Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[7Deadly$ins]

So, then, you DO follow every rule and guideline the Bible says? That's what they meant by cherry-picking.

[Red Dragonette]

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that. You need to do your research.

Hey don't blame me, blame the book for misinforming me about this.

 

There is certainly a victim, from the Christian perspective. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

 

But that kind of 'sin' is not harming anybody now, unless it happens to be rape (and also like Miyasha said: pedophilia and bestiality), isn't it?

 

[philpot123]

So, then, you DO follow every rule and guideline the Bible says? That's what they meant by cherry-picking.

The moral law, yes. The Christian belief is we are no longer bound to the strictures of the ceremonial law, but the moral law is evident in the OT by the consequences (moral violations being punished with death or fines rather than ceremonial uncleanliness), and also by what's referenced by Christ in the NT.

 

 

But that kind of 'sin' is not harming anybody now, unless it happens to be rape (and also like Miyasha said: pedophilia and bestiality), isn't it?

 

"Now" is the same as then. I believe that verse is just as applicable as it ever was.

[Red Dragonette]

"Now" is the same as then. I believe that verse is just as applicable as it ever was.

Oops, excuse that word I put in my sentence. I actually meant to say that homosexuality never hurt anybody. I'd like to say something against that second sentence you said, but I'm afraid I don't have the right words in my mind at this time. I'll leave it to somebody else to argue for the time being.

[olympe]

Same Gender Marriage Views (Indeed I don't like to use that 3 letter word, so I use Gender to substitute): God intended MARRIAGE between MAN AND WOMAN, not a MAN AND A MAN, and a WOMAN AND A WOMAN. The point of marriage (don't quoth the raven me) is to bring new generations into the world, and raise them to be good stewards and responsible. And not to raise them to be thieves, mongols, and other evil things...

 

So, by your argument, you're saying that homo"gender"uals = thieves, mongols and other evil things. Don't you think that's a bit extreme, not to say disrespectful?

 

... I'm vaguely amused by you not wanting to use the word 'sex'. Especially given that you then suggest that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, which is generally achieved by, you guessed it, SEX. Wahay.

What about the stork?

 

The moral law, yes. The Christian belief is we are no longer bound to the strictures of the ceremonial law, but the moral law is evident in the OT by the consequences (moral violations being punished with death or fines rather than ceremonial uncleanliness), and also by what's referenced by Christ in the NT.

So, you agree that rape victims should have to marry the rapist? That a woman who had intercourse with a man who is not her husband needs to be stoned? And that a young woman who had intercourse before being married needs to be killed because she brought shame unto her father's house? (I don't know the actual English wording, as I read the passage in my native German, and a while back...) And you think that a woman should not have a mind of her own, but just do what her father/brothers/husband tell her to do? Seriously?

 

Do you also agree that oh-so-great-Abraham did right by impregnating his wife's maid (upon his wife's request, but without ever bothering to ask said maid)? And what about him casting the maid and his firstborn son out after Isaac is born/coneived (don't remember exactly which)? What about fathers getting their daughters with child, as Lot did? Or offering your virgin daughters to an angry mob, as he did, too? Sorry, dude, but for moral references, the bible is a very bad place to look IMHO.

Edited May 14, 2012 by olympe

[Zaxian]

... I'm vaguely amused by you not wanting to use the word 'sex'. Especially given that you then suggest that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, which is generally achieved by, you guessed it, SEX. Wahay.

What about the stork?

I suppose I did also fail to cover the possibilities of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation, or, of course, the ol' favourite: 'virginal' conception

[philpot123]

Do you also agree that oh-so-great-Abraham did right by impregnating his wife's maid (upon his wife's request, but without ever bothering to ask said maid)? And what about him casting the maid and his firstborn son out after Isaac is born/coneived (don't remember exactly which)? What about fathers getting their daughters with child, as Lot did? Or offering your virgin daughters to an angry mob, as he did, too? Sorry, dude, but for moral references, the bible is a very bad place to look IMHO.

