The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

reply to post by skeptic1


well, why would you strugle to reproduce a defficient gene? as I said, if something has a dead end (on the evolutionary line) it should stay that way, or we will end up in a similar situation with the "idiocracy" movie..

I have 5 boys, all straight it appears. But, I for one, would never raise them to think that the only couples in this world are heterosexual, or to think seeing other couples out is strange or unnatural. All of life is a learning moment, and you use moments to instruct.

There have been studies done and brought up in other threads concerning the children raised by homosexual couples, and they have their own sexual orientation, usually heterosexual, and are well adjusted and less abuse statistically than heterosexual couples, so I would be looking into the many threads on this issue.

Sty, no group of people have the right to deprive another of their rights. Gay people having the right to legally marry isn't depriving you of anything other than a belief you can deprive them.

reply to post by mystiq


But, don't you see Mystiq, according to him/her it is unnatural and deficient and idiocy and should die out.

I could follow his/her logic by defining him/her and their evolutionary line, but that would just be mean.

These are people so blinded by religion and hate and bigotry and confusion and fear and hypocrisy that nothing will ever change their minds. The real world exists, and there are people different from us in this world. That does not lessen their humanity, make them unnatural (or deficient or idiots), and does not make them less deserving of the rights that other human beings have. Unfortunately, their type of "natural" people can't see that....or don't want to/refuse to.

It is a sad commentary on society.

reply to post by skeptic1


"These are people so blinded by religion and hate and bigotry "
hm..no , I am blinded by logic and some basic biology.

And, churches are private institutions and should not be required to marry anyone that they don't want to. A lot of churches will not perform inter-denominational services. And, they shouldn't have to.

However, governments are public institutions and they should not be able to deny rights to any two consenting adults based upon their sexual orientation.

reply to post by skeptic1


In Europe, some churches are considered to be public institutions too. As long as you are financed by the government (yes, it is happening here ) you are a public institution.
cannot argue with you anymore, need to go to work in several hours! gtg, I hope you do not feel insulted by my point of view, as I said this is just my opinion and I stronly believe it to be right. Good night!



[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]

reply to post by intrepid


Intrepid, I'm sorry but your refutation makes absolutely no sense. MY INTERPRETATION?

You really must learn the difference between an interpretation and a quote. Big difference. Very big difference.

To suggest that this same-sex thing is in any way acceptable by any moderate standard, and somehow attains acceptability withing the scriptures, is even beyond any reasonable interpretation.

True Christians don't select what they like about the teachings. They accept all the teachings, which unbelievably includes the ability to recognize those specific behaviors that are unlawful, including some which are termed abominations.

Let' see. Murder - unlawful, bad. False witness - unlawful, bad. Sloth - unlawful, bad. Theft - unlawful, bad. Idolatry - unlawful, bad. Fraud - unlawful, bad.

Homosexuality - abomination.
Bestiality - abomination.

Anyone who denies this denies the Word of God, not me. If you disagree, you clearly don't believe, so why bother posting on this thread?

And if you just don't like these particular scriptures, especially about the obedience requirement, there's hundreds of others which repeat the same thing. Obedience is not optional. And at the end of the day, that's the part that really bugs gays and their "enlightened proponents.

If you believe, you are compelled to follow the laws and commandments. That's not an interpretation. It's plain English. If you don't believe it, then just ignore it. The plain truth spoken to the unwilling won't matter anyway.

Intrepid. I'm disappointed. You use an argumentative fallacy by comparison of my personal perfection to defend something specifically forbidden by God, specifically called an abomination - by God. How's that work, exactly?

That was lame. What's your scripture selection have to do with the specific point of this topic? You faded. You didn't want to research and then quote scores of others with perfectly support what I already quoted?

God said it's an abomination, and puts it right there with bestiality. Where's my interpretation part of this?

Perfection is no required to read and understand the words. Perfection is not required to recognize that He considers same-sex relationships an abomination, just as bestiality is an abomination.

That isn't an interpretation. It was a quote.

Argue with Him.

His words. His book. His house. His decision.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I would prefer my children not exposed to that until the latest possible age. Where's my civil rights on this?

