A Question About Same Sex Marriage

[HoneyVision]

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 The laws that you've quoted are all from the Old Testament and are no longer applicable nor required of Christians, because the New Testament is about Jesus' coming and his abolishment of all those old laws, which also include things like not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.

This is bullshit and you know it.
Because if the old testament doesn't hold up, god would've been wrong and his divine plan is basically for the gutter. Why would we have any need for such an incompetent definitly-not-omnipotent-being, who can't even get the basic rules straight?
Ontop of that, why is there creationism? It's based on the Genesis, which when i last checked it, was in the old testament.

What you say does not hold up in reality. The old testament is taken very seriously by a big bunch of believers. The genesis, the ten commandments and all the old hoax stories like Noah etc. are still very present.

If you don't believe in the old testament, you're not a chrisitian for me - you're a cherry picker. And everything moral etc. you hold dear could be achieved by secular reasons, without the need to cherry pick some quotes from a 2000 year old book from a nomad desert folk.

Wow, you must be very good at jumping conclusions.
When did I say anything about not believing in the Old Testament? I said that a large majority of the rules from it were made redundant in the New Testament. The ones that were kept were reinstated. The OT SHOULD be taken seriously by believers, but only in contrast and comparison with the NT, never on its own. Like you say, you can't cherry pick.
What does Creation have to do with it? That's not a rule, that's just part of the philosophy.

 

[blazearmoru]

It has to do with the notion of belief as well as social interaction. You should ask a psychologist and a sociologist about human behavior if you want the exact answer along with evidence to back it up. I have some understanding on this subject, but not nearly sufficient to call it anything but speculation on my part. Since you are able to ask this question, your mind is probably of a different quality than others. Don't waste it! :3

Edit : If you don't have anyone to ask, read up on them. Also law and the legal system is complex too. That stuff doesn't interest me much so I forgot to mention them earlier. XD

Edit 2: By the way, discretely ask your christian friends if they read the bible from cover to cover. :3

 

[viranimus]

Where is separation of church and state? Ask gay rights advocates using legislation and judges to alter and control religion.

What you are looking for is Laïcité, the inability for religion to have any presence,influence or control in governmental affairs. Secular bigotry.(oxymoron?) Separation of church and state is just another of the many things in this world people will hide behind vehemently and not understand what it means or how it works.

 

[Abomination]

Because the United States just isn't prepared to admit it's a theocracy.

Every single president and nominee with a chance at winning has been a Christian.

Presently it is a requirement to be Christian in order to hold the highest office in the United States, not by law but by the tyranny of the majority.

On the bright side, a lot of those people are getting older and dying and the number of non-theists or tolerant-theists has increased substantially in the last 10 years. Give it another generation or two and you'll start to see proper, rational political debate that isn't stymied in terrible religious dogmatic rhetoric.

I think it'd make for a better world if we did away with the word "Christian" and re-embraced the denominations like Protestant, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon. Then Christians could discover what it is like not having a default majority and be forced to learn to compromise once more.

 

[Brandon237]

To me, being against gays getting married is like being against Dark Souls 2 getting an easy mode: it isn't going to affect you, so shut up about it. I have never heard a legitimate reasons why gays shouldn't get married, and it is something we're going to look back on in the future the same way we look back on racism today. It's going to be a whole lot "how the hell did we let this go on for so long?" I swear if there is a god, he must be going "should've gone with Dolphins..." from time to time.

Whenever someone says to me "Gays shouldn't be allowed because the bible says its wrong" I just reply "Well the bible also suggested that Eve had sex with one of her sons, so I guess incest must be okay".

Just because the reasons aren't legitimate to you doesn't mean they aren't or cannot be to someone else.

The live and let live ideal goes both ways. By condemning them for their views, you are in turn doing the same.

Difference is, tolerating intolerance leads to equal rights being withheld indefinitely. We condemn them for their views because when they enforce their views (and I would assume your views too, otherwise you would not defend this) a whole segment of the population is being dehumanised (by denying a right that the majority do have, for reasons that are fickle and have more to do with personal mindset than actual secular reasons) and not getting access to tax breaks, legal advantages or state recognition of the validity of their relationship that straight couples can get.