Just because something happened in the Bible does not mean it ought to have happened. Every person makes questionable decisions, some of these decisions were recorded in Biblical history. This does not mean it's condoning such actions. No, Abraham did not do right in that instance. He was distrusting in God's promise for a son, and fathered a line through that maid that would spark centuries of conflict. But after that was done, he had a responsibility to care for her and the child, which he also ignored. Again, wrong. It was simply recorded in the Bible, that doesn't mean it was right. Etc.

[Princess Artemis]

So, you agree that rape victims should have to marry the rapist? That a woman who had intercourse with a man who is not her husband needs to be stoned? And that a young woman who had intercourse before being married needs to be killed because she brought shame unto her father's house? (I don't know the actual English wording, as I read the passage in my native German, and a while back...) And you think that a woman should not have a mind of her own, but just do what her father/brothers/husband tell her to do? Seriously?

 

Do you also agree that oh-so-great-Abraham did right by impregnating his wife's maid (upon his wife's request, but without ever bothering to ask said maid)? And what about him casting the maid and his firstborn son out after Isaac is born/coneived (don't remember exactly which)? What about fathers getting their daughters with child, as Lot did? Or offering your virgin daughters to an angry mob, as he did, too? Sorry, dude, but for moral references, the bible is a very bad place to look IMHO.

First, I got to get this out of the way. I read your post and it went from reasonable point then on down to absurdity. I am curious why you think that a person who believes the Bible hasn't got the discernment to figure out where there's a moral and where there's a point of someone doing spectacular wrong? Frankly, I am shocked that you would read about Lot and then lack the discernment to figure out the narrative wasn't holding up what he did as a bright and shining example of Goodness and Right. That was in Sodom!! Sodom was so bad that God specifically erased it from the face of the earth by blowing up a volcano on it, and that Lot was considered good in comparison to Sodom doesn't exactly say much about Lot! EVERYONE knows that what went on in Sodom was immoral in the extreme!

 

OK, now for the rest.

 

I was thinking about that first part last night, and decided to look into it a little. I understand from other posters here that it was never enforced. I also understood that it was intended to be a way to punish the man by forcing him to support the woman for the rest of her life. Of course, a rape victim may indeed not want that, though considering the times, a non-virgin woman who might have trouble getting married otherwise would be getting a guaranteed spouse. Then I looked into it more, and a whole lot of people do seem to forget that it is only for a certain subset of possible rapes, and that it says nothing of brutal violence, so that it could be a guy getting pushy and coercing a virgin woman into having sex with him, and it also says that the man has to pay the woman's father essentially ten year's wages to make restitution for the crime, and support the woman for the rest of her life.

 

There was also the fact that the Bible records an instance where the law wasn't enforced.

 

It does not strike me as a moral law to force a woman to marry her rapist, but it does strike me as moral to punish the rapist, which is what the law sought to do. It was sort of like punishing a rapist today (including anyone who coerces someone into having sex with them) by forcing them to pay all of his wages for the next ten years to the victim then support any resulting children for the rest of their lives. Not marrying the victim, but financially enslaving the rapist to his crime for all of his days. Sound good to you? Or do you think that that is too severe a punishment for rape and thus immoral?

 

As for the other laws you quote, right before the rule about killing non-virgin women, I think killing is pretty severe, but given that the method of marrying someone then was to a: commit to marry and b: have sex with them, it doesn't strike me as wrong for there to be a steep penalty for someone who essentially went through the motions of marrying someone else but didn't commit to them, then lied about it to their new spouse. What do you think the penalty should be today for someone who did everything but get the legal standing to marry another person, then left that person and went to really marry another person and lied about it to their new spouse? Do you believe that is an immoral action?

 

Yeah, some of those laws aren't exactly good for the modern age, but then, they were written for a people who weren't terribly modern. What do you think of the rule in the same passage that says a rapist must be killed in all other situations other than for a non-betrothed virgin? Or the rule that says adulterers must both be killed? Personally, I'm rather fond of the idea of much more serious sanctions on all manner of rapists than we have today.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Terahlyanwe]

By your own scriptures you are quoting to support your views, you are being completely hypocritical.

