Marriage Protection Week

[Ravenstorm]

Right or wrong?

Doesn't sound too bad does it? 'Protect' the sanctity of marriage. Sounds like a worthy cause. And Dubya put his stamp of approval on it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-12.html

Wait a minute though... Protect it against what? Why, protect it against those godless homosexuals of course. After all, these evil sinners have the nerve to want equal rights under the law for those who would be their spouses. Damn them all! Oh, wait. God will anyway. You think I'm exagerating?

http://www.marriageprotectionweek.com/purpose.asp

America. Land of the free, home of the brave. Unless you don't fall under what the Christian right considers acceptable.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

And you all wonder why I think religion is crazy...

[theotherjohn]

Its a great idea and I am all for protection of marriage.

marriage between one woman and one man

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
marriage between one woman and one man

Why? Why shouldn't 2 people of the same sex have the same protection and rights under the law that a man and woman do? It wouldn't change any religious tenets. It would be a purely secular arrangement. If you want to believe it's wrong due to religious reason, go ahead and continue to do so.

But if you're going to argue against, give some logical, concrete reasons.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

I think its ok to encourage marriage, but to actively discourage homosexuality...is totally barbaric.

[theotherjohn]

I am not going to argue.

there is no need. I like it and all ready wrote emails to my representatives thanking them for it and its clear you do not so call your representatives.

[StrayRogue]

So you are a homophobe?

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
So you are a homophobe?

why are you asking me out?

if not then it none of your business

[Ravenstorm]

In a certain hypocritical way, it's ironic.

One complaint the religious right has against gays is their 'immoral' lifestyle. After all, the usual bigoted stereotype is that they're promiscuous, irresponsible, and immoral. But when they WANT to settle down and get married, committing to just one other person, they aren't allowed to by the same exact people who condemn them.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

I'm not gay, nor do I fear/hate them. I think you make your intentions clear though if you are against equality in this instance or would rather gays be penalized.

[theotherjohn]

People should not be gay it is a sin. So why should there be equality? It should be a crime.

Perhaps that makes my stance clear.

[StrayRogue]

Crystal.

*leaves laughing at the thought of God loves us all*

[Ravenstorm]

(shrugs)

One 'yeah' vote from someone who can't be bothered to support his opinion with any form of logical reasoning.

Anyone else care to cast a vote? Hopefully without including something like 'because it's yucky' or 'the Bible says so'. I'd really like to hear a well thought out reason.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

They can't Raven. Just like they couldn't when I actually started arguing in the religion thread.

[StrayRogue]

LOL this gets better and better.

[peam]

I think, when it comes to legality, a homosexual couple should be able to procure legality and claim the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage.

When it comes to a religious union, the decision should come down to the particular institution's beliefs.

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by peam]

[Scott]

Originally posted by peam
I think, when it comes to legality, a homosexual couple should be able to claim being married and be able to claim all the benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

When it comes to a religious union, the decision should come down to the particular institution's beliefs.

Well said.

[theotherjohn]

why argue with people who have already made up their mind?

Perhaps you need Bob back here so you both can do it all day

[StrayRogue]

Its like you guys think homosexuality is a new thing. Ah, the ignorance is a amusing. Anyone ever seen American Beauty??

And you call me ignorant Sintik! This is what your religion does for you.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

[Halfsilver]

LOL...c'mon Raven.

These topics are more volatile than the Women vs Men thread.

Make a thread that I feel safe to touch with at least a 20 ft pole.


:smilegrin:

-grays/d (being facetious)

[Edaarin]

Guys...I'm not going to say it again.

NO GAY BASHING.

[peam]

I don't understand the relevancy of your statement. I'm fully aware that homosexuality isn't a new practice.

However, a majority of us are living in modern America, which is far different from ancient Greece.

[StrayRogue]

Exactly. In millenia though, people are still unable to accept that is a part of culture, and a valid one at that. It was in Greece, Rome, and it pretty much is now.

Yes, ancient Greece was much more enlightened than pretty much anywhere today, especially modern America.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

[i remember halloween]

i'd hardly call it 'acceptable'

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
why argue with people who have already made up their mind?


