NBVegita Posted August 17, 2006 Report Posted August 17, 2006 Well actually now that you mention it, just a few examples, back in say the days of ancient rome, it was socially exceptable for men to partake in sexual intercourse with each other. It was a bond of love and friendship. Not marriage, but it still happened. I mean even Alexander the Great was known to have many male lovers along with his female lovers. Same sex interaction has been happening for years. As for marriage, well I just plain don't know lol.
»i88gerbils Posted August 17, 2006 Report Posted August 17, 2006 Gays who want to "marry" religiously can freely do so. There is no reason why religious reasons should enter into the "gay marraige debate". It is purely a legal issue. The reason why religion plays no part is that we have something called "freedom of religion". If you want to prohibit gays from romantically forming partnerships, caring for each other, and raising families based on the fact that it is against some Christian morals, then that is denying someone a right to practice what they believe in. I know a lesbian priest and there's no indication that she's a devil worshipper nor would not be able to lead a congregation towards the path of the Christian god. So if we already have that, then there's no reason why religion should enter into this debate except to deny other people's religious values. I mean the only religions that are banned are those that are fanatical cults or abuse substances (Rastafarianism). So now that we cannot use religion in this debate we must focus on the legal reason not to legalize gay marraige. Hey now, there's another argument. Legalize. That means government condoned and/or promoted. Not religious-condoned. Throws that religious argument out the window again. However, governments are not likely to promote legal benefits for gay marraiges because they get no benefit in return. Why should the government get less income tax? But wait a second, why should the government get less income tax for any marraige? What's so special about all marraiges? There is nothing special about a legal marraige. It's just a do!@#$%^&*ent, and a man & woman can live together and enjoy the legal benefits of this union. Nothing special or beneficial to government in that. The only time government benefits from marraiges is with family. A union bonds together two people, and when they create a family this provides growth. This is good economically. So the only thing that governments should be restricting is whether or not people live together as a family unit. So I ask you, do heterosexual or homosexual marraiges provide the government with this family unit that is beneficial to the government and thus the country? If it isn't, then there is no reason to have any marraige benefits, and save benefits for family living. This in effect "privatizes" marraige and marraige ceremony to the sole arena of religion. Any religion can stipulate what it believes in, and some religious communities can bear witness to the validity of a marraige regardless of sexual preference (as long as the partners are sentient). Until gay couples realize what power they actually do have they don't need to be arguing about "marraige", just the legal benefits.
quickspy Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 I know a lesbian priest and there's no indication that she's a devil worshipper nor would not be able to lead a congregation towards the path of the Christian god. So if we already have that, then there's no reason why religion should enter into this debate except to deny other people's religious values. A point of a priest or minister is to spread God's word (Bible). So a lesbian or gay preist or minister would be spreading herecy. In Leviticus it says 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.. Also in many parts of the Bible it states how God's will for man to be with woman and not man to man and woman to woman. Any lesbian/gay priest is clearly disobeying God and would be leading any congregation astray. I know of many denominations that support doctrine that believes it is okay to have gay/lesbian ministers. But none of them can them fully justify it because the Bible is so clear about this.
»Ducky Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 When was it mentioned the lesbian priest was attempting to justify it or warp peoples opinions.I was always confused as to why a person could not promote God if they did not believe in him or a part of him. I give people food recipes to foods I would never eat.
NBVegita Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 And this is yet another narrow minded opinion. You say god like there is one universal god that all people worship. News flash: The entire world does not believe in christianity. There are a lot of religions much older than christianity, with different beliefs and opinions. And as for spreading the word of christianity, cmon just rewrite the bible again. Its only been re-written over a dozen times by a dozen different people. And yes the bible says man shall not lay with man, but !@#$%^&* look at our lives today. Just think of how much you would have to change your life to follow the bible meticulously. I mean if sodomizers and lechers can spread the word of the christian god, why should a homosexual be any less inept at it?
