MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now for the other end of the story. I am not sure which one melon posted a couple of pages ago but I found this one where the Bible does address homosexuality. This is for those who ask why gay priests are not allowed to continue in their positions.

This is in Romans Chapter 1 verses 24 -

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

However, I do believe in the separation of state and religion. But this mostly answers the question as to why Christians oppose homosexuality.

Cheers
 
*Sigh.*

This is plainly about *idolatry.* Do you need it any more clear than Romans 1:25? "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Bingo. That line "into that which is against nature" is clearly an add-on line. It is not in any other translations, which I check against.

However, you have done *precisely* what I condemn about how people abuse the Bible. You have taken a disparate few verses and taken it *completely* out of context. Did you happen to read Romans 2:1?

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1

What you have quoted was a classic St. Paul moment. As this epistle is directed towards the Jewish Christians of Rome--who, may I remind you, he vehemently opposed, due to their ritualistic demand for adherence to the Mosaic Law--he first appeals to their sensibilities and then whacks them over the head with it. In other words, their disgust against pagan sex orgies should not give way to the fact that, by sneering at them in judgment, they are guilty of the same degree of sin. The only escape from sin, according to St. Paul, is the salvation of Jesus Christ. In other words, you've completely missed the point of Romans 1-2, and, in judgment of homosexuals for that passage, you are guilty of sin for passing such judgment.

The "uncleanliness" which he speaks of in Romans 1:24 is a clear reference to the Mosaic Law "purity codes" in the Torah, which, again, St. Paul was opposed to. Every single piece of Biblical scholarship points to the fact that this is a passage on *idolatry,* not homosexuality (which is a 19th century word and concept, mind you!), and if we didn't have biased translators, that fact would be clear.

I'm aware of the reasons why Christians oppose homosexuality, but I don't know how many times I have to tell them that their Biblical bases are wrong.

Melon
 
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet


I don't see how you argue agains this. And no one is saying anything about homosexuality not being a "recent" concept.
 
I need not repeat myself. Go reread Romans 2, in context with the end of Romans 1. The self-righteousness of the Jewish Christians who looked down upon those practices did not leave them any more righteous than the pagan Gentiles who engaged in the temple orgies. They were, in spite of their "cleanliness," just as guilty of sin. Jesus is the only means of defeating sin. That's his point. Thus, my dear, you are absolutely no more or less sinful than those homosexuals you decry.

But I'll leave you tonight with two passages:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10 (this is the point of Romans; to encourage a rejection of the Mosaic Law in favor of Jesus' commandment)

And a passage that gives me a good chuckle:

"Paul wrote things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the rest of scripture, to their own destruction! You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled people, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory, both now and to the day of eternity Amen." -- 2 Peter 3:16-18

Good night...

Melon
 
See, all you've done is turn it back at me and say "well you are a sinner too" (well ...duh) and you have bypassed the fact that all I am trying to prove is that the Bible at some point DOES condemn orgy-esque (not even sure if that's correct grammar) act.

I have nothing against gay people. There's a gay guy at my gym who keeps throwing compliments at me and I just laugh it off and joke with him. He's an alright guy and his homosexuality has nothing to do with his personality.

BUT, the fact the Bible condemns it somehow is undeniable.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
BUT, the fact the Bible condemns it somehow is undeniable.
Click to expand...

Believe what you'd like. I've clearly told you why it doesn't, but you can lead a horse to water, and I cannot force you to drink it.

It is my overall belief that love is the point of all morality, and loving gay couples are no different. The Bible never mentions those, merely because it is such a foreign concept to the cultural consciousness...until the present.

Believe as you will.

Melon
 
Last edited:
And just when I thought that Bush and the "Pope" couldn't sink any lower than they already have...

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/061304bushPope.htm

But, one of the most experienced journalists at the Vatican reports this week that Bush implored the Pope to increase Catholic condemnation of gay marriage in the weeks leading up to the election, and that the request also was made by the president to senior Vatican officials..

John Allen Jr., writes in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent journal for Catholics, that Bush specifically "asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Allen, the most senior reporter at the Vatican, and considered the dean of the press corps, says that in a private meeting "with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism."
Click to expand...

I hope they both rot in hell someday. :tsk:

Melon
 
I can just picture God shaking his hand and saying, "Great the guy who's "supposubly talking for me" is now taking advice from a monkey.
 
At this point one has to wonder what kinds of skeletons Bush has in his closet. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
 
I think the pope as well as God know this had to do with the election more than anything....

but slant it the way you want
 
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/061804amendVote.htm

The Senate will vote on a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage the week of July 12. The announcement was made today at a Capitol Hill news conference.

The vote will come just two weeks before the start of the Democratic national convention, July 26 in Boston, and is seen as a way of embarrassing Democrats most of whom are opposed to the amendment.
Click to expand...