 

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

It is not loving your neighbor as yourself when a person tries to forbid other people basic rights -- such as marrying the love of their lives -- that you yourself possess. I'm sure you'd be ticked if a bunch of homosexuals managed to make it illegal for you to get married. Try to look at it from a LOVING point of view.

sidenote: I'm a christian. Also, I have strong bisexual tendencies, am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-Obamacare!

 

[IKaalaz]

I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, in fact this summer I am going to my brother's (female, prefers to be called a male) wedding. Love is love, and I am sure god is okay with it. I am not christian but I still ask 'what happened to god loves everyone of his creations', I may be off topic here ^^; but I still voice my opinion on the matter.

[Princess Artemis]

By your own scriptures you are quoting to support your views, you are being completely hypocritical.

Want to point that "you" a little more carefully? Who is "you"?

[sir_horsey_XIX]

By your own scriptures you are quoting to support your views, you are being completely hypocritical.

 

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

It is not loving your neighbor as yourself when a person tries to forbid other people basic rights -- such as marrying the love of their lives -- that you yourself possess. I'm sure you'd be ticked if a bunch of homosexuals managed to make it illegal for you to get married. Try to look at it from a LOVING point of view.

sidenote: I'm a christian. Also, I have strong bisexual tendencies, am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-Obamacare!

*Note that I am a Christian*

 

Based on scripture, Romans 1 says this:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The context is describing the progression of the ravages of sin. Based on the way Paul describes "men...consumed with passion for one another", it sounds like the Bible is calling homosexuality a sin. However, I gleaned this from a personal study of the chapter last month, so if my interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong, please do tell me how and explain what it really means.

 

Anyway, based on what I found, scripture says it's a sin. It also says this in Romans 6:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life...20  For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21  But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23  For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

So, we, who are dead to sin, should willingly turn away from it, for the fruits of sin are death. In fact, we are told this in Galatians 6:

Brothers,[a] if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2  Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Based on the context, Paul is telling his readers to keep each other out of "transgression", which is sin. (See the last part of chapter 5)

 

So, because scripture seems to say homosexuality is a sin, that Christians have died to sin, and that Christians should keep each other out of sin, would it not be loving to keep a fellow brother/sister in Christ out of sin so they may become more sanctified in, and pleasing to Christ? Do I hate homosexuals? No. I am called to love others, even my enemies. So, I should love those who are committing a sin according to the Bible and help them become more like Christ.

 

However, with all that said, I do not think it is wise to enforce laws concerning Christian morality on a country where the culture is no longer Christian.

 

Also, if any of my analysis from those passages is incorrect, please enlighten me on where I'm wrong and what the correct interpretation of those passages is. I don't want to be wrong about scripture.

[Fuzzbucket]

WELL - bear in mine that Acts is made up of letters by one or two guys with their own agendas, and are NOT the word of god as such. Paul tells people what he wants them to do, IMHO. Bit of a bully I always thought (I was raised by a minister who agreed with me, BTW.)

[Princess Artemis]

For myself (Christian!), I'm not certain that I'd describe homosexual attraction, or any attraction for that matter, as "consumed with passion" and "lust of their hearts". It seems that is something more than just orientation, as lust, for instance, is not just being attracted to someone, it's more than that. If it were just attraction, then people would be sinning just by starting puberty and that can't be right.

 

Honestly, that passage reads to me more like people being much more sexually immoral in all manner of ways.

[Awdz]

Romans 1 says this:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The context is describing the progression of the ravages of sin. Based on the way Paul describes "men...consumed with passion for one another", it sounds like the Bible is calling homosexuality a sin. However, I gleaned this from a personal study of the chapter last month, so if my interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong, please do tell me how and explain what it really means.

I agree with Princess Artemis, that the bible passage quoted sounds like more than a committed 1:1 relationship. It sounds like rampant promiscuity to me, and as I said before:

I do not think promiscuity shows sexual partners loving respect, but rather cheapens what could be a beautiful part of an intensely close relationship. It seems to me that denying someone the right to marry encourages promiscuity. I would far rather see demonstrations against Playboy than against gay marriage.

 

In the bible passage you quoted, they are putting physical pleasure/whatever kind of sex ahead as more important than God. The sin is not the physical act per se, but that they set anything ahead of God.

