Gay marriage

[Frigidus]

Since we don't seem to agree that they are related, I think we should see if the Bible thinks they are related...

Levititus 18:6 "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations..."
Levititus 18:7 "Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother..."
<a verse about incest>
Levititus 18:9 "Do not have sexual relations with your sister..."
<more verses about incest and woman stealing>
Levititus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Levititus 18:23 "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it..."

Oh snap! The Bible seems to group them together...

A few more Leviticus quotes:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"They [referring to shellfish] shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

And finally, a favorite of mine that was used to argue slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

What happened to giving to God?

[reminisco]

the quote i put up was a paraphrase from Austin Powers. it was something Dr. Evil said.

but yes, i do have several doctorates in the following areas:

1) Keepin It Real
2) Fail
3) The Revolution and Why It Will Not Be Televised

furthermore, and in conclusion, since homosexuals are not allowed in teh heaven, to get married, or join the army, at least they are still allowed to play sports:

[PLAYER57832]

I don't seem to remember saying all STDs... I pretty sure I said most. And on top of that I said that they were because of homosexual relations.

Player I have totally lost respect for you. You tell people what they are saying is hypocrisy but you are the one spouting it. I never said God love homosexuals less. God loves all people. I do however have a hard time believe that someone who is a homosexual truly has a real relationship with God. If you love someone you do things for them (no I'm not saying this in a negative way) and one of the things Christians do is obey God. In obeying God we follow his instructions, but oh wait... avoiding homosexual relations is one of those... along with incest AND bestiality.

Remi, what is your doctorate in???

Homosexuality is not the cause of most sexually transmitted diseases, Heterosexual sex is the overwhelmingly dominant factor, by far.

As for the rest, ANY sin is enough to drive us from God -- lying, for taking the Lord's name, envying your neighbor ... etc. That is why Christ came .. no exceptions.

But again, the question of this thread wasn't "Does Christianity accept homosexuality" it was "should the government recognize unions between homosexual adults". That is an entirely different question than whether you might see homosexuals in heaven.

[Nataki Yiro]

That's where you're wrong cowboy... Heterosexual sex is a bigger carrier, but then again there are more non-gay people than gay so that's expected. Homosexual relations are a cess pool for disease. They start it and it goes around. You can also thank bisexuals for helping it cross the gap.

Gosh Remi, I thought you really had a doctorate... =(

Since Snorri seems to hate me and follow me wherever I go on the forum I'll just leave him a message.

Snorri = believer in Neo-Darwinism = Fascist pig

[Neutrino]

Your lack of comprehension is astounding. No, just because it is convienent for society to some paraphilias as genetic or natural doesn't mean others can be arbitrarily excluded from this categorization.

Intelligent human beings can see the double standard in arbitrarily exempting homosexuality from the realm of other repulsive and sickening paraphilias which society rightly considers perverse just because it is performed between consenting adults.

And intelligent human beings can certainly see that acts between consenting adults such as incest are twisted and abhorrent, just like homosexuality.

Better luck next time, PLAY3R517!!!11!

Wrong. You are using the same largely arbitrary definitions she is. How is homosexuality "twisted and abhorent"? Explain it without mentioning the Bible or using society's norms and views on the subject to justify it.

Anyway, some of the things you mentioned are allowable under certain circumstances. Incest, as long as no-one's allowed to have children, for example. Sure, society has conditioned us to view it as disgusting, but there is not actually anything wrong with it: no-one's being injured and everyone's consenting.

That's where you're wrong cowboy... Heterosexual sex is a bigger carrier, but then again there are more non-gay people than gay so that's expected. Homosexual relations are a cess pool for disease. They start it and it goes around. You can also thank bisexuals for helping it cross the gap.

Blood based diseases I can understand, but everything else seems far, far more likely to have originated and spread in the monumentally larger heterosexual population.

[DangerBoy]

Anyway, some of the things you mentioned are allowable under certain circumstances. Incest, as long as no-one's allowed to have children, for example. Sure, society has conditioned us to view it as disgusting, but there is not actually anything wrong with it: no-one's being injured and everyone's consenting.

looks like someone's getting very close to making the case for absolutes!

[Snorri1234]

Since Snorri seems to hate me and follow me wherever I go on the forum I'll just leave him a message.

