The Marriage of Gays.

Dudess

Wtf is "the liberal agenda"? Hate that sh1t - "Oh you're just of that view to be liberal" - maybe it's something they actually believe in and they're not as obsessed as some with aligning it to a particular political ideology?

All of the tripe rolled out condemning gay marriage can be summed up as thus: "I don't like the idea of gay marriage because it's different to what I'm used to and it's icky".

Namlub

And since when is 'liberal' a derogatory term?

eightyfish

Dudess wrote: »

Wtf is "the liberal agenda"? Hate that sh1t

Agreed. What is the "liberal agenda"? Is it the same as the "gay agenda"? How about your, presumably, conservative agenda? Or the churches theocratic agenda?

Lahm

What's the liberal agenda?

jill_valentine

I dunno, it's news to me.

Wait, are we all supposed to have a copy?

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

Um, it's called Google, because, ye know, I like to back up my points. Those exact quotations are new to me but don't let that stand in the way of you being really rude here, when I have not been to you.

This isn't relevant to the discussion of same-sex marriage.

Secondly, your quote-mining is fundamentally flawed. Paul in 1st Corinthians writes that if one is free one should not enslave themselves again. Christianity at the time attempted to deal with the reality of Roman society. Slavery was a reality. How were Christians to deal with it? Simple. Slave masters were to remember that Jesus Christ was Lord over them and to treat their slaves with honour and dignity. Slaves were to honour Jesus Christ as Lord and work as if He was their master, so that their master might see their work and become saved by seeing their example.

I point back to the example of William Wilberforce who abolished colonial slavery. It's pretty simple, if Christianity demands that we be free from the chains of sin, and the oppression on the human soul that results from sin and turning ones back on their Creator, Christians should also demand that we be free from all forms of oppressive labour.

Admittedly, I still use those quotes in Ephesians when I am praying before going to work (I find them inspirational, and I find God's use of Paul inspirational), that God might be glorified in my work, and that I might work to the best of my ability rather than slacking off. The fact that Paul advises people on how to deal with slavery is not all that remarkable considering that Christianity seeks to engage with the reality of the world, both past and present. This isn't the same thing as condoning rather it is saying this is reality lets deal with it for the glory of God. I think the same about my life.

If you're just going to cherry pick rather than giving it the consideration it deserves, it's probably best that you don't post it surely?

EDIT: I also dealt with the Jewish law (OT) roughly 2 years ago on this very subject.

Penn

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/paddyirishman85/d26f4418.jpg

Pace2008

JupiterKid wrote: »

OK guys - I'm gay. I've beerom this thread.n with my partner for nearly 10 years. Please give me a valid reason why we can't be married?

Some Christians need affirmation in the form of legislation that they're better than gays, is what I've inferred from the earlier pages of this thread.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't relevant to the discussion of same-sex marriage.

Secondly, your quote-mining is fundamentally flawed. Paul in 1st Corinthians writes that if one is free one should not enslave themselves again. Christianity at the time attempted to deal with the reality of Roman society. Slavery was a reality. How were Christians to deal with it? Simple. Slave masters were to remember that Jesus Christ was Lord over them and to treat their slaves with honour and dignity. Slaves were to honour Jesus Christ as Lord and work as if He was their master, so that their master might see their work and become saved by seeing their example.

I point back to the example of William Wilberforce who abolished colonial slavery. It's pretty simple, if Christianity demands that we be free from the chains of sin, and the oppression on the human soul that results, Christians should also demand that we be free from all forms of oppressive labour.

I love arguments like this, because what they actually say is that the reason that god or the bible didn't come out in the beginning against slavery is because they would have alienated slave owners. God was willing to change or play down the morality he was trying to bring to people in order to greater increase his followers. It is probably the greatest argument against objective morality you could make, as to argue otherwise is to imply that slavery today is acceptable, as long its christian brand slavery

(its also a pretty damn good argument for early christianity being an exercise in man made political power grabbing rather than being a divinely inspired objective reality)

philologos

Mark Hamill: I hold the same views as the early Christians did on slavery. My viewpoint is also consistent with the Gospel as preached 2,000 years ago.

prinz

Pace2008 wrote: »

Some Christians need affirmation in the form of legislation that they're better than gays, is what I've inferred from the earlier pages of this thread.

What I've inferred is that anyone who doesn't back gay marriage 100% is obviously a raging homophobe.

krudler

JupiterKid wrote: »

OK guys - I'm gay. I've been with my partner for nearly 10 years. Please give me a valid reason why we can't be married?

