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

I find it sadly humorous when I read posts that say something along the lines of ,,,

Hey,, there is so many other IMPORTANT things we should be focused on,,,,

or: Gays,, they don't bother me,, but Marriage,, no way,,,

or: Jesus and the Bible said,,,,, blah blah blah

Yes,, there are more important things we need to be focused on,,, I agree wholeheartedly,,,
thus,

It Ain't No Body's Business What I Do,,, If I am not hurting anyone,,,, even if you believe I am hurting Myself,, and your F'd up Family Values.

Leave Me alone,,, I don't abide by your Religious Rules,,,

Let's get on with Fixing the Problems that ""Family Values and Christian/Judeo/Islamic Religions have fostered on the World"

Need I say 9/11.
Inquisition
Hitler....

I am not hurting anyone being the Hard working Gay Pagan Man I am,,,,, so Bugger Off already,,, and for those who say I am going to Hell.
I think I am already there,,,,, you are on the planet aren't you? Get off my Life.

I suggest you really think about Not having Gay people on this planet,,, you would be More Messed up than you are Now. Gay people have saved the day more often than one might think.

Hitler,,,, disabled in large part,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by a gay man (Alan Turing)
King James Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Edited by a Gay King (or Queen,,,, if you wish)
Sistine Chapel,,,,,,,, the Catholic Church could give the gold back to the Natives they raped and pillaged it from,,, and Give the Art back to the Gay People ,,, since a gay man painted it...
I could go on and on,,, or you bigots can go collect Western Culture and hand it back to us,,, along with many other cultures on this planet.
Western Civilization Would Not Exist without Homosexuals,,,,,
You would still be picking feathers out of your teeth in a cave most likely if it wasn't for us,,
SO Kiss Our Collective Ass and leave us alone already,,,

or Maybe Another Gay Man will Want to take over the world,,,,,, like Alexander the Great did,,,
and not be so nice as I am to the idiot mindsets like exhibited here and in popular politics..

So, you know the method Jesus taught in "The Secret Gospel of Mark", huh?

That has been discredited as a forgery. You can't use that as any evidence.

The revelation of the letter caused a sensation at the time, but was soon met with accusations of forgery. The subsequent discovery that the major plot elements of Smith's discovery - the attempt to plant a hoax manuscript embarrassing to Christianity by a German archeologist in the Mar Saba library, and his unmasking by an American - are found in Canadian writer James H. Hunter's The Mystery of Mar Saba (1940), published the year before Smith's first visit to the Mar Saba library, has led most mainstream scholars today to regard the discovery as a hoax.

en.wikipedia.org...

also see this section specifically en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus was never a homosexual nor is there any credible proof. He was celibate.

reply to post by The Old American


It's quite an interesting thread (though I haven't read many responses) and though I certainly don't agree with a lot of what you've said I do fundamentally agree.

I will leave out any religious disagreement and concentrate on the issue.

However, I'm a little confused by Gay marriage. As a legal necessity I absolutely fully understand to have the same rights and entitlements as any other couple. My confusion is that marriage is effectively a ceremony in which to gain the blessing of God (s) upon a relationship, considering that in almost all (that I know of) holy books homosexuality is a 'very bad thing' and deserves punishment. Why propose a ceremony to gain the blessing of their relationship from a deity which, if there is an iota of truth in the books, despises everything about that relationship?

This is the same reasoning that I don't see myself getting married (even though I'm straight).

P.S. May I ask what is your position on laws about drugs? I just thought that many of your points were just as applicable to that debate as this one.

Originally posted by scapers2u
Honestly, who cares? its not like its going to change your relationship, you believe in gay marriage, you dont, end of discussion, whats the point of arguing or fighting about it

OK I couldn't stay out. I've taken a few breaths.

Why does it matter? Who benefits? I am married, and have been for 18 years. In all that 18 years I have benefited from tax breaks. We have joint ownership of property. We can legally make decisions about each other regarding care. My wife can benefit from my insurance. I can visit her at any time in the hospital (should that time occur). Marriage provides benefits that being single does not.

