Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[MrRant 0]

Interpetations of the bible is just an excuse to make your lifestyle ok.

 

I think if you are going to follow a book of religion (bible, Koran, etc)... do it to the letter or not at all.

 

Course I don't give a fuck either way about gay marriage as gays have caused as much problems as the religious right have over this issue. I have a feeling that if gay/lesbians gave up just the word "marriage" and settled on civil union with all the same benefits that things would be better off.

 

Let them have their word and get this shit over with already. Fuck I hate the morons on both sides.

[Guest Xias]

For those who are against gay marriage, I must still ask a simple question that I have yet to see a real answer to: How exactly would it hurt your everyday life if gay marriage was passed? As a heterosexual male, what exactly would it mean to your life if the government gives homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples?

 

The sky isn't going to fall on your house because two of us got hitched, just like back in the day the world didn't end because those people with the different skin colors no longer had to stay at the back of the bus. If your religion is against it, good, don't agree with it.

 

I saw someone earlier on complaining that they felt the way the process was coming about that they felt they had no real voice on it, but I still see no reason why they deserve a voice in the first place. The fact is, whether or not gay marriage is made legal, your life will be exactly the same. That's why you don't deserve a voice in the matter. Until you can come up with a reason why, in a secular society, two people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get hitched, you don't deserve a voice in this. Period.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Because I don't want to be confused on who to call Mrs.

[Guest Xias]

Interpetations of the bible is just an excuse to make your lifestyle ok.

 

I think if you are going to follow a book of religion (bible, Koran, etc)... do it to the letter or not at all.

 

Course I don't give a fuck either way about gay marriage as gays have caused as much problems as the religious right have over this issue.  I have a feeling that if gay/lesbians gave up just the word "marriage" and settled on civil union with all the same benefits that things would be better off. 

 

Let them have their word and get this shit over with already.  Fuck I hate the morons on both sides.

If we followed the Bible to the letter, because of the manner in which it was written, it'd just be impossible. Period. This reminds me of a Simpsons quote:

 

"I followed everything you said, God, even the stuff that contradicted the other stuff!" -Ned Flanders

 

The fact is, the Bible is open to inerpretation. The religious right is interpretating it one way. They're not following it to the letter, because if they were, we'd be having a lot of other debates. Instead, we're just having two debates: gay marriage and abortion, because those are the "hot button" issues as far as they are concerned. They lost the war over making sex-outside-of-marriage socially unacceptable. They'll ultimatley lose this war, too.

 

Why should we concede the word marriage? If you are going to use the term to describe a secular institution, why does it apply to one group and not the other. If your reason is "Because it's a religious term and they don't want you using it.", well, first off, then why is it in the government in the first place? I remember a solution a friend of mine proposed that I thought was the one that made most sense: Call everything government-wise "civil unions", whether the union in question is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. Then, leave it up to the people themselves (and thus, the religious institutions) whether or not they want to call what they are doing "marriage". I'm sure the atheists, heterosexual or homosexual, won't give a damn. And this lets your church control what they want to do. That's a lot better of a solution than basically using one term to describe one group and another to describe another group. "Seperate but equal" didn't work for racial issues, last time I remembered- are our long-term memories REALLY that bad?!?

 

Okay, on term #2- if you're going to use the term marriage in government and then claim you shouldn't use it for homosexual unions because the religion doesn't want you to, what about the churches who disagree? Then you're taking THEIR right to freedom of religion away by not allowing them to marry who they want. It's all needlessly complicated.

 

I personally do not care what you call the unions, as long as it's the same for heterosexual and homosexual unions. I don't want my union to be looked down upon (and screw whatever the arguement is, people WILL look down upon the homosexual unions if they're called 'civil unions' while the heterosexual ones are called 'marriage') because I fell in love with a guy instead of a girl.

 

 

Because I don't want to be confused on who to call Mrs.

 

If that's honestly what you think of homosexual couples, that one gets to be the girl (or the guy, in the case of the other kind), then you need to watch a little less TV.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

They will look down on you with whatever word you call it. To those people you are sinners who deserve to burn in hell if you can't be changed into being "right".

 

Live with it.

[Guest Xias]

They will look down on you with whatever word you call it.  To those people you are sinners who deserve to burn in hell if you can't be changed into being "right".

 

Live with it.

I have been living with it for most of my life. The fact is, though, you're still ignoring the core point here- calling it "civil union" instead of "marriage" is not going to encourage people to accept it as equal. It's going to encourage the exact opposite.

