|
jimbo9
Posts:
3
From:
Plano, TX
Registered:
1/31/07
|
|
(67 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Jan 31, 2007 7:53 PM
|
|
Equal rights for African-Americans would NEVER have been approved by the majority of voters in the 60s, but now most everyone agrees that all men and women deserve equal rights. Why do equal right for gays have to be subject to the approval of the majority of voters? Equal rights should not be something the majority of approves of. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of majority opinion. And the courts have ruled that marriage is a basic human right. Why do we have to have this debate?
|
|
|
togaze
Posts:
1
From:
Rockville, MD
Registered:
12/24/06
|
|
(66 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 24, 2006 12:32 AM
|
|
At least in the United States, where there is supposed to be separation of "Church" (meaning all forms of religion) and State under the Constitution, this entire discussion of what the Bible or Torah or Koran or any other religious document says about homosexuality should be moot. Besides, all religious documents have been written down from oral retellings and translations. As we all know from the game of "Telephone" we played as children, who knows how many changes were made by human beings to the original text given to us by God or Allah or whoever is the Higher Power who authored the text that contains the tenets of someone's religious beliefs! Homosexuals who want to get married should be allowed the same legal rights and be required to uphold the same responsibilities of marriage under the laws of every city, county, state, and the United States as do heterosexual couples who choose to marry. Should the "Church" choose not to allow homosexual couples to have a religious marriage ceremony, that is the right of the "Church" under the Constitution. Personally, I think it is wrong of the "Church," but legally, in the US, the "Church" is protected by the Constitution.
|
|
|
ALumpire
Posts:
3
Registered:
12/15/06
|
|
(65 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 20, 2006 10:14 PM
|
|
Please forgive my delay in response to inquiries. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 completes this reference by adding the punishment: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death , their blood is upon them." What is an abomination? Leviticus 20:25-26 gives us that definition: " You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I am holy, and have separated you from peoples to be mine." Evidently "abominable" is just another word for "unclean." It was simply a violation of the purity rules that governed Israelite society. They could not eat lobster, pigs, shrimp, or camels, for they were thought to be unclean. The purity code of Leviticus continues in the next chapter: "Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." Leviticus 19:27: " Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard." (excerpts from the New American Bible) All of the evidence points to the same conclusion. An analysis of the Holiness code and its cultural context shows that Leviticus forbids male homogenital acts because of their religious and cultural implications. Leviticus makes no statement about the morality of homogenital acts as such. This was evidently not a concern. I was entertained recently to read about a minister who is against same-gender marriage because the couples will be allowed to raise children, and we know that the only children raised by gays and lesbians turn out to be gay or lesbian!! By this reasoning children raised by opposite-gender couples would all be straight!! Be well.
|
|
|
ALumpire
Posts:
3
Registered:
12/15/06
|
|
(64 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 20, 2006 10:13 PM
|
|
Please forgive my delay in response to inquiries. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 completes this reference by adding the punishment: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death , their blood is upon them." What is an abomination? Leviticus 20:25-26 gives us that definition: " You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I am holy, and have separated you from peoples to be mine." Evidently "abominable" is just another word for "unclean." It was simply a violation of the purity rules that governed Israelite society. They could not eat lobster, pigs, shrimp, or camels, for they were thought to be unclean. The purity code of Leviticus continues in the next chapter: "Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." Leviticus 19:27: " Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard." (excerpts from the New American Bible) All of the evidence points to the same conclusion. An analysis of the Holiness code and its cultural context shows that Leviticus forbids male homogenital acts because of their religious and cultural implications. Leviticus makes no statement about the morality of homogenital acts as such. This was evidently not a concern. I was entertained recently to read about a minister who is against same-gender marriage because the couples will be allowed to raise children, and we know that the only children raised by gays and lesbians turn out to be gay or lesbian!! By this reasoning children raised by opposite-gender couples would all be straight!! Be well.
|
|
|
kj67
Posts:
44
Registered:
5/16/05
|
|
(63 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 18, 2006 1:17 AM
|
|
Yeah, i'm going to yell and scream about why homofaggats can't get married. Who cares, you do what you want with this filthy world.
