Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

So discriminating against a minority is living to a "higher standard of morality"? I suppose those you crush under your heel on the path to Heaven are of no consequence.

And, technically, Equester's got a point. Discrimination is illegal, yet it is taught in certain religions. If they're going to stop Islamic extremists from preaching about the Evils of America in the streets, they'd best pay some attention to the Christian vicar who tells peole about the "sin" of homosexuality and how they'll all burn in the lake of sulphur.

 

gnarff what you seem to want is the christian church to be the deciding what to call marrige and what is 2ONLY2 civil union, sorry but the word marrige aint a christian only word, all forms of bindings no mather what religion are called marrige, and so are unions with no religion involved. hell the word existed before christianity.

Secondly, i dont mind religion, but anything that teaches discremination should be forbidden, just because the discreminators hide behind the word "god" dosn't make it right.

or is it okay for islamist to attack non-muslims? because clearly thier religion teaches so

is it okay for the Kuklux klan to discreminate and kill black people, after all they justefy it through the bible.

weather or not the christian church marries gay people, is up to the church, but there is no way the christian church should decide anything outside the church.
and any christian organisation that advocates discreamination, should be forbiddin equally to any other organisation that advocates discreamination.

 

Or the Gay Rights activist that paints them as "victims" of a mental or genetic defect (I have no choice crap)? Or the guy that wants religion banned because they don't like being told what to do?

No, I want some consistancy on the definition of Church and State. Gay Rights is a state problem. Let them solve it without dragging religion into this.

That's freedom of religion.

Only due to cognitive laziness. But since Homosexuality is forbidden, religion reserves the right to refuse to recognize same sex unions.

This contradicts doctrine. In Genesis, God married the first humans (Adam and Eve). By this, we do have some claim.

Would you ban yourself too? We simply refuse to legitimize something considered a grievous sin. Anyone using words with emotive connotations (like discrimination, bigotry) is promoting the same hatred they accuse us of spreading. Does this mean that some anti-religious groups ought to be forbidden too? How long before, out of spite, freedom of speech would be outlawed?

I want a clearer definition of infidel before I answer that one. If it is simply Non-believer, then no, this is not justified. If this applies to those directly trying to prevent or disrupt their worship through violent means, then I'll grant them some sympathy. I don't know enough of Islam to comment.

No, but then again, they have missed important parts of the Bible. Like where it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Thou Shalt Love thy neighbour as thou lovest thyself".

Hence the Seperation of Church and State. We want it specified that such unions are of the state, and not sanctioned by the church. Hence the term Civil Union instead of Marriage. I figure that some heterosexual aetheist couples, if they accepted this logic, might wish a civil union as opposed to marriage for just that reason.

Congress discriminates against the unelected. This is blatantly unfair to those taht weren't fortunate enough to get elected. Does this mean that Congress should be outlawed?

A little more serious, though. We have specific beliefs that are very close to the hearts of the faithful, and certain commandments that we have agreed to obey. We don't want those things we consider sacred to be given to those that break these commandments. We feel that our marriages are sanctified by our selection of a mate of the opposite gender, making certain covenents (and contracts to satisfy the state and the framework that they put in place to accommodate us), and abiding these covenents. The part about a person of opposite gender is very important to us...

 

I'm sorry, Gnaff, but it has been proven beyond all doubt that Genesis is a load of hooie. I dare say everything pre-dating Moses is more fantasy than reality and even Moses is difficult to believe.

 

Nope. Even if it were true, you have zero claim to a word. I can call myself a Mormon (or whatever religion) on resume or anything else, and you don't have a right to prevent me from doing so. And if you don't even have rights over the name of your own specific religion, how can you possibly have rights over a term shared by so many religions (AND the State) already?

Wrong again. Anyone remember "separate but equal"? Not allowing it to be called a certain term makes it inherently worse; it's discrimination.

Now don't get me wrong, I support the civil union* idea, but only because there needs to be a compromise. The gays need the legal rights, and TBH we really just can't go against the religious right because they're too big a force. So a compromise, as inequal as it is, is better than the current level of discrimination. And then they can work on that "slippery slope" that you guys are always wailing and gnashing your teeth about.

