1. 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!

People Who Are Against Gay Marriage Aren't Thinking Things Through.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by ChristineES, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. davidthegreek

    davidthegreek Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Ratings:
    +9


    indeed. Some christians think that everyone goes to hell no matter what. Except them. How is that a logic? I personally can't say for sure who is and who isn't going to hell or heaven. This is upto God.
     
  2. ForeverFaithful

    ForeverFaithful Son Worshiper

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    962
    Ratings:
    +52
    Religion:
    Traditional Roman Catholicism
    Voting's not in the Bible so its illogical to make a comparison

    Slavery is unbiblical (Ex 21:16, Phil 16)

    Honestly it's as though you didn't realize the abolitionists were DEVOTE Christians
     
  3. ForeverFaithful

    ForeverFaithful Son Worshiper

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    962
    Ratings:
    +52
    Religion:
    Traditional Roman Catholicism
    I just don't understand what the government needs a definition of marriage for, no one really seems to object to having homo or hetrosexual partners being able to inherit property, visit each other in the hospital, live together etc etc. The issue is the term marriage, which should simply be removed from the government because

    a) they have the precedent of forcing whatever their definition of marriage is on people (be it denying homosexuals the right to call their unions such or making wedding studio accept same-sex marriages)

    b) Its a needless intervention of the worlds most incompetent and corrupt people into a term which bears so much spiritual and social significance

    c) Removing this endless debate over the legal definition of a single term will force said incompetent corrupt individuals to get back to actually attempting to fix this mess of a global economy
     
  4. Zoe Doidge

    Zoe Doidge Basically a Goddess

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    469
    Ratings:
    +40
    That would simply be renaming civil marriage, and I can’t imagine there’s any real desire for that. I doubt many people would want the government declaring their marriage was no longer marriage.
     
  5. ForeverFaithful

    ForeverFaithful Son Worshiper

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    962
    Ratings:
    +52
    Religion:
    Traditional Roman Catholicism
    If your marriage is only that because the state calls it that, I think you and your partner(s) should rethink your lives
     
  6. Zoe Doidge

    Zoe Doidge Basically a Goddess

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    469
    Ratings:
    +40
    I tell Christians that and they don't like it. For some reason they argue that the state redefining marriage somehow alters its meaning for them.

    The reality is it's become a tradition for people whether they're religious or not. I see no particular reason to remove it; it just needs to evolve a little.
     
  7. no-body

    no-body Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,656
    Ratings:
    +248
    If you mean like the universalist, unitarians and mennonite then yes I agree they where very devote Christians. Not like the Catholics who had a lot of progressive thinkers but ***** footed around because of the status quo and the pope :rolleyes: almost like certain events in our times.
     
  8. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,052
    Ratings:
    +16,909
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Exodus 21:16 doesn't say that slavery is punishable by death; it says that stealing someone else's slave is punishable by death.

    Philemon 1:16 (assuming that's the passage you're talking about) is completely out of context here. It doesn't say anything about slavery being good or bad; it merely notes that Onesimus is no longer a slave.

    So were the slavers.
     
  9. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,052
    Ratings:
    +16,909
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Plenty of hateful people have many objections, especially in the case of same-sex couples. That's part of the problem.

    It happens more than you think that same-sex couples are evicted from their homes for violating "no roommates" clauses, or people are barred from visiting their same-sex partners in hospitals, or are thrown out of their homes when their deceased partner's half of their jointly-owned house is inherited by some homophobic relative.

    I'm not sure I see your point here. The issue is the rights more than the name, and there's nothing wrong with enforcing non-discrimination rules for businesses that offer services to the public.

    The fact that I consider the term to have a great deal of spiritual and social significance is part of why I don't want to leave it just to religions.

    I don't disagree... I think that the anti-same-sex marriage crowd, in their attempt to deny people their rights in a campaign that will ultimately prove futile, is wasting huge amounts of time that could be spent in better ways. It would be better if they stopped opposing equality so we could get on to other issues.
     
  10. ForeverFaithful

    ForeverFaithful Son Worshiper

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    962
    Ratings:
    +52
    Religion:
    Traditional Roman Catholicism
    Ex 21:16 Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

    Nothing there about stealing other people's slaves, its a about stealing people, you know SLAVERY.