 

Just because some people are going to look down upon one type of union, should we be giving it a different name that will encourage that viewpoint? It's like saying during the time of racism that all the "seperate but equal" crap back then was okay, because some people are going to look down on those negroes anyway, right? I guess they should have just "lived with it", in your mind, eh?

 

-Xias

[Guest SP-1]

That's fine that your religion is against homosexuality.

 

But the thing is, because of your religion should those who wish to have sex out of wedlock? It is socially acceptable. So why is it unacceptable for gays to marry? Though it isn't acceptable according to your religion, can't society accept this seeing as how the United States is not a Catholic state.

Up until recently it was seen by the bible that women are the possession of men in marriage (and to many people this is still the case). The interpretation of the Bible's teachings have changed before. It will change again undoubtedly.

Xias -- My problem with the "Born Gay" approach is that there's lots of theories, but no proof. No hard evidence that it's a genetic disposition. Lots of biased scientists trying to make a case, I'll grant you that. But at the end of the day, there's nothing hard enough in genetic research to prove it.

 

The apostle Paul clearly condemns it. I shall endeavor to find the specific verse for you, preferably in the NASB translation as its the most literal. If by some chance this thread is still kicking when I get back to school I'll let you know what the Greek says. There are some extremely liberal "preachers" out there that like to dance around scripture and justify their stance, but at the end of the day its pretty clearly dealt with as far as I'm aware.

 

Note: Paul condems the sin. There is always hope for the sinner in Christ.

 

 

Norman: You speak as if the actual Christian population finds sex outside of marriage as "acceptable". Its in the exact same league as homosexuality. However, I'm curious as to your definition of "acceptable" here. No, we're not going to say it's okay to do it. It isn't. But we shouldn't be shunning those caught up in it either. The call is to love and be compassionate. But not to condone. There is a difference. You can do both. If it were socially acceptable, I wouldn't still be a virgin. Not at my school, where the ratio is 70/30 for my entering class in favor of girls.

[Guest SP-1]

They will look down on you with whatever word you call it. To those people you are sinners who deserve to burn in hell if you can't be changed into being "right".

 

Live with it.

I have to disagree with you there, Rant.

[MrRant 0]

I didn't say all Christians. You know of which I speak SP.

[Guest SP-1]

I didn't say all Christians. You know of which I speak SP.

Fair enough. Those are the ones I dislike as well. I often question whether they really know Jesus at all, but at the end of the day that isn't for me to judge.

[Guest Xias]

Xias -- My problem with the "Born Gay" approach is that there's lots of theories, but no proof. No hard evidence that it's a genetic disposition. Lots of biased scientists trying to make a case, I'll grant you that. But at the end of the day, there's nothing hard enough in genetic research to prove it.

See, that's why I said "I believe", instead of "I know".

 

I find the whole debate silly, though. Either way, obviously it's not something that can be changed, as has been proven time and time again, so who cares where it comes from? And before you say "Yes it can.", I spent over two years of my life trying not to be bi-sexual.

 

It just doesn't work.

 

The apostle Paul clearly condemns it.  I shall endeavor to find the specific verse for you, preferably in the NASB translation as its the most literal.  If by some chance this thread is still kicking when I get back to school I'll let you know what the Greek says.  There are some extremely liberal "preachers" out there that like to dance around scripture and justify their stance, but at the end of the day its pretty clearly dealt with as far as I'm aware.

 

Again, not that I'm a biblical scholar, but if I remember correctly a lot of modern Christians consider Paul the weakest of the apostles. (He's the one who was a murderer, right?) As far as I can remember what their explanation was, if you take out the Paul parts of the NT, you take out a lot of the inexpliciable condemning, which is a good reason why to take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

The way you say it, it's like it's a "few liberal preachers", but from what I understand this interpretation of Christianity is both popular and not going away anytime soon.

 

Note:  Paul condems the sin.  There is always hope for the sinner in Christ.

 

If they want to fight themselves for the rest of their lives? Yeah. But who wants to do that? I did it for two years, and it wasn't fun, believe me.

 

Norman:  You speak as if the actual Christian population finds sex outside of marriage as "acceptable".  Its in the exact same league as homosexuality.  However, I'm curious as to your definition of "acceptable" here.  No, we're not going to say it's okay to do it.  It isn't.  But we shouldn't be shunning those caught up in it either.  The call is to love and be compassionate.  But not to condone.  There is a difference.  You can do both.  If it were socially acceptable, I wouldn't still be a virgin.  Not at my school, where the ratio is 70/30 for my entering class in favor of girls.