*Someone wanting to get "married" should have to get BOTH a marriage and a civil union. Otherwise marriage is "Civil Union Plus", and you're still discriminating. In spoken use, it would probably be assumed as you laid out (since if you're going to get married, why not get the legal perks?), but there has to be a clear delineation that gives the religious ceremony absolutely NO legal standing. I'd say a little more red tape is a cheap price to pay to keep the sanctity of your sacred institution.

 

Sounds like a dangerous topic, in my experiences some praticular topics such as these should not be discussed over the internet except in a more formal enviorment, a fan forum is not a good example of that. But you guys seem to be arguing just fine without all the flaming and such that plagues so many other boards on the net...

 

Gnarf, try putting yourself in another person's shoes. Assuming you are attracted to females (unless this whole thing is just a cover-up, of course ), imagine that everyone else is attracted to men, and only you are attracted to females, which is forbidden by the Bible, of course. Now pretend that you must follow the orders of this "book that knows all," and suddenly BECOME ATTRACTED TO MEN instantaneously, simply because "the Bible forbids otherwise." Would you do it? Would you suddenly change sexual chemistry on faith? Would you love someone you weren't attracted to, on faith? Because that's exactly what you're asking, and something tells me that after the cards have been dealt, you would have trouble practicing what you preached, so to speak.

 

wake up and smell reallity. the bible wasn't written in english, so the word marrigge wasn't used. Secondly, the majority of the world religius or not, dosn't evem take this for a fact.
The genesis has been proven over and over again to be full of BS.
thirdly you seem to think your church grants the rigth to yse certain words... Guess what, the christian church has no say in forming any laws in the state. unless ofcause you dont have seperation of church and state.

 

I could call all the anti religious crap I encounter here a load of hooie too. I'd get about as much agreement as that statement deserves.

I'd let a judge determine that.

And remember that by seperation of Church and State? Remember that part that says that the state can't write religious doctrine?

That's why I'm asking for it. I'm willing to ask for a compromise. If the Gay Rights side is unwilling to make that compromise, then I have to staunchly oppose it. If a fair compromise can't be reached, then supporting the Status Quo becomes the lesser evil.

The only "plus" that Marriage implies is the sanction of Religion. For those that don't believe, or hate religion, that means sweet squat all, doesn't it?

Faith to a religious doctrine, if the faith is true and there really is something to it, can and does help people change attitudes, beliefs and desires. I wouldn't expect those that think this is a load of hooie to believe that.

The required change of heart doesn't happen instantaneously, but it does happen.

It is faith that helps us change our lives. That faith would help us to find appropriate mates. If your doctrine were true, and I were faithful, that faith would enable that change.

I do consider myself fortunate that your situation that you proposed was completely ridiculous.

Some of you are using this to try to beat religion into submission and ultimately render it irrelevent? Or that some of you suck and merely look to my posts for entertainment? That you really don't care about a compromise that grants one group rights without offending another group?

A word that translates to Marriage was used.

I doubt that.

For the sake of compromise and making peace between diametrically opposite groups, I'm asking for that right. Anyone refusing this must not want a peaceful resolution...

We have it, but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the US Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees Freedom of Religion without State interference. Basically, religion doesn't directly control the government, the government doesn't try to rewrite religious doctrine.

By that seperation of Church and State this situation is to be resolved with less hot tempered fighting. If training the population to use a different word solves this problem, then the Government can actually get to governing the nation in question.

 

ROFLMAO!!! The irony in this is priceless! So what you're saying is, you have no problem asking others to change sexual preferences on faith, yet when you are asked if you could do the same it suddenly becomes ridiculous??? This is too much...

 

I like you doubt that the majority of the world dont believe in your creation myht even though christians only cover around 1/6 of the world pupolation and in this 1/6 of the world are counted people who just state religion as christian since thier society is mainly christian. even if you take in muslims and jews (who has roughly the same creation myth) you dont even get half the world population, secondly in jewish and muslim comunities i doubt that the majority believe in the creation myth (well maybe in the less educated muslim countries thier might be).

thirdly you call it ridiculous when your asked to put yourself in the same shoes. thats real class. just goes to show that you demand something of people you cant even try to undestand, hell you wont even try.

the word used in koptik (the oldest language we have the genesis on) is a word meening union, one word for union happends to be marrigge. luckely i would say, is that my language (danish) only has one word for it, so we cant have does silly discoutions about what word to use.

