Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

People are sinful, they make mistakes. Homosexuality is not a worse sin than any other. That's why it makes a difference. David not being perfect is no indication of homosexuality not being wrong.

 

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.

I find this highly insulting, it implies that early Christians made stuff up so they would be different.

 

I believe that Paul was inspired by God. I don't just believe part of the Bible. If I only wanted to believe part I could easily just pick out what was culturally right and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

And sparkle, some people kill people because of mental diseases, they can't really help it, it's just the way they are. Does that make killing any less wrong?

 

EDIT: briartrainer

You're pretty close, but I think you're confusing me with nicknick. I do believe that passage refers to all of the law. For me to be setting an example wouldn't mean being against homosexuality, it would mean simply not being homosexual. I have heard testimonies from Christians who are homosexual, I believe them no less to be Christians than I. I believe that any person, no matter how great or small their sins, can be saved. My belief that homosexuality is wrong makes me no less sinful, nor does it make anyone homosexual any less human.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Killing is ending a person's life. That's it. They're gone, not coming back. How can you compare killing to homosexuality? Love and killing are NOT the same. Killing is hurting someone. Does someone else's love hurt you personally?

I can not even begin to understand how you can compare love to killing.

Share this post


Link to post

I find this highly insulting, it implies that early Christians made stuff up so they would be different.

 

No, they just went along with the statements in the OT, in the Holiness Code, which said that two men lying together was an abomination. The pagans around them did not look on same-sex relations that way. The ancient Greeks thought love between two men was better than heterosexual love. The Romans didn't go quite that far, but they didn't see it as abominable.

 

I don't just believe part of the Bible. If I only wanted to believe part I could easily just pick out what was culturally right and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

So, you also believe the parts of the Bible that say that we can't wear clothes made of two different fabrics and that slavery is okay, and that when an army defeats another nation it's okay for the men to claim all the women as their wives and that if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night she should be dragged out and stoned?

Share this post


Link to post
So, you also believe the parts of the Bible that say that we can't wear clothes made of two different fabrics and that slavery is okay, and that when an army defeats another nation it's okay for the men to claim all the women as their wives and that if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night she should be dragged out and stoned?

Simply: Yes.

 

BUT, I have stated multiple times that I don't believe it to apply any longer.

 

And sparkle, I can. If someone has a mental disease, and they kill someone, can they honestly help it?

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.

 

 

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

Sending a man out to die in order to take his wife? Is that even a question? David's later deeds aside, 1 Samuel details that two men are in love and that God is with one of them (but not with the other for an unrelated reason). Surely it does not condemn him to hell (as many people believe it would!) if God is still with him after they fall in love.

 

It's important to realize that in the original scripture, from which the Bible is translated, there was no word for homosexuality and therefore no real biblical law actually exists in relation to it, much less to condemn. Plenty of things are not explicitly stated as sinful in the bible, and by that same coin some things that are seen as morally wrong in the bible are not compatible with today's age:

 

- "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender." Proverbs 22:7

- "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:11-12

 

tl;dr take your scripture with a grain of salt, for the good of everything you hold dear.

 

EDIT: WOW OKAY so you just said outright that you believe a woman should be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? That's disgusting and shameful, and it goes directly against the NT message of love and goodwill. If you're also saying that you don't think it applies anymore, you're contradicting yourself. You can't believe that something should happen and believe at the same time that it should not.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

No, they can't help it. But it is still wrong. Killing is taking someone's life. It is always wrong, whether the killer chose to or not.

Homosexuality is just love. Why is love wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how someone can disagree with homosexuality? Like. Do you walk up to a women and say "I disagree with you being a woman, but I think you can still be saved." or tell your african-american friend "I don't agree with being black, but i have nothing against you personally. I just think who you are is sinful." How is that a legitimate viewpoint?

 

@Master: How can you believe any of that has ever been appropriate human conduct????

Share this post


Link to post

*Sighs* I'm going to have to drop out at this point, at least for this time. If you wish you may view it as a concession, or maybe me just turning tail and running. But at this point I'm tired of defending my personal beliefs repetitively.

 

@sparkle

If you wish to continue discussing with me, you may PM me. I shall try to do my best to explain my position.

 

EDIT: And Lythiaren, I don't believe you've understood me correctly. Christ specifically said that the old covenant was broken. Not in so many words. Thus, unless it somehow causes someone to falter (seriously, someone's going to falter because you didn't kill someone?), it's not wrong to do. And rather than killing these people we're supposed to help them. There's a case where Jesus was asked what should be done in that situation. It's pretty famous because he writes on the ground and no one actually knows what was written. He says for the man who is blameless to throw the first stone, I'm not going to be there throwing any stones.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think homosexuality is wrong, just as long as you realize that they deserve the right of any other and support gay marriage.

