Gay marriage in the Christian world

[phoenix_fire]

Rez, as I mentioned before, it is sound to say that some will not make the cut. I rather doubt that either of the three of us go into specifics on that, as doing so would perhaps put us on shaky ground. We well know it is not ours to judge. Nevertheless, there is an important warning to be taken from the observation that some unnamed people do not practice what they pretend.

On your second paragraph, you seem to try to throw out the baby with the bath water. What you say can be applied to anything that people decide to consider true about reality. One does not call off an investigation entirely because one has a problem with some of the evidence or one of the hypotheses.

On the third, this becomes a matter of what is vital and what is not. Wise Christians can come to agree to disagree on matters that do not have direct importance.

In your reply to my own statement, the glaringly obvious thing is that you have not been reading my posts. You seem to assume that I'm a card carrying member of the Religious Right. Don't worry. I get that all the time. It's patently untrue. I know it is easy and efficient to stereotype all believers into that mold, but in this case, it is invalid.

[RickSp]

PF, I see you didn't answer my questions. They are simple enough.

Do you deny that 75% to 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians?

Why do you claim the right to call them liars? Or are they merely ignorant and deluded and you obviously know better?

[phoenix_fire]

Sorry, I didn't see them.

On the first, I think it is an irrelevant question. Of course I am aware of the numbers.

On the second, I don't. I don't make specific judgments, and anything I claim is not on my own authority but on the authority of scripture, as cited above and reiterated in a previous post. The last is a bait and I'm not biting.

[Zinkovich]

Pheonix, even if half of those people were lying, Christianity would still come out as one of the majorities by far- your argument would have to be true to a ridiculous degree to even support the point it was brought up in connection to.

Atheism/"Non religious"(both lumped together, mind you) numbers averages anywhere from 4-20 percent of the population, while Judaism and other such religions recieve similar varying numbers- thus, even A THIRD(~25-30 percent) of the statistic puts Christianity in a majority position, or at least on equal footing.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: loser As far as I know, the Bible has nothing to say on the matter of gay marriages, at least on the government supported (legal) kind. It does, however, condemn homosexuality and, therefore, homosexual unions. I don't have a problem with gays getting married to gain the added benefits provided by law to married couples. What I do have a problem with is allowing gay couples to adopt or raise children; this should NOT be allowed. Allowing this is no different than allowing me to share the women's bathroom in public because I PREFER to sit down to pee. Our PREFERENCES should NOT be allowed to dictate laws.

And why shouldn't they be allowed to raise children? You can't "turn gay" anymore than you can "turn black" or "turn human".
Besides, if your logic is that they will "make the child gay" then all hetro parents should not be allowed to raise kids, as all gays are a product of hetro parents.

The bathroom refference is flawed in too many ways to count, one has nothing to do with the other.

I'm a man, don't you have a problem with me raising my daughter? Won't my girlfriend corrupt her son?

[loser]

A lot of people on American Idol think they can sing, but the entirety of America is of a far different opinion.

ROFL...I couldn't think of a better example.

If over 200 million Americans call themselves Christians, they must believe that they meet the minimum standards... ...Give me a break. American is overwhelmingly Christian, even if some Christians choose to deny the obvious.

Give ME a break. You couldn't find 200 million people in this country that would even call themselves AMERICANS, much less Christian. For one, the "speaking" population of the US isn't probably even that high and, if it is, the populace really isn't all that patriotic. And I could almost guarantee you that the love of country far exceeds any love for Christ.

Try this test. Go to any prison and ask the inmates if they were guilty of the crime that imprisoned them. Now, take those results (% of innocent prisoners) and tell me how much faith that you have in those statistics.

Do people ever really see themselves as they are?

You seem more interested in excluding those who consider themselves to be Christians but do not meet your exalted vision of the faith. As I have noted before, I guess you missed the "accept one another" part of Romans l5:7. I guess this explains, at least in part, why Christians throughout history have been so willing to slaughter each other in the name of the "Prince of Peace".

Actually,no, it confirms (explains) what we just said: Not everyone who calls himself a Christian is a Christian. You just proved our point. Christians don't slaughter Christians, or anybody else (including Muslims or atheists), for that matter. It's a case, once again, of misapplied labels.

If you lack even a basic tolerence of your co-religionists, no wonder so many churches are hostile to gays and other minorities.

