Spain Unveils Controversial Gay Marriage Law

[BrownEyedBoy]

It was a due generalization. I would imagine that an overwhelming majoirty of people here are in fact Christians? Might be a jew or two here, an Islamic person there. And Christian moral code teaches very firmly that homosexuality is wrong. It is made very clear. Just like I personally believe it's wrong. It's not fear out of misunderstanding or ignorance as you state, rather a personal belief. Someone can dissaprove of something without it necassarily fearing it or having a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. If you believe that homosexuality is fine, that it is perfectly natural, then that's fine. I however, beg to differ.

I was simply trying to explain what I believe you have misunderstood for a quite a while.

It does have something to do because I do reject homosexuality, I do think it's wrong. But I also find it wrong to close the church doors (or my friendship) to a homosexual. His sin is no worse than mine, whether it is a lie or a theft; the Lord sees them all the same.

That's why it makes sense. That's what I try to explain but you cross it off as me simply regurgitating what you think you've heard for years (when really it's a watered down version of it).

Now, how can you say that you disagree with everything the "church" says?

 

[namkcuR]

About pedaphelia...

look, I cringe every time I ever hear anyone call sex with a minor 'rape'. I know that is the legal term they use for it, but it IS NOT RAPE if it was consentual. Rape is when you force someone unwillingly into it. And please let's not kid ourselves, in this day and age, ANY kid over eleven years of age knows what sex is and knows whether or not they should/want to engage in it. Am I saying I support adults who engage in sexual relations with children? No. But I am saying I think to call it rape if it was consentual is ridiculous.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

You didn't read closely enough. I said that being gay, in and of it itself, causes no harm. Again, that doesn't mean that issues related to homosexuality can't be harmful--it just means that gayness, all by itself, is not a reason to panic.

well, then you did not look closely enough at my analogy then. you said that there could be instances where running a stoplight could hurt someone. but i argued that running the stoplight in and of itself caused no harm, yet it would still be wrong for all people to run the stoplight if they felt so inclined.

someone else commented that "my argument" meant that any tupe of sex would be wrong, even heterosexual sex. this was not my argument. my argument was simply that some things are simply wrong even if no one else is hurt by said action. to me homosexual sex is one of those actions that is simply wrong. for myself, there are not two ways about it.

i am also appalled at the level of hypocrisy that occurs among supposedly liberal, open-minded people. you base your whole argument on the fact that these people's actions hurt no one else, and therefore they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and no one should persecute them for their choice. then, in the same breath, you turn around and are intolerant of my beliefs. does my being a Christian affect you in any way? does it hurt you? do my views on the morality of the choice to have homosexual sex hurt you? have the nature of my beliefs ever influenced your life in anyway whatsoever? i believe the answer to all of these questions is no. and if so, i should be able to hold whatever belief i want without being called hateful names by you.

you say that Christian push there beliefs on others and want others to live up to their standards of morality. guess what guys? i find that the atheists in support of homosexual sex are constantly trying to convert me to there way of thinking (that homosexual sex is okay) and expect me to live down to your standards of morality. before you pull the splinter out ouf my eye, make sure you get the 2x4 out of yours.

 

[indra]

well, then you did not look closely enough at my analogy then. you said that there could be instances where running a stoplight could hurt someone. but i argued that running the stoplight in and of itself caused no harm, yet it would still be wrong for all people to run the stoplight if they felt so inclined.

someone else commented that "my argument" meant that any tupe of sex would be wrong, even heterosexual sex. this was not my argument. my argument was simply that some things are simply wrong even if no one else is hurt by said action. to me homosexual sex is one of those actions that is simply wrong. for myself, there are not two ways about it.

i am also appalled at the level of hypocrisy that occurs among supposedly liberal, open-minded people. you base your whole argument on the fact that these people's actions hurt no one else, and therefore they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and no one should persecute them for their choice. then, in the same breath, you turn around and are intolerant of my beliefs. does my being a Christian affect you in any way? does it hurt you? do my views on the morality of the choice to have homosexual sex hurt you? have the nature of my beliefs ever influenced your life in anyway whatsoever? i believe the answer to all of these questions is no. and if so, i should be able to hold whatever belief i want without being called hateful names by you.

you say that Christian push there beliefs on others and want others to live up to their standards of morality. guess what guys? i find that the atheists in support of homosexual sex are constantly trying to convert me to there way of thinking (that homosexual sex is okay) and expect me to live down to your standards of morality. before you pull the splinter out ouf my eye, make sure you get the 2x4 out of yours.