Cos its icky and stuff, and it'd annoy god. oh you gays, why can you just choose to be hetero like the rest of us.

I'm just trying to remember when I chose to be hetero, I think it was when I found an underwear catalogue belong to my mam. That was the beginning of my disorder.

Sam Vimes

hinault wrote: »

And as for restricting the discussion to the NT, I stated earlier that most christian denominations take their instruction from the NT.

If I gave you a book and told you that it would show you how to live a perfect life and that it was inspired by a perfect being, but that even though the entire book is supposed to be inspired by the same perfect being you should only look at the second half of it because if you took your instruction from the first half you'd end up in jail, would you take my book seriously?

housetypeb

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark Hamill: I hold the same views as the early Christians did on slavery. My viewpoint is also consistent with the Gospel as preached 2,000 years ago.

Bully for you,living your life based on a collection of jewish fairy tales -and you seem proud of it.

housetypeb

Have a laugh at your bible.......

Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. She recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and 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.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how 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 uncleanliness - 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.
Your adoring fan,
Homer Simpson-Caldwell

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark Hamill: I hold the same views as the early Christians did on slavery. My viewpoint is also consistent with the Gospel as preached 2,000 years ago.

Are you up for election today or something?

prinz

housetypeb wrote: »

Have a laugh at your bible.......

What's that thing you do when you see something like this for the thousandth time? Oh yeah facepalm.

housetypeb

prinz wrote: »

What's that thing you do when you see something like this for the thousandth time? Oh yeah facepalm.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

bodice ripper

prinz wrote: »

What's that thing you do when you see something like this for the thousandth time? Oh yeah facepalm.

imagine how annoying it would be 2000+ years later....

prinz

housetypeb wrote: »

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

I couldn't be bothered looking it up now, but there is a second open letter dealing with all the points raised in the one above. You should check it out.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

What I've inferred is that anyone who doesn't back gay marriage 100% is obviously a raging homophobe.

What do you call it when someone wants to prevent two people they've never met from expressing their love for each other and justifies this position with arguments about how their love is unnatural and how they would be inherently inferior parents?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do you call it when someone wants to prevent two people they've never met from expressing their love for each other and justifies this position with arguments about how their love is unnatural and how they would be inherently inferior parents?

So that encapsulates everyone opposed to gay marriage does it? All wrapped up in a neat little bow. How simple. You always know people on these threads are running out of ideas when the discussion ends with a 'you're just a homophobe anyway' no matter what kind of arguments have been presented.

housetypeb

prinz wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered looking it up now, but there is a second open letter dealing with all the points raised in the one above. You should check it out.

Read it ,its crap.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So that encapsulates everyone opposed to gay marriage does it? All wrapped up in a neat little bow. How simple. You always know people on these threads are running out of ideas when the discussion ends with a 'you're just a homophobe anyway' no matter what kind of arguments have been presented.

Those are two examples of arguments that are commonly given. Unless you can give me a reason to be opposed to gay marriage that does not in any way suggest that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Those are two examples of arguments that are commonly given. Unless you can give me a reason to be opposed to gay marriage that does not in any way suggest that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones?

I have given my reasoning plenty of times. Always ends to same way, tired old clichés and accusations of homophobia.

keano_afc

housetypeb wrote: »

Read it ,its crap.

Nowhere near as crap as the "original" that you posted.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I have given my reasoning plenty of times. Always ends to same way, tired old clichés and accusations of homophobia.

A very quick scan of your posts in this thread showed something about wanting to put it to a referendum, which pretty much means that you think that the people who consider homosexual relationships to be inferior, i.e. homophobes, are in the majority. I'm still waiting for a non-homophobic argument..........

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A very quick scan of your posts in this thread showed something about wanting to put it to a referendum, which pretty much means that you think that the people who consider homosexual relationships to be inferior, i.e. homophobes, are in the majority. I'm still waiting for a non-homophobic argument..........

Did I prejudge the outcome of any such referendum or make any claims as to who is in the majority? No I did not, I'd appreciate if you take your "pretty much means" and keep them to yourself.

housetypeb

keano_afc wrote: »

Nowhere near as crap as the "original" that you posted.

How dare you say quotes from the bible could be classed as crap.

Pace2008

prinz wrote: »

What I've inferred is that anyone who doesn't back gay marriage 100% is obviously a raging homophobe.

None of the arguments against gay marriage stand up in my eyes, but it was the selfish, insecure, childish wish of one poster for their marriage to be "special" at the expense of a considerable minority that actually irked me.