Gay Marriage

[Dyakovo]

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?

Probably all of the above...

P.S. You post on NSG! You suck!

[Lowtovia]

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.

i be trollin' ? please say you are and these aren't your real views

[Grenartia]

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

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.

I will admit, that is a good post, with many good points.

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.

Bisexuals, UNITE!

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.

I thank you for at least saying you won't judge me. I used to go to a Baptist school which preached against homosexuality (not WBC level, but still not supportive of gays/bis). So I've heard and had to study some of the passages that are used to condemn same-sex attraction.

Personally, I can't believe sexual orientation other than an attraction to only the opposite sex is a sin, as sin is a choice. I also believe that much of the Bible was either purposefully or accidently mistranslated or otherwise taken the wrong way when each translation/copy was made, especially before the invention of the printing press.

(Looks at all his fellow christians posts)

Sighs...I feel so alone...It's like I'm the only one who cares and wishes to stop the abuse agasint Gays and gay marriage..

No. Some of us are Christians as well. Coffee Cakes and I are both bisexuals and Christians. He's a touch more religious than I, but I know that Jesus loves me, and I love Jesus as well. I do use a lot of language, but one line I refuse to cross is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

Yay without question, it's my american and christian duty to protect the rights of all people no matter what they are

“Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.”
Optimus Prime

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Which translation are you using? Also, can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible hasn't been purposefully mistranslated in its 1000+ years of existence to serve the interests of certain people (homophobic Popes/monks/protestants/etc)?

I can't believe that God would consider me an abomination for being the way He made me. So, I can't take your passages seriously unless you can give me a quote from Jesus Himself condemning being gay/bi.

to all that i have a nice easy one word reply: LAAAAAADDDDD

Thanks.

Fail.

All we want is the same rights to be happy that all heterosexual couples have.

No one has the "right" to be happy. And if being happy can only be accomplished by pushing your views on everyone else... you're no better than Hitler. I'm sure cleansing Germany of all the undesirables made him happy, too.

Oh, yes, Godwin's Law. The only true sign of an intelligent argument. Comparing your opponent to Hitler.

I could argue the same point about you being no better than Hitler as well, but I won't stoop to that level.

Hmm...no one has the right to be happy, then? Then that means that you don't have the right to live in a world without gay marriage.

No one has the "right" to be happy.

Declaration of Independence?
The unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Fail post is fail.

This as well.

1: The declaration of Independence is not a legal document.
2: The "pursuit of happiness" and "happiness" are 2 different things.

Admittedly, you are right on both counts, but even though it's not in the Constitution, the Founders recognized a right to happiness, which is important. And are they really? Generally, shouldn't you be happy on your pursuit of it?

And lets not forget the 9th Amendment, which guarantees that there are rights granted to citizens that aren't specifically mentioned in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it can be argued that the Pursuit of Happiness is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[Liriena]

As a male Catholic, bisexual Law student, I fully support same-sex marriage as a legal contract (I would be the world's biggest hypocrite if I didn't).

On a religious POV, maybe my actions are sinful, maybe it is actually sinful to make out or f*ck with someone of your same gender, and if so, I'll gladly confess to my priest, pray a few minutes, and then go on with my life (and try to get some more buttsecks).
Truth be told, sometimes I don't even care whether the Pope or some big Cardinal says it's wrong, because even I agree that Benedict XVI is sometimes an absolute dipsh*t. In any case, if I want spiritual advice on any matter, I ask my priest at my Parish. And, even then, in the end I leave my judgement up to God.
I believe in my faith, I believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and all of it. I don't believe, however, in the Book of Genesis and large chunks of the Old Testament, 'cause my teachers at the Catholic School, and even my mother, also a teacher at a Catholic school, taught me that most of the Old Testament is is either metaphor or mythology written by human beings (not God) and can only be interpretated according to the context in which they were written.
Even though I am devoted, I don't believe myself to be the "Owner of the Absolute Truth" (like some other, more extremist Christians), and I don't believe that all other religions are blasfemous lies, and that those who do not believe in what I believe are heathens who need to convert or "burn in Hell". In fact, I believe that all religions have at least a little bit of truth, and, so, I believe that it is stupid to pretend to impose your religious beliefs on everyone just because: "Oh, but my religion is the true religion, blah, blah, blah..."

