My Opinion on Gay Marriage

[shuamort]

Not so. Consider Romans 1:26-27. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

"Abandoned natural relations" or para physin as was written in the original greek would actually be translated as atypical or out of the ordinary. As such, it has no reference to natural law and can't even hint to ethical condemnation. Paul sees this events as an impurity as is evident in Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves . All of this is said to make his point clear that Mosaic law is not relevant in Jesus Christ, not to condemn the actions.

I suppose it would be, IF we agreed that marriage could include same-sex uinions. But it doesn't.

Of course the issue you haven't addressed...and it could explain why Paul didn't condemn homsexual lifestyles per se...is the fact that homosexuality didn't really exist in the Ancient World. Yes, homosexual activity, but in conjunction with heterosexual...bisexuality, really. Producing an heir was everything, and to turn ones back on the possibility of procreating simply wasn't done. It was too important. So how could Paul condemn a lifestyle that didn't really exist? Think "lifestyle" vs. "hobby".

Well, we agree that he didn't condemn homosexuals, it would be silly if he did since the term was even invented until the 19th Century anyways. Was Paul condemning the debauchery that was in Rome at the time? Most likely. It was the age of Saturnalia, free love, and libidinous fun with all of that tied into a sycophancy and self-indulgence. Paul's issue was that these people were their having extra-curricular sex outside of marriage (and to a lesser extent, not for procreation either*). But was the homosexual acts that Paul was condemning or was it the use of rent boys as was suggested in Leviticus and Corinthians?

But, as Paul said in Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.


*As for procreation....something that Fantasea and I have bandied back and forth a bit but hasn't been brought up here yet. What is the purpose of marriage? To create offspring and keep the bloodlines going. According to Genesis 1:27-28 we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" Now, should a Christian following the Bible deny marriage to a straight couple where one is barren, or the other impotent, or post-menopausal, or just too old to procreate?

 

[Rev.]

All of this is said to make his point clear that Mosaic law is not relevant in Jesus Christ, not to condemn the actions.

Paul does do that...but not here. Galatians is pretty blunt on that subject. Here in Romans, he is just beginning to lay the groundwork on the theology of man's need for God.

Well, we agree that he didn't condemn homosexuals, it would be silly if he did since the term was even invented until the 19th Century anyways.

Oh, no fair making it look like I said Paul wasn't opposed to homosexualtity. I think based on his others teachings on holiness, he definately would have if homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle did exist. I do believe he DID condemn the acts of homosexuality in every form (prostitution, consentual free adults...whatever) and that such condemnation would extend to include alternative lifestyle as we know it today (meaning exclusively homosexual.)

Was Paul condemning the debauchery that was in Rome at the time? Most likely. It was the age of Saturnalia, free love, and libidinous fun with all of that tied into a sycophancy and self-indulgence. Paul's issue was that these people were their having extra-curricular sex outside of marriage (and to a lesser extent, not for procreation either*). But was the homosexual acts that Paul was condemning or was it the use of rent boys as was suggested in Leviticus and Corinthians?

I think Paul was a big picture kind of guy and that debauchery for Paul meant "All of the above."

But, as Paul said in Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

When you see a "therefore" you have to go back and find out what it is there for. Refer to Romans 1:28-32. To summerize...even though the pagans didn't have the Law (of Moses) they still had a code of conduct. So we who have the Law are in double trouble if we do wrong, cause we have all been told.

*As for procreation....something that Fantasea and I have bandied back and forth a bit but hasn't been brought up here yet. What is the purpose of marriage? To create offspring and keep the bloodlines going. According to Genesis 1:27-28 we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" Now, should a Christian following the Bible deny marriage to a straight couple where one is barren, or the other impotent, or post-menopausal, or just too old to procreate?

Marriage is for more than procreation, it is to reflect the image of God.

Consider...man was created...then woman was seperated from the man. Man had been created in the image of God. Woman was created from the man. When Man and woman reunite through marriage, that united couple is a reflection of the Almighty. They are Creator (through procreation) and their relationship with one another should be like the relationship of the Godhead within the Trinity--mutually submissive.

I personally would not deny marriage to a straight couple who is unable to physically bear children. Marriage is for more than that. I DO, however, counsel people of the true purpose of birth control and how it works if they intend to limit the size of their family.

 

[Montalban]

Change happens?

