so... I was at my church, and there was this very conservative christian magazine. It had an article about gay marriages... and its whole argument was that homosexuallity was a mental disorder, and therefor, should not be able to get married, becuase they are unable to make a concious (sp) decision... i found it both absurd and amusing

Tiny Vermont
Tiny sample size
Short time span (I'm not even sure if there is a weight used here)
No analysis of varying group socioeconomic characteristics

-Rudey
--I had fun.

Right because everything else that the Church or any religion believes is based on logic and proven facts and neither absurd nor amusing.

-Rudey

Amen to this!!

BTW, alot of this was discussed before in this thread (and I'm sure a million others):

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=&pagenumber=1

enigma_AKA

Except in the Bible where it says that breaking the law is sin.

And about the polygamy thing, that was totally Old Testament, a completely different story.

How can you dismiss one thing from the Old Testament but adhere to another? The (concrete) proscriptions against homosexuality are all Old Testament...

It's dangerous for Christians to claim "oh well...that's OT" when something doesn't fit.

No, God did not condemn polygamy, nor did he encourage it. He set forth to change cultures at their own speed. He does not (for the most part) magically fix things he doesn't approve of! He allows for growth.

Plus, God will use the very worst of us to be effective in his kingdom. How awful would it be if we had to be perfect before he would put us to work? Nothing would get done!

Polygamy is cultural.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phasad1913
Indirectly, perhaps, through the common religious ideology of the men who came together and signed
the Declaration of Independence in terms of what they believed and how they were raised, but NOT officially. Official correlation between Christianity and the affairs of the governance of the citizenry is precisely what they emancipated themselves from the British for.[Quote]

Oh true!! I agree with you. I guess what I meant was we as a country are based on Christian ideals, but not specifically one religious affiliation, i.e., Baptist, Catholic or Lutheran. All of these and a few more are still based on the Bible, i.e., Christianity.

I don't have any numbers, but I would guess that most Americans identify with some Christian religion as oppposed to Hinduism, Bhuddism, or even Muslim, although these religions are becoming more common in the US.

Yes, but as I understood Prop 2, it is about recognizing what a married couple is. Sure, a gay couple can get married by a judge, but the state of Texas does not have to recognize that marriage certificate eventhough the ceremony was performed by a judge.

Gay marriages may not hurt heterosexual marriages that much, but I think it boils down to what will society accept. With a 73% vote for Prop 2 in Texas, it would seem Texans are not ready to accept married gay couples in Texas society.

This is why, even though much of the way we live in America is very segregated and we all know that a lot of that has to do with continuing and persistent prejudice and racism, the government is not going to go into the homes, schools, churches, etc. of every person and force them to integrate their lives with someone of a different color. Those individuals who wish to isolate themselves in a way that they interact with people of their own "kind" have the private right of autonomy to do so, withoutht he threat of the government coming in, even though the government has made it clear the objectives it has and thinks the nation should have in ridding the society of that kind of seperatism.[/Quote]

But the government does have incentives to 'force' people together - usually through federal funding. No, they can not come into your home, but the feds do come into schools and some businesses via the 'dirty words' Affirmative Action.

Quote:

It can't force people to give in to so-called "moral " standards. All it can do, and all its supposed to do is refrain from imposing oppressive actions itself, which is what it should have done in this case.

But it can, through voting. If majority of the people want to set some standard, they just encourage their city, state, and/or congress representative to vote on some measure to do so. That is why we have ratings for TV, movies and song lyrics. There has been a moral 'line' established that says something like people 17 and under can not watch or hear certain acts unless authorized by a parent. People who are younger than 21 can not legally purchase alcohol, and that all porn mags should be behind the counter wrapped in brown paper.

Government is not some abstract concept. Government in this country is representative of the people and if the people 'want' something they take action through government. Again, like I said, voting is important.

wow, your a dick. I was just stating this case in specific as amusing and absurd



Im kind of waiting for someone to make masterbation illegal... i wouldnt put it pass it being brought up in the past.

There are things that were set in the Old Testament that stand still today. There are other things that were set forth in the Old Testament that Christ himself turned around in the New Testament. In the New Testament it says to be the husband of ONE wife.

jeni, you're right, except where it is clearly reversed.......like the sacrafices, and eating certain things, and even salvation.

I don't want to get into an argument with you at all - just prefacing that this is not my intention. I do want to set the record straight though.

Where the New Testament talks about one wife to a husband, it's talking about those in church leadership. What this means for Christians is that the best form of marriage is monogamy which is why it is a requirement for those in church leadership. It is highly recommended. BUT, God will use even polygamous (is that a word?) relationships to his glory. All of this is NOT to say that polygamy is accepted or condoned by God. It is to say that in his vast mercy, he does not strike us down for our iniquities.

