A Question About Same Sex Marriage

[HoneyVision]

Also, people like to pick bits they like out of the bible and ignore the bits they don't like.

What most blind subscribers to "damn gays" mentality don't realize is, the strongest argument in the bible against homosexuality comes from Leviticus, which is full of weird shit like this;



"You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

"Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native. If he utters the name, he must be put to death."


also, you



can't go anywhere near ladies during their time of the month,

CAN sell your daughter into slavery,

CAN'T go to church if you NEED GLASSES to see

With all due respect, you should do a little more research about the Bible instead of just throwing together random quotes from it. The laws that you've quoted are all from the Old Testament and are no longer applicable nor required of Christians, because the New Testament is about Jesus' coming and his abolishment of all those old laws, which also include things like not eating pork and staying at home on the Sabbath and all the rest of that stuff. The laws of the Old Testament are in no way encouraged anymore, only used as a guideline with what the New Testament preaches.

 

[Innegativeion]

*snip*

I'm quoting weird laws specifically from Leviticus, which is the book that happens to contain pretty much the only really definitive, unambiguous statement against homosexuality in the bible, the one people always quote. As I explained already.

I'm also talking about the ignorant people who use the bible as grounds for holding thoughts against homosexuals, not any strict 'official' teachings on it. The people who quote Leviticus to persecute gay people obviously are ignorant of exactly what their hierarchy, if there is one for their denomination, says about the Old Testament.

My point is, you can use the OT as a "guideline" all you like, but that doesn't mean one may simply pick and choose what is and is not a law, especially when some laws are and aren't strictly taught from the SAME BOOK. If you don't consider yourself a person who is against gays, no need to be defensive.

 

[manic_depressive13]

i think gays would have an easier time getting equal rights if they didn't try for marriage. all you need to do is add another option. lets call it gayrriage, basically it's exactly the same as marriage but has a different name so churches can't complain.

Hahaha, can you pass me the keys? I want to put my car in the gayrriage. Teehee. Okay that's probably not as funny as I think it is.

Anyway, as long as there's a different name for their union a gay couple will always have a different status to a straight couple. It validates and codifies discrimination.

And that's bad.

 

[Vault101]

the funny thing is, when somone expresses anti gay Ideas they are essentially saying "I have personal issues with whom you fuck, please stop it" <-I mean thats just hilarious/insane

 

[Xanadu84]

Marriage is an institution in our world, and to reflect that need for the institution, the government offered certain legal rights to married couples. It was completely sensible. And the simplest way to do this was to just have the state recognize marriages that were already happening everywhere, and all was fine. The problem is that states were recognizing a religious institution, and over time, that became muddled. Now, it is completely reasonable for the government to recognize gay marriages in that same spirit. However, suddenly there's this awkward relationship between the church institution and the state institution that was completely harmless until people started acknowledging the existence of gay people. And some powerful christian lobbies start to feel like the institutions are one in the same. Truth be told, there should be a civil marriage and a religious marriage, and the church can call marriage whatever the hell they want. Even let churches keep the term marriage, and call all state sanctioned marriages civil unions, but it seems like that ship has sailed.

Two things though. One, Gay Marriage will be universal in America. It's inevitable, and already exists in some of the better states. People who say otherwise are deluding themselves. Two, there are churches fine with homosexuality. Hell, the church I grew up said that they would marry gay couples before Gay Marriage was legal in ANY state.

 

[Xanadu84]

i think gays would have an easier time getting equal rights if they didn't try for marriage. all you need to do is add another option. lets call it gayrriage, basically it's exactly the same as marriage but has a different name so churches can't complain.

Hahaha, can you pass me the keys? I want to put my car in the gayrriage. Teehee. Okay that's probably not as funny as I think it is.

Anyway, as long as there's a different name for their union a gay couple will always have a different status to a straight couple. It validates and codifies discrimination.

And that's bad.

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Because marriage is both a religious and political institution in the US. In a true separation of church and state, the concept of marriage wouldn't even exist in politics. Marriage is a religious institution. Since the state does have some hand in the workings of marriage, legal matters for issues like tax and property, etc, there is a conflict where both religious and political groups want to define and control marriage.

Personally I think we could solve this whole thing by changing our grammar so the church has control over its word and the political realm uses some other term (the church is older then the US it gets dibs on the word). Then the church can exclude anyone it wants and the politicians can redefine their version of marriage however they want and nobody steps on the other's toes. (Similar to how a church can choose to accept to kick out anyone it wants since its a private institution).

 

[manic_depressive13]

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

I just wanted to make the garrage joke but okay.

Trying to sidestep the problem doesn't solve anything. The "MARRIAGE IS DEFINED AS..." nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the word "marriage". That is just a bizarre argument that bigots use because they don't want homosexuals to have the same rights that they have.

