NationStates Jolt Archive

..not agreeing with homosexuality because it is not set in stone in the Bible? I mean to say, you would have to be incredibly ignorant to not accept something that is a proven fact, and let's not even get into evolution vs. Creationism...
Give me one good reason why gay marriages should not be allowed. You can't ignore the fact that many of the things in the Bible are hardly applicable to today's modern world, what with it being written well over two millenia ago.
I'm writing this because I'm bored and also sleep-deprived.

You cant argue with what people believe in, I'm a christian, and I reckon gay marriages are alright. But if some people believe that its against god's word, than thats what they fanitically (cant spell) believe. You believe that they should have the right, and some christians believe they shouldn't, simple as that.

Ok, must we really have another thread for this... Here is a thought...POST YOUR COMMENTS IN A THREAD THAT IS ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THIS. I mean come on people...must we really have 20 threads for the same topic....

Of course I can argue with that. Religion has never been a good reason to calcify an arbitrary belief into law. Especially when such a belief involves discrimination against a significant minority of society. Homosexuals are America's last opressed group when you think about it, and homophobia is the last real arbitrary prejudice which is considered acceptable in modern society. I challenge people to come up with a single good reason why gay marriages should remain outlawed that I cannot refute. (and no, biblical "truths" do not count as a good reason). Besides, if the bible is all you've got to stand on, then you really had nothing in the first place. And I'll post wherever I damn well please Sozo. This thread is supposed to be a specific challenge to conservatives (besides, most of the other threads taking about this subject are dead).

lol reasons why gay marriage is wrong... according to the bible?

Well first, and most obvious, because Marriage is defined as a man and a woman joined together forever in the eyes of God. Anything else, by definition, is not marriage.

Let's see... there's Leviticus 18:22, where Homosexuality is clearly defined as a total abomination before God.

2 Timothy 3 talks about how men will beome lovers of their own selves, and have unnatural affections.

Other than that, it basically says ANY fornication (sexual activity otusiode of wedlock) is immoral.

Thank goodness I am part of a religion that doesn't have to worry about interpreting the ambiguous nature of the bible :)

Why does it need to be called Marriage in the first place. Why can't everyone comprimise and except the term Cival Unions. I mean fist it is simply a piece of paper. As long as they are granted the same things like healthcare, and so on, I do see what the deal is. Let us religios folks keep our term Marriage and defined in the Bible and ya'll can have cival unions...what you call it on the street makes no difference really....


-----
but then again, you will see this opinion and many others in the numerous other threads talking about this....again no need for this thread!!!

Why does it need to be called Marriage in the first place. Why can't everyone comprimise and except the term Cival Unions. I mean fist it is simply a piece of paper. As long as they are granted the same things like healthcare, and so on, I do see what the deal is. Let us religios folks keep our term Marriage and defined in the Bible and ya'll can have cival unions...what you call it on the street makes no difference really....


-----
but then again, you will see this opinion and many others in the numerous other threads talking about this....again no need for this thread!!!*applauds*

I thought we were talking about the religious issue.

As far as the Legal issue goes, I'm still trying to decide between the Libertarian stance and the Conservative stance.

:roll: Yet another thread..

Could you please stop assuming all Christians are fundamentalists? This is getting on my nerves- Gay marriages are fine by me because of the greatest commandment, love your neighbour and love your god with all your heart. If you assume somebodys going to burn in hell because one person 3000 years ago decided he felt homosexuality is wrong then you are not showing a whole deal of compassion towards them

but then again it is in your bible, and you're supposed to follow everything in your bible.





j/k, sorta

*sigh* There are 3 topics at hand, pick one!

1) Is homosexuality bad?
2) Are christians allowed to be homosexual?
3) Can gay marriages exist in the US?

whats wrong with discussing the same topics over and over again? people joing NS everyday, and they havent discussed it

but then again it is in your bible, and you're supposed to follow everything in your bible.





j/k, sorta
Actually, the smart ones dont because we realise that the people who wrote the books of the bible had different reasons for writing, different political ideas, some were under threat of Roman torture while writing and so on and so forth. If that is what you think of Christians then Im hardly suprised you turned to Atheism. Please try to learn a little about us before you attack us

I accept homosexuals, there are, and always will be gays, however, I do not have to like them in order to accept them.

I accept homosexuals, there are, and always will be gays, however, I do not have to like them in order to accept them.

I dont think there's anyone demanding that you like them.

No, my point is that some people seem to think that I have to like gays and if I don't I'm a bigot, what I'm saying is that that is wrong, I couldn't care less whether someone is gay or not, but I'm not going to go and find aload of gays to be my friends just to prove that I am not a bigot, I shouldn't have to.

Why does it need to be called Marriage in the first place. Why can't everyone comprimise and except the term Cival Unions. I mean fist it is simply a piece of paper. As long as they are granted the same things like healthcare, and so on, I do see what the deal is. Let us religios folks keep our term Marriage and defined in the Bible and ya'll can have cival unions...what you call it on the street makes no difference really....


-----
but then again, you will see this opinion and many others in the numerous other threads talking about this....again no need for this thread!!!

Why isn't it ok for blacks and whites to have separate schools? I mean, as long as they have teachers and a building and all, it's all the same, right?

Seriously, the only way civil unions can possibly work is if the government stops giving marriage liscenses altogether and only gives civil unions.

I accept homosexuals, there are, and always will be gays, however, I do not have to like them in order to accept them.

I dont think there's anyone demanding that you like them.

