Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

CaptainCourtesy said:

That's similar to what Goshen said, in a way. I can respect that based on the fact that, as far as I know, your position is the same as his: civil unions for everyone, marriage for religion and that your position is based on faith. Now, though I am very religious, I look at the bible contextually in relation to the time. I base my belief system on the traditional Progressive/Reform Jewish position that what is in the Torah is a starting point and that each person's faith is individual, and it is up to that person to interpret the nuances of scripture. Also, in Progressive/Reform Judaism, law it constantly reinterpreted based on current social and technological issues. Because of this, God does not have to tell me that homosexuality is OK. He already has through all of the studies that have been researched. That's just my faith, though.

Kinda reminds me of a story/parable.

A man becomes very ill. He is very religious and tells his wife that God will save him. So he prays. His wife, who is not as religious, has a doctor come to the house. The doctor says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." The man prays, but he worsens. His wife has the doctor come again. The doctor again says, "I can give you medicine that will help you." The man says, "no, I don't need the medicine, God will save me." Again, he prays, but again he worsens. His wife sends for the doctor one more time. When he sees the man has deteriorated further, he says, "you could die from this. I can give you medicine to help you." Again, the man says, "no, God will save me. I don't need the medicine." The doctor leaves once again. The man prays. He dies. When he gets to heaven, he sees God and says to him, "Lord, why oh why didn't you answer my prayers and save my life?" God looks at him and says, "What are you talking about? I sent a doctor with medicine to your house 3 times."

Neat story. Kinda describes my beliefs real well.

Click to expand...

I see. In my story I would have taken the medicine as well. I don't understand what this has to do with your position. I understand the faith, but again not the position?

I mean my faith is not blind, but I do follow the word as written. This does not mean we would turn away help, medicine etc because we expect God to help us? He works through others as well as through prayer.

Blackdog said:

I see. In my story I would have taken the medicine as well. I don't understand what this has to do with your position. I understand the faith, but again not the position?

I mean my faith is not blind, but I do follow the word as written. This does not mean we would turn away help, medicine etc because we expect God to help us? He works through others as well as through prayer.

Click to expand...

If He works through others, then why wouldn't He work through the researchers that have demonstrated that gays do as well rearing children as straights? Or the researchers that have shown that being gay is no more abnormal than being straight? See? It's not faith or religion in general that's the issue, which is my point. It is one's individual faith.

CaptainCourtesy said:

If He works through others, then why wouldn't He work through the researchers that have demonstrated that gays do as well rearing children as straights? Or the researchers that have shown that being gay is no more abnormal than being straight? See? It's not faith or religion in general that's the issue, which is my point. It is one's individual faith.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but it seems you are putting faith in man, rather than God's law. No argument, just an observation and opinion.

Putting faith in men is fine when it is not in direct violation with God's law. Science is not at odds with scripture, but this does not mean science takes precedent over biblical moral precedent for me.

Blackdog said:

I see your point, but it seems you are putting faith in man, rather than God's law. No argument, just an observation and opinion.

Putting faith in men is fine when it is not in direct violation with God's law. Science is not at odds with scripture, but this does not mean science takes precedent over biblical moral precedent for me.

Click to expand...

But the very same could be said about you when you put faith in the Bible. You put faith in the men who wrote the Bible to not have changed or manipulated what is written in it for their own gain. God did not actually write the Bible himself. And since God gave free will, then He really couldn't completely prevent someone or a group of someone's from making changes, leaving out parts, or manipulating the words of the Bible so that it is their beliefs that come through instead of what He would like written.

Blackdog said:

Your attempt at sarcasm to my honest answering of your question is duly noted.

Since you have chosen to "bitch" and be "sarcastic" rather than add anything to the debate, I am done with you.

Have a good one.

God Bless

Click to expand...

It wasn't an attempt at sarcasm, nor was it an attempt to bitch.

Thanks for getting on your high horse and presuming the worst though. Very Christian of you (now that is sarcasm).

I wasn't aware of the other mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. An honest, intelligent answer (as someone else provided since you failed to do so) would have been far more productive.

Perhaps you're right that it's best we part ways here.

God be with you - you might need him.

Alastor said:

It wasn't an attempt at sarcasm, nor was it an attempt to bitch.

Thanks for getting on your high horse and presuming the worst though. Very Christian of you (now that is sarcasm).

Click to expand...

Lets see...

