If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Lord Setar]

namida_no_chi

Technically (and sorry if anyone has made these scripture references), Leviticus 18:22 is the passage (which is part of Torah) in which God says, "[laying] with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination." In looking up the original Hebrew word used in the context (I don't have it on hand right now, but would be glad to get it if need be), the word "lay" essentially means "carnal intercourse," so we can safely assume God is talking about sex, ergo homosexuality.Then later in Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus reaffirms the Torah laws (which would include Leviticus 18:22), by saying, "For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done." This means that until the heavens and Earth pass away, Torah (which includes Leviticus 18:22) is still active law.

Leviticus 19:27, NIV

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 19:19, NIV

Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 15, NIV

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:

" 'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

" 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

" 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

" 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

" 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

Leviticus 11, NIV

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.

" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

" 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

" 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

" 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

" 'Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

" 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

" 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "

Better follow those, too...except for these tidbits:

Collosians 2:14, NIV

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 7:18, NIV

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

[Militant Christian]

Doubting Didymus

He is infallible for a large group of Christians.

He is irrelevant to an even larger group of Christians.

Quote:

And this is no "like". He preaches against Homosexual acts.

And I preach for Homosexual acts.

Thus, I cancel him out.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Militant Christian

Doubting Didymus

He is infallible for a large group of Christians.

He is irrelevant to an even larger group of Christians.

This is generally incorrect. He is relevant to the majority of Christians, if we take into account that while he is not the be all of the Orthodox church, the RCC and the Orthodox are still in communion with each other and thus the leader of one would possess some revelancy to the other. Nevermind that about half of all Christians are Catholic to begin with, so one may not even need to account the Orthodoxy to point out that you're wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

And this is no "like". He preaches against Homosexual acts.

And I preach for Homosexual acts.

Thus, I cancel him out.

Not for the majority of Christians you don't.

Just because something isn't claimed wrong in the bible doesn't mean Church Law can't also discount it.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

I should also point out that my interjection was actually to help Didymus. Someone was using a false analogy against him. You cannot compare what is in the Catholic Catechism (ie, law on homosexual acts) to what the pope likes. One is law. The other is not. It matters less what the pope is saying and more what the Pope reiterates out of church law.

[sheath1.8]

WOW!

I can't believe this topic has lasted this long.

[namida_no_chi]

Lord Setar

Better follow those, too...except for these tidbits:

Collosians 2:14, NIV

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 7:18, NIV

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

Again, it all comes down to who you follow...

Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of HWHY your Elohim which I am commanding you.

Deuteronomy 12:32

All the words I am commanding you, guard to do it – do not add to it nor take away from it.

This time it is either God, or whoever wrote Collosians and Hebrews. And honestly, it sounds like God seems to be warning his followers against the authors of Collo. and Heb. through these Deuteronomy passages. He explicitly says to not add to or take away from his commands, yet the authors of these latter books are doing exactly that.

[Militant Christian]

namida_no_chi

Lord Setar

Better follow those, too...except for these tidbits:

Collosians 2:14, NIV

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 7:18, NIV

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

Again, it all comes down to who you follow...

Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of HWHY your Elohim which I am commanding you.

Deuteronomy 12:32

All the words I am commanding you, guard to do it – do not add to it nor take away from it.

This time it is either God, or whoever wrote Collosians and Hebrews. And honestly, it sounds like God seems to be warning his followers against the authors of Collo. and Heb. through these Deuteronomy passages. He explicitly says to not add to or take away from his commands, yet the authors of these latter books are doing exactly that.

So, you still follow all of Levitical Law?

You don't wear any polyesters, do any work on Saturdays, eat any meat from a pig, anything?

[namida_no_chi]

Militant Christian

namida_no_chi

Lord Setar

Better follow those, too...except for these tidbits:

Collosians 2:14, NIV

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 7:18, NIV

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

Again, it all comes down to who you follow...

Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of HWHY your Elohim which I am commanding you.

Deuteronomy 12:32

All the words I am commanding you, guard to do it – do not add to it nor take away from it.

This time it is either God, or whoever wrote Collosians and Hebrews. And honestly, it sounds like God seems to be warning his followers against the authors of Collo. and Heb. through these Deuteronomy passages. He explicitly says to not add to or take away from his commands, yet the authors of these latter books are doing exactly that.

So, you still follow all of Levitical Law?

You don't wear any polyesters, do any work on Saturdays, eat any meat from a pig, anything?