»i88gerbils Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 We're also not supposed to eat pork, but that was for health reasons back in the ancient to dark age eras. My good friend, who is not for gay marraige, is an up and coming Methodist minister tries to tell me all about the bible's advice as just being smart for the ancient era. Much of these "rules" were simply advice that was best taken to remain healthy. With modern health practices some of these don't make any sense. Simply existing is not spreading heresy. If you believe what the Vatican used to believe in until 1972 then all Jews should burn in !@#$%^&* for something their ancestors may have done thousands of years ago simply for existing. It also leads down the line of thinking that justified the holocaust (no I'm not envoking that stupid law and if you think I am you're dumb). Additionally, don't misquote me if you're only going to snip at one point, which is my opinion of a good friend of mine. That's pretty much absurd right there. Though I'm glad the rest of my argument makes sense. :-) It's off to Sri Lanka.
quickspy Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 When was it mentioned the lesbian priest was attempting to justify it or warp peoples opinions.I was always confused as to why a person could not promote God if they did not believe in him or a part of him. I give people food recipes to foods I would never eat. The whole point of a priest is to lead a congregation toward God. Just like how a teacher educates his or her students in a certain subject. If the priest does not believe in what he/she is teaching then why be a priest? Clearly the job is not being done. And this is yet another narrow minded opinion. You say god like there is one universal god that all people worship. News flash: The entire world does not believe in christianity. There are a lot of religions much older than christianity, with different beliefs and opinions. And as for spreading the word of christianity, cmon just rewrite the bible again. Its only been re-written over a dozen times by a dozen different people. And yes the bible says man shall not lay with man, but !@#$%^&* look at our lives today. Just think of how much you would have to change your life to follow the bible meticulously. I mean if sodomizers and lechers can spread the word of the christian god, why should a homosexual be any less inept at it? First off I was talking about ministers/priests so how am I being narrow minded. Priests hopefully are Christians so hence the people I am speaking about now are Christians. Many Christians try to follow what the Bible says meticulously but all of us will fail at the end. But this doesnt mean as Christians we should just keep doing the wrong things.
AstroProdigy Posted August 18, 2006 Author Report Posted August 18, 2006 Says you? What if some people believe in their religion that you shouldn't try to follow the bible directly. Isn't that their FREEDOM OF RELIGION? Are we throwing that out the window to keep gays from marrying? I see quite a lot of bigotism being hidden in the mask of christianity here. Arguing against gay marriage simply argues in favor of throwing out the first amendment and running the country by theologians.
LearJett+ Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 churches shouldn't marry gays and the government shouldn't tell churches not to marry gays.
NBVegita Posted August 18, 2006 Report Posted August 18, 2006 Right there proves your narrow mindedness. A priest is nothing more than an authoritive figure who can perform religious rights. Just because you are a prist does not automatically make you christian. And I can only use personally collected data, but as of now I don't belive I've met more than a handful of people who even attempt to live their lives by the bible, and the majority of the people I know, I cannot attest for those I don't, are christian. Religion nowadays just isn't quite like it was centuries ago, so I don't feel that it is a fair arguement to bring up the bible, being as gerbils said, its more of a guidline than rules. And I'd like to meet the man who's say 21 and has willingly said no to sexual activity. I know they're around, but I'd just like to meet one. Maybe put him in a museum somewhere...
