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.


The Religious Case for Gay Marriage

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:18 AM

I am against straights, and I think straight should not adopt. Due to their drinking too much, and too much child abuse, and straight people doing drugs, too many straight fathers rapping their little boys, and girls, too many divorces, causing only one parent to raise a child. Too many straight child molesters, to many parents beating their children.
You know! Some people really know how to show their ignorants!

You know, a lot of us are messed up. That is probably the one reason we have all these problems. But it makes for interesting conversation, right? I don't know what the percentages are of the above crimes, but they must be low enough that we aren't bad parents most of the time. Raising kids can be a frustrating experience. My kids are over 30 and I have 12 grandkids. It does get easier, and good grandparents can make up for a lot of parent mistakes. When you get older, you get wiser. I recommend people strengthen their families. It really helps in the long run.

Although I am against redefining marriage, I am sure there are many good homosexual parents and spouses. I think there are a lot of activists that make the good families look really dysfunctional and weird by creating the wrong image of homosexuals. The hate movement has backfired, and they need some p.r. work.

In keeping with the OP, tho, I showed earlier that there is no religious reason for the support of homosexual marriage. That does not leave out the civil law support. I would not try to redefine marriage, however. That will slap the face of every guy who "did the honorable thing" of getting married to the girl.

I don't know the true statistics, but I think about half of the "married" people in this country are not legally married in a legal ceremony. I think I heard that about 50% of couples are just living together.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:07 AM
Well since this is listed as a Religious case for gay marriage I will say that we are able to have a ceremony under the NC Piedmont Church of Wicca because they do recognize the partnership of same sex couples under many different beliefs that fall under the word "Paganism". If we ever decide to have a ceremony it will probably be under them as they will adhere to whatever beliefs we do believe in and perform the ceremony as we wish.

Also at the Cherokee Indian Reservation gays are highly revered as "two spirit" shamans. I was greatly surprised when I asked Shashan whom owns a bookstore in Cherokee NC if I could attend her village ceremony to observe. She was very ecstatic since I was gay and my mother is part Cherokee. The experience was awesome and she kept telling others that I was two spirit and this placed me into the realm somewhat of an "honored guest".

Some of the gay "two spirit" personalities were also partnered and they were highly revered in the community.

I already consider myself married even though the state will probably never recognize that in South Carolina even so I feel I have already won despite the attempts of self righteous individuals in the community as I am in love and have been for several years. I have a more stable relationship than many heterosexual people I know.

As far as children, yeah I've raised them at one time and when they visit I get charged with babysitting still and even their friends when they come over to play. The heterosexual couple next door also at times asks us to babysit. No big deal although I'm not thinking of trying for adoption at this point because I have to raise children at least every other day anyway. In a way my brother's children are my kids (at least how I view them).

One of the original posters wondered what gay men such as myself thought of sexy women when they pass by. It is much like seeing your sister or mom walk by a room perhaps scantily dressed by accident. It means nothing. One of my best friends and I have even gotten dressed in the same room to go swimming. She's very pretty. I think of her as a sister.

Strangely enough too there is the false belief that I find all men irresistible and just want to sex it up. That is false, I am very picky on whom I ever dated. Much like a female lol. I would say that one out of every 99 guys I have met meet the criteria I seek for dating. This is not judging anyone but, to prove that all people are individuals with different requirements.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by toochaos4u

Thank you for your illustration of what it is like to think like a gay and live like a gay. It was interesting to read.

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:49 AM
I always thought there was a delicious irony that the most well known and popular English translation of the Bible, the King James Version was commissioned by one of Britain's most famous homosexual monarchs.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:56 PM
reply to post by grover

