Same-Sex Marriage

[Fox♠]

I don't see why people even care if gays marry. Marriage is more a symbol of comitment to another now than anything, and if two men/women love each other enough then let them, it's not difficult. And don't try "unconstitutional" as an arguement; the constitution is always being violated.

 

[Yamikarasu]

Ugh. Whatever I say in this thread is going to be offensive, because there isn't any difference between a homophobe or a racist or a sexist, so I guess I'll just leave you at that. My posts will be along the lines of "have fun being on the wrong side of history" or "your prejudice is based on your religious beliefs and therefor it is unconstitutional to enforce religious ideas by law, which is what is going on now." If anyone wants to argue that this is not based on their religious beliefs (Åzurε already has admitted that it is), then that's a different debate.

 

[lx_theo]

Ugh. Whatever I say in this thread is going to be offensive, because there isn't any difference between a homophobe or a racist or a sexist, so I guess I'll just leave you at that. My posts will be along the lines of "have fun being on the wrong side of history" or "your prejudice is based on your religious beliefs and therefor it is unconstitutional to enforce religious ideas by law, which is what is going on now." If anyone wants to argue that this is not based on their religious beliefs (Åzurε already has admitted that it is), then that's a different debate.

Exactly, like I've said before, Freedom of Religion is the same as Freedom from Religion.

Marriage has become synonymous with going to last step in feelings of love, which explains the want by the same sex community to gain this opportunity, as domestic partnerships or civil unions haven't gained that status. Its also become a legal process, by which refusing to offer the same service to a specific minority group because of religious beliefs, is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't give them the right, I know. I also know that no one has the right to it, but that works in my advantage. It means that refusing to offer the service to same sex partners on grounds of religion rather than something like economic or age reason (which I have yet to hear a reasonable reason other than religion) is unconstitutional, and either everyone gets it or no one gets it.

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

Okay, first off, the way I saw it, the creator of this thread started this thread to provoke a meaningful discuission in your favor. At least that's how it seems to me. If I am wrong, please, inform me immediately of my mistake. Second, while I am not opposed to gay marriage, I don't see the point in paying in any form, other then rent and/or any bills, to live with someone for the rest of your life. That's just me though. There are plenty of people that put value in this big expensive ceremoney that says to the world "We want to live together for the rest of our lives", apparently, more then actually living together for some odd amount of years. And I am sorry if that last comment offended anyone. That's just how I feel.

It's because society still sees marriage as the "next step". People will still scoff at those who are living together or who have had sex and are not yet married, or who will never get married. We feel the need to get approval from some sort of governing entity before we make a commitment. I see it as ludicrous, but that's the way things still work.

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?

He's proving a point. Women were often looked as lesser beings and not worthy of having an opinion in the Bible, and he's showing the flaws of using biblical references as an argument.

So your saying It's worng for two men/women to love each other? Why?

No, of course he isn't. I don't think you're understanding what he meant at all. He's addressing a circular argument, and you cut his quote to make him look like he's the one who is anti gay marriage. As far as I understand, he is, in fact, gay.

 

[professor plum]

Because she made the thread? Anyway, how does being a women have anything to do with it?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You totally missed the point of that part of my post XD;
I was referring to how the Bible has been used in the past to justify stuff that is now legal/kosher today [e.g., women not being property now, interracial marriage, etc.] :p

I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.

..er...obviously.
That was kinda my point as well. Adoption, or artificial insemination. Or, just natural insemination. I've known of it happening. :)

First Corinthians 6:9-11:
Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1) Paul is not God.

2) When Paul is citing this list of sins he is doing it to make the point that the Church in Corinth is free of these sins, which were listed in the Torah, because of their faith in Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans spells out in excruciating detail how the law no longer applies to Christians because they have died to sin and been risen in Jesus. In other words, these categories were good enough for our Hebrew forebears as they went, but as Jesus says to the tricky scribes, Moses gave those laws (specifically speaking of divorce) because the people's hearts were hard. Jesus clearly demands a higher mode of ethical conduct; in repeated instruction and parables he contrasts what people were taught with what he says. Therefore, Paul's personal feelings about what kind of people will inherit the kingdom of God, taken as a blanket condemnation of certain behaviors, is not only contrary to Paul's own teachings on the matter of justification, but deeply opposed to the spirit and teaching of Christ.

