Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, no. The reason for it was that a lot of cultures in their immediate vicinity had an unseemly habit of raping men as one of many forms of abuse. As I can attest, having this done on one forcefully and without preparation is extremely painful, so I can see why the Hebes found it horrid. Naturally, it came to be seen as one of many forms of barbarity, so, understandably, they condemned it. If they had understood that homosexuality is an irreversible trait for some people, they would have acted differently. They were really pretty decent folk, and I don't think they seriously wanted anyone to be hurt. They just wanted things to be right. I can't fault them for that. They weren't bad people.

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians are insufferable prigs who read the Bible the way they would read an instruction manual, possibly because that's the only other kind of reading they've ever bothered to do. We call these people "fundamentalists," but "intolerable, worthless vermin" would be more well-deserved. I don't have any love for a person who reads without internalizing or caring.

I dealt with the logical aspects in my previous post, but to touch on the religious aspect as well, it doesn't take much:

Jesus said "Do not stand in the way of sinners."

It's really quite easy to shut up any Christian who actually understands their religion to some extent, about this topic. The Bible is quite clear in saying that it is not a human's place to judge and try to change the actions of supposed sinners. Heck, if a cracked out homeless guy is attacking you with a knife, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to silently pray and let the dude kill you, according to Christianity. Something along those lines.

Christianity isn't about making the world a good, Christian place. It's about accepting how the world is, and worshipping God and being as sin-free as possible, until you ascend to heaven.

Of course.. the Old Testament doesn't exactly give that message. Anyone evil enough to focus their learnings on the Old Testament is a lost cause...

there's anti-gay stuff in the new testament, too....i think paul to the romans is where you'll find it.

Yeah, but the point is, with the introduction of Jesus, the point of this theology becomes "these things are sins, you shouldn't do them, BUT, don't stick your noses into the business of other people who do choose to sin."
If more Christians practiced their religion properly, it wouldn't be such a problem for our society that their religion forbids homosexuality.

When I mention the old testament, I'm more referring to the overall old-fashionedness of its teachings. Such as things like (paraphrased) "If a friend or family member or someone tries to secretly seduce you, saying 'let us worship other gods,' you must kill him. your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death.'
Jesus is very decidedly against things like that.

It shows up in two different places, actually, but both instances are among the Epistles. On the chance that you are not conversant in Christianity, this part of the New Testament is actually a collection of letters written to various entities by individuals who played a role in the formation of the early Church. Some people adhere to the belief that these writers were operating under the direction of God, but this belief is stupid. In fact, the individuals who authored these writings often had disagreements, and Paul, himself, was known for being a bit of a radical. This is acknowledged by most educated students of Christian history and theology. You can tell a pastor of any church that has a moderately respectable sense of standards, "Paul did not have that authority," and he'll respond with something like "Okay, so you're not a fan of Paul" or try to argue that, though he didn't have the authority to make the laws, he had scholarly authority on them. He is often depicted poring over various books, taking notes.

Anyway, there is a heated dispute over whether or not Paul said anything about homosexuality at all in the NT. There are several alternative translations that actually make better sense in the context. Also, Paul, himself, was known for rejecting the authority of mosaic law over the Gentiles, and he would only accept it in cases in which it did not offend their liberty.

Even if he did condemn homosexuality, however, he did not claim to have the authority to write the laws. He was giving his own assessment of what those laws actually were and what they were intended for. The New Testament isn't consistent or perfect, and it wasn't intended to be. The writers of this book knew they were only men, and those who compiled it were aware that they didn't always agree. Reading it, you can see how their views, beliefs, and character evolved and matured over time. A Christian who does not realize this just isn't a very good Christian.

All I know is that it can be ironic (thinking about catholics here). This is why:

1)The catholic church is against birth control so
2)Less birth control = more babies and
3)Every foetus has a 1-in-2 chance of being a boy so
4) The more babies, the more baby boys, interesting when you account for the fact that
5)Male Homosexuality tends to be more common in boys/men with a large number of brothers (I don't think they got around to female homosexaulity for studies) and
6) The catholic church is against homosexuality so
7)The catholic church is actually encouraging what it is against

A bit of a roundabout argument but there you go.

Well, in some parts of the OT, you'll actually see some good ideas. Unfortunately, there aren't many who are willing to read it with the objective of understanding the people who wrote it.

I am 100% in favor of gay marriage. There would be fewer divorces if all married couples were happy. It is quite queer how short some marriages are these days.

Well said.

Indeed or 'civil unions' if we really must use that to get around people not liking the term 'marriage'

Civil unions just result in complications and create confusion for the courts, from what I've heard.

My views on the matter are pretty simple. Everyone should have the right to marry whoever they wish. Every argument otherwise that I've seen is based in bigotry. My hope is that in time the notion that one sort of sexuality is more superior or "natural" (what a useless term in the modern age!) will be regarded as a quaint relic of a less enlightened time.

You know, a gay romantic comedy has such a ridiculous capacity for hilarity, it's almost too easy. Seriously, think about it.

Marriage should be for any responsible persons.

secular marriages I full heartedly support, but we should not tamper with religious marriages. We would be doing some 1984 type stuff. We should regulate religion and tax it, not dictate its morals.

so you're basically saying the birdcage but the future married couple are the gay ones?