It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


gay marrige

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:29 PM
I ran across this little video gem and it kind of put things into perspective.

What do you think?

Gay Marriage

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 01:29 PM
Hi Daedalas:

Dae > Maybe I'm missing something but it seems that the issue of gay marriage is a battle between human rights and Christians . . . Christianity wouldn't have much of a say.

We disagree. This nation was founded by a very large band of professing Christians who included language in our Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure we all have the same rights under the Law. The Declaration Of Independence says,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, Romans 1 says of gays,

“. . . and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Romans 1:31.

These professing Christians gave gays the same rights as every other man. That seems fair.

Dae > How can Christian politics be so influential when they dont have any representatives and aren't even recognized as a political party? why . around the bible and Christian morals?

This country is dominated by a majority of professing Christians who continue to vote and put representative into office. Any minority class of individuals is poorly represented in a Republican form of government. God’s Word is given to us by the same Creator who endowed us with certain unalienable rights.

Dae > Could someone give me one reason why two gay people cannot get married other than its says they can't in the bible?

Certainly. No homosexual person has ever been born. Every person alive today is the product of one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which results in either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. You cannot change the sex of which you were born. You can change your sexual ‘orientation’ by simply deciding to deviate from traditional practices of the majority. However, nobody is allowed to gain ‘more’ rights by simply making a choice to sleep with a man rather than a woman or visa versa. You have the same rights to marry any woman of your choice, just like every other man in this country. No civil union granted to men can ever be elevated to the stature of the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. The reasoning is that a man (spirit witness) is created in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man (water witness). 1Cor. 11:7. The man stands in the spirit position like your spirit seeking expression through a physical (water) body. The woman receives the man in herself like a body receiving life from the spirit. Together the spirit and body create a brand new “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) ‘man’ capable of reproducing copies of itself in their blood witness posterity. Two men lying together are like two spirits seeking expression and no life results from that relationship; which is the reason these things are an abomination to God. Two women together is like two bodies seeking expression, but without any life giving spirit; again an abomination. The three witnesses of spirit, blood and water are testifying in this earth form the Father (spirit), Son (blood) and Holy Spirit (water). 1Jn 5:7+8. Your own spirit, soul and body testify within your own being that everything said here is ‘the truth.’

Dae > And, I should hope not, but can bible Scripture actually hold up in court or in any legal procedure?

Current Federal, State and local laws are fashioned by legislative representatives of people consisting of a professing Christian majority. What you might be seeking is an environment where homosexuals run the roost. Unfortunately for your situation, those making your ‘choice’ to alter their sexual ‘orientation’ do not make up a majority in any society on earth. If you will think about it carefully, those in your situation for the most part have no posterity at all.


posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 02:42 PM
but what about the moral structure of our society? no not christians but all people of faith do not condone gay marriage. the family unit is already seriousy compromissed and the strain is becoming more of a problem everyday. todays children need to have structure and order , and by distroying the historical idealism of the family only further decays our youths opinions on what roles they are to follow.i dont think that the gay community should be exculded in any way, but the opinions and values of the majority should rule. but marriage was founded by a man and woman joining together. this way of thiking has been the foundation of our society. there is no way in knowing, but this mentallity could very well be an embaressment with future generations reading about how we were occupying our times.
the ancient greeks had a policy of a teacher sleeping with his young male pupils. we look back on that and think man was that f#@&*d up.

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:32 PM
terral, thank you for your post but I must say that anything that wasn't a direct quote from the bible made a direct reference to god. you are, of course, entitled to your religion of choice and your subsequent opinion but, what I am saying is that it shouldn't hold any weight in political issues.

as far as the moral structure of our society doggmann, I think that you are referring to the christian aspect of our moral society. our family unit is not in any danger just because gay people exist. the opinions and values of the majority are ruling and it is injust because the opinions and values of the majority are clouded by christian belief and that is the issue at hand. I find it a little offensive that you fear our future generation will feel embarassed that we allowed gay people to "occupy" america. Might they also be a little embarassed that such intolerance paints a bad picture of american society as we think of slavery now?

and BTW nice video BH, thats a good way to look at it.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by daedalas]

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by daedalas
maybe I'm missing something but it seems that the issue of gay marrige is a battle between human rights and christians. and you would really think that in a matter of law that christianity wouldn't have much of a say.

bush is no christian.