Snorri = believer in Neo-Darwinism = Fascist pig

This has to be the first time in these forums that I've been called a fascist....

[Napoleon Ier]

Since Snorri seems to hate me and follow me wherever I go on the forum I'll just leave him a message.

Snorri = believer in Neo-Darwinism = Fascist pig

This has to be the first time in these forums that I've been called a fascist....

My God...what does that make me?

[reminisco]

Since Snorri seems to hate me and follow me wherever I go on the forum I'll just leave him a message.

Snorri = believer in Neo-Darwinism = Fascist pig

This has to be the first time in these forums that I've been called a fascist....

My God...what does that make me?

in the closet. waaaay deep in the closet. like, caught with a male hooker, a bottle of KY, and a few grams of crystal meth 30 years from now, in the closet.

[Nataki Yiro]

What can I say? I'm a paradigm...

[PLAYER57832]

Homosexuality doesn't directly harm anybody, but then, neither does incest.

Wrong, incest does cause harm to any potential children, in the form of genetic abnormalities.

Fine, smart-ass, neither does incest with use of decent contraceptives.

Surely by your definition then, incest isn't wrong, only the resultant "genetic abnormalities". Oh, and people with cystic fibrosis can't reproduce? No f*ck that...anyone without blond hair, blue eyes, an athletic tone and propensity to look after dobbermans can;t reproduce. How far do we go?

What I SAID is that wrong or right by Christian standards is irrelevant ... incest matters to the STATE because of the procreation aspect. The STATE has no vested interest against homosexuality. Morality is a separate issue. The state should only intervene in morality when the dictates are universal or threatening to others. Homosexuality doesn't qualify. Incest and pedophilia do.

[Napoleon Ier]

Wrong, incest does cause harm to any potential children, in the form of genetic abnormalities.

Fine, smart-ass, neither does incest with use of decent contraceptives.

Surely by your definition then, incest isn't wrong, only the resultant "genetic abnormalities". Oh, and people with cystic fibrosis can't reproduce? No f*ck that...anyone without blond hair, blue eyes, an athletic tone and propensity to look after dobbermans can;t reproduce. How far do we go?

What I SAID is that wrong or right by Christian standards is irrelevant ... incest matters to the STATE because of the procreation aspect. The STATE has no vested interest against homosexuality. Morality is a separate issue. The state should only intervene in morality when the dictates are universal or threatening to others. Homosexuality doesn't qualify. Incest and pedophilia do.

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

[Napoleon Ier]

My God...what does that make me?

in the closet. waaaay deep in the closet. like, caught with a male hooker, a bottle of KY, and a few grams of crystal meth 30 years from now, in the closet.

Is that so, Dr. Freud?

[Snorri1234]

The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should.

Why not? Why not just let them marry? Incest between consenting adults is just a taboo, it disgusts me, but then again spinach disgusts me too.
Do you also think cousins shouldn't marry either?


I think the sole reason we don't allow siblings to marry is the fact that they haven't been asking for it enough. There is no outrage against siblings not being able to marry eachother, because it's not actually that common. It's not like nearly 10% of the people (pulled figure out of my ass, more about 6 or 7 or so whatever) are falling in love with their brothers or sisters. And neither is the vast majority of people in western society totally cool with incest.

You're basically twisting the discussion towards something that isn't an issue to begin with and argue from there. It's like claiming that shitting in the park should be allowed because it restrains our freedom, while you are technically correct it's a radically different issue.

[Neutrino]

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

Why shouldn't their marriage be given societal recognition? Your example already got around the religion part, the main stumbling block. but from there there is no reason why two consenting humans (mustachioed or otherwise) shouldn't have their marriage recognised.
If you think you can prove otherwise, go right ahead (without mentioning society's expectations. The largely arbitrary impositions of society are no real reason to ban something). I certainly won't be waiting with bated breath, though.

[Napoleon Ier]

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

Why shouldn't their marriage be given societal recognition?

For the same reason incestuous relationships aren't: it's fucking sicdk and stems from a genetic or psychological disorder.

[Snorri1234]

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

Why shouldn't their marriage be given societal recognition?

