Homosexuality / Marriage

[Jaymes]

At least Bastet got my point

 

[blueman]

That may be fine for the Christian, but what about the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Atheist, etc.? Why should they be discriminated against because of the "rules" of your religion? That makes no sense.

It does make sense when it is your belief. I am not asking you to embrace or agree with it. But I addressed this issue from a biblical perspective and will continue to do so. In no way am I implying discrimination against people of other beliefs. I am basing my opinion on my beliefs and values as the majority of people in this society do as well. :jiggy:

 

[blueman]

I could say the same about your post that she was replying to. Many here would agree with me.

You have a right to your opinion and I respect that, but I disagree with you. Build your house on solid rock, not sand. :jiggy:

 

[Bastet]

You have a right to your opinion and I respect that, but I disagree with you. Build your house on solid rock, not sand. :jiggy:

Again, I would say the same to you. This, however, is not the thread to debate that, so I will comment no further on it.

 

[Green Gaia]

In no way am I implying discrimination against people of other beliefs.

Yes you are. You're saying that the laws of a secular government should follow the beliefs of your religion, a belief that condemns same sex couples and allows them to be treated as inferior humans. How is that not discrimination? Just because you are basing your attitude towards BGLT people on your religious beliefs doesn't make any less discriminatory and hurtful.

I am basing my opinion on my beliefs and values as the majority of people in this society do as well.

The majority of people in this society 50 years ago where against equal treatment of non-whites. That's why we have the court system to insure that the laws of this secular government are equal and fair to all.

 

[jamaesi]

Oh, must I?


The Bible also says that men are the head of women and women are to cover their hair or shave it off, never speak in Church because it's shameful, and to not braid their hair. Paul, in his ever so tolerant ways, disses marriage and women in general. The Bible also supports slavery and tells slaves to obey their masters. A woman is to marry her rapist, according to the Bible. Do I even need to get into what the Bible says you can and can not eat?

Your "Word of God" says many things.


If you want to practice your religion, that's fine and dandy. Don't force it on anyone else.

 

[blueman]

Yes you are. You're saying that the laws of a secular government should follow the beliefs of your religion, a belief that condemns same sex couples and allows them to be treated as inferior humans. How is that not discrimination? Just because you are basing your attitude towards BGLT people on your religious beliefs doesn't make any less discriminatory and hurtful.

The majority of people in this society 50 years ago where against equal treatment of non-whites. That's why we have the court system to insure that the laws of this secular government are equal and fair to all.
[/QUOTE)

You are way off base here. I never said the government or anyone else should infringe on one's life choice, unless it is an illegal act. I gave my opinion based on biblical principles and not the law. So you are taking this way out of context.

 

[Green Gaia]

You are way off base here. I never said the government or anyone else should infringe on one's life choice, unless it is an illegal act. I gave my opinion based on biblical principles and not the law. So you are taking this way out of context.

But you don't believe same sex couples should be treated as equal to heterosexual couples, do you?

 

[jamaesi]

If giving rights to homosexuals is illegal, then you must not support women or non-whites having rights. It's what the Bible says. : D

 

[blueman]

But you don't believe same sex couples should be treated as equal to heterosexual couples, do you?

I don't agree with the lifestyle, but no one should be discriminated against or denied their rights. Does that answer your question? :jiggy:

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't agree with the lifestyle, but no one should be discriminated against or denied their rights. Does that answer your question? :jiggy:

So you support full legal marriage rights for same sex couples, correct?

And it's not a lifestye, it's not a behavior, it's a sexuality (like heterosexuality) which one has as much control over as they do the color of their eyes.

 

[blueman]

So you support full legal marriage rights for same sex couples, correct?

And it's not a lifestye, it's not a behavior, it's a sexuality (like heterosexuality) which one has as much control over as they do the color of their eyes.

I think I answered your question the first time and in my opinion, it is a lifestyle choice and a behavior. If you are trying to justify it any other way, it's a stretch. :jiggy:

 

[Pah]

I think I answered your question the first time and in my opinion, it is a lifestyle choice and a behavior. If you are trying to justify it any other way, it's a stretch. :jiggy:

I take offense at that statement and the ignorance that lies therein

 

[Green Gaia]

I think I answered your question the first time and in my opinion, it is a lifestyle choice and a behavior. If you are trying to justify it any other way, it's a stretch.

