worth pointing out that Jesus directly countered many of the specific restrictions of the Old Testament (I'd be happy to provide some examples when I have a little more time)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

I disagree 100% with homesexuality and believe it's a choice,

 

You know there's actual scientific proof explaining it's not a choice, right? Like, this part of homosexuality isn't even up for debate anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a group of people that will never ever for natural reasons have an abortion, and yet the Christians have to get in their face too. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is nearly completely mum on the subject of homosexuality. People use his conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew to support an anti-gay marriage stance, but he was obviously talking about condemning divorce in heterosexual marriages. He goes on to talk about "eunuchs" but this could also be translated in a way that supports the idea that some people are born unable to truthfully engage in heterosexual marriage, and actually can be used to support a homosexual marriage.

 

I think its a terrible thing to deny people this right, regardless of religion. Its one of those issues that make conservatives look like hateful backwater idiots. If blacks, women and anyone that has ever had basic rights denied and don't support gay marriage they look like hypocritical hateful people. You can make the Bible say whatever you want and adapt it to the modern day so try looking at it without the idea that you support exclusion and maybe you'll see something completely different.

 

gay_000306marriage.gif

 

However, gay marriage isn't and shouldn't be a federal issue.

 

^this, too.

Edited by GA_Eagle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know there's actual scientific proof explaining it's not a choice, right? Like, this part of homosexuality isn't even up for debate anymore.

 

How does one explain "ex-homosexuals" then?

 

Also, you got a link to this proof?

 

@GA_Eagle:

 

Regardless of what Jesus said about homosexuality, Paul very clearly comes down against it in Romans 1. Since a Christian believes that the Bible is God's Word, it wouldn't matter whether Jesus specifically came down against it, since he does so through Paul's writings.

 

Unless you start with the presupposition that its okay, I honestly don't see how you can read the Bible as supporting homosexuality.

 

@the OT vs the NT:

 

The Old Testament is left in the Bible because it is history. It shows us the history of the people of Israel, which is critical to understanding Jesus in the N.T., but this does not mean that all of the ceremonial and civil laws are applicable to Christians.

 

All that said, taking my interpretation of the Bible, or anyone's interpretation of the Bible, on any issue, and attempting to use that as foundation for a law, (beyond the general principles, I mean), is asking for serious trouble. Same as it would be if someone took the Koran and tried to apply specific teachings to make law- just look at countries like Iran.

 

We're not a theocracy, and we shouldn't be built as one. We use our God-given reason, morals, and logic to come up with laws that are fair to all people.

 

This is why, while I personally see a person who is a homosexual as a sinner, (this not a holier-than-thou stance, I also am a sinner, so is everyone, we simply aren't all committing the same sin), that is not reason enough for a law against it. By the same logic, we should make a law against adultery, sex outside of marriage, etc.

 

Christians have this absolutely horrible tendency to try to use politics and laws to either a) force our views on society or b) win people over.

 

Neither is the correct place for government. One does not go about the issue of homosexuality by forcing laws on the issue- you go after people, (I don't mean in a violent manner, I mean going after their hearts, as cliche as that sounds). Specifically, people that you know. Talk to them, don't be offensive, and have a discussion on it, if they want. We should be going after issues from the ground up, (starting with the people), rather than the top down, (starting with passing laws against issues).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GA_Eagle:

 

Regardless of what Jesus said about homosexuality, Paul very clearly comes down against it in Romans 1. Since a Christian believes that the Bible is God's Word, it wouldn't matter whether Jesus specifically came down against it, since he does so through Paul's writings.

 

Unless you start with the presupposition that its okay, I honestly don't see how you can read the Bible as supporting homosexuality.

 

 

3 things:

 

1: what's wrong with presupposing that' its ok instead of presupposing the more popular opposite view?

 

 

2:A simple google search finds me alternate translations and multiple arguments both scholarly and otherwise that Paul was indeed not completely condemning homosexuality or in some cases not condemning it at all.