On a legal POV, I've been trying to debate with American Right-wing Christians on the Internet (since in my country, same-sex marriage is already legal), and I'm seriously sick of hearing them use the Holy Bible as a legal argument.
For f*cks sake! They live in a f*cking democracy, not a theocracy! And in a democracy, you can't pass laws (that may affect the entire population) based on the beliefs of a single religion out of a hundred.
If you can't defend your position with legal or scientific arguments (which, though potentially refutable, are at least objective and unbiased), don't try to use your own moral values or religious beliefs as excuses. First of all, because it's pathetic and stupid, and second of all, it's downright worthless, because those are personal, subjective things, that are up to every individual.
Also, I think that, since Christianity has never really had a monopoly over the institution of marriage (and, in fact, it predates it) it is idiotic to keep the definition of marriage strictly tied to the premises of a relatively young religion.
Besides, what I've been trying so desperately to get in the heads of the most stubborn Christians: This marriage we are talking about is the LEGAL contract called "marriage", not the RELIGOUS Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which isn't affected in the least by the law, since the State is strictly separated from the Church. The Government won't force you to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, because they can't. They won't force you to change the definition of marriage that can be found in the Scriptures. They won't force you to tell your kids "Homosexuality is not a sin" or "Gay marriage is not a sin". You can still call it a sin, you can still say that, according to your beliefs, it's morally wrong. The only difference is that people who don't believe in the same things you do won't be forced to abide to your values.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not a choice. It's not a mental disorder. It's not a sexual deviation or perversion (if it was, it would be called homophilia, not homosexuality). It's a goddamned sexual orientation, just like bisexuality. And transexuality corresponds to sexual identity, and, again, is not considered a sickness or mental disorder.
Homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. In fact, pedophiles are mostly heterosexual.
Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples are just as "normal" as children raised by heterosexual couples, and the only problem they might face is bullying from intolerant peers (and that can be easily solved with anti-bullying programs at schools).
Homosexuality is natural. Thousands of other animal species show a certain percentage of homosexual individuals.
The approval of same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples won't lead mankind into extinction. Seriously, this is the single most stupid (and, surprisingly, the most frequent) argument that has been wielded against it, and it is justified, by those using it, under the, already proved wrong premise, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that one can be "recruited", "converted", "cured" or "brainwashed" into one or the other.
There has always been a fixed percentage of LGBT individuals in the human species. The difference is that, since nowadays most (civilized, democratic) nations don't persecute or murder them, an increasingly larger part of that percentage has been confident enough to reveal their true nature. Therefor, if homosexuality is "accepted", and LGBT rights are finally recognized by the State, there won't be a sudden "Gay boom" that will anihilate all heterosexuals, bring an end to procreation, and wipe out civilization.
Finally, the other infamous argument that: "Homosexuals can't procreate, so it's useless to allow them to marry."
This argument is based on the borderline retarded premise that marriage has always existed only as the means to procreation, an that couples that cannot procreate are therefor not entitled to marrying.
Come on! At the Church I was told that marriage was about love, commitment and forming a family. None of the priests and teachers I met ever said that it was just for procreation.
What about infertile couples? Or elderly couples? Just like homosexual couples, neither of those can (by themselves, at least) procreate. Should we ban them from marrying?

