RE: Homosexual’s marriages…

RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 11:34:13 AM)
I wonder something... where did Jesus attack gay people? I do not remember him condeming homosexuality...just saying

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 11:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I wonder something... where did Jesus attack gay people? I do not remember him condeming homosexuality...just saying That was not his ministry. His ministry was to fulfill the Law of the Jews and to attack the stranglehold the Pharisees and Scribes had on them. Again, just like CrappyDom, another Red Herring.

juliaoceania -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 11:50:34 AM)
No it is not a red herring, I read what Jesus said, so it was a loaded question, I am a follower of Jesus but I do not call myself a Christian.. why? because homophobic, misogynistic, hatefilled people have coopted Christianity for a couple of millenia. I have no use for Paul, I have no use for bashing people for their innate way of being. Jesus represented something far different than those who call themselves Christian represent by and large. Now I am not talking about all Christians, just some, and they are usually the most vocal of the bunch.

LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 12:04:32 PM)
You know, considering the number of sects of Christianity that existed in the first few centuries after Christ, and the number of Gospels that were going around, and considering that all of these sects and Gospels were crushed by one sect who decided thenceforth that only four Gospels were true and only their sect had the truth - how can we say anything either way about what Jesus said or taught, or what his ministry might have been? Whats interesting, given the power of this sect to produce and translate their choice of Gospels to have Jesus say whatever they wanted, is that not one of those four actually says that Jesus said anything approaching the homophobia found elsewhere in the Old and New Testaments. We can debate endlessly about St Paul et al, but in the end I feel the Son of God just about trumps a self declared Romano-Jewish apostle. I cannot help but think that St Paul may not have been the cup of tea of some sects of early Christianity, and who is to say exactly, whether the one sect which triumphed was the right one? Other Christians of the time may have regarded St Paul as having totally the wrong end of the stick at best, and at worst the sort of bogus preacher we have nowadays on TV. The issue really, is a culture where perhaps a lesser, or even dare to think, incorrect sect of Christianity is the one which has informed it, and set up the laws and regulations of our society which have resulted in the persecution and punishment of homosexuals in the past and which now inhibit their right to marry. E

LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 12:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania No it is not a red herring, I read what Jesus said, so it was a loaded question, I am a follower of Jesus but I do not call myself a Christian.. why? because homophobic, misogynistic, hatefilled people have coopted Christianity for a couple of millenia. I have no use for Paul, I have no use for bashing people for their innate way of being. Jesus represented something far different than those who call themselves Christian represent by and large. Now I am not talking about all Christians, just some, and they are usually the most vocal of the bunch. Amen to all of that Julia. E

SlaveAkasha -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 12:33:41 PM)
I guess I am not sure how the debate of gay marriage always ends up involving Christians and non-Christians, but since it did, I suppose I will put in my two cents also. I am a follower of Christ, and by most peoples respects a Christian. I do not affiliate with a Church or denomination. If someone were to look at the Bible and the way that it was written, I don't see how anyone can say it's exactly the way it should be. When the Bible was first introduced, it was a bunch of MEN sitting around a table saying what went in, and what didn't. How do we have any idea what was left out that should have been put in, and what was in all of the books and passages that didn't seem fit for us, or that we didn't need to know about. Anyone can take passages in the Bible and twist them for their own benefit or argument. People have been doing this centuries before us, and will do it centuries after us. I know that Jesus was someone that wanted us to love each other, and not judge each other. If anyone looks at it, they will notice that most of the condemning was done in the Old Test., not the new, though there are probably places it did exist. I think when Jesus said, Love thy neighbor as thy self.. that was what he meant. If you do this, you pretty much have the rest covered. I don't remember it saying Love thy neighbor unless they are gay, a different race, a woman, a prositute, etc.. unless someone can show me where it says it, then they can just give up as far as I am concerned. I did find a very good church that welcomed my ex-partner and I. It was UCC, United Church of Christ, you know the one that did all the commercials that other churches had a fit about? I wrote them when we were trying to have a baby, and told them the situation. I said that my partner and I were going to have a baby, and that our faith was very important to us, we wanted to raise our child in our faith, and in a place that would welcome us as a family. I got an email back from the asst. Pastor and I believe the main Pastor both saying we would be very welcome. They also added they had another gay couple that attended church there, with their child, and they have always been involved and very much a part of the church family. Yes, there are Christians that think it's wrong, there are also those that aren't Christians that think it's wrong. I can't change their minds, and neither can anyone else. I do feel for them though, that they are missing out on knowing some wonderful people, that could add a lot to their lives. It must get very tiring being so filled with hate, I can't even imagine how that would wear on a person. I guess if they find something they consider "evil" they can touch, then they forget about all of the "evil" they can't do anything about, or that they don't want to acknowledge. It seems pretty easy and fits nice in a box, to blame all of the worlds ills on one group of people, rather than taking a look at ones self and thinking there might be something they can do to change things. I know that with all of the thought I put into the above, that no one will change their views, so I shoudn't waste my breath. I do know though that maybe someday, something I say will make a difference, then all of the times it didn't, will have been worth it. Akasha

Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 12:57:32 PM)
Oh, so you mean attacking gays is YOUR ministry? quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I wonder something... where did Jesus attack gay people? I do not remember him condeming homosexuality...just saying That was not his ministry. His ministry was to fulfill the Law of the Jews and to attack the stranglehold the Pharisees and Scribes had on them. Again, just like CrappyDom, another Red Herring.

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/19/2006 2:09:31 PM)
Nope, I have many gay friends. But if you are going to cite the Bible, cite it properly. Not for what you want it to say. From what I have read so far, people have absolutely no idea of the history involved, they have not examined the Greek, and thus really have no idea what they are talking about. It is kind of funny actually. The Bible never says "do not love everybody", but that is not a one-pass fits all into heaven. Certain actions have been condemned. Jesus' role was to bring Christianity to the Jews. Paul's role was to bring it to the rest of the world. You want to deny that, that is fine. Just do not sit there all high and mighty pretending that you know what you are talking about, that is all.

trannysub007 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/22/2006 8:44:54 PM)
"1. Unitarians are not Christians. They don't think they are. I don't think they are...but its nice to think YOU think they are." Emperor1956, post #105 i have attended UU meetings. They worshipped God in the name of Jesus. Sounds Christian to me. Maybe they weren't really UU???? "Jesus' role was to bring Christianity to the Jews. Paul's role was to bring it to the rest of the world." SirKenin, post #128 Jesus' role was to show the way, to be an example. Christianity didn't exist til after His death and resurrection. Paul came much later, and i don't give him much time. IMO, people who do not show tolerance and love for all others are not followers of Christ. They can call themselves Christians if they want, but they lack any real substance - again, only my opinion. edited, as usual, for bad grammar and punctuation.

NorthernGent -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/23/2006 12:26:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trannysub007 IMO, people who do not show tolerance and love for all others are not followers of Christ. They can call themselves Christians if they want, but they lack any real substance - again, only my opinion. edited, as usual, for bad grammar and punctuation. It sounds like a sensible opinion to me. I may be getting out of my depth here due to my limited religious education but my understanding is that the bible celebrates same sex relationships (despite the few verses in Leviticus and the the epistles). For example, the meeting between Jonathan and David has been interpreted as love at first sight where David eventually transfers his affection and loyalties from his wife to Jonathan. In addition, many of the details in the text surrounding these two characters are drawn from erotic love poetry such as the Song of Songs. Regardless, I really can't see why anyone, regardless of background, could have a problem with the life choices of two consenting adults. Some people really should get their priorities in order.

NorthernGent -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/23/2006 1:02:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine Marriage is a religious sacrament and homosexuality is not approved by the major religions. So, if religion doesn't approve of your lifestyle then why would you want to be joined by a sacrament of the disapproving religion? This statement is open to debate. The Church of England (the US branch is the Anglican Church?) have approved same sex relationships (at least among the laity) as per the link below. http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/07/0714/synod.shtml Last year, the head of the church decided against allowing an openly gay man to be appointed a bishop simply to maintain the strength of the church rather than any prejudice based on sexual persuasion (the Church has been appointing gay men known to be gay within the church for a long time). The problem was that the more evangelical sections of the church in Africa were vehmently in opposition to it and it was feared that there would be a split in the church, hence the vote against it. Whether or not you believe the Anglican Church/Church of England to be major is open to debate but this particular branch of Christianity approves same sex relationships.