In Christian circles, there is a regular debate about whether we ought to celebrate Christmas because the Church hijacked a Roman pagan holiday and Christianized it so that the pagans would be happier about converting. And now it has been hijacked again by people who wish to make a lot of money. It was supposed to be funny, but I guess it didn't work. Sorry!

They didn't "Christianise a pagan holiday". There was a pagan holiday that died from non-use and a Christian holiday on the same day took over. An analogy would be as if the pagans planted a tree in one spot. Christians come along and tear out that tree and plant their own tree and it grows. That they are on the same spot, that one supplanted (no pun intended) the other does not mean that one derived from the other.
However it is understandable a mistake to make because some hundreds of years later, in certain places (such as Germany), pagan elements were re-introduced; such as "The Christmas Tree".
A better example for you would have been Easter (which in western parlance derives its name from a 're-birth' ceremony). Even this doesn't quite fit the bill. But it is a better example.

But the truth is still there. Homosexuals could "hijack" marriage and give it all new meaning. And over the years, we would all come to understand it the new way. Could happen!

A truism. Indeed it could happen. I don't know what the point of this statement would be. It is as meaningful to say that "gay" is a term that might be 're-taken' by mainstream society.

In effect your 'argument' seems to be 'change might happen'. Hence I am still unsure what your point is.

However it is interesting that certain terms have been hijacked. Homophobia is a term used to describe the idea that homosexuality is wrong. I do, based on my Christian beliefs (a point for another debate), but I am not 'afraid' of homosexuals (the literal meaning of 'phobia').

Churches that change their positions of homosexuality and accept it are said to 'progress' rather than 'regress'.

 

[Rev.]

Re: Change happens?

They didn't "Christianise a pagan holiday". There was a pagan holiday that died from non-use and a Christian holiday on the same day took over.

Oh, I know that. I personally believe that Christmas is about celebrating Jesus' birth not his birthday. It's funny, but in Christian groups I'm the liberal. I'm not used to discussing issues from the more conservative position! :lol:

A truism. Indeed it could happen. I don't know what the point of this statement would be. It is as meaningful to say that "gay" is a term that might be 're-taken' by mainstream society.

In effect your 'argument' seems to be 'change might happen'. Hence I am still unsure what your point is.

It was originally asked if homosexual unions couldn't just be added on to the marriage tradition and be aaccepted over time. My answer: yes, change might happen. I was hoping to show through my example of Christmas that such change would corrupt the original to the point of it not being recognizable. See what commercialism has done to Christmas--it is no longer about Christ. It is the new pagan holiday where hedonism is celebrated.

However it is interesting that certain terms have been hijacked. Homophobia is a term used to describe the idea that homosexuality is wrong. I do, based on my Christian beliefs (a point for another debate), but I am not 'afraid' of homosexuals (the literal meaning of 'phobia').

Churches that change their positions of homosexuality and accept it are said to 'progress' rather than 'regress'.

I so totally agree with you.

 

[shuamort]

Oh, no fair making it look like I said Paul wasn't opposed to homosexualtity. I think based on his others teachings on holiness, he definately would have if homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle did exist. I do believe he DID condemn the acts of homosexuality in every form (prostitution, consentual free adults...whatever) and that such condemnation would extend to include alternative lifestyle as we know it today (meaning exclusively homosexual.)

You're fine to believe whatever you want to of course, just don't pass off that as the word of God per the Bible because it's simply not in there. It's simply not addressed. "Would haves" and "could haves" do not apply.

I think Paul was a big picture kind of guy and that debauchery for Paul meant "All of the above."

When you see a "therefore" you have to go back and find out what it is there for. Refer to Romans 1:28-32. To summerize...even though the pagans didn't have the Law (of Moses) they still had a code of conduct. So we who have the Law are in double trouble if we do wrong, cause we have all been told.

But on the same fold, according to Paul, we're all freed from the old law. Were we not, sins of eating crustaceans and mixed fabric shirts would still be frowned upon.

Marriage is for more than procreation, it is to reflect the image of God.

Consider...man was created...then woman was seperated from the man. Man had been created in the image of God. Woman was created from the man. When Man and woman reunite through marriage, that united couple is a reflection of the Almighty. They are Creator (through procreation) and their relationship with one another should be like the relationship of the Godhead within the Trinity--mutually submissive.

