Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Astrodeath311]

If you aren't gay, then you shouldn't have a problem getting married with the person you love. As we all know, men and women get married all the time. To be honest, I really don't care about Man/Man marriage. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have a gay friend and I'm Christian. I don't bother him about it. It's the way he is. You can't change being gay, it's like being male or female. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

 

Bad time to start an debate. I'm off for a while.

 

Continue~

Edited November 28, 2012 by Astrodeath311

[Slaskia]

Technically, He did. He put it in the Bible which is His Word. We govern our lives by His Word and while we may not communicate to Him directly, He does exist. There are so many amazing things that defy logic, and it is all because of Him.

 

(Verses Romans 1:26-1:27 and Leviticus, but I don't remember the passage in Leviticus.)

 

However, I do support Gay Partnership, but marriage is between a man and woman.

Not everyone believes the bible is the word of 'god' (if they believe in a god at all). Thus, the bible is not a 'viable' arguement against gay marriage to many, many people, especially Leviticus: if you want to use that as an arguement, then you should follow the other 'rules' in there (no shellfish, no wearing clothing of mix cloth, etc).

 

Not familiar with the Roman's passage though, so I'll let someone more knowledgeable of that tackle it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Slaskia

[hazeh]

I'm still waiting for that passage that explicitly states that marriage must be between a man and a woman only. People say it's there, but never have I actually seen it quoted.

[philpot123]

I'm still waiting for that passage that explicitly states that marriage must be between a man and a woman only. People say it's there, but never have I actually seen it quoted.

Genesis details the creation account, God's creation of Adam and Eve, and continues with the reasoning...

 

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

(Genesis 2:24 ESV)

 

 

Basically, "God created male and female. Therefore, that's why men and women marry, and this is how it's done." Any place marriage is discussed in scripture, it's assumed to be between a man and a woman, sometimes multiple women, but there's Biblical arguments on the side of monogamy being the proper form of marriage, while polygamy is simply regulated, not necessarily approved. No, there's no passage that says "marriage must be between one man and one woman only." It's inferred reasoning.

 

 

As far as marriage being a legal institution...

 

Warning for language: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4...761536400_n.jpg

Edited November 28, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[hazeh]

But that doesn't say anything against homosexual marriages or homosexual people. That's about Adam, a heterosexual man who OF COURSE would marry a woman.

 

Saying a couple can't get legally married because of an inferred reasoning in a book that has no legal bearing over people that don't practice that faith is, quite frankly, very silly and immature.

[NobleOwl]

EVERYONE PLEASE IGNORE THAT I ACCIDENTALLY POSTED THIS UNDER MY WIFE'S BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE SHE WAS LOGGED IN.

 

Technically, He did. He put it in the Bible which is His Word. We govern our lives by His Word and while we may not communicate to Him directly, He does exist. There are so many amazing things that defy logic, and it is all because of Him.

 

Have you read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek? Or do you only read translations of translations? Which version do you read so I can address it? I'll use the KJV here, please tell me if you use another.

 

Romans 1:26-1:27 KJV

 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.

 

Greek:

 

dia touto paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV paqh atimiaV ai te gar qhleiai autwn methllaxan thn fusikhn crhsin eiV thn para fusin omoiwV te kai oi arrenes afenteV thn fusikhn crhsin thV qhleiaV exekauqhsan en th orexei autwn eiV allhlouV arseneV en arsesin thn aschmosunhn katergazomenoi kai thn antimisqian hn edei thV planhV autwn en eautoiV apolambanonteV.

 

 

So, let's touch on this, shall we?

 

In the original Greek, this does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people know today. It refers explicitly to the kind of ecstasy that was common in mystery cults who used drugs and sex to reach euphoria and commune with their idea of the divine.

 

The important words here, really are "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned" -- Paul is talking about people who are heterosexual leaving their natural orientation, going against their natural self, in order to practise these sort of mystery practises. He's not talking about people who are born homosexual -- who are physically different from heterosexuals. The word he uses is "phooskos," transliterated here as "fusikhn" which means inborn.