3) What Paul is giving a list of, in both verses that you cite, are examples of depraved conduct, as he sees it. His point is that when people turn their backs on God, they are prone to act in all kinds of sick ways; his point is not to list things that Christians should mark in their notebooks as being the "newly revised Levitical code". Paul is saying, "You guys used to do all kinds of crazy ****, but now that you have Jesus, you've got your act together." I would say that there is a big difference between lustful, furtive couplings and a committed, healthy relationship. The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.

4) Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, not once. If it was so important that we had to clamp down on it anywhere and everywhere it rears its terrible head, don't you think he would have at least, you know, brought it up? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.[/size]

 

[Richard Lynch]

I always thought the jury was out on this debate...

I'd like to say first off that this is a religious debate. Don't even bother bringing law into it, because the Bible also says (in Genesis) that we have control over all animals and can do with them our own will. And I dare anyone here to say that animal cruelty is acceptable and that we shouldn't have laws against it.

So, the religious side of the argument flies out the window on basic reductio ad absurdum (and that's about 75% of the argument right there). What do we have left? Bearing children and having a family. Well, that's nice, but like some people have mentioned (by the way, Erik Destler, will you marry me? :P), if that's the argument, then we shouldn't allow sterile people to be married. They can't have children either. So, I believe the child bearing argument flies out the window too.

Oh, and let's not forget the "family values and morals" debate. Okay, so let's have psychological tests before marriage is performed. Anyone who is sub-par can't get married, or if they show signs of serious mental illness, obviously they wouldn't be able to raise a family based on the social norm.

Alright, we have next the idea that marriage is a privilege as pointed out by the OP (a religious privilege, it should be noted). Alright, I can buy that... if it didn't have so much legality in it. Marriage is not just a commitment thing, it's got a crap load of paperwork that works to help the security of the family (this is why divorce can be so difficult, or take so long, to work out). And saying that financial security is only attainable by a man and woman combo, then that's in conflict with constitutional rights right there. And if you disagree with that, then you're probably a bigot, saying some people are more deserving of something than another. :P So, that argument flies out the window.

And that being said, we must also include into the debate a church-marriage and a court-marriage. Personally, I'm straight, and I'd never get married in a church. I'd probably burst into flames the moment I step foot in it, so in that sense, I personally don't see why a gay couple would want to either, especially since the church is such a discriminating organization. But a court marriage is different, and if that is illegal to a gay couple... isn't that just flat out discrimination? Again, saying some legal paperwork is more suited for A than B. That's saying A is more worthy than B. And when A and B are composed of human beings, that's just unacceptable in my eyes.

Personally, and truthfully, I find no legal/political/religious debate as absurd as this one. This is a case where I can not even comprehend how someone could be against it.

 

[Åzurε]

1) Paul is not God.

Nope. But God is. Haven't we gone over Divine inspiration before?

2) When Paul is citing this list of sins he is doing it to make the point that the Church in Corinth is free of these sins, which were listed in the Torah, because of their faith in Jesus. Paul's letter to the Romans spells out in excruciating detail how the law no longer applies to Christians because they have died to sin and been risen in Jesus. In other words, these categories were good enough for our Hebrew forebears as they went, but as Jesus says to the tricky scribes, Moses gave those laws (specifically speaking of divorce) because the people's hearts were hard. Jesus clearly demands a higher mode of ethical conduct; in repeated instruction and parables he contrasts what people were taught with what he says. Therefore, Paul's personal feelings about what kind of people will inherit the kingdom of God, taken as a blanket condemnation of certain behaviors, is not only contrary to Paul's own teachings on the matter of justification, but deeply opposed to the spirit and teaching of Christ.

Paul didn't exactly say "imho, thieves aren't going to heaven" there. He said "Do not be deceived", rather in the way Jesus said "I tell you the truth". It was an authoritative statement made by one of Jesus' closest followers. Additionally, it's not just "The law does no longer apply", it's that we can make mistakes and still be considered perfect by God. Saying "Forget this, so long as I say I'm Christian I can do whatever I want." It defeats the purpose and isn't true to that higher mode of conduct.

3) What Paul is giving a list of, in both verses that you cite, are examples of depraved conduct, as he sees it. His point is that when people turn their backs on God, they are prone to act in all kinds of sick ways; his point is not to list things that Christians should mark in their notebooks as being the "newly revised Levitical code". Paul is saying, "You guys used to do all kinds of crazy ****, but now that you have Jesus, you've got your act together." I would say that there is a big difference between lustful, furtive couplings and a committed, healthy relationship. The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.