Actually, I'm no longer a Christian or a Jew, so it doesn't really apply to me. Though I do still follow quite a bit of Torah (not eating/touching pig and other unclean things, the seventh day sabbath, the 10 commandments, and things like that).

[Llandygai]

Apologies for the slow reply. I haven't been on Gaia at all, since last Thursday.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Llandygai

...if I were to study Greek and Hebrew and whatever else would help me understand the original texts, who's to say that I'd interpret it any differently?

Interpretation of scripture is properly done by the Spirit of God, which allows us to tap into His understanding and knowledge, instead of relying on our pathetic wisdom.[/quote
]Not going to fly in a forum which requires you back up your claims.

I know what you're saying, there, but given the number of unsupported claims I've seen on these webboards, you'll forgive me if that milked a chuckle from me. wink

Celeblin Galadeneryn

If the Spirit of God is telling you something which is contradictory as to what the words of the bible say, I'm going to have to say what you perceive as the Spirit of God is either not that, or incorrect.

I agree with your principle sentiment, but given that a) I think it's commonly accepted that the Bible has not been translated perfectly, and b) the same words/phrases can be interpreted so many different way, and c) prophets told people to seek the spirit of God to help them understand scripture, I think there's plenty of room to be told something which may seem to even contradict the words on the page. I imagine that has happened at least once, somewhere.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

And considering that the inherent system in Christian is God's omniscience, I'm going to go with someone who translates the Bible incorrectly and says it was the Spirit of God who told them this is wrong instead of the biblical authors being wrong.

That's understandable, sure.

How many people claim to translate by the Spirit of God, these days, anyway?

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Furthermore, Greek is an extremely nuanced language. I didn't check up what words was used in 'strange love' for love,...

See my previous comment where I rescinded the "strange love" phrase a my incorrect quotation of Jude 1:7.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

...but depending, it means something a lot more specific than the English word love. Many Greek words that are concepts do not have translations short enough to put into biblical verse and have it still remain understandable. Do we quote Jesus as saying "Have affection for your neighbour in a universal sense of caring, good faith, and humanitarianism as opposed to erotic or familial affection of the same variety", or do we quote him as saying "Love your neighbour?

Point taken.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Something is being lost in translation almost every word in. How can you make a clear analytical judgment as to what the Bible says when you aren't understanding it in it's most basic form?

Again, point taken.

I ask this, though: do you believe God intended (or even thought it was practical) to have everyone who ever read the Bible, read it in the original tongues? If not, do you think God intended people to understand the Bible properly?

If that's difficult/impractical without having the Bible in its "most basic form" (I assume you mean "original texts"--correct me if I'm wrong), then what provisions would God have made to help assure people understood the Bibles they did end up with?

Celeblin Galadeneryn

And I don't accept that God will just help you, as I am reminded of that story of a man who when washed overboard noticed 3 pieces of driftwood floating by him, but didn't grab them since he thought God was going to save him. When he drowned and went to heaven, he asks God why he didn't save him, and God says he tried. In fact, he sent 3 pieces of driftwood. The man just never grabbed on. Random story, and non-biblical at that, but a good lesson to learn nevertheless.

Yes, I've heard that joke before as well. I do see your point, and I agree that real, honest study and effort are essential to any proper understanding of the Word of God. God Himself has told us that, on several occasions, in several different ways.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

[Commentary on why reading the original text is advantageous to reading the English text]

Agreed. Never disputed.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Furthermore, full understand of Greek and Hebrew (as a Classicist, I don't know much Hebrew, so that's why I dwell on the Greek) prevent eisegesis, which is what you're doing to the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. Eisegesis is importing your own meaning onto the text rather than taking meaning out of the text. As an example, most modern people who read Romans 1 aren't aware of Bacchic rites. Being aware of these would probably make you think twice before saying there is a condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1. You can rely on your own understanding, but you eisegesis is going to colour the way you read the text and is in turn going to cause you to falter.

I understand your point, there, as well, especially your allusion to a "bigger picture" as necessary to really understand the meaning of things. I've long maintained that facts are, essentially, useless without a context in which to frame them.

Eisegesis, however, is simply an inherent part of being human. All our experiences colour our perceptions. It's when we're not willing to admit or explore other possibilities (including that we may be wrong) that it becomes a problem. Eisegesis definitely has its place in our lives, or what would we use to help determine the wisdom of our choices? Someone else's eisegesis?