For the same reason incestuous relationships aren't: it's fucking sicdk and stems from a genetic or psychological disorder.

"It's fucking sick" is not an argument.

Also, proof?

[tzor]

Returning to the topic for a moment, from a civil perspective, I can't see what sex has to do with it in the first place. It's not the state's right to check to make sure people are or are not having sex in the first place. A celibate man can marry a celibate woman and still be perfectly celibate while married. Civil marriage is no longer about sex in any manner whatsoever.

Marriage became a civil concern because of the moral implications of "letigimacy." Letigimate children got the inheritance, bastards didn't. This is true even when marriages were not possible because of previous marriages that could not be properly divorced. That's it. Today marriage is all about joint accounts, hospital visitation rights, and insurance coverage. What that has to do with a moral religious institution is beyond me.

So I'm for "Gay" marriage if they are for "Celibate" marriage. Hey why not even polygammy. Brother Maynard can work outside the friary and get all the bothers covered on his insurance policy.

OK that's evil but really the real cause of the problem is all these bizzare couplings to the notion of civil marriage in the first place. Do Gay couples really want the right to divorce? Of course not. I think it is better to decouple all this shit from the civil institution in the first place and then we can discuss what civil marriage really means.

[Napoleon Ier]

For the same reason incestuous relationships aren't: it's fucking sick and stems from a genetic or psychological disorder.

"It's fucking sick" is not an argument.

Also, proof?

Ahh...yes it is. Paedophilia is sick. That's why it's illegal. I think even you want to admit there's somnething deeply wrong with paedophiled outside of the issue of consent. Now why would you possibly distinguish between paedophilia, considering it an unntarual perversion and another paraphilia, which you (arbitrarily) consider all perfectly natural, fine and dandy. Admittedly, no-one is harmed by homosexuality, so I have no objection to homosexual interactions in the privacy of the bedroom. But marriage is an entirely different proposition. Here we're talking about society giving rather than taking away. And there's f*ck all reason for it to give in these cases of paraphilic relationships.

[Snorri1234]

Ahh...yes it is. Paedophilia is sick.

Ahh...I knew you didn't understand arguments.

"It's sick" is not an argument. "It's sick because...." coupled with an explanation as to why you think it is is an argument.

I think even you want to admit there's somnething deeply wrong with paedophiled outside of the issue of consent.

But what is that thing that is deeply wrong? You can't just sit there and claim something is wrong without any explanation.

Now why would you possibly distinguish between paedophilia, considering it an unntarual perversion and another paraphilia, which you (arbitrarily) consider all perfectly natural, fine and dandy.

Probably, and I'm going out on a radical limb here, because they aren't the same? Not every paraphillia is like the other, just like every religion is like the other. I don't claim all christians are peadophiles and polygamist because of the fundamentalist church of the latter day saints.

But marriage is an entirely different proposition. Here we're talking about society giving rather than taking away. And there's f*ck all reason for it to give in these cases of paraphilic relationships.

Society is not giving, it's merely setting the record straight. You could've argued that society had no reason to give negroes rights and equalness, but you'd look like an idiot.

Also, homosexuality isn't considered a paraphilia by anyone except for religious people.

[PLAYER57832]

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

I have seen far more tight-jeaned and obnoxious heterosexual males than homosexuals. Mostly, you cannot tell a homosexual from a heterosexual unless they are with their partner .... and even then it is often hard to distinguish them from simple good friends, unless you pay really, really REALLY close attention.

Your statement shows how little you know about REAL homosexuals, as opposed to stereotypes. ... and that just about covers it. You speak of things you know not about ... and cannot be bothered to find out the truth. How, exactly is that a Christian attitude?

[Napoleon Ier]

Too bad I just provided examples in which we made the procreation aspect irrelevant, eh? Look, I know you're all caught up trying to be all progressive and modern, but there's times where even someone like you just have to take a stand against the machinations of the social engineering Bolsho-politico-mediatic steamroller. The STATE would surely have no vested interest in not granting a marriage between related couples provided one was infertile. Yet no-one in their right mind would suggest that it should. The problem is that you're looking at this problem the wrong way. Why does the (for no obvious reason capitalized) STATE have a vested interest in granting a sociala institution of marriage to homosexuals? It doesn't. If two mustachioed men wearing tight leather want to play at some kind of "marriage" game and find some delusional pastor to conduct a ceremony for them, sure, by all means, but from there to giving it social recognition?