The intended purpose of the passage means little in this instance. Paul cites homosexuality as sin, regardless.

4) Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, not once. If it was so important that we had to clamp down on it anywhere and everywhere it rears its terrible head, don't you think he would have at least, you know, brought it up? There is on the other hand, a specific condemnation of divorce in the Gospels, spoken by Jesus, and yet I don't hear Focus on the Family saying anything about divorce.

Focus on the Family is not God.
For all any of us knows, Jesus did condemn homosexuality himself. You don't think the Bible records everything he did of said, do you? Fact is, there's no way to tell. And the Old Testament puts homosexuality on the same level as prostitution.

Though, I've been rolling this over in my head. I think this topic is changing my opinion a little bit. 'O' horror of horrors!

More research will be done when I have a moment. I'm curious as to the antiseptic thing.

EDIT:

I always thought the jury was out on this debate...

I'd like to say first off that this is a religious debate. Don't even bother bringing law into it, because the Bible also says (in Genesis) that we have control over all animals and can do with them our own will. And I dare anyone here to say that animal cruelty is acceptable and that we shouldn't have laws against it.

I think you're a tad off base here, selective reading always bugged me. We're also instructed to care for all that God has given us. Biblically we are wholly superior to other animals, and as such are to care for them, emphasis on "care".

However, in saying that it's a religious issue I feel you're absolutely correct.

 

[Callandor]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You totally missed the point of that part of my post XD;
I was referring to how the Bible has been used in the past to justify stuff that is now legal/kosher today

He's proving a point. Women were often looked as lesser beings and not worthy of having an opinion in the Bible, and he's showing the flaws of using biblical references as an argument.

No, of course he isn't. I don't think you're understanding what he meant at all. He's addressing a circular argument, and you cut his quote to make him look like he's the one who is anti gay marriage. As far as I understand, he is, in fact, gay.

Um, yeah. I'm sorry about that. I totaly missed that. I see it now, and sort of agree with you now.

 

[professor plum]

The intended purpose of the passage means little in this instance. Paul cites homosexuality as sin, regardless.

Read the last three lines again please :)

The notion of a committed, healthy homosexual relationship was utterly foreign to early Jews and Christians, as was the notion of abolition [of slavery], racial intermarriage, antiseptics, and all sorts of other things that we take for granted today.

It's just as to what was accustom to the time.
Basically this kind of dates back to Sodom and Gomorrah.

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

This is basically the surmise of why it's bad and a sin.
But why?

The act of what they were doing was homosexual, yes - it was with other men. But it was not out of love, or even lust really.
What the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were practicing was purely primal domination.
For example, often when a new dog encounters another dog, they will . . have their way with it to show dominance.
These men were showing their dominance over each other and defying God. They were living corruptly by doing so.
So, in response to these men, Lot offered his two virgin daughters instead.
However, it was more humiliating, at the time, if the men were 'raped' rather than women: I mean, how else do you show sheer dominance over a household than taking advantage of the head of it?

Also, I have to say that that's also mistranslated. [the part about Paul]
Read this.

Literal Translation- . In the New Testament, the two verses 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 are often mistranslated as condemning homosexuality in English Bibles (but not in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther). Mistranslation is based on two ancient Greek words "malakoi" & "arsenokoitai" (Greek letters "ARSENOKOITAI " literally, "male-beds"), which was a new word used by Paul (Saul) at the time and not a common term for homo-sexuality. Because Paul was speaking in a religious context, the word "arsenokoitai" has been translated as referring to male-pimps or customers in temple prostitution, a common practice in so-called pagan rituals widespread in Temple Cult worship of the time. [The minor term "malakoi" (used to describe "soft" clothing) is non-sexual and has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), although others state "weaklings" or "morally weak, lazy" men.]

It's quite interesting, actually ^^

For all any of us knows, Jesus did condemn homosexuality himself. You don't think the Bible records everything he did of said, do you?

I would think if He did, it would be recorded just seeing as how He is the Son of God, etc.

And the Old Testament puts homosexuality on the same level as prostitution.

And on the same level as other menial things such as eating shrimp. See this for more

 

[Richard Lynch]

EDIT:

I think you're a tad off base here. We're also instructed to care for all that God has given us. Biblically we are wholly superior to other animals, and as such are to care for them, emphasis on "care".

However, in saying that it's a religious issue I feel you're absolutely correct.

