Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

I'm going to start out saying that if anyone thinks I'm getting to angry or anything, let me know. I've "exploded" (best word I can think of) way to many times on this site.

 

I'm also going to try to follow TikindiDragon's advice, sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to.

 

I am personally against homosexuality, for several reasons. I will be honest though, I used to think the Old Testament (derp, I forgot to say that I am a Christian) writings about it being wrong were enough. Which they aren't. Christ himself made a new covenant, we don't have to follow the old one anymore. Verse

 

I don't think like that anymore though (obviously). But something Bacon said a while back prompted me to research, I did find this verse(s), as well as several others, indicating it to still be wrong. Not to mention this passage, which indicates that we should continue to follow Old Testament laws if it might cause others to falter in their faith. (Which doesn't apply at all to non-Christians.)

 

I don't believe in hating homosexuals, if anything it gives all the more reason to show them the love of Christ. And, just to clarify, I mean that because of oppression, suicide, and stuff, not because what they're doing is wrong. (Though I do believe it is.)

 

And lastly, for anyone who might think I have no personal experience, my favorite cousin is a lesbian.

 

But that's all just my opinion, no one is forced to follow it. However, marriage is a religious practice, I think the government should stay out of it. If a pastor, priest, etc is willing to marry a homosexual couple, it's their right. But I don't think the government should have a say either way.

 

P.S. That last bit is a bit rushed, I just really want to get this post out before I leave. Sorry if it sounds stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

...then logically you would apply that same principle to heterosexuals who also cannot produce children for reasons beyond their control...

 

Actually, at one time, and not all that long ago, this was the case. The Roman Catholic church at least forbade people who were known to be unable to reproduce, such as men who had been gelded, from marrying. There was a famous case of a Castrato -- a man who had been gelded in childhood to preserve his beautiful voice. He fell in love with a woman, and they desperately wanted to marry, but the church denied them the right, and they both died not long after. It is believed they died of broken hearts, because they longed to be able to marry. This was several centuries ago, but I think there was a similar case not all that long ago. Just a few decades ago, I think. I need to google this, as soon as I have the time to wade through a ton of links. :-)

 

Some theologians actually made the connection you just mentioned, but in a negative way. They claimed that if the church decided that the prohibition against birth control, and against people known to be unable to reproduce, were dropped, then there would be no logical prohibition against homosexuality. In my opinion, this is why the Roman Catholic church still holds that birth control should be forbidden. As I say, this is just my opinion.

 

ETA: I thought I should make it clear that I am totally in favour of equal marriage for gays and lesbians, and in favour of equal rights in every other way. I always have been. :-)

Edited by Jennie

Share this post


Link to post
I'm going to start out saying that if anyone thinks I'm getting to angry or anything, let me know. I've "exploded" (best word I can think of) way to many times on this site.

 

I'm also going to try to follow TikindiDragon's advice, sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to.

 

I am personally against homosexuality, for several reasons. I will be honest though, I used to think the Old Testament (derp, I forgot to say that I am a Christian) writings about it being wrong were enough. Which they aren't. Christ himself made a new covenant, we don't have to follow the old one anymore. Verse

 

I don't think like that anymore though (obviously). But something Bacon said a while back prompted me to research, I did find this verse(s), as well as several others, indicating it to still be wrong. Not to mention this passage, which indicates that we should continue to follow Old Testament laws if it might cause others to falter in their faith. (Which doesn't apply at all to non-Christians.)

 

I don't believe in hating homosexuals, if anything it gives all the more reason to show them the love of Christ. And, just to clarify, I mean that because of oppression, suicide, and stuff, not because what they're doing is wrong. (Though I do believe it is.)

 

And lastly, for anyone who might think I have no personal experience, my favorite cousin is a lesbian.

 

But that's all just my opinion, no one is forced to follow it. However, marriage is a religious practice, I think the government should stay out of it. If a pastor, priest, etc is willing to marry a homosexual couple, it's their right. But I don't think the government should have a say either way.

 

P.S. That last bit is a bit rushed, I just really want to get this post out before I leave. Sorry if it sounds stupid.

No, Holy Matrimony is a religious practice. Marriage is not inherently religious. Even if gay marriage were uniformly legal, churches would not be forced to marry gay couples in Holy Matrimony. I think the opposite. I think the church should stay out of a governmental function.