 

Consider context. Traffic laws are written to prevent accidents. We are to stop at a red light and wait for the green before proceeding. However, if you are stopped at the bottom of a hill, there is no cross traffic and a truck with no brakes is barrelling down at you, everyone would agree that it is better to get out of the way than to wait for the red light to change. It is not considered "reckless driving" or endangering of others to prevent an accident.

 

Using the traffic analogy, I guess I view monogamous homosexuality as a sort of "right on red" rule. If a driver is making a right hand turn and sees that there is no traffic coming, they can make a right turn while the light is red. If a person has considered heterosexuality and found it not appealing, then they seek a lifetime partner who is of the same gender. It is not for everyone, but it certainly is not reckless or endangering of others.

 

Promiscuity is the "reckless driving" of sexual relationships, IMO.

[Bardess]

I totally agree with what Princess Artemis said about the letters, as that is what I've always thought.

 

They're letters. At no time it is suggested that they are God's exact words, they're only interpretations done by mortal men in the context of their time and society.

 

 

Show me a place in the bible where Jesus said that homosexuality was wrong (the man who went to all the sinners and said "You are forgiven, your God is a loving God"!), and if you can, please prove that this is what really happened and not what the Evangelists wanted it to be.

 

 

And if you can do that, please explain why people should adhere to that even if they themselves don't believe in the Christian God.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bardess

[Princess Artemis]

I totally agree with what Princess Artemis said about the letters, as that is what I've always thought.

That's not what I said--fuzzbucket said it. That said, even Paul outlines a few of the things he has written are his opinions. "I, not the Lord". That does not mean they ought be rejected out of hand, but given that they are exactly what he said they are, I, as a Christian, do not believe it is a great sin to consider his advice and opinions carefully and, in some cases, find his advice and opinions less than adequate for the time.

[Marrionetta]

I think Princess Artemis' sentiment is all nice and all, but I'm going to enjoy the 50th kind of cereal I try for it's delicious honey clusters differently than the first cereal I had for it's corny basket weavy goodness. The 100th bowl of cereal doesn't magically taste worse than the first. In fact as I try more cereals, I'm going to get better at buying what I like.

 

That tangent aside, the bible is not law for everyone. Even if Paul has feelings about the coupling of men, it means little to me. The bible is not some shadow cabinet higher order of law that this country is conducted under. We have separation of church and state for a reason and marriage, as a right, is granted to us by the government. Maybe it's also granted as a benediction / supplication to God by your beliefs, but the kind of marriage in question here isn't celestial; it's civil. Live and let live, dudes.

[sir_horsey_XIX]

I was specifically addressing other Christians when I posted. I did not expect my argument to be valid for nonbelievers and those who believe it should be totally separate from government.

 

On the subject of Paul's letters: I was debating whether or not I should as I was posting, but I probably should have stated up-front that I was basing my argument on the dogma that the Bible in its entirety is the inerrant, God-breathed scripture, in which every word was written by God through man. I believe Paul was just a man, but God used him and all other authors like a pen (for lack of a better analogy) to write parts of the Bible and preserved the parts He inspired.

 

On the interpretation: I see your reasoning on the passage and it's understandable. Thanks for giving me an alternate view on its interpretation. I'll definitely consider it next time I read there.

[Walker]

Random comment, but I took a theology class with a nun and even she didn't believe that scripture was the unadulterated word of God. What she said was read it thinking critically, cause she admitted Paul was prone to the cultural beliefs of his day. The guy supported slavery for gosh sakes. She encouraged people to read into it to find the truths within the writing, which DID contain some human fault.

 

Faith is not believing what you're told without question. Questioning your faith means that you're taking it seriously, not necessarily that you are being unfaithful to it's tenants.

 

When she discussed gay marriage, she pointed out that it was rarely broached in the bible, compared to some other subjects. Christ stressed loving your neighbor much more than a few fleeting mentions of what you can and cannot do sexually. And look what we do in modern times. We get distracted from the true message, where Jesus devoted most of his time, to the few details he only mentioned a few times. As humans, we are trying to force this subject to be more important than it is. Jesus did not say, "Sit around and debate who your neighbor should sleep with all day long."