Are you saying you know me better I than I know myself? I know I did not choose to be gay, I just am. Sexuality is not a lifestyle. My lifestyle little different from my siblings who are not gay. I have 2 kids, a car payment, rent, I'm going to college, I go to church (UU) and I eat three meals a day. That is my lifestye which has nothing to do with who I am attracted to. Do you define your lifestyle by whom you feel attracted to? Nope, didn't think so.

Explain to me how it is a behavior, because that makes no sense. Even if homosexuality were a behavior, this would not make a difference; religion is a behavior and it is protected under civil rights law. Anyway, homosexuality is not based on any kind of behavior, rather it is a state of being...it is a characteristic which makes up part of the identity of the gay person. To call such an intrinsic trait a "behavior" dehumanizes and in effect says that gay people are not fully human.

It seems that it is YOU sir who are the one stretching to justify your attitiude towards BGLT people.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... It was never God's intent ...

You do realize that there are a lot of other people on this planet that would tell you that you have no idea what God intends? Wrap yourself in a self righteous view of God if you will, but please understand when the rest of us don't take you at your word.

At the end of the day, God's (notice the capital G applies) will and purpose does apply. Whatever man's intervention is regarding this issue will be rendered irrelevant when all is said and done. There will be a much harsher judgement that all men/women will have to face and be accountable for their life choices.

- and -

Jensa, It was not even worth posting that nonsense.

Kinda missed the point of Jensa's reply there, didn't you.

... In no way am I implying discrimination against people of other beliefs.

Intentional or not, that statement is a lie.

I am basing my opinion on my beliefs and values as the majority of people in this society do as well. :jiggy:

I don't care if you are basing your opinion's on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Thoreau, or God himself - it is still discrimination. As for the fact that a majority of the people in our country agree with you does not make it right - it merely means that you do not have sole rights to religious intolerance and bigotry. Claiming that there are other bigots isn't much of a defense of your position.

I don't agree with the lifestyle, but no one should be discriminated against or denied their rights. Does that answer your question? :jiggy:

What a crock. In one post, you state that gay couples don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, and in the next breath you are telling us how "no one should be discriminated against or denied their rights". Which is it?

I think I answered your question the first time and in my opinion, it is a lifestyle choice and a behavior. If you are trying to justify it any other way, it's a stretch. :jiggy:

I think telling someone else what they think is a stretch. Then again, I don't suffer from the delusion that I am speaking for God.



On a side note, is there some reason that compels you to put the smiley face at the end of every post? It's almost as if you feel that adding a smiley to a post that offends people somehow makes it more palatable. It doesn't.

TVOR

 

[blueman]

I take offense at that statement and the ignorance that lies therein

That is your opinion and you havea right to it. I stand by what I said.

 

[blueman]

You do realize that there are a lot of other people on this planet that would tell you that you have no idea what God intends? Wrap yourself in a self righteous view of God if you will, but please understand when the rest of us don't take you at your word.


- and -
Kinda missed the point of Jensa's reply there, didn't you.



Intentional or not, that statement is a lie.



I don't care if you are basing your opinion's on the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Thoreau, or God himself - it is still discrimination. As for the fact that a majority of the people in our country agree with you does not make it right - it merely means that you do not have sole rights to religious intolerance and bigotry. Claiming that there are other bigots is quite a defense of your position.



What a crock. In one post, you state that gay couples don't deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, and in the next breath you are telling us how "no one should be discriminated against or denied their rights". Which is it?



I think telling someone else what they think is a stretch. Then again, I don't suffer from the delusion that I am speaking for God.



On a side note, is there some reason that compels you to put the smiley face at the end of every post? It's almost as if you feel that adding a smiley to a post that offends people somehow makes it more palatable. It doesn't.

TVOR

Okay, so you don't agree with me, no problem. I don't have to speak for God. Pick up a Bible and He will speak to you Himself about the issue in question, without ambiguity. Please show me when I explicitly stated that gay partners do not deserve their rights? I never discriminate against any individual and extend love to all people. That does not mean that I am compelled to agree with that lifestyle. Why do you worry about the triviality of me leaving a smiley face icon. Lighten up. :jiggy:

 

[blueman]

Oh, must I?


