Gay marriage is a civil right

[Ashley42]

Ashley, your logic here is backwards. The push for homosexual unions is one that is attempting to create a “bill” that certifies something that is unnatural.

Actually in most cases it is repealing a “bill” that prevents ordinary people from having the same rights as everyone else. No new legislation needs to be created, we just need to ensure the existing legislation does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. And by the way, it’s only ‘unnatural’ by your standards. The rest of us would like not to be forced to live under your twisted morals, thank you very much.

You see, your original question has Jefferson supporting a negative action (remove an ear to make lasagna-stuffing impossible). But the stance against homosexual “marriage” is to stop a positive action from being enacted.

Actually, the bill mentioned was nothing to do with marriage. It was to do with mutilating people on the grounds of who they chose to have relations with.

Not really. They reflect horror and revulsion and fear of violating nature’s intent, but certainly not ignorance.

Thank you , you just proved my point. Anyone whose reaction to gays and lesbians is “horror and revulsion and fear” and assumes “violating nature’s intent” (which I contend you know nothing about) is obviously ignorant of the facts.

 

[Cominghome89]

Actually in most cases it is repealing a “bill” that prevents ordinary people from having the same rights as everyone else. No new legislation needs to be created, we just need to ensure the existing legislation does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. And by the way, it’s only ‘unnatural’ by your standards. The rest of us would like not to be forced to live under your twisted morals, thank you very much.

Ah, now the conversation seems to be moving somewhere. First of all, those who wish to legalize same-sex union as a “marriage” are not “ordinary people”. This is not a prejudice, just a simple fact. As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, people who wish to equate this union to a marriage are few and far between in history. You can argue about how they have all been misinformed bigots, but this is reality. What you believe to be a natural, ordinary state of mind is radical and unnatural in the minds of history, including a majority of today’s society.

Also, what you are saying does not make sense regarding current laws. Of course new legislation would need to be enacted to make same sex union a “marriage”. Existing legislation, again backed by precedent throughout history, very obviously defines marriage as union between one man and one woman. To “ensure that the existing legislation does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation” (which it clearly does) would be to create new law. You are speaking as if you are simply fixing some obvious mistake in wording, when in fact you are radically changing the meaning of the word marriage.

Thank you , you just proved my point. Anyone whose reaction to gays and lesbians is “horror and revulsion and fear” and assumes “violating nature’s intent” (which I contend you know nothing about) is obviously ignorant of the facts.

This is a misquotation. The “horror and revulsion and fear” (which, by the way, was a play on a previous post of yours, not the poster’s original words) the poster is speaking about is that you, and others with a like-minded agenda, are attempting to completely revolutionize the concept and reality of marriage. Think what you want, your idea to open marriage to simply a legally-protected relationship of any kind IS drastically changing what marriage is. Argue all you would like about love and civil rights, marriage IS the union of a man and a woman for procreative, family purposes. This is the biology of human nature (that we are a one-partner mating species). This is past and present law and practice in every major society in history, despite the (even then) unusual rituals you have referred to as commonplace same-sex marriage rituals in places such as pagan Rome. This is human nature. And yes, this is God’s design.

You denounce the ideas and teachings of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church, Christianity as a whole, the laws of major cultures since the beginning of society, Thomas Jefferson, Plato, and who knows who else. So, are liberals from 2010 who promote a homosexual agenda the only voices you give any authority to? How can you reject history, philosophy, science, common sense and the laws of nature? You obviously are not an atheist, you have made your own narrow viewpoint of the world your god.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[Sophia86]

no one’s arguing for it

Well firstly, many people are arguing for it. Gay Marriage is not just paving the way for equal rights among Joe Public, but it is a symbol of acceptance between our brothers & sisters irrespective of lifestyle choices. Homosexuality does not harm anyone when it is between two consenting adults. And why can these adults not join themselves in a union that is recognised in the same way that a man & women may? Why can they not have the same civil rights?

That brings me to my second point; equality. Acceptance issues & approvals aside, there is still the matter of equality. Why is one man alowed to marry when he has a woman, but the other may not, when his partner is male? Was it not said in Leviticus 19:18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself".

Or Romans 13:10, which states “Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” How can this be ignored so unabashedly? There are so many to list…

Galatians 5:14 which in short states for the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Where along the lines have these precious teachings become forgotten? How can we forget the most fundemental of practices that have stood the test of time? “To love our neighbour?”