I personally would not deny marriage to a straight couple who is unable to physically bear children. Marriage is for more than that. I DO, however, counsel people of the true purpose of birth control and how it works if they intend to limit the size of their family.

So, would you deny marriage to a gay or lesbian couple?

 

[Rev.]

You're fine to believe whatever you want to of course, just don't pass off that as the word of God per the Bible because it's simply not in there. It's simply not addressed. "Would haves" and "could haves" do not apply.

But it IS the Word of God. The Bible does teach that all sex outside of marriage (which the bible defines as between men and women) is wrong, so you must therefore conclude that homesexual relations--whether paid for, one time mutually consential, or within the confines of a long-term monogomous relationship--is also condemned. I don't think the "it isn't specifically condemned" arguement holds water because it is generally condemned.

But on the same fold, according to Paul, we're all freed from the old law. Were we not, sins of eating crustaceans and mixed fabric shirts would still be frowned upon.

Freedom FROM the law does not mean freedom TO sin. Sin=an known violation of the known will of God. To intentionally do something that you know is against God's will. It was God's will for man to marry women. It is God's will for sex to be between two people who are married to each other. If that is established as God's will, anything outside of that is sin. Freedom from law, yes. Freedom to sin, no.
But there is so much more to this particular theology that isn't coming out in this discussion...it's not quite as simple as it's coming across here.

So, would you deny marriage to a gay or lesbian couple?

Absolutely. Man/man or woman/woman does reflect the image of God. Nor was that God's intent when he created women. There is something to that "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric.

 

[GarzaUK]

However the bible is not relative to modern day laws. There is ALOT of God's "Laws" that Christians and Jews choose to ignore on a day to day basis. God allows foreign slaves for example.

So Christians spout verses about anti-homosexuality, how it is against the word of God, but choose to ignore others because it does not appeal to them. It's pure hyprocrisy.

The fact is the world has changed alot since people were slinging rocks at each other.

 

[shuamort]

But it IS the Word of God.

According to Christians, it is the word of God. Correct. But that does not give anyone amendment or compoundment abilities nor the ability to infer things which aren't there.

The Bible does teach that all sex outside of marriage (which the bible defines as between men and women) is wrong, so you must therefore conclude that homesexual relations--whether paid for, one time mutually consential, or within the confines of a long-term monogomous relationship--is also condemned. I don't think the "it isn't specifically condemned" arguement holds water because it is generally condemned.

The problem is, that the Bible does not define marriage as solely or only between a man or a woman. That does take apart your whole argument.

Freedom FROM the law does not mean freedom TO sin. Sin=an known violation of the known will of God. To intentionally do something that you know is against God's will. It was God's will for man to marry women. It is God's will for sex to be between two people who are married to each other. If that is established as God's will, anything outside of that is sin. Freedom from law, yes. Freedom to sin, no.
But there is so much more to this particular theology that isn't coming out in this discussion...it's not quite as simple as it's coming across here.

You're still not showing where homosexual sex is sinful. There is no historical proof in the Bible to support that claim. It's just not in the new testament and any Mosaic law was removed by Paul since Paul didn't divy up the differences in what was sinful in Mosaic law.

Absolutely. Man/man or woman/woman does reflect the image of God.

I'm assuming you're missing the "not".

Nor was that God's intent when he created women. There is something to that "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" rhetoric.

Oh, that old canard? If you're going to throw that out, then God created Adam and Eve and not Cain and Abel. God didn't create any children, that was all from mankind. Right? God also didn't create Adam and Eve with intelligence either since Eve stole that from the tree of knowledge. So smart people are not in God's image. That's the only way I can explain the "not Adam and Steve" argument.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Change happens?

It was originally asked if homosexual unions couldn't just be added on to the marriage tradition and be aaccepted over time. My answer: yes, change might happen. I was hoping to show through my example of Christmas that such change would corrupt the original to the point of it not being recognizable. See what commercialism has done to Christmas--it is no longer about Christ. It is the new pagan holiday where hedonism is celebrated.

I guess then this is true when you consider a church that has already made changes can be easily pressed into making more.

My church doens't change in matters of dogma. Thus there is little or no 'movements' to push the ordination of women or gays, or for gay unions.

 

[Mixed View]

Re: Change happens?

