NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing that puzzles me is the little will power and even less self-esteem of religious heterosexuals.

Often they claim, that homosexuality is the doom of the family as nobody is willing to get married anymore and have children, the day homosexuals are allowed to marry too.


So, how does the love-life of a stranger affect you?

One thing that puzzles me is the little will power and even less self-esteem of religious heterosexuals.

Often they claim, that homosexuality is the doom of the family as nobody is willing to get married anymore and have children, the day homosexuals are allowed to marry too.


So, how does the love-life of a stranger affect you?
it doesn't, unless you are so insecure that you base the value of your union on what other people think. the people who complain that gay marriage will "debase" the institution of marriage are essentially saying that if the word "marriage" can be applied to loving gay couples then that will make them feel icky if people refer to their own union as "marriage." they don't like being associated with love, commitment, honor, and the respect of life partners, aparently, because they object to the term "marriage" being used to refer to any union not based on the squishing of male genitals with female genitals.

One thing that puzzles me is the little will power and even less self-esteem of religious heterosexuals.

Often they claim, that homosexuality is the doom of the family as nobody is willing to get married anymore and have children, the day homosexuals are allowed to marry too.


So, how does the love-life of a stranger affect you?
I have to admit to being seriously conflicted over this. I have great sympathy for anyone, gay or otherwise, who is unable to obtain a desired social status, regarless of the reason. However, I also have a visceral sympathy for those who prefer that the definition of "marriage" remains "the legal union between a man and a woman."

This is going to be a major struggle for me to resolve, I'm afraid. :headbang:

christians and especially heterosexual christians are delicate, like flowers

ANYTHING can ruin their faith/relationships/sexuality. allow gay marriage and pretty soon they will ALL be out there marrying their pet poodles

take "in god we trust" off the money and "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance, and pretty soon the churches will be bankrupt.

they NEED implied government support of their religions in order to be bothered to get up early on a sunday morning.

its the least we can do

Actually, everytime I hear them whining about how "it's always meant one man and one woman" I have to resist the urge to laugh.

Most people would be amazed as to what constiutes a marriage in various places around the world now, never mind throughout history. There's at least one culture in which marrying ghosts isn't tremendously uncommon.

One of the sadder aspects of the whole thing is the idea of the Civil Union... Basicly, the logic behind that is as follows: "Yes, we realize that keeping you from getting married is wrong, and not really defensable on any real grounds, but we still find the idea of you getting married icky. I know! We'll give it a differant name when you do it, so that we feel better about the whole thing."

I wonder what would happen if they started treating marriages of other minority groups the same way. Jews for example.

wow uh..this sucks that I'm going to get shot down so quickly but oh well.

First of all, the U.S. government has turned its back to "helping" "religion" (well actually I bet you meant Christianity). The ACLU is pushing the government as far away from helping religion as possible.

As a christian, I can do nothing about homosexuals. Do homosexuals affect me? As a majority yes. As the number of homosexuals grows, it shows me that the morals of my nation/ the world is declining. In fact, I can say with a lot of confidence that a majority of christians do not have problems with homosexuality affecting them. They have problems with things like this: In the Anchorage School District (ASD) students of all high schools are given the ability to create and host pro-homosexual clubs at the high school of their choice. Are pro-heterosexual clubs allowed/encouraged at the high schools? No.

Now that could be a localized problem, or that could be a past problem because I heard about that last year. Regardless many christians I know, myself included, are disappointed that homosexuality is increasing. We are not freaking out though.

In fact, to follow a rabbit trail, the government should recognize two types of marriage: Religious, and Governmental. The second should have to be enforced; the first is up to the lovers. I highly doubt homosexuals would want to have to go to a church that condemns their lifestyle just so that they can be officially seen as married. They should be given a break and be able to go to a government place and get it all official. Then they can figure out all the romantic crap. The flipping ACLU should be rooting for that since they are so adamant at pushing the “separation of state and church” clause that EVERYONE knows is in the first amendment…hahah. :gundge:

As a christian, I can do nothing about homosexuals. Do homosexuals affect me? As a majority yes. As the number of homosexuals grows, it shows me that the morals of my nation/ the world is declining.

Do you consider homosexuality immoral?