»Ducky Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 The whole point of a priest is to lead a congregation toward God. Just like how a teacher educates his or her students in a certain subject. If the priest does not believe in what he/she is teaching then why be a priest? Clearly the job is not being done. A priest educates a group about a certain saintly en!@#$%^&*y like a teacher teaches a subject. These are your words. What exactly demands that the person teaching the subject needs to believe in the subject? Do Lawyers agree with every law made? Do Doctors practice the best cures for everything? Simple answer, no. Everything is subjective to the teacher. If a priest who knows that his/her homosexuality wasn't a choice and wants to believe in a god, S/he WILL do just that.It's simply not logical to ultimately be born against god's will. The teaching goes from Point A, to the interpretation of Point A.------------- This person is believing entirely in what they teach. Because a book was written with no clear factual basis, doesn't mean it's the end all to that particular religion. Christianity is open to interpretation. God was made in your image, you can make up any rules or laws you want to.
quickspy Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Yes lawyers may not believe in everything in the law book but they still must follow the laws they argue upon. Just like doctors take the an oath to do their best in helping their patients. The fact is the Bible says homosexuality is wrong so how can they go and say it is okay even though it clearly says it is wrong. It is just like appointing a Judge that is a child abuser and saying its okay as long as he does his job properly. --- This whole situation can be viewed in different ways depending if you truly believe the Bible is truth or just a story. If anyone calls themselves a Christian regardless if they are a priest or not should know one of the core foundations is believing God's word. So if you believe in God then you would respect what he teaches us. It comes hand in hand.
LearJett+ Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 A priest is nothing more than an authoritive figure who can perform religious rights. Just because you are a prist does not automatically make you christian.I didn't say anything about priests. Churches on the other hand are Christian. It says in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it also condemns homosexuality. Thus, churches shouldn't marry homosexuals (not saying that they shouldn't get civil unions with the same rights as marriages). Religion nowadays just isn't quite like it was centuries ago, so I don't feel that it is a fair arguement to bring up the bible, being as gerbils said, its more of a guidline than rulesare you !@#$%^&*ing kidding me? the Bible is the entire basis for Christianity. what it says goes.
»Ducky Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Whos interpretation are you following to classify the judge as being abusive towards children. If he feels he isn't being abusive, but rather teaching his children with a harsh rule for thier own good; What basis do you actually go on? Even law is open to interpretation. What a judge might deem child abuse in one courtroom can differ from another courtroom. It's open to his interpretation of events.-------------A Doctor can still use a class B treatment against a patient if he feels the class B treatment is a good enough option regardless of how much better the Class A treatment is.That's open to his interpretation of events. And no, the bible is PURELY interpretative. Why do you think there are 12 million versions of the bible, all slightly different than one another.Why do you think there are 12 million branches of christianity exactly?Are not all of them true christians and what makes the difference between followers of one branch as opposed to another.Interpretation.
SeVeR Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 And no, the bible is PURELY interpretative. I couldn't agree more. You can interpret the Bible as saying "Kill Gays" or "Love gays and attempt to bring them closer to God". It all depends on whoevers holding the book at the time. Nature and Religion are constantly at war with eachother because the natural desire of human beings is to understand and trace morals or perceived truths back to their underlying cause. The flaw in religion is that the underlying cause is the mind of God. When we try to understand the mind of God we come up with all sorts of crazy ideas based on how we personally want God to be. The result is a very many people who justify their contradictory ideas by saying it's God will. This is Christianity, and this is why it is so dangerous.
Yoink Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Religion nowadays just isn't quite like it was centuries ago, so I don't feel that it is a fair arguement to bring up the bible, being as gerbils said, its more of a guidline than rulesare you !@#$%^&*ing kidding me? the Bible is the entire basis for Christianity. what it says goes.I call bull!@#$%^&*. If the bible was never deviated from, then there wouldn't be any denominations, nor would there be any peace. Leviticus' teachings alone would cause a ton of violence.