You can believe whatever you chose to believe. But what we are talking about is Spain allowing gays to marry, divorce, and adopt children the same as heterosexual couples. You can believe this is wrong and that is perfectly fine with me. Where we have a problem is if you want to deny others those rights. There are many heterosexual marriages I find completely offensive, but it is not my place to disallow consenting adults from doing what they wish. If you are merely stating that you personally find homosexuality to be morally wrong, but do not oppose the right of homosexuals to marry (each other), divorce, and adopt children, then I apologise for believing that you wish to deny them that right.

Umm...and not only athiests suppost gay rights, many very good Christian (and people of other religions too) people do also.

 

[pax]

No one is arguing that you can't believe as you wish. You are perfectly free to think such things are wrong.

 

[pax]

And, BTW, it's not just atheists who are okay with homosexuality. Plenty of persons of faith accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships, as well.

 

[indra]

expect me to live down to your standards of morality.

Live down to my standards of morality? Ha! You aren't morally superior to me you are merely morally different.

I'm sorry but I really do not understand how the manner in which consenting adults have sex concerns anyone else.

 

[indra]

Let's say I want to walk around naked, it's part of my nature, but it will offend people as people find it immoral. Just like I find homosexuality immoral.

Love, if you wish to walk around naked, I wouldn't find that offensive -- amusing, yes, but certainly not offensive! In fact, it might be fun. Yep, I can just imagine it now...we could all rate your attributes, hey, I'm kinda enjoying this!

As far as the rest of your post... You can think whatever you want. My issue with you comes when you advocate denying other people the rights you take for granted. Spain is open enough to realize that homosexuals are, when it comes right down to it, people. Once you look beyond their sexual preference, they look, feel, and are exactly like anyone else.

 

[Doozer61]

i rarely post in FYM and i am sitting here feeling my blood pressure rise while i SCAN through the previous 9 pages. this thread began as a toast to Spain for allowing EQUAL RIGHTS to people. EQUAL RIGHTS! And as usual, any mention of the word GAY immediately turns sexual, and it turns to pedophilia and it turns to how we CONVERT straight people by our mere existance.

Ignorance begets ignorance and until you have walked in my shoes, you will never know what it is like to be gay.

I applaud Spain for their courage and only wish that the US had the balls to do the same.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

k, let me explain my position on why homosexuality is wrong. i am a Christian (i know the mention of this word upsets people), and therefore have some very distinct views on issues. the fact is, is homosexuality is a sin. but, in God's eyes, all sins carry an equal weight. that is to say, someone having homosexual sex, in my mind is no worse a sin than my own sins (and believe me, not a minute goes by where i am not comitting a sin of one form or another). i believe that all people sin, and therefore all deserve eternal punnishment as a result. the only that saves someone from this punnishment is the salvation of Christ. this salvation is freely given to all, yet we have a chance to deny it. we deny it by failing to repent for our sins. by denying Christ, we're saying that we would rather stand alone before God (or that a judgement is never coming anyway, because God does not exist, so it doesn't matter anyway). if one does this, then that's exactly what happens, they are forced to stand before God and be held accountable for their sins. however, if a person does not deny Christ, and repents of his/her sins, then Christ will defend them on judgement day, and the will be found innocent through Christ.

so...if homosexual sex is a sin (which it is, the only acceptable sex as defined by the Bible, is sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marraige), then the person commiting the act is in need of forgiveness. yet, if the person has no knowledge that this act is wrong, why would they ask for forgiveness? this is the problem with legalizing homosexuality, it openly states that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and thus removes the need to repent of the sin, which in turn becomes the government preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

i also find it odd that people would argue that someone in a homosexual relationship would argue that they deserve a governmental protection to do so. is there a law that prevents these people from having homosexual sex? no. is there a law that prevents them from living together? no. someone please explain to me what protections "being married" affords to these people that they do not already enjoy.

plus, i hear many people arguing that marraige is an outdated, archaic, institution, that is mostly religiously based, and no longer holds relevance today. if this is the case, why would such progressive minded people like yourselves want to allign yourself with an institution that you find so abhorrent to begin with.

and as to the issue of whether or not someone who believes homosexual sex is morally wrong hates gay people or not--i believe you have your definitions confused. i do not harbor fear or hatred towards gays, i simply have an aversion to their behavior. there is a difference.

i would also ask this question-when you argue for these people's "freedom to do what they want" are you arguing that they have a right to happiness?

