PDA

View Full Version : Co-gendered marriage- thoughts from a religious perspective?


Christian
06-28-2005, 08:45 AM
I would like to know the opinions of others on the prospect of gay marriage. Do you support it? If so, why? If not, why not?

Does the prospect of legalizing gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage as it currently exists? If a man marries another man--or a woman marries another woman--does that somehow threaten the marriage of any couple of the opposite sex? If so, how?

Are civil unions an acceptable alternative to marriage for gay men and lesbians, either to gay marriage proponents or opponents?

Do opponents of legalizing gay marriage understand that people of the same gender are capable of loving each other and wanting to build a life together just as a man and a woman are? Are they aware that current law does not provide them with the same rights and protections that opposite-sex couples have?

Would granting two men or two women the right to marry constitute the extension of "special" rights to LGB people? What about the rights marriage extends to male-female couples but not to same-sex couples?

Is it fair or just that a man and woman who meet on a TV game show and "win" each other's hand, along with a sizable sum of money, are allowed to marry, but two people of the same sex who have been in a committed, monogamous relationship, sometimes for decades, are denied that legal right?

Should religious opinions that homosexual acts are sinful, if not damnable, influence legislation in this arena?

If the purpose of marriage is to protect children, should couples who remain childless for a specified time after their wedding be automatically divorced?

Should the U. S. Constitution be amended to prohibit gay marriage? Are so-called "Defense of Marriage" laws needed? Are they constitutional?

Has the Constitution ever been amended before to limit freedoms, aside from the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol consumption, which proved to be a disaster and was subsequently repealed? Should precedent or lack of precedent bear on our decision whether to amend the Constitution to narrowly define marriage?

I'm sure you can see where I stand on the issue, but I'd honestly like to read the thoughts of others on both sides. Let's get some dialog going!

Dougie Mac
06-29-2005, 10:42 AM
You already can guess my opinion and why I hold strongly to it. :cool:

Christian
06-29-2005, 01:30 PM
I would guess that, because you believe that homosexuals are engaged in immoral lifestyles, you would like to see them be able to marry, so that morality would be institutionalized for them the way it is for male-female couples! ;)

Dougie Mac
06-30-2005, 08:28 AM
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's The Way The Bible Tells It!
And Don't Wink At Me! Lol :D

malcolan
06-30-2005, 09:32 AM
Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).
Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is ya„da`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. Are there other Scriptures in the New Testament which deal with homosexuality?

Yes. Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of "the truth of God" (1:25). They refused "to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God's Word with one's own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God's orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan's big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God's truth, his mind becomes "reprobate," meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God's truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behavior of the homosexual is described as a "vile affection" (1:26). The Greek word translated "vile" (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonorable. The word "affection" in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The "vile affection" is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Q. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the church?

Nothing is more foundationally essential for the church and the world than a return to the truth. Recently I read where someone said we are suffering from a famine of the worst kind, "a truth-famine." Our modern culture is in a degenerating, deteriorating stage caused by a departure from the truth. And I must say unequivocally that truth does not exist independently of God, and His written Word the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth is in no sense of man's imagination or contrivance. Man in his fallen state does not know truth, and that is why he continues to go on sinning. A civilization without the truth is doomed to oblivion. Every ancient civilization that ignored God and His laws has crumbled. Our present civilization is well on the road to doom. We cannot survive independently of God and His Word.

The Church must return to the truth, the whole truth, the sum total of truth founded and grounded upon Him Who said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). In our Lord's high priestly prayer for His own He prayed, "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth" (John 17:17). There must be in our churches the clear exposition of the Scriptures and a continuing exaltation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ if our civilization is to be saved from the disasters that overcame past civilizations. Any civilization with a philosophy or a doctrine which denies the real truth cannot survive.

Q. What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Dougie Mac
06-30-2005, 10:49 AM
It Does My Heart Good To Hear From You Malcolan! :)

Christian
06-30-2005, 07:49 PM
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's The Way The Bible Tells It!


Are you saying that you agree with me? That you think homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry, as in two men or two women in love with--and committed to--each other should be allowed to marry EACH OTHER? If so, I think I might have seen a couple of pigs flying past my window.
:eek:

Dougie Mac
07-01-2005, 07:36 AM
No, ok, I misunderstood you, A little play on words, whether it was intentional or not. I believe it was right about......

I would guess that, because you believe that homosexuals are engaged in immoral lifestyles, (HERE) you would like to see them be able to marry, so that morality would be institutionalized for them the way it is for male-female couples!

I would not like to see this. It doesn't matter how man institutionalizes things, but how God institutionalizes things that we ought to go by. That is, IF we want to continue to be "ONE NATION UNDER GOD"!