quickspy Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Whos interpretation are you following to classify the judge as being abusive towards children. If he feels he isn't being abusive, but rather teaching his children with a harsh rule for thier own good; What basis do you actually go on? Even law is open to interpretation. What a judge might deem child abuse in one courtroom can differ from another courtroom. It's open to his interpretation of events.-------------A Doctor can still use a class B treatment against a patient if he feels the class B treatment is a good enough option regardless of how much better the Class A treatment is.That's open to his interpretation of events. And no, the bible is PURELY interpretative. Why do you think there are 12 million versions of the bible, all slightly different than one another.Why do you think there are 12 million branches of christianity exactly?Are not all of them true christians and what makes the difference between followers of one branch as opposed to another.Interpretation. Some may see me as narrow minded but I believe there is a right and a wrong. Yeah sure sometimes it is not clear and may be gray but I believe there is a surpreme truth. The way you are looking at it is that truth can be twisted as the world culture changes. Where will you draw the line? Will one day murdering someone in broad daylight be okay? Will it be okay for a sixty year old man to rape a two year old girl? There has to be a ultimate truth and for me it is the Bible. I agree there are millions of sects in Christianity thats why as Christians we have to look out for perversions and false teachings. I believe having homosexual church leaders is a perversion of Christianity because it clearly says in the Bible that Man is for Woman. Even in the Bible it tells of false teachers in Corinth so all of this not new news.
SeVeR Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Will one day murdering someone in broad daylight be okay? Will it be okay for a sixty year old man to rape a two year old girl? We attribute too much fundamentality to these so called morals when if our life was in the balance or the future of the human race was at stake we would do both of those things in the name of survival which has to be the only true moral - like it is for all forms of life.
AstroProdigy Posted August 20, 2006 Author Report Posted August 20, 2006 Gay marriage is hardly murder and rape and pedophelia it's just these comparisons draw out a more passionate response just like saying allowing gay marriage would open some perverbiable flood gate to polygamy and incest and all kinds of bad things even though there's no real basis to the claim. The way I see it is the extreme right has a very real bigotism to homosexuals that they can't get over and they lobby the government into it and create all kinds of analogies and distractions for moderates so that they don't actually see the real issue, but instead see all kinds of bad things as related to gay marriage.
quickspy Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 We attribute too much fundamentality to these so called morals when if our life was in the balance or the future of the human race was at stake we would do both of those things in the name of survival which has to be the only true moral - like it is for all forms of life.I do not think the world is in such a situation at this point sever. Most people would like to see people with morals thats why we have laws. It has been proven laws and rules help while anarchy just causes unrest. Look at certain areas in Africa where it seems like there are no morals. Everyone does whatever they wish as long as they have a AK-47, no one wins at the end of the day. Morals is what keeps us humans surviving. Gay marriage is hardly murder and rape and pedophelia it's just these comparisons draw out a more passionate response just like saying allowing gay marriage would open some perverbiable flood gate to polygamy and incest and all kinds of bad things even though there's no real basis to the claim. The way I see it is the extreme right has a very real bigotism to homosexuals that they can't get over and they lobby the government into it and create all kinds of analogies and distractions for moderates so that they don't actually see the real issue, but instead see all kinds of bad things as related to gay marriage. I never linked pedophelia, rape or muder to homosexuality. I just wanted to highlight that if we do not have a moral standard how far can it go?
AstroProdigy Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 ROFL a christian talking about the lack of morales in Africa without Christianity one of my favorite stereotypes.
NBVegita Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Who says moral standards have to be set by religion? First off lear I wasn't refering to your use of priest, it was spy's I was refering to. As for the bible being a supreme truth, honestly truth is just an interpretation of fact. Being there are no facts in the bible, kinda hard for it to be the truth eh? Which is why faith is blind. I have an issue with faith because sitting on your knees in front of your bed won't get you that job you want, or pay your bills, and it definately won't make you any smarter. Working hard will do that for you. My personal belief is that having such faith in a diety that may or may not exist is a crutch that people who do not have the strength to believe in themselves use. You may call me rude and wrong for that, but as I have seen nothing to contradict that statement, I will stick with it. I mean the christian church has been corrupt for so many years, and yet people blindly follow it. I mean how many child molesters and lechers do you need to find in a religion before you start to question the men who are giving you "gods guidance"? And just look at the crusades, the church sold amnesty if you'd send your son and yourself to go die in some war that never needed to happen. All because the church was greedy. But don't worry as long as you played along with the church, no matter how bad your sin was, it would all be forgotten and forgiven. And if you didn't want to do that, as long as your pockets were deep enough, that would work too. If you need to have faith in something, have faith in yourself. Believing in yourself will get you a lot further in life than giving $5 to your church every sunday will.