In fact, to follow a rabbit trail, the government should recognize two types of marriage: Religious, and Governmental. The second should have to be enforced; the first is up to the lovers. I highly doubt homosexuals would want to have to go to a church that condemns their lifestyle just so that they can be officially seen as married. They should be given a break and be able to go to a government place and get it all official. Then they can figure out all the romantic crap. The flipping ACLU should be rooting for that since they are so adamant at pushing the “separation of state and church” clause that EVERYONE knows is in the first amendment…hahah. :gundge:

This plan would be pretty nice, if the government would get over their isues and do something.

One thing that puzzles me is the little will power and even less self-esteem of religious heterosexuals.

Often they claim, that homosexuality is the doom of the family as nobody is willing to get married anymore and have children, the day homosexuals are allowed to marry too.

That is a very common myth. As a Christian, I can say that I care less what people do within the privacy of their own bedrooms. I do not know ANYONE in my church, or any other churches in my area, that would stop procreating and marrying someone. I have never met anyone who has said that.

You are doing nothing but spreading rumors that are defacing religious groups.

Religion invented marraige, therefore religion may determine what the definiton is.

But oh yeah, they can sodomize 24/7 for all I care.

Religion invented marraige, therefore religion may determine what the definiton is.

But oh yeah, they can sodomize 24/7 for all I care.

Yes, marriage is a religious bond between two people. If religious groups do not want certain people in their "club" (so to speak), then they should not be forced to accept them into their "club". While I have no problem with homosexuals, I still believe that religious groups have just as many rights as people do. Civil unions are still an option.

I am not sexist, I am not racist, and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but no one should ever have their rights violated by being forced to "allow" someone into their group.

Yeah, what he said. :-)

Also, marriage is a religious bond between two people. If religious groups do not want certain people in their "club" (so to speak), then they should not be forced to accept them into their "club". While I have no problem with homosexuals, I still believe that religious groups have just as many rights as people do. Civil unions are still an option.

I am not sexist, I am not racist, and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but no one should ever have their rights violated by being forced to "allow" someone into their group.
The one problem I have with civil unions is that they don't afford all the legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage. Other than that, I agree with you.

No one wants the goverment to force religons to marry homosexuals. They want to force the goverment to let them marry in civil marriages. Which they should be able to.

The one problem I have with civil unions is that they don't afford all the legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage. Other than that, I agree with you.
Well, you see, from this point of view, there should be no benefits to a marriage, unless it is also recognized as a civil union.

1st corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 - 20 its not just about squishing genitals

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12“Everything is permissible for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”–but I will not be mastered by anything. 13“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”–but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

1st corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 - 20 its not just about squishing genitals
:D

The institution of marriage was wrecked by heterosexuals in the 16th century with the formation of the Protestant demoninations of Christianity that allowed for divorce. Yep, the Christians were doing a fine job of wrecking it without the help of the gays.

By allowing gays to marry, you would actually be preserving the santity of marriage because more people would be getting married than divorced...

The institution of marriage was wrecked by heterosexuals in the 16th century with the formation of the Protestant demoninations of Christianity that allowed for divorce. Yep, the Christians were doing a fine job of wrecking it without the help of the gays.

By allowing gays to marry, you would actually be preserving the santity of marriage because more people would be getting married than divorced...

If you are a christian, then you must believe the bible. If you believe the bible, then you cannot endorse homosexuality. Trust me i can quote the verses. That dosent mean that all gays will go to hell, but it does mean that a christian should not endorse them, and that a gay couple living in sin cannot be sanctified by god in a holy union because homosexuality is a sin.

Don't you know?

When a man's penis touches another man's ass, an Evil Family Destructo Ray shoots out to break apart marriges.

But only christians, with their Jesus Magic, can see it.





Wanna know the real answer?

"I don't want to accept you, and I want the government to be my bitch"



All right you primitive screw heads, listen up. Religion didn't invent marrige. Religion didn't invent morals. In fact, religion hasn't done anything but start a lot of wars, and kill a lot of people. So shove your religious dick out of my government's ass.

Divorse should be discouraged, but is sometimes necessary. For instance If you and you wife are too weak and cannot repair your marriage. If for instance you always fight around your kids, and subject them to a horrible enviornment, then for your childrens sake in order not to harm them, you should divorce. Divorce is bad but harming your child is worse. These are matters of the heart that are between you and god. Nobody should judge your actions from the outside because only god knows your heart.
The sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with numbers and divorce rates.

Don't you know?

When a man's penis touches another man's ass, an Evil Family Destructo Ray shoots out to break apart marriges.

