Why christians should NOT support the ban on gay marriages.

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


really?? morality (christianity) was the cause of more wars than anything else.

don't use the excuse that they weren't true christians. THAT'S the point. POWER CORRUPTS . . .

the reason to keep church and state apart is NOT to protect us from the state but to protect us from the CHURCH.

if history has shown us ANYTHING it's that Churches given ALWAYS abuse it.

No doubt that power corrupts, but I think I am gonna go ahead and use the excuse that they weren't true Christians, because that's most likely true.

You really need to understand that morality and Christianity are more often EXCUSES for wars, rather than a true cause. Even so-called religious wars were fought for more political motives, but abused religion to get the masses to support it.

Church and community are important parts of a healthy spiritual relationship with God... regardless of your views on religion, interaction with fellow Christians is an important part, and is blessed by God in the New Testament many times.

you make my case.

ok, so mb my distrust of the church was wrong, but guess what, you did make my point, by allowing government to legislate morality you allow government to use the church as an excuse again.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


1. marriage is not about procreation

2. if god wanted US as christians to "force" our good beliefs on others, YTF didn't he just force it on us to start off with?? OMFG i completely forgot about free will didn't i. well, ok i didn't but did you?

3. marriage ends in divorce because NOTHING the law decrees can change how people deal with each other, ONLY god can do that.

1. Sex is a part of marriage, and in the Bible God repeatedly tells us to respect the sanctity of sex, and to not engage in homosexuality and sleeping with animals.

2. Using the word "force" is a misnomer, since apparently to "force" your beliefs on someone means to tell them about it, or at least that's what you would believe with how it is used here. Maybe you should brush up on the Bible... specifically in regards to what is know as the "great commission":

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature."
Mark 16:15, KJV

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
doctrine."
2 Timothy 4:2, KJV

So you see, God tells us over and over to spread the word to everyone in the world. So whenever someone tells me that God didn't intend for Christians to "force" their beliefs on people, I can't say I agree. BUT, just to clarify, YES, actually forcing your beliefs on someone is definately NOT what God intended, but then people need to understand that passionate testimony, even if you are against it and even if it irritates you, that is STILL NOT FORCING IT ON YOU.

3. I would disagree with this point too... God blesses nations that are holy in His eyes, which is one of the reasons I am for supporting Israel.

1. the bible also speaks in extremely strong words with regards to spilling ones "seed"

2. you apparently missed all my posts regarding WITNESSING. i believe in WITNESSING, matter of fact it is my position that using law to enforce things that SHOULD be spread via witnessing is just a cheap excuse NOT to witness. God desires the one on one.

3. Israel is no longer holy in his eyes, isreal was chosen by god to serve a function, they served that function and are now no different in gods eyes than any other political structure.

1. And? Are you trying to counter my argument by saying that the Bible holds no merit because now you can't masturbate without feeling guilty? Please make your point and get on with it.

2. I'm sure one on one witnessing is good, but that doesn't mean mass evangelism is bad. Jesus spoke to multitudes of people... anyone who would listen.

3. Where do you get off making that arguement? At least try to base your claims on what God actually says in the Bible, rather than what you think you understand about what He wants. The Bible talks about Israel being reformed and God's chosen people returning to the holy land.

 

[PlatinumGold]

1. And? Are you trying to counter my argument by saying that the Bible holds no merit because now you can't masturbate without feeling guilty? Please make your point and get on with it.

hmmm, actually i didn't say masturbate, i said spill. the bible specifically was referring to withdrawal in the act of sex so as not to impregnate, a modern analogy would be a condom.

why don't you legislate a legal ban on condoms?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


by allowing government to legislate morality you allow government to use the church as an excuse again.

Not if you let the government legislate morality according to Biblical laws... which is why you have to be an active participant in the church, following God first, and man's laws second, which is how God says it should be done.

Legislating morality is not inherently wrong, but it can be. You are saying that legilstaing morality is wrong on the basis that eventually the legislation will become corrupt, and NOT be moral. I'm saying that that CAN happen, but not neccessarily.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


by allowing government to legislate morality you allow government to use the church as an excuse again.

Not if you let the government legislate morality according to Biblical laws... which is why you have to be an active participant in the church, following God first, and man's laws second, which is how God says it should be done.

Legislating morality is not inherently wrong, but it can be. You are saying that legilstaing morality is wrong on the basis that eventually the legislation will become corrupt, and NOT be moral. I'm saying that that CAN happen, but not neccessarily.

i disagree, legislating morality is inherently wrong, because true morality (righteousness) can only be achieved in a journey between man and god and NO generalization of that experience or any component of that component should ever be forced on anyone else.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

1. And? Are you trying to counter my argument by saying that the Bible holds no merit because now you can't masturbate without feeling guilty? Please make your point and get on with it.

hmmm, actually i didn't say masturbate, i said spill. the bible specifically was referring to withdrawal in the act of sex so as not to impregnate, a modern analogy would be a condom.

why don't you legislate a legal ban on condoms?