 

Leviticus, but I don't remember the passage in Leviticus.

 

And now a chance to talk about a book I consider to be the word of G-d, lol.

 

Leviticus 18: 21-22:

 

וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא-תִתֵּן, לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ; וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת-שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲנִי יְהוָה

 

Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy G-d: I am the L-RD

 

וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

 

And thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

 

Now, why did I start in verse 21? Basic grammar -- it's one sentence, broken up into two verses. Note how 21 does not have a period, but 22 does.

 

Guess what Molech had? Temple prostitution. In particular, male temple prostitutes. This law explicitly refers to sex with temple prostitutes. Understandably, G-d forbids spilling one's seed in worship of pagan G-d's -- which was thought to make one's lands fertile.

 

Next, Leviticus 20:13

 

וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה--תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם.

 

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Now, this looks the same as 18, right? Surely this one is talking about homosexuality? Kind, but not really. It's actually talking about one specific act -- anal sex. Death is only used as a punishment when murder or manslaughter is involved, or it's a ritual indiscretion, like the wrong people acting as priests. The ritual indiscretion here is what's seen as "mockery" of sex from which life can come.

 

However, I do support Gay Partnership, but marriage is between a man and woman.

 

Why should your religion get to decide what marriage is for a country with freedom of religion?

 

You can't change being gay, it's like being male or female. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

 

Very true, there are visible, biological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.

 

Let me throw a wrench into this a bit. Adam and Eve, you know the story, right?

 

Genesis 2:18

 

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.

 

And the L-RD G-d said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

 

This is an important part of Judaism. It forms the basis of the bashert idea. The soul mate. The person G-d creates for you, for every person. The person he ordains for you, so that you will not be alone. What's the first thing G-d truly says about man's life? It's not good for him to be alone.

 

Marriage was created to form a new unit, to reknit the whole. Without marriage, in Judaism, a person can never be whole. There will always be a loneliness, something missing for them, even with a "partnership."

 

You admit you can't change being gay, so you hold that G-d created people knowing that they could never be reunited with their soulmate, that they will always be lonely, when the first thing G-d said about humanity was that it was not good for Adam to be alone.

 

What kind of G-d would do that?

 

if you want to use that as an arguement, then you should follow the other 'rules' in there (no shellfish, no wearing clothing of mix cloth, etc).

 

Even then, the rules don't say that. (Says the Jew who attempts to follow the laws in there.)

 

Basically, "God created male and female. Therefore, that's why men and women marry, and this is how it's done." Any place marriage is discussed in scripture, it's assumed to be between a man and a woman, sometimes multiple women, but there's Biblical arguments on the side of monogamy being the proper form of marriage, while polygamy is simply regulated, not necessarily approved. No, there's no passage that says "marriage must be between one man and one woman only." It's inferred reasoning.

 

Incorrect! Both Song of Songs and Proverbs alternate between ish and isha when discussing the "wife" and the "virtuous wife," while Exodus says: 'If he espouses another her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.'

 

Interesting thing about this? Espouses is neutral, rather than using isha, which the prior verses de when referring to the maidservant.

 

 

 

 

[philpot123]

 

Saying a couple can't get legally married because of an inferred reasoning in a book that has no legal bearing over people that don't practice that faith is, quite frankly, very silly and immature.

I agree. There's a shocker

 

 

Even then, the rules don't say that. (Says the Jew who attempts to follow the laws in there.)

 

Ooh this is interesting. Curious, what is the proper Jewish understanding of those regulations then?

 

Incorrect! Both Song of Songs and Proverbs alternate between ish and isha when discussing the "wife" and the "virtuous wife," while Exodus says: 'If he espouses another her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.' Interesting thing about this? Espouses is neutral, rather than using isha, which the prior verses de when referring to the maidservant.

 

Interesting. I'll have to look into that more, thanks. Out of curiosity, any historical evidence of early Jewish homosexual weddings?