For all those who have voted Republican in the past or will in the future, remember this: the blood is on your hands.

And I'll put it this way too: I'd rather never vote again than ever vote GOP. The Republican Party is dead to me; and if McCain and all those moderate/liberal Republicans want to do something useful, they can: leave the party. Otherwise, I hope they're voted out too, because they are allied with the enemy. :down:

Melon
 
Senate Scuttles Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

The Senate voted today to block a White House-backed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages, dooming its prospects for approval by Congress this year but ensuring it an emotionally-charged role during campaigns this fall.
...
The vote by the Republican-controlled Senate amounted to an embarrassing defeat for President Bush and conservative leaders who had pushed hard for approval of the amendment as a way of protecting traditional marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49537-2004Jul14.html

:applaud:
 
The Senate did not vote against the amendment. They failed to approve a procedural motion (requiring approval of 60 senators) that would require a vote. This way, certain politicians can play both sides of the fence.
 
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...tentDisplay.cfm

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, July 14, 2004

POLITICS OF DIVISION FAILS IN SENATE

Federal Marriage Amendment defeated by a vote of 48-50

'This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans,' said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON ? By a stunning bipartisan vote of 48 to 50, the Senate today rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment. This was a crucial victory sending a strong message in Washington and throughout America that politics of distraction will fail. The 48 senators who backed this divisive amendment couldn?t even muster a simple majority.

?This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided Republicans,? said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

The defeat of the FMA occurred following a stunning week on Capitol Hill. After a year of monopolizing precious Senate time on Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard?s Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican leadership retreated.

?Faced with an embarrassing defeat, the Senate leadership rejected an up or down vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment,? added Jacques. ?This debate has always been about politics and undermining the Constitution is their tool.?

Every poll shows the American people want Congress focused on issues like rising health care costs, the hemorrhaging of jobs and the war in Iraq. Same-sex marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment rank last on the list.

?The optimism and fairness of the American people will prevail,? added Jacques.

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
 
You know, I think I heard the funniest argument yet. A Texas Republican equated allowing gay marriage to allowing someone to marry a box turtle. I wonder where all these conservatives get ideas to fuck animals? I say this...if Republicans are suppressing their urges to divorce their spouses and profess their undying love to various species of the animal kingdom, I say come out of the closet! Do Republicans have special urges that liberals merely do not understand? Does debating gay marriage bring out the GOP's animal urges? Does Sen. Allard have a secret he's been holding inside? Has he been having an affair with that Texas Republican's box turtle?????!!!!! I say to all you Republicans out there with urges to fuck animals, go for it! I won't understand it, certainly, and neither will anyone else, except maybe those Asian bikini babes with elephants...but, hey....who am I to stand in your way?

Hey kids...this is why you need to go to school and get a higher education, because you don't want to be caught dead making some dumbass statements like our "honorable" Congressmen have been making. These will be good ones for the history books, right next to comments that racists made in support of segregation. If they had taken a class in logic, they'd realize that their argument doesn't hold water. To our Congressmen, I give you this challenge: produce me these supposed people who sincerely wish to marry animals!

Melon
 
LOL, well said, melon. I've never understood that whole comparison of gay marriage to marrying animals, either. Hello, animals can't consent to a marriage. Therefore, any attempt to legalize one (which is highly unlikely to happen, because most people in this world have no desire to marry animals to begin with), wouldn't work.

Yeah. It's just stupid, those comparisons.

Anywho...the ban's been rejected. Thank god. No reason it should've even been considered.

Angela
 
Yes, but one who feels it should be banned outright under the Constitution and another who feels it should be left to the states. There's a big difference there.
 
Well, true enough. But with allowing civil unions, there's at least some hope for the near future, rather than having to contend with rolling back a Constitutional amendment as well as securing basic legal protections for same-sex unions.
 
Civil unions have always been a creature of state law. It doesn't make sense, however, to have "marriage" defined differently state to state.
 
I have a thread on this subject in my forum, where I have a specific vitriol for good old "liberal" Sen. Tom Daschle. Trust me...it isn't as if I think the Democratic Party is really on my side; they're just the buffer between the knuckle draggers who lead the GOP, who, seemingly, have a fixation with sex acts with box turtles. I think the GOP needs a psychological examination. :coocoo: The Democrats just need to regrow their backbone; they haven't had one since 1968.

Melon
 
Last edited:
Both Sens. from PA did, but Sen. Santorum has already been taken care of, as anyone who is reads Savage Love on a regular basis knows. :lmao:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LuckyNumber7
Desert Island Mini - LP Island - Rules & Sign Up Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 1 Listening Thread
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
7K
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
N
Best Live Track Survivor - Intro, Rules & Discussion
Replies
1
Views
675
Hewson
Hewson
N
Barack Obama Appreciation & Farewell Thread
Replies
1
Views
586
the iron horse
the iron horse

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom