videogamer
Banned
siamesedreamer said:
Well, if their religion/sects calls for it, why not? Two different religions can have two different interpretations.
Understanding homosexuality
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
Well, if their religion/sects calls for it, why not? Two different religions can have two different interpretations.
etiolate said:
Well, unless they get out of the marriage business entirely, I don't see how he government(s) have a choice in the matter. They have to decide what's a legal marriage, and what isn't. And yes, they clearly have interfered with marriage before, for example to outlaw polygamy.
No, the word "bigot" refers to people that view anything that disagrees with their religion as evil, and who views their religion as right, without question. Go look it up, if you don't believe me. People who are against gay marriage are trying to outlaw different religious (as well as secular) viewpoints, generally becasue their religion teaches that homosexuality is evil. Saying that such people aren't bigots is like saying the Klan (or the nation of Islam, if it makes it more palatable for you) isn't racist. They are. By definition.
I see what you're saying.shoplifter said:
On the other hand I think if people stopped all this analysing and "understanding" -- trying to figure out where homosexuality comes from, if it's genetic etc. it would be the best way to combat this "issue". In other words, don't acknowledge it as being an issue! (of course this goes out the window with the gay marriage thing)
Warm Machine
Member
Homosexuals shouldn't have to pay taxes seeing as though they are not given the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. 
siamesedreamer
Banned
Goreomedy said:
I wouldn't say I am for them, but if they happen that's fine.
Unfortunately, the state of GA had it at all or nothing. I voted for the resolution that called for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, in voting for that, I also voted against any chance of the state recognizing civil unions.
The resolution will be contested in court and I expect that last part will be the part being contested.
(just a warning, sorry if this offends anyone. It's not something often talked about but I feel it's there and remains an influence on society's conscious so I thought it best to say it)
what I wonder is not the act of homosexuality, that's understandable and ok with me. But the stereostypical gays we see in everyday life. They wear pink, talk with lisps, walk feminine(they still have penises or they couldnt be gay, wtf?), etc. I know a lot of gay people don't do this but there is a good ammount who do. This leads me to believe it's a choice for those people.
People choose a scene all the time. Someone imitates being a gangsta with no upbringing pushing them to that. Just one day, they want to be apart of something, they want an identity. They try to follow foot all of a sudden. Same thing with a punk scene. One day a kid is making his own decisions, being an individual.. and the next, decides that lifestyle looks like something to be apart of, because he doesn't understand who he is without it. So he throws eye shadow on, spikes his hair, wears chains. Boom, he's punk.. ?
Now, you think, who'd want to be gay like that. But people make every kind of decision you could think of out there. It's not that out there to think someone would want to be gay. That they would want to be different. And so they stereotype it and just play into the whole lifestyle. Or maybe they were gay and normal until they decided to join a scene. What scene is open to a gay guy? Everything but they decide to be this overflow of.. i don't even know what you call it, gay? I think this is what people hate. This is what people tend to look at gays as half the time. I'm dead serious. I feel that the right to express yourself should be available to people, and maybe some actually feel this is the way to. It's just that I know there are some who are attention whores. Who relish in the fact that they're different and that annoys me. To watch someone who's actions feel so predetermined by what they're supposed to be. That disgusts me. I respect a lot of gay people, and I feel bad even having to point out they're gay because they're just people.. that I respect. It just seems you have to make a case in point though to make up for how many gay people, as people, are not respectable.
The actual act of being gay is not that out there, not that alien to us. At least it shouldn't be. There are a lot of gay people who believe in love, who care about people, who are good people. These people do not deserve any of the shit they have to live through. They're forced into this by a society that has to always stereotype, and the actual stereotypes don't help. To be gay though just should not be something to feel shameful of. If you love, that's something to be proud of.
what I wonder is not the act of homosexuality, that's understandable and ok with me. But the stereostypical gays we see in everyday life. They wear pink, talk with lisps, walk feminine(they still have penises or they couldnt be gay, wtf?), etc. I know a lot of gay people don't do this but there is a good ammount who do. This leads me to believe it's a choice for those people.