So God likes it if we stone our wives and hang our brothers? - Alastor

That is the opening of the reply you gave when I answered your question honestly.

So no high horse, just common sense.

You don't even know what a Christian is supposed to be, let alone let alone what they need to do. Stick to things you know.

Alastor said:

I wasn't aware of the other mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. An honest, intelligent answer (as someone else provided since you failed to do so) would have been far more productive.

Perhaps you're right that it's best we part ways here.

God be with you - you might need him.

Click to expand...

You showed you did not know what you were talking about, and you just wanted to bash the Christianity. Otherwise what purpose did your opening comment serve?

I also did not need to comment on the NT as my comment came AFTER Digsbi posted quotes from the NT.

Intilectual dishonesty is not a good thing.

Blackdog said:

You don't even know w what a Christian is supposed to be, let alone let alone what they need to do.

Click to expand...

Christians fight about that all the time. For example some think homosexuality is a sin and some don't think it is.

roguenuke said:

But the very same could be said about you when you put faith in the Bible. You put faith in the men who wrote the Bible to not have changed or manipulated what is written in it for their own gain.

Click to expand...

I think I mentioned before my faith is not blind. I do not accept God just because someone said so.
No the same cannot be said.

roguenuke said:

God did not actually write the Bible himself. And since God gave free will, then He really couldn't completely prevent someone or a group of someone's from making changes, leaving out parts, or manipulating the words of the Bible so that it is their beliefs that come through instead of what He would like written.

Click to expand...

The Bible is 66+ different books by many different authors places and times. It is not one giant book per-say. The chances of that many people getting together in a plot to fool mankind is about the same odds of one million monkeys on type writers banging out Shakespeare.

winston53660 said:

Christians fight about that all the time. For example some think homosexuality is a sin and some don't think it is.

Click to expand...

Because we have a vested interest in being better Christians. He had a vested interest in bashing us.

That my friend is the difference.

Blackdog said:

I think I mentioned before my faith is not blind. I do not accept God just because someone said so.
No the same cannot be said.



The Bible is 66+ different books by many different authors places and times. It is not one giant book per-say. The chances of that many people getting together in a plot to fool mankind is about the same odds of one million monkeys on type writers banging out Shakespeare.

Click to expand...

The times are around the same general time for many of the books, especially those of the NT. And, they were brought into being the Bible by a group of people, at one particular time. And then changed by a person or group of people a few different times later. The first could mean people who were thinking along the same lines might all believe that God would condemn homosexuality. The second could mean that what got omitted could be important, could have more clarity than believed, could have been done on purpose for whatever reasons. You only know about the Bible what you are told.

Along with that, it has been argued (although I really don't know if it was you) that the NT allowed that some of the OT rules could now be ignored, such as dietary restrictions. That tells me, that either God changed his mind on the dietary rules or it has just been shown that at least part of someone personal beliefs, and not the actual rules of God, came through in writing at least the OT. If it is God changed his mind, then there is really no way to know that God cannot change his mind again and showing it through scientific research (although this is a stretch). If it is someone's own beliefs as to what God might find as a sin coming through, then who is to say that it couldn't happen in the NT as well. It is even possible that it could happen in a couple of places, by a couple of people. There are relatively very few passages that actually condemn homosexual acts in the Bible, even if there are a few more than what Goshin put up, and accounting for those inappropriate references to Sodom. It is possible that those passages were simply someone's own bias against homosexuality coming through as being God's condemnation of it. We believe now that God doesn't really approve of slavery, yet it was not truly condemned then because it was considered okay during that time.

Blackdog said:

Lets see...

So God likes it if we stone our wives and hang our brothers? - Alastor

That is the opening of the reply you gave when I answered your question honestly.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Because you're the one who said that Leviticus was used as a measure of what God wanted.

Since Leviticus also includes stoning people, I thought it was a fair question. I still do.

If Leviticus is a measure of what God wants (you words, not mine), then he also likes it when we stone people.

You said it, not me.

Don't take it out on me.

So no high horse, just common sense.

Click to expand...

If only you bothered to include character, integrity and logic as part of "common sense" the way the rest of us do.

You don't even know what a Christian is supposed to be, let alone let alone what they need to do. Stick to things you know.

Click to expand...

That's why I asked the question.