I am a christian. here is my view on Gay Marriage, and the Bush administration's political stance on their anti-gay marriage ...

OK. I'll take your suggestion about Gay Marriage and use Bush's administration's words to demonstrate how ignorant they are. I'll take the simplest truths, and their own words to show how they judge, and why they are wrong for having even openned their mouths about it in the first place....

Whenever anyone decides to cast judgment on another, or the actions and behaviors of others, they have to make a comparison.

a person who decides to judge, decides to compare all they know about a subject to everything they know about themselves, and what they have witnessed.

So, when Bush decided to judge homosexual actions and behaviors, he had to compare the actions and behaviors he was judging with everything he knows about his own intentions, his own motivations, and his own actions and behaviors....

So, when Bush said: "It is a choice", he did not lie. Why? Because if he looked deep within himself to find his truth of "It is a choice", then he knows that there has been at least one moment in his life when he looked at another man and thought to himself: "maybe i would have sex with him". and then Bush had to make a choice.

This is the only way Bush can justify why he would know: "It is a choice". Because he had to choose. Same thing for everyone in his administration that agrees with him.

personnally i am not offended when i see two men holding hands as they walk down the street. Less competition for me.

how can christian politics be so influencial when they dont have any representatives and aren't even recognized as a political party (I dont think)? why do we have to mold this country around the bible and christian morals?

I'm a christian, and this countries political leadership does not speak for my morals. Besides, Christ's words of "Do unto others ... " and "that which you do unto the least of my .. . .. that you do unto me" should have some say into the subject, that is if the politicians who lied about being christian were christians.

could someone give me one reason why two gay people cannot get married other than its says they can't in the bible?

I can't ignore this question. seems like the meat and potatos of the whole arguement, doesn't it?
Did we interpret the bible correctly? Are we sure this is the word of the same God of Creation that would create homosexuals?

If the bible is adamant about this homosexuality, we are left with few choices.. ..

one, we should kill all homosexuals so their deficient homosexual gene is not permitted to continue

or, we should re-write the bible to reflect reality??

what other options do people see???

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
There are a lot of things in the bible that people don't follow these days. I'm surprised why gay couples are the ones attacked above all else mentioned in the bible (which is plenty). It seems people are losing their priorities.... but whatever floats yalls boats.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:58 PM
I say that we should allow gay marrige, I agree it should not be a federal matter but I think it shouldn't be a state matter either. It shouldn't be an issue that pertains to either branch, or an issue at all.

What if, all of the sudden, a majority of the states did not allow marrige at all. What do you think would happen? I think there would be a nationwide outcry against such injustice. do you see the hypocrasy?

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 01:19 PM
I usually see better and more intelligent posts from you on most topics so I am a bit surprised by your position on this one.

I see different positions on this issue pro and con..and most of the con positions settle around biblical issues and positions.
However I will tell you that many of my Christian bretheren are some of the most unthinking people around. They seldom think outside the biblical perspective and the biblical perspective they know is often not much.

I am not in favor of the Gay Community simply because of the name..the very moniker. I could use biblical positions but this one is more than sufficient for anyone who can think beyond themselves.

The very moniker ..Gay Community. This is a use..or misuse of the term..which is designed by its very name to mislead..and take people with any thinking ability away from thinking.

The very term GAY denotes sexuality..or a specific sexual orientation. This itself is ubsurdity to the max.

Daedalus...thinking people know that you dont go around defining yourself or your greatness by your sexual orientation. By this I mean Gay or Straight. This is stupidity personified and misused to blindside people.