People choose a scene all the time. Someone imitates being a gangsta with no upbringing pushing them to that. Just one day, they want to be apart of something, they want an identity. They try to follow foot all of a sudden. Same thing with a punk scene. One day a kid is making his own decisions, being an individual.. and the next, decides that lifestyle looks like something to be apart of, because he doesn't understand who he is without it. So he throws eye shadow on, spikes his hair, wears chains. Boom, he's punk.. ?
Now, you think, who'd want to be gay like that. But people make every kind of decision you could think of out there. It's not that out there to think someone would want to be gay. That they would want to be different. And so they stereotype it and just play into the whole lifestyle. Or maybe they were gay and normal until they decided to join a scene. What scene is open to a gay guy? Everything but they decide to be this overflow of.. i don't even know what you call it, gay? I think this is what people hate. This is what people tend to look at gays as half the time. I'm dead serious. I feel that the right to express yourself should be available to people, and maybe some actually feel this is the way to. It's just that I know there are some who are attention whores. Who relish in the fact that they're different and that annoys me. To watch someone who's actions feel so predetermined by what they're supposed to be. That disgusts me. I respect a lot of gay people, and I feel bad even having to point out they're gay because they're just people.. that I respect. It just seems you have to make a case in point though to make up for how many gay people, as people, are not respectable.
The actual act of being gay is not that out there, not that alien to us. At least it shouldn't be. There are a lot of gay people who believe in love, who care about people, who are good people. These people do not deserve any of the shit they have to live through. They're forced into this by a society that has to always stereotype, and the actual stereotypes don't help. To be gay though just should not be something to feel shameful of. If you love, that's something to be proud of.
shoplifter
Member
Willco said:
That Grace was WAY hotter when she was hanging out with Ned.
videogamer
Banned
J2 Cool said:
There was already a small discussion on why gay people act gay. No one figures it out. Not only that, there is quite a large number of "straight" acting homosexuals.
However, there is a major flaw in your argument. It's that many, if not most, gay people don't want to be gay. They've already struggled with it... trying to figure some way out. There is oftentimes heavy internal resistance to being gay. For 7 years after my first crush, I struggled with the possiblity of being gay. I tried watching straight porn. Tried fantasizing about girls in my classes. It doesn't work.
J2 Cool said:
They term that way of behaviour: effeminate. (or flamboyant)
It's worth noting that effiminate behaviour is not exclusive at all to homosexuality. In fact, that the they're somewhat independent traits; 10% of men are gay, 10% are effeminate;10% of gay men are effiminate. (At least this is what I've read; I personally believe there would be a decent skew, but the basic idea that the effiminate trait isn't homosexual indicitator still stands).
What does happen is stereotype reinforcement; because people that fall into both categories heavily reinforce our expectations of homosexuals we note them, much more than whenever the stereotype isn't reinforced. These ideas take root in our head and suddenly, a disproportionately large amount act that way -> all act that way.
On the otherhand, I believe there is a skew present, as gay people identify with the effiminate image; idea, in an attempt to be flaming (could be natural, or otherwise) - they act in such a manner as to offer solidarity and as a mark of pride of their homosexuality. There could also be cases of cognitive dissonance; where the gay person themselves might possess strong preconcieved notions of homosexuality and attempt to move their behaviour towards their attitude upon 'discovering' that they're gay.
videogamer
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Perhaps, but flamers are like the repressed minority of the gay community right now. Masculine acting and looking guys are in.
Isn't it possible that one could see something as genetic, yet still see actions tied to it as -wrong-? Being natural doesn't necessarily equate to being "correct" for many religions and ethical systems.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches/believes that:
1) Sex outside of marriage is a grave evil.
2) Only a man and a woman can get married.
Therefore, sexual acts of a homosexual nature are seen as gravely evil. However, the Catholic Church does not say that folks with homosexual desires or tendancies are evil. It decries the action, and says that folks should not yield to the desires, but it never says that having homosexual desires or attractions makes a person evil. Rather, the Church calls all single folks (heterosexual or homosexual) to live chaste lives and abstain from sex unless they are married.
You may very well find the Catholic Church to be wrong, but I think you'd have a hard time claiming that it teaches that homosexuals are evil... then again, they do make a distinction between folks engaged in sexual behavior and folks who aren't engaged in it. You may not find that to be a relevant issue for many people in the country today.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches/believes that:
1) Sex outside of marriage is a grave evil.
2) Only a man and a woman can get married.