 

3: Paul is not Jesus and the Bible was written by men, with different recollections of the same events. It was then compiled by a committee of men, all of whom were fallible. These are Paul's ideas and like other learned men who study theology he is just a man and can be wrong despite it being part of church doctrine. I don't hold the to the idea that because its in the Bible its inherently truth. These men conspired to keep other Christian sects down and some of the men at the Council of Nicaea were not incredibly holy men. Its important to learn the truth of what went into the Bible as well as just reading and interpreting the words so you can understand where these people were coming from and what their agenda was and still is.

Edited by GA_Eagle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Thanatos who said this already, but Obama was going to wait to announce this closer to the convention... lol

 

It is seemingly less impressive now.

 

Obama reached a turning point early this year and decided to publicly back gay marriage, they said. How and when to do it -- sometime before the Democratic convention in September -- was a closely held discussion involving only about a half-dozen aides. At the end of last week, timing was decided for them.

 

That was when the president's advisers first read a transcript of a taped interview Vice President Joe Biden gave to NBC's "Meet the Press." In response to a question, Biden said he was "absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women are entitled to the same exact rights."

 

The president's advisers knew that Biden, though speaking on his own, would effectively be voicing a new policy when the interview aired on May 6, according to the officials. That set off a weekend of discussions among White House and campaign aides about how best to respond.

 

 

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/10/bloomberg_articlesM3S2N71A74E901-M3SEY.DTL#ixzz1uTWro0oW

 

Administration officials said the president planned to announce his support before the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., this September. But they acknowledge that Vice President Joe Biden did, indeed, force their hand.

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76103.html#ixzz1uTXFAFat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 things:

 

1: what's wrong with presupposing that' its ok instead of presupposing the more popular opposite view?

 

2: A simple google search finds me alternate translations and multiple arguments both scholarly and otherwise that Paul was indeed not completely condemning homosexuality or in some cases not condemning it at all.

 

3: Paul is not Jesus and the Bible was written by men, with different recollections of the same events. It was then compiled by a committee of men, all of whom were fallible. These are Paul's ideas and like other learned men who study theology he is just a man and can be wrong despite it being part of church doctrine. I don't hold the to the idea that because its in the Bible its inherently truth. These men conspired to keep other Christian sects down and some of the men at the Council of Nicaea were not incredibly holy men. Its important to learn the truth of what went into the Bible as well as just reading and interpreting the words so you can understand where these people were coming from and what their agenda was and still is.

 

1. Nothing. But a simple, un-biased read of Romans 1 would lead you to the belief that the Bible condemns it. Unless you start with the presupposition that its okay, there is no other way to read it.

 

2. If you google search, you are going to get liberal scholars 90% of the time. These "scholars" start with the presupposition you hold in point 3- that the Bible was written by fallible men and is incorrect in certain places, and not the inerrant, inspired word of God. They are incorrect. Paul is saying that homosexuality is against the natural order of things. Read Romans 1 for yourself, specifically vv 18-32 (the quote is from the NIV):

 

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

3. A Christian who holds to the belief that the Bible is inerrant would vehemently disagree with your point 3. I'm not going to go through all of the Council of Nicea and the completely erroneous misconceptions of what took place there, if you wish to discuss it, I will be more than happy to start a conversation via PMs.

 

Suffice to say, there were very good reasons for the Council of Nicea including which books they did, and very good reason not to include those books which they didn't. Not to mention, if you believe in a sovereign God who wrote the Bible, as a Christian who believes in inerrancy does, it would be folly to then turn around and say he was unable to preserve that message intact.

 

Paul was not merely a man like any other who studies theology. He received inspiration directly from God. While what he writes has his own personal stamp, or flavor- like all authors- what is included in Scripture has the exact same theological authority as a message from Jesus in the gospels.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand anyone who is against gay-marriage. I can understand just not caring either way, but to openly deny people rights is just wrong. What does it matter to you? How does it hurt you in anyway.

 

Your logic doesn't follow.

