Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

@No Other Gods

Yes... Yes, in fact, I wanted to know what edition of the Bible you are reading. Thank you...

Thanks also for being an attentive and precise opponent in this debate.

My, that was unrewarding. I feel cheated.

/me drops out

 

@ Gnaff

What?! Because you religion says something it 'must' be that way?

I'm sorry but your whole last post just reeked of self righteous bigotry. Everything you said was pretty much saying that your religion is right, everyone should live your way and the state should uphold all religious dogma and everyone will be better off because of it. Now you are entitled to think like that and practice whatever religion you like in your own home - frankly I couldn't give a damn what you do in your own home. But telling people what they can and can not do in their own home is arrogant, rude and downright horrible.

Most homosexuals understand that the term 'marriage' means a union between a man and a woman. Gays only want the same rights as any other person irrespective of their sexual preference. What somebody does to another person who consents to it should not in any way impact on how they live their lives in every other way. Homosexuals want to be able to legally bond themselves to their partner, adopt children and that's pretty much it. They don't want everyone to become a homosexual, they NEVER try and do that. I've never heard of a single homosexual who tries to make somebody else become a homosexual. However I've heard of many a Christian who has tried to make somebody else become a Christian.

Let homosexuals have civil-unions and adopt children. Let them "sin", it is their choice. It doesn't affect you IN ANY WAY WHAT-SO-EVER. So why deny them their happiness?

 

I'm totally sick of this thread...its utterly pointless.

You just can't reason with people who are stuck 2000 years or more in the past. It's like you have to step back in time just to be on the same level as them.

Anyways, I hope someone can educate them and bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

 

I wonder if anyone on these boards has realised how unreligious New Zealanders are? I dare say all of us are against religion being a basis for any government bill or act apart from the acts protecting people's right to practice whatever religion they want provided they do not impede on anyone else's rights in the process.

However NOG and Gnaff seem to think that religion is a valid reason to impede on somebody else's rights.

To summarise...

Those who believe homosexuals should be allowed to have civil-unions and adopt children believe so because there is no reason other than religion that deems them non-deserving or being unworthy of the rights AND responsibilities associated with having a civil-union or adopting children.

Those who are against homosexuals having civil-unions and adopting children do so only because of a religious reason. They believe that homosexuals are non-deserving or are unworthy of the rights and responsibilities associated with being legally bound to the person they love and having to raise a child based purely on the fact that they are sexually attracted to somebody of the same gender.

In New Zealand homosexuals are allowed to have a civil-union and they're allowed to adopt or even can be granted custody of their biological children. The most amazing thing is that, in New Zealand, nobody cares. Nobody cares that they are doing that because IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM. People are different, it's a fact of life, live and let live. If homosexuality offends your moral sensibilities then simply DON'T go to the gay pride parades when they happen much like how I don't go to church or any religious festival.

 

heh its the same in Denmark Abomination and thank god for that

Civil Union between Homosexuals has been legal for a long time and last year i think it was, our rightwing conservative goverment (surprised me) passed a law granding Lesbians the right to get medical help to become pragnent or adopt children.

We are currently rewoking laws based only on religues dogmas here (we still have some smaller ones left, like its illigal to sell alchohol on sundays)

 

For the most part, European views are really awesome. I was suprised when I went to the Netherlands recently to visit my mother. Denmark is up there too with 'realistic' views on things too. My Danish cousins have told me about things and I really quite like it. Yay Europe!

 

Yeah, Europe seems so cool! Here in Canada, we're much more liberal than the US. Same-sex marriages are legal (a conservative goverment has been elected last time, but since that goverment is not a majority in parlement, they can't put their seats in jeopardy by changing the laws). Even in Québec, our next prime-minister might be gay (André Boisclair, the leader of the party that his ahead in the polls, is openly gay).

 

Soft spoken Christains? I can tell you that here in New Zealand, the Christain groups are much more loudly spoken than gay rights groups. Infact, off the top of my head, in the past few years the loudest two groups I can think of have infact been Christains. There's one group (perhaps cult would be a better word) up in Auckland who about a year back were very loud - big parades and everything. And then there were the exclusive breathern, who ever since the elections last year have been getting front page coverage more often than not, for the **** they're stirring up in politics.

Over all, I have had more pamphlets, newsletters and door knocking visits by religous groups than by all other groups combined. Which considering I go out of my way to get any political propaganda or advertising, it's quite a feat. Had a nice pamphlet pushed into my hand the other day, by some old man preeching on in the CBD, telling me how the end is near and that if I don't repent now I'll live an eternity of suffering and pain. A good sales point, I thought

 

Marriage is a Religious ordinance. The State has no right to usurp it. Based on that, Religion has every right to require certain standards of behaviour from those who receive it's ordinances. Marriage is a religious matter. If the state trumps it then Seperation of Church and State is not observed.