 

Among the hardcore Christian population, no, it still isn't acceptable. But do you see any Christians outside picketing people to stop having sex outside of marriage? Maybe there's still a few, but for the most part they've conceded the issue in the secular society. Meanwhile, there's a hell of a lot more of these fundementalists willing to picket hot-button issues they still have a hope in hell of winning- namely, gay marriage and abortion.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

You forgot evolution and they still preach abstinence pretty hard.

[Guest Xias]

You forgot evolution and they still preach abstinence pretty hard.

They don't preach it as hard to the mainstream as they preach the two issues (and, well, evolution too, although I'm not convinced they care as much about that as the two I'm talking about) I mentioned.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Apparently you haven't seen the stamps on the science books then.....

[Guest Xias]

Apparently you haven't seen the stamps on the science books then.....

Of course I have. I said I'm not convinced they preach it as much as the other two, and I stand by that viewpoint. Do you see people bombing science centers? Do you see science teachers getting beat up for believing in evolution?

 

-Xias

[spiny norman 0]

That's what I meant by sex outside marriage. It's not something that is outlawed in society or talked about being such.

 

And I hope that abortion is not made illegal, I think that's a far worse issue than the one being discussed here though and thus won't dwell on it.

 

But nonetheless, my point still stands. Whether you moralistically oppose any of these issues such as gay marriage or abortion, I don't think it is within your rights to order these same things on society just because you and your religion don't agree with them. It is fine for you to have your rights but you can not deny others. You can condemn it, but is it right to impose your beliefs on the rest of society, no matter how strongly you believe in them?

[MrRant 0]

Oh you can't blame gay bashing on religion by any means.

 

Abortion clinics I'll give you 75-80%.

[Guest Xias]

Oh you can't blame gay bashing on religion by any means.

 

Abortion clinics I'll give you 75-80%.

You can't blame gay bashing entirley on religion, but if you had to ask a majority of the gay bashers what religion they consider themselves a part of, I wager most of them would say Christianity, whether or not they are devout followers (ahem).

 

-Xias

[Guest SP-1]

Xias --  My problem with the "Born Gay" approach is that there's lots of theories, but no proof.  No hard evidence that it's a genetic disposition.  Lots of biased scientists trying to make a case, I'll grant you that.  But at the end of the day, there's nothing hard enough in genetic research to prove it.

See, that's why I said "I believe", instead of "I know".

 

I find the whole debate silly, though. Either way, obviously it's not something that can be changed, as has been proven time and time again, so who cares where it comes from? And before you say "Yes it can.", I spent over two years of my life trying not to be bi-sexual.

 

It just doesn't work.

 

The apostle Paul clearly condemns it.  I shall endeavor to find the specific verse for you, preferably in the NASB translation as its the most literal.  If by some chance this thread is still kicking when I get back to school I'll let you know what the Greek says.  There are some extremely liberal "preachers" out there that like to dance around scripture and justify their stance, but at the end of the day its pretty clearly dealt with as far as I'm aware.

 

Again, not that I'm a biblical scholar, but if I remember correctly a lot of modern Christians consider Paul the weakest of the apostles. (He's the one who was a murderer, right?) As far as I can remember what their explanation was, if you take out the Paul parts of the NT, you take out a lot of the inexpliciable condemning, which is a good reason why to take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

The way you say it, it's like it's a "few liberal preachers", but from what I understand this interpretation of Christianity is both popular and not going away anytime soon.

 

Note:  Paul condems the sin.  There is always hope for the sinner in Christ.

 

If they want to fight themselves for the rest of their lives? Yeah. But who wants to do that? I did it for two years, and it wasn't fun, believe me.

 

Norman:  You speak as if the actual Christian population finds sex outside of marriage as "acceptable".  Its in the exact same league as homosexuality.  However, I'm curious as to your definition of "acceptable" here.  No, we're not going to say it's okay to do it.  It isn't.  But we shouldn't be shunning those caught up in it either.  The call is to love and be compassionate.  But not to condone.  There is a difference.  You can do both.  If it were socially acceptable, I wouldn't still be a virgin.  Not at my school, where the ratio is 70/30 for my entering class in favor of girls.

 

Among the hardcore Christian population, no, it still isn't acceptable. But do you see any Christians outside picketing people to stop having sex outside of marriage? Maybe there's still a few, but for the most part they've conceded the issue in the secular society. Meanwhile, there's a hell of a lot more of these fundementalists willing to picket hot-button issues they still have a hope in hell of winning- namely, gay marriage and abortion.

 

-Xias

See, that's why I said "I believe", instead of "I know".

 

I find the whole debate silly, though. Either way, obviously it's not something that can be changed, as has been proven time and time again, so who cares where it comes from? And before you say "Yes it can.", I spent over two years of my life trying not to be bi-sexual.