Christian
07-01-2005, 05:17 PM
Surely you didn't really think I thought you would support gay marriage, did you? I was teasing you, but I didn't put a winky face in that you might interpret as flirtation. I have no desire whatsoever to flirt with you.

It seems you are not interested in any kind of logic or explanation of what being gay means, only in your preconceived notions, that is, prejudices.

Christian
07-04-2005, 05:16 PM
God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.

Actually, sodomite and whore in this instance refers to male and female temple prostitutes of non-Yahwistic Canaanite religions.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is ya„da`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

So it doesn’t trouble you that Lot’s god didn’t seem to mind that Lot offered to let the townsmen rape his daughters?

Dougie Mac
07-05-2005, 09:29 AM
And Don't Wink At Me! Lol

I know you weren't flirting with me. it was a joke.

Christian
07-05-2005, 06:21 PM
And I notice you haven't responded to the fetishists. It seems that you are picking and choosing which "sins" to respond to. Surely receiving gratification from a particular kind of clothing is more harmful to the spirit than LOVING another human being, regardless of whether that person is of the same or the opposite sex. Here I am not talking about LUST, but LOVE.

Dougie Mac
07-06-2005, 07:21 AM
And I notice you haven't responded to the fetishists. It seems that you are picking and choosing which "sins" to respond to. Surely receiving gratification from a particular kind of clothing is more harmful to the spirit than LOVING another human being, regardless of whether that person is of the same or the opposite sex. Here I am not talking about LUST, but LOVE.

Oh, I agree with you there. Those sins also are committed by people who aren't happy with the being that God created them to be. Now about the Old Testament law, You are right. That law no longer condemns us, because of the shed blood of Christ. We find forgiveness in that blood. But the Bible says, that when we find forgiveness, should we still sin because we can still get forgiveness, Heaven forbid! Both sins are harmful, lust or love. The latter of the two, because it is out of wedlock, therefore it is considered fornication. Leviticus 20: 13 is still unanswered by you?

Dougie Mac
07-06-2005, 07:24 AM
Perhaps you need to examine your heart before you pray for deliverence. When you pray, are you asking from the desires of your heart? God will only deliver you when you want to be delivered. Do you really want to be. If not, you won't be ready to be. Why would he try to deliver you from a sin that your not through with wanting to commit?

Dougie Mac
07-06-2005, 07:25 AM
It's kind of like an alcoholic. They aren't able toreceive help until they are ready willing and able by the grace of God to quit drinking.

jwoiton
07-06-2005, 07:43 AM
All of your arguments against homosexuality come from the old testament(Leviticus,Deuteronomy, etc.). What did Jesus say about homosexuality, diddley squat. He did have compassion for those who were shunned by society and he did say not to judge other people.

What benefit do you have in your life by saying that two people of the same sex who are in a loving committed relationship are immoral? Does it make you a better christian to have prejudice to a part of society or to judge others?

I think not.

pntyhoseftsh
07-06-2005, 09:53 AM
retraction

Dougie Mac
07-06-2005, 02:00 PM
The same thing that he did for the liars, cheaters, manipulators and moochers. He died for them. You said that I mentiond only Old testament scripture, WRONG I also mentioned ROMANS 1, NEW TESTAMENT. You also said that I was judging you. WRONG! If I were judging you, AS I"VE STATED ABOUT 100 TIMES IN THIS FORUM, then I would have said that your sins condemn you to Hell. That just wouldn't be scriptural. THEY DON'T. That is a lie that most "CHRISTIANS" believe. Your sin niether saves you nor condemns you. The only thing that condemns you is your lack of faith in Christ.

Christian
07-06-2005, 03:52 PM
You also said that I was judging you. WRONG! If I were judging you, AS I"VE STATED ABOUT 100 TIMES IN THIS FORUM, then I would have said that your sins condemn you to Hell.
It took me a while to realize that this wasn't addressed to me, since you didn't avail yourself of the quote tool. But the definition of "judging" is not "saying that one's sins condemn one to hell."
The only thing that condemns you is your lack of faith in Christ.
So, since I, and many other gay people, have faith in Christ, what's the problem?

Christian
07-06-2005, 04:32 PM
I know you weren't flirting with me. it was a joke.Okay, but it wasn't funny to me.

I was 11 (only a few years older than you) when I accepted Jesus as my savior. I was in church and Sunday School every time the doors were open.

Every time I heard preaching against homosexuality, I felt worse and worse about myself. Believing that I was sick, evil, perverted, I prayed repeatedly for God to change me.

