• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Actual Problem With Gay Marriages?

It it...?

  • Total voters
    29
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Jainarayan said:
He doesn't!? :eek: I don't remember that in the Bhagavad Gita. It's not in the Vedas or Puranas. Where did God say that he doesn't like it? :shrug:

Ohhh! You mean your image and idea of God, and the scriptures that you'd like to impose on the rest of us 4 billion or so non-Abrahamics!



What's your point? That only talks about one type of marital union, admittedly the most common type. The type most likely to end up in divorce based simply on numbers. Omission of any other kind doesn't equal prohibition. So, that verse is a bad example.

Let's move on.
Click to expand...

Is same-sex marriage allowed in India? Let's see...

The following acts cover India's marriage laws:


None of these codified marriage acts explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Neither do these acts explicitly prohibit same-sex unions.[21] However, the laws have "heteronormative underpinnings" and have been interpreted not to recognise same-sex unions.

The state of Goa is the only Indian state to have a unified marriage law. Every citizen is bound to the same law, regardless of their religion.[22] However, Goa's Uniform Civil Code explicitly defines marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.
​
Yeah, it's complicated.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Samantha Rinne said:
So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.
Click to expand...

no problem whatsoever. The Lutheran church of Sweden, for instance, happily marry gays. Same with Denmark and Norway. Swiss evangelicals also recently voted to allow them. And basically all evangelical churches in Europe are going in the same direction.

so, in a couple of generations, or even before that, it will be normal. And the ones against gay marriages today, will be remembered in the same way we remember today people who were against interracial marriages in the not too far past.

Ciao

- viole
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
viole said:
And the ones against gay marriages today, will be remembered in the same way we remember today people who were against interracial marriages in the not too far past.
Click to expand...
There are still some pretty virulent racists here in my country.
Mostly, they tend to be an embarrassment to their children and grandchildren.

I'm confident that the religious homophobes of today are already heading down that slippery slope.
Tom
 
Jainarayan

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
ecco said:
Is same-sex marriage allowed in India? Let's see...

The following acts cover India's marriage laws:


None of these codified marriage acts explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Neither do these acts explicitly prohibit same-sex unions.[21] However, the laws have "heteronormative underpinnings" and have been interpreted not to recognise same-sex unions.

The state of Goa is the only Indian state to have a unified marriage law. Every citizen is bound to the same law, regardless of their religion.[22] However, Goa's Uniform Civil Code explicitly defines marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.
​
Yeah, it's complicated.
Click to expand...

India is behind the times, but making efforts to catch up. Keep in mind that any issues about homosexuality in India are a legacy of the British and Muslim invasions and occupations. Theologically Hinduism, and afaik ancient Indian culture and society have nothing to say about homosexuality. It's Christianity and Islam that have left this mark in India.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
OK, so here we are.

On RF alone, there's been dozens of threads on this topic. This one thread has dozens of replys.

Nobody has yet described "The Actual Problem with Gay Marriages".
Nobody!

Reducing the birth rate is a good thing, given the Actual Problem for the Family of Humanity. There are people who believe that God hates F*gs, but that's a purely personal, subjective, world view. Nobody is expecting them to marry someone of the same gender.

There is, flat out, no "Actual Problem with Gay Marriages". It is demonstrably beneficial to the Human Race.
Tom
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
ecco said:
You would think that with over 500 sects of Christianity everyone could just find one they liked instead of making more new ones.
Click to expand...
That's a very highly inflated assessment of Christian sectarianism that could only be achieved by counting even the slightest ideological or organizational vatiations, and by including every possible variation on a global scale.

The individual Christian, however, does not have knowledge of or access to this absurdly wide range of supposed religious sects, and so has far, far, fewer options available to him within pragmatic reach. In fact, the vast majority of Christians will have less that a half dozen organized Christian religious variations to choose from within their practical circumstances. And with that small a number there will almost certainly be no perfect ideological fit. Meaning that either the religious organizations are going to have to bend to the will of their adherents, or the adherents will have to cede to the will of the organization.

OR, there will have to be two organizations, each with their respective positions on ideological authority.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Down through time, marriage has been for two purposes (at the same time):
1. to tell everyone who has the right to have sex with whom and hands off.
2. to raise children in a two gender home that is economically advantaged.

Even in the sort of marriages that we might consider "weird," these two things are true.

And even in cultures where homosexuality is okay, or even prized, these two things are STILL true. For example, in ancient Greece pederasty was considered the highest form of love (the love between a man and an adolescent boy). Yet MARRIAGE was for the purposes of procreation.