 

It just doesn't work.

 

I would ask how you attempted to do this. There's a difference between trying to do it on your own and having Christ work in your life. A vast difference. One of my best friends on the planet is a former lesbian who has completely turned around in her sexual orientation. She isn't miserable, or fighting herself. She's happy and healthy.

 

Again, not that I'm a biblical scholar, but if I remember correctly a lot of modern Christians consider Paul the weakest of the apostles. (He's the one who was a murderer, right?) As far as I can remember what their explanation was, if you take out the Paul parts of the NT, you take out a lot of the inexpliciable condemning, which is a good reason why to take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

The way you say it, it's like it's a "few liberal preachers", but from what I understand this interpretation of Christianity is both popular and not going away anytime soon..

 

I've never heard anyone consider Paul "weak". Paul did indeed persecute and kill Christians before Christ met him on the road to Damascus and turned everything around for him. Paul's teaching came directly from Christ (he points this out in the opening chapters of Galatians). The apostles clearly trusted him and approved of him enough to accept him as one of their own. Paul even stood up to some erroneous ideas of Peter at one point and corrected him on some major doctrinal issues. That a former murderer of Christians joined their number and began following Christ is a strong testimony to the power of the risen Christ to transform and change. To distrust Paul's sound teaching because of that is foolishness and is ignoring the very core of what Christ came to do.

 

The teaching of these liberal preachers can be dismantled by pretty much anyone with an education in the Bible.

 

 

If they want to fight themselves for the rest of their lives? Yeah. But who wants to do that? I did it for two years, and it wasn't fun, believe me.

 

Again, I point to my friend, who completely turned around. As well as to a friend at University who has similarly turned towards the Lord from his homosexual tendencies.

 

 

 

Among the hardcore Christian population, no, it still isn't acceptable. But do you see any Christians outside picketing people to stop having sex outside of marriage? Maybe there's still a few, but for the most part they've conceded the issue in the secular society. Meanwhile, there's a hell of a lot more of these fundementalists willing to picket hot-button issues they still have a hope in hell of winning- namely, gay marriage and abortion.

 

-Xias.

 

 

If it were about picketing, you'd have a point. However, it isn't. There are those of us who live by example and who explain why by how we live.

[Guest SP-1]

Oh you can't blame gay bashing on religion by any means.

 

Abortion clinics I'll give you 75-80%.

You can't blame gay bashing entirley on religion, but if you had to ask a majority of the gay bashers what religion they consider themselves a part of, I wager most of them would say Christianity, whether or not they are devout followers (ahem).

 

-Xias

Heh. Nominal "Christians" need Jesus too.

[MrRant 0]

Oh you can't blame gay bashing on religion by any means.

 

Abortion clinics I'll give you 75-80%.

You can't blame gay bashing entirley on religion, but if you had to ask a majority of the gay bashers what religion they consider themselves a part of, I wager most of them would say Christianity, whether or not they are devout followers (ahem).

 

-Xias

Just because they may be Christian how do you know they are beating up a gay based on their religious values?

 

Nice reach there though.

[Guest Xias]

I would ask how you attempted to do this. There's a difference between trying to do it on your own and having Christ work in your life. A vast difference. One of my best friends on the planet is a former lesbian who has completely turned around in her sexual orientation. She isn't miserable, or fighting herself. She's happy and healthy. 

I did it as a Christian. I prayed for help. As far as I can tell, I didn't recieve any, because I still have an attraction to guys. And I have to say that, as far as I'm concerned, your friend was never really a lesbian to begin with. She was probably bi-sexual and is just burying her attraction to girls at the moment. That's usually the explanation when it comes to these "miraculous" sexual turn-arounds. And, oh yeah, she's still attracted to girls too, otherwise she was never really even a bi-sexual in the first place.

 

I've never heard anyone consider Paul "weak".  Paul did indeed persecute and kill Christians before Christ met him on the road to Damascus and turned everything around for him.  Paul's teaching came directly from Christ (he points this out in the opening chapters of Galatians).  The apostles clearly trusted him and approved of him enough to accept him as one of their own.  Paul even stood up to some erroneous ideas of Peter at one point and corrected him on some major doctrinal issues.  That a former murderer of Christians joined their number and began following Christ is a strong testimony to the power of the risen Christ to transform and change.  To distrust Paul's sound teaching because of that is foolishness and is ignoring the very core of what Christ came to do.