In the end, this whole debate about same-sex marriage, I believe, has been thoroughly exagerated, and taken completely out of propportion by the Extreme Right-wing Christianity.
Same-sex marriage is not THE cultural milestone of the century. It's not THE cultural battle that will decide the fate of civilization. And it's certainly not an issue that should be given so much f*cking importance by the Government, the media and the people.
You know why I believe it is not important?
Because I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage (and LGBT rights as a whole) is logical, it's common sense. And, most importantly, it only affects LGBT people!
I sincerely can't understand why the whole of society has been forced to take part in an useless debate which, in the end, always ends up leading us to matters which have already been settled decades (if not centuries) ago: the Separation of Church and State, Equality under the Law, and the limit of our personal rights liberties being where someone else's begin.

[Milks Empire]

And, most importantly, it only affects LGBT people!

Wrong! It also affects divorce lawyers. Because, with same-sex marriage is bound to come - you guessed it - same-sex divorce!

[Liriena]

And, most importantly, it only affects LGBT people!

Wrong! It also affects divorce lawyers. Because, with same-sex marriage is bound to come - you guessed it - same-sex divorce!

[Grenartia]

As a male Catholic, bisexual Law student, I fully support same-sex marriage as a legal contract (I would be the world's biggest hypocrite if I didn't).

On a religious POV, maybe my actions are sinful, maybe it is actually sinful to make out or f*ck with someone of your same gender, and if so, I'll gladly confess to my priest, pray a few minutes, and then go on with my life (and try to get some more buttsecks).
Truth be told, sometimes I don't even care whether the Pope or some big Cardinal says it's wrong, because even I agree that Benedict XVI is sometimes an absolute dipsh*t. In any case, if I want spiritual advice on any matter, I ask my priest at my Parish. And, even then, in the end I leave my judgement up to God.
I believe in my faith, I believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and all of it. I don't believe, however, in the Book of Genesis and large chunks of the Old Testament, 'cause my teachers at the Catholic School, and even my mother, also a teacher at a Catholic school, taught me that most of the Old Testament is is either metaphor or mythology written by human beings (not God) and can only be interpretated according to the context in which they were written.
Even though I am devoted, I don't believe myself to be the "Owner of the Absolute Truth" (like some other, more extremist Christians), and I don't believe that all other religions are blasfemous lies, and that those who do not believe in what I believe are heathens who need to convert or "burn in Hell". In fact, I believe that all religions have at least a little bit of truth, and, so, I believe that it is stupid to pretend to impose your religious beliefs on everyone just because: "Oh, but my religion is the true religion, blah, blah, blah..."