This really is the first time in history that gay love can result in a sanctioned marriage. Other cultures have had ceremonies for gay love, but they have not been marriage ceremonies. We really don't know yet what the effects of this experiment.
 
halbhh

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Samantha Rinne said:
So what exactly is the problem?

Well, there's theories:

-On is to ignore that there is a problem and to be pro-gay marriages. But even if you are for gay marriages, this is still ignoring that something about this God doesn't like. Which means I'll skip to the meat of it:
- Awhile back, the Episcopal church voted to split over gay marriage. They became Anglican and Episcopalian. Then Methodists voted against, but wound up being forced to split anyway. Let's read Genesis, with of course those offensive words like 'man' and 'woman' changed to person.
"For this reason a person shall leave their father and mother and be united to their wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate. " It's not relevant who is the husband and who is the wife (but from previous threads, you'll note that I do not believe in two parties working or two parties raising children, one cannot work in terms of the child, the other fails economically). What is relevant is the attempt to divide the church. God has married the church, united it, and people should not be voting to split.
-There's also the fact that this whole thing smacks of government intervention, specifically a secular system trying to impose Obama era rules on a public who would rather go to church to worship.
-Oh yeah and there's also the classic arguments that it's calling something sinful morally good, or a gateway drug to other odd behavior, or that it ignores the actual meaning of marriage (which is not for couples but for families, though I could contend this last one would be fine if gays could adopt more easily). But Ibthink these are secondary to the two real issues.
Click to expand...
What some of us might want to vote for:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

That would surely be my choice if available.

Re imagine this whole question as about....divorce.

Should the divorced/remarried be excommunicated from churches (or Catholic version which is every worse really: have communion denied(!!)?

(or the alcoholic?)

Not in my religion.

We come to Christ because we are sinners, in need of a Savior.

Not because we are the perfect that can Judge others.

With that understanding, I welcome all sinners to my church.

Are you a sinner? Come over here and eat with us!


----------
(side issue but important for some: being gay isn't a sin, and being gay and married isn't a sin, but the particular action referred to as sodomy intercourse is a sin apparently, which seems to leave about 1,000 other ways to be intimate...but....I'm not the Judge of you... I've probably done worse, and I'm not even the Judge of me.)
 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
columbus said:
OK, so here we are.

On RF alone, there's been dozens of threads on this topic. This one thread has dozens of replys.

Nobody has yet described "The Actual Problem with Gay Marriages".
Nobody!

Reducing the birth rate is a good thing, given the Actual Problem for the Family of Humanity. There are people who believe that God hates F*gs, but that's a purely personal, subjective, world view. Nobody is expecting them to marry someone of the same gender.

There is, flat out, no "Actual Problem with Gay Marriages". It is demonstrably beneficial to the Human Race.
Tom
Click to expand...
Post number thirty six

Edited to include link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Jainarayan said:
India is behind the times, but making efforts to catch up. Keep in mind that any issues about homosexuality in India are a legacy of the British and Muslim invasions and occupations. Theologically Hinduism, and afaik ancient Indian culture and society have nothing to say about homosexuality. It's Christianity and Islam that have left this mark in India.
Click to expand...
That's probably correct.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
IndigoChild5559 said:
Down through time, marriage has been for two purposes (at the same time):
1. to tell everyone who has the right to have sex with whom and hands off.
2. to raise children in a two gender home that is economically advantaged.
Click to expand...
Perhaps those are the reasons you got married. To tell the world your spouse was no longer available unless they cheated on you.

For some, marriage has to do with showing commitment to a loved one. How sad that you don't know this.


You also seem to be unaware that, in our civilized society, marriage is a legal institution that conveys advantages to each member of the marriage.
 
B

Baroodi

Active Member
ecco said:
Bush was a big believer in God. He lied to his Congress and the people and initiated an invasion of Iraq.

I don't know where you get your morals but your fellow Muslims engaged in the deliberate destruction and theft of cultural heritage sites.

I don't know where you get your morals but your fellow Muslims engaged in genocide of Christian Yazidis.



Maybe the Hindus have seen what Muslims do to non-Muslims and want to limit their influence in India.



Like the minority Christians oppressed in Islamic countries.




Who's pessimistic? Not me? The only thing that makes me pessimistic is when I think of the influence of religions on rational thought.



What you mean is that Muslims are going to kill more non-Muslims in a holy war.



Truly wise people recognize the vast amount of violence perpetrated In God's Name regardless of who the God is at the moment.

Truly wise people advocate against all religions.
Click to expand...