caffiend -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/23/2006 5:19:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 When straight people get married. We have a husband and wife. What we have when two women marry each other or two men? Just curious… A dear friend of mine here in Toronto is gay and got married last summer. They call each other their "Partner." Just as they did before they got married. Seems to work for them.

jojoluvr -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/24/2006 12:26:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I wonder something... where did Jesus attack gay people? I do not remember him condeming homosexuality...just saying That was not his ministry. His ministry was to fulfill the Law of the Jews and to attack the stranglehold the Pharisees and Scribes had on them. Again, just like CrappyDom, another Red Herring. since theologians, church leaders and christians in general have been disagreeing about who Jesus was, what his primary mission was (even the 4 canonical gospels disagree about much of it, for pete's sake!), what he said (did he say, "whoever's not with us is against us" or "whoever is not against us is with us" -- both of which are in the canonical gospels and give a radically different view of his ministry), the meaning of what he said and did, etc., since Jesus was on earth, it's disingenuous to purport that there is one correct way to understand scripture -- whether christian or hebrew -- or one way to interpret the greek (have you read a biblical lexicon? there are so many shades of meaning for most words in each verse it will make your head spin -- and using english words to try to capture greek thoughts doesn't always work so well, as i found when writing my first sermon) or hebrew. so let's not pretend there's "one" christian truth -- or, if there is, that any of us know it completely. that is perhaps one of the greatest heresies, i suspect -- and just sort of silly...it is also the position of the religious right in the usa and tiresome to those of us who are christian but do not identify with the brand of christianity that is limited and limiting and narrow and more than a little scary. can't imagine it does much for the divine but cause great cringing...if not weeping...however, i realize that i'm probably just projecting...[8D] and emperor, since there are unitarian universalist christian churches all over new england, it is a bit silly to claim no UUs consider themselves christian. perhaps those with whom you are familiar do not, but i suspect you cannot speak for all of them...nor can i. but i know what it says on their front signs.... at any rate, such claims about the nature of christianity have very little to do with the OP....about which i say that married folks can call themselves and each other whatever they wish, but the use of "spouse" on all legal forms (rather than distinguishing b/w husband and wife) makes sense to me... edited because my internal spell-checker apparently turns into a pumpkin at midnight [8D]

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/24/2006 7:42:50 AM)
Yes, I have spent loads of time in Greek Lexicons, tons of time in commentaries dating back to the 1800's and I have a Greek friend and a father with his Master's in Divinity. I have plenty of resources.

trannysub007 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/24/2006 2:36:02 PM)
"Yes, I have spent loads of time in Greek Lexicons, tons of time in commentaries dating back to the 1800's and I have a Greek friend and a father with his Master's in Divinity. I have plenty of resources." SirKenin, post #134 Well, then you must really know a lot about Greek Lexicons and commentaries dating back to the 1800's!!! But when did Jesus tell you about how He feels about homosexuality?

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/24/2006 7:53:16 PM)
Well, seeing as how Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same (the Trinity), the Trinity instructed Paul to cry out and condemn homosexuality. You must view them as one Being. Admittedly a bit of a mind bender.

trannysub007 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/25/2006 8:04:05 PM)
"Well, seeing as how Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same (the Trinity), the Trinity instructed Paul to cry out and condemn homosexuality. You must view them as one Being. Admittedly a bit of a mind bender." SirKenin, post #136 Well, Sir Kenin, it's not that much of a mind bender to me. i believe They are 3 separate beings, and They are One in purpose and mission. God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. When i pray, i pray to the Father in the name of Jesus and through the power of the Holy Spirit, i know He has heard me. That 3-in-One person thing is silly, IMO. Who spoke at the baptism of Jesus, and who came in the form of a dove if They are One being? That makes no sense. The whole Christianity thing is less of a mystery if They are three people, i realize, but should it be a mystery at all? Personally, i agree with the comment in the thread earlier which said something about Paul condemning anything that was a public display of lust. (Not an exact quote, but my comp is really slow, and i want to be asleep before midnight!) Peaceful sleep - david

