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

reply to post by DRAZIW


and the second part? You haven't responded to that at all.

It seems you don't believe there to be any intrinsic 'evil' in homosexuality but simply condemn it because the bible advises it. I say this because you have stated no reason why it is morally abhorrent, merely verses which imply god tells us not to do it. Perhaps you think this is one and the same, however that implies that you are only against acts which cause others to suffer if it is condemned in the text of the bible. I would argue that obedience is absolutely not what most would consider morality.

Similiarly, as has been said many times, morality which is derived and upheld by fear of personal suffering is therefore by definition governed by self- interest and what many may consider to be a contradiction of moral.

Yes, God will handle any punishment, not me. My responsibility is to report on my understanding of the law, not to enforce it. Jesus never punished anyone, he just told them what was wrong and what was right, and left it up to the FATHER in heaven to direct the listener according to HIS will.

This has always been a part of religion which I find extremely unsettling. The complete abdication of responsibility which comes with the potential of an afterlife is not something I would consider positive. It is fatalistic and apathetic whilst stunting personal growth and introspection. This truly is the line of thinking which validates the burning of 'witches' in the past- "if they are innocent then it does not matter as they will go to heaven".

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

and the second part? You haven't responded to that at all.

It seems you don't believe there to be any intrinsic 'evil' in homosexuality but simply condemn it because the bible advises it.

The bible doesn't give a reason why homosexuality is evil. It simply states man with man is an abomination, etc..

However, I don't just follow the book without reasons of my own. I look at the design of animals and man. I see that man stands upright, while animals walk on all fours. I see that man starts out life, as a baby, crawling on all fours, then learns to stand up, and finally walk upright. I see that as man "learns" he "stands up". When he forgets, he falls down. I see that the upper body of man has more light than the lower parts. The eyes, ears, nose, etc..are on the higher parts of his anatomy, and deal with corresponding "higher" things. That the lower parts of the body, deals with lower things. I see man has a front and a behind. Things in front, he walks towards, things behind, he walks away from. I know from medical science that the dung has harmful bacteria, but the urine is generally sterile and antiseptic. So, the things he walks away from are also harmful to the health, he leaves his dung behind. Things he walks towards are helpful to his health, his urine is also a medicine [urotherapy], a skin protector, or used to protect his territory. So, the design has MANY CLUES that guide the reason, on what actions are blessings and what actions are curses. Putting it all together, a man of "reason" can understand part of the reason why the Lord says man with man is an "abomination".

So, the book says it, then I think about why the book would say it, and if I can see the reason for it, then I follow it.

It's not blind obedience to a rule book.

Similiarly, as has been said many times, morality which is derived and upheld by fear of personal suffering is therefore by definition governed by self- interest and what many may consider to be a contradiction of moral.

Nah. If your "Father" says "Do not put our hand into the fire, it will hurt you."

You have two choices:
[1] disobey, put your hand in, and find out why for yourself. i.e. you get hurt, and you learn.
[2] obey, and maybe never really know for sure why he gave the rule; but stay protected anyway.

If you obey, it's self-interest...fear of getting hurt.
If you disobey, it's self-interest...wanting to find out what would happen for yourself.

It is self-interest in either case.

However, one is a more painful path than the other.

Yes, God will handle any punishment, not me. My responsibility is to report on my understanding of the law, not to enforce it. Jesus never punished anyone, he just told them what was wrong and what was right, and left it up to the FATHER in heaven to direct the listener according to HIS will.

This has always been a part of religion which I find extremely unsettling. The complete abdication of responsibility which comes with the potential of an afterlife is not something I would consider positive. It is fatalistic and apathetic whilst stunting personal growth and introspection. This truly is the line of thinking which validates the burning of 'witches' in the past- "if they are innocent then it does not matter as they will go to heaven".

Well, Jesus said

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. -- Matthew 5:29

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. -- Matthew 5:30

But, while he suggested that the offender pluck out his eye and cut of his hand, to avoid afterlife hell, he never did command anyone to pluck the eye or cut the hand of another person, only "self-immolation".