There you go proving our point again. Those who lack tolerance and/or show hostility towards ANYONE (blacks, whites, gays, Jews, Nazis, Muslims) aren't (by God's definition) really Christian.

We can't debate with you if you keep agreeing with us now can we?

[loser]

Cutting through the flaming rhetoric, do you deny that 75% to 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians?

I do.

Why do you claim the right to call them liars?

Because 'they' are liars? Should we call liars something different...something more PC like MISTAKEN?

We are speaking in general terms, of course. We are not confronting any individual and condemning them to hell. That's not our place. If anyone judges the world, it will be God. Our place is to be tolerant of all people, whether they pretend to be something they aren't or not.

Or are they merely ignorant and deluded and you obviously know better?

Ignorant, probably not. Deceived, absolutely. And yes, that would appear to be the case. I hate it but somebody's got to be right, even if it is me.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire On the third, this becomes a matter of what is vital and what is not. Wise Christians can come to agree to disagree on matters that do not have direct importance.

One Christian may consider something important while another Christian considers that something not important.

In your reply to my own statement, the glaringly obvious thing is that you have not been reading my posts. You seem to assume that I'm a card carrying member of the Religious Right. Don't worry. I get that all the time. It's patently untrue. I know it is easy and efficient to stereotype all believers into that mold, but in this case, it is invalid.

I know you are not on the religious right. That does not mean you selectively apply your own personal standards to your religion.

Quote by: loser Ignorant, probably not. Deceived, absolutely. And yes, that would appear to be the case. I hate it but somebody's got to be right, even if it is me.

funny, because there are Christians who think you are deceived too.

[RickSp]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Sorry, I didn't see them. On the first, I think it is an irrelevant question. Of course I am aware of the numbers.

Since the first question was the topic of discussion, all your other comments are irrelevant. The discussion is whether Christians are a persecuted minority or the overwhelming majority. Despite claims to the contrary, the latter is clearly the case.

[loser]

Here is where the idiocy starts. Theists have fooled themselves into thinking that the bible was written by a supernatural being, therefore, they use the bible to cite their "unique" take on reality.

My stance is slightly different. Atheists have fooled themselves into thinking that the Bible was written by fallible human authors and that God doesn't exist as our Creator but, instead, was created by human beings. They've got it all backwards. There's the idiocy and, as fellow human beings, we can't do anything about it. Unless God calls them (a supernatural event), no amount of logic will prevail, no matter how well presented.

What they don't seem to catch on to is that they pick and choose the bible verses they want to apply to reality.

It's those that "pick and choose" that are deceived. The Bible (by its own declaration) is not opened to any private interpretation...it inteprets itself. Here a little, there a little...without divine (supernatural) intervention, it's impossible to decipher.

Obviously if Christians can not agree amongst themseleves, then there can be no claim as to who is a Christian and who is not.

What men claim is irrelevant. If/when (if for you, when for me) God comes to judge the world, it will be Him that separates the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the fruitful trees from the barren. It's His election, not ours.

There is so many unevidenced claims about your god, that no real understanding can take place. Because the claims are unevidenced and lack any real rationale explanation people have the ability to apply a lower standard to certain bible verses then other verses.

That is obviously true for some but definitely not true for all. Were there no evidence, there would be no Christians. If believers of God do not become KNOWERS of God by way of EVIDENCE, they soon lose their faith. A dead religion dies, though sometimes slowly. Christianity lives on not because of faith but because of POWER!

For instance, dhtmr may value a certain bible verse on gay marriage less then loser because the verse conflicts with dhtmr's sect of Christianity. Loser then makes the claim that dhtmr is not following god's will and will go to hell for it.

Loser would do anything for love but he won't do that!

(and if you don't quit talking like this, you're going straight to hell!) :-)

Nobody knows if god loves radical, moderate, or conservative Christians.

Wrong! It's all of the above.

Being a Christian is ambigous, therefore, does not justify anybody to make a claim that a certain person is not a Christian.

Knowledge is ambiguous and, therefore, no one is justified in making the claim that no one is justified in making claims...that's toadily unjustified.

[loser]

And why shouldn't they be allowed to raise children? You can't "turn gay" anymore than you can "turn black" or "turn human". Besides, if your logic is that they will "make the child gay" then all hetro parents should not be allowed to raise kids, as all gays are a product of hetro parents. The bathroom refference is flawed in too many ways to count, one has nothing to do with the other.