In any case, you're right in the idea that we do need to ensure a broader, contextual understanding of something, if we're really going to hope to understand the particulars more fully.

I am happy to say, though, that my stance isn't based solely on a few scriptural passages out of the Bible. More modern prophets have spoken very clearly on it, and I believe that, since they are my contemporaries, that I have a pretty reasonable understanding of the context of their words.

[Llandygai]

Temba

Llandygai

I don't think supporting gay marriage is a requisite to being a good Christian, but perhaps she does.

Then what is? being an anti gay, bible thumping right wing fundie?

One would thing tolerating gays and allowing equality by supporting state and gay friendly church same sex marriage, makes you a better Christian. I don't think calling Homosexuality or any sexual orientation a sin or wrong, is a requisite to being a good Christian.

How interesting to speak of tolerance, and right after a little bout of name calling. smile

Explain just how you think homosexual "marriage" is the equivalent of marriage as instituted by God?

Please also explain why you seem to automatically assume that anyone who doesn't support gay "marriage" is "an anti gay, bible thumping right wing fundie?"

Oh, and I'd also like to better understand the apparent double standard on so-called "hate speech," in which someone can be lambasted as "hateful" and "intolerant" for expressing their lack of support on gay marriage--backed by Christian beliefs or not--and yet, those who hurl back epithets like yours above are somehow not "hateful"?

To me, so very much of the gay "marriage" issue looks like a really bad case of tweaked semantics and missing/outright ignored pieces of a larger puzzle.


As for "gay-friendly" church marriages, there are already certain churches who will do that. But would you really ask a church--any church--to changes its doctrines and policies to suit your whims, just because they interpret things differently than you do?



In any case, you asked a question. What is being a good Christian? Well, as far as I understand it, following the teachings of Christ is pretty much the essential basis for being a good Christian.

I seem to recall that Christ advocates chastity.



In any case... why don't we, as individuals, just ask God what He intends? If we believe God answers prayers, then why not? Why stay stuck in this rut of debate between pathetic, mortal brands of wisdom, instead of going to a reliable source?

I think God has a pretty good right to dictate what being a "good Christian" entails, neh?

[Neferet -House of Night-]

Llandygai

Explain just how you think homosexual "marriage" is the equivalent of marriage as instituted by God?

Explain how it isn't.

Quote:

Please also explain why you seem to automatically assume that anyone who doesn't support gay "marriage" is "an anti gay, bible thumping right wing fundie?"

Or they're anti-equal rights.

Quote:

Oh, and I'd also like to better understand the apparent double standard on so-called "hate speech," in which someone can be lambasted as "hateful" and "intolerant" for expressing their lack of support on gay marriage--backed by Christian beliefs or not--and yet, those who hurl back epithets like yours above are somehow not "hateful"?

Lack of support? More like no support. And there are Christians that do and can support it.

Quote:

To me, so very much of the gay "marriage" issue looks like a really bad case of tweaked semantics and missing/outright ignored pieces of a larger puzzle.

How so?

Quote:

As for "gay-friendly" church marriages, there are already certain churches who will do that. But would you really ask a church--any church--to changes its doctrines and policies to suit your whims, just because they interpret things differently than you do?

It's not supporting our "whim". Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Has the ruling on inter-racial marriage ever dawned at you at all? What does it tell you?

Quote:

In any case, you asked a question. What is being a good Christian? Well, as far as I understand it, following the teachings of Christ is pretty much the essential basis for being a good Christian.

Really? You just now came to this conclusion?

Quote:

I seem to recall that Christ advocates chastity.

He also advocates love.

Quote:

In any case... why don't we, as individuals, just ask God what He intends? If we believe God answers prayers, then why not? Why stay stuck in this rut of debate between pathetic, mortal brands of wisdom, instead of going to a reliable source?

Because we're human, it's what we do.

Quote:

I think God has a pretty good right to dictate what being a "good Christian" entails, neh?

I agree.

[Llandygai]

-xXLady RaiXx-

Llandygai

Explain just how you think homosexual "marriage" is the equivalent of marriage as instituted by God?

Explain how it isn't.

We could start with basic biology.

The problem is, any attempts to explain the differences between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are always met with the same old arguments, namely that child bearing has no real relevance to marriage, followed by examples of heterosexual couples who either cannot or will not have children. Likewise, there are all sorts of studies that claim that there is no essential difference between same sex and opposite sex parentage, and people ignore the dubiousness of such studies, for one reason or another.