The word 'marriage' doesn't belong to the church and I see no reason why we should let them have it. Just because the duty of marrying people once fell on the church doesn't mean they own the word 'marriage' any more than they own the term 'school' just because it once fell on religious institutions to educate people. Furthermore, there is already something called a Civil Union in my country, and it is essentially a poor man's marriage, with only limited rights and privileges. It seems absurd to amend the law in order to remove the term marriage and change the meaning of a civil union in order to encompass all the rights that marriage had previously granted, when one could simply change a single phrase in the law to make marriage to mean a union between two consenting adults.

Once again, the semantics argument only exists to deflect and distract. It has nothing to do with the word itself. Words always change. The people who are currently chanting "Marrige is defined as a union between a man and a woman!!" wouldn't just take your suggestion lying down. They would just argue "Marriage is a century old tradition! You can't remove it from law!" and we're back to square one, where it has to be marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman.

 

[Aerodyamic]

The Bible does indeed say that the act of homosexuality is wrong, but it also says that God loves all of his children. The Bible also says that all humans are equally sinful and have "all fallen short of the glory of God". So next time some idiot tells you that "God hates gays", punch them in the face, because there's nothing that suggests that. I'm Christian and I don't believe that forcing or stopping people from doing what they want is right, because freedom is a right not a privilege. The Bible even says that. Your friends need to realize that it's not their place to judge and prevent other people's freedom. God will deal with them if he wants to. I have many gay friends that I'd never think of mistreating/judging.

The Bible only has one verse that relates to homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, and according to http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm, there's 17 variations of that particular verse, making me wonder what the original verse actually was. Also, if anyone wants to argue about the Sin of Onan, don't bother; Onan was punished for failing to impregnate his dead brother's wife. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Realistically, if anyone wants to get married, and both (or all parties) are capable of informed consent, and are aware of the legal implications of a marriage/civil union, let 'em at it.

honestly, you should not recieve any rights/privledges for getting married (as in the specific event). Back then, they probably thought tying marriage to the government was harmless, and for a long time it was. Now with the benefit of hindsight....

We should probably keep marriage as a strictly religious event that the government has no say in, but it no longer grants benefits/rights (like for a Christian example, communion or baptism. Strictly a religious event that has no bearing whatsoever on the government). If you want the benefits of being a "couple" you have to jump through some standardized hoops like living in a shared household, shared bank account, and being together for X years regardless of the makeup of said couple.

Then the government can wash its hands with the whole marriage thing. People will have the exact same rights regardless of makeup, and traditionalists get to keep...well their traditions. Everyone wins.

As it stands right now, either the government will have to impose its will upon religion, which is wrong, or vice versa which is also wrong. The only real moral solution in my eyes is to remove religion and state from the same race (which is what we are supposed to do)

+1. Just +1.

 

[Asita]

The real solution is easy. Churches can do whatever they want in terms of marrying. Some churches marry gay couples, most don't. Let em. Meanwhile, the state can offer to allow 2 individuals to enter into a legally binding document that carries the rights and responsibilities we associate with marriage, called a Civil Union. It doesn't care about love of sex or whatever, it is a legal document. Problem solved.

Problem not solved, actually. Under current laws Civil Unions are inferior to marriage, literally lacking hundreds of the benefits afforded via the contract of marriage. Until such a time that that changes, 'Civil Unions' are less a solution than a token gesture. And frankly I don't much see the point in making a duplicate legal status simply to preserve some people's sensibilities. If the state is to grant similar status, there's no reason to have separate terms in the first place.

 

[BringBackBuck]

I don't see what the big deal is about same sex marriage. The missus and I have been having the same sex for years...

(sorry - couldn't resist it)

OT: USA - sucks to be you. New Zealand is just getting it's shit together in respect to gay marriage, backed by overwhelming support from the public and members of parliament.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-30/an-nz-parliament-gives-strong-support-to-same-sex-marriage/4232162

 

[Ieyke]

I won't say you're necessarily friends with the "wrong" people (I'm in a generous mood from the "love" thread), but you're certainly friends with people who can't follow through on simple logic.

You are absolutely correct in that there should be no impact from religion on the legality of marriage.

Moreover, even if we were foolish enough to say it SHOULD, what basis does any given religion have to say that THEIR views of marriage should be the ones to govern the legal issues of marriage.
Basically EVERY religion has rules regarding marriage, and they're not all even REMOTELY the same.

How do these Christian fundamentalist assholes (I have nothing against Christians in general, just the ones who think they're the center of the universe) come to the conclusion that their religion might somehow be more important than every other religion in a country where the primary founding force was none other than FREEDOM OF RELIGION and SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!????

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,?as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],?and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- John Adams - The Treaty Of Tripoli: Article 11

 

[NortherWolf]

With all due respect, you should do a little more research about the Bible instead of just throwing together random quotes from it. The laws that you've quoted are all from the Old Testament and are no longer applicable nor required of Christians, because the New Testament is about Jesus' coming and his abolishment of all those old laws, which also include things like not eating pork and staying at home on the Sabbath and all the rest of that stuff. The laws of the Old Testament are in no way encouraged anymore, only used as a guideline with what the New Testament preaches.