On a legal POV, I've been trying to debate with American Right-wing Christians on the Internet (since in my country, same-sex marriage is already legal), and I'm seriously sick of hearing them use the Holy Bible as a legal argument.
For f*cks sake! They live in a f*cking democracy, not a theocracy! And in a democracy, you can't pass laws (that may affect the entire population) based on the beliefs of a single religion out of a hundred.
If you can't defend your position with legal or scientific arguments (which, though potentially refutable, are at least objective and unbiased), don't try to use your own moral values or religious beliefs as excuses. First of all, because it's pathetic and stupid, and second of all, it's downright worthless, because those are personal, subjective things, that are up to every individual.
Also, I think that, since Christianity has never really had a monopoly over the institution of marriage (and, in fact, it predates it) it is idiotic to keep the definition of marriage strictly tied to the premises of a relatively young religion.
Besides, what I've been trying so desperately to get in the heads of the most stubborn Christians: This marriage we are talking about is the LEGAL contract called "marriage", not the RELIGOUS Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which isn't affected in the least by the law, since the State is strictly separated from the Church. The Government won't force you to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, because they can't. They won't force you to change the definition of marriage that can be found in the Scriptures. They won't force you to tell your kids "Homosexuality is not a sin" or "Gay marriage is not a sin". You can still call it a sin, you can still say that, according to your beliefs, it's morally wrong. The only difference is that people who don't believe in the same things you do won't be forced to abide to your values.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not a choice. It's not a mental disorder. It's not a sexual deviation or perversion (if it was, it would be called homophilia, not homosexuality). It's a goddamned sexual orientation, just like bisexuality. And transexuality corresponds to sexual identity, and, again, is not considered a sickness or mental disorder.
Homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. In fact, pedophiles are mostly heterosexual.
Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples are just as "normal" as children raised by heterosexual couples, and the only problem they might face is bullying from intolerant peers (and that can be easily solved with anti-bullying programs at schools).
Homosexuality is natural. Thousands of other animal species show a certain percentage of homosexual individuals.
The approval of same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples won't lead mankind into extinction. Seriously, this is the single most stupid (and, surprisingly, the most frequent) argument that has been wielded against it, and it is justified, by those using it, under the, already proved wrong premise, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that one can be "recruited", "converted", "cured" or "brainwashed" into one or the other.
There has always been a fixed percentage of LGBT individuals in the human species. The difference is that, since nowadays most (civilized, democratic) nations don't persecute or murder them, an increasingly larger part of that percentage has been confident enough to reveal their true nature. Therefor, if homosexuality is "accepted", and LGBT rights are finally recognized by the State, there won't be a sudden "Gay boom" that will anihilate all heterosexuals, bring an end to procreation, and wipe out civilization.
Finally, the other infamous argument that: "Homosexuals can't procreate, so it's useless to allow them to marry."
This argument is based on the borderline retarded premise that marriage has always existed only as the means to procreation, an that couples that cannot procreate are therefor not entitled to marrying.
Come on! At the Church I was told that marriage was about love, commitment and forming a family. None of the priests and teachers I met ever said that it was just for procreation.
What about infertile couples? Or elderly couples? Just like homosexual couples, neither of those can (by themselves, at least) procreate. Should we ban them from marrying?

In the end, this whole debate about same-sex marriage, I believe, has been thoroughly exagerated, and taken completely out of propportion by the Extreme Right-wing Christianity.
Same-sex marriage is not THE cultural milestone of the century. It's not THE cultural battle that will decide the fate of civilization. And it's certainly not an issue that should be given so much f*cking importance by the Government, the media and the people.
You know why I believe it is not important?
Because I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage (and LGBT rights as a whole) is logical, it's common sense. And, most importantly, it only affects LGBT people!
I sincerely can't understand why the whole of society has been forced to take part in an useless debate which, in the end, always ends up leading us to matters which have already been settled decades (if not centuries) ago: the Separation of Church and State, Equality under the Law, and the limit of our personal rights liberties being where someone else's begin.

[Lowtovia]

As a male Catholic, bisexual Law student, I fully support same-sex marriage as a legal contract (I would be the world's biggest hypocrite if I didn't).

On a religious POV, maybe my actions are sinful, maybe it is actually sinful to make out or f*ck with someone of your same gender, and if so, I'll gladly confess to my priest, pray a few minutes, and then go on with my life (and try to get some more buttsecks).
Truth be told, sometimes I don't even care whether the Pope or some big Cardinal says it's wrong, because even I agree that Benedict XVI is sometimes an absolute dipsh*t. In any case, if I want spiritual advice on any matter, I ask my priest at my Parish. And, even then, in the end I leave my judgement up to God.
I believe in my faith, I believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and all of it. I don't believe, however, in the Book of Genesis and large chunks of the Old Testament, 'cause my teachers at the Catholic School, and even my mother, also a teacher at a Catholic school, taught me that most of the Old Testament is is either metaphor or mythology written by human beings (not God) and can only be interpretated according to the context in which they were written.
Even though I am devoted, I don't believe myself to be the "Owner of the Absolute Truth" (like some other, more extremist Christians), and I don't believe that all other religions are blasfemous lies, and that those who do not believe in what I believe are heathens who need to convert or "burn in Hell". In fact, I believe that all religions have at least a little bit of truth, and, so, I believe that it is stupid to pretend to impose your religious beliefs on everyone just because: "Oh, but my religion is the true religion, blah, blah, blah..."