If your reasons are legitimate to you, fine, but the moment you try to get those reasons into policy you can and WILL get called out on your actions and beliefs that seriously hurt a group of the population who have done nothing to deserve such legal and societal scorn.

Yes, live and let live does go both ways, and I will call out any intolerance such as this which does not allow innocent people to live with equal rights and opportunities.

 

[Xanadu84]

The state shouldn't have anything to do with peoples romantic relationships. It is not their business, and implying that it does by addressing a term like marriage skirts too closely to mixing church and state. The state doesn't have an interest in relationships and sex, but it DOES have an interest in allowing its citizens to obtain certain rights and responsibilities. By doing this, you make the illegality of not offering the same rights to gay people as straight that much clearer. Offering civil unions to all people, but making the version for gay people weaker is a straightforward violation of the 14th amendment. And of course, churches and other private institutions are both free to not marry gay people, OR FREE TO DO SO. That religious, cultural battle can rage on as it likes, but it shouldn't be waged in a federal building. Applying a culturally and socially significant work like "Marriage" to a straightforward legal agreement is just asking for unnecessary trouble, and the state has no interest in any other aspect of a relationship between 2 consenting adults.

In other countries, even if they do not have the 14th Amendment, the moral principle behind them is still equally applicable.

I don't understand. As far as I can tell your "solution" is just replacing the word "marriage" with the term "civil union". I'm baffled as to how you can believe just changing a word will actually make a difference. If the state has nothing to do with people's romantic relationships, why should even civil unions exist?

The religious and cultural significance of marriage is just a pathetic justification for denying gay people their rights. They aren't trying to stop gay people getting married because they think it will ruin their word. They want to stop gay people getting married, and they are using the argument that it will ruin their word as a means to that end.

I think you underestimate just how much of the religious rights bitching is based on trivial, semantic bullshit. Sure your not going to make Civil Unions and suddenly have a gay pride parade on every street corner in Mississippi, but by clearly delineating a difference between legal contract and a sticky social and religious institution, you force people to argue about basic human rights granted by the state, and not a term steeped in religious and cultural significance. Because the government shouldn't be involved in those religious and cultural judgement, and it seems that the only way to make that break known is by separating the terminology.

The real fight here is to get gay couples the legal rights that are afforded to straight couples. And there is a wealth of legal rights that the state is involved in, from divorce to taxes to social security benefit to hospital visitation to adoption...the list goes on. And we should divorce those legal rights from a social construct.

Of course we arn't going to. We are on the road to gay marriage or segregation, and eventually it will come up gay marriage. And, well, I'm pretty much fine with that...its the unnecessarily difficult way to do things but in the end, it will be fine.

 

[Brainwreck]

'In God we trust.'
Really. It's right there in the subtitle.
I think there's also supposed to be something about justice in there.

 

[Andrew Bascom]

So I was gonna post this on FB, but I think I'd get flamed for it (I have a lot of conservative Christian fanatics as friends on FB since I knew them in HS). So I just listened to Same Love by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, and I gotta say great song! But there's one things that always been bugging me since before I graduated LHS... the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong but in America there's supposed to be separation of church and state... so why are Christian beliefs forced onto those who obliviously don't believe in the same religion. I asked a teacher at my school this and he kind of skirted around the question, it's doubtless I'd a lot of flak for posting this on FB so I decided to ask people who are a bit more sensible... like the escapists. So what do you guys think? Am I just friends with the wrong people or is there some side to this that I'm just not seeing?

This might have been said before, but I think to be quite honest it's sort of like a naming issue and a potential for religious conflict. I'll put it this way, separation of church and state is understandable as long as there is a separation not only for the church to stay out of state affairs but the state should stay out of church affairs. This is where the naming issue comes in, if we were to change marriage on the state side to be say (unions or something like that), then Christians like me wouldn't care as much. Simply put this would be, the people can get married through the government/state but if they were to go to a church, the pastor could say, "No I won't marry you." without the couple suing him/her.

