Gay Marriage

[Omega Centauri]

I am not against gay marriage, if they want to get "married" get a civil partnership or maybe a non-religious ceremony

Why can't they simply get married and have a religious ceremony.... Or, do you hate freedom of religion?

No, religion is not fond of homosexuals.

[Farnhamia]

Why can't they simply get married and have a religious ceremony.... Or, do you hate freedom of religion?

No, religion hates them.

Not all of them. The United Church of Christ performs same-sex marriages, to name just one.

[Ceannairceach]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

So, wait, you'd die over the issue of gays gaining marriage rights, simply because you think your interpretation of God says it isn't OK? How fucking petty can you get? Its not like you'll be getting married to the same sex. I didn't know God judged you for what others did.

[Dyakovo]

Why can't they simply get married and have a religious ceremony.... Or, do you hate freedom of religion?

No, religion is not fond of homosexuals.

There are more religions than just the abrahamaic ones, and not even all branches of the abrahamaic religions are opposed to homosexuality.

[Dyakovo]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

So, wait, you'd die over the issue of gays gaining marriage rights, simply because you think your interpretation of God says it isn't OK? How fucking petty can you get? Its not like you'll be getting married to the same sex. I didn't know God judged you for what others did.

He's afraid that if gay marriage becomes legal he'll no longer have an excuse to give his boyfriend.
*nods*

[Farnhamia]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

So, wait, you'd die over the issue of gays gaining marriage rights, simply because you think your interpretation of God says it isn't OK? How fucking petty can you get? Its not like you'll be getting married to the same sex. I didn't know God judged you for what others did.

That's how he keeps people in line.

[Ceannairceach]

So, wait, you'd die over the issue of gays gaining marriage rights, simply because you think your interpretation of God says it isn't OK? How fucking petty can you get? Its not like you'll be getting married to the same sex. I didn't know God judged you for what others did.

He's afraid that if gay marriage becomes legal he'll no longer have an excuse to give his boyfriend.
*nods*

Sigged.

[Edmund Spenser]

Oh really?

That is what you said, Mr. Spenser. Of course, you were rather in your cups at the time.

Oh, dear. Perhaps I should find some strong coffee.

[Neo ORB]

i say yay...

Why?
Homosexuals are human to, adn as such they also deserve to be happy.
and since i'm Unisex and bisexual... for all i know, i might end up with a parter the same gender as me.

[Pauper Kings]

Cite me in natural law where it says that.

His copy of the book is probably at the cleaner's.

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

[Ceannairceach]

His copy of the book is probably at the cleaner's.

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

Oh, yes, decay to half-hearted flames when your argument fails.

[Dyakovo]

His copy of the book is probably at the cleaner's.

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

So you're admitting that you've got nothing?

[Farnhamia]

His copy of the book is probably at the cleaner's.

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

I know, I do spend an awful lot of time here.

If you're right, show us the natural law you were talking about. Please, I would love to learn. As old as I am, I try to educate myself.

[Bluth Corporation]

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

So you're admitting that you've got nothing?

You used to be so amused
At Napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you can't refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal

[Pauper Kings]

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

Oh, yes, decay to half-hearted flames when your argument fails.

I'll put my whole heart into it then.

If you are actually a cross-dresser, like you've said, then you are a filthy deviant freak.

Just waiting for the time when your sexual habits cause a new disease to spring up and mutate far worse than AIDS/HIV ever did. Despite gay activists desperately attempting to make AIDS seem as though it was a epidemic for heterosexuals, it was still very largely confined to the gay community.... It's only a matter of time until a new and lethal disease is part of your lives again.

Maybe the whole gay marriage debate will be a moot point then.

[Ceannairceach]

Oh, yes, decay to half-hearted flames when your argument fails.

I'll put my whole heart into it then.

If you are actually a cross-dresser, like you've said, then you are a filthy deviant freak.

Just waiting for the time when your sexual habits cause a new disease to spring up and mutate far worse than AIDS/HIV ever did. Despite gay activists desperately attempting to make AIDS seem as though it was a epidemic for heterosexuals, it was still very largely confined to the gay community.... It's only a matter of time until a new and lethal disease is part of your lives again.

Maybe the whole gay marriage debate will be a moot point then.

