Gay People Against Gay Marriage

[Squark]

I knew exactly which verse you were referring to, but I was making a point about how the verses from Leviticus are not the final authority on how a Christian should live.

Jesus chose not to kill someone who stood condemned to death by the same law as that which relates to homosexuality, how is that not relevant?

 

[Woden]

Has anyone ever thought that the most important person that they could hurt is God Himself?. God was here long before any institutions were set up by imperfect men, God created one man and one woman, they became one and in unity, this, in my honest opinion, was the first marriage, He, God founded marriage and only between one man and one woman, the first marriage was an institution set up by God, and i repeat only between one man and one woman. Human beings can only come from a man and a woman and science supports this as a fact. God and His Son Jesus Christ and all Good angels and many human beings on earth today and the Holy Bible condemn homosexuality, it is also a sin for heterosexuals (man+woman) to have intercourse outside of marriage.

Your basing your morality on the idea that you might hurt a being for which there is no evidence exists, based on thousand year old teachings that boil down to "god told me, just trust me ok?" The same teachings that make slavery cool beans?

Adam and eve the first marriage? Adam and Eve never existed, that is a scientific fact. And unlike the "Human beings can only come from a man and a woman" is actually relevant. Marriage is not about children, another fact. My brother got married last year, at no point during the ceremony were children mentioned. Neither was god actually.

Call me weird but I base my morality on how my actions affect other people. Banning gay marriage is hurting around half a million people in the UK. For no good, logical reason. Allowing gay people to marry will have absolutely no effect on you, or any Christian, none at all. But has the potential to make over half a million people happy and equal.

 

[Sliver]

I knew exactly which verse you were referring to, but I was making a point about how the verses from Leviticus are not the final authority on how a Christian should live.

Jesus chose not to kill someone who stood condemned to death by the same law as that which relates to homosexuality, how is that not relevant?

Ok. What you are saying now is relevant, I agree.

Anyway, lets move on.

 

[Angilion]

Uh, what is wrong with you? Report me for disagreeing with you? Are you high?

Are you trolling me? I write something, you reply claiming I wrote something completely different. I doubt that you can be that incompetent at reading, so trolling seems the most likely explanation.

I wouldn't report you for disagreeing with me. I never said that I would. You made that up.

I might report you for lying about what I've written. Stop doing it.

If you genuinely can't understand the concept that the government has a role to play in the law (which is what I actually wrote), find someone to explain it to you.

 

[Angilion]

Squark, I could talk all day about where your bible knowledge has failed you in that above post. It would derail this topic though. So I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you.

What I will say is, please go and read Leviticus 20:13. It's specifically relevant to this little discussion because it makes specific reference to homosexuality, which seems to be the topic here. You however seem to be referring to Leviticus 20:10, which I never even quoted in my original post to you.

An atheist schooling a Christian on what the bible says. Imagine that huh ?

That's not unsual. Reading religious texts is a pretty effective way to make someone an atheist, so you quite often find atheists who have read a religion's texts more than most followers of that religion.

But I'm an atheist and I'm going to agree with Squark, on the basis that his position is internally consistent for a Christian.

The most important thing for a Christian to consider when thinking about what the Christian position on something should be is the teaching of Jesus, the Christ. So Squark has thought "what would Jesus say about it?" and extrapolated from an example of Jesus' actions, which is all that they can do since there's nothing in their bible regarding anything Jesus said about homosexuality. Squark wasn't citing Jesus' actions regarding torturing people to death for adultery as a direct counter to your interpretation of Leviticus 20:13. He was citing it as a example of Jesus' actions regarding ancient Jewish law. Since there aren't any examples of Jesus' teaching regarding homosexual sex, that is the part of Jesus' teaching that is most relevant for a Christian. So Squark's position is valid within the framework of Christianity.

It would also be valid (for a Christian or anyone else) to take it further and argue that Leviticus 20:13 has been misinterpreted anyway and doesn't refer to homosexual sex in general.