You're absolutely correct, of course (for the most part). It is my own narrow understanding (read as bias) that presupposes my conclusions.

However, here is my contention:

1) Homosexuality is primarily learned behavior. Furthermore, in most of these instances, a severe element of trauma (rape, abuse) or distress (coercion, inappropriate seduction) accompanied these homosexual unions, resulting in mental and psychological dysfunction. Although mostly occuring during infancy and youth, sometimes it happens later in life (convents, prisons, etc.)

2) In cases not precipitated as above, other trauma or dysfunction experienced in childhood is the causative factor (overbearing single mother or drunken, abusive father, etc.)

3) Because this sexual proclivity is almost always established under duress and because the mental and psychological make-up of such a person is most often severely impaired, it is reasonable to assume that the consequential behavior and inclinations of such a person would be detrimental in the fostering of children.

Having said this, however, I would be the first to agree that a high degree of unfitness (as parents) exists even in the 'straight' world and that there are many gays who make better parents than these miscreants.

Thanks for bringing some balance in this discussion.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: RickSp Since the first question was the topic of discussion, all your other comments are irrelevant. The discussion is whether Christians are a persecuted minority or the overwhelming majority. Despite claims to the contrary, the latter is clearly the case.

I know I'm getting old, but I don't remember that being my point.

[Duke1985]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Just a note, the lawsuit failed thanks to the wonderful work of Dr David Gibbs (the third or the first I do not know) and the rest of the team at the Christian Law Association.

Well thank God for that, frivolous lawsuits should be put down on the spot. Seriously I'm all for gay rights but suing a church for being anti-gay, is pretty stupid. Stay out of churches, or just pack up and head to the unitarian church down the road, those guys don't care.

[Pockets]

You're absolutely correct, of course (for the most part). It is my own narrow understanding (read as bias) that presupposes my conclusions. However, here is my contention: 1) Homosexuality is primarily learned behavior. Furthermore, in most of these instances, a severe element of trauma (rape, abuse) or distress (coercion, inappropriate seduction) accompanied these homosexual unions, resulting in mental and psychological dysfunction. Although mostly occuring during infancy and youth, sometimes it happens later in life (convents, prisons, etc.) 2) In cases not precipitated as above, other trauma or dysfunction experienced in childhood is the causative factor (overbearing single mother or drunken, abusive father, etc.) 3) Because this sexual proclivity is almost always established under duress and because the mental and psychological make-up of such a person is most often severely impaired, it is reasonable to assume that the consequential behavior and inclinations of such a person would be detrimental in the fostering of children. Having said this, however, I would be the first to agree that a high degree of unfitness (as parents) exists even in the 'straight' world and that there are many gays who make better parents than these miscreants. Thanks for bringing some balance in this discussion

That would not be an unfair conclusion if homosexuality were learned behaviour. A lesbian once said to me "I look at women the same way you look at women. And before you start asking me about threesomes I want you in there about as much as you want another man in there". Look at how the gay and lesban community has been stigmatized. And opponents try to say that it ia a choice? I mean when did you choose your affiliation? Be honest. You never did. You even implied there was a percentage of gays for which it was not learned behaviour.

[phoenix_fire]

I didn't have a choice. Was my liking boys conditioned? Who knows. Maybe. I've never had sex. Heck. I've only ever been attracted to one person that I know of. And that was a wash. *grumbles something sounding remarkably like a combination of several curses* But I grew up my entire life knowing that I was supposed to like boys. And I do...did...I'm not sure...right now, celibacy is looking good. But I digress. Point is, liking girls is unthinkable to me. As expected.

[Jack]

loser, your contentions were pretty much dismissed as causative during the 50s and 60s.