 

[indra]

k, let me explain my position on why homosexuality is wrong. i am a Christian (i know the mention of this word upsets people), and therefore have some very distinct views on issues. the fact is, is homosexuality is a sin. but, in God's eyes, all sins carry an equal weight. that is to say, someone having homosexual sex, in my mind is no worse a sin than my own sins (and believe me, not a minute goes by where i am not comitting a sin of one form or another). i believe that all people sin, and therefore all deserve eternal punnishment as a result. the only that saves someone from this punnishment is the salvation of Christ. this salvation is freely given to all, yet we have a chance to deny it. we deny it by failing to repent for our sins. by denying Christ, we're saying that we would rather stand alone before God (or that a judgement is never coming anyway, because God does not exist, so it doesn't matter anyway). if one does this, then that's exactly what happens, they are forced to stand before God and be held accountable for their sins. however, if a person does not deny Christ, and repents of his/her sins, then Christ will defend them on judgement day, and the will be found innocent through Christ.

so...if homosexual sex is a sin (which it is, the only acceptable sex as defined by the Bible, is sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marraige), then the person commiting the act is in need of forgiveness. yet, if the person has no knowledge that this act is wrong, why would they ask for forgiveness? this is the problem with legalizing homosexuality, it openly states that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and thus removes the need to repent of the sin, which in turn becomes the government preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

i also find it odd that people would argue that someone in a homosexual relationship would argue that they deserve a governmental protection to do so. is there a law that prevents these people from having homosexual sex? no. is there a law that prevents them from living together? no. someone please explain to me what protections "being married" affords to these people that they do not already enjoy.

plus, i hear many people arguing that marraige is an outdated, archaic, institution, that is mostly religiously based, and no longer holds relevance today. if this is the case, why would such progressive minded people like yourselves want to allign yourself with an institution that you find so abhorrent to begin with.

and as to the issue of whether or not someone who believes homosexual sex is morally wrong hates gay people or not--i believe you have your definitions confused. i do not harbor fear or hatred towards gays, i simply have an aversion to their behavior. there is a difference.

i would also ask this question-when you argue for these people's "freedom to do what they want" are you arguing that they have a right to happiness?

I'm pretty sure this law, and all laws allowing marriages or official civil unions between homosexuals are civil in nature, not religious. I do not believe that religious belief should enter into whether on not a civil government should deny the right to marry, divorce, or adopt children to anyone. Not everyone believes in sin. If you that is fine, but why should someone who does not be bound by your belief? No one is saying that these marriages must be recognised by any church or religious organisation.

As to are there laws against homosexual sex...umm, yeah there are, although they are now being struck down. Please note that in several states the laws have also prohibited various types of sexual acts between consenting adult heterosexuals. Perhaps you should read the following:

Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected. (Full story)

Laws that might be most vulnerable would be ones that govern fornication and adultery, said Diana Hassel, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University.

And while Hassel said "only a handful" of states remain still have such laws, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed.

Hassel said the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it."

Case stemmed from mistaken arrest
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed in full with Kennedy's opinion.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the final outcome of the case, but did not join the court in reversing the high court's 1986 decision in the similar Georgia case Bowers v. Hardwick.

Religious conservatives quickly criticized the decision, and in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas -- said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." (The dissent)

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means," Scalia wrote.

But with Thursday's decision, he wrote, the court was "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

Thursday's ruling stemmed from the 1998 arrest of two Houston men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, under a 28-year-old Texas law making same-sex intercourse a crime. The court found that law and others like it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

"This is giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals and where that is no longer accepted by the most powerful court in the country," said Ruth Harlow, of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, who represented the two men.

Lawrence told reporters Thursday that he and Garner were happy with the outcome, but "never chose to be public figures or to take on this fight."

"Not only does this ruling let us get on with our lives, but it opens the door for gay people all over the country to be treated equally," he said.