*Yawn* I've heard far worse. But, you still shouldn't do such. Its immature. And wrong.

[Tekania]

Why can't they simply get married and have a religious ceremony.... Or, do you hate freedom of religion?

No, religion is not fond of homosexuals.

The UUA church would beg to differ with you. Simply because YOUR religion does not like them, does not mean NO religion likes them. And the UUA should have as much freedom to preside over homosexual marriages as your church has in NOT doing so.... That's what religious freedom is all about.

[Augustus Este]

Oh, yes, decay to half-hearted flames when your argument fails.

I'll put my whole heart into it then.

If you are actually a cross-dresser, like you've said, then you are a filthy deviant freak.

Just waiting for the time when your sexual habits cause a new disease to spring up and mutate far worse than AIDS/HIV ever did. Despite gay activists desperately attempting to make AIDS seem as though it was a epidemic for heterosexuals, it was still very largely confined to the gay community.... It's only a matter of time until a new and lethal disease is part of your lives again.

Maybe the whole gay marriage debate will be a moot point then.

last time I checked "gayness" didn't cause AIDS, and I think that most everyone outside the westboro baptist church will agree with me on that one.

[Johz]

Nay, as Leviticus says: It is an abomination. I like that word, describes it well. Gay marriage is an abomination. Done.

I know it was a few pages back, but this is an important point. Homosexuals - an abomination or not? Now I'm going to assume - I'll apologise to Gren and SGOE in advance - that the Bible condemns homosexual relations. This in itself is worthy of further discussion, but not right now. What is more important is using words like 'abomination'. As a side note, the passage Bwana Mungo was referring to was Leviticus 18 verse 22.

The word used in the NIV, which I've always had a bit of love for, is that "[having] sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" is 'detestable'. In all honestly, it makes little distance. While at least we're not using archaic words like abomination (although it is a beatiful word in itself) I'm not sure homosexuals would like it if we started calling their acts 'detestable' either. What is more interesting is that throughout the Leviticus 18 passage we see no mention of the person being at fault. What is wrong here, consistently, is the act. Indeed, if we skip ahead a few centuries to Paul's letters, we find that Paul also refuses to talk about anything other than the act. Indeed, some modern interpretations of the passage in Corinthians would suggest that Paul is refering solely to homosexual acts by heterosexual people.

In fact, let's examine Paul's letter to the Corinthians some more. To use that dreadful language you always see in Christian bookshops these days, let's unpack it. Paul is writing to a church that has been blessed by the Spirit, yet, due to these blessings, and due to the surrounding area of Corinth, seems to feel that none of God's laws apply any more. Indeed, it would be perfectly right to kill someone and rape their dead body, because God loved them, and therefore their actions were right. While we do live under a new testament, Paul writes to remind them that what they are doing is still wrong.

But what I want us to look at is the way Paul approaches the subject of who the guilty parties are. It is quite apparent that some members of the church are more exuberant in their misdemeanours than others. Indeed, many commentators, such as the Mathew Henry commentary, suggest that it was almost certainly one individual who was flagrantly breaking the rules. And the bit I'm getting at here is that we have no idea who that person is. Absolutely no clue. The Corinthians probably knew - the church gossip mill is perhaps the most impressive means of communication known to man - and Paul knew, at least knew of this person. But ourselves, the later readers? We have no idea.

It could quite easily be said that Paul's actions spoke louder than his words, and he did a great deal of both. But perhaps this is a more subtle example of this. Paul does not vindicate the mystery sinner. He does not scream at him from his high citadel 'abhorent one, you will be cursed'. And if anyone had opportunity to build high citadels, it was certainly Paul, who, despite his protestations, was an extremely godly man. Paul merely gently rebukes the sinner, and sends them on their way.

Indeed, the second letter to the church in Corinth is just as good an example to us. It is no longer filled with rebuke, it is a praise, a proud father's joy at the church's willingness to change. It demonstrates that Paul was committed to loving the sinner, even if he was of the opinion that the sin was, as Bwana Mungo might say, abhorent. Indeed, we see that the situation has been followed up, continued. This is not an act of high-and-mighty discipline, but an act of love. Here Paul wants to see his friends - brothers and sisters, as he refers to them frequently - in heaven celebrating with him.