If I recall correclty, the verse when God condemned spilling seed was a specific case with Onan, which was condemned not because using contraceptives is bad, but becuase Onan was acting selfishly and not doing God's will.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

1. And? Are you trying to counter my argument by saying that the Bible holds no merit because now you can't masturbate without feeling guilty? Please make your point and get on with it.

hmmm, actually i didn't say masturbate, i said spill. the bible specifically was referring to withdrawal in the act of sex so as not to impregnate, a modern analogy would be a condom.

why don't you legislate a legal ban on condoms?

if that where the consensus will, but it's not; as the consensus isn't ignorant on this issue and know that it was in a very specific case that this was written, one that no longer applies as per the commandments of Christ. Or at least they go to a church with a preacher who knows this.

we don't legislate as per what the legislature thinks the bible says, we legislate as per what the majority thinks is right; that the majority thinks the bible is right is incidental.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold


by allowing government to legislate morality you allow government to use the church as an excuse again.

Not if you let the government legislate morality according to Biblical laws... which is why you have to be an active participant in the church, following God first, and man's laws second, which is how God says it should be done.

Legislating morality is not inherently wrong, but it can be. You are saying that legilstaing morality is wrong on the basis that eventually the legislation will become corrupt, and NOT be moral. I'm saying that that CAN happen, but not neccessarily.

i disagree, legislating morality is inherently wrong, because true morality (righteousness) can only be achieved in a journey between man and god and NO generalization of that experience or any component of that component should ever be forced on anyone else.

I understand the personal aspect of righteousness, and frankly I agree with that. But I cannot agree that legislating morality is inherently wrong.

In any case PlatinumGold, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree... I really don't have the time to engage in a long argument over this matter, especially since typing is a hard way for me to convey my point.

In any case, sorry to hear about what happened to you when you were young, and I wish you the best of luck with your own spiritual journey.

 

[Wingznut]

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... So what if Bob and Frank get married? Why does anyone care?

Again, a very good parallel is when a judge overturned the law regarding interracial marriage in the 50's.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... So what if Bob and Frank get married? Why does anyone care?

Again, a very good parallel is when a judge overturned the law regarding interracial marriage in the 50's.

I think that eventually they'll be able to marry and then the people against it will have to get over it and find something else that doesn't affect them to get pissed off about.

 

[steelels1]

Seeing as how there are many professing christians in here and the nature of the subject, I'd like to ask a question - If homosexuality is not a choice, but instead just another attribute of a person (like being left-handed), would that change your opinion on the subject?

First of all, I'll come right out and say that I'm gay. I was raised in a strict christian home, had a strong father figure, was "saved", went to a christian school, and up until a few years ago had a horrible struggle with my sexuality. I became aware of my same-sex attractions at an early age, and tried to ignore them, either thinking they would just pass or just not acknowledging them. While they didn't feel "wrong", due to the environment I was raised in I felt like I was going to hell, and it didn't help with my parents always telling me about those horrible queers, how they would burn in hell, and how they would disown anyone of their children that turned out that way. I tried everything - tried every attempt to mask my libido, prayed for hours for god to make me "straight", tried to date girls, etc. Finally tried to commit suicide and was subsequently put on all kinds of anti-depressants until I was about 16. I was even too afraid to tell my counselor what was really bothering me.

When I was 18 I got away from that environment and was able to come to terms with my sexuality. I realized I couldn't change it (at least any easier than a straight person could change theirs), and I shouldn't have to change it. I'm now 21, an atheist (free at last), and have been in a same-sex relationship for 2 years and couldn't be happier. I'm monogamous, and if you met me you'd probably never know I was gay. I'm not proud of it, but I feel the same way about it as I feel about being left-handed - It's an impairment (everything is made for right handers!!! ARGH!), but it's something I'll have to live with. And don't bring up the Exodus International or NARTH crap, because it's just that - crap. It doesn't work, and from what I've seen does more harm than good.

But I want to be able to have a joint insurance policy. I want my partner to be able to share in my employment and health benefits. I want my partner to be able to make decisions regarding my medical care if I'm not able. I want to make sure that all my possessions go to my partner if something happens to me, and so on... I just want the same opportunities as everyone else, and I don't see why I should be denied the same rights for being this way. We're 2 adult and it doesn't hurt anyone.

And it is NOT a slippery slope to adult-child and man-goat marriage because kids and animals are not self aware, something that is required to enter into a contract.

So really - humor me - if it's not a choice, then what exactly are we supposed to do? A civil union promotes monogamy, which also promotes sexual health (something I'll admit the gay community needs more of...), as well as having other intangible benefits to the couple. Seems like something christians would want to promote, not hinder.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

1. And? Are you trying to counter my argument by saying that the Bible holds no merit because now you can't masturbate without feeling guilty? Please make your point and get on with it.

hmmm, actually i didn't say masturbate, i said spill. the bible specifically was referring to withdrawal in the act of sex so as not to impregnate, a modern analogy would be a condom.

why don't you legislate a legal ban on condoms?