Court reversed 1986 ruling
The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an anti-sodomy law similar to the Texas law in Bowers v. Hardwick. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists. Justice Kennedy concluded that decision "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," Kennedy wrote.

Harlow said striking down the Bowers decision could lead to other decisions favorable to gays in family law and employment discrimination cases.

Robert Knight, a spokesman for the conservative Culture and Family Institute, said Thursday's ruling would have "very real consequences."

Knight warned that it would undermine the legal foundation of marriage, lead to more deaths among gay men from sexually transmitted diseases and lead to schoolchildren being taught "that homosexual sodomy is the same as marital sex."

"This is social engineering by a court. It will have very bad effects on the idea of our republican form of government," Knight said. "If a government like Texas cannot legislate on public health, safety and morals, what can it legislate about?"

And the Rev. Rob Schenck, co-founder of the National Clergy Council, called it "a lamentable outcome."

The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102.

The protections of being married pertain to the division of property, rights of inheritence, the custody of children, even to whether or not one may visit a gay partner in the hospital or help to make any medical decisions for said partner. For instance, say a same sex couple have been together for 40 years and one of them is severely injured in an accident and is unable to communicate his or her wishes about treatment. Legally, without a marriage this couple, even though together for 40 years, are not considered related. Therefore the partner who is not injured has NO say in the other's treatment, and also cannot even visit if that person is in intensive care. The parents, siblings, or children of the injured party have more say in the treatment (or lack of treatment) even if they have had no part in his or her life for decades.


As for marriage as an institution...well, I don't plan to even marry, but I don't deny other people the right to get married if they so choose.

 

[BostonAnne]

I just have to pop in to say that I am Christian also - and we are taught to be tolerant of all. Jesus loves all - with no exceptions. Homosexuality is not a sin in my Christian world.

No them, only us..

 

[bonosloveslave]

I just have to pop in to say that I am Christian also - and we are taught to be tolerant of all.

Jesus did not 'tolerate' everyone and everything. He did not tolerate the money changers, the Pharisees, the prostitutes - I do not doubt that he loved them as people, but he also said to 'go and sin no more'.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

I just have to pop in to say that I am Christian also - and we are taught to be tolerant of all. Jesus loves all - with no exceptions. Homosexuality is not a sin in my Christian world.

No them, only us..

okay, first off, if you are truly a Christian, then you know that this is not your world. you don't make the rules. you don't decide what is a sin and what isn't. this is not your Christian world. This is God's world. and God gives us the rules for living in His world in the bible.

so let's see what the Bible has to say on the issue of tolerance...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 5:17-19

so, what does the Law that Christ says that we still have to follow say?

"do not commit adultery" -exodus 20:14 (adultery is used to define any sexual act outside of the bounds of marriage)

so the Bible says that homosexual sex is wrong, along with any heterosexual sex outside of marraige.

throughout the gospels, Jesus also references Sodom and Gomorrah as places of immorality that received a just punnishment. (Mt. 10:15, Mt. 11:23, Lk 17:29 for example)

second of all...Christ does indeed love us all. but he is not tolerant in the least. Christ may have spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes, but He did not leave them as they were. when He saved the immoral woman from stoning, He told her that she was saved, and to sin no more! Christ does not accept us as we are. He breaks us free from the shackles of sin so that we may live according to His will.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

marriage /marij/n. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
-reader's digest oxford complete wordfinder 1996

this appeats to be a clear and objective definition of the word, or is the oxford university press homophobic as well?

 

[anitram]

This is God's world. and God gives us the rules for living in His world in the bible.

Are you aware of the fact that the VAST majority of Christians are Catholics (roughly 1 billion) and that they do not believe the Bible to be the final authority? Nor do the Eastern Rite Christians. About 400 million Protestants believe it, and 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Eastern Rite Christians do not. So when you make a statement like you just did, you are actually referring to the belief of a minority of Christian sects and denominations.

 

[indra]

marriage /marij/n. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
-reader's digest oxford complete wordfinder 1996

this appeats to be a clear and objective definition of the word, or is the oxford university press homophobic as well?

If you notice the definitions and even the words in dictionaries change over time. Meanings do not remain static in a living language, and english is a living language.