Therefore, sexual acts of a homosexual nature are seen as gravely evil. However, the Catholic Church does not say that folks with homosexual desires or tendancies are evil. It decries the action, and says that folks should not yield to the desires, but it never says that having homosexual desires or attractions makes a person evil. Rather, the Church calls all single folks (heterosexual or homosexual) to live chaste lives and abstain from sex unless they are married.
You may very well find the Catholic Church to be wrong, but I think you'd have a hard time claiming that it teaches that homosexuals are evil... then again, they do make a distinction between folks engaged in sexual behavior and folks who aren't engaged in it. You may not find that to be a relevant issue for many people in the country today.
...xexex said:
"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen . . .it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from the religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-Article XI of the Treaty of Peace with Tripoli, ratified by the senate and signed by John Adams (founding father and second president of the US)
Now shut up, and tell everyone of your kind to from now on do the same.
As long as they keep them to themselves and don't support the governmental imposition of their religious ideals onto others. Until then........no.
videogamer
Banned
DavidDayton said:
IIRC, the Catholic Church does not consider homosexuality to be "natural".
Well, yes it is still quite relevant. Look at the conservatives prattle about marriage/single parents/sex education.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
Flippity flop.The Shadow said:
It does recognize that it is not always a matter of choice. It says that it is unnatural (in that it goes against what the Church considers to be the natural order of life), but that doesn't mean that it considers it "just a choice". At this point the exact origin of homosexuality is still being debated, but the Church recognizes that in many (or most?) cases, genetic or prenatel development ties into homosexuality.Hammy said:
Again, some folks will hate this analogy, but in the eyes of the Catholic Church it could be compared to fetal alcohol syndrome... it's not NATURAL for a child to develop in that way, but it did occur as a real, physical development caused by physical means. Does that help?
What I meant was that many folks, including those in the forums, might not think that the Church's position on sex outside of marriage is relevant to our world; the Church and many conservatives, however, do feel that it is a very relevant matter.
I know the word. Your words just seemed to be laced with venom in using the word. You see, intolerance is intolerance and shouting "homophobe!" at someone who has disagreements with the approval of homosexuality or act is also likely a bigot.
And really, my example of the wedding issue I truly think is a possibility. Marriage just has a religious tie, going back to the Isrealite tribes. Have civil unions recognized by the government. You say 'marriage' and somehow, somewhere it's going to be trouble.
videogamer
Banned
etiolate said:
There are other ancient religious marriage traditions that are not Jewish.
Hammy said:
Actually, I've been trying to research those and their relevance to our idea of marriage, but I couldn't find any on google. Links? I know of the sort of 'marriage' between the King and Goddess in Sumeria. That's more metaphor than literal though.
PS: Am I the only one who thinks Will & Grace is basically gay exploitation?
Here's the problem, though...follow the chain of logic.DavidDayton said:
1) Homosexuals are not innately evil.
2) Homosexual acts are always evil.
3) Heterosexual acts are evil outside the context of marriage.
4) Marriage can only exist between a man and woman.
Conclusion: If you happen to be gay, the only way you can live a virtuous life is by being completely chaste. FOREVER.
Doesn't that seem completely borked to you?
Rocket Punch
Member
Zaptruder, have you met anyone who is openly gay? Just wondering. You seem to give rather clinical comments about homosexuality so I have to assume most of your knowledge comes from books.
I think instead of trying to decypher the reasons and causes for homosexuality it would be most helpful for people to actually meet someone who is in fact a well adjusted homosexual person. In this way people would realize that we really are not much different from anyone else. We are your uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. Quite frankly the reasons for homosexuality are, in the end, not as important as to how you choose to treat people in general. Regardless of how they identify themselves.
I think instead of trying to decypher the reasons and causes for homosexuality it would be most helpful for people to actually meet someone who is in fact a well adjusted homosexual person. In this way people would realize that we really are not much different from anyone else. We are your uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. Quite frankly the reasons for homosexuality are, in the end, not as important as to how you choose to treat people in general. Regardless of how they identify themselves.
videogamer
Banned
-jinx- said:
Not only that, they can't even masturbate. From a religious viewpoint it makes some sense, but I'm not religious.
shoplifter
Member
Suerte said:
If that was in reference to my post, I completely agree. There is always that 1% that does something to rebel though.
