I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by The Old American

 

Ok let's play that out....should Christians tolerate pedophiles just because they are human and make mistakes and do terrible things to children, or are you going to justify that? This is the problem with religious humanism. It replaces God with the human moral relativity.

That is totally different, a peado prays on a young child someone's child they are protecting, they are duping them into sex and the child will grow up with the scar of this forever, the child does not go out to find and old person to have sex with, it is totally one sided on the peados part, the child is harmed mentally and in some cases physically, two gay people are not hurting each other or anyone else it is not the same thing at all.

First off,, I want to thank all of the Religious folks here for telling me what God says,,, I am a pagan, (unaffiliated non denominational pagan that is) and the advice and words of your deity have no meaning for my life. I have my own beliefs of deity, and I haven't once tried to institute a law saying you have to dance naked in a full moon ritual,,, so please leave me out of your religious oriented Laws of God you want to rule over me,,, I ain't buying it, civil or otherwise.
As for the Want to Be Doctor who plastered all of the Health info,,, I was schooled by a straight man when I grew up,,, and if what he told me was to believed,,, a woman's private parts are petri dishes of STDs and other bugs and crabby like parasites. So,,, Right back at you,,, straight sex is just as full of risk,,, don't fool yourself and not put a cover on the Little Man ,,, just because you thinking only fags get those diseases you mention.

Also,,, for your information,,, not all of us are buggery fools sticking it where the sun don't shine,, Some of us have sex almost as much as I am sure you do,,, which is next to never I am sure. Grow up,, peddle your fears elsewhere,, you are no help to anyone,,, but maybe mad Rev. Fred's crazy God hates Fags Church.
Your opinions mean nothing to us.

As far as Marriage,,, well,,, I am gay,, and doubt I would ever use it. It is a contract as stated,,, thus the reason I would not use it,,, I don't contract Love,, even when it hurts,,, I have been burned,, and would have been better off with Marriage status in a number of cases,,, but for me,,,, F that. Someday gays will remember We are Different for a reason. I celebrate my difference and don't want to follow the crowd to the dirty little watering hole everyone is drinking from today.

But for the OP,,, Wow,,, As a Pagan Gay Man,, I wish there were more like you..
I suggest for those christians who disagree, that they might want to read Spong's book on WHY CHRISTIANITY MUST CHANGE OR DIE.
I see a glimmer of hope for christianity,,,, some are returning to what Jesus actually said was the Meat and Potato diet of his belief system. Love your fellow man.

Doing my part there,,,,lol
Great thread for the varied and for the most part well thought out arguments.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Get Ready, my feeling is that if society insists upon having civil unions, that is one thing, but the Church should never be forced into performing a religious ceremony. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the agenda is to reform the Church.
I also believe that part of the fallacy of the State is that we can legislate all our solutions.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I wonder how single parents cope, by your logic, their kids must be pretty messed up!

How would a kid learn to play a sport from a female parent?

Yeah, that's a toughy! Women don't playsports! Er, wait..

And, I wasn't taught how to shave from my dad! I mean, you wet your skin, and drag the razor over the hair gently, bloody hell, that was difficult! Better get a man to teach me how to do it so I know exactly!

Good for you, OP. I'm straight myself, but never understood why people hate gays so much..actually considering what I've read in this thread I do know..it's religion. religion twisted to give cover to hatred..it's easy to hate if you convince yourself god agrees with you..how wrong and cowardly. not surprising, though. my experience has been, the more religious a person is, the more evil behavior they're capable of. you can do ANYTHING as long as you can tell yourself god/jesus/allah/jehovah/Odin or whoever you worship is on your side. for myself, people are born how they're born. gays will get no hate from me.

This thread is an example of why there should be no such thing as Gay Marriage!

Anyone who condones Gay Marriage only wants to smite the Church and GOD for that matter, maybe not consciously but most certainly internalized.