Hi Ecco

You need to support your allegations by evidence

ICIS killed many folds of innocent Muslims than any other cults. ICIS was made by foreign intelligence to invade the area and to take trillions of dollars as oil, they represent no one other than those who made them. this is not a secret. Who is supplying ICIS by weapons? ask your self.
In my home country Christians have their churches every where. If you hear any thing other than this, that is untrue. I invite you to visit Sudan and see with your eyes. where is this oppression you are talking about? please don`t revert to fabrications.
As for the Hindu following the foot steps of evils that is silly. Muhammed says ( No one of you should be a pawn saying: I will follow the people, if they did good I do good and if they did bad I do bad. But control yourself, if people do good, do as they do. And if they do bad, avoid what they did)
 
B

Baroodi

Active Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
Is that why life in secular nations is so much better then in non-secular countries?



Is that why the various muslim denominations disagree so much on their religion, that they are willing to kill eachother over it?

Statistically the biggest threat to muslims, are other muslims.



"weird" in your subjective / religious opinion
Click to expand...
3) atheism [/quote]

:rolleyes:



Extremism of all kinds is indeed a problem and obstacle to any cooperative society that values freedom.
This is one of the reasons why middle eastern theocracies are such horrible places.



I agree on 4, as it is the primary reason for many current conflicts and trampling of human rights.

How atheism is supposedly a societal problem, is something I don't see. Perhaps you can explain?



Dostoevsky, however that is, was wrong.




And he has said on record that God told him to do so.




Yes, I think Trump represents the ACTUAL threat to modern civilization, which is a right wiing / nationalistic populism that thrives on misinformation, fake news and plain lies.



Excuse me, but the UN has condemned Israel for their behaviour a ridiculous amount of times. The thing is that the US keeps vetoing any and every resolution against Israel. Oftenly from a mainly religious foundation, I might add.



Not aware of this.



Nothing new there. However, at least modern secular democracies (that you apparantly don't like) try to put things in place to protect them.

You see, ultimately... the point of a democracy is NOT to give the majority what they want, like many people tend to believe. In fact, the point of a democracy is to make sure that minorities are protected and have a platform to have their voice heared.



How so?

Hi There
Do you think our world is ruled by common unbiased values. What do you call some goverments support a coup leader like Hifter in Libya and supplies him with weapons and logistics while antagonizing a leagally elected and acknowledged goverments? Other exaple is the military general in Egypt (Sessi). On what bases this is done. Is this international justice?
This is a jungle, the strongest would eat the weakest. Interests of bully guys is the secret? Human rights when violated by an alley no problem, they keep silent but if violated by an enemy, wars are launched. No ethics under secularism. For the same reasons we are unable to have stable demcratic rule in the middle east. France, Italy, Egypt and the Gulf are supporting a power kidnaper in Libya and perpetuating a civil war there. Now Sudan revolted and destroyed a long lived dictatorship, but Sudan sill under American beseige although so many poor people are unable to find easily one poor meal a day to tap on hunger bangs. A lot of plots are manuvered to keep the region under unrest my dear. Take Syria as another example, Why the Russian are siding with a killer like Basshar Elasad?
The advent of the Massaiha is a divinely promissed fact in scriptures. He would spread real justice all over after all this disaaray. This is part of my believe.. Let us wait and see.
No for war, yes for peace.




And the way to do that, is through secular humanism.
Not be implementing your particular version of islam.


That's not the point of the UN nore has it ever been.



How does secular humanism strip you from your freedom or rights concerning your prefered "sanctities"?[/QUOTE]
 
B

Baroodi

Active Member
Mock Turtle said:
Islam is so pristine yet split into two factions almost immediately. It usually takes longer for most other religions.
Click to expand...


That not true, Shi`a Islam was invented more than 30 years after the death of Islam prophet Muhammed who when died explained every single thing about Islam rituals and interpersonal deals. After the death of the fourth Kaliph Ali the Shi`a doctrine start to crystallize. Muhammed says: whoever invent a fab in our religion, he does not belong to us.
 
B

Baroodi

Active Member
Mestemia said:
That is quite the nice choir sermon there, but what does it have to do with the OP?
Click to expand...

:):):)

Good question

We need to listen to God word who says(whoever repels away from my guidance, would suffer a hard living)

A very rich person can suffer this type of living while a very poor person can live in happiness and vice versa
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Baroodi said:
:):):)

Good question

We need to listen to God word who says(whoever repels away from my guidance, would suffer a hard living)

A very rich person can suffer this type of living while a very poor person can live in happiness and vice versa
Click to expand...
And yet I repelled away from god and his "guidance" and my suffering has lessened, things keep getting better for me, and I'm not nearly as depressed or anxious as I was when I was a Christian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top