-jinx- said:
Your conclusion is accurate, and precisely what the Catholic Church teaches... the Catholic Church has always thought that abstaining from sexual intercouse is not only possible, but that it could be a good thing for some (priests, nuns, and monks are all in this catagory, along with all single folks). Sex is seen as a good thing as well... the Church just sees different people with different roles, if that helps explain it. While you may see it as odd, it is perfectly consistent with the teachings of most predominent strands of Christianity throughout the ages. Paul himself wrote that he would rather see everyone abstaining from marriage. My only point is to explain what the Catholic Church believes, as that helps to explain its teachings and positions on homosexuality.
Hammy said:
Why do women try to force themselves in to all male organizations (clubs) where they are not wanted? Does it make sense? No. Does it happen anyway? Oh yeah. I'm not sayin git would happen, but be realistic, if someone thinks they can force the issue, at some point someone WILL force the issue, just to prove they can.
-jinx- said:
Not really, or at least it shouldn't, to most of the people (Christians) who would believe that way. In fact, I believe Paul stated that, for many people, living a life of chastity would be best anyway. Maybe it seems borked to you, but for someone who actually believes that way, and sees examples in their religion that a life of chastity could be a good thing anyway, not so borked.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
Seth C said:
It's still borked, as most Christians do not live a life of chastity. They obviously do not see this as a realistic way to live their lives, so to expect this behaviour out of a homosexual person is unrealistic as well.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
I imagine they would tell you that the Lord places different burdens on different people, but that He will not place on someone a heavier burden than they could bear. You also might hear that He expects no one to be perfect, and that so long as they are making every effort to walk the path of righteousness, He will forgive their transgressions. Mistakes can be forgiven, but you have to try.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
Seth C said:
Ah, but do gay people think of falling in love with someone who is of the same gender as a "mistake" that has to be forgiven? Is it ok to have a relationship with someone of the same gender, hugging and kissing, or even just spending your life with them, as long as you do not take part in sexual acts? Is being chaste enough, or do you also have to have relationships with the opposite gender as well? (which many churches seem to encourage to "former homosexuals")
Which leads to another question about religious people: why does it matter to people whether someone is going to hell or not? It seems like a judgement used to condemn people rather than a genuine concern to me.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
It's a common perception that evil is influential and that Satan tempts the innocent.Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
Mega Man's Electric Sheep said:
If they try to tell them to have relationships with the opposite gender, they are trying to "reform" them. I can't imagine it working. I don't see why hugging or kissing would be condemned, as long as it wasn't in a sexual manner. I think the reason they would suggest not doing that would be to "obstain from every appearance of evil." In other words, you don't walk on the edge of the cliff because you might end up falling in.
Probably has something to do with the commandment to go in to all the world and teach every creature. Basically, Christians are giving the command to try to convert everyone, so they consider it part of being a good Christian to care if someone is going to Heaven or Hell.
I have to bring up, again, the argument of why the church picks the biblical verses condemning homosexuality, yet glosses over several other verses that are also condemnations. I believe its in Leviticus, God says that its ok to eat fish with scales, but that shellfish are an abomination. There is also a commandment that states that anyone who works on the Sabbath, even to the extent of lighting a fire, shall be put to death. How many people have a shrimp dinner after church on Sundays, and how many servers were put to death for working on the Sabbath? Yes I know that sounds silly, but it is a commandment from God in the Bible. The working on Sabbath thing was, as stated by God, to last forever. It was contradicted by Paul, who said that it was only temporary. But really, can what Paul said override what God said? And how long is temporary.
There are many other laws, edicts, commandments, what have you in the Bible that are overlooked today by a lot of people in the church, while picking out the ones they like and choose to run with. What is unfortunate is that some of the ones that are overlooked are the compassionate ones. We want people to respect our beliefs, but how can we expect that to happen if we want to ramrod our beliefs down other peoples throats and not respect theirs? We are supposed to bear witness and try to bring other people to God by love and understanding, not alienation.
There was a phrase coined several years ago, Compassionate Conservatism. I really like that term, its unfortunate that it was never realized by those that created it. But it is a viable way to be. Dont condemn, dont judge, be compassionate and understanding. If we truly want to fix a lot of our problems here at home I believe this is the way to go. And this message isnt only for other Christians, its for the Agnostics and Atheists as well. Both viewpoints yelling and name calling at each other just broadens the gulf. Christians like to condemn you, you like to call us stupid. Neither helps breach the gap between the two.