I would like to add that to love our neighbour is not limited to just the love you speak of when you say “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. When we deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation, things that cause actual emotional harm to people, can we really say we are doing this out of love for them?

I end with “Happy the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding!” Is not then, the act of opening our eyes to gay men & women and understanding their lifestyles, something that god himself has already advised through his teachings? Would he not open his arms & say he loved them? Would he grant them less rights, or cast them off as less equal or worthy?

…the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

So is this to say that when people of colour were treated as slaves not even half a century ago, that this was just, & that their civil rights did not matter, & we as the general public were in the wrong to readdress their civil rights to freedom? I think not. Therefore surely under the same token, a similar progression in the rights of homosexual people will & should quite similarly follow suit. Are gay men & women any less equal to other human beings? Are the wonderful people of colour? Barack Obama for instance, please tell me how our present / future would pan out without him coming into power. Enacting the health care bill for America, enabling wider access to medicare, medicaid & health insurance benefits. All things happen for a reason. People seem too quick to cast stones & ruin potentially beneficial advancements in the world, purely out of hearsay and bigotry. I would also like to bring to your attention:

• Boswell, John, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” (Chicago, Univ of Chicago Press, 1981). A meticulously researched & footnoted study of gay people during the first fourteen centuries of the Christian era. Is this not proof that over three decades ago social attitudes & the consideration of civil rights for gay people were being reflected?

Also with the afore mentioned people of colour comparison, it seems apparent that such people have forgotten what they have been taught in the bible, & judge others without fair reasoning or love.

Another problem is that the bible itself was written so long ago & quite simply much of the original scriptures have been lost in translation. I quote; “An expose of centuries-old inaccurate interpretations of the original writings, the implications of which are staggering on so many levels – for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender & heterosexuals alike." Why do people not consider these truths before they needlessly judge their fellow man for something which is indeed not a hellish way of living?

• The “friendship” between David & Jonathan. The relevant
  passages: 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:3-4, and especially, 20:41 and 2 Samuel
  1:25-26,
• The Book of Ruth sensitively portrays bonding and devotion
  between two women.
• "(David speaks) : ‘Jonathan lies slain… I am distressed for you, my brother
  Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; Your love to me was wonderful,
  passing the love of women’ (2 Sam 1:25-26, New International Version).

After all, if proponents of gay marriage cannot convince the American public that this novel way of looking at marriage actually is a civil right, they will likely never win the argument here in the US.

If this is the case, then why is it that several denominations now ordain openly gay or Lesbian aspirants to the priesthood or ministry, perform holy union ceremonies for same-gender couples, etc; the Metropolitan Community Church ministers primarily to the gay & Lesbian community?

The final part of your rhetorical question re: gay marriage reiterated that:

“Rousseau said, “The most basic of all human institutions, & the only one that is natural, is the family.” (The Social Contract)”

To any fundamentalists/anyone who has not been paying attention, Jesus himself never married nor had children! So other parts of the Bible simply can’t be forced into the “family values” argument I’m afraid. And who is to say gay men and lesbians can’t have families? Many already do. Why should we deny them the blessing of marriage?

 

[Sophia86]

At the end of the day, we are supposed to be living in a free and secular society, whereby people have the freedom of religion, and should not be forced to live under the laws or ideals of any one particular faith (and there are many). I have been kind enough however, to respect Christianity and try to see from your perspective. However the right for gay men & women who love one another, to be wed in union of marriage should not be controlled and unlawfully restricted by the Catholic Church.

 

[spn82756]

Well firstly, many people are arguing for it. Gay Marriage is not just paving the way for equal rights among Joe Public, but it is a symbol of acceptance between our brothers & sisters irrespective of lifestyle choices. Homosexuality does not harm anyone when it is between two consenting adults. And why can these adults not join themselves in a union that is recognised in the same way that a man & women may? Why can they not have the same civil rights?

That brings me to my second point; equality. Acceptance issues & approvals aside, there is still the matter of equality. Why is one man alowed to marry when he has a woman, but the other may not, when his partner is male? Was it not said in Leviticus 19:18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself".

Or Romans 13:10, which states “Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” How can this be ignored so unabashedly? There are so many to list…

Galatians 5:14 which in short states for the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Where along the lines have these precious teachings become forgotten? How can we forget the most fundemental of practices that have stood the test of time? “To love our neighbour?”