People define themselves by their lineage, their occupations, or some great work they have done and left to posterity. They do not define themselves by thier sexual orientation ....PERIOD!!!!! Yet we have this group among us who desire to declare their greatness and rights by their sexual orientation. Really beyond stupid. People have gone so far downhill that they now think this is is not.

Daedalus..the very sad thing about this is that most Christians are so dumb that they too are politically and in the thinking arena ..chasing a placebo..and way off the mark. The politics are deliberately leading them off the point so that they are chasing a placebo. Some reallly dumb Christians out here.

No one of any sanity ..declares their greatness or forces acceptablity thier sexual orientation. Hetero or is just plain stupid. And by this I mean college professors...really stupid to teach this position. They are declaring thier stupidity by omission.

I am "NOT" declaring that people do not have sexuality. I am merely saying it is very stupid to declare ones "greatness" by sexuality. Do you understand the difference Daedalus???

This is a view the body politic and the media who shill for them do not allow to be heard. Yet anyone thinking knows it is true.

THe only ones historically who define themselves by thier sexuality openly and use or misuse it as greatness are Pagans. This is the record of the Bible..clearly as these people to whom this book is written are told not to do this as the nations surrounding them did. Runaway rampant sexuality..both homo and hetero was a fingerprint in many Pagan nations..particularly around the festivals and holidays. Yet many Christians are so dumb they are not even able to make this connection and use the same tired olde mantras. Astonishing how dumb many of my bretheren are on this. Obviously for many Christians ...history is not thier strong suit. Even biblical history. Amazing!!

The politicians dont care today because they are looking at this group...the gay community...... as being identified as a controllable, malliable, predictable voting block and they will sell anything/anyone down the drain to get political power. You can see this over and over in many nations by politicians seeking to acquire or keep power. This is being sold in public schools by politicians seeking early control over the next emotionally controllable voting block. Remember ..Politicians finance public education here. They will do nothing to jeopardize the next generation of controlable giving them a complete set of information to make their own informed decisions. Only one controlled set of informations will be allowed in public schools.

YOU do not define your greatness by your sexual orientation is stupid. Just plain dumb. This clearly shows you how far downhill and desperate intelligent educated man has come to use this as a badge of greatness.
These people are so dumb they are successful in passing this dumbness on to the dumber Christians...and there are lots of them. Amazing!!


posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:52 PM
2 Steps, I've been thinking the exact same thing: that secular law allows for same sex marriage and the couple can get married in a church IF the church is agreeable. I do not think that churches should be forced to do anything. OTOH, I do not believe that others should suffer just because the church doesn't want to sanction it. There are numerous Jewish and Christian synagogues and churches that would marry same sex individuals, albeit, many of them are in California. But there is also the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church) which is a Christian church for gays and lesbians (but also open to anyone) and I'm sure they would be happy to perform same sex marriages, they are also all over the country, so no problem in a same sex couple who wanted to be married in a church, it would be available.

Note: Marriage in western society began as a legal instrument. Hundreds of years ago, poor people didn't bother to marry because there was no money. Only the elite got married and it was for political and legal reasons, nothing else. It was only in the 1800's IIRC, that marriage became a common event for the lower classes. So the argument that it's always been a religious institution is not accurate.

And the Church and State need to be kept separate, IMO. I think anyone or any numers of people should be able to call themselves a legal marriage if that's what they want.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
In the far past, marriage had no standing at law; it was purely a religious matter and the churches had full control over it. Thus, when King Henry VIII of England wanted a divorce, he could not simply, in his role as head of state, hand himself one, nor could Parliament give him one. He had to go to the Pope, who was not cooperative, hence the founding of the Church of England.

Marriage was and still is a religious matter. Outside the context of religion people are just highly evolved animals. Why do animals need permission to breed and reproduce? Even if said animals were both male or both female they could hang out and be "buds" without the permission of anyone else. Other than religious implications, what good is marriage? You can still create a will that gives your "partner" full rights to your estate upon death. You could have a lawyer draw up a contract that spelled out the terms of your co-existence.

