Gay Marriage revisited, Political postings discouraged

[lerxstcat]

Well, by standing up against gay marrage, aren't those churchs holding someone else to their ideas? Ideas that it's OK for those that follow to pick and choose what they like and don't like but that's not OK for someone who doesn't believe exactly like they do?

Shouldn't it really be up to each religion to decide if they want to allow gay marriage? Or is it a state thing? Because if it's a state thing, religion should (I repeat should) stay out of it. But we know that's not the case.

Right, 100% of humans are sinners. That's how they hook you. Get you buying into that and then tell you the only way out of that sin is throught that church. I know how that works. I was raised in the church.

But if it's for you, that's cool. I don't mean to sound like I'm dumping on you personally.

I personally feel that churchs should look after those in their own flock and leave the rest of us to do what we want.

Well, I'm not taking it personally, I'm explaining the point of view of Christians who view marriage as a sacred union, only to be between a man and a woman. So they can't make a choice to decide that now it's okay to allow gay marriage, because they think it's against God's law. Therefore it's sacrilege to call the relationship that.

That viewpoint is just not going to change, and a majority of people in this country still identify as Christians. That makes it less likely to become the law of the land soon.

[Bengal]

Lerx,
Right. They view it as against the Christian law so they don't like it. But they also view birth control as against christian law, touching a woman on the rag against christian law, sex for pleasure against the christian law, wearing polyester against the christian law.

See what I mean? I'm just showing why some people view them as hypocritical.

It's pick and chose for them, everyone else has to be held to the law strictly.

And I blame the majority of christians for 8 years of George W. But that's another thread.

But I understand where you are coming from. I have this same faith vs. non-faith discussion with a lot of people in my family as well.

[Endrik]

"Abielu" is not the same word as "marriage". And it's listed as meaning both marriage and divorce, as well as marital sex and adultery, which are opposites.

Also, who is Tharapita? Do you know? Might be that you just don't know of Estonian religion because the Russians suppressed religion.

Abielu only means marriage... I don't know where you are taking your info but I know my linguistic history.
Literally "abi" means "help" and "elu" means "life"
divorce is "lahutus" literally "separation"
marital sex is... well... marital sex
adultery is something like violation of marriage

Russians could have stuck nukes down to their asses for what I care but that doesn't mean that today's schools don't teach history.
Tharapita was a religion.... well more like a pagan ritual... asking for a good year (crop wise) from trees, stones and shit like that. Only a minority did that shit. It ended when the crusaders came. Still nothing to do with marriage whatsoever

[hippietim]

Well, I'm not taking it personally, I'm explaining the point of view of Christians who view marriage as a sacred union, only to be between a man and a woman. So they can't make a choice to decide that now it's okay to allow gay marriage, because they think it's against God's law. Therefore it's sacrilege to call the relationship that.

That viewpoint is just not going to change, and a majority of people in this country still identify as Christians. That makes it less likely to become the law of the land soon.

Most of the bullshit morality laws on the books in this country were born of closed-minded Christian sacrilegious gibberish. And like gay marriage those have always been a la carte selections from the Bible - "that's icky - let's make it illegal" or "me likey - no need for a law against that".

Face it Rich, the laws against gay marriage have nothing to do with whether or not it's sacrilege. It is so-called Christians who fear their sacred unions (half of which end in not so sacred divorce) being legally equivalent of any loving union.

[hippietim]

Shouldn't it really be up to each religion to decide if they want to allow gay marriage? Or is it a state thing? Because if it's a state thing, religion should (I repeat should) stay out of it. But we know that's not the case.

Someone needs to read their Deuteronomy.

Anyone who supports gay marriage is defying God's law or is following false gods. In either case, the offenders are to be flogged at a minimum but ideally put to death - we need us some smitin'.

Sheesh. It's like you don't know anything

[Bengal]

Someone needs to read their Deuteronomy.

Anyone who supports gay marriage is defying God's law or is following false gods. In either case, the offenders are to be flogged at a minimum but ideally put to death - we need us some smitin'.

Sheesh. It's like you don't know anything

OK. It's God's law. So does that mean California is going to break off and sink in the ocean?

Don't know anything? I prefer blissfully ignorant. It sounds good then hits you with the bad.

But isn't anyone who masturbates defying God's law? Hum, how many of you got God pissed off before you had your first cup of coffee this morning?

[joelayres]

Whose MORALITY STANDARDS Should We Live By -- AS LAWS?
While many good people demand legislation regarding "morality" and want to make it illegal to engage in any conduct or activity which they deem sinful or immoral, they rush to defend "their Rights" to Freedom of Religion, according to the First Amendment!
What would happen to our society if we adopted as LAWS some of the primary beliefs of every religion? Could we live?

Under Catholicism, nobody could be divorced and remarried. Ditto for Judaism and many other faiths. Such actions are immoral and sinful.

If the Mormons could make the laws for everyone, all alcoholic beverages would be immoral and outlawed.

Jehovah's Witnesses would have a law against blood transfusions.

Some Baptists and other preachers would have a law against dancing - immoral - leads to sex.

Pentecostals would make it illegal for anyone to wear jewelry and it would be against the law (sinful equals illegal) to wear make-up.

