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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by dooper

Ignorance hiding behind religion has spoken...

...and its an odious crock.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:01 PM
good point

but, what I actually meant was - those most basic laws guaranteeing that we should all be treated equally

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by grover

Exactly the response I expected. Ignorance. Intolerance. Religious blindness. Keep them coming.

Words to excuse "no shame."

It doesn't change a truth.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by dooper
Tolerance. Understanding. Acceptance. Indulgence. Concession. Agreeable.

Fine words.

Indeed they are.

How about abomination? Filth. Unholiness. Aberration. Offensive. Odious. Aversion. Repugnant.

Is this a personal statement though? Personally I find the rest of your post falls in line with these words to me.

That speaks so well of us. Today gay marriages. Tomorrow - bestiality.

I can't see how any sane person could equate the two.


Because it's not worth it.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed until their Government recognized their Homosexual marriages, this was enough for GOD to destroy them forever.

Are we sure about this?
Lets remember there is more to the story than a lady turning to a salt statue.
(Got to read between the lines...or actually past them to see what was really going on.)



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Can one of you explain to me what you feel when you see a beautiful woman?

I would imagine the same thing you feel when you see an attractive, well-built, healthy man. Perhaps a bit of respect, some envy, appreciation...

The natural, intended consequence of having sex is conception.

If that's ALL there is to sex, then why is it enjoyable? And I don't know about you, but I don't only have sex to conceive.

Couldn't it be argued that because that marriage is guaranteed not to biologically produce offspring, as well as having to deal with difficult social integration issues, that they should have some say?

My heterosexual marriage was guaranteed not to produce offspring. Should they have some say in whether or not I marry?

Some people think that marriage is strictly a religious thing. If that's true, we wouldn't have to go to the state to get a license and we wouldn't have to have legal documents and witnesses, etc. We'd go to our minister and he'd take care of it. But the religious part is really an added aspect. ALL marriages are legal institutions. Only some are religious.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I want my children in healthy heterosexual relationships, and influence to the contrary, ESPECIALLY at a young age, can be very detrimental to that.

Do you have any evidence that supports this?

Your "normal" children can grow up alongside a gay couple's "normal" children. Do you know any kids of gay couples? They're perfectly "normal". You can't protect your kids from learning what's out there in the world, but no one can make your kid gay.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by dooper

Your interpretation and little more...

I trust in a Jesus who condemned the self-righteous, the arrogant and the sanctimonious...

a Jesus who taught compassion and mercy not condemnation....

A God who who does not condemn his children for being human with human faults...

A God who is love does not consign souls to hell for being different...

I have no faith in preachers and dogma, nor do I have faith in hatred and prejudice masquerading as spirituality....

I have no faith in Your interpretation of faith no matter how many times you call your ignorance God's.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:45 PM

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

The One who doesn't change has spoken. His words, His rules.

Grace? Everybody's forgiven no matter what? You better get back and do some more reading.

Its the nature of things while you live in thing shifts to the other - and your never in control in this scenario.

Paul did mention that we "must work out our salvation for ourselves" - probably best to do just that...

I know, its tempting and more exciting to seek without and try to 'fix' things and people.

(Talking from experience, not pointing fingers.)

'Sin' means to 'miss the mark'. And seeing that the Bible says we all missed the mark, not sure what the issue is if we are busy 'working out our own salvation with fear and trembling'.

One might begin to see that the mark (bullseye on the dart board is a part of the whole...and the term 'missing' may become relative to the person.

"All things work together for good to those who love him."
Frankly Im not one to say who loves Him...or to draw that line.
Though one may argue, "he who does the will of my father..."
But remember the will is to "love your neighbor as yourself and the Lord with all your heart."

We dont even love ourselves, let alone each other.

Love is defined by Paul, "remember no wrong, etc."

We are so caught up in the idea of people getting away with things, we forget we are locked in our own hellish prisons - so no one really gets away with anything...we create enough hell on our own for ourselves.

Jesus "loved the sinner, but not the sin."
Remember that Jesus always saw a person, not a label.
There were not tax collectors, or prostitutes, or homosexuals...

...there were ONLY people. Individuals...who existed in the only point in time which is real - the "Now", or present moment. (God said he is the "I AM" - not focused on some illusion of past or future...or tied to some mental thought form in the present about a 'past present experience, or a future present experience...present is what is is...present/now.)

So when Jesus saw people, they were not identified by an action - which is very common for us to do today. (Especially amongst those who profess to be Christians.)

The need to identify oneself with a label, or others with a label, is the very thing that keeps that person in bondage. That is why the alcoholic will never be free because they say, "I will always be an Alcoholic" - fine, then speak the future you want.

Are you doing such and such now? No? Your just sitting and reading this...than that is who you are.

"What Im the person reading this? That sounds stupid."
Exactly. You are not defined by your actions. Your actions take place at any given moment, but you do not have to be slave to them - and this is what Jesus knew, and what freed people he came in contact with...he did not expect "Change" - he Loved them...or accepted them for where they were at the time he met them.