Do tell that to your fellow Christians, seems they didn't get the memo. Because last time I checked the Old Testament and the New Testament came in a collectors Edition called the bible and people tend to take them as one book.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I can not understand the viewpoint of anyone who is opposed to gay marriage. If they want to get married then why stop them?

 

[Entitled]

Homophobia being a religious issue is a total red herring.

It's a liberal/conservative issue, and since conservative people are more likely to be religious, they are also more likely to make up a religious rhetoric for their claims.

Just look at other parallel issues, of which the Bible doesn't explicitly say anything about. With abortion, or euthanasia, there is only "Thou shalt not kill", that we can all agree with and follow, yet somehow religious conservatives pretend that they have some super-special moral code with God directly telling them to stop abortion, while neither atheists nor liberal Christians define killing that way.

Or look at the amounts of non-religious and lapsed-religious conservatives, who are still opposed to gay marriage, even without believing a Bible, just because it is "unnatural". Look at entire countries doing just that.

It's the same with gays. If that law wouldn't be there in Leviticus, American conservatives would just find some random line where some random marriage is described as consisting of a husband and wife, so they could keep pandering to their religious subcommunity. And if their religious subcommunity wouldn't be there, they would find other emotions to pander to.

 

[Agow95]

I think that no-one should live by most of the rules laid down by men who said that in the following cases you should be put to death.
Lying about being a virginity
Practising prostitution and being a daughter of a priest
Being raped and not marrying the rapist
And women who get raped in a city during their engagement, while if you were raped in a field they would get to live because no-one would have heard your screams, but I assume they would still have to marry the rapist or die.
Seriously, people worship the guy who made these rules.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Marriage is last I checked a religious thing. The State can issue a civil union but Marriage is what the church defines it as. Provided I am correct in that first bit, we cannot make the Church accept gay marriage as acceptable because that would be the state imposing rules upon the church right?

We could allow Gay Civil Union because that is state controlled. But Marriage is.. well not something the state has any legitimate control over.

What church? Protestants marry, jews marry, catholics marry, atheists marry, buhhdists marry, mormons marry, ect ect. It depends on the culture whether religion is largely incorporated into marriage tradtion, but marriage unions are secular things that churches simply support. If marriage is religious then why are people of every diffrent religion, even ones that have no explicit marriage rules, allowed to marry?

 

[lemby117]

Marriage is last I checked a religious thing. The State can issue a civil union but Marriage is what the church defines it as. Provided I am correct in that first bit, we cannot make the Church accept gay marriage as acceptable because that would be the state imposing rules upon the church right?

We could allow Gay Civil Union because that is state controlled. But Marriage is.. well not something the state has any legitimate control over.

Well why are churches exempt from our rules? If a church said it would not marry blacks would we have to accept that? What if a shop refused to serve gay people? That would be illegal right? So why do the church get a free pass?

OT: It is ridiculous that we even have to have this debate. Unless Gay people can marry then it is unequal and civil unions are effectively equal but separate and comparable to segregation.

 

[verdant monkai]

You skipped over all the craziest stuff, like rape victims being either executed (it counts as adultry if you are married) or have the rapist pay your father some money then marry you (can't have non-virgins who aren't married can we?) Plus all the passages about how to conduct war against non-believers including give them the option to surrender, and if they do enslave them all and if they don't invade, gather all the people, kill all the men and non-virgin women, then take the women as slaves, and possibly wives, then loot the city, then burn it to the hround.

Well I didn't fancy going there but yeah basically, the Bible is half Psychopaths guide on how to not fit in with today's society, and half how to let people take advantage of you. For example Jesus' general procedure for being attacked is to not in any way resist and give your attacker everything on you. And the sickening thing is Christians say the bible doesn't contradict its self.

Dont get me wrong the teachings of Jesus are great and have a lot of merit, its just that human beings are not capable of this sort of omnibenevolent behaviour. I understand that is one of Christianity's big things you aren't good enough but Jesus was try to be like him and worship him because God loves you, its just not for everyone.

I'm an agnostic but I am not to fond of the idea of living my life through a book written hundreds of years ago in a society that has drastically moved on. It saddens me when people like teh gays are discriminated against using a book that is out of date and only referenced when it is seen to support the childish desire to make everyone conform.

 

[verdant monkai]

but the genital mutilation is quick to be ignored,

uhhh... no it's not. Over 50% of the US population is non-theraputically circumcised at birth and from previous years the majority of the population in general (Males only of course, women don't suffer circumcision) are already circumcised.

Wow really 50%? I'm not calling you a liar I just think you are wrong, but I don't live in the U.S

Could you provide a source for this claim and do you know if it is for religious or medical reasons?