As to the religious references you give...I am not discussing religious marriage, but civil (and I know you weren't directly responding to me). Churches and other religious organizations can do what they wish in regard to what they consider to be a valid marriage in their view. But this is not a religious law, it has to cover all people, not just those who are religious.

Besides, who are you to determine who is "truly a Christian" and who isn't? Do you have a direct line to God these days?

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

yes, as a matter of fact, God has given humanity "a direct line" to Himself, it is the Bible. and as for those groups who no longer accept the Bible to be the final authority: 1. they are Christian in name only. 2. what is is the "final authority" if it is not the word of God?

indra, don't believe me to be so base as to believe that homosexuals should be outcast from society. they are people (sinful people) just like myself. it is not my job to judge them. i am not however, going to tolerate immorality, and when the question arises i am not afraid to state that i believe homosexuality is wrong.

that being said, i can say that i would support some kind of manner for the transfer of wealth/power of attorney thing that you say is the main problem with gays not being able to marry. if they want to be able to have control over there financial lives, and let there partner have a stake in it as well, fantastic. but why call it marriage? i think a civil-union would be able to accomplish these purposes rather nicely. if they insist on it being called marriage, i have to believe there are some motives for that beyond the ones that you laid out.

 

[-macphisto-]

Are you aware of the fact that the VAST majority of Christians are Catholics (roughly 1 billion) and that they do not believe the Bible to be the final authority? Nor do the Eastern Rite Christians. About 400 million Protestants believe it, and 1 billion Catholics and 300 million Eastern Rite Christians do not. So when you make a statement like you just did, you are actually referring to the belief of a minority of Christian sects and denominations.

Where the heck do you get those statistics? If your going to say something like that please tell us(me) your resources.

Very interesting topic, very controversial also. I personally believe the bible and try to live it's teachings. I am not racial, or prejudice in any way. But I have my own ideas and thoughts on this issue that comes from the bible that I believe is the word of god as long as it is translated correctly. I use the King James version of the bible since it has been translated the least of the bibles, and isnt translated to suit the beliefs of a religion alone.

If any of you do believe in the bible, here are some refrences where I stand on this-
Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13
Romans 1:27
1 Cor. 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Jude 1:7
If you are interested have a look, I will not post the scriptures to not offend anyone.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Just to clarify my stance on this once and for all: I do not give a flying f**k what the Bible says about homosexuality. I am not a Christian and the Bible's view on this is therefore completely irrelevant to me and should be to our lawmakers as well as they are not here to create laws for the masses based on the Bible or any religious text. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin then I suggest that you do not engage in homosexual activities but do not try to impose your religous beliefs on other people. It's really quite simple actually.

 

[Se7en]

Jesus did not 'tolerate' everyone and everything. He did not tolerate the money changers, the Pharisees, the prostitutes - I do not doubt that he loved them as people, but he also said to 'go and sin no more'.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors and prostitutes. To my knowledge he never spoke once on homosexuality...not a word. I do remember him saying that the greatest commandments were to love the lord god and to love your neighbor as yourself.

anyway, i think the issue is not with the dictionary definition of marriage. the real issue here is with the economic benefits that the state attributes to a marriage.

i think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.

 

[indra]

anyway, i think the issue is not with the dictionary definition of marriage. the real issue here is with the economic benefits that the state attributes to a marriage.

i think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.

I agree with this, as long as it applies to all couples (and I really think it should).

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think if the state ONLY gave out civil union certificates that qualified couples for economic benefits and left this marriage business up to the religous community to deal with as they wish in their own places of worship we would avoid some of these problems.

Do you mean only giving out civil union certificates to both gay and straight couples? If so, I agree. But allowing straight couples to marry while only granting civil unions to gay couples would be the 'separate but equal' philosophy which has never worked. It's the same as 'we'll let you on the bus but you have to sit in the back.'

 

[Se7en]

Do you mean only giving out civil union certificates to both gay and straight couples? If so, I agree. But allowing straight couples to marry while only granting civil unions to gay couples would be the 'separate but equal' philosophy which has never worked. It's the same as 'we'll let you on the bus but you have to sit in the back.'

do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.

 

[BAW]

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin then I suggest that you do not engage in homosexual activities but do not try to impose your religous beliefs on other people. It's really quite simple actually.