So, the whole burning of the witch thing comes from the old testament practice of "punishing the flesh of others", like stoning, that Jesus taught against.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by spw184

 

Yes its an illness, they cant be feeling well. Its not normal, god made man and woman and said go forth and multiply. Replenish the earth. How can you replenish the earth by being a gay?

They can't.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of the father is like a man who had good seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned." -- The Gospel of Thomas #57

Source: www.gnosis.org...

also more elaborately declared in:

Matthew 13:24-30 and Matthew 13:36-43

It's pretty clear that the scriptures acknowledge that there are "two types" of mankind planted on earth. One is referred to as the "wheat" and the other the "weeds". The "weeds" are growing among the "wheat". It's hard to separate them while they are growing. But there comes a time when it's clear who the "wheat" are and who the "weeds" are, and at that time the "weeds" are pulled up and burned.

The "wheat" are planted by God, and his enemy [the devil] planted the "weeds" among them.

Im amazed that more of your post have not been deleted!! This is so obviously unrelated and offtopic.


I like pandas ._.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184
[
LMFAO DO YOU GUYS SEE THIS???

So you say that in a couple where the guy has been nutered, they can still have a baby?

Yes. God can do it.

So you say when a woman has her tubes tied/ an egg extraction that she can still have a baby?

Yes. God can do it.

So you say that a man who is sterile because of radiation can still have a baby?

Yes. God can do it.

So you say that a woman who is long past menopause can still have a baby?

Yes. God has done it before.

So you say that a couple who does not have sex can still have a baby?

Yes. God has done it before. [ e.g. Jesus born of a virgin: Joseph and Mary did not have sex. ]

Man can also do this today using science. So, not only God but man has this power now.

You see, a baby is not made when a woman and a man love each other very much, and the delivery man is not a stork.

Huh?

There.. are.. just no words for this....

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

and the second part? You haven't responded to that at all.

It seems you don't believe there to be any intrinsic 'evil' in homosexuality but simply condemn it because the bible advises it.

The bible doesn't give a reason why homosexuality is evil. It simply states man with man is an abomination, etc..

However, I don't just follow the book without reasons of my own. I look at the design of animals and man. I see that man stands upright, while animals walk on all fours. I see that man starts out life, as a baby, crawling on all fours, then learns to stand up, and finally walk upright. I see that as man "learns" he "stands up". When he forgets, he falls down. I see that the upper body of man has more light than the lower parts. The eyes, ears, nose, etc..are on the higher parts of his anatomy, and deal with corresponding "higher" things. That the lower parts of the body, deals with lower things. I see man has a front and a behind. Things in front, he walks towards, things behind, he walks away from. I know from medical science that the dung has harmful bacteria, but the urine is generally sterile and antiseptic. So, the things he walks away from are also harmful to the health, he leaves his dung behind. Things he walks towards are helpful to his health, his urine is also a medicine [urotherapy], a skin protector, or used to protect his territory. So, the design has MANY CLUES that guide the reason, on what actions are blessings and what actions are curses. Putting it all together, a man of "reason" can understand part of the reason why the Lord says man with man is an "abomination".

So, the book says it, then I think about why the book would say it, and if I can see the reason for it, then I follow it.

It's not blind obedience to a rule book.

1. Urine is still not good for you!
2. Poop is good for you, it can make sulfates and gunpowder.
3. The reason everything is in front is so we can protect it, if your nose and mouth was in your back, sombody could suffocate you without you seeing. eyes= side everything is on.

4. Good job, another off topic post. You did absolutey NOTHING to say ANYTHING against homosexuality, and I dont see the point of your whole little "walk forwards walk back" rant.

reply to post by DRAZIW

They would be happy with gay unions if such unions were to give the full benefits as a straight marriage, however, it does not. It is a seperate system for a different group of people, which is uncompatible with the very idea of equality under the law.

In a marriage, a wife can not be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law, and nothing will happen to her. In a gay union, if one partner is compelled, and he or she refuses, they can be prosecuted. It is neither equal or fair. That is why gay people are not satisfied with gay unions as it is not equal to a marriage.

reply to post by DRAZIW

They would be happy with gay unions if such unions were to give the full benefits as a straight marriage, however, it does not. It is a seperate system for a different group of people, which is uncompatible with the very idea of equality under the law.