 

The fact remains, though, that the majority of these condemnings of certain groups still came from Paul (again, as best as I can remember). Considering the lack of historical knowledge when it comes to how the Bible was written, and the fact that it was written by PEOPLE, and not a deity himself, isn't it at least possible that one of the writers (in this case, Paul), just happened to be a bigot?

 

The teaching of these liberal preachers can be dismantled by pretty much anyone with an education in the Bible.

 

I have to disagree with you again. They are, in the most basic form, teaching the love of Jesus. They are simply more realistic when it comes to what a person can and cannot change.

 

Again, I point to my friend, who completely turned around.  As well as to a friend at University who has similarly turned towards the Lord from his homosexual tendencies.

 

I point back to my explanation and once again say that it's not possible for a true homosexual to become heterosexual. No one can just lose that. The desires don't just go away.

 

Are you then going to ignore all the people who have come out over the years and admitted that the loss of their homosexuality through religion was nothing more than a faux, and that they were still attracted to the same sex the entire time?

 

-Xias

[Guest Xias]

Oh you can't blame gay bashing on religion by any means.

 

Abortion clinics I'll give you 75-80%.

You can't blame gay bashing entirley on religion, but if you had to ask a majority of the gay bashers what religion they consider themselves a part of, I wager most of them would say Christianity, whether or not they are devout followers (ahem).

 

-Xias

Just because they may be Christian how do you know they are beating up a gay based on their religious values?

 

Nice reach there though.

So you're honestly going to tell me that the fact that this country's largest religion condemns homosexuality has nothing to do with gay bashers?

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Not as big of a part as you would like it to be. Some people just find two men BUTT fucking each other disgusting.

[Guest Xias]

Not as big of a part as you would like it to be. Some people just find two men BUTT fucking each other disgusting.

I don't honestly care why a homophobe's a homophobe. But you're the one who's trying to understate the importance of Christianity in the homophobia problem. The fact is, if there wasn't a legitimiate reason (in their eyes) to hate homosexuals, there'd be less hatred of homosexuals. Period.

 

If you remember correctly, people believed that racism was Biblically supported too....

 

-Xias

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I have been living with it for most of my life. The fact is, though, you're still ignoring the core point here- calling it "civil union" instead of "marriage" is not going to encourage people to accept it as equal. It's going to encourage the exact opposite.

Not really. A civil union will be viewed as what happens when two people love each other. Marriage will be considered a bunch of crap on top of that.

 

Anyway, sourcing the Bible as cause for legislation in any circumstance is stupid.

[Guest Xias]

I have been living with it for most of my life. The fact is, though, you're still ignoring the core point here- calling it "civil union" instead of "marriage" is not going to encourage people to accept it as equal. It's going to encourage the exact opposite.

Not really. A civil union will be viewed as what happens when two people love each other. Marriage will be considered a bunch of crap on top of that.

 

Anyway, sourcing the Bible as cause for legislation in any circumstance is stupid.

I have to disagree. One term just sounds more "real" than the other one. The term civil union just doesn't sound like what happens when two people are in love, like the term marriage does- it sounds more like a freaking business proposal than one out of love, and just plays into the sterotype of "gays only care about the money", in my mind.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Racism has been around far longer than the bible and in areas where the bible had never reached until recent history. But again... nice reach.

 

And yes, Christianity isn't the great cause of homophobia. Some people just don't like gays and think they are disgusting. It's part of life and something you will have to live with.

[Guest Xias]

Racism has been around far longer than the bible and in areas where the bible had never reached until recent history. But again... nice reach.

 

And yes, Christianity isn't the great cause of homophobia. Some people just don't like gays and think they are disgusting. It's part of life and something you will have to live with.

I didn't say Christianity was the grand cause for it. I am still backing behind my claim that there would be far less homophobia if there wasn't Christianity, because, again, while some people may just be naturally disgusted about it, from my experience they'd be far less likely to express these feelings (ceratinly not in a violent manner) if they didn't have something telling them these feelings were not only right, but freaking DIVINLEY INSPIRED.

 

And you can stop telling me to "live with it" anytime now, I find it more ignorant and condescending everytime you say it. If you're going to sterotype me in the "whiny bi-sexual" category, you could at least wait until you actually know something about me first other than my general viewpoints on a message board. I was raised in a Catholic family, used to go to a Catholic school, and still live in a pretty conservative neighborhood. As I said before, I've been "living with it" for most of my life.

 

-Xias

[MrRant 0]

Yes... because Jeebus jumps out of the clouds and inspires normal non-violent people into putting the boots to gays. Violent people are violent people period.

 

Why didn't I think of that?

 

Edit : Made sense.

Edited July 14, 2004 by MrRant