Share this post


Link to post

However, marriage is a religious practice, I think the government should stay out of it. If a pastor, priest, etc is willing to marry a homosexual couple, it's their right. But I don't think the government should have a say either way.

Within the U.S., marriage is not singularly a religious practice. It is both a legal and a religious practice. If it were just a religious practice, then those who are not of Catholic practice could not be wedded in the States.

 

Secondly, Church and State are separate, meaning that the church cannot make laws or decide them. Marriage has been dominantly left to the States with a Full Faith and Credit Clause written in the Constitution for the Federal Government to act upon. In addition, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) has been found unconstitutional as it denies equal rights to a specific group of citizens. If you'd like to dig deeper, you can go back to the days when interracial marriage was frowned upon until it became accepted. Again, marriage is both a legal and religious practice, allowing anyone to get married if they desire. Why else would polygamous marriages, interracial marriages, and non-religious married couples be accepted and recognized by even extreme Catholics?

 

EDIT: I want to also point out that if marriage was truly a religious practice, then divorce would not be accepted. Yet divorce is higher than the rate of marriages.

Edited by Narvix

Share this post


Link to post

Why else would polygamous marriages, interracial marriages, and non-religious married couples be accepted and recognized by even extreme Catholics?

Eh, *choughs* Actually from a point of doctrine the Catholic Church doesn't recognise all marriages conducted outside of it's own orders. For the Catholic Church to recognise a marriage it would hvae to have been conducted using certain forms (those in accordance with cannons 1055 and 1056).

 

So, yeah. If the people concerned had not, for example, been Baptised then technically the Church doesn't recognise the of covenant of Holy Matrimony as having been performed. The Church will perform convalidation rites for those 'married' couples whos marriage is not considered valid by the Church.

 

Edit to add: Incidently the Catholic Church doesn't recognise Civil Divorces either. If you are divorced and wished to marry in a Catholic manner you would first have to go via a tribunal to have your original marriage annuled. They don't always agree to do so, either. Divorced without an annulment = not able to re-marry in the Catholic Faith.

 

At least from that point of view Catholics are somewhat more consistant than Protestants.

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

But that's all just my opinion, no one is forced to follow it. However, marriage is a religious practice, I think the government should stay out of it.

Except it isn't a religious practice. Not unless you want it to be. People can get married in the eyes of the government without ever setting foot in a church. Married people have certain rights and benefits in regards to each other that non-married people don't

 

Because of that I say the opposite. Marriage is a civil affair and religion should stay out of it, apart from the fraction of marriages that are covered by their denomination.

Edited by Pokemonfan13

Share this post


Link to post

Yyyeah Jennie that's a really messed up practice. Sounds terribly arbitrary to me, but back then it was people's top priority to have lots of babies so they wouldn't die out. Back then it made sense, but in today's age it has no place. sad.gif

 

However, marriage is a religious practice, I think the government should stay out of it. If a pastor, priest, etc is willing to marry a homosexual couple, it's their right. But I don't think the government should have a say either way.

As said above, marriage is most definitely not a purely religious practice and should not be treated as such. In fact, it appears that marriage may predate the written word (Mesopotamian people did marry, and they were the ones who invented writing). Assyrians also continued the practice of marriage in the Cradle of Civilization. People married in ancient Egypt. Chinese marriage certainly predates Christianity by some centuries.

 

That said however, the government has stuck its fingers into marriage practices before. For example, polygamy is illegal in a whole lot of places because some men have been known to force young girls under the age of consent to marry them against their will, which comes with a whole slew of issues. Christian people are not allowed to stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding day. The precedent was set a long time ago when they told Mormons that no, a man can't marry six 15-year old girls. I'm pretty sure the cops would get involved if a Christian widow dragged her brother-in-law into the street, took his shoe, spat in his face and publicly shamed him for refusing to rape her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Rape itself continues to be illegal regardless of whether she's a virgin, whether she's engaged, or whether her rapist pays her dad the 50 silver shekels and forces her to marry him (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, and yes I know that paying her dad and marrying her with no chance of divorce is supposed to be atonement for raping her, but it doesn't change the fact that rape happened, the damage is done, and forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is really messed up!). All of the above are religious rules with regard to marriage, but are illegal. Why the big stink about the government allowing more consenting adults to get married? This kind of debate makes me glad to be Canadian.