But only christians, with their Jesus Magic, can see it.





Wanna know the real answer?

"I don't want to accept you, and I want the government to be my bitch"



All right you primitive screw heads, listen up. Religion didn't invent marrige. Religion didn't invent morals. In fact, religion hasn't done anything but start a lot of wars, and kill a lot of people. So shove your religious dick out of my government's ass.
corinthians 1 verse 18 - 31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

corinthians 1 verse 18 - 31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

"God isn't real."
-Why God Isn't Real, Newberry, 1956

see, anybody can quote from a book. it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. quoting the Bible to "prove" the supremacy of the Christian God is like me quoting an atheist blog to "prove" that Christianity is stupid. you're wasting all of our time.

hahahaha! :gundge: Nice job trolling Goed Twee!

Anyhow, Bottle is right, you can't quote out of the Bible, no one will believe except for everyone who is already on your side. TO answer a question asked earlier to me: Yes I do believe homosexuality is immoral. Just because religion somehow created marriage doesn't mean it can control it.

If you are a christian, then you must believe the bible. If you believe the bible, then you cannot endorse homosexuality. Trust me i can quote the verses. That dosent mean that all gays will go to hell, but it does mean that a christian should not endorse them, and that a gay couple living in sin cannot be sanctified by god in a holy union because homosexuality is a sin.

For the sake of an argument, lets say I don't trust you. Or more specifically, I question WHICH bible you are using to justify your statements. Remembering that deferent denominations have different books in their bibles; your "all Christans" line seems...awfully specific.

Show me which verses in each of the current bibles that say, hint at, or prove that Christians cannot endorse homosexuality. For the sake of my soul, include verses from bibles that the following use: Protestant, Catholic, LDS, Calvinists, and any others you can think of.

Also, because you specifically mention that homosexuality is a sin, show me where it says that; and why, if it is a sin, gays don't burn in hell because of that sin.

I would like you to show me where it says each induvidual denomination, sect and branch of the Christian faith believes or should believe the same thing on the topic of homosexuality.

christians and especially heterosexual christians are delicate, like flowers

ANYTHING can ruin their faith/relationships/sexuality. allow gay marriage and pretty soon they will ALL be out there marrying their pet poodles

take "in god we trust" off the money and "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance, and pretty soon the churches will be bankrupt.

they NEED implied government support of their religions in order to be bothered to get up early on a sunday morning.

its the least we can do

Nooo! Your post made my slapdash logic collapse upon itself. Ahhh, woah is me... No, no, this can't be true. You are the spawn of Satan come hither to decieve me.... Yes... *drinks*, yes, ah... reality subsiding, delusion clouding. I'm here Jesus. Take me.

hahahaha! :gundge: Nice job trolling Goed Twee!

Anyhow, Bottle is right, you can't quote out of the Bible, no one will believe except for everyone who is already on your side. TO answer a question asked earlier to me: Yes I do believe homosexuality is immoral. Just because religion somehow created marriage doesn't mean it can control it.

Idiot! Religion didn't create marriage. Quit promoting this ignorant idea.

" For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?"
Paul- 1 Corinthian 10:29
The beauty of the Bible is it can be made to say almost anything you want it to. I'm not Christain so why should I have to live by their rules? If a particuliar church doesn't want to marry gays, fine by me. There are churches that will. The government has no business endorsing one religious sect over another, so the government has no business disallowing same sex marraige.

Well tell me a new idea instead of "religion created marriage" otherwise that is what I will stick to. Anyhow, I believe religion did create marriage. :gundge:

Niccolo Medici - I like that challenge you gave but no way I will follow through with it. (1) LDS are not christians (2) Since this is an internet forum, chances are after I do that job (which could take about 10-20 minutes) it won't prove anything to you.

First off, in the Anglican church, Gay marrige is allowed. So actually, the US government is preventing a religion from practicing.

End of Argument. As well, why should the bible have any say in this? This is a matter of pure legal issue. I have a purple book that is my scripture. I don't force it on other people. Afterall, the government doesn't force cathloc churches to marry divorced people, so it is foolish to worry about them making you people marry them.

Yes, marriage is a religious bond between two people.I'm married. I'm not religious. My wife and I didn't have a religious ceremony. Nevertheless, in our eyes and in the eyes of the law we're married - why would I want to go canvassing the opinion of random religions on the matter?