quickspy Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Who says moral standards have to be set by religion? First off lear I wasn't refering to your use of priest, it was spy's I was refering to. As for the bible being a supreme truth, honestly truth is just an interpretation of fact. Being there are no facts in the bible, kinda hard for it to be the truth eh? Which is why faith is blind. I have an issue with faith because sitting on your knees in front of your bed won't get you that job you want, or pay your bills, and it definately won't make you any smarter. Working hard will do that for you. My personal belief is that having such faith in a diety that may or may not exist is a crutch that people who do not have the strength to believe in themselves use. You may call me rude and wrong for that, but as I have seen nothing to contradict that statement, I will stick with it. I mean the christian church has been corrupt for so many years, and yet people blindly follow it. I mean how many child molesters and lechers do you need to find in a religion before you start to question the men who are giving you "gods guidance"? And just look at the crusades, the church sold amnesty if you'd send your son and yourself to go die in some war that never needed to happen. All because the church was greedy. But don't worry as long as you played along with the church, no matter how bad your sin was, it would all be forgotten and forgiven. And if you didn't want to do that, as long as your pockets were deep enough, that would work too. If you need to have faith in something, have faith in yourself. Believing in yourself will get you a lot further in life than giving $5 to your church every sunday will. Your knowledge of Christianity is REALLY off base. Being a Christian is not going to church every day and dropping off your offering. No where in the Bible does it say you will go to heaven by doing good deeds or giving lots of money to the church. The Bible does say that if you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins you will earn eternal life. So yeah I think you got a little confused about the basis of Christianity. It is faith that will earn you a ticket to heaven not works. I agree with you Christians have gone wrong and let me highlight to you every time the religion goes wrong its because someone who is a leader starts to spread heresies within the faith. For example the Church leadership during the Crusades and the priests who are pedophiles. That is why I make it such a key point to highlight that ministers/priests must follow what the Bible says and they must be rebuked when they don't. So hence why I don't think there should be homosexual priests or ministers.
ThunderJam Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 As for the bible being a supreme truth, honestly truth is just an interpretation of fact. Being there are no facts in the bible, kinda hard for it to be the truth eh? Which is why faith is blind.NO facts in the bible? Oh really? All the time more archealogical evidence is being found to support the Bible. I mean the christian church has been corrupt for so many years, and yet people blindly follow it. I mean how many child molesters and lechers do you need to find in a religion before you start to question the men who are giving you "gods guidance"? And just look at the crusades, the church sold amnesty if you'd send your son and yourself to go die in some war that never needed to happen. All because the church was greedy. But don't worry as long as you played along with the church, no matter how bad your sin was, it would all be forgotten and forgiven. And if you didn't want to do that, as long as your pockets were deep enough, that would work too.Everything, and i seriously mean EVERYTHING you just said, has to do only with the CATHOLIC church. !@#$%^&*, the catholic church persecuted other christians. The protestants are the ones who have become prominent now, and theres nothing bad to their name.
quickspy Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Everything, and i seriously mean EVERYTHING you just said, has to do only with the CATHOLIC church. !@#$%^&*, the catholic church persecuted other christians. The protestants are the ones who have become prominent now, and theres nothing bad to their name. I'm protestant but let me tell you the Catholic church is not that evil. Through out the ages the Catholic Church has always put a lot of money into humantarian causes. A lot of times corruption and greed got in the way but you must give credit to the Cathlolic Church for aiding millions of imporvished people. Also protestants are not perfect in anyway. All humans cannot be perfect so hence our religons cannot be perfect either. But we try our best.
Recommended Posts