Why would the state enforce a religious practice as a legal statute? Maybe because it's a good idea. The Ten Commandments has a "thou shalt not kill" clause. Does that mean that the government is controlled by religion because it accepts the same stance as that of a religion? Murder is illegal in all 50 states and most of the world but that does not imply that Christianity has taken over the government.

What if the government understood that homosexual unions were detrimental to this country's health? Look at the extremes and you'll see what I mean. If every union were that of a man and a woman no harm would be done. The country would continue to grow and flourish. If all unions were homosexual unions, then the birth-rate would fall off the charts. Sure there would still be some babies born from people cheating on their spouses, but the nation as a whole would decay and start to die off. Adoption? That would mean importing from another country thus accelerating your nations decline.

I believe that the same logic is behind the one man, one woman laws. If all the rich men were consuming the populace of women it could lead to social and civil disruptions by un-happy males. So homosexual unions fall under the same category as cheating on your taxes. A certain amount of the population is going to be doing this, but if allowed to run it's course it would be detrimental to society as a whole.

Lastly why do homosexuals care about the "marriage part"? They want involvement in religion and feel ostracized by the current religious organizations. They want to be accepted and involved. The push for legal marriage (a religious union) is merely an attempt to get goverment to force changes in current religious views.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:09 PM
dbates, I invite you to read the links I have entered below and I'd love to hear what you think about them.

Originally posted by dbates
Marriage was and still is a religious matter.

No, it wasn't always a religious matter at all and it still isn't in many marriages. My marriage has not ONE thing to do with religion. Yet I am legally married.

Why do animals need permission to breed and reproduce?

And my marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with permission to breed.

Other than religious implications, what good is marriage?

Perhaps nothing to you. But to some of us, it's very important. Each person (even Britney Spears) has their reasons to be married.

If every union were that of a man and a woman no harm would be done. The country would continue to grow and flourish. If all unions were homosexual unions, then the birth-rate would fall off the charts.

How about if some were man/woman and some were same-sex? Wouldn't the man/woman ones still produce the same amount of children? Having same-sex marriages takes NOTHING away from the man/woman marriages.

Nobody is suggesting EVERYONE MUST be in a gay marriage.

Lastly why do homosexuals care about the "marriage part"?

Probably for the same reason that I, a NON-religious person do. Marriage means many things to many people. It's hardly fair for you to project what marriage means to you on everyone else.

The Origins of Marriage

How old is the institution? The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old.
When did religion become involved? As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized.
Men who married men: Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives.
The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

The Bible and Homosexuality

The term [homosexual] dates from the late 19th century, when human sexuality began to be studied as a science.
There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts of the Bible.
Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.
Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result.

Are you absolutely sure about the transltions of the bible you're reading as regards gay people? Have you studied what God REALLY meant? What if you're wrong?

Edited to correct link And to add:

A Study of Homosexuality and the Bible

A Biblically Based Study on Homosexuality in the Bible
The purpose of writing this document was threefold: 1) to understand for myself what the original Hebrew and Greek texts state concerning homosexuality, 2) to compile a concise, to the point, biblically based study, and 3) to share this information with anyone that wants to learn the truth, walk in greater love and more in Christ.
Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ASV

Correct Hebrew translation: "and with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination".

It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur.
One of the more common arguments against homosexuality used to be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I say used to be, because many biblical scholars and teachers have begun to realize that there is insufficient scriptural backing for that argument. Let us together take a clear, honest look at these cities, and let us determine who the inhabitants were, and why God destroyed them.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:59 AM
I dont often agree with Forest Lady but she got it correct here. Mostly in times past it was the wealthy or affluent who had big wedding services.

For most people arrangements were made sometimes before hand when the children were very young. It went across as more of a buisness arrangement and goods were exchanged and the male took the female...and they were man and wife. Thats all there was to it. Not often before a religious priest or holy man..but the male just took the woman. This is often recorded in surviving records.
He took her unto wife.

Even in America in the early days there were many areas where a clergy was not available so marriages were common law. He took her unto wife.