To discuss ideas and concepts. To perhaps sway others by offering reasons they might not have thought of. To perhaps be swayed by reasons you never thought of. To exchange ideas. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept.

Raven

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly. In millenia though, people are still unable to accept that is a part of culture, and a valid one at that. It was in greece, rome, and it pretty much is now.

Yup it is so acceptable and a valid part that the governement has marriage week.

[Skirmisher]

Edaarin, if thats the best bashing they can do, the only one they appear capable of insulting is themselves.

[StrayRogue]

It was a social norm in Greece and Rome. Plus, it also keys into a number of pagan beliefs. Homosexuality is in fact older than Christianity.

[i remember halloween]

murder is also older than christainity, should we legalize that?

[StrayRogue]

Exactly TOJ. It just shows you what kind of backward ass country you live in, in regards to new age beliefs and treatment of normal people. Religion holds your leash.

[peam]

I haven't seen a hint of gay bashing.

To me, being sickeningly PC is far more offensive.

[StrayRogue]

LOL, you are both just making this easier and easier...

[Snapp]

Being gay, and having been in a very loving relationship for 3 years now, I find it a bit frustrating that we cannot be legally recognized as a couple and share the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. All I can say is that hopefully time will change things and people's views.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Snapp
Being gay, and having been in a very loving relationship for 3 years now, I find it a bit frustrating that we cannot be legally recognized as a couple and share the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. All I can say is that hopefully time will change things and people's views.

I hope so too SNapp.

Please note I am not gay, yet being a lover of life, and wholey anti religion, I support the gay lifestyle. To each their own.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly TOJ. It just shows you what kind of backward ass country you live in, in regards to new age beliefs and treatment of normal people. Religion holds your leash.

It is funny you think Religion holds your leash is a put down.

I know since the US is such a backward ass country why dont you boycott everything US starting with the game and this board.

[StrayRogue]

I think I'd rather feel smug in the fact I am not as ignorant as the other people reading here today. Ah, truly, I hope the American Beauty thing happens to you. Or American History X. Or maybe your Son or Daughter turns out to be gay. Whichever "God" finds most amusing.

[i remember halloween]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly TOJ. It just shows you what kind of backward ass country you live in, in regards to new age beliefs and treatment of normal people.

This statement should show everyone how crazy your world is. Gays are "normal"? They are anything but. Homosexuality is a perversion. There is no debating this. It not a biologically legitimate lifestyle. It is only conducive to the destruction of one's own species. Social acceptance arguments aside, do not try to pass homosexuality off as normal, please.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
This statement should show everyone how crazy your world is. Gays are "normal"? They are anything but. Homosexuality is a perversion. There is no debating this. It not a biologically legitimate lifestyle. It is only conducive to the destruction of one's own species. Social acceptance arguments aside, do not try to pass homosexuality off as normal, please.

Quite incorrect. Homosexuality is found in every mammalian species so is quite 'biologically legitimate'. It is totally 'normal' and 'natural' even if it is not 'the norm'. And a perversion of what? God's will? God created everyone including homosexuals and doesn't make mistakes, does he?. Nature? See above.

Raven

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
This statement should show everyone how crazy your world is. Gays are "normal"? They are anything but. Homosexuality is a perversion. There is no debating this. It not a biologically legitimate lifestyle. It is only conducive to the destruction of one's own species. Social acceptance arguments aside, do not try to pass homosexuality off as normal, please.

:lol: Nice contradictory post. OK, heres some HISTORY for you.

Tammuz was the Phoenician deity identified with Adonis of the Greeks. He was the husband of Ishtar also known as Asherah to the Semites and Aphrodite to the Greeks. Followers of the cult believed that Tammuz was a beautiful shepherd who was killed by a wild beast. His wife's longing for him led her to enter Hades to deliver him from death. His worship is connected with poles, similar to Totem poles of the early native Americans, which served as phallic symbols, or replicas of the penis. This cult grew to be extremely sexual in its practices. He is said to return from Hades every spring and return there during the winter. Spring orgies were associated with the planting season and a bountiful harvest. In at least one culture, his worship included homosexual activities. Adonis is referred to in the erotic literature of the homosexual community today. His supposedly perfect body and beauty is sometimes promoted as an ideal that may often take on god-like dimensions.