Edited November 28, 2012 by philpot123

[NobleOwl]

Ooh this is interesting. Curious, what is the proper Jewish understanding of those regulations then?

 

Which ones? The "homosexual" ones?

 

Temple prostitutes bad, anal sex bad.

 

Orthodox has a very interesting view though, because Judaism has a rule that you cannot place a stumbling block in front of anyone. You need to strive to avoid doing anything that you know might cause others to actively sin.

 

So, Orthodox says, since others might see a celibate gay couple, who never sin by having anal sex, or even a non-celibate couple who avoid anal sex, because others might think that they are, and thus think that it's okay and give into that temptation, it should be avoided.

 

This is also why they believe dating is bad.

 

Conservadox and Conservative says that no one should assume anyone is sinning in their own bedroom. They don't assume a man will sleep with a wife on her period, so why would they assume that a gay couple would break a similar rule.

 

Interesting. I'll have to look into that more, thanks. Out of curiosity, any historical evidence of early Jewish homosexual weddings?

 

Ruth and Naomi, for one...The text says, Ruth clung to Naomi. [Ruth 1:14] The Hebrew word used for “clung” is “dabaq.” The only other time this is used, is in Genesis -- a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and cling (“dabaq”) to his wife. [Genesis 2:24] It is, in Hebrew, overtly sexual.

Naomi nurses Obed, something only allowed by law to mothers, and the women actually say of Obed 'There is a son born to Naomi' [Ruth 4:16-17]). Aside from this, in the Talmud, lesbians are forbidden from marrying a Kohen after being married to a woman.

 

We also have Jonathan and David, which Saul flips over -- "I know you have chosen (bahar) the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" This suggests permanence. It's the same word when referring to "choosing life" in Deuteronomy and "choosing" a wife in Leviticus. The "nakedness" also puts in sexual terms. This could be Saul spreading rumours, but the word used for the love between Jonathan and David is only used for lovers, and sometimes G-d for Israel, which is ahava --"was more wonderful than the love of women." They also explicitly say in these stories that both Jonathan and David get completely naked with each other -- something only allowed with spouses. Orthodox still won't get naked for doctor's appointments unless the command to preserve life is involved.

[philpot123]

Which ones? The "homosexual" ones?

 

Temple prostitutes bad, anal sex bad.

 

Orthodox has a very interesting view though, because Judaism has a rule that you cannot place a stumbling block in front of anyone. You need to strive to avoid doing anything that you know might cause others to actively sin.

 

So, Orthodox says, since others might see a celibate gay couple, who never sin by having anal sex, or even a non-celibate couple who avoid anal sex, because others might think that they are, and thus think that it's okay and give into that temptation, it should be avoided.

 

This is also why they believe dating is bad.

 

Conservadox and Conservative says that no one should assume anyone is sinning in their own bedroom. They don't assume a man will sleep with a wife on her period, so why would they assume that a gay couple would break a similar rule.

No, where you were responding to the "no shellfish, no wearing of different fabrics" part, and saying that's not actually what is said. I was curious as to what your understanding of those regulations is. I think I have a decent understanding your perspective of the homosexual stuff now.

 

 

Ruth and Naomi, for one...The text says, Ruth clung to Naomi. [Ruth 1:14] The Hebrew word used for “clung” is “dabaq.” The only other time this is used, is in Genesis -- a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and cling (“dabaq”) to his wife. [Genesis 2:24] It is, in Hebrew, overtly sexual. Naomi nurses Obed, something only allowed by law to mothers, and the women actually say of Obed 'There is a son born to Naomi' [Ruth 4:16-17]). Aside from this, in the Talmud, lesbians are forbidden from marrying a Kohen after being married to a woman.