On a legal POV, I've been trying to debate with American Right-wing Christians on the Internet (since in my country, same-sex marriage is already legal), and I'm seriously sick of hearing them use the Holy Bible as a legal argument.
For f*cks sake! They live in a f*cking democracy, not a theocracy! And in a democracy, you can't pass laws (that may affect the entire population) based on the beliefs of a single religion out of a hundred.
If you can't defend your position with legal or scientific arguments (which, though potentially refutable, are at least objective and unbiased), don't try to use your own moral values or religious beliefs as excuses. First of all, because it's pathetic and stupid, and second of all, it's downright worthless, because those are personal, subjective things, that are up to every individual.
Also, I think that, since Christianity has never really had a monopoly over the institution of marriage (and, in fact, it predates it) it is idiotic to keep the definition of marriage strictly tied to the premises of a relatively young religion.
Besides, what I've been trying so desperately to get in the heads of the most stubborn Christians: This marriage we are talking about is the LEGAL contract called "marriage", not the RELIGOUS Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which isn't affected in the least by the law, since the State is strictly separated from the Church. The Government won't force you to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, because they can't. They won't force you to change the definition of marriage that can be found in the Scriptures. They won't force you to tell your kids "Homosexuality is not a sin" or "Gay marriage is not a sin". You can still call it a sin, you can still say that, according to your beliefs, it's morally wrong. The only difference is that people who don't believe in the same things you do won't be forced to abide to your values.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not a choice. It's not a mental disorder. It's not a sexual deviation or perversion (if it was, it would be called homophilia, not homosexuality). It's a goddamned sexual orientation, just like bisexuality. And transexuality corresponds to sexual identity, and, again, is not considered a sickness or mental disorder.
Homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. In fact, pedophiles are mostly heterosexual.
Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples are just as "normal" as children raised by heterosexual couples, and the only problem they might face is bullying from intolerant peers (and that can be easily solved with anti-bullying programs at schools).
Homosexuality is natural. Thousands of other animal species show a certain percentage of homosexual individuals.
The approval of same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples won't lead mankind into extinction. Seriously, this is the single most stupid (and, surprisingly, the most frequent) argument that has been wielded against it, and it is justified, by those using it, under the, already proved wrong premise, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that one can be "recruited", "converted", "cured" or "brainwashed" into one or the other.
There has always been a fixed percentage of LGBT individuals in the human species. The difference is that, since nowadays most (civilized, democratic) nations don't persecute or murder them, an increasingly larger part of that percentage has been confident enough to reveal their true nature. Therefor, if homosexuality is "accepted", and LGBT rights are finally recognized by the State, there won't be a sudden "Gay boom" that will anihilate all heterosexuals, bring an end to procreation, and wipe out civilization.
Finally, the other infamous argument that: "Homosexuals can't procreate, so it's useless to allow them to marry."
This argument is based on the borderline retarded premise that marriage has always existed only as the means to procreation, an that couples that cannot procreate are therefor not entitled to marrying.
Come on! At the Church I was told that marriage was about love, commitment and forming a family. None of the priests and teachers I met ever said that it was just for procreation.
What about infertile couples? Or elderly couples? Just like homosexual couples, neither of those can (by themselves, at least) procreate. Should we ban them from marrying?

In the end, this whole debate about same-sex marriage, I believe, has been thoroughly exagerated, and taken completely out of propportion by the Extreme Right-wing Christianity.
Same-sex marriage is not THE cultural milestone of the century. It's not THE cultural battle that will decide the fate of civilization. And it's certainly not an issue that should be given so much f*cking importance by the Government, the media and the people.
You know why I believe it is not important?
Because I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage (and LGBT rights as a whole) is logical, it's common sense. And, most importantly, it only affects LGBT people!
I sincerely can't understand why the whole of society has been forced to take part in an useless debate which, in the end, always ends up leading us to matters which have already been settled decades (if not centuries) ago: the Separation of Church and State, Equality under the Law, and the limit of our personal rights liberties being where someone else's begin.