In college, I was at a service when the preacher urged the congregation to "give a hand" to Anita Bryant, who was then leading a campaign to rescind an ordinance against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Dade County, Florida. Although I was not out as a gay man, I felt so humiliated, it was years before I returned to the church.

God never answered my prayers to take away my attraction to people of my own sex. Instead, he led me to study the bible and other sources so that I would see that, contrary to what I had been taught, being gay, in and of itself, is not sinful.

I am certain that God had nothing to do with your never having the slightest attraction to other males. I'm sorry you refuse to see that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

I also regret that you won't respond to my frequently pointing out that although you said Christ released us from Old Testament law, you keep returning to Old Testament law to prove that homosexuality is wrong.

Dougie, I have no doubt that your intentions are the best. But I wonder whether you might want to concentrate more on the teachings of Jesus rather than on the Old Testament and Paul's writings. I'm still praying for you.

malcolan
07-07-2005, 10:59 AM
I'm not sure who these comments are directed to, but, I will respond to them.

All of your arguments against homosexuality come from the old testament(Leviticus,Deuteronomy, etc.).

Actually, if you read my earlier post, you will find that I referenced the New Testament as well.

What did Jesus say about homosexuality, diddley squat. He did have compassion for those who were shunned by society and he did say not to judge other people.

Agreed.

What benefit do you have in your life by saying that two people of the same sex who are in a loving committed relationship are immoral?

It doesn't benefit me at all, and I never said that such a relationship is immoral. The original poster desired a discussion on the religious aspects of homosexual unions, and I addressed the issue as I see it. I am merely pointing out biblical aspects of such relationships. Based on what I have read, I am of the opinion that these relationships are not pleasing to The Lord.

Does it make you a better christian to have prejudice to a part of society or to judge others?

If you believe that I am being prejudiced or judging you, then I apologize. I can assure you that I am not. My only intention is to have an open and honest discussion about the matter. It is my belief that everything you need to know about living a happy, successful and fulfilled life can be found in the bible. There are many who are struggling with this issue, and, if by having open discussions like this in public forums can help people make up their own minds, then that is great. Hopefully, many will realize that they can find salvation through Christ, no matter what kind of personal vices they may carry. If I had a specific agenda (I don't), then this would be it. Mainly, I contribute here because I find the discussions to be interesting and sometimes a little amusing.

To make myself a better Christian I should: continue to pray, continue to help others in need, continue trying to please God in all my affairs, continue to have faith, continue going to Church, and most importantly...continue to spread the Gospel so that others can start to Live Forgiven through Christ.

Be Blessed!

malcolan
07-07-2005, 11:48 AM
I'm sorry also, that you won't respond to my frequently pointing out that you said Christ released us from Old Testament law, and yet you keep returning to Old Testament law to prove that homosexuality is wrong.

I realize that you weren't directing this comment to me but I would like to address it.

It is important to understand that the Old Testament gives us many clues about the character of God. We learn what pleases God and what makes God upset. To ignore the Old Testament and rest on the fact that Jesus has absolved us would be well...to put it bluntly...foolish.

The truth is, God wants the best for all of us. I firmly believe that in order to receive God's best, we need to please Him. God will bless us abundantly if we do the things that are pleasing to Him. There is no denying this, in fact, it is a spiritual law--It would happen to Christians and Non-Christians alike. Yes, you may be going to Heaven, but do you know what has been included with the ticket? Are you living your life up to your full potential? God wants to bless us all but we must be ready and willing to accept His blessings. As Zig Ziglar once said, whatever you do, live a Good Life.

I got off track a little. I am not implying that homosexuals cannot receive God's blessings, what I mean is that we simply cannot ignore the teachings found in the Old Testament. God is constantly trying to communicate with us, but many of us simply ignore Him. Pay attention and don't miss anything. Do the right thing and receive God's blessings.

Christian, this post is not directed at you, it is directed to all the readers, in general. You may, of course, respond if you wish.

In HIS grip

Christian
07-07-2005, 01:21 PM
...It is important to understand that the Old Testament gives us many clues about the character of God. We learn what pleases God and what makes God upset. To ignore the Old Testament and rest on the fact that Jesus has absolved us would be well...to put it bluntly...foolish.

The truth is, God wants the best for all of us. I firmly believe that in order to receive God's best, we need to please Him. God will bless us abundantly if we do the things that are pleasing to Him...As always with your posts, Malcolan, I appreciate the civil tone and solid reasoning you employ. And I appreciate your desire to clarify your stance on this issue. Again, to a large extent, I agree with you, but I would like to try to clarify, somewhat, the point I was trying to make.