There's a lot of scope for intepretation in a large text written in several ancient languages and in several different cultures. A Christian can validly interpret it to allow homosexuality, on the basis that the handful of verses usually interpreted as referring to homosexual sex are only referring to specific acts in specific circumstances, not homosexual sex in general. It's not the usual interpretation, but it's one that a Christian could make and still remain faithful to their book.

 

[Sliver]

It would also be valid (for a Christian or anyone else) to take it further and argue that Leviticus 20:13 has been misinterpreted anyway and doesn't refer to homosexual sex in general.

Again, not wanting to get into a religious debate, but let me call you out on the above, as I say you're demonstrably wrong.

Here is L.20-13: As found in the King James version of the bible.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them

Please explain to me in a satisfactory way how the above quote can possibly be misinterpreted and so not refer to homosexual sex. (Please don't exuse it by saying something was lost in translation from the original texts, because by that logic the entire book should be viewed as completely invalid.)

Also, if Christians are so wrapped up in what Christ said, then why does their bible contain the Old Testament ? Let me answer for you. It's because without the Old Testament, you don't have the self fulfilling prophecy of Christ coming to earth for self sacrifice and also you need to chuck out the ten commandments. Then there's Genesis and a few other things etc. So it's a headache for them. They have this book which they swear by which condones genocide, infanticide, homophobia, misogyny, slavery etc. How do they square this circle ? Well they cherry pick. The bad bits they ignore, the good bits they proselytise about. By the way, not everything in the New Testament is all good and great either. Check out Luke 12-47,48. Instructions on how to beat your slave. So do modern Christians agree with slavery and beating slaves or do they ignore that bit too ? Not being funny, it's an honest question.

 

[Castiel]

Sliver, To save a long referenced reply (I don't have time and you stated you do not want a religious debate), simply put, Leviticus (and the rest of Moses' Law) is applicable to Judaism not Christianity as something to be followed verbatim....The Old testament is part of the Christian Bible primarily as a reference of what came before Christ and to give the context for the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, it gives context and historicity to the message that Christ brought with the New Covenant and the New Commandment. Squark was quite right in what he said.

Also Luke 12:47 doesn't advocate beating Slaves, it is alluding to the Law of the Jews (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) in the context that a person who has the knowledge (of divine revelation), means and ability to do Gods Commandment (referring to the New Commandment) but does not through choice act accordingly, shall be punished. (Using the Law applied to Slaves who do not follow their masters bidding under the Old Covenant..God being the Master and Man being the Slave in this respect as an allegory to demonstrate the parable to Jewish people in a context they would understand.). Luke 12:48 refers to the punishments fitting the crimes, so it instructs that someone without knowledge of divine revelation will not (should not) be punished as much...it is talking primarily about Judgement and is not a How to Guide for beating Slaves...

It is important to not read and interpret the passages in isolation as often this creates a misinterpretation of the passage and how it relates to the other Gospels and to the context of the message itself.

It would also be valid (for a Christian or anyone else) to take it further and argue that Leviticus 20:13 has been misinterpreted anyway and doesn't refer to homosexual sex in general.

Not with regard to Leviticus 20:13....the passage (and its context) is quite clear that the author (Moses?) refers to Sodomy being in breach of the Law of the Jews...I think you are thinking about the New Testament and the Pauline Epistles to the Roman Christians, in which case you would be correct.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Again, not wanting to get into a religious debate, but let me call you out on the above, as I say you're demonstrably wrong.

Here is L.20-13: As found in the King James version of the bible.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Please explain to me in a satisfactory way how the above quote can possibly be misinterpreted and so not refer to homosexual sex. (Please don't exuse it by saying something was lost in translation from the original texts, because by that logic the entire book should be viewed as completely invalid.)