The Greek god Dyonysus was worshipped and followed by men known as Satyrs, who are always depicted with an erect penis. A god from the orient, Shiva, of India, is worshipped with a long linga, or phallic pole. It is said that Shiva went into the woods to watch men play, they caught him and cut off his penis. In order for Shiva to be restrained, once they learned he was a god, they replaced his penis with an artificial one.

An early Babylonian god was called Baal. The name literally means possessor, and came to be translated into the word, lord, referring to an owner of a particular piece of land. Baal took many forms over the years. Originally he was worshipped as the sun god. He was therefore believed to be both benevolent, when he caused the crops to grow, and cruel, when he scorched the earth with heat. Due to the perceived power and influence of this god, those who believed in him felt they had to continually appease his anger. They walked a delicate balance between awe and fear in order to maintain their lives. The various Baal gods took their place beside the Asherah, their female counterpart. Often the worship of Baal included a pole, or phallic symbol, in worship.

As the ancient Babylonians gained influence, perhaps as early as 8,000 BC, they spread their religion. Babylonian cities included towers, or Ziggurats, which served many practical and religious purposes. These towers were strategic to the defense of the city. They also served as points from which the stars could be plotted both for scientific study as well as for religious significance. One additional purpose of these towers was as shrines. The tower at Babylon is attributed with gold statues of gods and a golden bench at the top for sexual worship.


Ziggurat towers appear to have been plentiful in the days of ancient Babylonian influence. They served as phallic symbols. Early worship at these towers included masturbation allowing the man to spill his semen on the earth. The earth was seen as female, since seed is sown in the earth, therefore male gods were invoked to make and keep the ground fertile.

Interestingly, phallic towers remain to this day. The various orders of masons erect towers as memorials. May Day is a holiday in the British Isles when a phallic pole is decorated with streamers and colored, and a festive dance is performed.
This spring rite is directly connected to ancient fertility practices seeking the god's blessing on the spring crops. There is a phallic tower in Vatican Square at Rome. Although the perceived significance may have changed over the years, these symbols of male-worship still exist.

One of the most famous Ziggurats and the best archeological find of such a tower is at Ur of the Chaldees, home of the ancient patriarch Abraham. Abraham's father had been an idol maker in this prominent town. It was Abraham who separated himself from the polytheistic people around him and initiated monotheism, the worship of one God. Abraham is revered as the father of faith for the Jews, Islam, and Christianity. Although Abraham was a devout monotheist, his descendants struggled with polytheism for generations to come.

Towers and poles have been included in many forms of ancient religious practice. They are often associated with the penis in order to deify male-ness. Towers, similar to the Babylonian temples have been found in ancient Egypt. The pyramids certainly have religious significance. The Mayan culture in North America is unknown for the most part, but their culture included these towers. The pantheist, belief that everything is god, and animist, holding all of nature sacred, like the cultures of the early Native Americans, developed totem poles, which are more obviously phallic, as a part of their worship of nature as god.

[JustMe]

To everyone saying "It's a sin, you aren't supposed to do it... ect. "Lets ask this question: Who are you to judge? Read the bible, memorized it, doesn't matter. You're still not the one to judge. Let them get married, let them live their life. When they die, they will be judged by the only person that matters.

[i remember halloween]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by i remember halloween
This statement should show everyone how crazy your world is. Gays are "normal"? They are anything but. Homosexuality is a perversion. There is no debating this. It not a biologically legitimate lifestyle. It is only conducive to the destruction of one's own species. Social acceptance arguments aside, do not try to pass homosexuality off as normal, please.

Quite incorrect. Homosexuality is found in every mammalian species so is quite 'biologically legitimate'. It is totally 'normal' and 'natural' even if it is not 'the norm'. And a perversion of what? God's will? God created everyone including homosexuals and doesn't make mistakes, does he?. Nature? See above.

Raven

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by Ravenstorm]

And let me guess, cancer, which also occurs in all mammalian species is just a natural occuring process of life? Wrong, just like homosexuality it is a deviation for whatever reason. Would you say that things like anorexia and alcoholism are normal and acceptable just because they are so prevelant? Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's normal.