The Old Testament injunction against "lying with mankind as with womankind" (Leviticus 18:22) is in the same context as the injunctions against eating shellfish, wearing blended fabrics, etc. In another one of his catch-22 arguments, Dougie said time and again that Jesus's blood released us from the latter laws, but that the former proved that homosexuality was a sin. There is an insightful analysis of this passage from Leviticus at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm.

I fully concede that there are many other ways that homosexual relations can be sinful besides temple prostitution. I contend, however, that one can be gay and live righteously or sinfully with regard to one's sexuality, just as the same can be said for heterosexuals.

Dougie also says that monogamous (well actually, he calls them momogomist) gay relationships are sinful because they are outside of marriage, but that gays should not be allowed to marry because their sexuality is sinful. I am certain that Mr. Spock would agree with me that such an argument is highly illogical.

Live long and prosper.

Christian
07-09-2005, 08:19 PM
When you pray, are you asking from the desires of your heart?Of course I was. What adolescent wants to be subjected to the pariah status that being gay condemns them to? Not only that, but I wanted to want what God wanted for my life. It's been 20+ years since I stopped praying for God to change me. I don't want him to change me now; there's no need. But I want him to work through me, and I want to do his will--"just as I am."

Christian
07-12-2005, 06:33 AM
It is important to understand that the Old Testament gives us many clues about the character of God. We learn what pleases God and what makes God upset. To ignore the Old Testament and rest on the fact that Jesus has absolved us would be well...to put it bluntly...foolish.I agree with you, Malcolan. The OT gives many clues about God's nature. It is beautiful and fascinating, but multi-layered.

That said, I hope that no one believes that God was okay with Lot offering to let the men of Sodom rape his daughters, who the writer points out were virgins.

My point is that the bible, and especially the OT, is a reflection of its authors' understanding of God, rather than a direct, infallible representation of God.

May God's peace be with you.

leecappella
07-20-2005, 06:55 AM
You already can guess my opinion and why I hold strongly to it. :cool:

I would like to know your view on straight couples who are currently in their second marriage to different persons. These said couples got divorced for reasons other than adultery and have re-married someone else. What is your view on these persons? Are they living in sin, according to you? I think this would make a good thread!

leecappella
07-20-2005, 07:27 AM
Christian]I would like to know the opinions of others on the prospect of gay marriage. Do you support it? If so, why? If not, why not?

We live in America and the Constitution gives Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also gives us the right to freedom of religion. Some religions oppose gay marriages. Some do not. In a country where differing religions exist. In a country where they are free to assemble, it has to be understood that bringing religion into government contradicts the Constitution somewhat. You have the right to your religious beliefs, but they should not stop others from their pursuit of happiness and right to liberty. It's kind of a catch 22 when religion and government related things come together. I guess that's why it is thought that the two should not mix. It's hard not to mix them though. Having said all of that, I support gay marriage. Not because I am gay, but because my study of the issue has lead me here. Just as some studies of those who are not gay have led them here.

Does the prospect of legalizing gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage as it currently exists? If a man marries another man--or a woman marries another woman--does that somehow threaten the marriage of any couple of the opposite sex? If so, how?

Some might say that the inability to reproduce is a threat. I do not. In our world today, I don't see the decline of procreating to be a threat. We are possibly overpopulated.

Are civil unions an acceptable alternative to marriage for gay men and lesbians, either to gay marriage proponents or opponents?

If you're asking if a civil union is acceptable in place of a marriage, I would say it depends on what a civil union is. If it give the same benefits as a marriage, the only difference being terminology, then my answer is yes. If it does not, I say no.

Do opponents of legalizing gay marriage understand that people of the same gender are capable of loving each other and wanting to build a life together just as a man and a woman are? Are they aware that current law does not provide them with the same rights and protections that opposite-sex couples have?

For the most part, I think the opponents to understand the capable love of same sex persons and our desire to build a life together. They can relate to that. However, since there are other aspects that they cannot relate to, some of the opponents seem to not want gays to be equal with straights. It might give the opponents the thought that they are equal to or are just like something they find digusting, gross, etc. That 'something' being gays. Not that they would want to be in a gay relationship themselves, but there is something inside them that causes them to make the gay issue about them. Indirectly and possibly unconsciously, some opponents are avoiding dealing with the issue within themselves. Not an issue of whether some of them are gay themselves, though some are, but another issue that is there that they are yet to see or acknowledge.

Would granting two men or two women the right to marry constitute the extension of "special" rights to LGB people? What about the rights marriage extends to male-female couples but not to same-sex couples?

I think 'special rights' is a term used by anti-gay persons. We only want the rights that heterosexuals have. If they were us, they would see that. But, it's like I said, there is a fear of us being too much like them. Some opponents don't want to be associated with something they cannot relate to or something they find undesirable.