So I reckon this is my point: Do you, Bwana Mungo, and any others who read this post, truly want to see the people you consider 'abhorent' in heaven? Would you consider them to be your brothers and sisters - not just in Christ but in terms of your earthly relationship with them? If so, then I suspect you are not going around posting statements like the above on random internet forums, but I may be mistaken. Otherwise, it is not your place to criticise anyone for their foibles. We are all sinners in a fallen world, and every sin we commit prevents us from a full relationship with God. So in God's eyes every sin is equal, and that means that the time you glossed over the facts, or the time you gossiped about your neighbour, or whatever little naughty things you got up to, are just as bad as the homosexual acts Paul talks about. Only he talks about them in love. I challenge you now: do you talk about homosexuality with love?

Okay, the basic one is that this applies to Christian doctrine only. I have a slightly Anglican/evangelical slant on the whole issue, but I tried to keep the points fairly unversal.

Secondly, I personally do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. But like I said, I'm an Anglican, and we're pussyredliberalcommies who think that women should be allowed to preach, so who cares what we think. More seriously, I am not condemning homosexuality in any way in this argument. I have assumed that it is a sin for the purposes of this post only, because it was easier to do so, and allowed me to get to the important point of not condemning homosexuals. Homosexual acts, maybe, if that's what you so believe. But love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexual marriage is neither a sexual act, nor, unless performed in a religious setting, is it a religious act. It is a state act, and thus should not be condemned.

Thirdly, I can only apologise for the length. And the fact that the argument has moved on a good few pages since I started it. It did take me all afternoon, although only because I was interupted so often.

[Lowtovia]

Nay, as Leviticus says: It is an abomination. I like that word, describes it well. Gay marriage is an abomination. Done.

I know it was a few pages back, but this is an important point. Homosexuals - an abomination or not? Now I'm going to assume - I'll apologise to Gren and SGOE in advance - that the Bible condemns homosexual relations. This in itself is worthy of further discussion, but not right now. What is more important is using words like 'abomination'. As a side note, the passage Bwana Mungo was referring to was Leviticus 18 verse 22.

The word used in the NIV, which I've always had a bit of love for, is that "[having] sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" is 'detestable'. In all honestly, it makes little distance. While at least we're not using archaic words like abomination (although it is a beatiful word in itself) I'm not sure homosexuals would like it if we started calling their acts 'detestable' either. What is more interesting is that throughout the Leviticus 18 passage we see no mention of the person being at fault. What is wrong here, consistently, is the act. Indeed, if we skip ahead a few centuries to Paul's letters, we find that Paul also refuses to talk about anything other than the act. Indeed, some modern interpretations of the passage in Corinthians would suggest that Paul is refering solely to homosexual acts by heterosexual people.

In fact, let's examine Paul's letter to the Corinthians some more. To use that dreadful language you always see in Christian bookshops these days, let's unpack it. Paul is writing to a church that has been blessed by the Spirit, yet, due to these blessings, and due to the surrounding area of Corinth, seems to feel that none of God's laws apply any more. Indeed, it would be perfectly right to kill someone and rape their dead body, because God loved them, and therefore their actions were right. While we do live under a new testament, Paul writes to remind them that what they are doing is still wrong.

But what I want us to look at is the way Paul approaches the subject of who the guilty parties are. It is quite apparent that some members of the church are more exuberant in their misdemeanours than others. Indeed, many commentators, such as the Mathew Henry commentary, suggest that it was almost certainly one individual who was flagrantly breaking the rules. And the bit I'm getting at here is that we have no idea who that person is. Absolutely no clue. The Corinthians probably knew - the church gossip mill is perhaps the most impressive means of communication known to man - and Paul knew, at least knew of this person. But ourselves, the later readers? We have no idea.

It could quite easily be said that Paul's actions spoke louder than his words, and he did a great deal of both. But perhaps this is a more subtle example of this. Paul does not vindicate the mystery sinner. He does not scream at him from his high citadel 'abhorent one, you will be cursed'. And if anyone had opportunity to build high citadels, it was certainly Paul, who, despite his protestations, was an extremely godly man. Paul merely gently rebukes the sinner, and sends them on their way.