Firstly, the King James is a bit meh. Secondly, I heard a feminist say recently that the 'lie with' actually denotes ownership, as in a man owning a man, as a man owns a women, which is a far worse 'crime'. Not sure if it was just femenist bluster though

Regardless, from a christian perspective, its pretty irrelevant. The old testaments represents a set of rules and laws to 'be right with god'. Leviticus is a subset of those rules expressed to a particular cultural peoples at a particular time. Christianity, ergo, followers of christ, ergo, Jesus, is as you say, the fulfilment of the prophecy that supersedes those 'rules' with 'Jesus'.

Also, if Christians are so wrapped up in what Christ said, then why does their bible contain the Old Testament ?

The Old Testament, basically Torah, or Jewish text, represents the abrahamic religion up until a certain paint. Christians ARE jews, post fulfilment of a certain prophecy. Cutting it would be like cutting the fellowship of the ring and the two towers from lord of the rings. The backstory gives context. Sorry for using a movie reference.

They have this book which they swear by which condones genocide, infanticide, homophobia, misogyny, slavery etc.

Indeed it does, but are these things not part of the human condition, with or without God/Religion. A despot requires no deity to commit atrocities.

How do they square this circle ? Well they cherry pick. The bad bits they ignore, the good bits they proselytise about.

In a way, i agree. Sadly many do cherry pick, but to do so is to deny context.

By the way, not everything in the New Testament is all good and great either. Check out Luke 12-47,48. Instructions on how to beat your slave. So do modern Christians agree with slavery and beating slaves or do they ignore that bit too ? Not being funny, it's an honest question.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

The above is allegory, and not possessive imperative, which is to say it does not say 'must be beaten with many blows', it says 'will be'. This is Jesus speaking into a culture that at the time promoted slavery, as well as oppressive patriarchal societies that subjugated women. It is not a comment on what should be, but what will be, within the context of an existing culture.

edit: Bah Castiel beat me to it, but he doesn't get as irked as I do with circular arguments about religion. Continue

 

[Sliver]

Sliver, To save a long referenced reply (I don't have time and you stated you do not want a religious debate), simply put, Leviticus (and the rest of Moses' Law) is applicable to Judaism not Christianity as something to be followed verbatim....The Old testament is part of the Christian Bible primarily as a reference of what came before Christ and to give the context for the fulfilment of the Old Covenant, it gives context and historicity to the message that Christ brought with the New Covenant and the New Commandment. Squark was quite right in what he said.

My problem with the above Castiel is that Christ and God are one and the same. So using mental gymnastics to try and squeeze out of the box that Christians who study the bible find them selves trapped within, is a dishonest form of argument. If the Old Testament is the word of God, and the New Testament is the word of Christ (Also God as defined by The Christian doctrine of the Trinity which defines God as three divine persons or hypostases, the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons") then God in the New Testament is contradicting himself regarding the Old Testament. This is a fallacy which I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for. I know some Christians say that, well the Old Testament was necessary for those people at that time and now we have the New Testament, but they still refer to the Old Testament constantly. It's cherry picking. Is God not omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ? If so why could he not have one book written clearly that would not need to be amended ? Why would such a God need to change his mind ? If you know everything, past present and future, surely you can get things right first time ? Sorry, but I don't think Christian theology stands up to scrutiny and reasoned argument. If I did, well, I'd be a Christian.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I am openly and vehemently anti-feminist. Feminism is sexist to the core and utterly disgusting. It's a dishonest, hypocritical attack on sexual equality by usurping and corrupting it, like a virus infecting a host cell and using it to conceal itself from the host's defences while corrupting it into a factory to produce more more viruses. It's a foul thing, a vile parasite.

I think you're talking crap and I think you're warped. That isn't a feminist position - it's an egalitarian one. I think you're warped because you're advocating brainwashing young children with pointless and harmful rubbish to suit your pointless and harmful authoritarian dictats about how everyone should be and how everyone should live and how everyone should conform to whatever pointless and harmful restricted roles you have decided must be imposed on people on the basis of what type of genitals they have.