You provided the answer. If you're unhappy with the answer you provided, feel free to take that up with the source of the answer - if you can find the character to take responsibility for your own statements, instead of blaming others.

roguenuke said:

The times are around the same general time for many of the books, especially those of the NT. And, they were brought into being the Bible by a group of people, at one particular time. And then changed by a person or group of people a few different times later. The first could mean people who were thinking along the same lines might all believe that God would condemn homosexuality. The second could mean that what got omitted could be important, could have more clarity than believed, could have been done on purpose for whatever reasons. You only know about the Bible what you are told.

Click to expand...

That is a boat load of "if's" and to much is just negative specualtion at best.

I am not dismissing your argument, but again the odds are so slim.

roguenuke said:

Along with that, it has been argued (although I really don't know if it was you) that the NT allowed that some of the OT rules could now be ignored, such as dietary restrictions. That tells me, that either God changed his mind on the dietary rules or it has just been shown that at least part of someone personal beliefs, and not the actual rules of God, came through in writing at least the OT. If it is God changed his mind, then there is really no way to know that God cannot change his mind again and showing it through scientific research (although this is a stretch). If it is someone's own beliefs as to what God might find as a sin coming through, then who is to say that it couldn't happen in the NT as well. It is even possible that it could happen in a couple of places, by a couple of people. There are relatively very few passages that actually condemn homosexual acts in the Bible, even if there are a few more than what Goshin put up, and accounting for those inappropriate references to Sodom. It is possible that those passages were simply someone's own bias against homosexuality coming through as being God's condemnation of it. We believe now that God doesn't really approve of slavery, yet it was not truly condemned then because it was considered okay during that time.

Click to expand...

You are confusing two different covenants.

The first covenant was between God and the Israelites. Those rules etc were given to them, not the rest of mankind. They were for their protection and safety.

The second covenant was between God and all people. The rules did not change, but they never did apply to gentiles at all even back then. Noahchides were not even bound by but a few of the commandments or the 9 Noahchide laws written around 2318 BC.

Something not truly being “condemned” is not condoning it. Also it was Roman law. Jesus and Paul etc never went against Roman law, period. They were concerned with spiritual salvation, not mans law as God put the Romans in power.

Alastor said:

Yes.

Because you're the one who said that Leviticus was used as a measure of what God wanted.

Since Leviticus also includes stoning people, I thought it was a fair question. I still do.

If Leviticus is a measure of what God wants (you words, not mine), then he also likes it when we stone people.

You said it, not me.

Don't take it out on me.

Click to expand...

I said it was a reference tool, not a measuring stick. You then went into extreme mode.

Not taking anything out on you, just stating facts in evidence.

Alastor said:

If only you bothered to include character, integrity and logic as part of "common sense" the way the rest of us do.

Click to expand...

I rest my case.

Alastor said:

That's why I asked the question.

Click to expand...

No. You asked the question with one purpose in mind. You know this.

Alastor said:

You provided the answer. If you're unhappy with the answer you provided, feel free to take that up with the source of the answer - if you can find the character to take responsibility for your own statements, instead of blaming others.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with my answer which was fine. This has to do with your attitude towards all Christians based on the fact we are Christians.

That's it.

Blackdog said:

This has nothing to do with my answer which was fine. This has to do with your attitude towards all Christians based on the fact we are Christians.

That's it.

Click to expand...

I never said a word about Christians. All I did is ask a question. Whatever phantoms you read into that is your business.

Guilty conscience?

Blackdog said:

That is a boat load of "if's" and to much is just negative specualtion at best.

I am not dismissing your argument, but again the odds are so slim.



You are confusing two different covenants.

The first covenant was between God and the Israelites. Those rules etc were given to them, not the rest of mankind. They were for their protection and safety.

The second covenant was between God and all people. The rules did not change, but they never did apply to gentiles at all even back then. Noahchides were not even bound by but a few of the commandments or the 9 Noahchide laws written around 2318 BC.

Something not truly being “condemned” is not condoning it. Also it was Roman law. Jesus and Paul etc never went against Roman law, period. They were concerned with spiritual salvation, not mans law as God put the Romans in power.

Click to expand...

And you are claiming to not be blinded by your faith, yet you seem to completely accept that what men decided should be put into the Bible (the books of the apostles and those close to them were essentially condensed into the Bible using 4 criteria: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?), without accepting that they could be wrong.