I would like to add that to love our neighbour is not limited to just the love you speak of when you say “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. When we deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation, things that cause actual emotional harm to people, can we really say we are doing this out of love for them?

I end with “Happy the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding!” Is not then, the act of opening our eyes to gay men & women and understanding their lifestyles, something that god himself has already advised through his teachings? Would he not open his arms & say he loved them? Would he grant them less rights, or cast them off as less equal or worthy?

So is this to say that when people of colour were treated as slaves not even half a century ago, that this was just, & that their civil rights did not matter, & we as the general public were in the wrong to readdress their civil rights to freedom? I think not. Therefore surely under the same token, a similar progression in the rights of homosexual people will & should quite similarly follow suit. Are gay men & women any less equal to other human beings? Are the wonderful people of colour? Barack Obama for instance, please tell me how our present / future would pan out without him coming into power. Enacting the health care bill for America, enabling wider access to medicare, medicaid & health insurance benefits. All things happen for a reason. People seem too quick to cast stones & ruin potentially beneficial advancements in the world, purely out of hearsay and bigotry. I would also like to bring to your attention:

• Boswell, John, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” (Chicago, Univ of Chicago Press, 1981). A meticulously researched & footnoted study of gay people during the first fourteen centuries of the Christian era. Is this not proof that over three decades ago social attitudes & the consideration of civil rights for gay people were being reflected?

Also with the afore mentioned people of colour comparison, it seems apparent that such people have forgotten what they have been taught in the bible, & judge others without fair reasoning or love.

Another problem is that the bible itself was written so long ago & quite simply much of the original scriptures have been lost in translation. I quote; “An expose of centuries-old inaccurate interpretations of the original writings, the implications of which are staggering on so many levels – for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender & heterosexuals alike." Why do people not consider these truths before they needlessly judge their fellow man for something which is indeed not a hellish way of living?

• The “friendship” between David & Jonathan. The relevant
  passages: 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:3-4, and especially, 20:41 and 2 Samuel
  1:25-26,
• The Book of Ruth sensitively portrays bonding and devotion
  between two women.
• "(David speaks) : ‘Jonathan lies slain… I am distressed for you, my brother
  Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; Your love to me was wonderful,
  passing the love of women’ (2 Sam 1:25-26, New International Version).

If this is the case, then why is it that several denominations now ordain openly gay or Lesbian aspirants to the priesthood or ministry, perform holy union ceremonies for same-gender couples, etc; the Metropolitan Community Church ministers primarily to the gay & Lesbian community?

The final part of your rhetorical question re: gay marriage reiterated that:

To any fundamentalists/anyone who has not been paying attention, Jesus himself never married nor had children! So other parts of the Bible simply can’t be forced into the “family values” argument I’m afraid. And who is to say gay men and lesbians can’t have families? Many already do. Why should we deny them the blessing of marriage?

Perhaps because God said it was an abomination? You left that one out.

 

[surritter]

Homosexuality does not harm anyone when it is between two consenting adults.

Ah, there’s the classic line!

Are you really prepared to defend the notion that anything goes as long as it doesn’t directly harm any consenting person?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ashley

*Thank you , you just proved my point. Anyone whose reaction to gays and lesbians is “horror and revulsion and fear” and assumes “violating nature’s intent” (which I contend you know nothing about) is obviously ignorant of the facts. *

You’ve twisted the language a bit to serve your purpose, haven’t you? Christians do not hate anyone. They hate and fear what some people do, when it is criminal or when it is lunatic.

Well, I guess you think Plato, Jefferson, and I are ignorant of the facts. I don’t know exactly what Plato and Jefferson knew, but I know what I know.

My Anatomy 101 book tells me the facts. The parts don’t fit.

Do we have to go over all that again?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sophia

*Or Romans 13:10, which states “Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” How can this be ignored so unabashedly? There are so many to list… *

You need to add this one, also from Romans, to your list:

“Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Paul, Epistle to the Romans

Did you notice the word … penalty? Did they have AIDS in those days? Very possibly.

Requiescant in pace.