Qoute: religion doesn't directly control the government, the government doesn't try to rewrite religious doctrine.
we have the word "gift" when a ceremony of any kind (religous or not, as long as its official) is envolved.

well funnely enough, telling the state and the rest of the people that they cant use a word, that is not normally only asociated with christians, is one religion trying to govern the state and all other religions. I meen if gays cant use the word, what next atheist cant? then muslims and jews and any other religion cant?.
Secondly if the word is only to be used by religius people, would it be okay if the gays where married by an official religion that allow gay marrigges?

 

I have to admit to being slightly frustrated by the way this discussion is going.
I believe the over-riding principle should be to acheive equal legal rights for Gay couples, which Gnarf, as the representative elect of the religious right, has shown himself amenable to.
This appears to be being sadly threatened by some peoples insistance that it has to be called "Marriage". I'm sorry, but who gives a flying f*ck what it is called if acceding to a difference in name will reduce objections to someones legal rights. Terming it "marriage" obviously incurs some problems for religious people, who may then raise objections where none might otherwise exist.
If it's a choice between having the Legal Rights and calling it a Civil Union, or having nothing because some people are too pig-headed to let it be called anything other than "marriage", which one do you think most gay couples would opt for?

 

problem is carcaroth that some places marrigge grants some more rights then civil union, which then has to be changed, or you could just use the same words, for what basically is the same thing. why have two words for something that is the same legally?

but hey if the gays could get it while called civil union, its okay to me. as long as they gain the exact same rights as the married people. The problem with having to words, is that laws would have to be rewritten to aknowdledge that you have to words, that cover the exact same thing (in the eyes of the law).
And what might happend is that one of them is looked upon by the law as something different since its named different then the other.
But fighting over a name does seem quite silly and if it was only the name the christians wanted to keep im sure gay civil unions would have be legalized (in the US) a long time ago.
but sadly some wants to keep extra rights for themself.

 

you seem to be treating this statement as a baseless opinion. it's not. It bears repeating: the events in Genesis have been directly contradicted by solid evidence. It took a hell of a lot longer to make Earth than seven days, the very idea of the entire human race being born from two people is entirely preposterous, and the univers isn't 6,000 years old. Genesis is a myth. Even most Christians agree with this.

Oooh, ZING! What's next? Telling your opposition that they're all faggots? I have to admit, though, I do find your posts quite amusing. In a depressing way, admittedly.

But why do you need to bicker over something irrelevant? It's a frickin' WORD. people other than Christians use it. People who aren't religious at all use it. So why do homosexuals need to be legally barred from using the word? The government defines it officially as a "civil union", it's only people that use it.

It's officialy termed a civil union. But apparently this isn't good enough, and those darn Gays need to stop ruining marriages for everyone else by using the word.

[ November 27, 2006, 20:53: Message edited by: Clixby ]

 

So following the same lines, if a religion (any - take your pick) were to start offering same sex marriages, the state should allow it?

 

No more priceless than asking opinions then calling the ones you don't like ridiculous...

WE actually want the state to solve that problem without dragging religion through the same problem.

I don't have a problem with ANY heterosexual union being called a marriage. Taking into account that from a religious perspective, a man and a woman in such a covenent (contract if you prefer) are acting according to God's plan, regardless of whether or not they believe or care.

I'll accept it, but still don't really want to think about it. Basically, put the issue to rest and wash my hands of it--which this solution allows me to do.

That's the state's problem. Let the state figure that out. That's what we elect them to do and pay through the nose for...

But they don't mean exactly the same thing. One implies religious sanction, the other does not. This is not really that much of a legal priviledge, but a social one from private institutions that the State has less authority to police.

In the secular world yes, exactly the same. Most religions will never recognize same sex unions in any form.

That'as the government's problem. Religious groups wash our hands of that situation.

AS far as the law is concerned they are the same. The different term is to accommodate most religions.

There's a few distractions, like terrorists, civil wars, the economy. Add to this the fact that some of the militant groups on both sides have been obscuring that concept. The Democrats will address that when they get in the White House. Let's hope they do it right...

Funny it's the anti-religous crowd that's insisting on six 24 hour days. The Chronological length of a creative period has not been revealed.