 

also lol @ "tired of defending my personal beliefs"

Share this post


Link to post
*Sighs* I'm going to have to drop out at this point, at least for this time. If you wish you may view it as a concession, or maybe me just turning tail and running. But at this point I'm tired of defending my personal beliefs repetitively.

 

@sparkle

If you wish to continue discussing with me, you may PM me. I shall try to do my best to explain my position.

 

EDIT: And Lythiaren, I don't believe you've understood me correctly. Christ specifically said that the old covenant was broken. Not in so many words. Thus, unless it somehow causes someone to falter (seriously, someone's going to falter because you didn't kill someone?), it's not wrong to do. And rather than killing these people we're supposed to help them. There's a case where Jesus was asked what should be done in that situation. It's pretty famous because he writes on the ground and no one actually knows what was written. He says for the man who is blameless to throw the first stone, I'm not going to be there throwing any stones.

Nope you said right there, in response to someone who asked you if you believed in those laws, specifically including Deuteronomy 22:21 (ie. the "if she is not a virgin STONE HER TO DEATH" passage), and your answer was "Simply: Yes". Backpedal harder, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post

I just think that if someone says, 'I have to believe the entire Bible. I can't just pick and choose things because of cultural change,' that this means you have to believe the entire Bible. And I don't know how anyone can do this in the 21st century. Whether we like it or not, our culture is very different from that of biblical times, even NT times. So, I don't see how anyone can expect Gays and Lesbians to live as though we were still back in biblical times, when heterosexuals are allowed to live in the 21st century. I mean, I can't see how someone can possibly point to Gays and Lesbians and say, 'They're sinners because it says so in the Bible!' and then turn around and claim it's okay for them to eat pork and wear two different fabrics at one time and so on. The passages that forbid two men lying together -- and it is two MEN, not two WOMEN -- occur in the same part of the bible. So, why does one passage apply today, and not another?

 

Clearly we do have to pick and choose which passages to believe and follow, and in fact, everyone does and probably everyone always has picked and chosen. What makes for a better and more just society? Jesus said the relevant things were to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself. That I have no trouble believing, though it can sometimes be hard to follow, especially when your neighbour wakes you up in the middle of the night playing loud music. :-)

Edited by Jennie

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think homosexuality is wrong, just as long as you realize that they deserve the right of any other and support gay marriage.

 

also lol @ "tired of defending my personal beliefs"

I wouldn't say I support gay marriage, but it's within people's rights. I'd say I will tolerate it.

 

I don't really get why you're laughing. I've been suffering from constant attacks for my faith. It's great and all, but I'm about sick of it.

 

and your answer was "Simply: Yes".

My answer was a simplified as you can get, yes or no. But it's much more complex than that.

 

The passages that forbid two men lying together -- and it is two MEN, not two WOMEN -- occur in the same part of the bible. So, why does one passage apply today, and not another?

I have not made a single mention of Leviticus (Or Deuteronomy or whatever) in any of my posts. I pulled my information from Romans

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Women, different passage, New Testament.

 

EDIT: Of course it's hard to follow, you think I'm perfect? According to Christ, I've committed adultery. Which falls under sexual immorality, just as homosexuality. I no "better" than anyone else, I'd consider myself pretty bad actually.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

I'm laughing because your personal beliefs are offensive as censorkip.gif, stop bawwing about defending them and just stop mentioning them. xd.png NOT THAT HARD, DUDE.

 

Yeah, see, if you can't even support those rights, then we have nothing to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post

Excuse me? That's about ten steps too far. I'm happy to defend myself, but when you say my beliefs are "as offensive as censorkip.gif" you've crossed a line.

 

I can't support it, but people are entitled to their rights. And I am entitled to my beliefs.

 

I find none of this funny, all of this is quite serious matter.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not made a single mention of Leviticus (Or Deuteronomy or whatever) in any of my posts. I pulled my information from Romans

Dodging. You were asked a question specifically and explicitly relating to whether you agreed with something in Deuteronomy. You were asked, specifically, if you agreed with Deuteronomy 22:21, that a woman who lost her virginity before marriage should be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death for whoring in her father's house. You answered, "Simply: Yes."

 

You should be ashamed.