 

To demonstrate:

 

"I'll never understand anyone who is against two adults in an incestuous relationship. I can understand just not caring either way, but to openly deny people rights is just wrong. What does it matter to you? How does it hurt you in any way?"

 

There are more reasons to be against something that merely that it doesn't hurt me. People can be morally against homosexuality because they believe it hurts the persons involved in the relationship.

 

I'm morally against adultery because it hurts the people in that relationship, as well as the person outside the relationship.

 

Legally, there is no argument. The US gov't should not be prohibiting gay marriage because there is no non-religious argument against it.

 

Morally- totally different picture.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Nothing. But a simple, un-biased read of Romans 1 would lead you to the belief that the Bible condemns it. Unless you start with the presupposition that its okay, there is no other way to read it.

 

2. If you google search, you are going to get liberal scholars 90% of the time. These "scholars" start with the presupposition you hold in point 3- that the Bible was written by fallible men and is incorrect in certain places, and not the inerrant, inspired word of God. They are incorrect. Paul is saying that homosexuality is against the natural order of things. Read Romans 1 for yourself, specifically vv 18-32 (the quote is from the NIV):

 

Its a logical conclusion and is supported by the fact that the Gospels contradict each other and were committed to word decades after the death of Jesus.

 

3. A Christian who holds to the belief that the Bible is inerrant would vehemently disagree with your point 3. I'm not going to go through all of the Council of Nicea and the completely erroneous misconceptions of what took place there, if you wish to discuss it, I will be more than happy to start a conversation via PMs.

 

A reasonable person would tell you that its highly unlikely to be inerrant due to different tellings of the same story multiple times in the same book. The Gospels contradict each other. I am a Christian but its a document that is inaccurate and that's ok. I don't understand the problem with this.

 

Suffice to say, there were very good reasons for the Council of Nicea including which books they did, and very good reason not to include those books which they didn't. Not to mention, if you believe in a sovereign God who wrote the Bible, as a Christian who believes in inerrancy does, it would be folly to then turn around and say he was unable to preserve that message intact.

 

But there WERE agendas, correct? Regardless of their reasons, they shaped the bible in a way that was not all inclusive and there were many religious documents that were left out, who's to say that these documents did not have merit and continue to have merit for an alternate take on the Bible.

 

Paul was not merely a man like any other who studies theology. He received inspiration directly from God. While what he writes has his own personal stamp, or flavor- like all authors- what is included in Scripture has the exact same theological authority as a message from Jesus in the gospels.

 

But not the Gospel of Thomas? or the Didache? The letters of Clement? The Church excluded these books for varying reasons but they were no less an account of people who claimed to be inspired by God Himself but not deemed canon. The Council said these were not canon and that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that they were written but decided to be somehow less inspired by these men. We need to make sure we look at the Bible as a work of MAN even if it was inspired by God. Its a wonderful document but to say its not flawed is a complete fallacy because we can see contradicting translations or translations that may say something slightly differently but it changes the meaning completely.

 

I, again, do not see an issue with this if we, as Christians, just accept it for what it is and embrace other ideas and consider them instead of condemning them out of hand and say there is only one way to know God or be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Edited by GA_Eagle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Nothing. But a simple, un-biased read of Romans 1 would lead you to the belief that the Bible condemns it. Unless you start with the presupposition that its okay, there is no other way to read it.

by the same argument a reading of 1 Corinthians 7 would show that marriage in general gets at best lukewarm approval: (verses 8-9) Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic doesn't follow.

 

To demonstrate:

 

"I'll never understand anyone who is against two adults in an incestuous relationship. I can understand just not caring either way, but to openly deny people rights is just wrong. What does it matter to you? How does it hurt you in any way?"

 

And your logic doesn't follow. Incest can lead to lots of complications with birth. It's not wrong because of some religious sense, it's wrong on a biological sense. It doesn't hurt me, but the child produced from that relationship can mentally messed up. Now after first cousins the complications of incestuous birth drop off. And honestly I don't give a shit if you want to do it with your second cousin. But I'm not going to...