You people realize that the people fighting for the gay marriage are lawyers? Did you know that 45 to 50 percent of marriages get divorced? When people get divorced that means money for the lawyers. If there is gay marriage, then there is more divorces and more money for the lawyers. Funny huh?

 

[A Dawg86]

Hi Timmy,

You'll have to pardon me as I learn my way around posting on forums like this one.

I read your speech and found it to be emotional and passionate. But that's really all it was...emotion. How do you substantiate your arguement that "the whole gay population of the world" feels discriminated against because they can't get married? You are taking something you think must be true and asserting that it is fact. "Preventing two people of the same sex marriage is preposterous when you think about it..." Why exactly?

And what is the real issue with gay marriage anyway? Is it that people should not be allowed to discriminate who can get married and who cannot? But we do it all the time...only people of a certain age may marry. Only people who are not close relatives may marry. Only people who are not already married to somebody else may marry. There *are* established limits to marriage as it is, so it would be tough to prove that homosexuals are discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation.

The thing is, marriage is a religious institution, established by God. Therefore, God should get to decide who gets married. If the state wants to establish a "civil union" and allow people of the same gender to unite legally in that manner so that they may enjoy tax benefits and what have you, that is the business of the state. I believe the real reason gays are fighting for the right to *marry* is because it's a way to "force" God into blessing them.

You asked, "Why do people discriminate?" You suggest that it's because people don't want to accept anything thatis not normal to them. I suggest that people discriminate because life without discrimination is impossible. Every time you choose one thing, you reject another. And that is discrimination, plain and simple. If you choose in favor of marriage being open to anyone who cares to partake, you reject marriage as being unique and sacred. And that's discrimination.

Who will win? I suspect it will be the people who can shout the loudest.

Reverend, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt with you, as I am with everyone. That is the biggest load of bullshit that I have ever read.

The "whole gay population of the world" feels discriminated by people like you who decide what's right and what's wrong. The truth is, you don't know what's right or wrong more than the man in the moon. I hate to have to break the shock to you but not everyone believes in God. I commend Tim for his speech because I am in fact gay. Not a flaming, rainbow-wearing drama queen, not a "gay rights activist" necessarily, but I do believe in gay marraige of course and don't see how it's any of your business if gay people get married or not.

And what is with this whole "redefining marriage" crap? How sacred is it today? Even if that were the case, don't you think that with the 50-50(?) divorce rate, the "I married..." reality shows, as well of course, as the rest of America getting married in Vegas by Elvis, marriage may need a new look? I'm saying that as satire, of course, but honestly it can't change marriage that much since we'll still let heteros get married. Against gay marriage? Don't have one!

Think about it from a non-religious standpoint for two seconds...oh wait, you can't. :doh:

 

[V.I. Lenin]

Re: Change happens?

You people realize that the people fighting for the gay marriage are lawyers? Did you know that 45 to 50 percent of marriages get divorced? When people get divorced that means money for the lawyers. If there is gay marriage, then there is more divorces and more money for the lawyers. Funny huh?

My God he caught us! You've discovered our evil plan to make lawyers rich by letting gays marry then hopefully divorce! Nooooo! Thank goodness the church never does anything just for profit! :spin:

 

[Rev.]

Dear Mr. Dawg,

Hello. I am pleased to make your aquaintance.

I wonder if you realize what you have done here. For all the hootin' and hollerin' done by gays about bigotry and prejudice against them by Christians, that is exactly what you have done here to me without even a "Fare-Thee-well."

Being gay does not entitle you to speak for all gays, Mr. Dawg. And it is because of indepth conversations I have had with gay friends and family that I know "the whole gay population of the world" does not feel discriminated against by me. As I said before, Tim made a very passionate speech, but it lacked substance. I would think you would seek a better spokes person on this issue.

But I see from other posts you've written that you aren't really an advocate for gay marriage laws anyway. So why get your knickers in a twist over this thread? Is it just because I have identified myself as a minister?

 

[A Dawg86]

I am not pleased to make your acquaitance. But thank you just the same. And don't ever call me Mr. Dawg again. That is not my name. Just call me A or Dawg.

I am not a huge fan of the "hootin' and hollerin'" gays who hold parades, wear all the god damned colors of the rainbow (I think I stated that before), etc. I support gay marriage, but I'm not an advocate, because I hold interest in other things. However, it DOES make me angry when "ministers" and "reverends" use the Bible for their excuse to turn this country into a Theocracy and tell everyone what's right and what's wrong.