And if he were to walk in on someone in the act of sin, he would not throw judgement upon their actions - their action, whatever it may be, will judge them itself. Dont believe it? Try to look back on your own life to see this to be true.

You suffer till you realize that you dont need to suffer anymore.

"God is close to all...even in Sheol" - God is within.

Jesus teachings are true and have power - but we hear what man has to say about it and which has been distorted through the pulpit, etc.
No one reads for themselves. They read but do not understand - they "have ears but do not hear - have eyes but do not see".

You have to "search with all your heart" to find.
And most of us seek in fear...and you cant get anywhere with that.

So is the Bible true, then we must take its most practical guides and live by it.
Love - seek with all our heart. (Does that mean seeking outside your denomination...maybe picking up a book by A. that is seeking, and no I am not saying he has the that is not the point. The answer is in the simple words of Jesus that we ignore.

- simply put, we are driven by the very thing which the Bible warns us against...fear.
"Fear not".

Is Gods "arm so short that it cannot save"?
From many Christians view point you would swear that the universe is about to fall apart if "such and such" happens/doesnt happen.

What is your focus? What is it you truly want?
For many Im 'afraid' you are wrapped up and comfortable in the duality stories you have. And I dont want to deprive you of that story...its yours. Why cause myself the pain of getting involved and creating an argument which feeds such duality.

In the end, the answer is there for all.
Its a seed, ready to sprout, and its unbiased. Its there for the seeker...but you have to seek...with all your heart. (Trusting 'God' and not giving into 'Fear')



[edit on 7-12-2008 by dAlen]

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:49 PM
Thank God not all Christians think as you do dooper.... not everyone interprets the spiritual teachings so narrowly and so intolerantly.

I much prefer St. Francis or Mother Theresa to Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson any day.

In fact there is no comparison.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Everyone's rights must prevail. Constitutionally all people, including minority groups of every kind, must have the same rights. This isn't a competition. You are acting as though one people alone should be marrying here, so which group is it? Who made that rule? No one, certainly not mother nature that turns out 25% or nearly 2 billion variant core sexual natures. Even in a democracy, the need for protection of minorities is paramount. In our Canadian constitution its worded. So even if 90% want to do away with the rights of !0% they may not. This kind of thing is actually fundamental to the nature and spirit of democracy which must protect its citizens.

Edit to add: so when policies are violating constitutions, you know the number one tenant upon which they stand, separation of church and state, has been violated. And this must be dealt with ASAP.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by mystiq]

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:29 PM
I thought Religion was about personal spiritual development

...not about being intrusive or slavery

Or am I wrong here?

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by grover

Well, you see, I guess that's the difference. I don't find that God anywhere in the Bible, certainly not the Jesus that folks like to cherry-pick scriptures about to explain His values.

If one believes in the Bible, then one is compelled to accept that just like we are body, soul, and spirit, or three, but yet one, so God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three, but one. And anyone who has ever read the Bible can clearly and quickly see that throughout, that God has never, ever, had a problem condemning those who break His laws and commandments. Never!

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."

From this, we learn that the hell-fire and damnation God who demanded specific obedience in the Old Testament, is still the God in the New. We just got a new covenant. You have the faith to obey, then you qualify for grace and forgiveness. You don't obey the laws and commandments, then you don't qualify. Very, very simple concept. What is required? Obedience.

Lev 18:22, 23 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast of the field to defile thyself wherewith: neither shall a woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion."

I think that's pretty self-explanatory. That's never changed. No 21st century exclusion.

When I put these two abominations together, it wasn't my idea to more or less equate the two at the same level of behavior. Obominations. It was His.

This New Age concept of Christ stressing the grace and forgiveness part doesn't follow the actual teachings. It only comes with certain conditions. Ignore them all you want, but it won't be my ignorance showing.

And to ignore and teach differently is just wrong.

Prov. 28:9 "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination."

Prov. 17:15 "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they are abomination to the Lord."

(Kinda see a lot of that here don't we.)

Neh. 1:5 "I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth the convenant and mercy for them that love Him AND OBSERVE HIS COMMANDMENTS." (emphasis mine)

Whoops. Mercy to those who love Him and Obey.


Prov. 19:16 "He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul, but the that despith His ways shall die." (there's that obedience thing again.)

About this "self-righteous, arrogant, and sanctimonious" behavior you suggest. That's my Creator you're talking about, whose words I believe.

Gal. 3:12 "And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." (Again, obedience, not just faith.)

Jas. 2:10 "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, does it?

You believe all you want, what you want, and how much you want. But don't ever accuse me of being self-righteous, and certainly not speaking where the Bible does not speak.

I stand by my words, which are His words.

And since He doesn't contradict Himself, well, there's not much argument. Only opinion, and at the end of the day, your opinion and mine won't count.

Only His will count.

And you can read clearly to determine His opinion.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
Religion reeks of patriarchism..and thats whats going to be its downfall

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:18 PM
Proposition 8 - The Musical also gives a religious case for gay marriage...