 

[Sophia86]

spn82756:

Perhaps because God said it was an abomination? You left that one out

I’m afraid that is a mistranslated fable my friend. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14.“You shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination” (New English Bible). Clearly centuries-old inaccurate interpretations of original writings, the implications (as I have stated earlier )of which are staggering on so many levels to the minds of devout believers such as yourself…

This part of the “Holiness Code” of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material by the way is severely overused and misinterpreted. (For instance anyone that eats a rare steak and wears cotton and polyester at once is doubly violating this tradtion!) Funny that these things don’t seem to bother fundamentalists. People seem to pick and choose which parts of the poorly translated scriptures they wish to listen to don’t they…

For your information, Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery ‘must be put to death’ (Lev. 20:10). I must question what the world look like today if these morality tales were followed with such judgemental and earnest determination as they are against men and women who wish to marry the same sex? We can only but wonder…

 

[free2pray]

“There is no God, I can live under a set of rules based on logic and ethics instead of some aincent book of unknown origins whose translation is widely disputed” would be more accurate.

Your logic is based on your feelings and is not really logical at. We have been showing you logically that homosexuality is illogical, but you just say “why can’t i be with the person i love?” Your arguments all stem from your passions and feelings concerning this issue and you are trying to use logic to justify your feelings, and we think that you are failing in that effort

Only the hate-filled ones. Christians are free to hate and discriminate agiainst whoevery they want - just keep it to the Churches. The state on the other hand, should not discriminate.

But it didn’t end the debate, because we are discussing civil marriage and not lasagne-stuffing. If you choose to close your ears and your mind to the logical arguments I have put forward, you are simply a fool.

Wow, i guess if name calling and false attacks on peoples character count as logical arguments then i suppose that i am an ignoramus and a fool.

You know Ashely, the Bible says that “God demonstrated his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” the church and those in line with the teachings of Christ do not hate you or any other person, not at all. You are confusing what love is. Accepting this behavior as being okay with God and thus moral does not equal love for you, conversely declaring this behavior as immoral and as such it is sinful before God does not equal hatred for you or any other person.

Our language is harsh against this issue, but if it really is wrong as we see that it is, it would be unloving to let others delude themselves into thinking that it is acceptable before God, to let them attend church as Christian members and to let them take communion as if they weren’t drinking condemnation on themselves, it would be very unloving

Sometimes you do have to argue for them. They may be self-evident to some, but not others. They may not be truths at all, but assumptions that one believes so blindly that it’s true, that they believe it should be common sense.

Sure, i think we could say that this is possible in some cases, however we have demonstrated here that homosexuality is against common sense.

The Government should never submit to the whims of any particular religion - that’s just asking for trouble. You’re free to call homosexuality a sin, but don’t try to get the governemnt to base its laws on that teaching. We are all free (or should be) to believe what we want. The law should be based on ethics free from faith, rather than religious ‘morals’
]

The Church shouldn’t run the government but ethics free from faith is an Atheists dream and is unfair, shouldn’t we as people of faith have a say on moral issues? If you say no then you are imposing your worldview on us and are doing what you say that we are doing to you. The oppressed become the oppressors so to speak. Our basis for rejecting homosexuality is not arbitrary, in more than one sense of the word, we are not unintelligent people who are uneducated just because we don’t agree with you. Yet you have constantly suggested this because you believe that yours is the only intelligent position on the matter and that is an arbitrary judgment.

A classic sign of someone who won’t even admit to themselves that they have lost the debate and instead try to shun the opposition. I pity you, fo you have been brainwashed by your faith.

You have been brainwashed by this postmodern society that rejects all things modern, see we can make arbitrary statements to. You don’t know that we are brainwashed, your suggesting that we haven’t had the ability to reason for ourselves how can you know this?

The same way you know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Because as yet there has been no reliable irrefutable evidence of his existance. The burden of proof is on you to show that he DOES exist.

Much evidence has been offered, but again it seems that your judgments and conclusions are based on your emotions you don’t want God to be real because he would hold you to standards that you don’t want to be held to, thus you say that there is no proof because in the end it’s about what makes you feel good about yourself and the decisions you have made. Don’t believe me read what i have underlined below

Very true. I hate the idea that some supernatural being “designed” me and is now telling me to go against every emotional feeling in my body, leave the girlfriend that I love and have built a family with (we don’t have kids but our moggie is considered part of the family!), and go and marry a male who I am not attracted to in the slightest, sexually or otherwise, and who I am utterly incapable of forming any sort of emotional bond with.
And to drop another bombshell… I am transexual. Why would God design me in a male body but give me the thought processes and emotional aspects of a female? Not to mention the yearning to just have a physical body that matches how I feel inside. Yes, I hate the idea that God would ‘design’ me that way and then not want me to change my body.
Thankfully, medical science has fixed a great deal for me and I am no longer feeling trapped, unhappy and depressed. Not the case had I followed the teachings of the Church!