Here is a pastors response to this nonsense Newsweek put out

NEWSWEEK: THE BIBLE AND GAY MARRIAGE - (Print) In Newsweek's December 15, 2008 issue, religion editor Lisa Miller defends gay marriage using the Bible as her text. Her basic argument is that God really isn't against loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, and Bible-believing folks should support marriage for same-sex couples. She argues that Jesus would in fact reach out to gays and lesbians, for - quoting her friend who is a priest - "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Unfortunately, Ms. Miller attempts to make the Bible say what society might want it to say, rather than just taking in the full counsel of God. She also fails to appreciate that when Jesus reached out to the outcasts of society, the prostitutes and tax collectors, they never stayed the same. In his great love and power, he freed people from the sin that held them down so fiercely. Miller's Newsweek article uses the Bible in her effort to support gay marriage and therefore deserves a response from the Bible-believing community. Her arguments, and those like hers, need to be answered in far more depth than this simple article can offer, but the following short responses to her contentions can be used as spring boards for more study on the subject of marriage and the Bible: Contention: The Bible does not offer a consistent definition of marriage: Response: The Bible makes clear God's model and purpose of marriage despite human deviations and stumblings. Miller says, "Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists." In Genesis 2:18, God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." God gave Adam a single Eve to be his partner in life. God did not dislodge several ribs and hand Adam a harem. The fact that He put up with His servants deviating from that model doesn't change God's purpose. God permitted polygamy, but that was not His model. Jesus says that the Law allowed divorce too "because of the hardness of your hearts…but from the beginning it was not so," (Matt 19:8). Miller says, "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better…Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments - especially family." Jesus taught that no relationship is more important than the one with God. Yet, Jesus honored marriage. He recognized its holiness and appreciated that a wedding feast was a joyful occasion. In fact, he repeatedly referred to himself as a bridegroom. [His marriage celebration is going to be the greatest ever (Rev 19:9).] In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus reminds his hearers of Genesis 2: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?' Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh." It is difficult to be "one flesh" with more than one person. Miller says, "The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust." Because of the troubled times, Paul did not encourage people to take on marriage if they could help it (1 Cor 7:25-29). However, Paul gives one of the most excellent descriptions of a man's role in marriage found in any piece of ancient literature. In Ephesians 5:25,28-29, Paul says: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it… So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" The Apostle Paul, scholar of the Scriptures, also recognizes a one-man-one-woman marriage as God's model, because he instructs church leaders stick to it as part of being "blameless" ( 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6). Either way, Miller's arguments do not help her position The Bible is not a prude book – it does not shy from describing what happens in people's bedrooms. Yet there is not a single instance in the Bible in which homosexual sex is mentioned in a positive way. Contention: The Bible's objections to homosexuality are outdated. Response: The Bible's objections to homosexuality are part of an unchanging moral law, and not part of the ceremonial law which Christ fulfilled. Miller recognizes that the Bible includes verses that condemn homosexual sex, but dismisses those verses as old worn out laws based on an out-of-date culture. She says, "Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." Miller does not make a distinction between ceremonial and moral law. Jews cannot keep the complete ceremonial law because they have no Temple right now. Christians do not worry about ceremonial law because Jesus fulfilled the law by his sacrifice (Mat 5:17, Heb 9-10). He also opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles, freeing us from laws of separation (Act 9). A "modern understanding of the world" has little to do with it. That understood, moral law not only remains, but has been stepped up. Jesus calls his disciples to a higher morality than the mere letter of the Law (Matt 5-7). We are now supposed to live by the Spirit, by whom we avoid fulfilling "the lusts of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). (It's when we try to do it in our own strength that we fail miserably.) Contention: Rejection of gay marriage is the same as racism. Response: The Bible treats men of all races as equal in God's eyes, yet consistently condemns homosexual sex. Miller contends, "If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color -and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that." She's assuming that people are born gay or lesbian. While this is a popular idea in our culture, it is not been close to being proven scientifically. The precise causes of same-sex attraction are still not understood. Yet, while the Bible states that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of their ancestry (Col. 3:11, Rev 7:9) homosexual sex is always referred to negatively - not simply when it is in violence or debauchery, as Miller also argues. Gay intercourse is condemned in Lev. 18:22 just before bestiality (Lev. 18:23) and after child sacrifice (Lev 18:21). In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Bible scholar Paul says: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." The words "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are two different terms for those who engage in homosexual acts. What the KJV translates "effeminate" is the word for a male prostitute, a catamite, or the passive partner in male intercourse. The next term, "abusers …" is a very clear word meaning, "male homosexual" or "sodomite" – the active partner in male intercourse. It's the Greek word arsenokoitç, which is a combination of two Greek words meaning "male" and "bed". Paul doesn't leave any loopholes for men in bed monogamously or in a loving romantic relationship. (There's also not a lot of room for people who have ‘good' reasons for being idolaters or thieves or adulterers or extortionists either. We are all in desperate need for the grace of God.) On Healthy Same-Gender Love The Bible has a ton of room for loving male-male or female-female relationships. As Miller points out, David and Jonathan loved each other deeply, and David wrote of Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1:26: "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." The Bible always blesses deep love between men and yet always condemns homosexual sex. The Bible blesses men embracing each other and kissing each other, and John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" lay on his breast at the last supper. (The word "loved" is from the root word agape, and not eros.) Perhaps we have such an epidemic of same-sex attraction among men because men do not know how to show each other affection without its being considered a sexual thing. The purity of simple masculine love has gotten skewed and ruined by humanity's focus on sex. It's good for men to "love one another with a pure heart fervently" (1 Pet 1:22) and yet not "burn in their lust one toward another" (Rom 1:27). Perhaps if men as a group loved their wives the way Christ loved the Church – cherishing and nurturing their wives, and laying down their lives for them – perhaps fewer women would feel drawn to the arms of members of the same sex. Perhaps if women were taught to reverence their husbands (not be door mats, but truly respect their husbands) there would not be the man-hatred we see in the world. Either way, it's women's responsibility to love one another but not, "change the natural use into that which is against nature" (Rom 1:26). The Word of God absolutely doesn't change just because society changes. The Word of God is living, but it does not evolve. It lives and abides forever (1 Pet 1:25). God loves each one of us, and He is more powerful than the sin that so easily besets us. In our weakness He is strong. We need to give ourselves wholly to Him, no matter what that means. His is the most important relationship we have. "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." - Heb 4:14-16