 

And FYI, saying "I'm against homosexuality" is a lot like saying "I'm against [race]" or "I'm against women". Like race and biological sex, homosexuality is not a choice; who wants to live every day in fear of their lives? You're opposed to a trait of a person that they were born with and can't change, and which doesn't affect you in the slightest. That's scary.

 

And before anyone pulls out the "it's unnatural" card: gay swans. One will mate with a female and then chase her away from the nest so he and his partner can raise the chick. See also: gay lions. Plenty of animals are homosexual. It's perfectly natural.

 

----

Tangent: one of the arguments I used to hear a lot were men going "I don't want men to hit on me", and I've always wanted to say to them, "Welcome to the life of women all over the world".

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

So you let this bit of fear get in the way of open support? Honestly, what should you care about what others say? It's their opinion and your support is your opinion. If they don't like it, tough. They can deal with it. It doesn't affect them in any aspect.

You wouldn't understand my predicament (nor would pretty much anyone else). In the end, there's a lot that can be damaged if I shared my opinion, including the realistic possiblity of financial worries for years to come.

 

Additionally, there is no such thing as homophobia. It is not a fear of homosexuality. In reality, the term is simply used as a more 'polite' way to describe someone as being discriminatory or having bigotry towards a different sexuality. I mean, do you hear terms describing someone having issues with another person for being pansexual or transgender that ends in "phobia?" No. So, it'd be a very nice thing if people stopped using homophobia in place of "bigot" or simply "intolerance." It's not a fear; it's intolerance and discrimination.

Good point there. You realize something new each day. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post

You can't really be against homosexuality. You can be against gay rights, not homosexuality. Being homosexual isn't a choice. Just like I can't go around saying "I'm against cats." (I actually love cats :P) But I could say "I'm against cat rights." Or "I'm against animal rights."

Share this post


Link to post

Lots and lots of stuffs. Hehe. I'd like to start off by stating my thanks for people not attacking my personal beliefs.

 

EDIT: Ooh, toppage!

 

I can't reply to everything, so I'll just hop in with more stuff.

 

As I said above, the last bit in my earlier post was rushed. Several people mentioned to me that marriage wasn't religious, and most showed how the government already had it's fingers in it. Which I am against, I don't see them coming out anytime soon, but letting them stick more in isn't going to help anything. I did see someone mention "separation of church and state" in some form, which means that neither can interfere with the other. The church can't make laws, and the government can't make laws regarding the church. Unless of course the church is doing something that refutes people's basic rights. (I could go on and on about why that law was even created in the first place.)

 

In the above post it's stated that marriage predates the written word. Now if you have my beliefs, marriage is one of the earlier rights man received from God. Verse

So I agree with you there.

 

Then your bit about religious rules, I don't believe those need be followed. I don't really understand why those laws were put there in the first place, it's not my job to know. (For the ones involving Deuteronomy.) Now of course, that's just me, there might be others who believe somehow that those things should continue. I personally believe that at the time there was a reason, but whatever that reason was no longer applies. And there are also plenty of verses (I won't bother looking them up ATM) indicating that we should obey the government even when we disagree with the administration.

 

without referencing anything from your precious bible because people of all ages and all religions tend to twist the words of their sacred texts into something that fits their desires.

Additionally, my post does make sense. It was simply misdirected. People do manipulate their sacred texts to better fit their desires. It ties into why I am not a big fan of the Catholic religion. During slavery, 'religious' folk used the bible to give reason for brutally torturing/beating, raping, and killing slave and non-slave folk. They also used it as a main reason to have slavery itself outside of the desire to keep the Cotton Kingdom successful. It was similarly twisted to benefit the Caucasian settlers and take advantage of Native Americans (I personally believe Native Americans had a far better religion and were more 'proper religious folks' than the Catholics).

I'm glad you made this point as I was going to as well. I have seen photos of Facebook statuses where someone against same-sex marriage points out a quote from the bible saying that "man should not lie with another man as he would lie with woman." The circled response to that status is someone pointing out that, firstly, it meant that man should not lay down with another man as if he were property because, back in that age, women were property - not people - and there were laws that prevented a man from laying down with another man's "property."