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/26/2006 8:09:27 PM)
A hotly contested topic and a big dividing line between religious theologies. I actually have no clear proof on the topic. Actually neither side does. The Trinity is actually never specifically mentioned in the Bible, although it is alluded to. There we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Marc2b -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/26/2006 10:04:10 PM)
My two cents: We are all in this together folks, this society called America. If we want it to work we have to abide by some common rules. Perhaps the most important is tolerance of other’s beliefs. If we all practice this (and I am fully aware that there are a great many who do not) then it all works out nicely. Why shouldn’t homosexuals be allowed to marry? I mean, really now, who is it hurting? The only argument against it that I can at least understand is the slippery slope argument. If homosexuals can legally marry then the polygamists and the polyandrists will demand legal recognition and before you know it some farmer Bob will come along who will want to marry his cow (in a nation of three hundred million people you just know there will be somebody who will say... "ol’ Bessie here been kinder to me than any woman"). But this argument doesn’t really work. I can’t see human/animal marriages ever being given legal sanction. The vast majority of us know where to draw the line. The key words are "consenting adults." What right does a society that claims to be free have telling a consenting adult how they can love someone and who they can or cannot marry? I see no reason why not only homosexual marriage but polygamist and polyandrist marriages not be legalized. The laws only concern should be that all marriages, and all partners in a marriage, be treated equally before the law. No favoring one type of marriage over another. A divorce law that applies to one applies to all. A tax break that applies to one, applies to all. If there are groups or religions that disapprove, too bad. Living in this society (at least in theory) means tolerating opinions, lifestyles, etc., that you do not approve of. However, and this is a big however, the right to have your beliefs tolerated by others does not translate into the right to have the approval of others. More importantly the tolerance of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles goes both ways. If the Catholic Church or others religions do not want to sanctify homosexual, or other types of marriages, then they should not have to. It is their religion, their church and no church or individual should be forced to go against their beliefs and conscience. No one has the right to demand that the Catholic Church or any other church give sanction to their marriage. A civil marriage will carry the weight of legal recognition and if someone wants a church to give sanction to their marriage they should find one that will (there are some) or start their own church. Freedom of religion also goes both ways. Freedom can and will work if the majority of us just agree that freedom applies to all – and practice that agreement in our daily lives. And what about those who do not want freedom to apply to all? Those who stew and whine and pout over the idea that people who they don’t like (because they are "perverts" or "degenerates" or whatever) actually have the audacity to live their lives they way they want to? So long as they do not actually try to impose beliefs on the rest of us they should be... well... tolerated. The fact that so many do try to impose their beliefs on others is why it is important for those of us who believe in freedom, people of good will toward one another, vote. The ballot box is where the battle is ultimately waged. That is where freedom will ultimately be expanded or restricted... where it will be won or lost. A last note to my fellow humans who are homosexual and are fighting for their due right of marrying each other. Don’t stop and don’t despair. Don’t let setbacks and the screechings of ideologues make you despondent. Despite appearances in the media, most of your fellow Americans are people of good will. The general trend is heading in your direction. It may take five or ten or even twenty years but you will get there. Sooner or later you will win this fight. I guess that was more than two cents, huh? More like a $1.57. But that is one of the beauties of freedom. We all have the right to put in our two cents and more.

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/26/2006 10:23:07 PM)
1. There is no "god" by default. There is no place for spiritual aesthetics in either legislation or in the lives that do not share that personal aesthetic. 2. Marriage is obsolete as a true commitment of love and exists more as an institute that people feel they need to take part in out of some social obligation. 3. How consensual adults commit and express their love for each other is no one else's business. 4. Family values are only sacred as far as the individual family extends. One family does not have the right to decide what is sacred for another family. 5. There is far more scientific evidence that homosexuality is a product of gender disorder than it is of psychological attributes. Those organizations that do believe homosexuality is a psychological disorder have no evidence of that other than they think they can treat it through psychological conditioning. 6. Over half the country's families do not have married people within it. Over half of those families that do have married people in it will end in divorce within an average of 8 years. The No More Bullshit Party Solution: Ban and dissolve all marriages as legally binding contracts.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125