That's true, but that was just one example (and the passage I referenced - I think it's Genesis 2:something) has been used in an attempt to justify animal cruelty. It's just one of many, many passages in the Bible that are dangerous to "follow to its logical extreme". As Erik Destler has cited, the Bible also states quite openly that men are superior to women, that slavery is acceptable, and that a man was swallowed by, and lived in the stomach of, a giant fish. I'm just showing why it's not a good idea to list the Bible as an argument against homosexuality in general. :\

EDIT: And selective reading seems to be all that the religious right does. As with the passage against homosexuality being in conflict with the "God loves everyone" parts. There are so many contradictions in the Bible, it's really quite hard to show that the Bible converges to a set opinion/moral.

 

[professor plum]

And, a lot of stuff was mistranslated as well. :)
Read this for more info ^^

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I beg to differ. A homosexual couple can have children some how. But, you know, marriage is definitely for children. That's why people who can't bear children and the elderly can't get married. Okay, and? I don't see how this is even relevant to your point. However, before interracial was legalized, most of America was against it. Really? Because if the religious roots were at question, why do we have Divorce [Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible - let's not even tackle the subject of remarriage! That's ~adultery~!]? Why do we have interracial marriage? [Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is an example of the Israelites being commanded to not do so] Why are you, as a woman, even posting here? [Women are often given the shorter end of the stick in the Bible - e.g. Genesis 3:12] In short, your argument is faulty, and relies on circular logic that homosexuality is a choice -> Homosexuality is a sin -> The Bible is Unchanging. Because they're not the same thing. Most states? Hardly.


You're kidding, right?
The origins of marriage as an actual sacrament rather than contract date back to Paul in Ephesians [23-32 iirc.]
Marriage had long been around though.
One of the earliest recordings of it is in Hammurabi's code. Wives were essentially sold as property. Dowry, etc.
You can read more about it here.

That's funny because I never once said that homosexuality is a choice or is it a sin in my original post. I never even mention religion save the part where I said "The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion." which is true. (I never said specifically Christian religion, just religion in general) but my argument was made from a non-religious point of view.

I fact I don't even oppose same-sex marriage. I just don't think it's a civil rights issue. You could argue that more couples to adopt children serves the state's interest.

 

[NikoBelic999]

It says in the bible that man and man or woman and woman shouldn't be in the same relationship (together), so it shouldn't be, I oppose it more than communism. It is a sin, always will be.

 

[Richard Lynch]

That's funny because I never once said that homosexuality is a choice or is it a sin in my original post. I never even mention religion save the part where I said "The institution of marriage is deeply rooted in religion." which is true. (I never said specifically Christian religion, just religion in general) but my argument was made from a non-religious point of view.

But what you have to ask yourself is... if religion were out of the question (abolished, or never existing), would this even be a recognized debate? I doubt it.

I fact I don't even oppose same-sex marriage. I just don't think it's a civil rights issue. You could argue that more couples to adopt children serves the state's interest.

I think it's partially a civil rights issue. There's a lot more founded in arguing for gay marriage based on civil rights than arguing against gay marriage based on the Bible. I think I understand where you're coming from, though. You're saying that you can not form a foundation for pro-gay marriage based on civil rights, right? Well, perhaps... but where's the idea that you can't base allowing someone to take part in a legal act, which marriage essentially is when boiled down to the bone, (or judging someone in general) based on ancient medieval religious writings? No one seems to bring that argument up. haha

(Because, like I said, this is a religious debate... since one side is totally founded on religion and the Bible, you can not debate this without bringing religion into it somehow... and that's why I doubt we will ever truly win. :P)

 

[Bluerang1]

Do some people just look in Other Chat and decide "Oh there's not an active thread on gay marriage so it's my duty to make one?" Seriously? Time and time again we've realized that this thread in particular is a bit controversial for PC and creates general BAW and flames. One thing goes wrong in this thread and it's locked. Just putting that out there. Let's make this a civil discussion.

I know right. I was thinking that we finally got rid of this...

 

[Akio123]

I'm afraid it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child. Research the biological definitions of male and female. You'll see what I mean. As for two females. Theoretically, I guess it's possible. But we sure as heck don't have that technology, and I question whether anyone would ever bother creating such technology since normally it's a rare thing to find in species as complex as humans or even most mammals. (It's FAR more common in things like single celled organisms.)

Point being, at this present time no, they cannot "have" a child, period, unless of course you meant to include adoption.