I think it's hanging out with my civil rights that my children not be exposed to things that I find distasteful. We can protect our children to a certain extent, but if we send them out into the world (to school), we give up a certain amount of control as to what they are exposed to. If you want total control of what your kids are exposed to, then keep them in the house, I guess.

But it's not right to disallow equal rights to a group of people because you don't want your kids exposed to it.

IF you were a raging racist and there were black kids at your kids' school, you'd either choose to let them be exposed to it or you'd take them to another school or home-school them. Those are the choices. Keeping the black people out of the school system isn't an option.

reply to post by sty


First off your logic is so sloppy such ideas are not really even worth discussing.

Second: For humans as with their closest living relatives; the Bonobo, sex is only superficially about reproduction... yes its how we breed but it also means so much more... if it were just about reproduction we would function sexually like most other animals in that we would not be having sex outside of estrus and heat....

Reproduction aside sex in these two species, Humans and Bonobo... the only two animals to have sex outside of estrus and heat... sex is also about mental and physical well being, social glue, emotional bonding, stress relief and simple pleasure... in fact it can be argued that because so much of our sexual activity is not related to reproduction at all.... these other, social reasons are for us more important emotionally, physically and spiritually than simple breeding.

In such a context who you do what with is far less important than it would be if sex was just a reproductive act.

What is important is that we love, not who or what we love. And if two people of the same sex find emotional, physical and spiritual solace in each others arms... who am I to gainsay that?

reply to post by dooper


I might say that your arguments had more standing if marriage was still a strictly religious union.

It isn't.

In order to get married, you don't have to have the ceremony performed within a church. It does not have to be presided over by a priest or other "person of the cloth".

But, you know what does have to happen? You have to file with the state.

So, no matter where you get married, a church or a courthouse, or who performs the ceremony, your pastor or an Elvis impersonator, you have to sign a "contract" with the state.

It is not a religious issue any longer....or strictly religious. Because, marriage is no longer a strictly religious union any longer. It is a contract between a couple and the state.

reply to post by sty


check out what's going on in the "natural" world:

www.nrm.se...

unnatural- something that canot occur with natural means. Put two gorila males in a cage, give them 1 million years (replace the dead gorila with a fresh male ) - will you ever have a gorila baby from it?? now put a male and a female gorilas together.. here we go! this is what I mean with natural!

so, we'll only have to replace the one dead male gorilla then?

sorry - couldn't resist :-)

if the goal is to create more gorillas - then, you would be right in suggesting that two male gorillas won't do

you would actually need a female and male gorilla

if you put two male gorillas in a cage for 1 million years - well, first of all that would be cruel - and pointless

but, if they somehow managed between the two of them to make a baby gorilla - THAT would be unnatural

Also another question; if same sex marriage is correct, what would make father-daugher, brother-sister, brother-brother etc wrong? WHY NOT? why would that be wrong??

because, morality aside - it's would be a bad idea - genetically speaking

a same sex marriage won't have negative consequences - or at least - not in the same way as inbreeding

it will only annoy some people - that is the only consequence of their union

it might be morally repugnant to you - and, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong

that is what this argument is all about

what do we agree about as a group?

right now, the group is more with you than against you - and the laws reflect that

at one time it was also well within our rights to own another human being - and beat that person senseless - or kill them - if they didn't perform up to our standards

or if we were in a bad mood

some people decided that was wrong - and worked very hard to change all that - some even died - just to change that very real - and legal and at that time morally acceptable reality

you live (I'm guessing) in the same country I do - a country where the church doesn't decide matters for it's people - the people do

and your beliefs don't outrank my beliefs

reply to post by sty


If you understood basic biology, you wouldn't talking as if a prejudice within you makes you feel its wrong, though you claim no religious leanings, when biology, which is nature, which is in front of your nose, tells you a huge quarter of the population is not straight. Around 10% are homosexual, and at least (this is a conservative estimate) 15% are bisexual. Nature, natural, biology.

reply to post by intrepid

We don't. Let God sort that stuff out. Not on some loose interpretation of scripture written thousands of years ago. As far as the law goes, beastiality, pedophilia and incest are against the law. Being gay isn't. So why not allow same sex marriage?

beautiful

it seems so simple - doesn't it?

Originally posted by dooper
True Christians don't select what they like about the teachings. They accept all the teachings

ReallY? Do you believe in the Trinity? All Christians don't.