Also, let me clarify my stance on the term "marriage". I had a marriage ceremony performed by a pastor. My brother, who is much more religious than I am, got married by a Justice of the Peace. I don't care what it's called or who performs the ceremony, as long as gays get the same benefits as I do. Or do away with the marriage benefits. Either way, if it's treated as a legal contract, as it should be, gays will then get the same benefits as I do.

/TOA

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33

So, you know the method Jesus taught in "The Secret Gospel of Mark", huh?

That has been discredited as a forgery. You can't use that as any evidence.

The revelation of the letter caused a sensation at the time, but was soon met with accusations of forgery. The subsequent discovery that the major plot elements of Smith's discovery - the attempt to plant a hoax manuscript embarrassing to Christianity by a German archeologist in the Mar Saba library, and his unmasking by an American - are found in Canadian writer James H. Hunter's The Mystery of Mar Saba (1940), published the year before Smith's first visit to the Mar Saba library, has led most mainstream scholars today to regard the discovery as a hoax.

en.wikipedia.org...

also see this section specifically en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus was never a homosexual nor is there any credible proof. He was celibate.

That's exactly what I said. What are you reading?

reply to post by DRAZIW


Um if glancing over it counts as reading it then yes, yes I did.

Originally posted by yes4141

However, I'm a little confused by Gay marriage. As a legal necessity I absolutely fully understand to have the same rights and entitlements as any other couple. My confusion is that marriage is effectively a ceremony in which to gain the blessing of God (s) upon a relationship, considering that in almost all (that I know of) holy books homosexuality is a 'very bad thing' and deserves punishment. Why propose a ceremony to gain the blessing of their relationship from a deity which, if there is an iota of truth in the books, despises everything about that relationship?

You are exactly right.

Marriage is for the blessings from the big guy upstairs. Civil unions are for the benefits of the state.

That is how it should have been. But, the problem is that the word "marriage" is used in the legal wording of the laws from long ago, and is ingrained in every aspect of society. And unless the lawmakers want to undertake the work of replacing all instances of "marriage" with "civil unions", and leave the word marriage for the religious sects alone, the easiest thing is just to change the meaning of the word marriage. That just takes writing and passing one new law.

You know, many years ago, in communist counties, they did a similar thing. They replaced all references to "Master", "Mister", "Mistress", "Sir", etc..by one word "Comrade".

So, this kind of thing is possible to do. But, it takes a massive overhaul of the whole society.

reply to post by yes4141


Well,,, maybe you should look beyond the Religions of the Books,,,,

Being Pagan,,, has many plus factors,,,, One,,, we aren't hung up by a contradictory deity,,,

Priapus Is a God,,,, if you are a man,,, I am sure you have obeyed him,,,, many many times...

Other Deities were also Homosexual/bisexual depending on the circumstance,, so,,,,

there are American who do not worship your deity,,, don't be so arrogant as to think our rules of Marriage are the same,,,

Pagans have married gays way before it was popular to do so within Christian Churches ( Which I am sure is more fodder for the foolish Christian Theocrats) The falsehood of your statement is that we are being married by the sanction of YOUR church,,,, we have our own spirituality thank you,,,,

to bad you don't realize that Shaman gay men and women started Most of your religions out there,,,,
We have always been the Between People,,,
Still are today.

Just get out from Between Me and My Freedom to pursue my Happiness.. You have no business between me and my deity. or Lack of One.

reply to post by The Old American


Hey your entitled to your opinions but dont try to spread it my way. You sound like more of an apostate to me.

If marriage is so sacred to Christians why is the divorce rate the same among them as secular people?

After months of revived debate over divorce and its increasing acceptance among Americans, a new study affirmed born again Christians are just as likely as the average American couple to divorce.