There are many other laws, edicts, commandments, what have you in the Bible that are overlooked today by a lot of people in the church, while picking out the ones they like and choose to run with. What is unfortunate is that some of the ones that are overlooked are the compassionate ones. We want people to respect our beliefs, but how can we expect that to happen if we want to ramrod our beliefs down other peoples throats and not respect theirs? We are supposed to bear witness and try to bring other people to God by love and understanding, not alienation.
There was a phrase coined several years ago, Compassionate Conservatism. I really like that term, its unfortunate that it was never realized by those that created it. But it is a viable way to be. Dont condemn, dont judge, be compassionate and understanding. If we truly want to fix a lot of our problems here at home I believe this is the way to go. And this message isnt only for other Christians, its for the Agnostics and Atheists as well. Both viewpoints yelling and name calling at each other just broadens the gulf. Christians like to condemn you, you like to call us stupid. Neither helps breach the gap between the two.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
etiolate said:
CHurches refuse to marry people all the time, currently, based on the faith(s) of the members of the couple. WHat would change?
And we have an ipso facto ban already.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Regarding bigotry and religious beliefs.
I know people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, based on their religion. I'm tolerant of that. But those who cross the line into voting for a ban on rights for those individuals-- those I call bigots.
They can believe whatever they want. I have zero problem with that. But voting against somebody else's welfare becuase of it is evidence of bigotry. Period.
Nothing upset me more yesterday than hearing about how overwhelming the support of the gay-marriage ban was. I have pity for a lot of people who voted for it. But I still call them bigots.
I know people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, based on their religion. I'm tolerant of that. But those who cross the line into voting for a ban on rights for those individuals-- those I call bigots.
They can believe whatever they want. I have zero problem with that. But voting against somebody else's welfare becuase of it is evidence of bigotry. Period.
Nothing upset me more yesterday than hearing about how overwhelming the support of the gay-marriage ban was. I have pity for a lot of people who voted for it. But I still call them bigots.
DarkAngyl said:
Exactly....i'm so sick of bible-thumpers selectively quoting whatever passages helps them feel warm&fuzzy about projecting prejudices, basically like a free license to hate. "Hey, it's in the bible"...it's said with such non-chalance, like "I have to hate you, i'm compelled to do so, don't blame me....i'd like to not hate you but, eh, whadda ya gonna do?". I also hate the fact that people CONTINUALLY speak about the bible as some factually be-all, end-all final say on any and everything, rather than somethng that is a PERSONAL BELIEF of theirs. The Bible did not fall out of the sky. It doesn't float when you toss it up in the air...there's no angelic choir singing as you turn the pages. It doesn't give you +3 protection against evil spells.
From the Declaration of Independence:
Legal recognition of gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights question; that a group of people can be denied the right to a 'union endorsed under law', solely because they love a member of the same sex. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Period.
Sadly, it's pretty obvious that the national zeitgeist isn't going to wake up and see this for a long, long time.
Legal recognition of gay marriage is absolutely a civil rights question; that a group of people can be denied the right to a 'union endorsed under law', solely because they love a member of the same sex. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Period.
Sadly, it's pretty obvious that the national zeitgeist isn't going to wake up and see this for a long, long time.
I'll never understand why some people are willing to allow civil unions but not marriage... any law enacted will not affect what YOUR church decides to do.
Yes, it'd be nice to respect everyone's religion, but I'm not gonna turn a blind eye to bigotry. Mormons didn't recognize blacks as humans a few decades ago... but I guess that's A-OK since it was just part of their religion and we shouldn't criticize them for it.
Yes, it'd be nice to respect everyone's religion, but I'm not gonna turn a blind eye to bigotry. Mormons didn't recognize blacks as humans a few decades ago... but I guess that's A-OK since it was just part of their religion and we shouldn't criticize them for it.
okay here's the deal:
1) there SHOULD be civil unions that are functionally (under the law) equivalent to any other marriage. All the benefits involved encourages people to restrict their sexual activity.