If the Gays can find some other way to get what they want without slandering this sacred ordinance, then they are free to do so.

So the State ought stay out of the home? Bye Bye domestic abuse laws...

We tell people what they should and should not do because it is divine commandment. Whether they obey or not is their decision and problem if they don't.

But what if some of these rights are mutually exclusive? Some religions (mine included) will excommunicate members who commit greivous sins without repenting. Basically, the right to be in the same Church as I am is mutually exclusive with actively being homosexual (meaning having sexual relations with one of the same gender). Does this mean that we have to ammend our doctrine to negate this situation?

You've never heard of a gay person hitting on a straight person of the same Gender?

But we do not do that by force. It is done by persuasion (which I suck at), and the power of the Spirit.

And you call today's standards progress? By reducing the socially expectations on people you free them to do what they want. Now we are no longer safe to share our religious beliefs without being called bigots. Man, in his own arrogance, seeks to tell others what is better in lieu of divine guidance. Look at who we elect as leaders and see if you agree?

In the absence of a consistantly accepted morality, a lack of morals flourishes. The more voices you hear trying to tell you what to believe, the less likely you are to believe any of them. We, the Religious, question the morals taught by those that would be given the highest duties--that of rearing children.

The more religion is ignored, the more they try to get their voices heard. Piss poor democracy where such groups are brushed aside if you ask me...

What is the real problem here anyway? My religion is also a minority, but we are perfectly happy forgoing the rights to drink alcohol, coffee and tea, use tobacco, have premarital, extramarital or homosexual sex, and a few other things that escape my mind right now. Why can't the Gay community accept that by their chosen lifestyle (and until you can prove that it is not a choice I hold that it is), they forego the right to marriage and adoption?

 

Now I have no evidence to back this up, but my common sense would suggest to me that the concept of marriage has probably been around much longer than organised religion.

 

Do you consider civil marriage slandering the sacred ordinance? I don't remember any gay couple fighting to be married in a church.

Your doctrine is God given. Our law is man given. That is why it's okay to ammend it.

They're not trying to "convert" the person, they just thought the person was gay. Kinda like hitting on a girl who has a boyfriend (and you don't know it) isn't trying to make her commit adultery. Honest mistake.

Reminds me of a movie quote (though I don't know the name of the movie) :
Woman : You have no values!
Man : Different values!

You have to be careful. You're mixing the two (no values, different values).

[ October 16, 2006, 03:05: Message edited by: Triactus ]

 

Actually this is debateable yet the state is giving it to you anyway. Homosexuals don't want you to change your beliefs to suit them, they understand that according to your religion they're sinning. Thing is most don't give a hoot. They just want to be able to lawfully link themselves to another in a bond of love. It's not marriage but it's pretty much the same damn thing.

Big difference. Homosexuality is consented to by both parties. Nobody is being harmed. Spousal abuse is, more often than not, not consented to by both parties. Somebody is being harmed. That's why it's illegal and why even non-religious people consider it immoral.

Well thank "God" that the homosexuals more often than not can't be excommunicated in the first place, they're not even a member of your church. They're not asking you to ammend your doctrine, they just want to be live their life without having to amend their way of living to suit your doctrine.

Gods above and below... I'm restraining myself from making a personal comment here... this idea is just so stupid. Hitting on somebody isn't "trying to convert" it's a display of attraction. If some male hits on you then you should consider it a compliment - I know I do. Sure, they not-so-secretly wish you were homosexual but then again we all know that you not-so-secretly wish that everyone on the planet followed your religion.

At least not anymore... no wait, what's that country called? Iraq right? Then there are also those wonderful missionary works I hear of "We'll give you this food... IF you start to believe in Jesus Christ, your Saviour and Lord."

Triactus hit this on the head talking about how different morals does not mean no morals. According to me there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, according to quite a few people there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I could be the most immoral person on the planet but guess what? I can still rear children and I can make it happen by being super-immoral: mass-fornication without contraceptives. Lo! the state DEMANDS I rear those children. What some people are forced into doing due to their immoral activities, homosexuals aren't even allowed to willingly do because of an immoral activity that isn't even linked to the child.

Because it isn't a choice for many (and until you can prove that God does exist and I hold that he isn't - just because I believe something doesn't make it fact) and even if it WAS a choice why should they forego the rights and responsibilities associted with raising children? Being homosexual doesn't suddenly put them in a state of mind where they are incapable or even less-capable of fulfilling the responsibilities associted with raising children. Immoral or not there are many a homosexual that would be far better at raising children than many heterosexuals I know of. I would dare say that on average homosexuals would be BETTER parents than heterosexuals.

 

Well, if you accept the Bible as historical record, the first humans were married by God. That makes Marriage a religious ordinance. That's why some of us fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

Civil marriage is a cheap knockoff of the religious ceremony. Is it fair that we ask that the word marriage be omitted?