Oh and there is one other reason Christians don't want gays to be allowed to get married, but let me take this moment to say I DON'T AGREE REALLY WITH THIS TRAIN OF THOUGHT. Anyway the fear in this case is that God will destroy the US if we let too much sin sink into our country. Another thought is also that we feel by allowing gay marriage we make it easier for people to live sinful lives therefore more people will go to hell. My opinion is as much as I'd like to stop them or help them, there are other ways to help these people, and too me if civil marriage and religious marriage became separated then that's good enough to me. Anyway hoped that helped a bit, I know my opinions ain't popular, but it is good to hear the other side, from the other side.

 

[Jacco]

To me, being against gays getting married is like being against Dark Souls 2 getting an easy mode: it isn't going to affect you, so shut up about it. I have never heard a legitimate reasons why gays shouldn't get married, and it is something we're going to look back on in the future the same way we look back on racism today. It's going to be a whole lot "how the hell did we let this go on for so long?" I swear if there is a god, he must be going "should've gone with Dolphins..." from time to time.

Whenever someone says to me "Gays shouldn't be allowed because the bible says its wrong" I just reply "Well the bible also suggested that Eve had sex with one of her sons, so I guess incest must be okay".

Just because the reasons aren't legitimate to you doesn't mean they aren't or cannot be to someone else.

The live and let live ideal goes both ways. By condemning them for their views, you are in turn doing the same.

Difference is, tolerating intolerance leads to equal rights being withheld indefinitely. We condemn them for their views because when they enforce their views (and I would assume your views too, otherwise you would not defend this) a whole segment of the population is being dehumanised (by denying a right that the majority do have, for reasons that are fickle and have more to do with personal mindset than actual secular reasons) and not getting access to tax breaks, legal advantages or state recognition of the validity of their relationship that straight couples can get.

If your reasons are legitimate to you, fine, but the moment you try to get those reasons into policy you can and WILL get called out on your actions and beliefs that seriously hurt a group of the population who have done nothing to deserve such legal and societal scorn.

Yes, live and let live does go both ways, and I will call out any intolerance such as this which does not allow innocent people to live with equal rights and opportunities.

Assuming my views are in line with such by the way I respond to posts is just as small minded and arrogant as those you condemn. My views on the issue are likely more in line with yours, however it is important to remember that everyone is right in their own minds and to combat that egotistical mindset, it is important to question everything.

Where is the line drawn? How easy would it be to disenfranchise the people who are currently bashing the gays? It it suddenly right if it toward them instead of gay people?

My point is that the "intolerance" you speak of is a perceptive thing and nothing more. You are intolerant of intolerance. Therefore you are intolerant of yourself. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Vault101]

I am very religious myself, [b/]and don't agree with homosexuality,[/b] but I do agree with fair treatment under the laws for all.

and THAT right there is why people bash religion....

 

[thethird0611]

I am very religious myself, [b/]and don't agree with homosexuality,[/b] but I do agree with fair treatment under the laws for all.

and THAT right there is why people bash religion....

So, in the face of a statement that has no discussion value at all, why is that?

Is it because as a fourth year Psychology student who has worked with a human sexuality focused professor, who attends church, who works a full time job, AND chats with a lesbian friend almost every night, points out something he doesn't agree with? Is it because I agree with full civil rights for homosexuals pertaining to government benefits?

Isnt this what everybody is bashing religion for? The whole Ghandi quote of "I like their religion, but not their people".

Please enlighten me sir. And this is not hostile toward you, this is seriously asking.

 

[Agayek]

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

We tried that once before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal].

It didn't work.

 

[Vault101]

you don't like gay people because the bible tells you so

not somthing I can really let slide

 

[Souplex]

To be fair, it's one line in Levidicus that says it's wrong.
Levidicus has a little bit more to say on the subject of keeping kosher, but for some reason, that's not part of Christian doctrine.
The problem is picking and choosing.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You should never be afraid of your friend's reactions. You should welcome them. So you should really delete the people you're afraid of.

 

[Brandon237]

Assuming my views are in line with such by the way I respond to posts is just as small minded and arrogant as those you condemn. My views on the issue are likely more in line with yours, however it is important to remember that everyone is right in their own minds and to combat that egotistical mindset, it is important to question everything.

Where is the line drawn? How easy would it be to disenfranchise the people who are currently bashing the gays? It it suddenly right if it toward them instead of gay people?