Records of marriages were recorded in Family bibles or a church record if there were even churchs or clergy available...not in court houses. This was perfectly acceptable. Births, deaths , and marriages were recorded for many familys in thier family bibles.

THe purposes of "legal" marriage today is to put the family under state jurisdiction. This way the state can control the terms of your marriage, your children, your property when you die..etc etc. YOu are now a creature of the state as is your marriage.

Preachers today are licensing agents for the state. This is not seperation of church and state. They are acting as state licensing agents. Amazing the number of people who cannot think this through or make this connection.

Well said Forest Lady..well said.

The long term purpose of the Gay marriage buisness is to identify and groom another predictable, controllable, malliable, gauranteed voting block. Particularly in the high electorial vote states. These groups of gauranteed voters can all be identified by a common political dogma....



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am not in favor of the Gay Community simply because of the name..the very moniker.

Orangetom, this is an interesting position and one I hadn't thought about before. I looked into the origins of using the word "gay" to mean homosexual and found that gay people probably did actually assign this word to themselves.

I do think, though, that any minority has a self-assigned descriptor, depending on what they're comfortable being called. Black people didn't like the ones attributed to them so they made known what they're prefer to be called. I'm not sure that skin color is any more of a valid characteristic to be used as a descriptor than sexual preference, but it's not any less valid, in my opinion.

What makes them "different" than the majority of people (in the US) is how they are defined, sadly. The only reason gay people use their sexual preference to describe themselves is because that's what's 'unacceptable' or 'different' about them when compared to the majority of people. I really think it's nothing more than that.

Thanks for bringing that up.

[edit on 21-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Bible and Homosexuality

Are you absolutely sure about the transltions of the bible you're reading as regards gay people? Have you studied what God REALLY meant? What if you're wrong?

Interesting BH…you were able to find supporting evidence on the internet regarding your beliefs. Just remember that you can find ANYTHING you want on the internet but it doesn’t make it true. Did you know that the earth is really Hollow….see, it said it on the internet.

Anyway the sites that you keep using as conclusive evidence that thousands of years of theological scholars keep misinterpreting the “homosexual” references in the bible are gay rights activist organizations. I don’t find their “conclusions” surprising…do you?

Heck lets go ask the tobacco industry if smoking will kill you or cause cancer. lol

I’m out…

[edit on 21-11-2006 by kinglizard]

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by kinglizard
Interesting BH…you were able to find supporting evidence on the internet regarding your beliefs.

Actually, that's not true. I have no beliefs one way or the other regarding the bible's meaning. So, this isn't about what I believe at all. It's about what the bible SAYS and the translations from the original text.

And I'm curious to know if anyone else has done a strict translation from the original languages of the bible as regards homosexuality. You either have or you haven't. If you haven't, you're relying on the translations of people with an agenda and it could very well be incorrect. I'm just encouraging people to look for themselves (isn't that what ATS is about?) instead of blindly believing the pablum that passes for "God's word" these days.

The mistakes people are making if they're incorrect about this could backfire on them according the their beliefs. (Not mine)

And the last link in my post above isn't a gay rights organization (and what's wrong with gay rights, anyway?), he's just a guy who wanted to know the TRUTH. He's a Christian who wanted to know what God really meant instead of just believing the New and Improved International Living Contemporary Young People's Version of the Bible with a Twist (Sort of).

I’m out…

Just popping in to leave a smart remark then "you're out"? Ok.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:51 AM
Sorry to jump into this conversation midstream, but I just now found it, so figured I'd throw my two worthless aluminum coins into the bucket and get my 30 seconds on the soap box.

Although I'd consider myself an extremely liberal Christian and am married to a woman (even if the ceremony was in a Shinto shrine and I made my vows to Amatarazu Okamasama, the Japanese sun god *grin*), I'm still kinda smarting from the elections earlier this month. Although this is PTS, dunno if you guys heard about the gay marriage ban amendment to the TN state constitution or not, but it was unfortunately overwhelmingly approved...something like 80/20.