That about sums it up for me too.

 

[DaveC]

I've been attempting to stay out of this for the most part so far, but I can't resist now.

Let it be known before I begin where I stand on this issue. I am 18 years old, I am an agnostic, and I fully support gay marriage. I am straight and have a steady girlfriend.

I'm gonna go back and pick apart a few of the things I found particularly of note:

indra, don't believe me to be so base as to believe that homosexuals should be outcast from society. they are people (sinful people) just like myself. it is not my job to judge them.

And yet, you're doing exactly that...

i am not however, going to tolerate immorality, and when the question arises i am not afraid to state that i believe homosexuality is wrong.

that being said, i can say that i would support some kind of manner for the transfer of wealth/power of attorney thing that you say is the main problem with gays not being able to marry. if they want to be able to have control over there financial lives, and let there partner have a stake in it as well, fantastic. but why call it marriage? i think a civil-union would be able to accomplish these purposes rather nicely. if they insist on it being called marriage, i have to believe there are some motives for that beyond the ones that you laid out.

What motives? Do you think that gays who want to get married secretly hate the institution of straight marriage and want to destroy it from the inside? Or could the underlying motive be (gasp) equality?

marriage /marij/n. the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
-reader's digest oxford complete wordfinder 1996

this appeats to be a clear and objective definition of the word, or is the oxford university press homophobic as well?

1996. That definition was written at LEAST 8 years ago. How many places on Earth had legalised same-sex marriage 8 years ago? I don't think (although I could be wrong) that there was even one. So there goes that argument.

okay, first off, if you are truly a Christian, then you know that this is not your world. you don't make the rules. you don't decide what is a sin and what isn't. this is not your Christian world. This is God's world. and God gives us the rules for living in His world in the bible.

And that is your opinion, not hard fact, so don't present it that way.

so let's see what the Bible has to say on the issue of tolerance...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
-Matthew 5:17-19

so, what does the Law that Christ says that we still have to follow say?

"do not commit adultery" -exodus 20:14 (adultery is used to define any sexual act outside of the bounds of marriage)

so the Bible says that homosexual sex is wrong, along with any heterosexual sex outside of marraige.

throughout the gospels, Jesus also references Sodom and Gomorrah as places of immorality that received a just punnishment. (Mt. 10:15, Mt. 11:23, Lk 17:29 for example)

You have to realize that the vast majority of folks in support of same-sex marriage are not Christians. Therefore the Bible has no (or extremely little) moral sway over us and we have a hard time listening to Bible quotes as argument, based as they are on something intangible (God). Heck, historians can't even use the Bible as a decent primary source because there is very very little that can be proven in the Bible. And that that can be proven are historical events cross-referenced in other areas (the Babylonian exile, for example). So the Bible is a pretty shabby spot (based on a logical view) to be pulling arguments from.

second of all...Christ does indeed love us all. but he is not tolerant in the least.

I would say the majority of Christians would disagree with that statement (the "not tolerant" part).

k, let me explain my position on why homosexuality is wrong. i am a Christian (i know the mention of this word upsets people), and therefore have some very distinct views on issues. the fact is, is homosexuality is a sin. but, in God's eyes, all sins carry an equal weight. that is to say, someone having homosexual sex, in my mind is no worse a sin than my own sins (and believe me, not a minute goes by where i am not comitting a sin of one form or another).

You have just defeated your own argument. You say that someone having homosexual sex is no worse than any sin you commit. So therefore you just effectively have placed yourself on an equal plane as homosexuals and, by default, you have no justification for arguing against homosexuality.

i believe that all people sin, and therefore all deserve eternal punnishment as a result. the only that saves someone from this punnishment is the salvation of Christ. this salvation is freely given to all, yet we have a chance to deny it. we deny it by failing to repent for our sins. by denying Christ, we're saying that we would rather stand alone before God (or that a judgement is never coming anyway, because God does not exist, so it doesn't matter anyway). if one does this, then that's exactly what happens, they are forced to stand before God and be held accountable for their sins. however, if a person does not deny Christ, and repents of his/her sins, then Christ will defend them on judgement day, and the will be found innocent through Christ.