 

[Sophia86]

Ah, there’s the classic line!

Are you really prepared to defend the notion that anything goes as long as it doesn’t directly harm any consenting person?

I am prepared to defend the right that what happens between two consenting adults and them only, is not harmful to anyone else yes. However “that anything goes” could cover a whole spectrum of random unrelated ideas that you might try and irrelevantly throw into the mix…

Also, “Perhaps because God said it was an abomination”? <–Talk about classic lines! I’m sure you’ve all been using that one incorrectly for decades.Try relearning your scriptures in their true context.

On the other side of the matter, what I have retorted re: two consenting adults. Pure fact my friend. Not some fable thought up and incorrectly passed on through a chinese-whisper style fashion. Fact.

I know the truth hurts, but times are changing. People are starting to realise that there is a whole array of diversity in the world, from wonderful people of colour, various recognised beliefs and religions, colourful cultures, and loving gay and transgendered people. Why can’t we live in harmony? Why must we attack one another? Gay men and women are not harming anyone. What is so immoral in asking to be recognised as equals?

 

[free2pray]

…
And to drop another bombshell… I am transexual. Why would God design me in a male body but give me the thought processes and emotional aspects of a female? Not to mention the yearning to just have a physical body that matches how I feel inside. Yes, I hate the idea that God would ‘design’ me that way and then not want me to change my body.
Thankfully, medical science has fixed a great deal for me and I am no longer feeling trapped, unhappy and depressed. Not the case had I followed the teachings of the Church!

So you were in a male’s body but felt female then had a sex change to “become” a female and now you are with a female? Is that correct?

All of them widely disputed. None of them are solid evidence.

Again a Arbitrary statement you have not read all the accounts nor read into them to see if they were legitimate, you want them to be false so they are. We don’t think that you are unintelligent we just think that you are not being honest with yourself and us, and you have been dishonest to make your points, why lie to win this debate?

 

[spn82756]

I’m afraid that is a mistranslated fable my friend. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14.“You shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination” (New English Bible). Clearly centuries-old inaccurate interpretations of original writings, the implications (as I have stated earlier )of which are staggering on so many levels to the minds of devout believers such as yourself…

This part of the “Holiness Code” of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material by the way is severely overused and misinterpreted. (For instance anyone that eats a rare steak and wears cotton and polyester at once is doubly violating this tradtion!) Funny that these things don’t seem to bother fundamentalists. People seem to pick and choose which parts of the poorly translated scriptures they wish to listen to don’t they…

For your information, Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery ‘must be put to death’ (Lev. 20:10). I must question what the world look like today if these morality tales were followed with such judgemental and earnest determination as they are against men and women who wish to marry the same sex? We can only but wonder…

Jesus taught a kinder adherence to the law…but did not abrogate it.

BTW…Gen 19:1-29 Sodom and Gomorrah
Rom 1:24-27 (as was already mentioned by a previous poster)
1 Cor 6:9
1 Tim 1: 8-10

BTW…I am far from a fundamentalist. You may not think so…but I’m not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sophia

I am prepared to defend the right that what happens between two consenting adults and them only, is not harmful to anyone else yes.

This is a recipe for moral chaos and the spreading of disease through promiscuous sex. Our country is awash in sexually transmitted diseases, all because the young have bought into that foolishness about “consenting adults” and “victimless crimes.”

Have you looked at the statistics lately for promiscuously transmitted diseases resulting from sex between consulting adults? Here again Christianity shows the way, and atheists offer nothing but pious platitudes about “consenting adults” and “victimless crimes.”

How victimless are all those million homosexuals who died of AIDS even though they were consenting adults?

 

[Ashley42]

First of all, those who wish to legalize same-sex union as a “marriage” are not “ordinary people”

Not by your standards.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, people who wish to equate this union to a marriage are few and far between in history.