As I've pointed out, there are so relatively few passages that actually condemn homosexuality. And those are in the same 2 or 3 books. There really is no consensus of belief that God himself believed homosexuality to be a sin, not as evidenced by the Bible. It is much easier to believe that perhaps that particular "sin" really was a popular personal bias held at the time, that got it's consensus not from the writings of the apostles but rather from the group of men who decided the makeup of the Bible. Those men found a couple of passages that agreed with their own bias, and obscure references, such as Sodom, to make them believe that God felt that homosexuality was wrong.

It may be interesting to learn whether or not there were other things that the original collectors for the Bible decided to omit from the Bible and the reasons why. That could help to better inform us as to whether their own personal biases did influence what was put into the Bible.

roguenuke said:

And you are claiming to not be blinded by your faith, yet you seem to completely accept that what men decided should be put into the Bible (the books of the apostles and those close to them were essentially condensed into the Bible using 4 criteria: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?), without accepting that they could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes I have desided after years of study and work that God and what is laid down in the Bible is the true path to salvation. This has nothing at all to do with being "blinded by faith."

I looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion.

roguenuke said:

As I've pointed out, there are so relatively few passages that actually condemn homosexuality. And those are in the same 2 or 3 books. There really is no consensus of belief that God himself believed homosexuality to be a sin, not as evidenced by the Bible. It is much easier to believe that perhaps that particular "sin" really was a popular personal bias held at the time, that got it's consensus not from the writings of the apostles but rather from the group of men who decided the makeup of the Bible. Those men found a couple of passages that agreed with their own bias, and obscure references, such as Sodom, to make them believe that God felt that homosexuality was wrong.

Click to expand...

Quite a few passages condemn it and since it is pretty black and white, why would they need to beat people over the head with it?

I mean you are trying to tell someone who spent many years studying the Bible and it’s history that I don’t know what I am talking about because the possibility exists that it mite be off in some way. This from someone who admittedly has not really cracked open the Bible since childhood? No offence Nuke, but I will go by my own understanding on this.

roguenuke said:

It may be interesting to learn whether or not there were other things that the original collectors for the Bible decided to omit from the Bible and the reasons why. That could help to better inform us as to whether their own personal biases did influence what was put into the Bible.

Click to expand...

The majority of the so called “lost books” are not lost at all. They are available with a simple internet search. Some books were lost and then with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were no longer lost.

So if you want to read them go ahead. Most are as I said available. They are not hidden away and they were not destroyed.

Blackdog said:

Yes I have desided after years of study and work that God and what is laid down in the Bible is the true path to salvation. This has nothing at all to do with being "blinded by faith."

I looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion.



Quite a few passages condemn it and since it is pretty black and white, why would they need to beat people over the head with it?

I mean you are trying to tell someone who spent many years studying the Bible and it’s history that I don’t know what I am talking about because the possibility exists that it mite be off in some way. This from someone who admittedly has not really cracked open the Bible since childhood? No offence Nuke, but I will go by my own understanding on this.



The majority of the so called “lost books” are not lost at all. They are available with a simple internet search. Some books were lost and then with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were no longer lost.

So if you want to read them go ahead. Most are as I said available. They are not hidden away and they were not destroyed.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have never said that I haven't cracked open a Bible since childhood. In fact, I just recently discovered the whole Sodom thing within the last few months because of reading my Bible. I haven't been a Christian since childhood.

And I was not suggesting that all the texts that were used when considering what to put into the Bible were locked away somewhere, but it also doesn't mean that there weren't more texts that are locked away or even many more that were lost during time. And still all the texts were written by man, and therefore all those texts are completely subject to being written with personal biased. And the decisions and reasons why some texts were not put into the Bible are not really going to be completely available, unless there are complete transcripts from those meetings used to decide what would go into the Bible itself. The actual thinking of the people involved is certainly not going to be available, so it is impossible for us to truly know if they believed that the research proved that something belonged or if it were simply the passages agreed with what they considered immoral. And as much as you really don't want to hear it, it is possible that they changed things to make sure that it matched their own beliefs/morals. Even the original writers of those texts are capable of having done this. It is completely possible that not everyone was quite as benevolent as the Bible portrays them. Even those who really were that benevolent could have put more of their own bias into what they wrote then what God wanted.