It genuinely surprises me that people still wheel out this tired old notion that religion is an inherent component of marriage. It seems as though many believe that their desires will magically become reflected in reality if they just wish really, really hard.

How does a stranger affect your love life?

By stealing my loved one away....

.....In the context you are asking, I am with you. S/he doesn't. :headbang:

:D :p :fluffle: (MY 500th POST) :fluffle: :p :D

Yes, marriage is a religious bond between two people. If religious groups do not want certain people in their "club" (so to speak), then they should not be forced to accept them into their "club". While I have no problem with homosexuals, I still believe that religious groups have just as many rights as people do. Civil unions are still an option.

I am not sexist, I am not racist, and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but no one should ever have their rights violated by being forced to "allow" someone into their group.

Paranoia can be cured you know...

Yes, marriage is a religious bond between two people.

tell that to my parents, who have been married for almost 30 years; their union has never had anything to do with God or religion in anyway, yet for some reason they are still married in the eyes of the law...could it be, possibly, that marriage is NOT a religious institution in America?

could it be, even, that a life-commitment between two people is an institution that predates Christianity by at least 3000 years (that we know of)? could it be that the modern conception of marriage was only co-opted by religion within the last several hundred years, and that the Christian concept of marriage is actually a bastardization of several other marital traditions that have existed for millenia? no...none of those can be true, because then we would have to read book and use facts to reach our conclusions, and we can't be having that.


If religious groups do not want certain people in their "club" (so to speak), then they should not be forced to accept them into their "club". While I have no problem with homosexuals, I still believe that religious groups have just as many rights as people do. Civil unions are still an option.

marriage is not religious. it does not belong to religions, therefore it is not their exclusive club. a Christian church may choose not to marry anybody it deems unfit, and therefore may restrict the members of its personal marital club, but it may not forbid other organizations or churches from marrying the same couple.

for instance, to be married by the Catholics you must fulfill a very exacting series of requirements, and if you don't then they don't believe you can be married. does that mean that they have the right to stop ALL couples from marrying unless they fulfill those requirements? and, since there are plenty of religious denominations that currently marry homosexuals, doesn't that mean that religion in general has already extended "club membership" to gays any way? or are you saying that YOUR religion gets to trump the religions that accept homosexual marriage?


I am not sexist, I am not racist, and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, but no one should ever have their rights violated by being forced to "allow" someone into their group.
that is precisely the same argument used to keep blacks at separate water fountains. it was found unconstitutional about half a century ago...read a bloody book, ignorant one.

read a bloody book, ignorant one.

A bloody book? Please be careful saying stuff like that to silly Christians, you might give him ideas...

A bloody book? Please be careful saying stuff like that to silly Christians, you might give him ideas...
i suppose their whole problem stems from too much reading of THE Bloody Book, and too little reading of any other sort.

1st corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 - 20 its not just about squishing genitals

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Actually, the word "homosexual" here is a false translation from Greek that appeared in the Bible 1952. (The first time the word has EVER appeared, btw). A more appropriate translation for the word in question would have been "pedophile". In truth, there are no true references against homosexuality in the New Testament.

I have recieved one response to my questions, that basically read, "I don't think taking the time to print it will change your mind."

Even if that was the case, that I would not change my mind; isn't proving that your side has some basis, some reason for stating its case, the whole point of this debate? Are you so complacent in your beliefs that you refuse to even justify them to yourselves and others with the words of the bible?

I questioned two things; do all bibles from major demoninations included the same injunction against homosexuality. Show me where it says that in each. Second, I asked why, if homosexuality was a sin, do homosexuals not burn in hell for it as one person here claimed.

These are important questions! They are the basis for the debate! If you believe that homosexuality is a sin that will not be punished by god; I have good reason to believe that your beliefs are not in line with the teachings of the bible.

If you believe that all sects of the Christian faith believe the same thing on homosexuality, I would like to see proof that this is the case, because I have never heard of such a thing. The only verses I am aware of are those in Leviticus, and I don't know of any sect that still uses Leviticus in their bibles (not that I'm a biblical scholar).

I can't promise that your giving me this information will bring me around to your side of the argument, but I can promise that giving me insight into your opinions will give credance to your arguments and bolster respect even among those who disagree with you!

whoa! *Breathes sigh of relief* I always thought I was gonna be the Christian who would get rollled up, beaten up, kicked in, torn apart, made fun of, and comepletely despised. Thanks Foe Hammer, I owe you one. Unfortunately, I do not think I will be lucky this time, and I don't think Foe Hammer is gonna jump out to save me either.