Is it fair or just that a man and woman who meet on a TV game show and "win" each other's hand, along with a sizable sum of money, are allowed to marry, but two people of the same sex who have been in a committed, monogamous relationship, sometimes for decades, are denied that legal right?

This is no different than some bibe marriages. Today, we are taught, conditioned, or whatever that before we marry, we should be in love first. That is not 100% biblical for those who desire to live biblically. Personally, I would want mine to be based on love. I do not think it is a universal thing that is always done though. The bible shows us that.

Should religious opinions that homosexual acts are sinful, if not damnable, influence legislation in this arena?

This is that church and state thing. It's the religious freedom invading the religious freedom of others and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as sought by others. Legislation involves humans. Those humans have faiths. Some of those faiths are opposed to gay unions. Their freedom to express their faith in legislation can possibly cause the death of another's freedom. Namely, gays. I suppose this is why the Constitution has to be looked at carefully to reflect the rights of all Americans, gay and straight.

If the purpose of marriage is to protect children, should couples who remain childless for a specified time after their wedding be automatically divorced?

Not sure how marriage protects children. Protection from what?

Should the U. S. Constitution be amended to prohibit gay marriage? Are so-called "Defense of Marriage" laws needed? Are they constitutional?

I think amending the Constitution would be in opposition to the Constitution itself and what it has to say about the rights of all.


Has the Constitution ever been amended before to limit freedoms, aside from the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol consumption, which proved to be a disaster and was subsequently repealed? Should precedent or lack of precedent bear on our decision whether to amend the Constitution to narrowly define marriage?

Not sure.

KJ88
07-21-2005, 12:31 PM
Please go easy on me, I'm new.

As a Christian man I am against the unification of homosexuals, in any manner.

But, as a human being, I do not think it is fair for people who live what we call an "alternate lifestyle" to be treated so differnetly and not allowed to do ceratin things, such as get married. It is my belief that the law will not allow such marriages because of where the law was founded, upon religion.

In this country I thought people were allowed to do as they wish as long as it wasn't hurting anyone or thing. They shouldn't have to answer to a religion that they may not particularly follow. I would hate to go somewhere and have someone tell me I can't listen to certain type of music or speak a certain way in my home because people who may never see me would be offended.

As a Christian, I am opposed. But, as a human I can't help but have a heart for homosexuals because they are so often mistreated and judged.

Just my thoughts....hope I didn't tick anyone off

Via Con Dios,

KJ88

Christian
07-23-2005, 06:52 PM
Thanks for your post, KJ88. You certainly didn't anger me.

I wonder how you square the bible's teachings of love thy neighbor as thyself, inasmuch as you have done to the least of these, etc., with your Christian opposition to gay marriage.

I suspect that it is as a Christian and as a person that you "have a heart for homosexuals because they are so often mistreated and judged."

Welcome, and God bless you. I look forward to reading your future posts.

pinkhippo
08-01-2005, 05:08 PM
Hello everyone.

This must be one of the most civil discussions on this very controversial topic that I have ever read. In reading through, I believe that a few posts have accepted as fact a major misconception about the teachings of Jesus Christ-- that is, that he tells us not to judge one another. Exactly how does it make sense that we are to judge what is right (on issues like gay marriage), and never judge whether the actions of others are right or wrong? I realize that this may be a good new thread starter, and that the term "judgement" does need to be unpacked, but it should be known that the bible says the following:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?..."

Note: I believe this is not a verse condemning judgment in general, but rather condemning hypocritical judgment. Meaning that if you are guilty of some sin, you are not able to fairly judge another person of the same sin. We are called to judge RIGHTLY, and not to have prejudice.

In John 7:14 the bible reads "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

In Luke 12:56-57 Jesus says "How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time? Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"

In Luke 17:3 Jesus says, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him."

In Leviticus 19:15, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.

God Bless!

Wallis
08-27-2005, 05:54 AM
When it comes to homosexual men, I must admit they give me the "heebie-jeebies."

When it comes to homosexual women, I am not adversely affected, except when I am "rebuffed" as just being a man.

Personally, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle. But since I am aquainted with several gay people of both genders, it is not my place to judge. Rather, it is my place to love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Let me tell you, that is one of the toughest tests given to me, since my nature wants to go get a gun!