In a marriage, a wife can not be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law, and nothing will happen to her. In a gay union, if one partner is compelled, and he or she refuses, they can be prosecuted. It is neither equal or fair. That is why gay people are not satisfied with gay unions as it is not equal to a marriage.

Originally posted by spw184

Im amazed that more of your post have not been deleted!! This is so obviously unrelated and offtopic.


I like pandas ._.

It's as on topic as any. However, as with any "parable", the interpretation is subject to the having of eyes to see and ears to hear.

To those who have eyes to see etc..it's clearly on topic.

Originally posted by spw184

4. Good job, another off topic post. You did absolutey NOTHING to say ANYTHING against homosexuality, and I dont see the point of your whole little "walk forwards walk back" rant.

edit on 30-9-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)

Homosexual action leads to disease and finally death.

Heterosexual action leads to birth of new life.

Is that clear enough?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

They would be happy with gay unions if such unions were to give the full benefits as a straight marriage, however, it does not. It is a seperate system for a different group of people, which is uncompatible with the very idea of equality under the law.

But gays are different from straights.

They cannot be made to be equal by civil law.

Next gays will demand that straight couple have sex changes to have no more advantage over procreation than them too.

Being gay is "uncompatible", as you put it, with several aspects of marriage.

Why would you want to treat cats and dogs the same?

Cats scratch, and dogs bite. Cats don't need to be on a leach when being taken out for a walk in public.

Because they are biologically different, the laws governing them in society are different too.

In a marriage, a wife can not be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law, and nothing will happen to her. In a gay union, if one partner is compelled, and he or she refuses, they can be prosecuted. It is neither equal or fair. That is why gay people are not satisfied with gay unions as it is not equal to a marriage.

Would you be happy if we removed this protection of wife from the civil marriage? That would also make the gay union more equal to the marriage.

No, the point is that either you treat everyone equal under the eyes of the law, that is the bottom line and point.

That means removing all legal bearing and applications under the law when it comes to a straight couple being married, giving them no advantage as far as the law is concerned, removing the tax basis everything and then the question is what is the point of getting married, when it provides no advantages what so ever. It would end the argument, or to allow 2 people of the same sex to wed and allow for the same advantages under the law.

That is what people would want to see, and ultimately have, when it comes to the entire gay marriage debate. Though the question remains, beyond any religious objections, what real argument that can not be refuted by reasonable argument, that is present in the entire gay marriage debate? As most of the arguments all stem from religious objection, take it out and there really is not any argument that would stand up in court.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
No, the point is that either you treat everyone equal under the eyes of the law, that is the bottom line and point.

So then, single people should get the same tax breaks. For why should we discriminate in favor of married couples, and against singles who aren't fortunate enough to find or keep a mate? The single person gets punished twice, first by not being lucky in love, and a second time by unfavorable tax treatment.

Why should we be compounding their misfortune?

Think of all the single mothers out there right now that could use a little extra financial help from that tax break.

That means removing all legal bearing and applications under the law when it comes to a straight couple being married, giving them no advantage as far as the law is concerned, removing the tax basis everything and then the question is what is the point of getting married, when it provides no advantages what so ever. It would end the argument, or to allow 2 people of the same sex to wed and allow for the same advantages under the law.

Right. What is the point of getting married? All marriage law discriminate against singles and groups other than "favored couples".

Who wants a society that creates a special class of "favored couples" for blessings, and treat all other types of peoples with disfavor. We should treat all people equally, straight or gay, single or coupled, threesome, foursome, or lonesome.

All groups of peoples should have equal rights under the civil law, regardless of their particular grouping.

That is what people would want to see, and ultimately have, when it comes to the entire gay marriage debate. Though the question remains, beyond any religious objections, what real argument that can not be refuted by reasonable argument, that is present in the entire gay marriage debate? As most of the arguments all stem from religious objection, take it out and there really is not any argument that would stand up in court.