Bottle, if you say
tell that to my parents, who have been married for almost 30 years; their union has never had anything to do with God or religion in anyway, yet for some reason they are still married in the eyes of the law...could it be, possibly, that marriage is NOT a religious institution in America?

Then why should it matter if churches agree to marry a homosexual or not? If marriage is NOT a religious institution in American?

Actually you are right, life-commitments no doubt predated Christianity. Is it possible that through the Catholic and Protestant denominations the idea and importance of marriage got passed around?

that is precisely the same argument used to keep blacks at separate water fountains. it was found unconstitutional about half a century ago...read a bloody book, ignorant one.

That argument was used Whites V. Blacks. Stubborn, ignorant, people who did not believe in equality of man. Churches have intelligent leaders and if these leaders do not desire to marry homosexuals, they made the choice. When have homosexuals been enslaved to us? When have we actually nationally persecuted homosexuals? I will not deny that we have given them a terrible time. Teenagers especially are crude and hateful towards the idea of a .. a.. queer. But, homosexuals have in no way experienced the torments and trials that black Americans went through to (1) become free and then (2) become equal.

It was an all right analogy though; homosexuals do have benefits for civilization, just like the black man. And the homosexual has gone through a bad case of persecution. But are these benefits being held back by marriage in a specific church? No. If anything the homosexual is proving that marriage must be a religious institute because some (if not all) of them are demanding that churches marry them. Why is that?

I just found out you do not need to go to church to be married, surely smart homosexuals who truly want to be married know this as well.

As far as the churches that marry homosexuals. I think they are being hypocritical. They say they read, believe, and obey the Bible, but they encourage sexual immorality.

All in all, I am now ready to get ripped to shreads and be completely despised, thank you for reading. I have to go to my private Christian school. That teaches us both evolution and creation, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Ta ta ACLU, thanks for everything. :gundge:

whoa! *Breathes sigh of relief* I always thought I was gonna be the Christian who would get rollled up, beaten up, kicked in, torn apart, made fun of, and comepletely despised. Thanks Foe Hammer, I owe you one. Unfortunately, I do not think I will be lucky this time, and I don't think Foe Hammer is gonna jump out to save me either.

Bottle, if you say


Then why should it matter if churches agree to marry a homosexual or not? If marriage is NOT a religious institution in American?

Actually you are right, life-commitments no doubt predated Christianity. Is it possible that through the Catholic and Protestant denominations the idea and importance of marriage got passed around?



That argument was used Whites V. Blacks. Stubborn, ignorant, people who did not believe in equality of man. Churches have intelligent leaders and if these leaders do not desire to marry homosexuals, they made the choice. When have homosexuals been enslaved to us? When have we actually nationally persecuted homosexuals? I will not deny that we have given them a terrible time. Teenagers especially are crude and hateful towards the idea of a .. a.. queer. But, homosexuals have in no way experienced the torments and trials that black Americans went through to (1) become free and then (2) become equal.

It was an all right analogy though; homosexuals do have benefits for civilization, just like the black man. And the homosexual has gone through a bad case of persecution. But are these benefits being held back by marriage in a specific church? No. If anything the homosexual is proving that marriage must be a religious institute because some (if not all) of them are demanding that churches marry them. Why is that?

I just found out you do not need to go to church to be married, surely smart homosexuals who truly want to be married know this as well.

As far as the churches that marry homosexuals. I think they are being hypocritical. They say they read, believe, and obey the Bible, but they encourage sexual immorality.

All in all, I am now ready to get ripped to shreads and be completely despised, thank you for reading. I have to go to my private Christian school. That teaches us both evolution and creation, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Ta ta ACLU, thanks for everything. :gundge:

no need to duck, you have just missed a couple of important points

1) no one is saying that churches should be forced to marry gay couples. that is none of the governments business. in theory, as society "progresses" a vast majority of people will agree wtih gay marriage and those denominations that refuse them marriage will fall by the wayside for lack of membership.