What the person was saying is that a gay couple can adopt like you said at the end. I mean who is to say that a gay couple cannot raise a child as well as a straight couple? Also you are neglecting artificial insemination.

Yes sexual reproduction is impossible, but a family can be brought together through adoption. A child doesn't necessarily need parents that look like them (although it helps). I mean my friend was adopted by Lesbian couple and he is a nice well adjusted individual.

I mean child rearing is really irrelevant. I mean I would rather be the child of a gay couple and have a pleasant life in a middle class or high income area than the child of a straight couple that is in the projects and abusive.

 

[Fox♠]

It says in the bible that man and man or woman and woman shouldn't be in the same relationship (together), so it shouldn't be, I oppose it more than communism. It is a sin, always will be.

What does opposing the reds have to do with a 2000 year old book written as a moral guideline at the time?

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

First off, people are not "just wired that way". From what I see, it's a combination of innate tendencies that seem to emphasize homosexuality, enforced by possible judgement by peers, sexual confusion, and the fact that homosexuality is becoming more of an accepted thing. I'd like to say here that these are not at all universal, and anybody can have any of these signs and others I did not list.

Are you saying that the homosexual penguins in that german zoo have been forced into it by "judgement by peers"?

First Corinthians 6:9-11:
Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I don't bring this up to hate on any given person, but to prove that it's there in the New Testament, and that it's not of God. I don't know what kind of church you go to, but if you really are a Christian, you are supposed to take this seriously. Am I wrong?

Just thought I'd point out that the Church of England isn't the only one that picks and chooses what rules to enforce; The Catholic Church and most others don't enforce the laws stated in Leviticus that none of these may be eaten by any Jew or Christian:

Abalone
Alligator
Ape
Bear
Cat
Catfish
Cheetah
Clam
Cockatoo
Crow
Dog
Dolphin
Eel
Elephant
Fox
Gecko
Gibbon
Hedgehog
Horse
Hyena
Iguana
Jaguar
Kangaroo
Koala
Kookaburra
Leopard
Lion
Lobster
Lynx
Magpie
Parrot
Penguin
Prawns
Quokka
Quoll
Rhinoceros
Ratel
Raccoon
Rat
Scallop
Seal
Shark
Squid
Squirrel
Snake
Starfish
Skunk
Tasmanian Devil
Tiger
Turtle
Umbrella bird
Viper
Wallaby
Wolf
Wombat
Worm
X-ray fish
Yapok

Admittedly some of them are hardly common delicacy, but have you ever had pork? Bacon? Ham? Then you are no better than he is, as this is also the area where it forbids the following:

incest, bestiality, same-sex relationships among men

Also note "same-sex relationships among men"

 

[Timbjerr]

The funny thing about Christianity is that Christians put more faith in the 9001 most likely corrupt men that have had a role in writing, editing, and/or compiling the bible throughout the past 2000 years instead of the one man that their religion is named for. If you read just the gospels, the stories and anecdotes about Jesus' teachings and works, and then compare them to say, the entirety of the old testament, you'll be getting a lot of mixed messages. As a philosopher, Jesus preached that all you had to do on earth to gain God's grace was to love one another as He has loved us. The high priests and popes in the interim years took it upon themselves to keep adding more to the "requirements to be saved" list so that more people need their "spiritual guidance" and the result being more money and more power to the priests. The hateful attitude towards homosexuals being just one of many.

I was raised Catholic and while I'm not the most devout Catholic nowadays, I still consider the basics of the religion to be truth. Even I was able to figure out that the scare tactics used in the early days of the church were wrong and just a ploy to increase the church's power. As such, the religious element of this debate is highly irrelevant. XD

...that being said though, jury's still out on my personal stance. I have no problem with court-issued civil unions amongst same-sex couples, but I think it's best to leave the decision of religious marriages to the individual churches/synagogues/mosques/etc...as archaic as it is, a lot of religions see marriage as just a sacrament to offer the blessings of bearing children, and since same-sex couples can't produce children biologically...yeah...

 

[Dawn]

..er...obviously.
That was kinda my point as well. Adoption, or artificial insemination. Or, just natural insemination. I've known of it happening. :)

Artificial insemination doesn't really apply to gay men though. Then I tried to apply that to two woman and .. um.. okay so I have no idea whether that's considered a homosexual couple "having" children since technically the male is not one of the couple.

I... I think I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject >>; Lol