In their book Born Gay: the Psychobiology of Sex Orientation , Glenn Wilson, reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, declare that “the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored . . . our sexual preference is a fundamental and immutable component of our human nature”. Wilson and Rahman’s account goes beyond whether there is a gay gene – there is no single gay gene, but genes do contribute – and considers the effect of sex hormones to which foetuses are exposed in the womb. The boldly titled book says the research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait. Children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality and, however overbearing the mother or absent the father, no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality. No serious, evidence-based scientist, they charge, would deny that sexual orientation is fixed at birth. The authors also speculate that we face an evolutionary future in which homosexuals become more prevalent. The genes that are implicated in gayness do not just influence sexual orientation – in low doses they might confer personality advantages to heterosexual men (such as making them loyal, empathic and considerate), turning them into attractive mates and thus propagating those genes further. Rahman says that his view of corrective therapies designed to turn gay men straight is simple – they will never work: “You just can’t do it. If people suggest they can, I ask them, ‘Can you turn someone from straight to gay? Show me the evidence’. But it’s never going to happen, is it?” Andy Forrest, communications officer for Britain’s Stonewall, a charity that campaigns for gay equality, says the book’s central message rings true for most gays. “Most people I’ve come across say they’ve always been gay and that their upbringing has played no part in whether they are gay or not. They would say it’s an innate part of who they are, not something they need to be ‘cured’ of.” According to Wilson and Rahman the biological origin of sexual orientation means that discriminating against gays and lesbians is as justifiable as discriminating on the basis of eye colour or ethnicity. They have declined to reveal their own sexual orientations. So, why are some men born gay? Homosexuality tends to run in families, prompting a search for the so-called gay gene. In June biologists in Austria discovered fruit flies can be turned gay by altering a single gene. It is almost impossible that a single gene determining human sexual orientation exists: identical twins, who have identical genes, do not always have the same sexual preferences. But it points to genetic influence. “Gay men tend to have more gay brothers than straight men,” Rahman says. “Heritability is thought to be around 30 to 40 per cent, which means that around 30 to 40 per cent of the variation in homosexuality is down to genes. Strictly speaking, it’s better than zero (which would imply no role for genes) but that shows there’s significant environmental variance.” And this, Rahman says, is where a “massive misunderstanding of the concept of environment” comes into play. Studies have shown that the popular idea of environment – parental upbringing, peer norms, the family home, schooling – have no effect whatsoever. For example, the psychoanalytical idea that distant fathers or overbearing mothers sabotage their sons’ sexual development is not borne out by evidence. Wilson and Rahman dismiss such theories as “beyond the pale of science”. In conversation, Rahman is more brutal, dismissing “95 per cent of psychology as rubbish”. Initial sexual experiences do not appear influential – one study showed boys educated at single-sex boarding schools, where early same-sex experiences are relatively commonplace, are no more likely to become gay than other boys. What about the seduction hypothesis? Men who, as boys, had gay encounters with men have reported that they already knew they were gay before the encounter. Adopted children of gay and lesbian parents are predominantly heterosexual. The missing environmental link, the authors argue, is the womb. This would fit with findings in the early ‘90 that the brains of gay and straight men differ slightly. Rahman explains: “We argue that genes produce differences in the brains of pre-straight and pre-gay foetuses and those differences might affect certain receptors in the brain that influence the activity of male sex hormones.”

Submissions - National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships

[Nathan Struth]

dthmstr254 doesn't deserve...

[tmccarth1973]

A funny email I recieved in 2004:
Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp PF, I see you didn't answer my questions. They are simple enough. Do you deny that 75% to 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians? Why do you claim the right to call them liars? Or are they merely ignorant and deluded and you obviously know better?

Riddle me this, which is likely to be more accurate: Study or survey.

According to the APA and your standard 200 level Marketing and Management classes, studies are more likely to receive correct and in depth answers. However, the topic of this board has flown WAAAAYYY off topic. The original question, and I as the writer of that post claim my authority on this, was whether the Bible permitted gay marriage and homosexual relationships.

As I have said before, this thread assumes the Bible to be accurate in all fashions, so I should not and most definitely WILL NOT allow that sort of debate within this thread.

This thread has little to no relevance to the number of Christians in the world. Thus, the same goes for that debate as would the accuracy of the Bible.

Now, if you would please stay in your lane, because I am trying to stay in my lane, but everybody else that is going the opposite direction is wanting my lane.
I am a brick wall, you make your choice as to who should change their direction.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: tmccarth1973 A funny email I recieved in 2004: Dear President Bush, Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

You know how many times this has been sent as email to a bunch of people, it is a little thing we call, redundant. Technically, then, Joseph (in Genesis) was then violating the will of God, since the translation should have been threads, and not colors.