Homosexual Marriages (Again)

Jayhawker Soule · Dec 9, 2005

JamesThePersian said:
I cannot expect everyone in the world to have an Orthodox wedding and who am I to judge another's sins. Adultery, surely, means wilfully pursuing a sexual relationship outside of marriage (or else we'd consider rape victims adulterers). If you believe that your union is a valid marriage, then, I fail to see how this can be adultery.

That was a great response. Thanks.

Pah · Dec 9, 2005

JamesThePersian said:
Actually, no. If you were to have a sex change you would still be a man (or woman) in the eyes of the Church regardless of your apparent gender after surgery and if you were to fool the priest into thinking you were of a sex you were not the marriage would be invalid. The loop holes you see simply do not exist.

James

That smacks so much of approving God's mistake. But then that would be a logical result of not applying logic to the case. Or maybe it derives from a thought that God can make no mistakes.

There are so many paths that transgendered circumstances open up and none of them speak well for many churches. I wonder how ambigious external morophology is considered. I wonder how external morphology not supporting internal morpology is considered.

It seems to me that if a church authority has to rely on science or medicine to determine sexual identity, then the whole question does not belong in the realm of religion.

michel · Dec 9, 2005

JerryL said:
No, it's Florida. A man in a second-floor room videotaped (without consent) a married couple in their bedroom. The video tape became distributed. The couple sued the man (and lost, as Florida has laws primarily protecting audio recordings, not video), and the man pressed charges for oral copulation.

There was a woman in Texas in the past few months arrested for selling vibrators. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/16/MNGEA3O52I1.DTL) They sent in undercover agents to catch people selling vibrators.

"Moseley, in the midst of a five-year sentence at a state prison outside Atlanta, is doing time for committing oral sex. With his wife. " - http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html (that's in Georgia.

The list goes on and on. Sex laws are very numerios and (very scarily) enforced. It's why I think all laws should automatically expire. If they are good, they can be repassed / extended.

Forgettiung the rest of your post, which does seem to highlight absurd laws, I personally think that "A man in a second-floor room videotaped (without consent) a married couple in their bedroom " would make the man be in the position of being morally corrupt; in fact, in my eyes, he would be much more morally reprehensible than the couple, who were consenting adults doing what they wanted to do, in the privacy of their own home.

Does Florida understand the calendar? - they don't think the year is now 1005, by any chance ? ( I thought maybe they went back down to 1000 when they got to 1999.....:biglaugh: )

I'm sorry, I laugh, but it isn't funny. It is totally absurd. No wonder you all, who aren't Christians, get annoyed by the 'so called' Christians, if that is their moral lead..........

angellous_evangellous · Dec 9, 2005

Pah said:
That smacks so much of approving God's mistake. But then that would be a logical result of not applying logic to the case. Or maybe it derives from a thought that God can make no mistakes.

There are so many paths that transgendered circumstances open up and none of them speak well for many churches. I wonder how ambigious external morophology is considered. I wonder how external morphology not supporting internal morpology is considered.

It seems to me that if a church authority has to rely on science or medicine to determine sexual identity, then the whole question does not belong in the realm of religion.

I have been thinking about this as well. The problem, of course, as you know is that the (Christian) Bible does address same-sex activity as a sin (placing the whole issue in the realm of religion), but cannot address the scientific issue of human sexuality as it appears in medical science today. That is, the Bible addresses people as having only one sexuality = heterosexuality, and what we call homosexuality is addressed as heterosexuals participating in homoerotic behavior. The concept that there is more than one sexuality is post-modern.

I don't know of any Bible verse that has been traditionally interpreted as addressing morphology (a possible reference could be in the NT - "some are born eunichs"), although I hear that it is rather common.

I agree: theology cannot answer scientific questions. Science can tell us if there is more than one sexuality, which has not been done yet. The question is only answered philosophically (eg, metaphysically), and has just as much validity as ANY religious reflection (pro- or con).

Morphology does present a rather interesting problem for people who want to argue against homosexuality, because it demonstates to me at least that the spectrum of human sexuality is more broad than traditionally thought.

James the Persian · Dec 9, 2005

Pah said:
That smacks so much of approving God's mistake. But then that would be a logical result of not applying logic to the case. Or maybe it derives from a thought that God can make no mistakes.

There are so many paths that transgendered circumstances open up and none of them speak well for many churches. I wonder how ambigious external morophology is considered. I wonder how external morphology not supporting internal morpology is considered.

It seems to me that if a church authority has to rely on science or medicine to determine sexual identity, then the whole question does not belong in the realm of religion.

Well, I'm sure you're aware that the Christian view is that God is perfect, and so makes no mistakes. I'm not sure what else there is to write in reply to you on this, but my point still stands. A person who has a sex change cannot marry another person of the same sex in Church. All the operation has done, after all is change their external appearance. I feel that this has little to do with 'relying on science' and more to do with our belief that we should accept and bear the crosses we are given.