 

We also have Jonathan and David, which Saul flips over -- "I know you have chosen (bahar) the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" This suggests permanence. It's the same word when referring to "choosing life" in Deuteronomy and "choosing" a wife in Leviticus. The "nakedness" also puts in sexual terms. This could be Saul spreading rumours, but the word used for the love between Jonathan and David is only used for lovers, and sometimes G-d for Israel, which is ahava --"was more wonderful than the love of women." They also explicitly say in these stories that both Jonathan and David get completely naked with each other -- something only allowed with spouses. Orthodox still won't get naked for doctor's appointments unless the command to preserve life is involved.

 

As always, you have given me food for thought and some material to study. Thanks!

[NobleOwl]

No, where you were responding to the "no shellfish, no wearing of different fabrics" part, and saying that's not actually what is said. I was curious as to what your understanding of those regulations is. I think I have a decent understanding your perspective of the homosexual stuff now.

 

Ah, okay.

 

1. The rules of kashrut, as applying to Jews, are very important because they are part of the covenant, but there are multiple reasons for every choice. The obvious bit is that eating kosher ties the Jewish community together. It also reminds us of G-d's place in our lives, because food is one of those that you can control -- it's also a symbol of G-d providing for us. However, shellfish is also one of the most common allergens in the world, and is incredibly common among Jews.

 

2. Mixing fibers has an overarching symbolism, which is the responsibility of the Jews to act as an example for all other people. To be a part of the world, to improve, to repair it -- our most important mission, but to be separate from it at the same time. It's also sometimes seen as a comment about intermarriage by some.

[Kestra15]

Technically, He did.

Technically, He didn't. If He 'technically' did speak to you personally, then a booming voice would have issued from the heavens directly to you, a burning bush, etc. There is no 'technically He did' at any point in the Bible, regardless of translation. You are reading the mis-translated meanderings of a human being no matter what passage of the Bible you read.

[TikindiDragon]

Ah, darm. I had my Bible out all ready to quote verses and say they don't mention marriage at all.... and then I find I've been beaten to it. Ah well.

 

I'll just stick to maintaining that I think legal rights should not be granted by religious ceremonies, and that no religious opinions should have a bearing on who can be granted those rights.

[Rowiehz]

I'm annoyed at the fact that if someone is Christian, he or she automatically hates gay people.

 

I am a Christian. Previous year we had a presentation at school by some group of gay people to make people more aware of same sex marriage and relationships. At the end, we all gathered in a class for further questions and explanations. So they were asking everyone if they are for or against same sex marriages and whatnot. So when they come to me, I told them openly that I am a Christian and that I honestly think the original way is the one of male and female because the anatomy is just meant that way.

 

All of those twenty people burst loose in complete rage at me while I wasn't even done yet. To make a tale short, they threw stuff at me as in WHY I am wrong and why it is horrible to think like that. It really hurt me as, because they didn't even hear my full story.

 

At the end of the day, I was hummiliated, chewed out and absolutely walked over and I felt so horrible, because I just said what I think for myself. And what I think for myself does NOT apply to others. People are so often to immediately relate it to themselves. So much for having an own opinion.

 

The group claimed they want to be treated as equals because they are so unfortunate, but at the same time they don't ever favor the same to someone who thinks differently than them. I'm sure it is just this group who went at me like that though, because none of the other gay/bisexual people I know have ever done this.

 

My cousin is homosexual, I helped him through his hard times. A few of my good friends are bisexual. And frankly, I could care less if people of the same gender love eachother. If they are truly happy like that, why should one try to mess that up?

 

They asked me; What if your daughter is a lesbian? Then what would you do?

 

Well, just let her be? I don't know? It's not my life.

 

However, some people do take their religion way too seriously. And in nowadays society, I don't always think you can keep doing that without insulting others.

 

I just want to throw this out. Even if someone has a certain opinion he/she favors. Like for me it would be thinking that female and male are how it's meant to be because of biological reasons. Does not automatically mean that they are against the other options. I accept everyone as how they are, it's simple as that.

 

And it's just downright stupid to assume things of people and curse at them for it without knowing the person well in the first place. That's why I always say; just get along!