You are correct that I cannot speak for every gay person. I'm well aware of that. But telling someone who is gay, even gay Christians, that they are "sinning" and so on, so on, and that they are living in an "alternative lifestyle" is about the biggest load of **** I think I have/ever heard. I struggled with this a long time, padre. This is why I have no respect for Christianity, Preachers, Ministers, whatever you are called.

And yes, I would seek a better spokesperson on "the case". But I also am glad that he said what he said, even if it did come from the heart.

-A Dawg

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

The thing is, marriage is a religious institution, established by God.

Well, if "Rev." is correct that marriage is a religious instution, then the state has no business marrying anybody -- even heterosexuals.

If marriage is to be part of secular, civil society, then marriage must be made to conform with the principles of that society. And this society repudiates discrimation. I refer you to section one of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution:

Amendment XIV​

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The equal protection clause. It's high time that we actually conform to our own Constitution.

Therefore, God should get to decide who gets married.

That is fundamentally absurd. By that logic, nobody would get married because you never see God coming down here and playing matchmaker.

So you really think that our laws should rely on somebody's opinion about the preferences of a God, whose own existence is not verified to the satisfaction of all of America's citizens?

 

[Rev.]

I am not pleased to make your acquaitance.

Then you never should have addressed me.

But thank you just the same. And don't ever call me Mr. Dawg again. That is not my name. Just call me A or Dawg.

My apologies.

However, it DOES make me angry when "ministers" and "reverends" use the Bible for their excuse to turn this country into a Theocracy and tell everyone what's right and what's wrong.

Again, you have made assumptions about my intentions here and judged me unfairly. You clearly have not read my porfile or my other posts or you would not have made the statements you have. I took the time to learn about you. You, who accuse me of hypocracy, are a hypocrite!

But telling someone who is gay, even gay Christians, that they are "sinning" and so on, so on, and that they are living in an "alternative lifestyle" is about the biggest load of **** I think I have/ever heard.

How, exactly?

This is why I have no respect for Christianity, Preachers, Ministers, whatever you are called.

Probably Rev won't work for you because my friends and family use it as a term of affection. But padre won't work at all...I'm not Catholic.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Well, if "Rev." is correct that marriage is a religious instution, then the state has no business marrying anybody -- even heterosexuals.

If marriage is to be part of secular, civil society, then marriage must be made to conform with the principles of that society. And this society repudiates discrimation. I refer you to section one of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution:?

But my question is this. If a union is pre-existing within a body, then if another body comes in and chooses to give rights to those who chose to participate in this union, does the union that came second thereby have the right to change the original union into something it was not initially?
I do not feel like the government ever should have gotten involved in handing out bonuses for marriage, because that in itself is discriminatory. Therefore, rather than forcing an already exisiting union to change itself solely for benefit of a group that originally chose to help out that union through tax breaks, I feel it is the role of the government to remove itself from aknowledging marriage in the sense that it does now, and if it so chooses, it can make an arrangement of union solely for it's own shaping, or a completely seperate "civil union" that is open to anyone so wishing to join under this.

That is fundamentally absurd. By that logic, nobody would get married because you never see God coming down here and playing matchmaker.

I believe that the statement was meant to be "If it is, in fact, a union betwen two people under God, blessed by God, then it ought to be left to God to designate the specifics of the union (ie that it be between man and woman)." You choose your own partner, but if you are going to make a ceremonial vow under God, than you follow the guidelines which God originally set.
I think that is the basically the statement, only in a more logically sound verse.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I am not a huge fan of the "hootin' and hollerin'" gays who hold parades, wear all the god damned colors of the rainbow (I think I stated that before), etc. I support gay marriage, but I'm not an advocate, because I hold interest in other things. However, it DOES make me angry when "ministers" and "reverends" use the Bible for their excuse to turn this country into a Theocracy and tell everyone what's right and what's wrong.

You are correct that I cannot speak for every gay person. I'm well aware of that. But telling someone who is gay, even gay Christians, that they are "sinning" and so on, so on, and that they are living in an "alternative lifestyle" is about the biggest load of **** I think I have/ever heard. I struggled with this a long time, padre. This is why I have no respect for Christianity, Preachers, Ministers, whatever you are called.