I'll admit that because of the great damage already done to marriage--and its meaning--through divorces, infidelity, and illicit cohabitation-- that I'm pretty much always on the losing end of any debates of this kind simply because people have already decided that the only essential part of marriage is some emotional commitment.

We've already stripped marriage of its uniqueness as a relationship by substituting unwed cohabitation and child-bearing. Once the gender-specific component is stripped--which is what legalising gay marriage will accomplish--then what uniqueness is left to that word "marriage"? Now it's about as special as getting a nice little gold star on your hand, since there are already plenty of relationships that involve people living together, having sex together, and even raising children together, but that do not currently constitute "marriage".

If we're going to make marriage nothing more than some little certificate, why even bother with it in the first place? Why not just let anyone pick some "partner," (and why not "partners"?) and get any and all the same benefits that married couples already enjoy? Really--that's an honest question.

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

Please also explain why you seem to automatically assume that anyone who doesn't support gay "marriage" is "an anti gay, bible thumping right wing fundie?"

Or they're anti-equal rights.

Again, it's that question of "how is it equal"? I'm still waiting on that answer.

Additionally, I'm continually flabbergasted by the fact that gays already have equal rights--including the privilege to marry--that seems to be continuously ignored.

Can anyone tell me why that is? Oh, wait--because of sex. Silly me.

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

Oh, and I'd also like to better understand the apparent double standard on so-called "hate speech," in which someone can be lambasted as "hateful" and "intolerant" for expressing their lack of support on gay marriage--backed by Christian beliefs or not--and yet, those who hurl back epithets like yours above are somehow not "hateful"?

Lack of support? More like no support. And there are Christians that do and can support it.

Agreed, as evidenced by other posters.

But my question was about the double standards.

Incidentally, lack of support can equate to "no support".

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

To me, so very much of the gay "marriage" issue looks like a really bad case of tweaked semantics and missing/outright ignored pieces of a larger puzzle.

How so?

Let me give you an admittedly oversimplified example. What makes purple? Most people would say "red and blue". Well, like purple, marriage is a multifaceted thing. For most of recorded human history, marriage has been seen as "the legal (often religious as well) union of a man and woman with--among others-- a primary intent of creating children, thereby perpetuating the race as a whole and the society in particular."

Obviously, that definition will be (has repeatedly been) heavily contested, but are we really going to say that most of history used a different definition for any long term, and in any general way?

My problem is that because of the semantic alterations given to certain terms (see below), I'm essentially in the position of someone saying "purple = red + blue" when so many others have already decided that purple is just a slightly different name for either blue or red, rather than the special combination of both of those.

When you change the way a word is defined, you automatically change the way it is perceived. While perceptions are not, in themselves, truth, they quite often determine how people respond. If you change people's response through changing their perceptions, then you do--ultimately--change the reality in which we live.

Much of the argument for gay marriage, as I've seen it, revolves around terminology and the semantics behind those terms. The terms I've seen most often and most readily altered include: "rights," "marriage," "love," "equality" and "tolerance."

-xXLady RaiXx-

It's not supporting our "whim". Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Has the ruling on inter-racial marriage ever dawned at you at all? What does it tell you?

Actually, I've read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution several times. Perhaps the term "whim" was a bit out of place, but I've seen enough people who do things just on whims--even in the case of gay marriage--that it was the first thing that came to mind.

As for interracial marriage, yes, I've seen that argument repeatedly, and it's one I've given thoughtful consideration to. What it tells me is that skin colour should not be a deciding factor in determining who may have the privilege of marrying whom. It never changed the fundamental idea that marriage was, inherently, a two-sex relationship.

I lament the fact that those civil rights rulings (which I think were beneficial and right, and have obvious parallels to this issue) so often get used to justify this change. I would hope that the differences between those issues and this one would be equally obvious, but I've been generally disappointed by what seems to be a general lack of recognition of said differences.

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

In any case, you asked a question. What is being a good Christian? Well, as far as I understand it, following the teachings of Christ is pretty much the essential basis for being a good Christian.

Really? You just now came to this conclusion?

The sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

I seem to recall that Christ advocates chastity.

He also advocates love.

Not all principles are of equal value, neh?

Yes, "love." *Sighs* What a clever, clever word play that word has allowed.

I guess, in fairness, I should explain why I can say I follow Christ's teachings on "love" and still do not support gay marriage. Let me just state two of my chief reasons.