Indeed, the second letter to the church in Corinth is just as good an example to us. It is no longer filled with rebuke, it is a praise, a proud father's joy at the church's willingness to change. It demonstrates that Paul was committed to loving the sinner, even if he was of the opinion that the sin was, as Bwana Mungo might say, abhorent. Indeed, we see that the situation has been followed up, continued. This is not an act of high-and-mighty discipline, but an act of love. Here Paul wants to see his friends - brothers and sisters, as he refers to them frequently - in heaven celebrating with him.

So I reckon this is my point: Do you, Bwana Mungo, and any others who read this post, truly want to see the people you consider 'abhorent' in heaven? Would you consider them to be your brothers and sisters - not just in Christ but in terms of your earthly relationship with them? If so, then I suspect you are not going around posting statements like the above on random internet forums, but I may be mistaken. Otherwise, it is not your place to criticise anyone for their foibles. We are all sinners in a fallen world, and every sin we commit prevents us from a full relationship with God. So in God's eyes every sin is equal, and that means that the time you glossed over the facts, or the time you gossiped about your neighbour, or whatever little naughty things you got up to, are just as bad as the homosexual acts Paul talks about. Only he talks about them in love. I challenge you now: do you talk about homosexuality with love?

Okay, the basic one is that this applies to Christian doctrine only. I have a slightly Anglican/evangelical slant on the whole issue, but I tried to keep the points fairly unversal.

Secondly, I personally do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. But like I said, I'm an Anglican, and we're pussyredliberalcommies who think that women should be allowed to preach, so who cares what we think. More seriously, I am not condemning homosexuality in any way in this argument. I have assumed that it is a sin for the purposes of this post only, because it was easier to do so, and allowed me to get to the important point of not condemning homosexuals. Homosexual acts, maybe, if that's what you so believe. But love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexual marriage is neither a sexual act, nor, unless performed in a religious setting, is it a religious act. It is a state act, and thus should not be condemned.

Thirdly, I can only apologise for the length. And the fact that the argument has moved on a good few pages since I started it. It did take me all afternoon, although only because I was interupted so often.

very good point, very well made. the only thing i would argue is that it appears in your story that the church go-ers were willing to change there ways and not sin, whereas gays can't change their "sinful" ways (or refuse to change their sinful way if you think its a choice).
POI, I don't think its sinful or a choice.

[Folder Land]

Why is there so many Gay Marriage topics? How is allowing or banning Gay Marriage going to create jobs and put people back to long term employment.

Why do you post on NationStates? It's not going to create jobs or put you into employment.

Already have a job.

[Dyakovo]

I know it was a few pages back, but this is an important point. Homosexuals - an abomination or not? Now I'm going to assume - I'll apologise to Gren and SGOE in advance - that the Bible condemns homosexual relations. This in itself is worthy of further discussion, but not right now. What is more important is using words like 'abomination'. As a side note, the passage Bwana Mungo was referring to was Leviticus 18 verse 22.

The word used in the NIV, which I've always had a bit of love for, is that "[having] sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" is 'detestable'. In all honestly, it makes little distance. While at least we're not using archaic words like abomination (although it is a beatiful word in itself) I'm not sure homosexuals would like it if we started calling their acts 'detestable' either. What is more interesting is that throughout the Leviticus 18 passage we see no mention of the person being at fault. What is wrong here, consistently, is the act. Indeed, if we skip ahead a few centuries to Paul's letters, we find that Paul also refuses to talk about anything other than the act. Indeed, some modern interpretations of the passage in Corinthians would suggest that Paul is refering solely to homosexual acts by heterosexual people.

In fact, let's examine Paul's letter to the Corinthians some more. To use that dreadful language you always see in Christian bookshops these days, let's unpack it. Paul is writing to a church that has been blessed by the Spirit, yet, due to these blessings, and due to the surrounding area of Corinth, seems to feel that none of God's laws apply any more. Indeed, it would be perfectly right to kill someone and rape their dead body, because God loved them, and therefore their actions were right. While we do live under a new testament, Paul writes to remind them that what they are doing is still wrong.