What a joke. I never said it was solely a feminist position, i specifically stated on more than one post that gay marriage was only one part of a larger movement towards destroying the traditional family, i never said this movement was specifically feminist, although feminism plays a large part in this movement. Please don't misrepresent what i am saying.

I do not advocate brainwashing children, actually i am against that, if you had not noticed. Teaching children the natural biological nature of sexuality is not in anyway restricting roles, it is simply teaching children about sex without adding in unnecessary perversion to the mix that will lead them to become perverted. This idea that male and female identity is some abstract thing that has been invented by culture is completely fabricated by homosexuals to further push the social acceptance of their distorted identity. I am not advocating that government do anything, how did you ever read my posts and come to the conclusion that I am advocating the government restrict how everyone should live and how everyone should conform to ?pointless? and harmful restricted roles? Well that is just stupid. The natural gender roles are not pointless or harmful. They are vital for the continuation of life on the planet.

Russia just outlawed the "social acceptability" of homosexuality, i think that is a wise move. Well at the least it should be categoried as a pervesion and not another identity. It should not say on the forms, sex: male female other.

 

[Madamoiselle]

Let me guess, groen is a religious person?

 

[anything I don't mind]

I am actually a militant rationalist.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I am actually a militant rationalist.

What does this mean?

 

[anything I don't mind]

It means i am fun loving and great to be around at parties

Ok i just made the term up as a joke, it was a play on the term militant atheist which was doing the rounds a while back. I do call myself a rationalist, but I could call myself a few labels realy. Non of them would be religious though.

 

[LordSplodge]

Let me guess, groen is a religious person?

Groen is a troll-bot. He's running in an IBM Mainframe somewhere in the 'cloud'

 

[Madamoiselle]

I am actually a militant rationalist.

You just made that up didn't you?

Just playing the devils advocate, wouldn't a very rational person consider the fact that a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, gender or whatever, should have the right to be married?

After all, we are all human beings no matter what labels we, or society place upon us and as such, deserve to be treated the same as the next human being.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

You just made that up didn't you?

Just playing the devils advocate, wouldn't a very rational person consider the fact that a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, gender or whatever, should have the right to be married?

After all, we are all human beings no matter what labels we, or society place upon us and as such, deserve to be treated the same as the next human being.

New person meet groen.

groen - a new person to share your world views with

 

[oli collett]

You know how that chap called 999 to report a prostitute for trade descriptions act or whatever the other day? Ridiculous, stupid and everything else and the idiot should get the book thrown at him.


Now, if someone on here did the same for noticing groen using the word "rational" in a description of himself, then I would sympathise.

 

[Madamoiselle]

New person meet groen.

groen - a new person to share your world views with

This doesn't bode well, what am I getting myself into here?

 

[anything I don't mind]

You just made that up didn't you?

Just playing the devils advocate, wouldn't a very rational person consider the fact that a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, gender or whatever, should have the right to be married?

After all, we are all human beings no matter what labels we, or society place upon us and as such, deserve to be treated the same as the next human being.

Technically i made it up a few days ago. but i searched google and someone had already thought of it before... typical

If there was a reasoned argument for same sex marriage, other than hiding behind equality, I might change my opinion on the topic. But I have yet to come across one. I advocate for the traditional family and think that same sex marriage works contrary to the idea of traditional marriage. If same sex marriage was pitched in a different way, if they didn't want to at the same time try and classify the natural sexual identities as cultural abstractions and claim that people that advocate traditional marriage are "trying to impose restricted gender roles". If they just came out and said, hey we are perverted and like to engage in sex that has no biological benefit and we want to change marriage so that people can marry the same sex, animals and inanimate objects, like sex dolls. Then I might consider that a rational argument. But to try and attack the natural gender roles and work with the movement that is trying to break up traditional family, i couldn't agree with it.