James

mormonman · Dec 9, 2005

It doesn't matter what gender you become after you are born, God made you male or female. If a male has a sex change he's still a man. I've heard some people that have said that God created them gay. But throughout the scriptures God has repeatedly said homosexuality is wrong. If God did create them this way, then He is a hypocrite. God can't be a hypocrite, because he is perfect. So if homosexuality is religiously wrong, there shouldn't be any question that gay marriage is wrong.

ladylazarus · Dec 9, 2005

It doesn't matter what gender you become after you are born, God made you male or female.

That would also mean that god put you in circumstances which prompted you to decide to get a sex change.

Sunstone · Dec 9, 2005

Mormonman said:
So if homosexuality is religiously wrong, there shouldn't be any question that gay marriage is wrong.

Even if gay marriage is religiously wrong, that does not mean it is wrong for society. Society supports many things that are religiously wrong. For instance, the eating of shellfish, the wearing of clothing of two fabrics, divorce, etc.

muichimotsu · Dec 9, 2005

Agreed. The separation of church and state had a reason behind it and it was because each religion has certain biases and beliefs that conflict with the diversity of society that the Constitution tells us we have a responsibility to accept. No matter how much religion condemns homosexual behavior, gay marriage or anything that seems "sinful" to them, does not mean that their opinion dictates the whole truth of the world, no matter if their God says so, because he's not everyone's God, right?

Green Gaia · Dec 9, 2005

mormonman said:
So if homosexuality is religiously wrong, there shouldn't be any question that gay marriage is wrong.

That only matters to those of the religion claiming homosexuality is wrong. Since this is a secular society with secular laws, same sex marriage should be legal if heterosexual marriage is legal, as there is no secular reason to deny same sex couple equal marriage rights and benefits.

anders · Dec 9, 2005

mormonman said:
It doesn't matter what gender you become after you are born, God made you male or female.

In the first place, that statement requires that you belive in (the Christian?) God. In the second place, there are just so many cases that require intricate testing to determine the sex/gender of an infant.

If a male has a sex change he's still a man.

Please tell us by which criteria you judge the sex of an infant. Appearance, and if yes, in what way, or by ... no I won't make it too easy to you.

I've heard some people that have said that God created them gay.

Being created by someting else than natural laws and processes sounds silly to me, but I fully accept that some people are born with an attraction to what seems to be their "opposite" sex.

But throughout the scriptures God has repeatedly said homosexuality is wrong.

And repeatably, serious and highly educated Bible researches have come up with other interpretations of each and every of those pericopes.

If God did create them this way, then He is a hypocrite.

And that's surely a kind way of expressing the way many of us judge your God.

So if homosexuality is religiously wrong, there shouldn't be any question that gay marriage is wrong.

But if it isn't, why deny loving people a union allowed for other loving people?

pdoel · Dec 9, 2005

mormonman said:
It doesn't matter what gender you become after you are born, God made you male or female. If a male has a sex change he's still a man. I've heard some people that have said that God created them gay. But throughout the scriptures God has repeatedly said homosexuality is wrong. If God did create them this way, then He is a hypocrite. God can't be a hypocrite, because he is perfect. So if homosexuality is religiously wrong, there shouldn't be any question that gay marriage is wrong.

But God created all creatures, correct? We are taught that God created the Universe, the animals, humans, etc. God created all things. If God is so powerful, why could he not create people who were not gay?

If someone is killed tragically, we often hear people say, "It's not for us to understand, but it's all part of God's plan." We're taught that God loves all his creatures. So, why would he "plan" to have someone die in a tragic manner? Everything has a purpose.

I can tell you for a fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Whether people are born gay, or whether it's a factor of their environment, I do not know. But, I can tell you for fact, that it's not a choice.

My faith tells me that I am the person that God intended for me to be. I don't understand His plan, I don't know the meaning of life. I just know that I'm here for a reason, unknown to me, and that I just need to live the life that God has chosen for me.

I'm gay. There is no question in my mind that I am gay because that's what God wanted me to be. I don't believe He would give me the ability to love someone of the same sex, but then want me to not experience that love. I don't think God is that cruel.

All I can do is be the best Christian that I can possibly be. And that's my goal. Whether someone is gay, straight, black, white, American, Canadian, African, blind, deaf, doesn't matter. God loves us all.

Your faith tells you that God hates homosexuals. Mine tells me otherwise. Who's is right? We won't know that until judgement day. But I think it's extremely arrogant for people to think they know all, without allowing for any error. As long as what someone is not hurting others, who cares who they sleep with, or what they call their relationship?

michel · Dec 9, 2005

pdoel said:
But God created all creatures, correct? We are taught that God created the Universe, the animals, humans, etc. God created all things. If God is so powerful, why could he not create people who were not gay?