|
|
|
hetero_canadian_chick
Posts:
15
From:
Parksville
Registered:
12/12/06
|
|
(62 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 18, 2006 1:05 AM
|
ShadowGWM, I totally agree with you on adoption...why is there such a problem in the states with gays being able to adopt? There are so many kids out there that need homes and good people to love them that they would not care who their parents are. Like I've been saying in other posts, because of wedding Wars my views on gay marriage are shifting. And Shadow, your point makes my views shift slightly more. Give it 2 weeks and I will be a great supporter of gay marriage! -- The gays are turning me into a gay rights supporter! Ahhh! LOL!!! Watch "Wedding Wars"<---super funny and really makes you think!
|
|
|
ShadowGWM
Posts:
1
From:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Registered:
12/17/06
|
|
(61 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 17, 2006 11:56 PM
|
|
Wow, this post has went from Gay Marriage to AIDS. I'm not sure what they have in common as AIDS is not a gay virus. It's a virus that doesn't care if you're gay or non-gay, rich or poor, what your race is, or what your religion is. I think the people who want to blame AIDS on gays need to check out places like Africa. AIDS effects mostly non-gay people there. It has been that way for many years. Now for those who want to debate the bible I challenge you to read a couple of books. "The Sins of the Scriptures-" by John Shelby Spong and "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D Ehrman. Both are written by respected theologians. I am a gay Christian man. I've been with my partner for over 6 years. That's longer than some of my co-workers marriages lasted. So much for the sanctity of marriage. I wonder if non-gay people are afraid that we would show them the real definition of marriage. Most of my friends parents have been divorced and re-married at least once. I am fortunate to have parents who will be married 60 years in July, but that is very rare these days. Now days if the marriage last 60 months their doing good. Something I read on another discussion group is that if gays are allowed to be married, next we'll be allowed to adopt children in all the states. I'm still trying to figure out what would be wrong with that. Having gay parents do not make you gay anymore than standing in the garage will make you a car. In fact my parents are straight and I'm gay. How's that work? As for the cause of homosexuality, I could start another debate as I believe you're born gay. I also believe it is hereditary. My partner is one of 10 and he had one brother who was gay and another he is quite sure is. I have several friends with gay siblings. Oh well I've written enough. Someday we'll sit back and laugh about this as gay marriage will be legal. For all those who feel the need to judge me because I'm gay, I'll continue to pray for you. Jesus taught unconditional love, so if I'm going to be like Jesus I have to love you unconditionally and I will continue to keep you in my prayers. Have A Great Day! Greg
|
|
|
idonmatrix
Posts:
6
From:
Nevada
Registered:
12/16/06
|
|
(60 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 16, 2006 3:40 PM
|
|
Before anyone accepts scriptures written in "The Bible", they should read the history of how "The Bible" came to be. Inclusion of texts and books in "The Bible" was a political/economic decision. It has nothing to do with truth. While I believe in the truth of intelligent creation (God, if you will), I also believe that "The Bible" is a manifestation of man's preferred truths, in contrast to mathematics which is absolute truth. Read also Foucault, a French philosopher who wrote extensively on the ways in which man has contrived to control the body. The gay marriage debate may be couched in moral terms but it is really about power and economics.