2) gay couples are not allowed the same non religious civil marriage that *I* have. i was married by a local municipal judge. my gay friends cannot do that. in religious denominations that DO allow gay marriage, they are not LEGAL. they are only married "in the eyes of god"

Then why should it matter if churches agree to marry a homosexual or not? If marriage is NOT a religious institution in American?

it doesn't matter. whether or not a church or religious organization is prepared to recognize a given union has absolutely nothing to do with the legal status of gay marriage. frankly, nobody cares if a bunch of religious nutters want to refuse to marry gays...the sane people in this country simply believe in equal LEGAL rights being granted to all citizens. the right to marry is meaningless if one is not free to choose one's own partner, and since there is no reason why a gay couple is less able to fulfill the legal obligations of a marital contract then there is no just reason to deny them the opportunity to enter such a contract.


Actually you are right, life-commitments no doubt predated Christianity. Is it possible that through the Catholic and Protestant denominations the idea and importance of marriage got passed around?

to some people, yes. to more than 1/2 of the people on the planet Earth, definitely no. most people on this planet who believe in life commitment to a partner did not get their conception of that union from the Christian religion. i sure didn't :).


That argument was used Whites V. Blacks. Stubborn, ignorant, people who did not believe in equality of man. Churches have intelligent leaders and if these leaders do not desire to marry homosexuals, they made the choice.

lol, SOME churches may have intelligent leaders, some don't. and, at any rate, how smart a person is doesn't necessarily correlate to their being fair, just, or equal minded; there are plenty of very intelligent racists, sexists, and religious bigots in the world.

however, it doesn't matter if church leaders are brilliant and open-minded or dumb as rocks and three times as stubborn; they always have the right to not provide marriage services to anybody, for any arbitrary reason that their followers will put up with. i am an ordained minister (thanks to an online-certification) and i reserve the right to deny my marrying powers to anybody i like, for any reason i like. that's totally within the scope of law, and nobody has the right to force any other person to marry them. however, i do not have the right to forbid somebody ELSE to marry a given couple simply because i don't think that couple should get married.


When have homosexuals been enslaved to us? When have we actually nationally persecuted homosexuals? I will not deny that we have given them a terrible time. Teenagers especially are crude and hateful towards the idea of a .. a.. queer. But, homosexuals have in no way experienced the torments and trials that black Americans went through to (1) become free and then (2) become equal.

so because we only take away a few of their rights, that's okay? because we haven't actually bought and sold them like animals, that means we aren't obligated to correct any of the injustices our system currently contains regarding the recognition of rights for homosexuals? interesting theory...thank your God that the American Constitution was framed by better heads :).


It was an all right analogy though; homosexuals do have benefits for civilization, just like the black man. And the homosexual has gone through a bad case of persecution. But are these benefits being held back by marriage in a specific church? No. If anything the homosexual is proving that marriage must be a religious institute because some (if not all) of them are demanding that churches marry them. Why is that?

if any homosexual is demanding that a specific Church be forced to marry them, i haven't heard about it. please provide a concrete example.

at any rate, gay rights have nothing to do with what one church or another wants to do. if a gay person is stupid enough to worship a God that hates homosexuality then that gay person is just going to have to accept that their God is never going to marry them. if they can't accept that then it's their problem, and nobody needs to care. the only issue is the legal recognition of rights by the government.


I just found out you do not need to go to church to be married, surely smart homosexuals who truly want to be married know this as well.

you don't watch the news much, do you? hint: google "massachusetts gay marriage" and you will learn a few things about gay people and non-church weddings.


As far as the churches that marry homosexuals. I think they are being hypocritical. They say they read, believe, and obey the Bible, but they encourage sexual immorality.

as has been covered at length, only very recent mistranslations of the Bible condemn homosexuality. even those translations provide no direct condemnation of lesbianism, but only condemn male homosexuality. all Biblical translations contain more condemnation of heterosexual sex than homosexual sex, as well.


All in all, I am now ready to get ripped to shreads and be completely despised, thank you for reading. I have to go to my private Christian school. That teaches us both evolution and creation, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. Ta ta ACLU, thanks for everything. :gundge:
i don't despise you. i think you are uneducated and ill informed, and i am hardly surprised to hear that you go to a private Christian school. also, if your comment regarding the ACLU was meant to be sarcastic, i assume you have bought into the propaganda claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian...if this is the case, then i will extend to you the same invitation i have to all others making that claim: show me ONE EXAMPLE of the ACLU pursuing unConstitutional action against a Christian or Christianity. ONE case. just one. in which the ACLU pursued a Christian or Christian group unfairly, a case where that religious group was totally within their rights and was clearly being picked on. one. and if you can't, shame on you for betraying the precepts of your own God, who specifically mentions in His Big Book that gossip and false witness are serious sins.