History is something we need to learn from - we made mistakes in the past, condemming homosexuality. Now, as a progressive society, we need to fix those mistakes. We should not use history as a justification for the lack of civil liberty we have on our lawbooks today. Laws need to change - otherwise we could just dissolve Congress and leave everything as it is.

Of course new legislation would need to be enacted to make same sex union a “marriage”. Existing legislation, again backed by precedent throughout history, very obviously defines marriage as union between one man and one woman.

So all you need to do is change that wording to remove the gender bias and there you have it! And if you have to create a new law to remove that bias? So be it!

you, and others with a like-minded agenda, are attempting to completely revolutionize the concept and reality of marriage.

No, we simply want to remove the gender bias from the legal definition.

marriage IS the union of a man and a woman for procreative, family purposes.

As I’ve shown before, only by YOUR scope of the definition.

So, are liberals from 2010 who promote a homosexual agenda the only voices you give any authority to?

Obviously not. I just question the authority of someone who bases that authority on the teachings of a work of fiction, or out of hatred, fear or lies.

How can you reject history, philosophy, science, common sense and the laws of nature?

Quite simple - I don’t.

You’ve twisted the language a bit to serve your purpose, haven’t you? Christians do not hate anyone. They hate and fear what some people do, when it is criminal or when it is lunatic.

Of course that’s what they say, but you only ahve to look around you (on this very forum!) to see that hatred.

My Anatomy 101 book tells me the facts. The parts don’t fit.

My US Law 101 book tells me that civil marriage is not based on Anatomy.

Your logic is based on your feelings and is not really logical at. We have been showing you logically that homosexuality is illogical, but you just say “why can’t i be with the person i love?” Your arguments all stem from your passions and feelings concerning this issue and you are trying to use logic to justify your feelings, and we think that you are failing in that effort

That’s because you are too narrow minded to comprehend my arguments. My logic is based on simple facts - people should be free to do as they wish provided no harm arises because of it. You call homosexuality illogical because you don’t understand it. You have a narrow view of the world - men, women and 2.4 children and fail to accept that the world is a little more complicated than that - Nature didn’t just make men and wome, she made intersex people and hermaphrodites, and people with chromosomes that differ from the XX/XY notion that we commonly accept as “normal”. Nature has a vast array of things that go against the grain of normality. Does it mean that it’s wrong, disordered, sinful? No. Nature has a funny way of doing things, who are you to question it?

declaring this behavior as immoral and as such it is sinful before God does not equal hatred for you or any other person.

I contend that it does. Can you imagine the suffering that homosexuals go through because of the discrimination they face on a daily basis? You just have to look at DOMA. Loving couples refused legal recognition of their partnership which causes all sorts of ills. Put yourself in the shoes of the gay women who falls in love with a lady from a different country. Because of laws enacted by people who say that “homosexuality is wrong and is a sin”, this women cannot sponser her lovers citizenship like a heterosexual couple could. They are forced apart, or forced to find some alternative to live their lives together. Can you honestly say a law that does this to people does so out of love?

Sure, i think we could say that this is possible in some cases, however we have demonstrated here that homosexuality is against common sense.

looks around Where? I can only see you making assumptions about nature and comparing it to them.

The Church shouldn’t run the government but ethics free from faith is an Atheists dream and is unfair, shouldn’t we as people of faith have a say on moral issues?

Not when those moral issues breach the freedom of those who do not follow your faith. If my faith was the majority, and my aincent holy book said that it is immoral to be a Catholic and therefore Catholics can’t get married, would you just sit back and accept that? I think not. This is why law should be free from religion.

You have been brainwashed by this postmodern society that rejects all things modern, see we can make arbitrary statements to. You don’t know that we are brainwashed, your suggesting that we haven’t had the ability to reason for ourselves how can you know this?

Because that’s just what Religion is - brainwashing. Why else would people believe such nonsense? When you understand why you think that the notion of an Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the earth is absurd, then you will also understand why we athiests think that the notion of your god creating the earth is equally absurd.

 

[Ashley42]

Much evidence has been offered, but again it seems that your judgments and conclusions are based on your emotions you don’t want God to be real because he would hold you to standards that you don’t want to be held to, thus you say that there is no proof because in the end it’s about what makes you feel good about yourself and the decisions you have made. Don’t believe me read what i have underlined below

And what is so wrong with that? Wasn’t one of the founding ideas of the United States the ‘persuit of happiness’? Should I be denied that luxery because I am gay?