Edited November 28, 2012 by Rowiehz

[Fuzzbucket]

If you aren't gay, then you shouldn't have a problem getting married with the person you love. As we all know, men and women get married all the time. To be honest, I really don't care about Man/Man marriage. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have a gay friend and I'm Christian. I don't bother him about it. It's the way he is. You can't change being gay, it's like being male or female. There's nothing wrong with it at all.

 

Bad time to start an debate. I'm off for a while.

 

Continue~

If you ARE gay you shouldn't have a problem getting married with the person you love.

 

And I have LOADS of gay Christian friends I also know a lot of straights who are homophobic and think gay marriage is wrong. Those two usually go together.

Out of curiosity, any historical evidence of early Jewish homosexual weddings?

Not aware of any Jewish ones, but as I posted way up this thread, there IS evidence of marriage between two male Christian SAINTS - Sergius and Bacchus. The saints' story is told in the Greek text known as The Passion of Sergius and Bacchus. Whether or not it its totally accurate - the story came from somewhere.

 

There is also Jonathan and David, though they predate Christianity, god seemed fond of both of them, so can't have felt they were disgusting.

 

"NobleOwl" - sorry to be dense but since that wasn't you, who are you actually ? It would be good to know; I am not instantly privy to that info and haven't the energy to go look...

 

So, Orthodox says, since others might see a celibate gay couple, who never sin by having anal sex, or even a non-celibate couple who avoid anal sex, because others might think that they are, and thus think that it's okay and give into that temptation, it should be avoided.

Don't forget that anal sex is not something exclusive to gay couples. It is ALSO bad by the regulations - if a male female couple engage in it - as many do. MANY of these "religious" rules were actually codifed for health and safety reasons.

[TikindiDragon]

"NobleOwl" - sorry to be dense but since that wasn't you, who are you actually ? It would be good to know; I am not instantly privy to that info and haven't the energy to go look...

ShineyTomato

[KageSora]

@Rowiehz: I'm sorry that happened to you. I do think, in the future, you might want to preface what you say by making it clear that just because you believe a certain way you don't think that belief automatically should be forced on other people, though.

 

That's mostly because there is a nasty segment of very loud "Christians" who just hate anybody who is different for them, and unfortunately they're the loudest group. And the most obvious. Because, y'know, all the proper Christians are just doing their own thing, being decent people and all. And it's easier to notice the jerks than the decent people going about their business...

 

It's like, the nasty "Christians" (who don't act very Christian at all), have become the obvious things you see, and unfortunately a lot of people DO have nasty experiences with such "Christians", so it makes people wary and likely to attack before letting you finish speaking.

 

It doesn't make that right, of course, and it's still wrong for them to attack you, but I can understand the assumption. I think that there needs to be a much louder voice coming from the decent Christians to combat that.

 

 

Sadly, what I seem to notice is this:

 

The loudest group is the "God hates gays, you're horrible monsters you stupid abominations you will burn and I will love watching you burn in Hell" group. They're a very vocal group.

 

The second loudest is the "I don't hate you for being gay, but just so you know it's a perversion of the way you were designed and you shouldn't get married because it's wrong and I think you really need to be saved from your choice" group. They're... Honestly not much better.

 

The third group tends to be the "I personally think it's wrong, but I'm not going to force my views on you, just don't give me the details of what you do in the bedroom" group. This group I think really needs to speak up more, to make themselves heard more.

 

The quietest one tends to be the "I'm not gay, but I don't personally believe it's a sin since God made you that way--He wouldn't make you gay and then not want you treated the same way as those of us who He didn't make gay!" group. This is the group I think REALLY needs to make their voices heard, they get overlooked and forgotten and many people don't even realize there ARE Christians who don't feel it's a sin to be gay since that's how you were made.

 

 

But like I said, the "burn in Hell you flaming abominations" group tends to be the one that gets the most attention, from what I've observed... And, because of that, it tends to be the first group people think of when somebody says "I think it should be X way".

 

Of course, like I said, even if that's the case it doesn't excuse the way you were treated. Just might explain the reasoning behind it a bit.