All this is contradictory, "manipulating their sacred texts" implies not going on the literal reading of a text and instead trying to find some less obvious answer that suits your own personal beliefs.

 

And in my personal opinion, "proper religious folks" are not what they appear. The Sanhedrin was comprised of "proper religious folks", and Christ was always reprimanding members for being hypocritical. I am by no means "proper", I'll be the first to admit I'm a pretty bad person. (I'm going to stop here so this doesn't turn into a rant about why I believe what I do.)

 

Then there's "be fruitful and multiply", which is an absurd reason (IMO) to be against homosexuality. This verse(s) specifically states that it best to go unmarried (so that you can concentrate on spiritual matters) unless you don't think you can restrain yourself. (I.E. Avoid having sex outside of marriage.) Just because we are intended to reproduce doesn't mean we have to.

 

I'd also like to say something about an earlier comment, someone said you have to be Christian to be a Republican candidate, that pretty well sickens me. Even if I disagree with someones religious beliefs they still have a right to run for a government office. I also heard something about the Tea Party? I know my mom is pretty extreme Republican, I've heard some bad stuff about the Tea Party from her. Other than that I don't know much. (Elections seem to be "who's less bad" rather than "Who's better" lately.)

 

And lastly, if someone can find a clear Biblical passage that indicates the homosexuality isn't wrong, I will switch my position in a snap.

 

P.S. In addition, some warning signs for me being about to explode would be when I start saying completely idiotic things that have no real pertinence to the debate.

 

Addendum: Real quick before I post this.

do you hear terms describing someone having issues with another person for being pansexual or transgender that ends in "phobia?"

Yes, transphobia. I actually had someone explain this to me a while back. And I'm pretty sure pansexuality is usually counted under homosexuality in cases like this. (Though they're different.)

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to share my opinions on the matter of gay rights and marriage.

 

Love is love. I don't think it should matter whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Not allowing gay/lesbians couples to marry is discrimination. To me, it's the same as not allowing blacks to have rights. Homosexuals are people and they should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post

No, homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia may not exactly be fears, but they have worked their way into popular language. Language evolves, and that's okay.

 

However, if you're looking for other terms:

  • Heterosexism - discrimination against homosexuals; the assumption that heterosexuality is the default
  • Monosexism - discrimination against non-monosexuals such as bi- and pan- folk
  • Cissexism - discrimination against transfolk; the assumption that cisgendered is the default
  • Transmisogyny - the misogyny faced by transwomen for being trans*
  • Binarism - the assumption that there are only two genders; erasure of non-binary gendered folk

And I'm pretty sure pansexuality is usually counted under homosexuality in cases like this. (Though they're different.)

 

This is a monosexist issue, though, that acts as though bi- and pan- folk face the same issues as homosexual folk. It erases their unique struggle and is often used to silence how the LG(BT) community itself discriminates against them.

 

I just set the example by being straight.

 

Well, thanks for showing me how to be a heterosexual, but that doesn't change the fact that I was born panromantic, sometimes aromantic, asexual, and it doesn't stop me from being attracted to people other than cismales.

Share this post


Link to post

What I don't really get is why so many people are so interested in what other people do. How does it really affect them if men can marry men and women can marry women? They're already living together, so preventing them from marrying isn't going to stop them from seeing same-sex couples. And marriage is not a religious act in and of itself. They can still refuse to perform that kind of marriage in their church, even if it is made legal. So why do they care so much????

Share this post


Link to post

And lastly, if someone can find a clear Biblical passage that indicates the homosexuality isn't wrong, I will switch my position in a snap.

1 Samuel

 

18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

 

*cough*

 

You know, that kind of dancey-dance wording is kind of really super common in erotic works even today.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, those who say gays and lesbians are terrible (which I will acknowledge is not everyone) are kinda oxymoronic. I mean, if He thought they were so sinful, then why on earth would He create them like that?

Share this post


Link to post

He doesn't think they're any more terrible than anyone else, He loves them equally as any other human being.

 

And quite honestly, David and Jonathan might have been homosexual. I didn't ask for an example, I asked for something stating that it wasn't wrong. David was by no means perfect, there's plenty of evidence of him making mistakes. Abraham, the "father" of God's chosen people. Practically forced his wife to commit adultery, and yet he's called a "friend of God".