You'll make a good lawyer.

[Orcoa]

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.

I will admit, that is a good post, with many good points.

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.

Bisexuals, UNITE!

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.

I thank you for at least saying you won't judge me. I used to go to a Baptist school which preached against homosexuality (not WBC level, but still not supportive of gays/bis). So I've heard and had to study some of the passages that are used to condemn same-sex attraction.

Personally, I can't believe sexual orientation other than an attraction to only the opposite sex is a sin, as sin is a choice. I also believe that much of the Bible was either purposefully or accidently mistranslated or otherwise taken the wrong way when each translation/copy was made, especially before the invention of the printing press.

(Looks at all his fellow christians posts)

Sighs...I feel so alone...It's like I'm the only one who cares and wishes to stop the abuse agasint Gays and gay marriage..

No. Some of us are Christians as well. Coffee Cakes and I are both bisexuals and Christians. He's a touch more religious than I, but I know that Jesus loves me, and I love Jesus as well. I do use a lot of language, but one line I refuse to cross is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

Yay without question, it's my american and christian duty to protect the rights of all people no matter what they are

“Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.”
Optimus Prime

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Which translation are you using? Also, can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible hasn't been purposefully mistranslated in its 1000+ years of existence to serve the interests of certain people (homophobic Popes/monks/protestants/etc)?

I can't believe that God would consider me an abomination for being the way He made me. So, I can't take your passages seriously unless you can give me a quote from Jesus Himself condemning being gay/bi.

to all that i have a nice easy one word reply: LAAAAAADDDDD

Thanks.

No one has the "right" to be happy. And if being happy can only be accomplished by pushing your views on everyone else... you're no better than Hitler. I'm sure cleansing Germany of all the undesirables made him happy, too.

Oh, yes, Godwin's Law. The only true sign of an intelligent argument. Comparing your opponent to Hitler.

I could argue the same point about you being no better than Hitler as well, but I won't stoop to that level.

Hmm...no one has the right to be happy, then? Then that means that you don't have the right to live in a world without gay marriage.

Declaration of Independence?
The unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Fail post is fail.

This as well.

Admittedly, you are right on both counts, but even though it's not in the Constitution, the Founders recognized a right to happiness, which is important. And are they really? Generally, shouldn't you be happy on your pursuit of it?

And lets not forget the 9th Amendment, which guarantees that there are rights granted to citizens that aren't specifically mentioned in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it can be argued that the Pursuit of Happiness is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I'm not alone! I have a brothers in arms! Now! Let us ride onto your steads of awesome and fight with truth and fire agasint those who would stop the rights of free beings everywere!
(Puts on Skyrim Theme)

[Ifreann]

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.

What's that old saw about old feminists and new tricks?

[Tekania]

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.

What's that old saw about old feminists and new tricks?

Feminists don't usually turn tricks

[Farnhamia]

What's that old saw about old feminists and new tricks?

Feminists don't usually turn tricks

That's the one I was looking for.

[Ifreann]

What's that old saw about old feminists and new tricks?

Feminists don't usually turn tricks

[Sovereign Oppression]

Yay or Nay?

Also; please don't flame those who say Nay. They aren't all ignorant bigots who are on the lunatic fringes of society (looking at you Tea Party).

..Just most of them. :>

I addressed this in another thread, but again, I think the entire notion of marriage is so inextricably linked to the subjugation of women that regardless of whether a couple is same sex or opposite sex, we should ban the entire thing. For everyone. You cannot take a tool of oppression and make it non-oppressive just by making it 'more inclusive'. You do not address the root issues that way, you just gloss over them.

So if two males marry, it's sexist and subjugatory towards females?

And as for your bolded, you're right. But that's not what's happened with marriage, now is it?

[Mimic]

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.