By the way, Bottle, you rock. I feel utterly superfulous on this thread, but I honestly want to know the answers to those questions I asked. Until I get those answers, I guess I'll content myself with being impressed by your responses.

Bottle, you rock! I totally screwed up and confused marriage ceremony with marriage rights. What are marriage rights anyways? Gays totally deserve to be married, I refer to my original post! Anyhow I am on my crap computer, I wrote a lot but it isn't saved here. Niccolo Medici, you are just as good, you gave me a challenge and I ( a christian) turned my back to you. Anyhow, I'll try to get my other comp going soon enough.



I was hyper at the time of this writing, sarcastic remarks were not sarcastic.

I'll give a longer more official apology for my stupidity later.

I can't believe nobody saw the Evil Dead reference there :(


The only people who think churches will be OMIFOOKINGOD forced to wed together homosexuals is...churches.

Martyr syndrom can be a nasty bitch...

The only people who think churches will be OMIFOOKINGOD forced to wed together homosexuals is...churches.

Martyr syndrom can be a nasty bitch...

Perhaps, or maybe it's because of that 'do unto others' thing they have. They think we want to force them, because that's what they'd do were they in our situation.

So its been 3 days now since Bottle opened up a bottle of kick butt on my sorry hypocritical fanatical christian butt. This is what I wrote on the first day I read your messages.

Lets see Bottle, uh. You are right? I definitely forgot the Massachusetts marriage. I keep confusing marriage ceremony with marriage. :gundge:

In fact, to follow a rabbit trail, the government should recognize two types of marriage: Religious, and Governmental. The second should have to be enforced; the first is up to the lovers. I highly doubt homosexuals would want to have to go to a church that condemns their lifestyle just so that they can be officially seen as married. They should be given a break and be able to go to a government place and get it all official. Then they can figure out all the romantic crap.

I believe my first post was, uh forgotten to me. I honestly did confuse marriage ceremony with marriage itself. I actually think the rights of homosexuals should be noticed. But, an amateur question, what rights do you get when you are married? So you won the field. Homosexuals deserve to be officially married in the U.S. What is the problem with that? Whether a church wants to do the ceremony is up to the preacher.

To tell you the truth, my bible doesn't even condemn "homosexuality", not that I know of anyhow. It condemns "sexual immorality". I consider sexual immorality, as do many christians out there, homosexuality along with other things.

As for that awesome ACLU, I just love what it does for plenty of my friends! You are completely right, the ACLU is an equal rights organization. It does not pursue any religion unequally.

Nine times the Humanist Manifest 1 plainly calls its beliefs a religion. The United States Supreme Court calls it a religion. The Humanist Manifesto II makes it clear that man serves as God. Secular Humanism.org says that its religious critics are wrong in calling it a God, but I disagree. ACLU has been sure to enforce the wonderful "separation between church and state" clause that is in the 1st amendment and has done it good. If obvious "god up there" religion is not presented (and even looked down upon, well in Anchorage schools - regional claim, not national), then what is the worldview being taught to my friends in school?

But I digress...or regress, I dunno, my hell-bound sinning friends warned me that I could never convince anyone of anything

Here is the bible my church and I read Nicoli, two other churches read this bible

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. :gundge:

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. :gundge:

So they received the penalty for something God forced them to do? (gave them over to) Great God you have. :rolleyes:

oh woops, see I thought Nicoli just wanted the verses. if you want I can post the whole bible and then you might understand what "gave them over to" means :gundge:

oh woops, see I thought Nicoli just wanted the verses. if you want I can post the whole bible and then you might understand what "gave them over to" means :gundge:

So you are incapable of explaining this to me in a few lines of text?

It's also stated in the book of Leviticus that wearing clothing made from two threads is an abomination. This is on the opposite page as the one banning homosexuality. But, I ask you, what is it about homosexuality that MAKES it immoral? Is it just because "God doesn't like it?" Most things accepted as Immoral are thought of as so for a reason. (ie: underage sex is thought of as immoral because it leads to teen pregnancy, adultery is immoral because of the betrayel of trust.) How are two people having a relationship somehow harming anyone around them, except by your idea that "ITS IMMORAL!"