If someone is killed tragically, we often hear people say, "It's not for us to understand, but it's all part of God's plan." We're taught that God loves all his creatures. So, why would he "plan" to have someone die in a tragic manner? Everything has a purpose.

I can tell you for a fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Whether people are born gay, or whether it's a factor of their environment, I do not know. But, I can tell you for fact, that it's not a choice.

My faith tells me that I am the person that God intended for me to be. I don't understand His plan, I don't know the meaning of life. I just know that I'm here for a reason, unknown to me, and that I just need to live the life that God has chosen for me.

I'm gay. There is no question in my mind that I am gay because that's what God wanted me to be. I don't believe He would give me the ability to love someone of the same sex, but then want me to not experience that love. I don't think God is that cruel.

All I can do is be the best Christian that I can possibly be. And that's my goal. Whether someone is gay, straight, black, white, American, Canadian, African, blind, deaf, doesn't matter. God loves us all.

Your faith tells you that God hates homosexuals. Mine tells me otherwise. Who's is right? We won't know that until judgement day. But I think it's extremely arrogant for people to think they know all, without allowing for any error. As long as what someone is not hurting others, who cares who they sleep with, or what they call their relationship?

Hurrah! pdoel, a fantastic post. I am not Gay, but I believe that homosexuality is not a choice

All I can do is be the best Christian that I can possibly be. And that's my goal. Whether someone is gay, straight, black, white, American, Canadian, African, blind, deaf, doesn't matter. God loves us all.

You have said it all; fruballs to you friend.

Green Gaia · Dec 9, 2005

pdoel said:
Your faith tells you that God hates homosexuals. Mine tells me otherwise. Who's is right? We won't know that until judgement day. But I think it's extremely arrogant for people to think they know all, without allowing for any error. As long as what someone is not hurting others, who cares who they sleep with, or what they call their relationship?

Well, I don't believe in a "judgement day" but my thoughts echo the rest of your post. Well done. :clap

Jayhawker Soule · Dec 9, 2005

pdoel said:
... I think it's extremely arrogant for people to think they know all, without allowing for any error. As long as what someone is not hurting others, who cares who they sleep with, or what they call their relationship?

Presumably the authors of Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

pdoel · Dec 9, 2005

Deut. 10:19 said:
Presumably the authors of Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

John 8:6-7

5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Matthew 7:1

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Jayhawker Soule · Dec 9, 2005

pdoel said:
Deut. 10:19 said:

Presumably the authors of Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Click to expand...

John 8:6-7
John 3:16
Matthew 7:1

To the best of my recollection, neither Matthew nor John wrote Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, but thanks.

pdoel · Dec 9, 2005

Deut. 10:19 said:
To the best of my recollection, neither Matthew nor John wrote Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, but thanks.

Did I say they did?

You felt the need to quote a Bible verse to say that homosexuality is wrong. I quoted some Bible verses that would prove otherwise.

Are we so narrow minded that we can only look at a tiny fragment of the Bible, and use that as the basis for all of our laws?

As far as I'm concerned, the most important verse in the Bible for a Christian is John 3:16. That says it all. There are many sins discussed in the old testament. Many laws. But then everything changed. God gave us his only Son, so that we may be saved. And as long as you believe in Him, you shall be saved.

Are you so quick to discount that?

If you want to use old Bible verses to decide what should be law, why stop at homosexuality? Have you ever fought to have divorce outlawed? Have you ever fought to have women arrested for speaking in Church? If your brother were to die, would you immediately marry his wife?

I don't understand how people can hold steadfast to outdated laws in the Bible and force everyone to live by their interpretation of the Bible. But then just be carefree about the rest.

Jayhawker Soule · Dec 9, 2005

pdoel said:
You felt the need to quote a Bible verse to say that homosexuality is wrong.

I am not quoting the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong but, rather, quoting where the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Learn the difference.

YmirGF · Dec 9, 2005

If such a simple and decent thing as gay marriage destroys ones fragile concepts of marriage then ones concept of marriage is a tad lacking to begin with. I cannot see just how honoring and enshrining same-sex couples rights could be a bad thing. Jeez, next they will be calling for rights of the fetus.

Deut. 10:19 said:
I am not quoting the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong but, rather, quoting where the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Learn the difference.

I think mankind really does need to toss his moldy tombs of second hand information aside. They cloud ones thinking. Deut 10:19. Can you give me one reason why I should give a rat's hindquarters to what some silly book like the Bible says? Like, really. More importantly WHY should I care just what the Bible says?

Homosexual Marriages (Again)

-- untitled --

Uber all member

Administrator Emeritus

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Ammon is awesome

Member

De Diablo Del Fora

Holding All and None

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Active Member

-- untitled --

Active Member

-- untitled --

Bodhisattva in Recovery