 

And Sock, you're right. I did mean culturally though. It may be incorrect, but people still generalize issues of sexuality into a large group.

 

There happy.gif

 

Addendum:

Psycho, I would list all my faults for you, but it would probably take up the whole page.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Master, would you mind explaining to me exactly why you're against gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post

Also 1 Samuel:

 

18:14 And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the LORD was with him.

 

Why would God be with someone who committed a Levitican "abomination"?

 

most showed how the government already had it's fingers in it. Which I am against, I don't see them coming out anytime soon, but letting them stick more in isn't going to help anything.

Forgot to also respond to this one.

 

So if you want the government to take its hands out of religious affairs, do you realize that men will then be expected to do their duty as brothers-in-law and rape the widows of their childless deceased brothers? That women will be put to death for marrying after losing their virginity*? Do you actually believe that a rapist should be allowed to literally buy his victim from her father and force her into an unbreakable marriage as long as she's an unpromised virgin at the time of the attack? Because those are in Deuteronomy. You're telling us that some portions of the old testament should still be applied if it keeps people from wavering in their faith, but in your own words, you're not one to say which ones. Where you don't follow the property laws of Deuteronomy, someone else does. Where some people don't follow Leviticus, someone else does. The government stepped in to protect the rights of human beings that are being violated by these rules, and you want them out? Pulling the government out of marriage laws is a huge step backward for human rights. Terrifying. :|

 

* Related contradiction: The Bible says to honor widows and allow them to remarry, but how do they do that if they are to be put to death for not being virgins?

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post
Oy, I'm not against gay marriage. I explained my position in my first post.

I'm sorry, I didn't really understand. So you are for gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post

Oy, again. I'd like to better explain my position. But it's getting late and I can't say I'd be thinking rationally.

 

But as for the first part: Is this righteous?

 

And for the rest, I would like to mention (again) that I specifically said that that only applied to Christians. And seriously? How is any of that going to cause people to falter. (If anything doing it will cause problems.)

 

Lastly, you're connecting all my statements as if they refer to each other. I believe those items in Deuteronomy would violate the people's basic rights.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't really understand. So you are for gay marriage?

Yes, in essence. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe it's within people's rights to marry who they wish.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

So why do you think homosexuality is wrong? It really makes no sense to me. Less sense than being against gay marriage. Homosexuality is just the way people are.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't ask for an example, I asked for something stating that it wasn't wrong.

 

Why would this make some sort of difference?

 

Most of the rules in the books of the OT which make statements about the 'abomination' of a man lying with another man as with a woman, have to do with the Holiness Code, which was intended to mark a separation between the Jews and the evil pagan peoples around them. 'God' had ordered the Jews to kill all these pagans whenever possible, but he also wanted the Jews to make it clear that they were separate from them. Since most civilizations at that time didn't see any big problem with homosexuality, the Jews needed to develop that problem to stress their differences. Who at that time was going to write: 'Oh, by the way, homosexuality isn't wrong!' That was what the evil pagans thought.

 

Later on, by the time of the NT, we don't see Jesus saying that it's wrong or not wrong. Or, at least no one wrote such words down. The Jews were still maintaining their separation from the pagans, and Christianity was a religion that sprang from Judaism. Saint Paul says it's wrong, but he never met Jesus. But again, Christianity wanted to keep its separation from the pagans. Pagans usually didn't care that much about gay sex and so on. In order to stress how wrong paganism was, Christianity had to call this sort of attitude sinful.

 

But as for the first part: Is this righteous?

 

No, this is most certainly not righteous. But this is about rape and murder in a heterosexual context, which seems to me to have nothing to do with a righteous homosexual love. Maybe David behaved this way because he lost his mind after Jonathan died, or because he became too powerful and thought everything he did was right and good. But I don't see why the way he treated Bathsheba smears his relationship with Jonathan, which was years in the past.

Edited by Jennie

Share this post


Link to post
So you let this bit of fear get in the way of open support? Honestly, what should you care about what others say? It's their opinion and your support is your opinion. If they don't like it, tough. They can deal with it. It doesn't affect them in any aspect.