If you believe, you are compelled to follow the laws and commandments. That's not an interpretation. It's plain English. If you don't believe it, then just ignore it.

No, it's plain Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. That's what the bible was written in. Lord knows how the truth got distorted in translation over the Millenia. Don't just look at the words, take in the meaning as to what Christ was saying. If he had wanted to say that homosexuality was an "abomination" don't you think he would have taken 5 minutes to do so? Well, that may have been changed in translation as well.

Perfection is no required to read and understand the words. Perfection is not required to recognize that He considers same-sex relationships an abomination, just as bestiality is an abomination.

According to Matthew 5 it is. If we are taking things literally, Jesus said you "... Have to be perfect, as God is perfect". Paraphrased from the last page.

As far as I can tell there is only one true sexual perversion, and that is brutality. And, when you think about it, brutality covers all the bases, physical and emotional abuse, rape, pedophiliac behavior, sadism (as opposed to sado-masochism which is mutual and little more than role playing) and other crimes including sex murders.

What is important is that we love and love has no room for violence and brutality. I learned long ago, what goes on in the recesses of the human heart is far more important than what goes on in bed. It is a great pity that it is a lesson rejected by many.

reply to post by dooper

Funny how after extended bombardment, we can gradually find ourselves incrementally accepting things that previously we found intolerable.

That speaks so well of us. Today gay marriages. Tomorrow - bestiality. We sure are selective as to what we find right and wrong, and unfortunately, it's always a sliding scale.

I am a Christian (what most would call a born again) and raised in a super religious home.

I have heard that argument all my life and actually believed it for very long.

But the argument is FALSE and is based on ignorance.

Man and Man together = consensual
Man and animal together = non-consensual
Man and child together = non-consensual

If one can not see the difference and see how accepting homosexuality is NOT crossing lines over into accepting beastiatily and pedophilia.....is well, ignorant.

I find it absolutely RIDICULOUS that anyone would oppose 2 consensual adults being together. Now I already have issue with the whole "legally married" thing - different topic altogether. But alas, we have legal marriage for many reasons other then "love"....so, homosexuals should be able to partake in it too. Marriage is not just for religious people either.

And having sex is NOT just for pro-creating. Another ignorant argument. Every time I have sex it is not for the purpose of getting pregnant. It is for the purpose of pleasure and bonding with another person. And this is why the pro-creation argument is ignorant.


[edit on 12/7/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by skeptic1

If incest, bestiality, and all these things are so forbidden, and the analogy is that being gay is not illegal, then why does this gay marriage thing come up only now?

If it was such a "acceptable" thing, why in this country did it wait 200 years to come up?

Marriage for millennia has been between man and woman. Period.

You want civil rights? Get them another way.

But don't drag the institution of marriage down in the gutter just so this aberrant behavior can somehow become more socially "acceptable."

I see a lot of 'end times' threads, and if this spiral downward of our moral base continues, then, it just may be a good thing.

Zeus, while slow in reviewing his notebook, always checks.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by skeptic1

 

If incest, bestiality, and all these things are so forbidden, and the analogy is that being gay is not illegal, then why does this gay marriage thing come up only now?

If it was such a "acceptable" thing, why in this country did it wait 200 years to come up?

Marriage for millennia has been between man and woman. Period.

You want civil rights? Get them another way.

But don't drag the institution of marriage down in the gutter just so this aberrant behavior can somehow become more socially "acceptable."

I see a lot of 'end times' threads, and if this spiral downward of our moral base continues, then, it just may be a good thing.

Zeus, while slow in reviewing his notebook, always checks.

Just for your interest, gay marriages have also been recorded across the globe for millenia

You, have a moot point

How is not committing treason by going against the constitution and giving all people equal rights to marry, drag down your marriage for example?
Explain that please. Because I can't imagine what you're thinking?

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by skeptic1

 

If incest, bestiality, and all these things are so forbidden, and the analogy is that being gay is not illegal, then why does this gay marriage thing come up only now?

If it was such a "acceptable" thing, why in this country did it wait 200 years to come up?

Why did we wait so long to do away with slavery? Finally grant women's rights? Both of which are supported by the OT. So we go back to the old ways? Ask your wife/GF and any black neighbor if they would be OK with that.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by intrepid]