2) YET, to call it a marriage ABSOLUTELY equates it with a religious marriage. HERE's the big problem: The concept of marriage between and man and a woman and recognized under God is so incredibly fundamental to core Christian beliefs and teaching that allowing homosexual unions to be considered the same as our religious marriages.. ordained and blessed by God.. WEAKENS the definition of marriage. As has been understood for thousands of years by those who hold to judeo-christian beliefs homosexuality (the behavior) has been listed numerous times among behaviors that are not acceptable. Allowing homosexual marriages would FOR US then appear to be quite the paradox.
3) Homosexuality has NOT been proven to be an inherited trait. If it had, the news would have gotten around to everyone. (I have not seen it yet) And it will take a number of replications by a variety of researchers to convince entire churches globally to accept that. Until then, the church will continue to fight against governments declaring that marriages be granted to homosexuals.
4) HOWEVER THERE IS HOPE!! marriage of homosexual may yet be ultimately acceptable within the church.
LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN: Yes, there is still the possibility that the church (the entire body of people that believe in God via judeo-christian beliefs) will accept the marriage of homosexuals.
WHAT You say??!
The bible speaks very clearly about homosexuality being an abomination. It is equated with other depraved behaviors.. like adultery. Sexual misbehavior exists outside of the bounds of marriage, according to our beliefs. Perhaps it can be accepted by the church that sex between homosexual partners is acceptable if it is within the bounds of a God based marriage. Now, homosexuals intending on getting married would still have to be counseled (as do any couples intent on getting married within the church) by a minister of the church. For a church that has kept the same core beliefs for two thousand years (although the history of the church is VERY complex) to accept such a thing will be very difficult. This is not, cannot be an overnight decision. The church itself has to debate over this issue for a while.
What is happening with the current homosexual movement is that it is pushing EVERYONE to accept everything they want RIGHT NOW. They're not leaving any decisions for anyone else to make. They are trying to force all kinds of things all over the map to people who have learned all their lives (and if you hadnt notice, there are a lot of us) to have only a fairly fuzzy understanding of homosexuality. That "pushing" is only provoking defensive attitudes. We're trying to protect our church... one that is set in a world that we believe is falling constantly into depravity and away from God. They're not allowing us to get together and figure out how homosexuality fits within our faith.. they're forcing us to get together and figure out how to slow down this movement.
If you want to continue to drive a wedge between homosexuals and the body of the church and keep the focus away from resolving the apparent logical paradox then the current movement will do it. They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they want to eat it now. But they are fighting against two thousand years. They equate their plight to that of blacks in the 50s-60s... but blacks had been in this country for 300 years... the homosexual population has only been recognized within the last two generations.
Do you understand the fundamental problem yet?
"Paul himself wrote that he would rather see everyone abstaining from marriage"
Paul also said that this belief of his was not from God.
And I have to say this cuz this irritates me to no end: the label "homophobe" has been waved around my face for as long as I remember. People, EVERYWHERE I HAVE LIVED, have tried to intimidate me from having any opinion that dissents from total and complete acceptance of homosexual behavior by throwing that label at me. How frikken unfair is that? To declare that I am afraid of homosexuals.. to insinuate that I don't have the ability to communicate with a homosexual, to stand in the same room with one, etc... they not only unfairly branded me but imprinted a hostility in any potential relationship I might ever have with a homosexual... I've always had to struggle with the notion that this person is going to HATE me if it is learned that I'm a christian, that I'm a conservative... you know how damaging that is to us.. all of us? You've been driving a wedge between the two populations for years with that single word.
1) there SHOULD be civil unions that are functionally (under the law) equivalent to any other marriage. All the benefits involved encourages people to restrict their sexual activity.
2) YET, to call it a marriage ABSOLUTELY equates it with a religious marriage. HERE's the big problem: The concept of marriage between and man and a woman and recognized under God is so incredibly fundamental to core Christian beliefs and teaching that allowing homosexual unions to be considered the same as our religious marriages.. ordained and blessed by God.. WEAKENS the definition of marriage. As has been understood for thousands of years by those who hold to judeo-christian beliefs homosexuality (the behavior) has been listed numerous times among behaviors that are not acceptable. Allowing homosexual marriages would FOR US then appear to be quite the paradox.