I do doubt the Bible, big time. I completely believe there is a God, but since all evidence I've seen points to homosexuality not being an actual conscience choice and the fact that it really does no harm to anyone else, and it is observed in other species in nature, it makes absolutely no sense to me why such a higher power like God would truly care one way or another if people choose to love and make love to another person of the same sex. I can't fathom why it would be so important to be a sin. And that makes me question that part of the Bible. (I do question much of the other parts too, but I have different reasons for those questions/suspicions)

roguenuke said:

I do doubt the Bible, big time. I completely believe there is a God, but since all evidence I've seen points to homosexuality not being an actual conscience choice and the fact that it really does no harm to anyone else, and it is observed in other species in nature, it makes absolutely no sense to me why such a higher power like God would truly care one way or another if people choose to love and make love to another person of the same sex. I can't fathom why it would be so important to be a sin. And that makes me question that part of the Bible. (I do question much of the other parts too, but I have different reasons for those questions/suspicions)

Click to expand...

“I do doubt the Bible, big time.” That comment pretty much negates anything you said in the first two paragraphs in that I don’t. So the rest is not really a concern to me. You are free as is everyone to believe what you like, and that’s cool. Just don’t expect me to agree.

Jesus supports the statement in Genesis that in the beginning God created humankind male and female, and uses this as a basis for moral guidance: That which God has joined let not man put asunder. He was talking about man and woman. Nothing else.

In the Sermon on the Mount, he stresses the importance of the Jews adhering strictly to the Mosaic Law, which required the death penalty for homosexual acts. He even went beyond that in condemning what he regards as sexual sins. Telling people even thinking about it was a sin and that it is better to cut of a limb than face hellfire.

I can’t fathom myself how someone who is a Christian can ignore the OT and the NT when it comes down to it.

So it appears Jesus himself cared quite a bit about morality whether it hurt someone or not. Heck adultery and divorce does not hurt anyone. Lets not forget that whole having no other gods before me thing. I mean really. Lot’s of sin technically don’t hurt anyone. This is not an excuse to condone it or figure we know better than God on the issue.

In the end it is better to pluck your eye out then let it cause you to sin. That is the words of Jesus, not me.

The first question you should ask, "Is it any of my business?"

The second question is, "Do I have a dog in the fight?"

Since I am not gay, I have essentially no interest in it.

If you don't happen to like gays, don't associate with them.

If you are a religious type and think gays are going to Hell if they don't "straighten" out, minister to them, but do it in a kind way.

Unless the gays are abusing other people (raping, molesting, etc.) the law should have nothing to do with it.

By the way, if you really want to do something about gay abuse, see what you can do about the rapes and molestations that occur on a regular basis in our prisons.

ronpaulvoter said:

The first question you should ask, "Is it any of my business?"

The second question is, "Do I have a dog in the fight?"

Click to expand...

Marriage is everyone's business, and since families are the foundation of civilization, we all have a dog in this fight.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Marriage is everyone's business, and since families are the foundation of civilization, we all have a dog in this fight.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. This will not have an effect on current marriages. If it did, then we would all have a dog in this fight.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Marriage is everyone's business, and since families are the foundation of civilization, we all have a dog in this fight.

Click to expand...

WHAT!?
I couldnt possibly disagree more, IMO theres no logic to defend that at all. Your marriage is absolutely NONE OF MY BUSINESS and mine is none of yours.

The only dog in the fight is my own dog in my own marriage my dog has no buisness in your yard and vice versa.

Also to the two lonely oppressors on this board that thanked you for your post, it seems its a bit of a contradiction to me. Since you would obviously disagree with the term "everyone" dont you mean everyone BUT gays

anyway sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree with this because theres no logic to make me believe that your marriage is "my" business, thats not american at all

also update
6/14/09
10:00pm

GOOD REASONS: 0

independent_thinker2002 said:

I have to disagree. This will not have an effect on current marriages. If it did, then we would all have a dog in this fight.

Click to expand...

It will have an effect on the society that we all must live in. The core of the issue here is what we, as a society, are willing to accept as normal.

Korimyr the Rat said:

It will have an effect on the society that we all must live in. The core of the issue here is what we, as a society, are willing to accept as normal.

Click to expand...

You kinda dodge around this, so let me ask strait out: based on this, are you saying you oppose gay marriage?

Korimyr the Rat said:

It will have an effect on the society that we all must live in. The core of the issue here is what we, as a society, are willing to accept as normal.

Click to expand...

and what effect will that be?

since they can do everything else, they can still live together, raise kids, go anywhere you go, show affection in public, work where you do,
what will change? how will gay marriage effect normal in the world we live in on any large scale that has a reality impact?
and how is currently discriminating against them "normal" it could easily be argued abnormal to discriminate against since we are denying them equal rights