The Barna Group found in its latest study that born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce with 33 percent having married and divorced at least once. Among all born again Christians, which includes evangelicals, the divorce figure is 32 percent, which is statistically identical to the 33 percent figure among non-born again adults, the research group noted.

www.christianpost.com...

Christian's really can't say anything since they are no better when it comes to marriage than non-Christians. Who cares if gays get married maybe they will have a better success rate.

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

Um if glancing over it counts as reading it then yes, yes I did.

Well, you would have noticed that no mention of homosexuality was ever mentioned in reference to Jesus. It was "inferred" by way of misdirection, because of the policy that "not all truths are to be told to all men". But, the actual text that was refered to, only mentions a man coming to jesus naked to be taught something. It doesn't say what Jesus taught him. Those who know yoga, would immediately understand what was taught. A holy principle. But, the unholy minds would think something else, like Jesus having carnal relations with a naked man etc..a careful reading of the Gospel of Mark would reveal what was going on here. No, Jesus wasn't gay. And if he wasn't, what else could he have been teaching a naked man? There's only one "holy" thing known to the ancients, and that is a yogic technique. It's a celibate technique.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

Um if glancing over it counts as reading it then yes, yes I did.

Well, you would have noticed that no mention of homosexuality was ever mentioned in reference to Jesus. It was "inferred" by way of misdirection, because of the policy that "not all truths are to be told to all men". But, the actual text that was refered to, only mentions a man coming to jesus naked to be taught something. It doesn't say what Jesus taught him. Those who know yoga, would immediately understand what was taught. A holy principle. But, the unholy minds would think something else, like Jesus having carnal relations with a naked man etc..a careful reading of the Gospel of Mark would reveal what was going on here. No, Jesus wasn't gay. And if he wasn't, what else could he have been teaching a naked man? There's only one "holy" thing known to the ancients, and that is a yogic technique. It's a celibate technique.

I've seen people on here use The Secret Gospel of Mark to 'prove' Jesus was gay. I thought that was being done again so I linked to the article about that Gospel being a hoax and discredited.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Proud to be a card carrying Pagan Apostate Heretic!!!

Apostate is an interesting word,,, check out the meaning. I again,,, am finding this sadly humorous,,, as Christian Love is so evident in the tossing of this and other words,,, meaning to those who use these type of pejorative words.

What is really meant here is this:

One day,,, we are going to return to the day of the ''Lords'' rule,,, and we will be able to Legally Kill you like our Muslim Friends with Sharia Law get to do back in the 'old country'.

Get real,,,, you really mean you want your fellow American Dead!! I think you need to rethink how you banter about with such pronouncements.

Dangerous slippery slope these Fascist Right Wing Nut Jobs want to institute here In America,,,
A frickin Theocracy,,,,, don't believe them when they say,,,, return to the constitution and other banal statements they throw around,,,,

They want Your Head to Roll Off a Chopping Block into a basket.

Wake UP America,,,,,, these people are really scary....

What happened to Pluralism,,, and the thought ,,,," I disagree with everything you say,,,, but would fight to the death to protect your right to think and say what you believe'''

I am not sure we can do this anymore,,,, because they are going to kill us all...... They are Crazy nutjobs running this world,,, throw religion in the mix,,,, and we are back to the caves,,, or at least the Dark ages.

reply to post by EarthCitizen23



I apologise if you thought my post was incendiary, I wasn't trying to ostracise other religions or imply they all had the same traits, I was merely making a point using some of the largest religions. I didn't think I was being arrogant, maybe ignorant for implying something I shouldn't have but I cannot list and comment on every religion so as to not upset one individual.

My deity?!? When did I imply I had anything of the sort? Or 'my' church?!?

I did say in almost all "holy books", not in all religions.

Nor did I claim any right to be between you and 'your deity' (or that I even cared!).

I really cannot believe you have had such an extreme reaction to things in my post which I never even said.