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 09:24 PM
The problem I see with using the Bible as grounds for moral guidance on social and political matters is that you cannot prove it's validity. The Bible's merit is judged solely by the intent of the user, it has no intrinsic validity. The Bible is what it is because the Bible says it is and you choose to believe it...There is NO external proof that the Bible is the word of God. In fact the true origin of the Christian Bible is highly suspect (but I will not go into that now)!

I am not anti-Bible, or anti-Christian. My parents were missionaries and I grew up in the church. I believe in the almighty and loving God of the Bible. My above point is that the bible is a compilation of religious scriptures, inspired perhaps by God but ultimately written and assembled by man - many different men in fact! It has many different versions and translations, while valid perhaps in religious ceremony and personal devotion it should not be used as a point of reference on issues pertaining to civil and human rights or family structures or social equality. Where would we be if we modeled our society on what the Bible says about women, slavery and war? We would be barbarians!

As a Christian I know there is a God. I know this not because the Bible told me so, I know it because I have experienced his loving kindness in my personal life. I strive to honor him in my actions and in all my choices, but I am also gay and I am in a loving monogamous relationship with another man. If I were allowed to marry him I would. I have found that my relationship with God has actually strengthened since I decided to stop lying to myself and the world and started accepting myself for who I am. My personal studies have led me to conclude that the English bible contains a gross miss-interpretation of the passages pertaining to homosexuality (see this link for just a few other views on the subject: Furthermore, the examples of marriage, slavery, war and woman's place in society are out dated and should not be taken literally in our modern age.

I conclude that the Bible, while valid on a religious and personal level, has no credence for determining individual rights in our modern society. As long as we have a separation of church and state we should, instead, reference The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence wherein "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."


[edit on 22-12-2008 by archetype_one]

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

To you it may be nonsense but to others it isn't... remember your opinions are not bellweathers or carved in stone.

The British scholar Robin Lane Fox in his book "Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible" refers to himself as an atheist who believes in the Bible.

He describes it this way. While he cannot bring himself to believe in a supernatural being he feels that the Bible (in reality a profoundly disturbing book) is first and foremost about humanity and as a portrait of mankind with all his graces and flaws is true and real... and should there be a God... our only real approach to him is through the depths of of the only creation of his we know... ourselves.

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in