But what I want us to look at is the way Paul approaches the subject of who the guilty parties are. It is quite apparent that some members of the church are more exuberant in their misdemeanours than others. Indeed, many commentators, such as the Mathew Henry commentary, suggest that it was almost certainly one individual who was flagrantly breaking the rules. And the bit I'm getting at here is that we have no idea who that person is. Absolutely no clue. The Corinthians probably knew - the church gossip mill is perhaps the most impressive means of communication known to man - and Paul knew, at least knew of this person. But ourselves, the later readers? We have no idea.

It could quite easily be said that Paul's actions spoke louder than his words, and he did a great deal of both. But perhaps this is a more subtle example of this. Paul does not vindicate the mystery sinner. He does not scream at him from his high citadel 'abhorent one, you will be cursed'. And if anyone had opportunity to build high citadels, it was certainly Paul, who, despite his protestations, was an extremely godly man. Paul merely gently rebukes the sinner, and sends them on their way.

Indeed, the second letter to the church in Corinth is just as good an example to us. It is no longer filled with rebuke, it is a praise, a proud father's joy at the church's willingness to change. It demonstrates that Paul was committed to loving the sinner, even if he was of the opinion that the sin was, as Bwana Mungo might say, abhorent. Indeed, we see that the situation has been followed up, continued. This is not an act of high-and-mighty discipline, but an act of love. Here Paul wants to see his friends - brothers and sisters, as he refers to them frequently - in heaven celebrating with him.

So I reckon this is my point: Do you, Bwana Mungo, and any others who read this post, truly want to see the people you consider 'abhorent' in heaven? Would you consider them to be your brothers and sisters - not just in Christ but in terms of your earthly relationship with them? If so, then I suspect you are not going around posting statements like the above on random internet forums, but I may be mistaken. Otherwise, it is not your place to criticise anyone for their foibles. We are all sinners in a fallen world, and every sin we commit prevents us from a full relationship with God. So in God's eyes every sin is equal, and that means that the time you glossed over the facts, or the time you gossiped about your neighbour, or whatever little naughty things you got up to, are just as bad as the homosexual acts Paul talks about. Only he talks about them in love. I challenge you now: do you talk about homosexuality with love?

Okay, the basic one is that this applies to Christian doctrine only. I have a slightly Anglican/evangelical slant on the whole issue, but I tried to keep the points fairly unversal.

Secondly, I personally do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. But like I said, I'm an Anglican, and we're pussyredliberalcommies who think that women should be allowed to preach, so who cares what we think. More seriously, I am not condemning homosexuality in any way in this argument. I have assumed that it is a sin for the purposes of this post only, because it was easier to do so, and allowed me to get to the important point of not condemning homosexuals. Homosexual acts, maybe, if that's what you so believe. But love the sinner, hate the sin. Homosexual marriage is neither a sexual act, nor, unless performed in a religious setting, is it a religious act. It is a state act, and thus should not be condemned.

Thirdly, I can only apologise for the length. And the fact that the argument has moved on a good few pages since I started it. It did take me all afternoon, although only because I was interupted so often.

very good point, very well made. the only thing i would argue is that it appears in your story that the church go-ers were willing to change there ways and not sin, whereas gays can't change their "sinful" ways (or refuse to change their sinful way if you think its a choice).
POI, I don't think its sinful or a choice.

The question that comes to mind (not that it matters to the question of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry) is: Is homosexual behavior actually sinful according to Yahweh?

[Ceannairceach]

Why do you post on NationStates? It's not going to create jobs or put you into employment.

Already have a job.

But being on nationstates doesn't create jobs. Nor does having a job. Why do you hate jobs?

Also; New York expects a multimillion dollar revenue increase with the legalization of gay marriage. While not exactly a job increase, well, it is still money.

[Dyakovo]

Why do you post on NationStates? It's not going to create jobs or put you into employment.

Already have a job.

Only one?
Slacker.

[Bottle]

His copy of the book is probably at the cleaner's.

You're probably old enough to have written the book. This is obviously the only entertainment a bitter old feminist like you ever gets. You never seem to leave the website. Don't worry you have lots of company.

If you aren't female maybe you're an old queen.

I wonder what he thinks the insult in here is...calling somebody feminist? Calling them female? Calling them gay? Calling them old? It's a window into madness, seeing that there are people who believe those things are bad.

Insulting somebody in a forum post for posting on the forum?