 

Yes, this all came from a nun. Not necessarily my point of view, since I'm not really all that Christian anymore, but I thought some people might be interested.

[TSparkle123]

Random comment, but I took a theology class with a nun and even she didn't believe that scripture was the unadulterated word of God. What she said was read it thinking critically, cause she admitted Paul was prone to the cultural beliefs of his day. The guy supported slavery for gosh sakes. She encouraged people to read into it to find the truths within the writing, which DID contain some human fault.

 

Faith is not believing what you're told without question. Questioning your faith means that you're taking it seriously, not necessarily that you are being unfaithful to it's tenants.

 

When she discussed gay marriage, she pointed out that it was rarely broached in the bible, compared to some other subjects. Christ stressed loving your neighbor much more than a few fleeting mentions of what you can and cannot do sexually. And look what we do in modern times. We get distracted from the true message, where Jesus devoted most of his time, to the few details he only mentioned a few times. As humans, we are trying to force this subject to be more important than it is. Jesus did not say, "Sit around and debate who your neighbor should sleep with all day long."

 

Yes, this all came from a nun. Not necessarily my point of view, since I'm not really all that Christian anymore, but I thought some people might be interested.

I honestly think that the nun's right. If they're people, they deserve all the same rights as the rest of us. I mean, "All men are created equal." That doesn't mean that just because a girl slept with a girl or a dude slept with another dude, they're not people anymore. People who don't think gay people are still people should just (in the immortal words of my best friend) go die in a hole.

[Chiaki]

Have people seen this video yet?

 

 

I don't care what religion you are or your orientation, no one should have to go through that.

[Vocalia]

I really, REALLY don't want to post this here, but...

 

[AarinOnline]

Hmm, I think people who are honestly in love with each other should be able to marry & create a future and such (:

 

However that said, i hate it when people say stupid things like "i was born gay/bi" because i fell like that the single most annoying thing they can say, that and wanting/needing people to accept that their different in sexuality. Because

A. your sexuality is part of the personality, you're not born with a personality you develop it even if you're straight.

B. if you want to be homo/bi/pan etc then do it because its true to you. dont then act like people HAVE to accept it & be all okay with it just because you say "hello its 2012..4010..3128". regardless of the year, it still goes against nature if you dont care for the religious approach.

 

Again dont get me wrong, i have nothing against homo/bi/pan/etcsexuals. each to their own & what not, i'm all cool by it. Mines is more a personality/mentality/the way you go about it kind of issue.

 

if you're homo/bi/pan, loud and proud and you dont give a damn about those who put you down. then i an accept that as being true to you.

but if you're duhduhsexual & have an problem with those who cant/wont/dont accept that. Then im sorry, if acception is what you're looking for then dont be different. Be the same. Be the way they want you to be & can accept you to be or stfu & be happy, be you regardless of those who want to make u feel like crap about it.

 

But dont forget, just because you've accepted it, not everyone has to. & it may not be for the religious reasons, it could simply be because it goes against nature. BUT everyone should be true to themselves and happy with their own choices (: you dont need all of society or the world to accept you and not everyone will. thats just my opinion though

[St. Jimmy]

but if you're duhduhsexual & have an problem with those who cant/wont/dont accept that. Then im sorry, if acception is what you're looking for then dont be different. Be the same. Be the way they want you to be & can accept you to be or stfu & be happy, be you regardless of those who want to make u feel like crap about it.

Though I do agree that you should always be happy with who you are, it's not easy if you're not accepted.

 

I don't want to force people to change their religious/social/whatever views. I don't want to force people to like me. What I want is for people to not call me a freak, pervert, and all kinds of anti-gay slurs. I want people to stop telling me there's something wrong with me and trying to change me. And when I'm living closer to my boyfriend, I want to be able to be in public with him without nasty comments.

 

Sure, I could just ignore them. But it still hurts. There's only so much a person can ignore before they're pushed over the edge. And you can't just tell someone to not be different, especially in this case. Sexual orientation isn't something you can change. I'm not going to "stfu" until I can be treated like a person, not a lesser being.