 

And no, Zovesta telling you that your beliefs are offensive does not cross any line; you've hurt a great many people with your statements here and not all of them are homosexuals. That makes them offensive. That's also why we keep arguing against you, because your "Simply: Yes" implies that premarital sex is a crime punishable by death. I may be an unmarried agnostic virgin but even I know that it's wrong to condemn people for loving one another. That line of thinking is from an age long past.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

Yes, but this is simply the opinion of one person. Truly, truly it is. Paul was Jewish, and grew up learning the OT. He never even met Jesus, as I pointed out earlier. The reason I'm saying this is to show that he'd grown up with all the prejudices against the pagans that I mentioned, along with a lot of other prejudices common to men of his time. Even Paul himself says that people should realize this, that whatever he says is not the word of God but only his own imperfect version of it.

 

Paul believes that gays and lesbians aren't born that way, but become that way because of sin. This was just his way of explaining something he couldn't understand. He saw only one way of looking at the situation: the Bible says it's an abomination, yet here we have people sleeping with their own gender. Why? It must be because God abandoned them. The concept that perhaps this is natural for some people never entered his mind, because that wasn't the way he'd been taught. That whole passage about 'shameful lusts' is Paul demonizing something he can't understand.

 

We think differently today, because of all the studies of gays and lesbians and the fact that they have the freedom to speak up and tell us how they feel. They're no more shameful and lust-filled than anyone else. So, I don't understand how you can claim that this somehow 'proves' anything. It's just one more bigotted statement from someone who hasn't even tried to see gays and lesbians as human.

 

Edited by Jennie

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to see some verses please.

 

Also, all those books of the law were written by one person.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Reminder: Debate the topic, not the person.

 

We need to remember that this is a difficult topic because it can involve discussing a person's very being. We cannot resort to personal attacks on anyone, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Sock, but when someone says that some of my friends deserve to die, no matter how vaguely they do it, I'm going to call them on it. A warning is a small price to pay for telling people they shouldn't be telling other people they need to be killed to uphold some arbitrary outdated standard.

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, I'm pretty sure Sock was talking about me, Lyth. =P I've been way more flippant than you have.

 

I think what Weavile's trying to say is that he believes stoning a woman to death etc is right, but it shouldn't be practiced nowadays... which is still really ****ing awful because saying that a woman deserves being stoned to death, no matter the time it took place in, is really disgusting.

 

Edit: typo

Edited by Zovesta

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...:10&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...:28&version=NIV

And then there's me, I would most assuredly call myself lustful. (Though not proudly.)

 

I'll let you decide on the implications.

 

Anyway, I believe that at one point in time that was the correct method of dealing with these matters. I don't know why, why isn't my job.

However, it has no real affect on how I believe the issue of marriage equality should be handled. I don't think the government should be part of it, but it's far too late for that. And I don't agree with it. But it's within people's rights, so I will always tolerate it.

Edited by MasterWeavile898

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, see, I don't really get how saying that you're not perfect is a good defense. What are you trying to prove with that?

 

Dude this is the problem. xd.png You're saying that, yes, women should have been stoned to death for adultery but you're completely backing out of the morals regarding it by throwing your hands up and saying LOL I DON'T KNOW WHY BUT YEAH PAINFUL MURDER WAS GOOD BACK THEN AND I REFUSE TO QUESTION WHY

 

This is off-topic, though. You don't support it, you aren't against it, you're just neutral. Whatever. v(9_9)v

Edited by Zovesta

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah I'm going to agree with Zov here, a person saying they're not perfect is like saying water is wet. I thought the bible made it quite clear that Jesus was the only person who was truly perfect.

 

I question the practice of using the bible as an argument against marriage equality for a number of reasons, and one of those is that some of the rules in it are pretty much horrifying. Especially the ones that call for stoning or public shaming as a punishment for something that hurts literally no one (like shaming a man for refusing to rape his dead brother's widow... that one will always make me go ಠ_ಠ).

Edited by Lythiaren

Share this post


Link to post

That wasn't what I was saying. I said that I'm supposed to be killed, or something like that.

 

My point was that I don't believe your friends should die, if I did then I would need to be dead myself.

Share this post


Link to post

For anyone who would like to debate that the "old testament does not apply because the old covenant was broken" or whatever:

 

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

 

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

 

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)

 

Jesus upheld the laws of the Old Testament.

 

Full disclosure, Jesus also said exactly zero things on the subject of homosexuality - but if a person is going to discard the Old Testament because of Jesus' teachings or existence or whatever, remember he explicitly upheld the Old Testament in all of its ugliness and absurdity. Don't try to defend the book as a whole - it's boring and full of plot holes and bad cooking advice anyway, and it disagrees with you. It's probably better to try finding something more substantial upon which to found your opinions.

Edited by Odeen

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.