You've never read Wittgenstein, have you. If the same word is used to define the Sacred Union performed in a church as to the civil union between homosexuals, it may erode social perception of marriage even further, making it less sacred to the public eye. The consequence is that people won't take it as seriously, and will ignore it or enter it lightly and have greater problems when things don't go their way. By having two words for this, that distinction is preserved.

The laws around marriage are a framework to accommodate that religious practice. It is up to the individual state to make those decisions. Such religions that do permit same sex unions will be outcasts in the eyes of more mainstream faiths.

 

Dosn't this meen that Congress infact should just use the word marrige regardless of what the christian church think about the word?
I meen by deneing the use of the word for gay people, wouldn't that meen making a law that is
based solely on respecting an establishment of religion.
while making the word free for all dosnt break this part, after all they dont force the church to marry them or prohibit the church from choosing who they want to marry.


also i think part of this discussion lies in two completely different undestanding of the word.

Gnarff seems to think the word implies that a union is sanctioned by religion, weather the people enterring the union is religous or not.

while us who advocate that gays should be able to marry has the undestanding that the word just meen union of two people and dosn't imply religous sanction.

 

@ Gnarfflinger

If God "married" Adam and Eve, then wouldn't the word "marriage" also not belong to Christianity since Christianity didn't exist back when Adam and Eve got "married?" It may be in the doctrine, but isn't it also in other doctrines? Wouldn't the word belong to whatever religion existed at the time or the first one to show up after that time period and are used by the children of Adam and Eve, Judaism?


I have a few questions on this.

What if a man marries a man who has a sex transplant (man -> woman)? Is that considered a homosexual marriage? If it isn't, is it still considered valid in your world view of what marriage truly is?

What about transsexuals whose parents decide that at their birth (or so) that they should be one gender (say, female) and they marry a male. Isn't that, in a sense, a homosexual arrangement? Would that be, then, considered a "sin," would that be valid in the eyes of God?

Also, my friend is in a same-sex relationship. She doesn't see her girlfriend as a girl at all, in fact she sees her as a boy. This conversation took place when I met her:
Me: "So this is your girlfriend?"
Her: "No, this is my boyfriend. NAME is a boy."
Me: "..."
Since she doesn't see her as a girl and her mind doesn't register those attributes, is that really wrong since she doesn't know that she is, in fact, a girl?


In general, I don't see the problem with homosexual "unions," however, from what I have heard about why they want these "unions" to be legalized is for tax cuts, purely monetary reasons and that they want it to be called a marriage is so that those that are anti-homosexual unions, period (like the Catholic Church, I do believe), don't look down on them and their bringing together when it is called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage." For social status. So they won't get snubbed. I think that is a valid point, no matter how poor of a reason it is to change the term used for homosexual arrangements. "Civil unions" would get looked down upon, socially, even if they get the same rights as "marriages." I just don't like the reasons for these things. It's vain, greedy and selfish. I'm not saying all homosexuals or even most homosexuals (or even those that are on the Boards) are wanting this for those reasons, it's just that most of the reasons that I hear about are for those that I mentioned, which to mean is disgusting.

 

Maybe because that's how Genesis defines the creation period? "On the first day, blah blah blah". A day is a 24-hour period. Also, creative periods doesn't explain the existence of dinosaurs or how the entire human race was born from two people. OR the duck-billed platypus. Seriously, they sweat milk . Why would God want to make something so insane?

You sure like your ad hominems, don't you. How is my disagreeing with you making me anti-religious? I just don't agree with religious bigotry.

Uh...sorry to burst your bubble, since you seemed so cosy in there and all, but marriage ISN'T sacred to anyone who isn't religious. People don't take marriage seriously. People do take it lightly and have problems when things don't go their way. Atheists get married, and they call it marriage, even though it's not by your definition: so why should gays be excluded? By your logic, the only fair thing to do would be to ban the use of the word "marriage" in any situation except in a religious capacity, otherwise it's just unfair. the scenario you have created already exists.

 

Really the only compromise that would not completely anger both sides is to have all unions referred to as Civil Unions (or such) and only to have Civil Unions, not marriage, in all legal matters. For the religious group, they canget married in their sacred fashion, but to the state it would merely be a Civil Union.