I've lived in Japan for nearly 7 years now, but am still a Tennessee resident and made sure to vote no on this amendment. I still can't believe that in 2006 the people of my state would purposely vote to discriminate against their own. It's like we've taken another step back after so many going forward.

The main things I don't really understand about this entire argument are:

1) why people are so up in arms about the saving the "sanctity of marriage" when 50% of all US heterosexual marriages end up in the tube in the first place. So what're they saving?

2) *opinion alert* it seems to me that a person can't choose their sexuality any more than they can change where they're born or what race they are. True, one can choose to keep those feelings bottled up, but are who you are and nothing's going to change that. To me, it's the same as saying, "You're not white enough...act more white" to a black person.

3) *opinion alert #2* why do so many Christians claim to literally interpret the Bible, yet at the same time pick and choose which parts to live by and randomly add things like the rapture that weren't even conceived of until 150 some odd years ago. I know it's beating a dead horse, but why are they not killing those who wrong them and other "commands from God"? Yeah, there's a lot of good stuff in the Bible that can still apply today (don't kill people, don't steal, treat people w/ respect, help little old ladies across the street, etc.), but I think Chris Rock (the comedian) put it pretty well in one of his stand up bits about people not eating pork. "Hey God, I killed a bunch of kids, but I ate right!" The Bible was written thousands of years ago by men, supposedly inspired by God, at a time when what was written had to be easily understood and get the point across straight away. I would hope that humanity is at a point where we would realize that taking the literal word of a 2000 year old document that's been retranslated and badly translated (not to mention for less than noble purposes) so many times that more than a few major points have no doubt been totally turned on their heads isn't a very good idea, but I guess we still have quite a ways to go.

In anycase, if somebody could shed some light on these points I'd sure appreciate it 'cause I sure as hell can't figure it out.


posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:10 AM
Marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN - period! If gays would like to enjoy the same protections under the law as married couples, let us then grant them civil unions which would afford equal protection under the law. If they want to call it a marriage privately, fine with me. But "Marriage" in it's traditional and societally acceptable form is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

Marriage, a sacrament of the Church, became an acceptable union under the law that provided certain benefits. However, marriage is, has been and should always be the spiritual union of a man and a woman. The 14th Ammendement guarantees Equal Protection and therefore should address this inconsistency and find a way to afford such protections to gay unions. This does NOT, however, mean that the government should force churches to perform gay marriages. If you "Legalize" gay marriage, then Churches become liable for discrimination if they refuse to perform gay marriages. As a result, you have a very sticky definition of law based on verbage and not on reality.

I say, follow the Constitution and allow civil unions. This could be man-man, woman-woman or even man-woman if so desired outside of the construct of the Church. This is merely Semantics folks. Gays deserve equal protection under the law - but under no circumstances does that mean that marriage is one of them - only the protections and privledges that "Marriage" provides as defined by the law.

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I'm curious to know if anyone else has done a strict translation from the original languages of the bible as regards homosexuality. You either have or you haven't. If you haven't, you're relying on the translations of people with an agenda and it could very well be incorrect.

This is an excellent point. As BH already knows, my church does not teach that homosexuality is a sin. It's not that we are a gay rights organization, we just don't interpret it that way.

Even though there is no record of Jesus having mentioned homosexuality or same-sex relationships, many Christians continue to believe that Jesus himself condemned homosexuality. Jesus did not. Instead he preached a message of radical inclusion, in stark contrast to the strict adherence to purity codes observed by many within his society.

So what does the Bible say about homosexuality? The short answer is, "nothing." The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown in biblical times.

It's not until you start reading some of the latest translations that there is anything that outright says 'homosexuality is a sin'. I regard the whole thing as a giant game of Telephone, that game where one person passes a message to someone else and so on down the row. By the time the message gets to the last person, it's usually nothing like it started out.

I had another thought regarding this last night. The Bible only mentions same-sex relations between men, until you get to the most recent translations. Does this mean that it's not a sin for women to be homosexuals, only men?

<< 1   >>

log in