I read somewhere that the OT was adamant against male homosexuality, but I'm sorry that I do not remember the reference. Maybe if I run across something some day . . . . The reason for this was that semen was considered to be life. One of Ruth's husbands was killed (by God according to the Bible) because he spilled his seed on the ground, which is taken by many that he liked to masturbate. You see, the Jews believed that semen was supposed to be spilled inside a woman's womb so that it could generate life. Male homosexuality was forbidden because a man doesn't have a womb and cannot generate life. I also believe that homosexuality was part and parcel of pagan worship, and it was another way of identifying Judaism as a religion. Female homosexuality might have been frowned upon, but this activity did not break the cardinal rule of creating life, for women cannot bring forth life without semen. (I know. There are cases of women becoming pregnant without semen. I forget the term right now, and all of the resulting babies are female.)

As to legalizing gay marriage, I don't like it. I see legal advantages that gays otherwise would not receive. It brings homosexuality out into the open. My only problem with this bringing out into the open is that in America it becomes a focus that shadows more important issues. In the PI where I currently live, not only is homosexuality very open but homosexuality laughs at itself on television.

cob1639
09-05-2005, 05:20 AM
Mr. Wallis

I see the point you're trying to make but when you reference things like, and I quote:

"One of Ruth's husbands was killed (by God according to the Bible) because he spilled his seed on the ground."

It makes it hard to respect an argument that uses a morally questionable marriage to pass judgment on a different kind of morally questionable marriage.

This is just an example of the problems I have with people using the bible as the basis for this argument. There's all kinds of fertilizer in that book but people just blow off the parts that they don't jive with. For example:

"One of Ruth's husbands was killed (by God according to the Bible) because he spilled his seed on the ground."

Homosexual men give everybody the heebie jeebies, except homosexual men. As for homosexual women - ok, I'll stop!

seven
09-05-2005, 06:40 AM
This I have to share, as much as I would love to take credit for how well this was communicated, I can not. I would like to applaud how well this point was delivered:

Around the time that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves, a lot of preachers were urging him not to do so.

In a climate in which even the United States Supreme Court declared that African Americans were only three-fifths human, America's preachers were called to action. But instead of preaching against the evils of slavery and helping bring an end to that damnable institution, our preachers did something shocking.

They quoted the Bible in defense of slavery.

They declared that it was God's will that people be kept in chains, as furniture. They said that it was ordained by God to be this way, that white men should own black men.

And those religious slave masters quoted the Bible to back up their claim, both the old and new testaments . . .

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have, from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property." (Leviticus 25:44,45 <Old Testament>)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18 <New Testament>)

Slavery never was God's Plan. But try telling that to those men of God in the mid-1800's. They quoted the Bible better than anyone ever could, and lots of people believed them.

They abused the Bible by using it as a tool to prevent a particular group of people from achieving full civil rights.

This author is my most recent HERO! :D

Wallis
09-05-2005, 09:47 PM
I do like to use many stories in the Bible as Dr. Martin Luther called most of the OT as a good reference for morality. I also enjoy using stories from other sacred works as well as contemporary works.

My digression here was to merely show how a particular people viewed life and morality, which (apparently) is quite different from we modern people.

I hope I conveyed my personal feelings on the subject. Since I am surrounded by a small number of homosexually-oriented people of both genders here in the Philippines, it is a personal challenge to me to rise above my personal revulsion and accept them as human beings. Not an easy one, grant you.

So, in my herculean task here, I am not trying to be judgmental nor start quoting any document or scripture to defend or refute homosexuality, just give a little insight on some of the filters I have incorporated into my being as I try to understand the world. Sorry if you thought I was quoting the Bible there as part of an argument for or against.

I'm convinced that the sexual orientation of an individual is in the purview of that person and God. But since the question of homosexuality and marriage has entered the political arena, I think it is safe to assume that the gloves can be put on, and we can duke it out from a political standpoint.

seven
09-05-2005, 10:14 PM
My apologies Wallis, I was just sharing someone else's statements. No way would I insult you for having a favorite Bible Story...

I just appreciated the passion this person had and the stand they took against people taking out parts of the Bible to justify judging and hating.

I always use Bible stories to try to have people understand what I am trying to communicate. That is the purpose of sharing what you read with anybody, no matter what it is.

All though I agree everybody has the right to have an opinion and use whatever they need to reference what their opinon is based on...

I use a lot of energy to try to cycle out my anger when people represent the Bible as the truth being used to validate HATE or JUDGEMENT followed by their superiority over another.

Clearly, you do not do such things. You truly do reference the Bible to try to understand the diffences you have with others.

I value your honesty, respect your opinions, and appreciate your effort to understand with an open mind.

I look forward to learning more about our agreements and debating our disagreements with continued respect.

How else are we to understand and grow?? :)

cob1639
09-05-2005, 10:31 PM
I do like to use many stories in the Bible as Dr. Martin Luther called most of the OT as a good reference for morality. I also enjoy using stories from other sacred works as well as contemporary works.

