L.C. Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Um, well the Bible (God's Word, or essentially God) commands against homosexuality. It's quite simple. If you want to do research on this topic, Google for "Christian Homosexuality is wrong" or instead of "wrong" use the word "sin." A search along these lines should get you some sources that should provide some good scriptures about it. It's the scriptures you would want. Leviticus 20:13"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Looks to me like it's a King James Version scripture (I'm too lazy to grab my Bible and verify). There are other scriptures than just this. But it's really a matter of whether or not you/any person accepts the Bible as a foundation for moral and ethical standards (not necessarily religion/'religious' parts of it; a person doesn't have to 'get saved' if they just want to learn and gain wisdom through the Bible). Edited December 10, 2008 by L.C.
»Lynx Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Well, each to their own provocative. If somebody is homosexual, then that's not my problem. If they parade it in my face, I may share my opinions about them doing so - but to be honest if their religion is clouding the feelings which they have no control over, then they should seriously consider their role on this earth. I'm sure when faced with some logical thinking (does being a homosexual really count as being a sin, as it's not really hurting anybody - other than.. evolution), and will either decide to go cold turkey on religion, or stay as devoted as they ever were but actually live a life. I'm completely against religion, and I'm not a fag so I can't really sympathise here - but my opinion would be that if religion ever really got in the way of what I really wanted to do, then I'd be demanding some much more logical fairy tales, not some bullshit written in a farfetched book with no real historical backing. The way I see it is that if you're not running around chopping heads off, or down-right hurting people, you're not really any kind of negative force to those around you. Let's face it, the ten commandments, all of the crap you read in the bible is just a large check on humanity to keep control, uh, I mean so you can get into heaven. Also, more to the point - what's marriage anyway, other than a piece of paper and a few liberties. Anybody can live a life happily with their loved ones without that, and I'm confident that it won't be that long until gay-marriage is much more widely accepted, it just takes a while for ignorance t die down and acceptance to kick in. It wasn't that long ago that women couldn't vote, and it wasn't that long ago that black people had to sit at the back of a bus. All in due time, I believe. Good night, -Lynx
FMBI Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Bleh, I usually end up arguing about what marriage "is" every couple of months with some Bible Thumper or other. I've whittled my argument down to a couple of basic points, which at least shut the person up if nothing else - Marriage has three varying definitions - legal, realistic, and spiritual. In the legal sense, you're married if a preacher says you are - in the realistic sense, you're effectively married if you have a long-term domestic partner - and in the spiritual sense, you're forever bonded to your partner in some way that us mere humans just don't get. Because of the multifaceted nature of marriage, therefore, Christians have no reason to oppose "gay marriage", because (according to them) it can never be true spiritual marriage, only legal marriage, and legalities have no power in the eternal scheme of things. As far as civil unions (realistic marriage), you can only attack it on the basis of homosexuality itself being wrong - but, of course, if you go with that angle of attack, then you're left in the old "Leviticus dilemma" - how are homosexuality and bestiality wrong forever, when innumerable tiny pointless rules are ignored? We're supposedly liberated from the Law, and yet certain parts of it are conveniently still in effect. It just makes no sense. I'd welcome an analysis of this line of reasoning in case anyone can find flaws in it, I'd hate to actually lose an argument someday. Edited December 10, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion
Stibbymicto Posted December 11, 2008 Report Posted December 11, 2008 I'm athiest. The Bible contradicts itself in my opinion, people forcing religion on others is NOT in he bible, P.s. Did you know that there is/was gay sex in the bible?Jesus was touched by god after god entered a body fo a human... I Don't have a bible, I cant verify, but I can tell you to look between leviticus and genesis, it's where I found it.
NBVegita Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 In the legal sense, you're married if a preacher says you are Correction, you are only married once the state verifies you are. No religious figure needs to be present for two people to become legally married.
PoLiX Posted December 13, 2008 Author Report Posted December 13, 2008 True, since you can just get married in a court room. Judge has paperwork signed, rings given, witnesses sign, and depending on the judge and where maybe a bit more, and it is all done. Have had quite a few friends and a cousin do this recently due to lack of money and such.
FMBI Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Fine, you caught me.. it was 1 o'clock in the morning, and I didn't want to put "if a justice of the peace, preacher, or other legally recognized figure says you are". My point still stands, though.
NBVegita Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Well the point I was making is that marriage is actually an entity entirely separate from religion. You're church can say you're married, but if the state doesn't recognize it (with a marriage license and authorized personal present) then you are not legally married.
Bak Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Marriage wasn't even a religious sacrament before 1200 AD. Let's preserve the traditional marriage we've had for 5000 years and take it out of churches!
Aceflyer Posted December 14, 2008 Report Posted December 14, 2008 Well the point I was making is that marriage is actually an entity entirely separate from religion. Which is precisely why it's rather exasperating to watch people keep trying - successfully too - to use religious arguments against same-sex marriages. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
»Lynx Posted December 14, 2008 Report Posted December 14, 2008 Because marriage was founded off religion? Because people aren't liberal by nature? Because the thread is questioning what the bible said about gay marriage? -L
Bak Posted December 15, 2008 Report Posted December 15, 2008 Because marriage was founded off religion?no it wasn't
Hate The Fake Posted December 16, 2008 Report Posted December 16, 2008 do not lay with like beast Because marriage was founded off religion?no it wasn't If you're asking this from the standpoint that the Bible is the final authority about what started when, then the answer is yes; Genesis 2:24 records the first marriage in history - Adam and Eve. Jesus Himself expounded upon this (Matthew 19:4) as the way it was from the beginning - the beginning of time, presumably. * 4 months ago Source(s):http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
FMBI Posted December 16, 2008 Report Posted December 16, 2008 do not lay with like beast Because marriage was founded off religion?no it wasn't If you're asking this from the standpoint that the Bible is the final authority about what started when, then the answer is yes; Genesis 2:24 records the first marriage in history - Adam and Eve. Jesus Himself expounded upon this (Matthew 19:4) as the way it was from the beginning - the beginning of time, presumably. * 4 months ago Source(s):http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... If you're asking about this strictly from the standpoint of the Bible, then the whole debate becomes meaningless, because the point of the debate is to identify alternate views.
Bak Posted December 16, 2008 Report Posted December 16, 2008 Source(s):http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... Your links are broken?
»doc flabby Posted December 16, 2008 Report Posted December 16, 2008 Leviticus 20:13"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Sure thats against gay sex...but lesbian sex appears to be fine....but it doesn't meantion marriage....marrage/union/etc ceremonies existed way way before christianity came into popularity. If you read into the history of marriage and what purpose it acctually served in the past (essentially the sale of women for money/power), or indeed what purpose it serves now. One might be more dubious about extrolling its virtues. One thing people would do well to understand is that a legally binding contract is in no way a romantic gesture
aquarius Posted December 16, 2008 Report Posted December 16, 2008 All the juicy stuff was taken out of the bible. It was full of polygamy, mass murder, slavery, child abuse, ect. Read the Old Testament.. Selling your own daughter as a sex slave? Come on now.. On murder, rape and pillage:As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. On homosexuality:If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) On slaves:When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) So screw the revised versions of the bible that edited all of this out. That's the roots. It seems it was written by men to justify their cruelty.
Bak Posted December 17, 2008 Report Posted December 17, 2008 do the part where it tells you to stone your children if they misbehave and refuse to apologize
FMBI Posted December 17, 2008 Report Posted December 17, 2008 Don't need direct bible bashing, I thought we already discredited Leviticus. :\
Aceflyer Posted December 17, 2008 Report Posted December 17, 2008 Don't need direct bible bashing, I thought we already discredited Leviticus. :\ Not all of the quotes above were from Leviticus.
Recommended Posts