Well-stated on your beliefs.

so...if homosexual sex is a sin (which it is, the only acceptable sex as defined by the Bible, is sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marraige)

Opinion. Don't present it as fact.

then the person commiting the act is in need of forgiveness. yet, if the person has no knowledge that this act is wrong, why would they ask for forgiveness? this is the problem with legalizing homosexuality, it openly states that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and thus removes the need to repent of the sin, which in turn becomes the government preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Now this one is a bit of a stretch. Saying that the government is "preventing people from entering the Kingdom of Heaven" by legalising same-sex marriage is a BIG logic jump. The government, by legalising same-sex marriage, is not preventing anything. By saying that an act of government "removes the need to repent of the sin" says that they church and Christianity as a whole is effectively impotent in keeping and getting new believers, and that the numbers within the church are directly related to acts of government, passing legislation on key issues the church agrees/disagrees with. You are in effect lumping together church and state. But that's a whole other can of worms.

i also find it odd that people would argue that someone in a homosexual relationship would argue that they deserve a governmental protection to do so.

It's not about "protection". It's about rights of marriage that are in statute law, in regards to relation with the spouse (child custody, divorce laws, visitation, financial laws, etc.). Someone already went into detail about this so I won't ramble about that.

is there a law that prevents these people from having homosexual sex? no.

Ever hear of sodomy laws?

is there a law that prevents them from living together? no.

Of course not. There are no laws that would prevent Michael Jackson from living with Hitler, Idi Amin, and Attila the Hun if he so wished. But that's all tenancy laws. You can choose a roommate, or live-in boyfriend/girlfriend, if you so wish.

plus, i hear many people arguing that marraige is an outdated, archaic, institution, that is mostly religiously based, and no longer holds relevance today. if this is the case, why would such progressive minded people like yourselves want to allign yourself with an institution that you find so abhorrent to begin with.

I don't believe that marriage is outdated or anything. But I can see why someone who does could still argue for same-sex marriage. Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." People don't have to believe in the institution of marriage for themselves to argue for equal rights among those who do.

and as to the issue of whether or not someone who believes homosexual sex is morally wrong hates gay people or not--i believe you have your definitions confused. i do not harbor fear or hatred towards gays, i simply have an aversion to their behavior. there is a difference.

You're right, there is a difference. I haven't really seen anything you've said whereby I'd say you're homophobic.

AussieU2fanman, on the other hand, has said some VERY homophobic things.

i would also ask this question-when you argue for these people's "freedom to do what they want" are you arguing that they have a right to happiness?

Are you saying that homosexuals don't have a right to be happy?

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I'm not picking you apart personally, shrmn8r...it's just that you've been posting more recently and I really don't want to go back through 9 pages of posts for Aussie's. I also want to make it clear that I'm not bashing Christianity in any way, shape, or form with this post. People have a right to believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe in Christianity, Atheism, Zoroastrianism, or even that pink aliens come down nightly and play rock shows in bars in Kuala Lumpur and should be worshipped, well then that's your prerogative and it's not my business to tell you what you should and shouldn't believe. I just want to let you know that I am not trying to come off as anti-Christianity in any of my arguments above.

I highly encourage anyone to go ahead and try and refute some of my points, I love a good debate.

 

[indra]

do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.

Clears it up nicely for me, and I agree. Civil unions for the secular world and marriages for religious purposes. There! Problem solved!

 

[AussieU2fanman]

AussieU2fanman, on the other hand, has said some VERY homophobic things.

Back that up or don't say it. Once again people are confusing homophobia with personal beliefs about why it's immoral......
This hasn't happened before

 

[A_Wanderer]

What the hell do you mean confusing homophobia and personal belief, homophobia is a personal belief.

If I believed that all black people were pimps and crackheads would I not be a racist?

Exactly the same principle, you have made some sweeping accusations about Gays attempting to convert heterosexual individuals and their lives being totally immoral and yet you turn around and tell us that it is belief, nothing more. There is a big hole in that logic train.

 

[joyfulgirl]

do you see that i would want the state to have nothing to do with "marriage?" all couples would be equal in the eyes of the state, gay or straight. religion can do it's own marriage thing if people are still into the traditional side of things. is that any clearer? religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.

Yes, very clear and I agree wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by Se7en
religion has always operated on the separate but equal/wrong premise. that's nothing new.

True. I was speaking about the state doing that.