My digression here was to merely show how a particular people viewed life and morality, which (apparently) is quite different from we modern people.

I hope I conveyed my personal feelings on the subject. Since I am surrounded by a small number of homosexually-oriented people of both genders here in the Philippines, it is a personal challenge to me to rise above my personal revulsion and accept them as human beings. Not an easy one, grant you.



As usual Mr. Wallis - you always know just what to say and how to say it! You were clear on your views and expressed them very articulately like you always do!

That wasn't an attack on you or your point of view. If someone is uncomfortable with homosexuality or even if they hate homosexuals - I can accept that. I think they are wrong, but I can accept and respect it. I just hate when people hide behind what the bible says.

"The bible doesn't approve of homosexuality." There's a lot of things in the bible that I dont approve of.

I understand the blasphemy in that statement, but if we apply one part of the bible to today's society, shouldn't we be consistant and apply it all? Convince my wife that the bible says it's ok to have more than one spouse. Convince black people that the bible says it's ok to have slaves.

The bible may or may not be a good moral compass (personally - I'm not convinced) but sometimes it is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

O+<

Wallis
09-06-2005, 06:49 PM
Cob, Seven: no offense taken.

There are so many times that I really dislike having a fruitful discussion in writing. It would be so much better if we could sit around a table drinking our favorite beverages and exchanging thoughts, concerns, et al with the added communicative process of tone and body language.

seven
09-06-2005, 07:33 PM
But this way, no one can interrupt you! LOL

I believe that the Bible has a lot of lessons to guide us so that our lessons doesn't have to be as difficult...

I also believe that parts of the Bible are missing and/or have been stagicly manipulated by leadership officials (Vatican, Romans, etc...) for reasons that relate to contolling the masses, throughout time.

This is the reason for so much secrecy within their walls (I believe is unacceptable and suspicious) and that these things should be considered when reading and interpeting what the messages of the Bible are.

Not to mention that some people like to quote what the evil quoted and point it out as a "Law of the Bible." (arghh!) In these cases I like to respond, "read the rest of the lesson that applies to that quote"

I will be the first to research what someone quotes out of the Bible that I do not feel is right in my heart.... (so I should get on that slavery crap... the semen on the floor just seems a little silly to me, no offense!)

While I have your attention, might I ask, what the heck are you doing in the Phillipines????

Wallis
09-06-2005, 10:03 PM
Prior to moving here to the Philippines, I lived in Korea for twelve and a half years. I retired from the Air Force, loved South Korea, learned the language all by myself, and set up shop teaching.

While in Korea, I met a Vietnam helicopter pilot. He had a story to tell, and I wanted to write it. He subsequently moved to the PI where he received excellent medical care. However, because of his debilitation and terrible health care he received in the States, he and I could no longer collaborate on finishing the book. I made several trips to the PI and finally decided that I would have to spend at least six months to a year in the PI to not only finish this book but work on the second.

My Korean wife did not want to move even for a short time, so she divorced me.

Book 1, Forgotten Warriors: Mission of Mercy, is available from most large bookstores and through the Internet (Amazon.com and others). Book 2 will probably take another two years. This is a true story of the heroism of helicopter ambulance pilots who risked their lives day in and day out to pull people out of harms' way and would otherwise have died on the battlefield. Book 2 is when my pilot friend went back to Vietnam not to save people but to kill people and ended up becoming a killer.

The positive side of working with my pilot friend is that we have successfully taken all the negative dreams, emotions, et al out of the day-to-day life and shelvd them. And, yes, I did work with his psychiatrist very closely as I labored on the first book.

seven
09-07-2005, 01:11 AM
You write books!!

GEEZ WALLIS!!! (umm... am I sounding like the Beaver???)

I'm going to have to check that out! I love reading books especially on religious studies or perspectives!

Sorry about your Korean wife... :(

Beware of those Asian Women!!

Ask Cob!
(He he! I'm Thai. :))

Wallis
09-07-2005, 03:13 AM
Forgotten Warriors is not a religious book. I must warn you that it is fairly graphic. I tried to bring the war home to people who have otherwise not experienced war.

seven
09-07-2005, 04:13 AM
Forgotten Warriors is not a religious book. I must warn you that it is fairly graphic. I tried to bring the war home to people who have otherwise not experienced war.

Ewwwww! Nevermind then! I tried to watch the John McCain story and had to go to the bedroom for my husband to finish it! I came back for the end, you know, when he comes home and his wife and kids run up into his arms... Happy, happy!

I've only sat through 2 war movies...

Casualties of War and another War Movie that had Tom Jones in it.

Cried like a little baby. I no likey the wars! :(

Wallis
09-07-2005, 09:49 PM
This is far afield of the topic, so I apologize to the thread starter.

Seven, I have written six children's Christmas plays and two Passion plays (they are free for the use and have been seen/performed around the world). They were available on my web-site, but since the provider claims that it did not receive my check back in February of this year, my web page is temporarily gone. I have also written a sci-fi trilogy and a mystery/action novel. I have written 20 short stories about a psychiatrist who believes in nothing that cannot be explained, yet the paranormal seems attracted to him. But Forgotten Warriors is the only book I've been able to publish so far.

I have thought hard and long for the last three years about writing religious/philosophical work. The working title so far is The Maturation of Faith.

Wallis
09-18-2005, 06:55 PM
From a Jewish perspective:

Leviticus 18:22 states "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." I am always surprised by people who want to seize on the literal translation of this particular text, treat it as if it were carved in stone, and not open to any other kind of interpretation. In Jewish exegetical tradition, however, the p'shat or simple interpretation of a text is typically viewed as the most unsophisticated level of understanding.

Is there another way to understand this text? Contemporary exegetes offer several possibilities: To begin with, the Hebrew word, to'eivah, is usually translated as "abhorrence". This word can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

a. A to'eivah is typically understood as something that is not a wilful act, but rather something that one is compelled to do. This mitigates the so-called "criminal" aspects of homosexuality by acknowledging that sexual orientation is an inherent part of who we are as human beings. Someone is compelled to be homosexual in exactly the same way as someone else is compelled to be heterosexual. It's not a conscious choice - it's just who we are. However, from the perspective of biblical tradition, pro-creative heterosexuality is the established ideal, so traditionalists argue that even though you may feel driven toward your own gender, one should not heed that compulsion. Essentially, it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it.

b. Others look at that particular interpretation and say it's ridiculous! Still following in the tradition of the reinterpretation of cheiresh, some contemporary exegetes suggests that to'eivah in this instance is referring to something that a person is being compelled to do by another person. I.e. this is not a reference to consensual homosexual relations, but is an injunction against homosexual rape.

c. Others argue, also in the tradition of the cheiresh, stating that we now have a much better understanding of human sexuality than our ancestors possessed and we must judge in light of that new knowledge. Therefore, we can accept that to'eivah is indeed, a natural compulsion and not a wilful act, which means there is nothing inherently wrong or evil in being gay. We are who we are. And each of us deserves to be accepted.

d. Lastly, on the subject of "to'eivah", we should also remember that the Bible condemns many practices as abhorrent including: the reading of horoscopes, the consultation of psychics, and eating cheeseburgers and shrimp. I'm not saying that using the Bible selectively is inherently wrong, but, we should at least be responsible about how we're doing it.

Leviticus 20:13 presents a little bit more of a challenge. The text reads: "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them." Again the word "to'eivah" comes into play, but we are also confronted with an apparent call for the death penalty. The Hebrew words for that penalty, by the way, are "mot yumtu", which more accurately are translated: "they shall surely die". Furthermore, the so-called "bloodguilt", which in the Hebrew text is "d'meihem", actually says "their blood is upon them". What is this referring to?

One possibility is a public act, which is deemed lewd. For the record, public fornication between heterosexuals was equally frowned upon with the same penalty. And I would argue that it must have been referring to a public act, because without spies checking out what's going on in people's bedrooms how would anyone know?

Another possibility hearkens back to the biblical ideal of pro-creative relationships. Given an age without invitro fertilisation and adoption agencies, the biological reality of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are not pro-creative. In Jewish tradition there is nothing more tragic than the loss of a child's life or the loss of the potential to create life. "They shall surely die" may, quite simply, be a reference to their loss of legacy due to the fact that these relationships can't produce children. Their blood is upon them, because they are the end of their bloodline.

From a historical-social-cultural perspective, it is important to be aware of the fact that these biblical texts were redacted in the shadow of classical Greek and Roman cultures which posed a very real threat to Jewish survival. Furthermore, these cultures were idolatrous. The Levitical passages may actually be injunctions against engaging in the worship practices of idolatrous cults - which may have included homosexual acts. The death penalty may have come from the association with idolatry rather than actually being connected to human sexuality. Furthermore, with regard to that death penalty, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Bible also calls for the death penalty for murderers, and many other crimes. Yet, there is little historical evidence of the death penalty being carried out in ancient Israel. Even within biblical texts, there are very few accounts of executions. And among the judgements in Jewish courts since the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the rabbis have fastidiously argued against and circumvented the actual implementation of the death penalty.

Sex (http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/LbJ-Sex.htm)