Except for an obscure minor historical figure of whom you may just have heard: chap going by the name of Jesus - "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" Matthew 19:19

OI, TWAT MAN WHO STARTED THIS THREAD.

THE CHRISTIAN STANCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY IS THAT ITS FINE THE PERSON BEING GAY AS LONG AS THEY DONT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

[/mini rant]

OI, TWAT MAN WHO STARTED THIS THREAD.

THE CHRISTIAN STANCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY IS THAT ITS FINE THE PERSON BEING GAY AS LONG AS THEY DONT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

[/mini rant]

thats comforting.

If I may add my two cents, and resume what we have here in Canada at the moment(and what will be confirmed by a vote at the federal level in the following months):

Civil marriage is now accessible to everyone, including same-sex couples. A court decreed that not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is discrimintation against gays and lesbians, and I agree with that(discrimintation on the basis of sexual orientation is forbidden in our constitution). That's for CIVIL MARRIAGE ONLY, i.e. the papers to sign and possible ceremony in front of a judge or civilian celebrant.

Religious marriage, i.e. the ceremony at the church with a priest/minister/rabbi/whatever is accessible to whoever that particular Church is ready to marry. In other words, no gay marriage in a catholic church, although there CAN be gay marriages in any church that does recognize and bless such unions, as the United Church of Canada does. The right for the church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony is protected by the new law, because forcing a church to perform a marriage that goes against it belief would be illegal since freedom of religion is also protected in our constitution. I agree with this also.

The situation now is no different to the church than when divorce became more frequent: a divorced man or women cannot get remarried in church because the church doesn't allow it, since marriage must (to them) last for life. But the civil authorities, not having laws against second marriages, freely hands out a new marriage license nonetheles.

I hope that made clear any confusion about civil vs religious marriage(at least here in Canada). Now where I don't agree is when Churches come and try to interfere with the CIVIL aspect of marriage: religious groups have gone into court to appeal of the decision of the PROVINCE(or state for you US residents) to hand out marriage licenses, even they THEY HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE OR PERFORM SAID SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. I believe it is hypocrisy, and I believe Churches have no right to put their noses into this matter as long as their freedom of religion right is respected, which it is.

Comments?

He he, "TWAT MAN", that's a new one!

I have to say, Canada seems such a sensible place, can I live there please?
Britain is always stuck between the church and the pressure groups.

OI, TWAT MAN WHO STARTED THIS THREAD.

THE CHRISTIAN STANCE ON HOMOSEXUALITY IS THAT ITS FINE THE PERSON BEING GAY AS LONG AS THEY DONT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

[/mini rant]

1.) Your CAPS LOCK key appears to be broken.
2.) That is just one of several Christian stances on homosexuality.

He he, "TWAT MAN", that's a new one!

Technically flaming though.

Before you started calling me a "twat man", remember the topic was about SOME Christians being against homosexuality, not the religion as a whole. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to make such generalizations. I know very well there are different views on homosexuality within Christianity; the point I'm trying to make is just because discrimination happens in a book, written and undoubtedly changed over 2000 years ago, doesn't make it right.
And the lesson kids, is to never believe everything you read.
I would personally classify the Bible as fiction, mainly because symbolism is so rampant in the Bible it is nigh impossible to differentiate "fact" from fiction.
Especially in Revelations.

Before you started calling me a "twat man", remember the topic was about SOME Christians being against homosexuality, not the religion as a whole. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to make such generalizations. I know very well there are different views on homosexuality within Christianity; the point I'm trying to make is just because discrimination happens in a book, written and undoubtedly changed over 2000 years ago, doesn't make it right.
And the lesson kids, is to never believe everything you read.
I would personally classify the Bible as fiction, mainly because symbolism is so rampant in the Bible it is nigh impossible to differentiate "fact" from fiction.
Especially in Revelations.

Oh, and by the way, I was briefly logged in as my friends nation.

No, my point is that some people seem to think that I have to like gays and if I don't I'm a bigot, what I'm saying is that that is wrong, I couldn't care less whether someone is gay or not, but I'm not going to go and find aload of gays to be my friends just to prove that I am not a bigot, I shouldn't have to.

Exactly, bugger them, do what you like.

I have to say, Canada seems such a sensible place, can I live there please?
Britain is always stuck between the church and the pressure groups.

You're welcome anytime :)

Canada takes pride in being a nation where diversity is acknowledged and accepted. I mean, if we were all looking the same and thinkind alike, it would be boring,wouldn't it?

Heck, if ex-american baptist homophobic pro-life ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist paranoiac xenophobe thrash like the Canadian Alliance's former critic in family matters(can't remember his name) are welcomed here, why wouldn't a sensible, distinguished englishman(or woman) be wlecomed with open arms? I know I'd bake you a pie when you moved in ;)

Oh, and what I said about the CA's politician is only my personnaly view, and that comes with my bias. I'm aware of that and I don't want to stir political debate.

but then again it is in your bible, and you're supposed to follow everything in your bible.





j/k, sortaWait, what's that line at the bottom? *magnifying glass*
but then again it is in your bible, and you're supposed to follow everything in your bible.





j/k, sorta
:? Huh?

Okay, flash forward:

I accept homosexuals, there are, and always will be gays, however, I do not have to like them in order to accept them.


I dont think there's anyone demanding that you like them.


Except for an obscure minor historical figure of whom you may just have heard: chap going by the name of Jesus - "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" Matthew 19:19 A common arguement, I must admit, but "love thy neighbor" doesn't translate into "anything goes." You are supposed to love thy neighbor, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with or support their actions.