 

 

There are more reasons to be against something that merely that it doesn't hurt me. People can be morally against homosexuality because they believe it hurts the persons involved in the relationship.

If people are against homosexuality that's fine, that's not what I'm saying. That's your opinion and your entitled to it. But your opinions shouldn't be able to affect the lives of others. Then it's no longer just an opinion.

 

I'm morally against adultery because it hurts the people in that relationship, as well as the person outside the relationship.

But how does a gay marriage hurt people in the relationship or outside of the relationship? It doesn't... if the couple is getting married than there is a good chance that they do in fact love each other. It's not like they are being forced to marry. So I would love some clarification on this.

 

 

Legally, there is no argument. The US gov't should not be prohibiting gay marriage because there is no non-religious argument against it.

 

Morally- totally different picture.

Exactly, if you are morally against it...too bad. Because you have no right to actually tell someone they don't have the rights that straight people do just because they were, in fact, born that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a logical conclusion and is supported by the fact that the Gospels contradict each other and were committed to word decades after the death of Jesus.

 

No, they do not. The gospels do not contradict each other at all. The idea that they do is because of several reasons which differ on which paradox you are referring to. If you care to name a specific example, I will answer to the best of my ability.

 

As far as when they were committed, they were committed to paper very recently after the events they claim to portray, far closer to said events than any other historical book of the ancient past.

 

A reasonable person would tell you that its highly unlikely to be inerrant due to different tellings of the same story multiple times in the same book. The Gospels contradict each other. I am a Christian but its a document that is inaccurate and that's ok. I don't understand the problem with this.

 

The problem is very simple. If its inaccurate, how do you know what part is the word of God, and what part is not? The parts you agree with are the word of God and those you don't, aren't? Then what's the point of the Bible if all it is going to do is reinforce your own conclusions? I could take the works of Shakespeare as my "Bible" and apply the same logic and get the same out of them.

 

But there WERE agendas, correct? Regardless of their reasons, they shaped the bible in a way that was not all inclusive and there were many religious documents that were left out, who's to say that these documents did not have merit and continue to have merit for an alternate take on the Bible.

 

Of course there were religious documents left out. They were left out because they were not written by apostles or people who knew the apostles, and thus were considered to be non-scriptural. If they contradict what is in Scripture, they are obviously not part of it. But this would only be the case if one believed that Scripture doesn't contradict itself, otherwise, no it would not be a problem. We might as well bring in every document that claimed to be written by an apostle at that point.

 

The Apocrypha are not part of the canon for very good reasons, the vast majority of them because the Council of Nicea, (correctly), determined that they were not, in fact, written by whom they were said to be written.

 

But not the Gospel of Thomas? or the Didache? The letters of Clement? The Church excluded these books for varying reasons but they were no less an account of people who claimed to be inspired by God Himself but not deemed canon. The Council said these were not canon and that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that they were written but decided to be somehow less inspired by these men. We need to make sure we look at the Bible as a work of MAN even if it was inspired by God. Its a wonderful document but to say its not flawed is a complete fallacy because we can see contradicting translations or translations that may say something slightly differently but it changes the meaning completely.

 

It completely changes the picture. The Gospel of Thomas was determined to have not been written by Thomas- it contradicts other Scripture quite clearly. The letters of Clement were determined to have not been written by Clement, though as a literary work, they are excellent reading. Merely because the Council did not believe them to be canon, did not mean they dismissed them as heretical, by the way. The Didache could not be confirmed as having been written by the apostles, but appeared to be a Jewish manuscript that was adapted for Christian purposes. The Bible was not a work of man, it was a work of God, who used men. There is a critical difference in this understanding.

 

I simply disagree that there are contradictions. The translations into English, (and other modern languages), sure. They were written by fallible men who are decidedly not inspired by God. The Bible itself, in the original translations- completely inerrant. And the documents that we have now are 99% the same. There are only very small differences that do not really affect any doctrine of the Church at all. (Not the translations, mind you, the documents on which those translations are based.)