My point is that the "intolerance" you speak of is a perceptive thing and nothing more. You are intolerant of intolerance. Therefore you are intolerant of yourself. Do you see what I'm saying?

I see no reason to defend a view that is helping perpetuate a lack of equal rights unless said view is your own. Sorry if it seems presumptuous, but I rarely see reason to let anything with such great legal and societal drawbacks go unquestioned, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone else would.
And I have questioned it, numerous times, at the end of the day it just leaves me more confused as to why people do not just fully legalise gay marriage and be done with it. There is a place for devil's advocate, but the idea of anything other than simply giving the equal rights as they should have been given in the first place has been discussed to death.

If it will make them stop, and stop pushing for laws against gay marriage, or even create awareness of the fact that such attitudes are leading to unequal rights, then it may be as close to right as the situation could be (There was almost never a perfect situation when fighting segregation, but it was definitely better to have the criticism on the law-makers and supporters than to not say anything at all). Besides, no legislation is being passed against them (unlike the awful compromises for marriage being all the gay population is getting thus far) and as soon as they stopped enforcing their attitude, they would be left alone (By the sensible people at least, some people will always just want an excuse to fight).

Does the gay population that is at the wrong end of many pieces of legislation enforced by people with these attitudes merely "perceive" their inferior rights and privileges? I am not arguing against the premise that everyone should be able to feel as they wish, but if you voice certain feelings, and especially if you act on said feelings to the detriment of others (voting against gay marriage), you will be called out on it (as you should).
I see the double-standard, so probably a better way of phrasing it is I am intolerant of the initial intolerance. When that is cleared up, I shall return to a state of tolerance with the group myself. While I don't like the belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry, I would not harass someone over it (act on any intolerance) unless they actively voiced or acted on said belief. Cognitive dissonance averted! ^.^

Try reading Sam Harris's book: The Moral Landscape. As much as a lot of it may not be agreeable, the premise very well explains the problem with tolerating intolerance and how it reduces the well-being and fairness of society in general, especially when aforementioned "initial intolerance" is put into policy or becomes a part of society as a whole.

 

[verdant monkai]

So, in california, it's ok to mutilate boys but not girls. Just cus of gender. Really shows you the double standards at work, and how worthless males and disposable males are in current society, at least certainly in the US.

Oh ok thanks man my knowledge in the area of American dicks has been vastly broadened. I haven't got much to say about it apart from thanks for taking the time out for that, and I am currently feeling pretty happy to be British.

 

[Quadocky]

so why are Christian beliefs forced onto those who obliviously don't believe in the same religion.

It would take a very long time to explain without any examples of to draw from.

Well, its apart of how a religion works... kinda I guess?

 

[chikusho]

so why are Christian beliefs forced onto those who obliviously don't believe in the same religion.

What makes you think LGTB people don't believe in Christianity?

 

[cathou]

I am very religious myself, and don't agree with homosexuality, but I do agree with fair treatment under the laws for all. Marriage cannot be legislated because it is religious, its pretty much saying "That kid there has a toy I like, make him give it to me!", but union laws cannot be denied because of civil right, which is like saying "I have this toy and I dont want him to have one like it, dont let him get one!"

Marriage is not the same as a union.

i'm not in the US, so maybe i misunderstand the laws there, but marriage is not religious. Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals, that grant some right and obligation in the eye of the state. that's the root of the marriage. Now that contract is often signed in a ceremony that may or not be religious. When the ceremony is religious, it's done in a church (or whatever place your religion use for that). The religious sacrement, that we call marriage, is totally independant from the legal contract we call marriage. Can we legislate the legal contract to accept same-sex couple : totaly. Can we legislate the religious sacrement to force religions that don't accept homosexuality to perform them : absolutely not.

I'm married myself, to a lovely person that i love more than anything, but happen to be the same gender than myself. In Canada, my marriage is not call a civil union, it's a marriage, plain and simple. The marriage took place in a courthouse in front of a celebrant that held the civil ceremony, and we signed the legal papers. The religion didn't had any involvement in this, at all. So i really dont see why religion should have a word to say in same-sex marriages, it's just not a religion business...