Firstly, I offer that you hold your rage. Anger rarely gets anyone anywhere in debate, and it is certainly unbecoming. It is one thing to use to attempt to turn a country into a Theocracy. It is a very different thing to feel as though the government has no right to change a union and vow that was practiced by seperate faiths long before the government existed.
Now, that having been said, can you explain to me what, in your belief, is a sin if it is not acting against the designated will of God via his Word and the Holy Spirit? Because under my understanding, the concept of sin is originated in the scriptures (or for Christians in the OT) based on the Word of God, as it was recorded by Moses and others. So, then, if in fact homosexuality is determined to be a sin (or acting against the will of God) by those who follow his word, why then is it not right for a designated leader of a specific branch of the church to not have their own opinion on the actions of others in accordance to whether or not it is a sin? I mean, to a degree, that is their job. They went to school to get a degree in the study of all of this. Does that not, in some sense, make them more qualified to label sin than you or I who have not entered such an education? You certainly can choose not to respect anyone you like. But is it wise to not have respect for someone who is more educated on an issue than yourself? I'll allow you to be the judge on that matter.

 

[Rev.]

I believe that the statement was meant to be "If it is, in fact, a union betwen two people under God, blessed by God, then it ought to be left to God to designate the specifics of the union (ie that it be between man and woman)." You choose your own partner, but if you are going to make a ceremonial vow under God, than you follow the guidelines which God originally set.
I think that is the basically the statement, only in a more logically sound verse.

Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to say!

 

[A Dawg86]

Firstly, I offer that you hold your rage. Anger rarely gets anyone anywhere in debate, and it is certainly unbecoming. It is one thing to use to attempt to turn a country into a Theocracy. It is a very different thing to feel as though the government has no right to change a union and vow that was practiced by seperate faiths long before the government existed.
Now, that having been said, can you explain to me what, in your belief, is a sin if it is not acting against the designated will of God via his Word and the Holy Spirit? Because under my understanding, the concept of sin is originated in the scriptures (or for Christians in the OT) based on the Word of God, as it was recorded by Moses and others. So, then, if in fact homosexuality is determined to be a sin (or acting against the will of God) by those who follow his word, why then is it not right for a designated leader of a specific branch of the church to not have their own opinion on the actions of others in accordance to whether or not it is a sin? I mean, to a degree, that is their job. They went to school to get a degree in the study of all of this. Does that not, in some sense, make them more qualified to label sin than you or I who have not entered such an education? You certainly can choose not to respect anyone you like. But is it wise to not have respect for someone who is more educated on an issue than yourself? I'll allow you to be the judge on that matter.

:funny

NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD OR THE OT OR THE NT OR THE ENTIRE BIBLE FOR THAT MATTER.

You may believe in God and Jesus and stuff, but alot of other people don't. There are even people that believe in God/Jesus that agree with me, you cannot base all your issues on the Bible. Trying to use the Bible in an arguement pertaining to the issues of abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, etc. is not going to work - it will only make your arguement weaker and make you look like a complete and total moron. :roll:

Again, it comes back around to "against gay marriage? Don't have one!" :bravo:

 

[Schweddy]

First of all - Welcome to Debate Politics!

[moderator]
Second - tone down on the name calling. The world is not out to get you. Please respect others and they will respect you.
[/moderator]

Reverend, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt with you, as I am with everyone. That is the biggest load of bullshit that I have ever read.

On what grounds are your statements NOT?

The "whole gay population of the world" feels discriminated by people like you who decide what's right and what's wrong. The truth is, you don't know what's right or wrong more than the man in the moon.

Equally, how can the world be asured that your 'truth' is right?

What about the straight folks that feel discriminated against for being forced to agree and accept the lifestyle? Careful, it requires logic and thought.

 

[A Dawg86]

On what grounds are your statements NOT?

I'm stating my opinion. I believe that his statements are bullshit.

Equally, how can the world be asured that your 'truth' is right?

I never said my truth is right. I have my own set of truths and morals, etc., but I don't force them down people's throats.

What about the straight folks that feel discriminated against for being forced to agree and accept the lifestyle? Careful, it requires logic and thought.