Where the Gays went wrong is outwardly showing how much they mock the Church and yet scream "oppression"; they had the tools at their disposal to actively pursue "Common Law" or "Domestic Partnership" but instead they want to "wear the white dress". We all know the real issues lie in when a partner gets sick or when a partner dies, we need that security so that we can conduct ourselves in a respected manner.

I have been in a Gay relationship for 25 years next May. I am certain it will last by now and yet I will still have to contend with his family if he should get sick or die and he will have to deal with mine. Try explaining to his brothers that the vehicles in the driveway and the computers in the house are mine; they will come knocking for anything and everything they can get their hands on. I am fortunate we have a living will in place but that is always going to be faced with scrutiny by others and someone is going to scream.

I have already decided not to call them on that ill-fated day anyways! Where have they been all our lives?

At any rate, nothing instills pain and frustration more than Christianity when it comes to feeling normal and secure, and the sad thing is that our Government is just as bad! Sure the times are different, but getting thrown out of the Military because I choose to love another man is ridiculous, especially behind closed doors. Try handing a DD-214 to a employer when the top entry for "reason for discharge" states as bold as can be "homosexual acts" LOL, as if it were a public display on the battlefield! As a result I could never get a security clearance through the Government! No we were not caught in any act, he was turned in by his roommate and I was questioned about our friendship; they probably lied to me but I was told that he would be discharged regardless and so I took that door and walked through it with him! The "acts" part was probably some grief-stricken Sergeant holding some sort of idiotic notion in their head.

Of course I guess I could go the nine-yards and request that my discharge be upgraded based on today, but I am thankful for my experiences no matter what. I am not too thrilled that no one will recognize the commitment we both partook in but by then I don't think that will be too much to worry about anyways either since I plan on living until I am 88, by then I am sure to have figured it all out!

I am against Gay Marriage, but I am for Civil Unions! To me it is a beef between us and our Government coupled with Societal Rules regarding "privacy" and "legitimacy", not GOD! GOD had our backs the moment we were "created" this way, but the Government is an anointed Lord who wants more than they deserve! Shame on them for not stepping up!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


But, marriage has always been a contract between two or more people for land, relationships, money, and yes, love, it's never ever been owned by religions, it's been owned by societies as a whole, so sorry, but seeing as the church has made laws around themselves, I think it's only fair the church is put to the back for once in their thousand year life, for once it should be society over the church.

reply to post by EarthCitizen23

and I haven't once tried to institute a law saying you have to dance naked in a full moon ritual,

Well, thank you for that, but don't do it where police can see you as they could write you up for public display.

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

But, marriage has always been a contract between two or more people for land, relationships, money, and yes, love, it's never ever been owned by religions, it's been owned by societies as a whole, so sorry, but seeing as the church has made laws around themselves, I think it's only fair the church is put to the back over society, not society over the church.

edit on 7-9-2011 by voidla because: (no reason given)

I have just said the Church should not be forced by the State. What part of that don't you get? I don't care if they hire someone to release doves and light a hundred candles and have the most expensive cake and burn incense or do whatever, but it does not have to be sanctified in the Holy Church.

In fact, while we are on this subject, if you believe in separation of Church and State, as most seculars and atheists do, then jolly well do not insist on the State forcing the Church. That is the purpose of the separation to not have State religion. I wonder if those who want a church marriage are also willing to accept the other precepts of the Holy Church????

reply to post by SaturnFX


You're an atheist? Then shouldn't you understand marriage isn't a christian thing?

reply to post by The Old American


Ok so we have Gay marriage rights and I am fine with that, never cared, not my cup of tea, but doesn't this set a precedence now for polygamy? Man or Woman doesn't matter, but where do we stop defining right and wrong in the laws of humans?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Ah, so a church, christanity, which has forced laws on people for hundreds of years, is suddenly not allowed to be told what to do when the state has more power than the church?

Right, I see where we are with your logic now!