The Amish would ban all TV, radios, telephones, autos, airplanes and computers - immoral - because these things make weak people out of us all. They would also make education beyond an 8th grade level illegal.

Christian Science would make medical doctors illegal - medicines, too would be against the law.

It would be a law that every male would be circumcised - and some religions would even require that of women. Some religions would require the women to cover their legs to the ankles or be branded immoral - and others would have morality laws passed requiring all women to have their faces veiled. All men would have to allow their facial hair to grow or they would be immoral.

Islam would prohibit money lending for profit and require a death penalty for an adulteress - immoral.

Nobody would be allowed to have statues of religious figures - Pork would be illegal and nobody would be allowed to kill a steer.

Of course, most would make it a morality law to smoke a cigarette, appear nude before consenting adults, have sex with someone to whom you are not married (by each religion's doctrine). Some would make it illegal to have any sex except for the purpose of procreation - and that would have to be missionary style - and with clothes on.

Nobody could conduct any form of business on Saturday and Sunday - or even do their own chores.

Abortions? That would be considered murder, regardless of circumstance - even if it meant the mother would have to die!

Music? That, too, would be illegal - all types! Buddhists would... you get the picture?

The Islamic faith also considers use of force (jihad), including outright murder, a "moral act" when conducted for the purpose of bringing non-believers or heretics to accept their religion.

MORALITY??????? Whose Morality????? In these United States we are supposed to have laws within the limitations (limited government) written down as our Constitution. But some people, including our lawmakers and judges, seems to think "We the People..." created our government to tell us what our "Moral Standards" should be.

THIS SHOULD BE THE ONLY MORAL STANDARD - People are free to do as they please unless they cause actual harm to another. If harm is caused, the injured party (or government acting on the injured party's behalf) should take action - make a specific charge, prove the damage to the person injured, and allow the accused to face their accuser.

If we are to take any other "Moral" attitude and pass it as law, then we must adopt the moral beliefs, dogma, doctrines and tenets of all religions.

Who would be willing to have ALL of the above mentioned "Morality Standards" passed as LAWS? Remember, you don't get to pick and choose -- ALL or NONE!

[horns666]

I can't say anything that George Carlin didn't say better..and funnier. Youtube some of his stuff on humans, politics and religion..its alot of laughs.

I've written books here on this topic myself..many many pages of that. Do a search..

Live and let live ..until someone fucks ya up the ass without your permission..then fuggums!

[lerxstcat]

Most of the bullshit morality laws on the books in this country were born of closed-minded Christian sacrilegious gibberish. And like gay marriage those have always been a la carte selections from the Bible - "that's icky - let's make it illegal" or "me likey - no need for a law against that".

Face it Rich, the laws against gay marriage have nothing to do with whether or not it's sacrilege. It is so-called Christians who fear their sacred unions (half of which end in not so sacred divorce) being legally equivalent of any loving union.

You're wrong, Tim. Sacrilege IS the issue. You can call it a la carte when people do things they think are sins, but that's human nature. If you mean to tell me that you never do anything that you think is wrong, but do it anyway, well sorry if I'd be skeptical of that.

Sins are not all of the same offense value. Just as the legal system has misdemeanors and felonies, some sins are worse than others. To a Christian viewpoint, sacrilege is worse than lying or stealing - probably worse than murder since it profanes the sacred, you'd have to ask a theologian about that.

You can't expect Christians to suddenly accept something that is so deeply wrong in their teachings. You can say that the Bible is ambiguous about killing, but all it says about homosexuality is that it is an abomination before God. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah largely because those cities practiced homosexuality; that's where the word "sodomy" comes from.

My personal preference is to live and let live, and let God judge, not me. I have friends who are gay and they are good-hearted people who I care about. But Christian teachings are clear enough that there is really no room for a change in position on this subject.

A civil union would give everybody the rights they want as a couple without insulting religions who see this as a sacrament.

But if you really want to rub it in to Christians' faces by insisting on using the word, don't expect mutual understanding to be increased. Since Christians are and probably will remain the majority in this country, that doesn't seem to be very wise in the long run.

[joelayres]

My personal preference is to live and let live, and let God judge, not me.

1000% in agreement.

[~K~]

Matt 19:11-12

11.Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Matthew 19:12
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.




An eunuch (IPA: /ˈjuː.nək/) is a castrated man, in particular one castrated early enough to have major hormonal consequences; the term usually refers to those castrated in order to perform a specific social function, as was common in many societies of the past. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the twenty first century BC.[citation needed] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures such as courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials, military commanders, and guardians of women or harem servants. In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs seem to include men who were impotent with women, those we would now call transsexuals or homosexuals, and those who were simply celibate.

[shobet]

Could you stop mentioning castration, I'm having to sit reading this with my legs crossed...

[Bengal]

Lerx,
I see what you are saying and I respect your opinion.

And you have balls to stand up here for what you believe in.

[Spivonious]

State marriage and religious marriage are two very different things. One is recognized by the state, the other recognized by whatever deity you worship.

The whole homosexual marriage debate concerns the first one, not the second.

[VitaminG]

Could you stop mentioning castration, I'm having to sit reading this with my legs crossed...

I can't cross my legs when I sit - I haven't been castrated