When I hit on a woman (let's ignore for a moment that I suck at that too), I'm hoping to start a relationship with her. I do usually understand that the boyfriend will be a stopper on that, but it doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. Fortunately, my tendency to chicken out has saved me from sever such embarrassing situations where they were already married...

Different Values are sometimes a greater threat than none at all. when people think that what they are doing is right (even when it isn't), that perpetrates the wrongs in society.

Is it acceptable to demnad that they not use that word?

that's the beauty of don't ask, don't tell. we don't know their sins, then we don't need to make them our business. When they go public to seek our support, then we can't give it to them.

Yeah, those organizations don't get it. My church does just as much if not more humanitarian aid, but waits until after they've eaten before they start talking about the Church. Sure it's not as big a crowd, and even fewer commit, but the ones that stay tend to actually have some interest in what we have to save...

And that is on your head, mortally and spirituality.

So you would tell a pedophile that his actions are all right if he has no choice? Bollocks. All sexual behaviour is a choice, and one that ought to be made responsibly.

Bollocks again. To successfully raise children, it takes the gifts given to both man and woman. To deprive them of one causes harm. This harm is on the heads of those that do the depriving...

 

Hmmmm, yeah, well, I thought we weren't supposed to take that part of the story literally. Isn't that the part with the creative licence? Like how a day is actually a billion years. Surely we covered that already in another thread? That it's a bit of a stretch to think we could all be descended from only two people. Isn't it a given that there were people, and that there were male / female pair bonds long before there was such a thing as Christianity?

 

Arrogance. Your morals are not better than somebody else's morals. You'll be surprised how pissed off you can make people when you claim something like that. This is something you seriously need to realise, Gnaff. The world is not black and white although we all wish it was so.

It's just a word. It's commonly accepted that marriage means a bond between two people based on love. Civil-union is simply another way of saying marriage without saying marriage. It's a disgrace that another word has to be used because it offends when it pretty much means the exact same thing. But frankly I'll let the baby (religious groups that claim their religion 'invented' marriage ) have its bottle since arguing semantics doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Even if you did know their sins you don't need to go make them your business. Ignore them since they aren't affecting you directly in any way. Let them live in sin, heckling will get you nowhere, will just earn you enemies and people will view your religion as a group of people who can't keep their godsbedamned opinions to themselves. Stop telling others how to live because they sure as hell aren't telling you how to live.

 

What Abomination said.

 

if you accept historical fact, you would know romans, greeks, celts and so on had Marriages why before christianity and jewidism. same goes for egypts, babilons and basically the whole world.
Most religions or states have had and has some way of making a bond between two people seem closer through a cermony, so historically Marriages is not invented by christianity.

you need to learn the difference between a state law and a private organisations law.
A state law should be equal for all, since it affects all who live in that state/country.
A private organisations law can, as long as it not harm anybody, can be as unequal as it wants to. And since we at least in Denmark have the seperation of church and state, church law, is not state law. it is a law you can only enforce on yourself.
So if the private organasation, the christian church, wont perform marriages on gay people, they are in their right to do that, but they can not enforce it, when it is the state that performs the marriage.
(in Denmark, we dont have different words for christian marriages, state marriages, muslim marriages and so on, its all a marriage).
Same as the muslim can forbid them self to eat meat not slaughtered the Halah way and so on, but they cant enforce it on people who aint part of the Muslim faith.
Again the keyword is Seperation of state and church.

Becouse this is a law based on one religion in a world of 1000 of religions and just as many who aint relegius at all.
The general problem I see here, is that Gnarff, you want to enforce your religions Dogmas on everybody, even does who arent part of it, which you yourself says is the majority (given that you say your religion is a minority). If you life in a country that has separasation of church and state, that goes directly against that law.
I my Country, no law can be passed on the basis of a religeus dogma.
If you on the other hand could prove outside godly commands, that Homosexuality was harmfull, then yes a law againts it could be passed, problem is, most scientist today say there is nothing worng with Homosexuality, it is in fact natural and dosn't harm anybody.
Besides, growing up with two females or two males, dosn't differ much from having separated parrents.

 

Hell, I know a girl that was brough up by a lesbian couple, and she's more well-adjusted than me.

 

Just thought I might post this in case anyone wants to use the 'it's not natural!!!111' arguement...

http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/13/animal_exhibition/

[ October 16, 2006, 13:46: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

Actually Leviticus 18 is headed up exactly the same as the others:

1: And the LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, I am the LORD your God.

This clearly therefore only applies to the people of Israel too.

I see that Canada take their Asparagus growing quite seriously, but clearly this has nothing to do with the argument I made, which is that the Old Testament rules and laws are clearly out of date as they were written for a very different time and place.