3) Homosexuality has NOT been proven to be an inherited trait. If it had, the news would have gotten around to everyone. (I have not seen it yet) And it will take a number of replications by a variety of researchers to convince entire churches globally to accept that. Until then, the church will continue to fight against governments declaring that marriages be granted to homosexuals.
4) HOWEVER THERE IS HOPE!! marriage of homosexual may yet be ultimately acceptable within the church.
LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN: Yes, there is still the possibility that the church (the entire body of people that believe in God via judeo-christian beliefs) will accept the marriage of homosexuals.
WHAT You say??!
The bible speaks very clearly about homosexuality being an abomination. It is equated with other depraved behaviors.. like adultery. Sexual misbehavior exists outside of the bounds of marriage, according to our beliefs. Perhaps it can be accepted by the church that sex between homosexual partners is acceptable if it is within the bounds of a God based marriage. Now, homosexuals intending on getting married would still have to be counseled (as do any couples intent on getting married within the church) by a minister of the church. For a church that has kept the same core beliefs for two thousand years (although the history of the church is VERY complex) to accept such a thing will be very difficult. This is not, cannot be an overnight decision. The church itself has to debate over this issue for a while.
What is happening with the current homosexual movement is that it is pushing EVERYONE to accept everything they want RIGHT NOW. They're not leaving any decisions for anyone else to make. They are trying to force all kinds of things all over the map to people who have learned all their lives (and if you hadnt notice, there are a lot of us) to have only a fairly fuzzy understanding of homosexuality. That "pushing" is only provoking defensive attitudes. We're trying to protect our church... one that is set in a world that we believe is falling constantly into depravity and away from God. They're not allowing us to get together and figure out how homosexuality fits within our faith.. they're forcing us to get together and figure out how to slow down this movement.
If you want to continue to drive a wedge between homosexuals and the body of the church and keep the focus away from resolving the apparent logical paradox then the current movement will do it. They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they want to eat it now. But they are fighting against two thousand years. They equate their plight to that of blacks in the 50s-60s... but blacks had been in this country for 300 years... the homosexual population has only been recognized within the last two generations.
Do you understand the fundamental problem yet?
"Paul himself wrote that he would rather see everyone abstaining from marriage"
Paul also said that this belief of his was not from God.
And I have to say this cuz this irritates me to no end: the label "homophobe" has been waved around my face for as long as I remember. People, EVERYWHERE I HAVE LIVED, have tried to intimidate me from having any opinion that dissents from total and complete acceptance of homosexual behavior by throwing that label at me. How frikken unfair is that? To declare that I am afraid of homosexuals.. to insinuate that I don't have the ability to communicate with a homosexual, to stand in the same room with one, etc... they not only unfairly branded me but imprinted a hostility in any potential relationship I might ever have with a homosexual... I've always had to struggle with the notion that this person is going to HATE me if it is learned that I'm a christian, that I'm a conservative... you know how damaging that is to us.. all of us? You've been driving a wedge between the two populations for years with that single word.
etiolate said:
"Respect my religious beliefs" in regards to whether or not gay marriage is legal makes no sense. What two people do in their own private and spiritual life should have no bearing on yours. "Marriage" is not the exclusive province of Christianity. Jews get married; Muslims get married; Hindus get married. The word is universal, applied to all ceremonies in all different faiths that describe two people who love each other becoming "bound." One argument that no one can seem to come to terms with is "What if there were a religion where gay marriage was openly allowed, sometimes encouraged?" How would the U.S. handle that? What about more progressive clergy in established, non-hypothetical religions who decide to marry a gay couple? Denying those people the right to get married under the legal terms of the word would completely go against every statute on the books that defends and enforces the right to practice whichever religion you choose.
Iceman said:
You know, it took the Church a bit longer than it should've to get over the fact that yeah, maybe we revolve around the sun. And other points in history show an equally slow adoption of obvious truths. I am enraged that anyone can think, in 2004, that we should honestly look to the Church, of all institutions, to set the pace on civil rights and social progress in general.
So let's start off with homosexuality in nature and just leave the Church out of it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Want more? Google's your friend.
Spike Spiegel
Member
Well hey, if it's okay for animals to do it, then it's okay for humans. After all, we're no better than they are, right? I'll keep that in mind when I eat my first-born son.
Escape Goat
Member
"Its a choice" argument need only be silenced by asking "When did you DECIDE to be straight?"
- Status