Sorry, but what church are you on about? Marriage isn't a religious thing, so if a church wants to practice it's teachings in public in a country, it should be bound by the laws of said country, including the right to marry same-sex couples!

reply to post by voidla


There is no precedent for the State to force the Church to marry gay couples. That is why it is a civil issue. Many laws have reflected the positions of Christians.

I would like at this time to point you to the life of St. Thomas More

Meanwhile he applied his whole mind to exercises of piety, looking to and pondering on the priesthood in vigils, fasts and prayers and similar austerities. In which matter he proved himself far more prudent than most candidates who thrust themselves rashly into that arduous profession without any previous trial of their powers. The one thing that prevented him from giving himself to that kind of life was that he could not shake off the desire of the married state. He chose, therefore, to be a chaste husband rather than an impure priest.

As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More's attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his "Apologia" (cap. 49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office. More's first public appearance as chancellor was at the opening of the new Parliament in November, 1529. The accounts of his speech on this occasion vary considerably, but it is quite certain that he had no knowledge of the long series of encroachments on the Church which this very Parliament was to accomplish. A few months later came the royal proclamation ordering the clergy to acknowledge Henry as "Supreme Head" of the Church "as far as the law of God will permit", and we have Chapuy's testimony that More at once proferred his resignation of the chancellorship, which however was not accepted. His firm opposition to Henry's designs in regard to the divorce, the papal supremacy, and the laws against heretics, speedily lost him the royal favour, and in May, 1532, he resigned his post of Lord Chancellor after holding it less than three years. This meant the loss of all his income except about 100 pounds a year, the rent of some property he had purchased; and, with cheerful indifference, he at once reduced his style of living to match his strained means. The epitaph he wrote at this time for the tomb in Chelsea church states that he intended to devoted his last years to preparing himself for the life to come.

www.newadvent.org...

reply to post by ignant


"testosterone effects on the fetus in the womb in early pregancy"?? I've never heard of that. Can you please post a reputable link showing scientific evidence.
Thnx

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ah, so a church, christanity, which has forced laws on people for hundreds of years, is suddenly not allowed to be told what to do when the state has more power than the church?

Right, I see where we are with your logic now!

Sorry, but what church are you on about? Marriage isn't a religious thing, so if a church wants to practice it's teachings in public in a country, it should be bound by the laws of said country, including the right to marry same-sex couples!

You are wrong actually. A civil union is recognized by the State. Marriage is a sacrament.

That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema." The occasion of this solemn declaration was the denial by the so-called Reformers of the sacramental character of marriage.

www.newadvent.org...


Then there's common law "marriage"

USA, along with many other judaeo-christian dominated countries, banned interracial marriage for 200 years

that means until 1967 (only) were african americans, european americans, asian americans, hispanic americans, native americans etc allowed to ever intermarry legally.

alot of the fuel against interracial marriage, just like still against gay marriage, is 'biblical':

www.religioustolerance.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Sorry but your post is irrelevant

The church of any religion that chooses to practice it's beliefs and recruit people to it's organization should be bound by the laws of the state, and if the state says same-sex couples will have their marriage (which is not bound to religion) in a place of worship then that church will have to comply with the state's laws, regardless if the said religion agrees with same-sex marriage, the building is a building and will be used as such if the law states so.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Christianity is not an old religion, marriage is older than christianity, marriage is not a 'holy' gift given to you by your god, you need to stop thinking such things!

Originally posted by AboveTopZecret
Problems for gay's :
...
URINE SEX About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted,13 23% admitted to urine-sex. In the largest random survey of gays,6 29% reported urine-sex.

Urine is anti-septic and sterile. It is protective in certain contexts when used right.

Yogi's drink their own urine. The great Mahatma Gandhi lived on his own urine and drank it every day.

Look at the design of man. Things in front and above on the body are to be embraced. Things behind and below are to be shunned. The solid waste is full of harmful bacteria, worms, and fungus, it's dangerous. So on taking a dump, man walks away from it. On the other hand, urine is a blessing, it pours out in front of the body like a fountain. On taking a pee, man walks towards it. Why this design?