Take away the religious argument, and take away the biological reproduction argument too, and we're left with no reason to favor couples over any other grouping of individuals.

Abolish marriage now.

Because, that's where we're heading, with this creep creep creep of rights for each to make all equal under law.

Rather than this step by step approach, of gradual change, we should recognize where the debate is ultimately heading, and just implement that final solution once and for all. Be done with all legally enforced inequality.

reply to post by DRAZIW


That first paragraph is simply a mass of thoughts as you seem to try to rationalise it in your head. Dung behind. You walk forwards.... ..These are purely metaphorical ideas with no actual substance to them at all. You are merely stalling.

You have stated no ethical reasons at all. Is this the kind of 'thought' you do about things in the bible when trying to judge if you should follow them or not? It is hardly a fair, transparent analysis. Also, if you believe (or 'know') the bible is the word of god then is it not blasphemy to start thinking about whether or not to follow these things and effectively questioning god?

It is self-interest in either case.

Of course, everything is fundamentally. If somebody doesn't want someone to die the ultimate reason is because that person's death would make them feel bad in some way.

Well, Jesus said

Jesus also advocates vicarious punishment and martyrdom.

So self- flagellation and punishment can be a good thing? Does this count mental punishment also? Why, if somebody can alleviate sins with physical self- punishment (a very much finite punishment) while the same sin can result in eternal damnation (an infinite punishment). It hardly seems a just system.

The witch burning was merely an example of being almost blasé about things in this life because compared to eternity with complete objective justice this life is practically non- existent.

It's as on topic as any. However, as with any "parable", the interpretation is subject to the having of eyes to see and ears to hear.

Unbelievable. This is exactly what you were refuting earlier on!

Homosexual action leads to disease and finally death. Heterosexual action leads to birth of new life. Is that clear enough?

Isn't it wonderful that you know every single 'active' homosexual and heterosexual person on Earth. Are you therefore against contraception? Oral sex? Masturbation? Why disease? If procreation is such a universal necessity why is celibacy a good thing? How are homosexuals who do not produce a child worse than a celibate priest who also fails to produce a child?

Originally posted by yes4141

Are you therefore against contraception? Oral sex? Masturbation? Why disease? If procreation is such a universal necessity why is celibacy a good thing? How are homosexuals who do not produce a child worse than a celibate priest who also fails to produce a child?

All sex is sin. Like I said. Lustful thoughts are also sin.
However, when the lust is allowed to produce a kid, i.e. to multiply the species, then it becomes ok, because the kin produced is the "cure" for the sin. Homosexuals sin without any cure available to them. A Celibate Priest does not sin, if he practices true continence.

Lust binds the spirit of man to the flesh. So, it leads to mortality. This is why the bible says the wages of sin is death. [ Romans 6:23 KJV ] It is also why the Lord told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree in the midst of their garden. When they disobeyed, they died a spiritual death, and became mortals. The whole rescue plan of Jesus is to restore everlasting life to the mortal souls.

Procreation is the medicine for lust. That's why procreation is a good thing. It helps to "cure" the disease.

But, if there is no disease, i.e. no lust, then procreation is not necessary.

To procreate without lust, is to attempt to cure a non existent disease.

All questions are thus answered: contraception is bad, it prevents the cure from materializing; Oral sex is bad, it prevents the cure again; Masturbation is bad, it again prevents the cure; The only two acceptable actions are "sex that facilitates progeny" and "no sex".

There is one qualifier, if lustful thoughts cannot be eliminated, then it is better to have sex to express them, than to try to be celibate.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -- 1 Corinthians 7:9 KJV

That sex, however, must be within a marriage.

Sitting down, and burning with thoughts of lust, and avoiding sex, because you're trying to be celibate, is worse than just getting married and having lots of sex to get it out of the system.

reply to post by DRAZIW

Several points to your argument, that needs a bit of clarification on the statement as most of us are confused:

Is this issue about taxes, or 2 people of the same sex getting married? After all you are bringing up more and more issues that do not seem to be relaxed with in that topic. After all where did the single person tax breaks come into play, as taxes are only part of the entire advantages of marriage, and that those same sex couples are seeking to enjoy.