Sidebar: The argument you're using to condemn polygamy is much like the argument used to condone slavery. Be careful about how you're reading the Bible! /sidebar

As far as the other things you mentioned (sacrifices, eating certain things, salvation) it wasn't so much that it was "reversed" but that these things were brought to the place God had intended from the beginning in Christ.

Most of these things were never wrong and they still aren't, in fact, they WERE a requirement - but Christ took their necessity upon himself. As for salvation in the Christian sense (as opposed to achieving holiness in the Jewish sense - and this is extremely simplified for the purposes of a relatively short post on GC), too many Christians make the jump from OT and NT ideas of being right with God. It was a progression from OT to NT...not a jump that made the OT understandings wrong.

Now that Christ has fulfilled the requirements for holiness (from the OT), it is he who makes us holy. But there were people in OT times who were ALSO holy!!

Don't ask, don't tell........:cool:

Hey, I am not ashamed ;)

So I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus condemns homosexuality... cause as far as I know he didn't - in fact didn't he heal a Centurion's boy slave/lover? (Mat 8:5-13) - yes the language is rather ambigious, like why was the Greek for bonded slave used "duolos" and instead use the term "pais"?

Jesus' message was one of forgiveness and reconciliation but ALWAYS with the charge to turn toward God and away from sin. It is not the least bit surprising that you do not find Jesus directly addressing the issue of homosexuality. We have to recognize the culture in which it was written! Sexual immorality was absolutely forbidden and punishable by death -- this would include adultery, rape, homosexuality, etc.

Look at what Jesus did with the adulterous woman. He did not condemn her, but forgave her, sending her away with the command not to sin anymore.

To say that Jesus didn't mention homosexuality is not a reasonable argument for his acceptance of it.

ETA: I think it's safe to say that Jesus ONLY condoned sexual activity between a married man and woman.

this talk is all good and fun, but I still wonder:

WHAT DOES JESUS HAVE TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUAL MARIAGES RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT IS SEPERATED FROM THE CHURCH?

To say this government was founded on Christian values is not a good argument, because it doesnt mean the Christian decision is right.

Actually I think this is an important point, one that I think is pertinent to the whole discussion.

Yes sexual imorality was outlawed by the religious authorities, but not the secular authorities. So while adaultery, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, and even masturbation was condemned and punished by the religious authorities - the case was not the same with the secular authorities. This may be mainly because the secular laws of the Greeks, Hebrews, Phoenicians or Romans recognized that a difference in cultures and practices of the various peoples of the Roman Palestine province... so if Jesus himself lived in and understood a difference between secular and religious authorities (some that he clashed with) and legal practices.

Especially since many of the founding fathers were Deists.

My stance on gay marriage
 

The problem with the "sanctity" of marriage is that the United States of America is not a theocracy. We cannot support laws just because they uphold our belief system; it is our right and duty as a democracy to stand up for the rights of the minority.

No doubt, there are religions and ethnic groups that do not frown upon gay marriages. Why should we impose the religious belief system of the majority onto the minority?

The legal rights of gays should reflect the human and civil rights of all citizens. As human beings and citizens of this great country, their right to marry whomever they choose should be held sacrosanct.

Re: My stance on gay marriage
 

:(

This is nothing more than an assumption. The Bible is written vaguely enough that it can be read to say almost anything that you want.

Just another reason why I don't read the Bible.

I do have a problem with telling people that they can and can't get married. It makes zero difference to me if two gay men want to be committed to each other. I see no reason why their love shouldn't have the protection of the law.

I also think that the biggest problem is people thinking that religion and government are the same thing. Just because you think something is morally abhorent doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be against the law.

You're an uneducated child with no manners and remind me of a younger female version of cutiepatootie with your posts.

-Rudey

Re: My stance on gay marriage
 

While you're busy talking about what America is an isn't in your mind, and what it should and shouldn't be doing, what it has done and is doing is clear and distinct.

-Rudey

I came across this and thought I would share.... For anyone not smart enough to know the difference.... IT IS A JOKE.... PURE SARCASM. Thank you. :)

10 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...

Well, thanks. You are a stubborn ignorant dick. I guess we both have our little flaws.

-a.e.B.O.T.

Not really big boy.

-Rudey

What's the big deal gays can get married.... a gay man can marry a gay woman whenever he wants.

Wouldn't that depend on whether they passed a "gay" marriage ban or a "same sex" ban?

There were a couple suspect relationships in the Bible...I believe David had one extra close male friend (I forgot the story..but i'll look it up if I have to..sorta doin hw now tho).

Hmm, and someone said that in the culture of the time written homosexual behaviors weren't accepted, but the biggest thing that seemed to be condemned was homosexual prostitution, rape, and adultery. But that junk wouldn't even be accepted if it were heterosexual prostitution, rape, or adultery...so who's to say what's the take on loving homosexual relationships since there wasn't one directly talked about? Somebody included this in sexual immorality...but homosexuality was usually linked to one of these three...never alone.