Because "Urine" is a miracle medicine. While "Feces" is a harmful poison.

All animals use urine to protect themselves. Fresh urine can be ingested as medicine to "protect" the body and to cure illnesses. And stale urine is used to protect "territory". Animals spray their urine around their territory, to ward off competition, they protect their habitat by their urine, to protect their food supply. All dogs naturally mark trees, lamp posts, walls, etc.. to let other dogs know, this is "my" territory, keep away. The stale urine immediately signals danger, it's poisonous to ingest when stale, it has a characteristic smell for each individual.

However, urine has to be used in certain specific ways. It can be both a medicine and a poison.

The only safe urine to drink is one's own urine. Another person's urine can be poisonous to you, even though it's generally sterile and anti-septic. It also has concentrations of minerals and biochemical waste products that may not agree with your body chemistry.


The way one's own urine acts as a medicine is as follows: Say the body is sick, and you have some bacterial infection or virus etc..Some of the biochemicals from the disease will enter the bloodstream and travel to the brain. Inside the brain, the particular biochemicals that are markers of the disease will be detected, and the brain will send out messages to various parts of the body to release the anti-dotes to combat the disease.

The trick is, the brain examines the "concentration" of the harmful biochemicals in the blood, and by the measure of this concentration, it will direct the body to produce more or less of the anti-dote to cure the disease.

But, the kidneys also filter the blood, and those same harmful biochemicals that the brain detected is being excreted through the urine. This lowers the concentration of those harmful biochemicals in the blood, and the brain thinks the body is being cured, so it tells the body to produce less anti-dote. This causes the illness to linger around longer.

When you drink your own fresh urine, you put back into the body the harmful biochemicals that were just excreted. So, you maintain the "high concentration" of those bio-markers in the blood, and the brain thinks the illness is getting worse, and so it works even harder to cure the body, sending out even stronger messages to get anti-dotes to the ill site. This causes the body to heal very rapidly. Because it gets an overdose of its own natural medicine, directed by the brain, to cure that particular illness.

The beauty of urine, is that the particular harmful biochemicals that are excreted in the urine, depends on the particular illness that the body is suffering from, so the urine "changes" its composition according to the illness, and so is capable of curing all illnesses that the brain knows how to handle.

This is the central trick of urine. It's a universal medicine(uropathy) But only your own urine.

Another person's urine will be excreting harmful biochemicals specific to their illnesses, which may have nothing to do with you, and if you ingest their urine, then your brain will try to cure their illness in your body, which will just make you sick with the side effects instead.

You can only use "fresh urine" however. After 24hrs urine oxidizes in the air and becomes harmful to ingest for anyone. It can be used then to kill bacteria on the surface of the skin, as it is now a poison. People use urine products in facial creams and to clean and sterilize cuts and bruises. After a few days the urine develops a very strong smell, which is now a territorial protector. In all stages of time periods, urine is a protector for something, but as time passes, what it specifically protects changes.

That's why it's ok for a man to have sex with a woman. Because any urine in the channel is anti-septic and sterile and protective of the body.

Unfortunately, God did not give the same protective powers to the back channel. He had other ideas about what that area of the body was to be used for.

Originally posted by voidla
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Sorry but your post is irrelevant

The church of any religion that chooses to practice it's beliefs and recruit people to it's organization should be bound by the laws of the state, and if the state says same-sex couples will have their marriage (which is not bound to religion) in a place of worship then that church will have to comply with the state's laws, regardless if the said religion agrees with same-sex marriage, the building is a building and will be used as such if the law states so.

edit on 7-9-2011 by voidla because: grammar

Your post is the irrelevant one here. We are not talking about recruiting people to the Church, we are talking about how an agenda to reform the Church to suit society is being pursued.

www.christianpost.com...