|
|
|
VickyTG
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/15/06
|
|
(59 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 16, 2006 12:07 AM
|
|
Please post the last verse in Leviticus Vicky
|
|
|
ALumpire
Posts:
3
Registered:
12/15/06
|
|
(58 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 15, 2006 10:08 PM
|
|
Why does anyone here think we should take any examples for life in the twenty-first century from the bible? Women were not spouses, women were property when the old testament was written. In the single verse from Leviticus that is being repeated over and over, men were condemned to Hell for getting a haircut or trimming their beard! Immigrants were property, and that was the foundation for slavery in this great nation of ours. Nobody could wear garments that combined two fabrics; how many of us wear nylon or polyester today? Even more appropos for our discussion is a sign that was forever on the door of a professor I studied with at a Catholic seminary. In big block letters it read, 'Everything Jesus ever said about homosexuality'. Beneath that was a cover that could be lifted up to show a big blank space, reminding us that Jesus never had anything to say on the subject. There may be references in scripture to male-to-male sexual contact, but what does that have to do with homosexuality? Heterosexuality has everything to do with love and appreciation and nothing to do with what a man and woman might be doing together in bed. Why can't we just look at same sex marriage that same way? Regarding a legal right for a person to marry another person of the same gender, there are lots of other rights we should consider. What do a 99-year-old man in a nursing home, a confessed and convicted child molester in a state prison, and a convicted first-degree multiple-murderer in a federal penitentiary all have in common? They can all get married to someone of the opposite gender!!! Yet two mature, loving, homosexual men with multiple college degrees, each living productive lives in their respective communities, donating time and money to deserving charities, can only have a piece of paper announcing that it is legal for them to share investments and have a joint bank account. -- Edited by ALumpire at 12/15/2006 7:10 PM -- Edited by ALumpire at 12/15/2006 7:12 PM -- Edited by ALumpire at 12/15/2006 7:14 PM
|
|
|
footdoc
Posts:
233
From:
new jersey
Registered:
10/18/06
|
|
(57 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 15, 2006 4:14 PM
|
|
I find it funny that no one cares that much about protecting the sanctity of marriage other than when it comes to gay marriage. What about the straight pepole that have no concern about the sanctity of marriage. Some people get married 5, 6, 7 times. How come that's okay? Gay people just want the opportunity to get married once. The sanctity of marriage was ruined long ago by the straight people.
|
|
|
NewEnglandLibra
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/15/06
|
|
(56 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 15, 2006 3:22 PM
|
|
> Oh Lord, Forgive them for they know not what they say > or do. Again, until there is love, acceptance and > tolerance of peoples differences in this world, there > will never be peace. Dear Lord, why did I have to be > born into this human world, why couldn't I have been > born on some other planet that has an intelligent > race that does know how to accept, love and tolerate > eachother for their differences? I must say this, if > the human race is truly an intelligent species, I'm > really beginning to have second thoughts about that. > So go on people continue to preach hate, unacceptance > and dissention. Please fulfill the prophecy of > Revelations about man being the cause of his own > destruction. Maybe we'd all finally be better off. I have had thoughts similar to this about the destructive gread of man, eventually I remind myself to try and enjoy life and other people, even when they would push their own beliefs upon you. I remind myself that life is complicated and ever person has unique genes, and life experiences, which combine to make up who they are. Everyone has flaws, to claim otherwise is naive, Instead of attacking each other we should respect, and embrace each other. Alas The world would be Utopian, and this cannot be, as humans seem to thrive on conflict, greed, false pride, & Materialism. The best that we can hope for is the culture lag to improve.
|
|
|
praetorian412
Posts:
101
From:
Pittsburgh, PA
Registered:
11/30/06
|
|
(55 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 15, 2006 11:00 AM
|
Besides that, AIDS is more prevelant in the hetersexual community if you look at the Global Pandemic. Hum.... Maybe God is now punishing the straights. 
|
|
|
10-chan
Posts:
16
From:
Halifax, NS
Registered:
12/12/06
|
|
(54 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 13, 2006 9:34 AM
|
|
I thought AIDS actually started by contamination between a species of monkey and a human.. If that's so, last I checked, any scenarios I can think of involved (excluding a candlelit dinner sharing raw monkey brains....yum)don't involve any same sex couplings. -- Dum Spiro Spero
|
|
|
footdoc
Posts:
233
From:
new jersey
Registered:
10/18/06
|
|
(53 of 67)
Re: Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Dec 13, 2006 9:22 AM
|
|
Yea, that makes me laugh too. I really think that some people think that HIV/AIDS started because of gay people. Like gay sex ignited molecules that could fuse together and form this deadly virus. LOL! It just proves the prejudices that homosexuals still face approaching 2007.
|
|
|
|
|