 

 

 

(Keep in mind, too, that this is just my observations. It's likely different depending on where you go online and/or where you live. Different places will have different distributions of members of those "categories" of Christianity and whatnot)

[Fuzzbucket]

ShineyTomato

Fank you I should have been able to work that our from the style

[ShinyTomato]

Fank you I should have been able to work that our from the style

What she meant actually, was that she originally posted with my account because I left my computer logged in, then deleted it and posted it from hers. Haha.

 

But yep, Nascha and I are married. Together 11 or 12 years depending on how you count, through one rape, two kids one from the rape, seven heart attacks, three breakups when I was younger and trying to make myself straight through electroshock and vomit therapy, pushy relatives, my crazy work hours, her relatives disapproving, one failed wedding when Prop 8 passed and her making WAY more money than me.

 

At the end of the day, I was hummiliated, chewed out and absolutely walked over and I felt so horrible, because I just said what I think for myself. And what I think for myself does NOT apply to others. People are so often to immediately relate it to themselves. So much for having an own opinion.

 

I am sorry that happened to you. That group was very wrong. I won't defend their behaviour, no one should feel attacked or humiliated in public. It was likely a defence mechanism of them having experienced a lot of hardship because of people who say it just like that.

 

honestly think the original way is the one of male and female because the anatomy is just meant that way.

 

After having such a bad experience, I don't want to pressure you, but can I ask you several questions about this stance? Not bringing religion into it at all, I promise, and no yelling or humiliating -- just so I can better understand your position?

[Rowiehz]

After having such a bad experience, I don't want to pressure you, but can I ask you several questions about this stance? Not bringing religion into it at all, I promise, and no yelling or humiliating -- just so I can better understand your position?

Of course! Like said, my opinion is just a matter of anatomy and biology. Pretty much, male and female have intercourse and you have a child. That's it. Other than that, there is not really much a thought behind it. I'm rather simple as that.

 

I can see however, that this sometimes insults people who think differently. That's where I say that this is my personal favored thought, like anyone has their own.

 

Ugh, it's hard to explain... but in the end it comes down to this. I'm a christian, I am straight, I have my own prefered personal opinion, but that doesn't mean I say that everything that differs from it is bad or wrong.

 

Just wanted to throw that out there. But go for it! I'll gladly answer some questions (:

[ShinyTomato]

Of course! Like said, my opinion is just a matter of anatomy and biology. Pretty much, male and female have intercourse and you have a child. That's it. Other than that, there is not really much a thought behind it. I'm rather simple as that.

 

Awesome! Thanks!

 

I totally see where you're coming from with that, I do, which is what prompts these questions.

 

But just curious -- what's you're opinion of the biological differences between gay and straight people? I won't bore you with a list, just a few differences.

 

Like gay men and straight women have equally proportioned brain hemispheres. while lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres, and the VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men, while the average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is the same size as INAH-3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains -- things like that. which can't be chosen or changed.

 

 

Also, what's your opinion of people who are intersexed, who have both male and female parts, or an unusual chromosome set up like XXY

 

On a purely anatomical level, what about the fact that neither the clitoris nor the prostate is directly stimulated/stimulated at all in heterosexual sex, when both are incredibly sensitive?

 

Last question, I swear! What about couples who are infertile, sterile, or the wife is allergic to the husband's sperm?

 

I promise I'm not offended! I'm just trying to get a feel for the position you hold is all.

[BatPopsicle]

I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I am so torn and confused. My mother grew up in a traditional catholic family and my dads family was protestant but didn't go to church. When my mom and dad married my mother still called herself a catholic but strayed away from going to church and all the other practices. We never went to church or observed lent etc. After they divorced she found religion again and then jammed it down our throats. We suddenly went from doing what we had always done and trying to be good people to being told that everything we were doing was considered sinful. I still struggle with this every day. Especially when my own mother was giving us info that would change depending on the situation or how she felt that day. So I am at the point where I question everything she says. Mind you I am a married adult now with two little girls but I still have to hear this stuff when we talk on the phone.