First: Yes, I'll be blasted for this--I agree with prophetic statements--ancient and modern--that immorality is a sin. Immorality is a pretty broad subject, but God's law of chastity is pretty clear: "The sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve shall have no sexual relations with anyone but their legally and lawfully wed husband or wife." While legalising gay marriage would seem to "solve" that issue (hey--now we're "husbands" or "wives" ), I somehow don't get the idea that God will just shrug His shoulders and say, "Shucks. They got me there."

Gay sex is immoral because it defies the law of chastity. Just as out-of wedlock sex is immoral.

I do not think I am any less "loving" because I choose not to support or justify immoral acts. And let's not forget that this is the "Religion and Morality" board, so yes, I think that calling on the laws of God to support arguments is valid. Yes, I recognise that there are different interpretations of God's laws, but please don't think this is just me indulging my whims in how I want to interpret them.

Second: Since the Greek language was brought up, which kind of "love" are we talking about? As best I can see, "eros" is really the defining line between a romantic/sexual relationship and some other kind. I feel plenty of "philia" and "agape" for my friends and family, and I've even felt eros for several different dating interests over the years (though it's restricted to my wife, now).

I don't think I need to accept eros as a reason to change the type of marriage God instituted at the dawn of humanity, nor do I think that such a position removes my ability to feel or express philia or agape.

Personally, I've never met a homosexual I didn't get along with. In my experience, gay people have been some of the friendliest, most genuine people I've ever met, and I wouldn't wish them harm. I condemn "hate crimes" upon gays just as I'd condemn them on anyone. I don't think people should be mistreated just because they have a different sexual bent than I do. I think they should be allowed to do any job they're best qualified for (meaning they beat out all other applicants because of their qualifications--just like everyone else), that they should be allowed to serve in the military, and that they should not be regarded as "second-class citizens" despite sexual deviance.

I can love my brothers and sisters--feel philia and agape--without promoting potentially damaging eros. In addition to gay marriage, I also oppose divorce, infidelity between spouses, unwed cohabitation involving sexual relations, bestiality, rape, incest, etc. My opposition is to immorality as a general whole. I'm not "out to get" anyone.

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

In any case... why don't we, as individuals, just ask God what He intends? If we believe God answers prayers, then why not? Why stay stuck in this rut of debate between pathetic, mortal brands of wisdom, instead of going to a reliable source?

Because we're human, it's what we do.

Fair enough. But does that mean we can't? Maybe I should have rephrased that question...


In any case, do you realise that I'm fully aware of how "bigoted," "intolerant," "hateful," "old-fashioned," and "out-of-touch" my arguments seem to many? I'm well aware that I'm typically on the losing side of the debate in a 21st century world with all our re-worked terminology and given the tide of social changes (for better or worse) such as they are.

Does anyone think I'm really completely ignorant of the arguments--most of them with some apparently very solid logic (at least on the face of them)--that support gay marriage? Actually, yeah. Most of you probably do. smile That's fine.

Honestly, if it weren't for the way I understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Plan that God has for His children (which goes beyond this mortal life--in both directions), and my understanding of present circumstances, I assure you that I'd probably be out there promoting gay marriage with the same vehemence with which I oppose it.

I don't really appreciate being branded as somehow "un-American" or "hateful" just because I don't align with a rising social trend. I'm very committed to the liberties espoused and protected by the US Constitution, and I'm willing to defend not only my rights, but those of other Americans, and even defend the liberties of anyone rightly seeking them.

I just don't see marriage as a "right," gay or straight. It has always been a privilege, though that's been changing over the last while, and it's about to effectively lose its "privileged" status entirely, the way things are going.

This is not just some myopic guy desperately and blindly clinging to outdated and needlessly limiting social mores because he's scared that change will destroy his world, or that he'll be forced to change his whole life. This is a guy who--despite his stupidity-- who is trying to see the whole picture inasmuch as he can, and then saying, "Wait, time out--this doesn't work."

That's all. I don't hate gays, I don't fear them, I don't wish them harm at all.


It would be nice, though, if I could get shown some of that same tolerance that people are always screaming about, these days. But then... it's not like intolerance is anything new, right?

[Llandygai]

sheath1.8

WOW!

I can't believe this topic has lasted this long.

Yeah. My bad. I should have kept my big mouth shut. wink

[augustine17]

nope imuh good catholic if this is what "chiristianity" has come too then i'll have no part in it