So you were in a male’s body but felt female then had a sex change to “become” a female and now you are with a female? Is that correct?

Pretty much. You can loose the quotes on the word “become” though.

Again a Arbitrary statement you have not read all the accounts nor read into them to see if they were legitimate, you want them to be false so they are. We don’t think that you are unintelligent we just think that you are not being honest with yourself and us, and you have been dishonest to make your points, why lie to win this debate?

Where have I lied? I have demonstrated your arguments against gay civil marriage to be either false or based on irrelevant religious rethoric.

 

[free2pray]

I’m afraid that is a mistranslated fable my friend. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14.“You shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination” (New English Bible). Clearly centuries-old inaccurate interpretations of original writings, the implications (as I have stated earlier )of which are staggering on so many levels to the minds of devout believers such as yourself…

Care to write out (not cut and paste from a gay activist site) this passage of Leviticus in the original language and then translate it yourself from the Hebrew. Show us what a good translation is. I can truly say with out hesitation that you have made some very ignorant statements, And while your at it write it out from the LXX and translate it for us also, Make sure to also have a look at the Samaritan Pentateuch.

This part of the “Holiness Code” of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material by the way is severely overused and misinterpreted. (For instance anyone that eats a rare steak and wears cotton and polyester at once is doubly violating this tradtion!) Funny that these things don’t seem to bother fundamentalists. People seem to pick and choose which parts of the poorly translated scriptures they wish to listen to don’t they…

Some of these were ceremonial instructions versus moral instructions God told the Israelites to circumcise their penises as a sign of the covenant they had with Him nothing inherently immoral about having an uncircumcised penis but the Jews still had to obey, of course someone has just been borrowing lame arguments from some gay activist group who don’t have any basic hermeneutics skills. Here’s a list of scriptures that condemn homosexuality in the Bible; Gen 19:1-11, (relating to Sodom Gomorrah 2 Pet 2:6-7; Jude 7) Judges 19:14-30, 1 Tim 1:8-10, 1 Cor 6:9, and Romans 1 plus a range of others that we could discuss.

For your information, Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery ‘must be put to death’ (Lev. 20:10). I must question what the world look like today if these morality tales were followed with such judgemental and earnest determination as they are against men and women who wish to marry the same sex? We can only but wonder…

We could debate what the scriptures say concerning homosexuality, but i can assure you that you will lose IF this is the road you will take.

 

[Sophia86]

Charlemagne ||:

“…Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

How very convenient, another fable written by homophobes to stop diversity and freedom in the world. And if this is a inference to AIDS (as i’m sure you have hinted at), then perhaps you should know it is strongly believed that AIDS originated in Africa around 1940. Furthermore it is believed that the HIV virus inherits its properties from a virus SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which is found in monkeys. Now I do not recall reading of monkeys running around in the background of this verse, so I’m afraid this somewhat puts a downer on your hypothesis my dear

In short, I doubt you can state “they were all stricken with AIDS”. I feel that you are actively reading into things and trying to come up with your own biased opinion. That makes me sad.

Ultimately I can’t see any weight in this misguided verse, nor do I find it evidentiality correct in portraying men and women that lay with their own sex as perverts. Clearly archaic and somewhat machievelian (not to mention inaccurate) interpretations clouding the tenuous minds of devout believers such as yourself…

Also I thought the intent of this thread was to address the importance of “Gay Marriage as a Civil Right” - not to pick wars with fellow human beings over incorrect, nasty and quite frankly contemptible opinions.

 

[Des]

Hello Des

Thank you for making an attempt to understand even if this is something which I cannot explain well; for I am constrained by language

If you have the time and want to know more, then please have a look at the AVEN site; in particular, there is a wonderful article written by a sexual about his understanding of asexuals. You will find it under ‘Asexual Perspectives’. Maybe reading things from your perspective will explain things better than I can

Hey Alexia. I shall definitily check into it. Thanks.

 

[Sophia86]

spn82756:

Jesus taught a kinder adherence to the law…but did not abrogate it.

Exactly, he didn’t put an end to these outlandish laws which declared ‘no eating rare meat, and no wearing such and such together…’ So if this is the case, why are people not citing this passage word for word and condemning all adulterers to a harsh death and subsequent eternity in hell? Why just attack homosexuality and overlook the other alleged facts you have been brainwashed with?