You seem to be hyper- defensive about your religion and astronomically keen to bring it up and act oppressed because of it. I don't believe I said anything in my previous post which warranted that kind of response.

Also, could somebody else read through my earlier and post and decide if this reaction was justified or even relevant because I cannot understand this relatively extreme response.

Originally posted by yes4141

P.S. May I ask what is your position on laws about drugs? I just thought that many of your points were just as applicable to that debate as this one.

edit on 7-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)

I believe people should be allowed to do what they want to do with their bodies in the privacy of their own home. If that means a person takes a meth, heroin, crack cocktail with a pot chaser, they should be able to do that.

But there is a responsibility involved with that. If you are high on that cocktail and drive, you deserve to be imprisoned. If you kill someone because of an accident while driving high, that is premeditated murder (IMO). If someone high hurts themselves due to being drug-addled, the American public should not have to support them for making those decisions.

With our freedoms come acting responsibly.

/TOA

I'm so glad the OP changed his mind. America is very conservative-minded when it comes to things like this. Luckily, being gay has become more accepted in our country, and I believe one day gay people will be able to marry, and our future generations are going to look back and think, wow how could people think that way? It's like how in the South there was a law that black people couldn't go to the regular universities. They had to go to black universities. Now, we look at that, and we think, jeez that's so unfair! But back then, just about everyone felt that way in the South! Many even thought if a black student went to a regular university that they should be killed! It's mind-boggling.

As for the whole Bible argument, I just think it's a way for people to easily oppress other people. Similarly, people used to use the Bible as a way to oppress women. Luckily, however, there were a lot of brave marching women who changed the country's mind. Also, there are passages in the Bible that say that we can own slaves. It would be inconceivable now to hear a Christian try to convince the government to make slavery legal again. Personally, if we can discount a lot of the laws of the Bible concerning those things, we might as well discount the laws in the Bible that say homosexuals can't marry.

reply to post by The Old American


I never understood why people would oppose this.

Do whatever the hell you want with your body and life, just don't have it affect me negatively in anyway.

This is the way we should be living.

reply to post by The Old American


I would absolutely agree with most of that (except the pre- meditated murder charge and possibly the helping the injured individual- though I'm not American so maybe think differently about healthcare and the practicalities of it) and am glad you seem to be consistent with your views.

reply to post by The Old American


totally right on!

i was married on our front porch, the first time. lol!

you don't have to be married in a church at all.

second was a civil ceremony by the state in an office.

but it is the perks that come with marriage that gays want.

religion has nothing to do with 99.9% of what gays want from this.

and the thumpers should realize that.

marriage sounds better than civil union or another sterile name.

it is about love and "marriage" fits better for all.


"yeah, we just celebrated the 10th anniversary of our civil union" real romantic, lol!

eta; people just freak when the hear "gay" and "marriage in the same sentence, lol!

like teaparty!!

Originally posted by Xaberz
I'm so glad the OP changed his mind. America is very conservative-minded when it comes to things like this. Luckily, being gay has become more accepted in our country, and I believe one day gay people will be able to marry, and our future generations are going to look back and think, wow how could people think that way? It's like how in the South there was a law that black people couldn't go to the regular universities. They had to go to black universities. Now, we look at that, and we think, jeez that's so unfair! But back then, just about everyone felt that way in the South! Many even thought if a black student went to a regular university that they should be killed! It's mind-boggling.

As for the whole Bible argument, I just think it's a way for people to easily oppress other people. Similarly, people used to use the Bible as a way to oppress women. Luckily, however, there were a lot of brave marching women who changed the country's mind. Also, there are passages in the Bible that say that we can own slaves. It would be inconceivable now to hear a Christian try to convince the government to make slavery legal again. Personally, if we can discount a lot of the laws of the Bible concerning those things, we might as well discount the laws in the Bible that say homosexuals can't marry.

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

The bible does't say you must have slaves, but it doesn't condemn it either. However homosexuality is definately condemned.