The only instance that I recall where that action(spilling seed)was considered vile was a unique case and not a Universal Law. The case was a Woman's Husband dying before a Son had been conceived. As per Judaic Law the brother of the Husband was obligated to impregnate the Wife. The Brother tried to take advantage of his good fortune(Wife must have been a Hotty ) and avoided impregnating her.

At anyrate, I agree with you 100% on this whole Gay Marriage issue. This is a classic Splinter/Log in Eye issue. It is also an issue that attempts to deceive using Quack logic and reasoning in a not too subtle power grab.

 

[Wingznut]

So really - humor me - if it's not a choice, then what exactly are we supposed to do?

steelels1... I hate to say it, but you just might be overestimating the maturity of the people of ATOT.

 

[steelels1]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

So really - humor me - if it's not a choice, then what exactly are we supposed to do?

steelels1... I hate to say it, but you just might be overestimating the maturity of the people of ATOT.

Perhaps, this thread just caught my eye while I was doing a search. I've been visiting AT regularly since it was on geocities (6-7 years?), yet I've never ventured into ATOT...

 

[LordMagnusKain]

if it's not a choice, then what exactly are we supposed to do?

Same thing as a heterosexual who God's not given someone to mate with: not have sex.

Seems like something christians would want to promote, not hinder.

that's what i said in my thread; but i got flamed for it.

 

[steelels1]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

if it's not a choice, then what exactly are we supposed to do?

Same thing as a heterosexual who God's not given someone to mate with: not have sex.

Yeah, because we know how well ordering someone to stay celibate works. Just ask the Catholics... Not a practical or necessary measure, and again I don't believe in the same principles as christians do.

At least I haven't gotten that response before.

 

[RedPickle]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... So what if Bob and Frank get married? Why does anyone care?

Again, a very good parallel is when a judge overturned the law regarding interracial marriage in the 50's.

I think that eventually they'll be able to marry and then the people against it will have to get over it and find something else that doesn't affect them to get pissed off about.

Hehe, good point, I agree.

 

[StormRider]

For me it doesn't seem like a real marriage so I'm against "gay marriages". This isn't about morality -- for me it's about the meaning of the term "marriage". I will always think of it as the union between a man and a woman. Calling the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is like calling my brother, "my sister". Maybe it's the wanna-be mathematician in me (mathematicians like to precisely define things).

I am for civil unions for gay couples with most of the priveleges and rights of marriages because it it for society's benefit to promote monogamous relationships.

You are cordially invited to the wedding of Steven and Richard

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... So what if Bob and Frank get married? Why does anyone care?

Again, a very good parallel is when a judge overturned the law regarding interracial marriage in the 50's.

I think that eventually they'll be able to marry and then the people against it will have to get over it and find something else that doesn't affect them to get pissed off about.

It's inevitable. Does today's youth even want to ban homosexual marriages? I doubt it.

 

[xchangx]

I'm now 21, an atheist (free at last),

Well you weren't "saved" in the first place. You can't just loose your salvation.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

At least I haven't gotten that response before.

I answered it from the perspective of a Christian trying to help his brother.

As it is we all know what's wrong and what's wright, God wants us to admit that we can't make it on our own and in Him try to do what's right.

I can't say that a Christian who struggles with homosexual tendency's is any less saved than someone who struggles with porn.

 

[StormRider]

The problem is our language -- it is inherently gender biased. In order to have a better society we need to get rid of the words "mother" and "father" and replace them with "parental units". Both a mother and a father are exactly the same -- there is no difference between the two so why do we have two different words to discribe them?

We also should ban the words "sister" and "brother" and replace them with the gender neutral word "sibling" because there is no difference between a brother and a sister. The gender of a person is irrelevant.

After we remove all gender biased words from our language our society will be more accepting of the word marriage applying to "gay marriages" because there is absolutely no difference between a man/woman union and a man/man or woman/woman union.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Both a mother and a father are exactly the same -- there is no difference between the two so why do we have two different words to discribe them?

this is simply not true.

ERA didn't pass as an amendment for a reason: we recognize that their are honest differences between males and females; nothing to make one superior to the other, but we are definitely not all the same.

 

[Eli]

Oh brother.

Anybody who says homosexual marriage should be against the law is not only a bigot, but a victimizer.

Not to mention highly discriminatory, invidious, calumnious, hateful, defamatory, obnoxious, and last but not least, repugnant.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: notfred
I want to see the passages from the bible that say marriage is an institution of god. I never remember reading that part.

fine it doesn't

MOST of the christian objections to gay marriage is how it is a God granted thing.

IF you hold that to be true than you have NO reason to think that what the government does will impact that.

God granted? Maybe... but not the Christian god considering the concept of marriage is older than Judaism.