 

I, again, do not see an issue with this if we, as Christians, just accept it for what it is and embrace other ideas and consider them instead of condemning them out of hand and say there is only one way to know God or be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Jesus specifically says that "He is the way, the Truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by me." That, according to the Bible, is the only way into the Kingdom of God.

 

Something that's always made me think about this issue, regardless of where you come down on it, or what religion/philosophy you hold to: if all roads lead to Rome, as it were, then why should you ever try to convince anyone to come on your road?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And your logic doesn't follow. Incest can lead to lots of complications with birth. It's not wrong because of some religious sense, it's wrong on a biological sense. It doesn't hurt me, but the child produced from that relationship can mentally messed up. Now after first cousins the complications of incestuous birth drop off. And honestly I don't give a shit if you want to do it with your second cousin. But I'm not going to...

 

So as long as they get a vasectomy, you'd be fine with it?

 

Notice that this argument would also say its morally wrong for someone who knows they have a genetic defect that most likely will get passed on their offspring to have sex with anyone, (unless you agree with the question above).

 

The rest of your argument is a misunderstanding. I'm not advocating the government pass laws against it, merely pointing out there are moral reasons for a person to be against it, despite it not harming anyone else.

 

by the same argument a reading of 1 Corinthians 7 would show that marriage in general gets at best lukewarm approval: (verses 8-9) Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

 

Point.

 

I should have said that Romans 1, taken in the context of the entire Bible, would lead one to believe that homosexuality is condemned, unless you start with the presupposition that it's okay.

 

If you look at the larger context of 1 Corinthians, I think the issue Paul has with marriage is explained, not to mention the rest of the Bible supporting marriage. (Not the case with homosexuality.)

Edited by Thanatos19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as long as they get a vasectomy, you'd be fine with it?

 

Notice that this argument would also say its morally wrong for someone who knows they have a genetic defect that most likely will get passed on their offspring to have sex with anyone, (unless you agree with the question above).

 

The rest of your argument is a misunderstanding. I'm not advocating the government pass laws against it, merely pointing out there are moral reasons for a person to be against it, despite it not harming anyone else.

 

Yes I do think we have a misunderstanding. Because I can see where you are coming from in not being morally ok with gay marriage. I'm just talking from a government level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesus specifically says that "He is the way, the Truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by me." That, according to the Bible, is the only way into the Kingdom of God.

 

Something that's always made me think about this issue, regardless of where you come down on it, or what religion/philosophy you hold to: if all roads lead to Rome, as it were, then why should you ever try to convince anyone to come on your road?

 

I don't have time right now to devote the proper time to the whole post but I wanted to address this part before signing off. I think you took my point a little too broadly. Nothing in the quote above says anything about why gays shouldn't be married. You see what I mean? We need to just accept that different ideas can still fall under what it means to be Christian, and Jesus doesn't condemn anything about being gay.

 

Paul may condemn it or at least homosexual acts, but he wasn't so high on lots of things, which I will avoid talking about in order to keep this somewhat on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time right now to devote the proper time to the whole post but I wanted to address this part before signing off. I think you took my point a little too broadly. Nothing in the quote above says anything about why gays shouldn't be married. You see what I mean? We need to just accept that different ideas can still fall under what it means to be Christian, and Jesus doesn't condemn anything about being gay.

 

Paul may condemn it or at least homosexual acts, but he wasn't so high on lots of things, which I will avoid talking about in order to keep this somewhat on track.

 

It doesn't say anything about it because in that one part of my post that you snipped out, I wasn't responding to that issue. It does have broader implications, or rather your view of why it could be okay has broader implications.