 

Additionally, there is no such thing as homophobia. It is not a fear of homosexuality. In reality, the term is simply used as a more 'polite' way to describe someone as being discriminatory or having bigotry towards a different sexuality. I mean, do you hear terms describing someone having issues with another person for being pansexual or transgender that ends in "phobia?" No. So, it'd be a very nice thing if people stopped using homophobia in place of "bigot" or simply "intolerance." It's not a fear; it's intolerance and discrimination.

 

 

 

I'm glad you made this point as I was going to as well. I have seen photos of Facebook statuses where someone against same-sex marriage points out a quote from the bible saying that "man should not lie with another man as he would lie with woman." The circled response to that status is someone pointing out that, firstly, it meant that man should not lay down with another man as if he were property because, back in that age, women were property - not people - and there were laws that prevented a man from laying down with another man's "property." Additionally, they pointed out that the original person should take note of the rest of the corresponding book; highlighting that it condemned women to death for not being a virgin until their wedding day, condemned to death those that committed rape or laid with another man as if he were property and so forth. Thus, we'd be putting practically the entire population beyond the age of 12/13 (these days x.x) on death row or filling our prisons with radical Catholics who saw fit to murder the rest of the population for sex before marriage, rape, or treating someone else like property.

 

Similarly, Nick, there is no example to set by "being straight." You can't set an example on who to love, the human heart/mind/emotions doesn't work like that. If you're gay, you're gay. If you're straight, you're straight. If you're pansexual, you're pansexual. Sure, the old days saw married couples referred to as "beards" because a gay man and lesbian women wedded each other but felt no sexual attraction towards each other. Going off of Lyth's point, you can't be barren most of your life and one day say "I'm going to get pregnant." It doesn't work. Similarly, some people don't want kids or they are fit to be parents because of their life habits/styles and ultimate decisions. To have children (adopted or not), you should have a general acceptance that you will be responsible for that child (or children) and that you will care for them with a loving heart, putting them before yourself.

 

The exact case goes for homosexuals. They can't wake up one day and say "oh! I actually am attracted to the opposite sex! Silly me!" Instead, the reverse happens. Most heterosexuals put homosexuals into an uncomfortable world where they are condemned for being who they are when this world always encourages people to be who they truly are. So, what are certain young folk going to do? Believe themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex in fear of judgement but lead an unhappy life when they can't find someone they can feel companionship with. Then, when they realize they are growing attracted to someone of their own gender, they fear it and try to deny what's in their heart, try to deny who they are and end up more miserable. Now, if they came to terms with it, they still face the fear of judgement from those around them, especially their family. And what sort of world is this that kids fear their own family? It's not right. It's sickeningly twisted. And it makes me lose hope in this world.

 

Now, let me provide you with a bit of facts. There are hundreds of animal breeds across the entire planet who have homosexuality mingled in with heterosexuality. The human race is the only animal breed that has creatures who are against homosexuality. And for what reason? Because homosexuality is different from the so called "norm?" There is no such thing as "normal" these days and, if being different was the bases for others being intolerant, then those same people should be intolerant of all those who have birth defects, who have genetic diseases, who are disabled, who are "different" because of their DNA or physical traits that are not found in those who are "normal."

 

I have glasses and I have burn scars that make me different from the next person without glasses or burn scars. Does that give them the right to be intolerant of me? My eyes are weaker than what's average or "normal" to be because of my DNA, because of what I inherited. Yet many tolerate me and I'm free to be myself.

 

What of a blind individual? Or a disabled veteran? Or a child with blood disease? Same questions apply. So, why not to same-sex couples, transgender or pansexual individuals?

 

EDIT: That was a lot to say and I know some of it may be "kicking the dead horse" or not fully make sense to anyone else.

The passage you were refering to (man lying with another man) I read is actually translated as it is a sin for two men to lie in a woman's bed, so as long as he didn't claim a man as property and didn't do anything with him in his wife's/sisters'/female friends' bed he was fine.

 

@Weavile Honestly I think the part you are refering too about following the old testament has more to do with how we treat our fellow man, laying our fields to fallow, and the ten commandments. Other wise we should stop eating pork because we as a society eat too much already, and shellfish since we are over fishing.

 

@sparkle he is for gay marriage in the states because of 'seperation between church and state' but believes being gay or anything else is a sin, and that by setting the example some may turn away from sin.

 

Weavile go ahead and correct me if I got that wrong that was just what I understood as I schimed the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.