Yeah, AIDS is really conclusive proof: people were never meant to be gay. Or black. Or to eat monkeys. Or to live in Africa.

Really, according to natural law, people shouldn't have sex at all. "Wearing a condom" is a cop-out -- if we were meant to do that, we'd have been born with latex on our penises. Just look at all the sexually transmitted diseases out there: God's punishment for not keeping it in your pants. Anyone who tries to defend the so-called sexual intercourse is a perverted, abnormal, sick weirdo who will probably be wiped out in some future strain of ultra-herpes that only affects people who aren't of pure Jewish blood.

But why bother trying to tell these people anything? Let the homonazis stew in their own buggery. The rest of the world is giving the gay marriage "issue" all the attention it is due. None.

[Grenartia]

I'm not alone! I have a brothers in arms! Now! Let us ride onto your steads of awesome and fight with truth and fire agasint those who would stop the rights of free beings everywere!
(Puts on Skyrim Theme)

Indeed.

[Coffee Cakes]

No. Some of us are Christians as well. Coffee Cakes and I are both bisexuals and Christians₁. He's a touch more religious than I₂, but I know that Jesus loves me, and I love Jesus as well₃. I do use a lot of language, but one line I refuse to cross is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

#1... Truth. My situation is a bit more complicated than that, but that's about right.

#2...Just a bit?

#3... AMEN!

[Ceannairceach]

No. Some of us are Christians as well. Coffee Cakes and I are both bisexuals and Christians₁. He's a touch more religious than I₂, but I know that Jesus loves me, and I love Jesus as well₃. I do use a lot of language, but one line I refuse to cross is taking the Lord's Name in vain.

#1... Truth. My situation is a bit more complicated than that, but that's about right.

#2...Just a bit?

#3... AMEN!

A god dammit, would you guys stop loving Jesus so fucking much? We need some to! Holy Spirit in Hell, you guys are monopolizing his love juices...

[Coffee Cakes]

#1... Truth. My situation is a bit more complicated than that, but that's about right.

#2...Just a bit?

#3... AMEN!

A god dammit, would you guys stop loving Jesus so fucking much? We need some to! Holy Spirit in Hell, you guys are monopolizing his love juices...

I could quote any of the parables talking about storing up treasures in heaven, but I'm too lazy right now.

[Fersceau]

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

That's not a very good argument. Leviticus also states shellfish and only hoofed animals may be eaten as well as 7 day period of cleansing for woman menstruating. You can't use one piece of evidence to back up an argument and ignore the rest.

[TheRightWay]

I say sure. Nothing wrong with people choosing their preferences.

And if that preferences is dogs? or infants?

Neither of which have the ability to consent quit being obtuse

[TheRightWay]

One of my favorite quotes on the subject

[JJ Place]

I see your not a history buff. The most common marriage of all human history is between one man and many women, with homosexuality historically regarded well in society with the exception of the Dark Ages, the worst time in all human history.

Excellent point. Why is gay marriage considered to be such a big deal when compared with other controversial marital beliefs such as polygamy? Let's just take a step back and look at the big picture here- all religions and beliefs have their own views as to what is right and what is wrong, and the government shouldn't get involved in that. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, I say let people do whatever they want to!

Comparatively, singe straight marriage of one to one individuals remains one of the worst manners of marriage ever to exist in known society.

[Erinkita]

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.

Is it? Well, I guess I've better get to the lesbianing, then. Odd, I really thought I was straight, but I guess you know best. Somehow the virus sensed my gay gene and just pounced.
Anyone feel like instructing a naive young lass of Irish blood in the beautiful art of girl-on-girl?

[Dyakovo]

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.

Is it? Well, I guess I've better get to the lesbianing, then. Odd, I really thought I was straight, but I guess you know best. Somehow the virus sensed by gay gene and just pounced.
Anyone feel like instructing a naive young lass of Irish blood in the beautiful art of girl-on-girl?

Yes.