 

It was those broader implications that that part of the post was addressing, specifically this quote:

 

I, again, do not see an issue with this if we, as Christians, just accept it for what it is and embrace other ideas and consider them instead of condemning them out of hand and say there is only one way to know God or be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

The idea that there is only one way to be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven is a core belief of Christianity. Without that belief, there is no reason to witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are passing judgement on honosexuals by making laws against their marrying. I am a religious person and I know what the Bible says about homosexual marriage. However, it doesn't say that it is the responsibility of the people and their governments to stop people from sinning. It says that God will decide in the end and that humans are not to make those judgments. Since when is it the responsibility of the government to stop people from going against the Christian religion. We aren't a theocracy. If you believe that homosexuals are sinning through their acts, then shake your head and wave your fist, but don't mobilize the government to stop people from sinning in the privacy of their homes. To each their own, and in the end God will judge, not you.

 

That pretty much sums up my position.

 

I mean, otherwise Christians should be trying to pass laws to keep people from having sex outside of marriage. This is not the government's place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to make one more post. Back in 2004, Dr. Laura Schlesinger quoted Leviticus to prove that gay marriage is wrong in God's eyes. To show her listeners that she was quoting a book that was out of touch with the rest of the Bible and it's values, an anonymous writer sent her a response that has since become infamous. Here is the text:

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

 

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge

with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual

lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly

states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

 

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of

God's Law and how to follow them.

 

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They

claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus

21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her

period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I

tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

 

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and

female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A

friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not

Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.

The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated

to kill him myself?

 

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I

don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a

defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my

vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair

around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.

How should they die?

 

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me

unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different

crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two

different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse

and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of

getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we

just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people

who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable

expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

 

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your adoring fan,

Anonymous

http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%20and%20Humor/OpenLetterToDrLaura.html

 

Sorry for all of the long posts. I just had to post this after I heard it on my favorite rock station this morning and thought it was funny.

Edited by WindyCitySports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

How does one explain "ex-homosexuals" then?

 

They're not actually ex-homos, they're just playing the part.

 

I don't have a link bookmarked. I'm going to have a super busy weekend but if I find some time I'll dig up a couple of studies. Do you think animals choose to be homosexuals though? Because it's found in over 250 species. It's not an exclusively human phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am Republican, but have no issues with gay marriage. Either does my dad and he is one of the most hadcore conservatives you'll ever meet. So I don't like it when people assume that just because I'm republican, I hate gays. My uncle is gay, and married. He is one of the nicest people I've met. I'm not very religious either, so that may be why I'm fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not actually ex-homos, they're just playing the part.

 

I don't have a link bookmarked. I'm going to have a super busy weekend but if I find some time I'll dig up a couple of studies. Do you think animals choose to be homosexuals though? Because it's found in over 250 species. It's not an exclusively human phenomenon.

 

No I don't think animals choose to be homosexuals. Point is irrelevant. Animals don't "choose" period, as a general rule. Animals do lots of things humans do not, and should not, do, IMO, such as sleeping with as many females as possible. Looking at what an animal does for a moral value is not a good idea.

 

That's the thing though. We can throw studies around all we want, but is that really proof? Not in my eyes, not at all.

 

Your position is unfalsifiable. Regardless of examples that are brought up against it, your argument is that someone cannot be an "ex-homo" and if they say they are, they are lying and are simply playing the part.

 

I know someone who was homosexual to the point where he was living with his partner, and, I assume, sleeping with him. He was living with this person for 3 years prior to, in his words, not mine, "overcoming his affliction." He has three kids now, and a wife. But you would say he is just "playing the part?" Based on what?

 

Homosexuality is a choice. Some people may be more predisposed to it than others due to genetic factors, but I'd be hard-pressed to make a statement that all people who are homosexual, or really, any person who is homosexual, has no more choice in the matter than whether or not one is born a guy or a girl.

 

Our genes predispose us to do lots of things. They may predispose some people to be better at math than others, or better at sports, or they may even predispose someone towards violence.

 

A person who is a homosexual may be predisposed towards liking members of their own sex. That doesn't mean they have no choice at all in the matter.

Edited by Thanatos19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×