No one is being forced to agree with it. If that is the case, however, I blame the media for being so incredibly involved in the whole gay rights thing. I have stated this before: I am not "a hootin' and hollerin'" homosexual. I try to be myself and be like everyone else - except my sexual orientation is different. However if anything, straight people are NOT discriminated against, at least not that I've seen. Show me proof where straights are discriminated against. If they are, then that will only make me look down on the gay community, mainly the activists that are into forcing people to accept them. I don't force people to accept me for who I am. Ignorant people are everywhere.

Also, I can't stand the whole rainbow thing. And the gay pride parades. Give me a break!

I do have one question, however. Does affirmative action include sexual orientation? If it does then I am ROYALLY pissed off, because I am against affirmative action. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you should get into college, unless you're qualified.

 

[Schweddy]

I'm stating my opinion. I believe that his statements are bullshit.

Her. hehe- I was corrected before. Thought I would give you a heads up.

I never said my truth is right. I have my own set of truths and morals, etc., but I don't force them down people's throats.

Then why are you attempting to "force" the gay marraige issue? You believe it is a good thing and you are "forcing" what you believe is a 'right'. It is NOT a right. It's a license and that license has a requirement. What if I wanted to marry my sister or cousin? What if I were 12 and wanted to marry a 50 year old?

No one is being forced to agree with it. If that is the case, however, I blame the media for being so incredibly involved in the whole gay rights thing. I have stated this before: I am not "a hootin' and hollerin'" homosexual. I try to be myself and be like everyone else - except my sexual orientation is different. However if anything, straight people are NOT discriminated against, at least not that I've seen. Show me proof where straights are discriminated against. If they are, then that will only make me look down on the gay community, mainly the activists that are into forcing people to accept them. I don't force people to accept me for who I am. Ignorant people are everywhere.

I agree there are ignorant people everywhere. You claim not to be a "hootin and hollerin" homosexual - yet you come here and call people morons. How can that possibly advance your argument? By the same argument that applies to people that condone gay marriage - look above. I am being discriminated against because I cannot marry my sister.

Also, I can't stand the whole rainbow thing. And the gay pride parades. Give me a break!

Doesn't bother me. Everyone has the right to free speech. What does bother me is Television shows that have that lifestyle (without warning) and give the perception that it is a good thing.

I do have one question, however. Does affirmative action include sexual orientation? If it does then I am ROYALLY pissed off, because I am against affirmative action. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you should get into college, unless you're qualified.

No. But, one cannot be fired or hired based on sexual orientation.

Calm down, take a moment. No one is going to bite your leg off. You seem a very agitated person.

 

[Rev.]

Her. hehe- I was corrected before. Thought I would give you a heads up.

Oh, Vauge! You outed me! :smile:

Then why are you attempting to "force" the gay marraige issue? You believe it is a good thing and you are "forcing" what you believe is a 'right'. It is NOT a right. It's a license and that license has a requirement. What if I wanted to marry my sister or cousin? What if I were 12 and wanted to marry a 50 year old?

Well said!

I do have one question, however. Does affirmative action include sexual orientation? If it does then I am ROYALLY pissed off, because I am against affirmative action. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you should get into college, unless you're qualified.

No. But, one cannot be fired or hired based on sexual orientation.

I thought affirmative action was how gays were going to insure they got their rights. Please explain.

Also, my understanding is that gay rights and gay marriage are two seperate issues. Am I right about that?

 

[shuamort]

What if I wanted to marry my sister or cousin? What if I were 12 and wanted to marry a 50 year old?

Well, it might be hard since a 12 year old isn't of age to give consentual agreement to a contract, since that is what marriage is per the government. However, if you don't mind your meat a little more ripe, you can go to Alabama and have a 15 year old, or Michigan where applicants under the age of 15 with parental consent and probate court permission. Or in Minnesota where applicants younger than 15 needs the written consent of a parent of guardian and the consent of a juvenile court judge. Or New Hampshire where a female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions

There are some states like Wisconsin and Kansas where the law is a bit ambiguous and must be up to the parents and courts. So you might still be able to get the 12 year old.


source

No. But, one cannot be fired or hired based on sexual orientation.

It depends on the state or sometimes the city. There is no federal protection to being fired, hired, or housed based on sexual orientation as there is for color, sex, etc.

For instance, the Texas legislature has House Bill 143 aka the "Texas Employment Nondiscrimination Act" which is pending in the legislature whose goals are to extend: employment discrimination protection currently provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Currently, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is not protected under federal or state law.