I hope a little bit of humor is acceptable here.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by dooper
Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, does it?

Sure it does. What you are going on is YOUR interpretation.

I stand by my words, which are His words.

Really? See above.

And since He doesn't contradict Himself, well, there's not much argument. Only opinion, and at the end of the day, your opinion and mine won't count.

Only His will count.

And you can read clearly to determine His opinion.

OK, I'll play.

Matthew 5:

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So I must assume from this that you are perfect. I am truly amazed to be in this stellar company.

Your words:

And since He doesn't contradict Himself, well, there's not much argument.

So, as a perfect person wouldn't you say that what is going on here is interpretation? God doesn't contradict himself after all.

Not to mention all that love thy enemy stuff.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by intrepid]


posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:57 PM
sure everyone has the righ to do whatever they want, however they should have in mind two things:

1) their rights should not take away the rights of other people: for example, adopting a child while the child is not able to choose between a normal or unnatural family.Crashing the rights of a child in the favour of an unnatural couple.

2) do not force people to say God is OK with their choice. Whatever people woud say look at the facts: we are designed (by God, by Evolution-make your pick) to have two sexes in order to ensure reproduction and natural evolution.

Sexuality is the greatest invention since pluricelular life on.. let us keep the things the way they are meant to be or all this will turn against us in the end! why is homosexuality wrong even on the most primitive trybes/nations? be onest, then reply..

[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

...your kids go to school with my kids. And let's just say that my happiness is comprised of a heterosexual marriage with normal kids.

That I want to grow up normally, and who have an interest in maintaining a biological family tree...

What would prevent your kids from growing up normally (if we could agree about what normal is)? Proximity?

If you're Catholic - would you be worried that your kids would somehow accidentally become Protestant - by just breathing the same air as Protestants? :-)

This is one of those arguments that's based on the idea that being gay is a choice

I'm not going to win that one today - I'm not even going to give it a try

Frankly - it doesn't really make a difference even if it is a choice

However - I would like to suggest to you that science is coming up with new evidence all the time that supports a very different reality - not just an unproven belief

Now clearly, we have a bit of a problem here with people who have chosen to give up their option to continue their biological lineage.

It's their option - their choice - how is that a problem for you?

So, any couple that's decided not to have kids is a problem? Or any couple that's chosen to adopt kids? Also a problem? Are you against adoption outright?

Lineage and heritage is important to you - not to everyone. Again - it's about freedom of belief and choice. How does anyone's decision to adopt children instead of carrying on the family line affect you - or your children?

(And here as another question, I'd like to ask, has that thought ever crossed your minds? That with a gay marriage you are in a sense letting down your biological family to continue its lineage?)

That's between a person and their family - if then. This issue comes up often enough when a family member decides to marry outside the family's faith or race - it's not anything that should involve the government. And again - how does that affect you? Or your kids?

So who's civil rights prevail? I want my children in healthy heterosexual relationships, and influence to the contrary, ESPECIALLY at a young age, can be very detrimental to that. Now once they are of age, of course, their business is their business. So again, who's civil rights prevail?

I think I need to hear you explain how your child being exposed to kids that come from a home where their parents are gay - will in any way whatsoever affect the sexual preference of your child. That's for starters.

Then, how do you come to the conclusion that the rights that allow a gay couple to adopt kids - and send them to school - in any way infringe on your civil rights? Are you saying that you have the right to raise your children in a homosexual-free environment?

It doesn't matter really what your answer to that question is - because there are gay couples - unmarried gay couples - that have children. Right now. How does their being allowed to marry change your reality?

There are unmarried heterosexual couples that have kids too - sometimes even adopted kids. Many people consider that to be intolerable - and a bad influence.

Well sure, but how do you do that in the common scenario presented above? The point is that it becomes more than just a religious issue. There are social issues that society, and hence government, must weigh in on, because it can affect everybody.


We may not like someone - their beliefs - their practices - their lifestyle - their politics.

We don't like that they're Republican or Democrat - they eat weird stuff, wear funny looking clothes - they hunt, they're vegetarian - they don't recycle, their music makes no sense whatsoever - and it's too loud to boot...

They have too many kids - they have no kids - don't even like children.

They talk funny - they don't go to the right church

They don't even go to church

They painted their door the wrong color

If we want all the doors to be the right color - we live in closed community where everyone agrees about what is the correct color for a door

Otherwise - we live in the world with the rest of our fellow citizens and we practice tolerance

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 05:59 PM
Oh, just in case you don't see the difference between the OT and the NT:

Exodus 21:

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Matthew 5 again:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Miring yourself in the OT keeps a person from finding the true way of Christ.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by sty

1) their rights should not take away the rights of other people: for example, adopting a child while the child is not able to choose betweem a normal or unnatural family.

I'll bet if you asked for a show of hands - you'd be very surprised how many people would've opted out of their very own "unnatural" family - if they had had the choice when they were kids



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

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!

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??

[edit on 7-12-2008 by sty]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in