The Bible also says that men are the head of women and women are to cover their hair or shave it off, never speak in Church because it's shameful, and to not braid their hair. Paul, in his ever so tolerant ways, disses marriage and women in general. The Bible also supports slavery and tells slaves to obey their masters. A woman is to marry her rapist, according to the Bible. Do I even need to get into what the Bible says you can and can not eat?

Your "Word of God" says many things.


If you want to practice your religion, that's fine and dandy. Don't force it on anyone else.

First of all, don't generalize the Bible, but be specific in regards to the passages of scripture, who was the writer speaking to, in what context and during what time. It was very customary for certain practices to exist during the period and be ingrained in that culture. Don't just take one scripture without making reference to it and some of the remaining verses in that passage to get a clearer perspective and discernment in what the writer/speaker meant.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Okay, so you don't agree with me, no problem.

Good.

I don't have to speak for God. Pick up a Bible and He will speak to you Himself about the issue in question, without ambiguity.

Since we all understand that your version of God is not universally accepted, your position is only valid when the group you are addressing share your views. Picking up a Bible has, unfortunately, not resulted in God speaking to me - about any issue. With no reply from God, ambiguity is a moot point.

Please show me when I explicitly stated that gay partners do not deserve their rights?

You have not EXPLICITY stated that gay partners do not deserve their rights. In posts #34 and #42 you implied very clearly what your position is. You can play semantics all you wish, but you were quite clear on where you stand.

I never discriminate against any individual and extend love to all people. That does not mean that I am compelled to agree with that lifestyle.

I'm not asking you to agree with that lifestyle. I am only asking you to extend the same rights to gays that the rest of us enjoy.

Why do you worry about the triviality of me leaving a smiley face icon. Lighten up. :jiggy:

As I said earlier, offensive statements are not softened by the addition of a smiley icon. I find it condescending to think that we cannot discern the difference.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[jamaesi]

First of all, don't generalize the Bible, but be specific in regards to the passages of scripture, who was the writer speaking to, in what context and during what time. It was very customary for certain practices to exist during the period and be ingrained in that culture. Don't just take one scripture without making reference to it and some of the remaining verses in that passage to get a clearer perspective and discernment in what the writer/speaker meant.

Funny how everything else was just the culture back then, but it's still it's okay to call gays evil. I think the current culture is to be tolerant of everyone else even if you don't agree with them, but that's just me.




I'll put things into a little more context for you, though.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 1:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

Janat

"As in all the congregations of the saints, (your) women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a women to speak in Church." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first; then Eve. And Adam was no the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But woman (in the Greek verison, she) will be saved (or restored) through childbearing- if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut or shaved off; and it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman should have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Corinthians 11:3-10)

The Bible says not to eat pigs. Christians don't rally for laws against the consumption of pigs. The Bible says slaves are okay, yet there are laws against it. The Bible says it's shameful for a woman to speak in Church- and God forbid she not have her hair covered!- and yet there are no Christians rallying for the complete silence of women in Churches.




All arguments about homosexuality usually fall back onto a religion of some sort. Here in America, it is Christianity, seeing as it is largest religious group (for now at least). Religion and G-d have yet to be fully proved or disproved with no shadow of any doubt, it's a personal choice.

If you don't use religion, which is a very bad thing to base an argument on to begin with, seeing as not everyone is of the same one religious group and even those in a group disagree on certain topics, what have you to say homosexuality is an unnatural and bad and evil thing on?

Could say biology, seeing as males and females have different parts that clearly go together and it's unnatural for two males or two females to be together. But a counter for that is the theory that there might be a homosexuality gene, which is biological too and the fact there are many animals that display homosexual tendencies- monkeys, whales, giraffes, penguins, pigs- all different kinds of animals engage in homosexual sex. In the news recently there were stories about male penguins who would only take male mates. Many think that animals rely only on instinct, so those tendencies must be a natural thing.

To go back to a religious standpoint, no one knows what G-d thinks. You can shove any Holy Book at me and say it's all in there, but did G-d come down and write them itself? No. Humans wrote them. Even if they were inspired by G-d and exactly what he said then, humans translated them and humans changed them, and humans make errors and mistakes. G-d hasn't ordered anyone to make HolyBook v2.0 with all the bugs and mistranslations worked out yet, either.



http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
This is a very interesting read, also, though I am not sure of it's validity.