 

Here is a conversation we had a few years ago. Be aware that I did want serious answers but I was also antagonizing her at the same time.

 

Me: Why is being gay and maybe having sex so wrong?

Mom: Because God and the Bible says it is.

Me: Where in the Bible does it say that?

Mom proceeds to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah. Then pulls out a book of Dogma and shows me a paragraph saying how it would be better off never being born than being gay.

Me: Okay, but why is it wrong?

Mom: Because marriage and sex are meant to be between a man and a woman.

Me: Why?

Mom: Because the purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together in a pure relationship and have children.

Me: So sex is only okay if a child is produced?

Mom: No. It is not a sin for married men and women to be together and have sex and not have a child come from it.

Me: Is it a sin if they enjoy it even though there might not be a child conceived?

Mom: No, they are allowed to enjoy it. As long as they aren't using birth control to stop a pregnancy.

Me: So this is all about sex I see. So why is bad for a married gay people to enjoy sex but not married straight people?

Mom: Because it just is. Being gay is a sin!!!!!

Me: So can people be gay and just decide to not have sex? It would be no different then two really really close friends of the same sex.

Mom: No, It is bad because being gay is bad. It is a test from god and they need to just not be gay.

Me: So answer me this. Which is worse....being gay or getting an abortion?

Mom: Both are bad but I would think an abortion would be worse.

Me: So maybe being gay would be good because they can't produce children and have any abortions.

 

Then she gets mad and ends the conversation and says to just believe what she says. This was just the gist of the conversation but this is what I had to deal with. I just don't understand how she doesn't see how ridiculous she sounds sometimes.

 

Logically I don't have a problem with people being gay. But then I have this little voice in my head saying it's not a good thing. I want it out of my head and my heart. I have gay friends and they know my confusion about this. I just feel like a hypocrite because I am friends with them but 50% of me doesn't condone what they do. I hate this.

 

 

ShinyTomato: "Also, what's your opinion of people who are intersexed, who have both male and female parts, or an unusual chromosome set up like XXY "

 

I had asked my mom about this a long time ago. Get this, she told me that is just their cross to bear and that they should remain alone. WTH?!?! They were created that way. Wouldn't they be allowed to choose? If God made them that way, then he is forcing them to be gay either way. How is being gay wrong if it came from God?

Edited November 28, 2012 by BatPopsicle

[Syaoransbear]

On a purely anatomical level, what about the fact that neither the clitoris nor the prostate is directly stimulated/stimulated at all in heterosexual sex, when both are incredibly sensitive?

The clitoris is stimulated if you have sex with really fat guys

[ShinyTomato]

Mom proceeds to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Biggest misconception ever. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with consensual sex, and everything to do with attempted rape and inhospitality.

 

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.And they were haughty, and committed this abomination before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

 

and they need to just not be gay.

 

I have the brain issues from electroshock, the scarring on my throat from vomit therapy, and the daughter from someone who thought corrective rape would make me straight. Still gay. If it were that easy...

 

I had asked my mom about this a long time ago. Get this, she told me that is just their cross to bear and that they should remain alone. WTH?!?! They were created that way. Wouldn't they be allowed to choose? If God made them that way, then he is forcing them to be gay either way. How is being gay wrong if it came from God?

 

It's the same argument as if G-d made someone gay, because there s a HUGE list of physical differences between gay people and heterosexual people that they were created that way.

[Fuzzbucket]

The clitoris is stimulated if you have sex with really fat guys 

 

Actually - what does that have to do with gay marriage ? they wouldn't be - um - using that combination, if you - er - see what I -

 

I can't actually find the words to say what occurred to me at that point...

Edited November 28, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Syaoransbear]

   

 

Actually - what does that have to do with gay marriage ? they wouldn't be - um - using that combination, if you - er - see what I -

 

I can't actually find the words to say what occurred to me at that point...

Heh it was just a passing thought about heterosexual sex not stimulating the clitoris heheheh