Where did the point of single mothers come up? After all, there has been several politicians out there that has brought up that issue and have sought to limit the amount of aid a single mother could get.

Yet the original argument still stands, that there really is no reason why 2 people of the same sex can not get married within the full context of the law. Marriage is about choice and the pursuit of happiness, would you deny such to people?

And ultimately you bring up the very point that many here have been stating, that the law should be equal across the board for all of those seeking to get married, that if it creates a separate favored class, it is then discrimination.

There is no evidence to support that gay marriage would lead to polyamourous marriages, as that issue has been discussed, debated and been through the courts.

When it comes to issues that are similar, we would agree, but this is a new issue. And here you prove my point that the law needs to be equal no matter if it is between a straight couple or a gay couple.

No one is stating abolish marriage, rather it is being stated to allow for 2 people of the same sex to get married within the full rights of the law.

There is no indication that the marriage is heading in that direction. The only reason to abolish marriage is only if it can not be equal to all those seeking to be married, and within the full constrained of the applicable laws of the US. Now can you provide evidence to what all you are stating?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Im amazed that more of your post have not been deleted!! This is so obviously unrelated and offtopic.


I like pandas ._.

It's as on topic as any. However, as with any "parable", the interpretation is subject to the having of eyes to see and ears to hear.

To those who have eyes to see etc..it's clearly on topic.

I understand parables, but i didnt know that having eyes that see and ears that hear meant twisting scrpiture to fit your needs.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

4. Good job, another off topic post. You did absolutey NOTHING to say ANYTHING against homosexuality, and I dont see the point of your whole little "walk forwards walk back" rant.

edit on 30-9-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)

Homosexual action leads to disease and finally death.

Heterosexual action leads to birth of new life.

Is that clear enough?

1. Says who? Many gays live full, long, healthy lifes.

2. Many heterosexual actions lead to disease and finally death, HIV and STDS go both ways.

3. Good job for showing your arrogance again!!! I love how the minute we steryotype you, you have a s***fit, yet you say horrible things about us and think we are all one congeled being all the time.

Originally posted by DRAZIW
But gays are different from straights.

They cannot be made to be equal by civil law.

Next gays will demand that straight couple have sex changes to have no more advantage over procreation than them too.

WHAAA?? Really? Are you seriously bringing THIS up again? WE DONT WANT TO BRING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORD THROUGH LIMITING BIRTH. WE DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE SEX. WE JUST WANT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR OUR RELATIONSHIPS, IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK???????????????????
In a marriage, a wife can not be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law, and nothing will happen to her. In a gay union, if one partner is compelled, and he or she refuses, they can be prosecuted. It is neither equal or fair. That is why gay people are not satisfied with gay unions as it is not equal to a marriage.

Would you be happy if we removed this protection of wife from the civil marriage? That would also make the gay union more equal to the marriage.

No, because that would be unequal to heterosexual marriages. You SHOULD NOT have to testify against sombody you love, its wrong. What if you had to testify against, lets say your homosexual "Civil partner" And you were in a death penlty case that he WAS indeed guilty of? You would be sending your lover to death. How would that make you feel? And love goes all ways, in fact, some people love walls. And trashcans. And stuffedanimals. And dolls. HAvent you watched those things on national geographic??

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
No, the point is that either you treat everyone equal under the eyes of the law, that is the bottom line and point.

So then, single people should get the same tax breaks. For why should we discriminate in favor of married couples, and against singles who aren't fortunate enough to find or keep a mate? The single person gets punished twice, first by not being lucky in love, and a second time by unfavorable tax treatment.

Is that what he said? No, he said that the goverment should get their head out of marrige and give NO tax breaks to ANY relationship status. I think this is a great idea! I also think that you should have the choice and not be compelled to testify against ANYONE, you should have a choice too.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Sitting down, and burning with thoughts of lust, and avoiding sex, because you're trying to be celibate, is worse than just getting married and having lots of sex to get it out of the system.

So now the bible is promoting marrieing a random chick so you can screw her everynight and than divorce her 4 months later.

So what about homosexual lust? How do we get THAT out of our system?