I have seen far more tight-jeaned and obnoxious heterosexual males than homosexuals. Mostly, you cannot tell a homosexual from a heterosexual unless they are with their partner .... and even then it is often hard to distinguish them from simple good friends, unless you pay really, really REALLY close attention.

Your statement shows how little you know about REAL homosexuals, as opposed to stereotypes. ... and that just about covers it. You speak of things you know not about ... and cannot be bothered to find out the truth. How, exactly is that a Christian attitude?

Aie aie aie...there's only one language you people understand, isn't there?

[Frigidus]

Rinse and repeat I suppose...

A few more Leviticus quotes:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"They [referring to shellfish] shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

And finally, a favorite of mine that was used to argue slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

What happened to giving to God?

The Bible is pretty much always pointed to when it comes to anti-gay marriage. No matter how many times you ask "What about freedom of religion?" you just get the response "But..but Jesus...what would he do?" Fine then. Let's talk Leviticus. All of the above quotes are things Christians should supposedly do. Heck, it uses the same freaking word (abomination) to describe homosexuality and eating shellfish! If we're going to use texts nearly two millenniums old as a guide to our codes of law, then how can we act all shocked and appalled when we hear stories of the brutalities of Sharia Law? There are pretty much only two responses to this question (aside from "Islam sucks"). Firstly, "But...but Jesus, man!" Secondly, "I don't care about the rest of Leviticus, just the parts where it says no buttsechs." This hypocrisy when dealing with their own evidence kind of knocks a few points off the Bible's credibility when it comes to lawmaking.

[Napoleon Ier]

Rinse and repeat I suppose...

A few more Leviticus quotes:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"They [referring to shellfish] shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

And finally, a favorite of mine that was used to argue slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

What happened to giving to God?

The Bible is pretty much always pointed to when it comes to anti-gay marriage. No matter how many times you ask "What about freedom of religion?" you just get the response "But..but Jesus...what would he do?" Fine then. Let's talk Leviticus. All of the above quotes are things Christians should supposedly do. Heck, it uses the same freaking word (abomination) to describe homosexuality and eating shellfish! If we're going to use texts nearly two millenniums old as a guide to our codes of law, then how can we act all shocked and appalled when we hear stories of the brutalities of Sharia Law? There are pretty much only two responses to this question (aside from "Islam sucks"). Firstly, "But...but Jesus, man!" Secondly, "I don't care about the rest of Leviticus, just the parts where it says no buttsechs." This hypocrisy when dealing with their own evidence kind of knocks a few points off the Bible's credibility when it comes to lawmaking.

Type "Council of Jerusalem 50 AD" into google. Read a few articles on it. Rinse out your mouth with soap. Say 10 Hail Mary's. Then apologise to me. Then repeat four times.

[Frigidus]

Rinse and repeat I suppose...

A few more Leviticus quotes:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"They [referring to shellfish] shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

And finally, a favorite of mine that was used to argue slavery:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

What happened to giving to God?

The Bible is pretty much always pointed to when it comes to anti-gay marriage. No matter how many times you ask "What about freedom of religion?" you just get the response "But..but Jesus...what would he do?" Fine then. Let's talk Leviticus. All of the above quotes are things Christians should supposedly do. Heck, it uses the same freaking word (abomination) to describe homosexuality and eating shellfish! If we're going to use texts nearly two millenniums old as a guide to our codes of law, then how can we act all shocked and appalled when we hear stories of the brutalities of Sharia Law? There are pretty much only two responses to this question (aside from "Islam sucks"). Firstly, "But...but Jesus, man!" Secondly, "I don't care about the rest of Leviticus, just the parts where it says no buttsechs." This hypocrisy when dealing with their own evidence kind of knocks a few points off the Bible's credibility when it comes to lawmaking.

Type "Council of Jerusalem 50 AD" into google. Read a few articles on it. Rinse out your mouth with soap. Say 10 Hail Mary's. Then apologise to me. Then repeat four times.

Exactly. So why the deal with gay marriage? Didn't they say that you didn't have to follow Jewish law?