In addition, aren't most major changes made not in favor of the majority?..But in favor of the minority?...And was marriage always about benefits, insurance, and partner rights? Like when did the religious definition of marriage & gov't definition of marriage become one? Everybody doesn't get married in a church. Most people have to already deal w/ being turned away/off by their church, losing their faith, and/or reconciling their religion (if they even do). Should their religious decisions have an affect on their civil rights which they pay taxes for? If you can honestly say no, then despite your own morals and the morals of the elected officials, what's right is plain and obvious.

I have spoken to people who worry that legalizing gay marriage is just going to clear the way for people to yell about legalizing polygamy or such things as people wanting to marry their dog, or their horse or their couch.

I definitely think that is a weak argument, but it seems to be the way some people think.

There are other arguments that I have heard too, but that is the main one that I can think of right now.

I personally see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry, and it seems to me that declaring marriage as between two human beings (be they man or woman) would be a good idea, and also make it clear that things like polygamy are still not approved.

Just a question out of curiosity.... Does anyone out there approve of gay marriage and also think that it is alright if a man wants to have 4 or 5 wives?

I think that if 5 consenting adults wanted to be in one marriage together, that's their business and not mine. It's not something I would want to engage in, but I really don't care what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their home as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of anybody else. The way inflation is going, I could see needing more than two incomes to make it.

It's not my business and I don't think it should be legislated. The accompanying divorce laws would be a bear to draft up though.

I think we're ignoring some key points here in favor of an ideological discussion that is wholly irrelevant:

1 - Regardless of whether or no Jesus condemned homosexuality (which is the ultimate in useless arguments), Texas voters have dictated that official state recognition for marriages will not be extended to same-sex couples. This measure passed overwhelmingly, and as dictated by the people is now the standard in the state of Texas.

2 - Regardless of your personal interpretations of Church/State separation, and the potential reasons for the Texas vote, until a challenge is issued the law stands.

3 - Both parts 1 and 2 are vital parts of our system of government, and should be protected at all costs.

I think it's clear that there are few, if any, arguments against same-sex marriage that do not rely on religious bases or grounds, in most cases exclusively as well. I do not think it's clear that this makes a whole lot of difference, due to the fact that a popular vote carried the measure by a wide margin.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that those key points are not important. We all recognize those points. Of course, prop. 2 was passed (as you said by a wide margin) and will stand.

I think it has just opened up an interesting discussion on the separation of church and state and how people feel about the whole thing.

I think if this topic had been brought up BEFORE the vote took place, it would be more centered around prop 2 specifically.

While the discussion may be 'interesting' in this way, my point was that it's also completely irrelevant at the current time - and it's not clear that the conversation will ever become fully relevant. Ever.

I still don't understand what you are arguing... Are you just wanting us not to have any conversation that is not about the law in this thread? :confused:

But the margin of win does not necessarily reflect the views of all Texans. (But in our system, this is how ammendments are added to the constitution). The measure passed by such a wide margin because Gov. Perry struck a deal (that has been well reported here) that got the super conservative religious leagers to get their parishoners, etc, out to vote and campaign and he'd publically back it, in exchange for their support of him in his tough primary challenge this march from Carol Keeton Landrover (or whatever her name is). Christian Conservatives got out the vote. They won. When Texans as a whole are polled, its a little closer.... depending on who is doing the polling. I've seen numbers between 60-40 and 55-45 in favor of the Proposition. Not a change in the outcome, but it shows that its not as one sided as it seems.

I think it's a relevant discussion nationwide. It's interesting to hear other people's views on it. It may come up in the Supreme Court. It may end up being a Constitutional Amendment. It's also an interesting chronicle to look back on. In 40 years, the views may have totally changed.

I think her name is Carol Keeton Strayhorn now (it used to be Rylander).

The margin of win reflects the views of Texans who voted. It was no great secret that Prop 2 would be on the ballot. There were protests and demonstrations on both sides before the election and news outlets broadcasted the issue, and I know in the Houston Chronicle they always run a sample ballot the Sunday before the election, so people were atleast aware. Now whether they decided to vote or not is another issue.

Texas is still a relatively conservative state. There are pockets of liberal areas (Austin, parts of Houston and Dallas). And, you have to understand the population of Texas. It's not just White conservatives who vote, there are other ethnicites (?sp) who have and maintain 'traditional' values such as many Blacks (typically in rural areas), Hispanics, Asians, Africans and East Indians. Many of the people I've met from foreign countries are shocked at the way American heterosexual couples meet and marry, let alone gay couples.

I too agree that the issue should continue to be discussed.