    For that matter Matthew 16:18 is also anti-slavery in such much as it says the Pope has the authority over these things, therefore the heretical south should have listened to;

    Pope Eugene IV condemning the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands in his bull Sicut Dudum (1435) A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” (more on it Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery)

    At best the slavers were able to throw together a few Bible quotes and rely on the ignorance of their slaves from reading the Bible themselves, lest the abolitionist spirit overcomes them. However if they were anything like the "Christian" identity movements we have today, I'll plead ignorant as far as that goes, but Christian identity communities are not Christian to begin with, they don't have proper intentions when they baptise and can not rightly be called member of Christ's body.
     
  11. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    17,918
    Ratings:
    +1,250
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think things through. I personnally believe the government should not be in the marriage business but it has to be since people are not able to manage their own relationships. Having said that I don't believe anyone has rights beyond what the constitution guarantees. I believe if the government wishes to come in on the side of righteousness isntead of championing wickedness then it has a right to do so. I believ our government has decided to champion wickedness so the whole country will suffer judgement at the hands of GOd.
     
  12. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,052
    Ratings:
    +16,909
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Actually, the word rendered "kidnaps" in your translation is literally "steals" - there's a note to that effect in the version I check (the NASB).

    It's about stealing. Stealing is something one does with property.

    In any case, I think it's a bit ridiculous to interpret this passage to mean "don't own slaves" considering how many of the other Old Testament laws are variations on the theme of "here's how you should treat the slaves you own."

    The Catholic Church's record has been spotty on slavery. You do realize that several Popes owned slaves themselves, right?

    And Paul III rescinded Sublimus Deus a year after he promulgated it. Meanwhile he spoke out in favour of slavery on several occasions:

    Sublimus Dei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You mean quotes like these?

    Exodus 20:20-21
    How on Earth can you interpret the Bible - a book that says it's okay to beat your slave to death as long as he takes a few days to die from his wounds - as "abolitionist"?


    Now... I say that knowing full well the answer to this question: the specifics of Biblical rules (e.g. explicitly allowing people to own other people as property, and setting standards - albeit often horrific standards - for how they should be treated) are at odds with the larger themes of the Bible: virtues like love, justice, and mercy.

    But the exact same is true when it comes to homosexuality: yes, there are specific Biblical rules that condemn it, but these are at odds with virtues like love, justice, and mercy.

    If a Christian can stand against slavers, he can also stand against those who try to demonize homosexuality. To do one but not the other is hypocritical.
     
  13. Zoe Doidge

    Zoe Doidge Basically a Goddess

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    469
    Ratings:
    +40
    Here’s an update from the UK, the current proposals are that the Church of England (and Wales) will be banned in law from performing gay marriage ceremonies, as the fourth part of the government’s quadruple-lock. If they accept the legislation, they’re agreeing to be the only religions in the country to be discriminated against by law.

    Not bloody likely. Nobody feels comfortable being told they don’t have a choice in the matter, even if the choice being made for them is the one they’d have made anyway. Instinct will therefore compel them to oppose this restriction on them performing gay marriage ceremonies, which is near enough a reversal of their previous stance. We’re already seeing this from the Archbishop of Wales.

    It seemed stupid at first to ban them, but we’re only in the proposal stage so it can be undone before it becomes law. Sometimes you just gotta love the Conservatives; they’ve pretty much manipulated the church into backing them by having them ask for the right to choose.
     
  14. ChristineES

    ChristineES Tiggerism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    25,055
    Ratings:
    +3,201
    Religion:
    Disciple of Yeshua.
    I wonder how many people would choose not to marry if there were no benefits from it: Tax breaks, legal rights, those sort of things. Certain religious people probably would, since it is considered a sin to have sex outside marriage in some faiths and so on. I am sure that non-religious people would like the symbolic joining of their relationship.
    But for those who don't need a symbolic joining, don't care about or believe in sin, etc. would even bother since it is such a pain to dissolve the marriage if it doesn't work out.
     
  15. Zoe Doidge

    Zoe Doidge Basically a Goddess

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    469
    Ratings:
    +40
    If it was only symbolic there'd be no need to dissolve it if it doesn't work out, you could quite literally just walk away from it. Marriage would simply become whatever each individual religion considered it to be.
     
Loading...