Explain to me how it is biologically legitimate? Can a species populated only by homosexuals continue to exist? No, it can't, hence homosexuality is biologically illegitimate.

If dudes want to go screw each other I really don't care, just stop trying to pass this off as something that everyone should accept and embrace because it isn't. Since you seem to be so obsessed with god Stray, before you waste more time researching your ancient theological history, let me just tell you that i don't even believe in god.

[StrayRogue]

Cancer is a naturally occuring process. LOL, easier and easier...

[StrayRogue]

[quote]Originally posted by i remember halloween
[quote]

So you are just a homophobic then?

[theotherjohn]

OK, heres some HISTORY for you.

why dont you post everything Reverend Robert J. Buchanan said?

and I will post quotes from the bible to show this so called reverend does not follow the bible starting with this little verse from Leviticus 20 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.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
If dudes want to go screw each other I really don't care, just stop trying to pass this off as something that everyone should accept and embrace because it isn't.

Actually, I know of no one trying to get people to embrace it at all. The main message is 'mind your own business and we'll mind ours so long as we're treated equally under the law'.

I'll note that also, at one time, it was illegal for a black to marry a white. Perhaps marriage needs to be protected against that still?

Raven

[StrayRogue]

Thanks for proving my point over in the other thread TOJ.

And since when the hell is the Bible history. News flash, the shit in that is not true. IT IS A STORY.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

[Snapp]

Gee... How did I know the "abomination" quote would end up in this thread?

I don't see what's wrong with letting two people who are in love and committed to each other get married and have the same legal rights as everyone else.

[Bestatte]

Originally posted by i remember halloween

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly TOJ. It just shows you what kind of backward ass country you live in, in regards to new age beliefs and treatment of normal people.

This statement should show everyone how crazy your world is. Gays are "normal"? They are anything but. Homosexuality is a perversion. There is no debating this. It not a biologically legitimate lifestyle. It is only conducive to the destruction of one's own species. Social acceptance arguments aside, do not try to pass homosexuality off as normal, please.

You just hold on thar, BabaBlouie!

Getting my tubes tied so that I didn't have to bear children, according to your criteria, could be "conducive to the destruction of one's own species." Should I be denied the right to marry in a male-female relationship, on the arguement that I have no desire to spawn?

What about men who are infertile? Are they to be denied the right to marry a woman, simply because that would remove a fertile woman from the gene pool?

That has GOT to be the most cockamamie arguement I have ever heard in my entire life.

First of all, you do not need a sexual partner to reproduce. You merely need sperm and an egg, which can now be acquired through biotechnology. Thousands of *married and heterosexual* men and women thank biotechnology that they can finally have children that 20 years ago was an impossibility.

Second of all, being gay isn't a "lifestyle," any more than a man preferring a woman is a "lifestyle," any more than any person having no interest in sex at all being a "lifestyle." It is a gender preference.

Should priests be FORCED to marry, because by taking up the collar they are removing themselves from the reproduction pool, thus committing a sin against the law "be fruitful and multiply?"

Get over your biblical crappola and stick with the topic. The topic is about a legal matter. Religion has no place in the law.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Thanks for proving my point over in the other thread TOJ.

And since when the hell is the Bible history. News flash, the shit in that is not true. IT IS A STORY.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

I know StrayRogue why dont we just start this thread all over and you make your own point instead of cutting and pasting from Grace ministry website.

[Ravenstorm]

Isn't it fortunate that America isn't a theocracy. Nor does it have a state religion. Christianity is not the law of the land. So religious arguments have no bearing on what is a legal matter.

And as far as Leviticus goes? Please read the religious intolerance thread about that very point as I don't feel like cross posting. It's towards the end.

Raven

[Scott]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Thanks for proving my point over in the other thread TOJ.

And since when the hell is the Bible history. News flash, the shit in that is not true. IT IS A STORY.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

He didn't prove any point other then he's a bigot. You compare one person's views to an entire group is quite sad. I guess everyone in UK has bad teeth, all American's are arrogant, and all Canadians are US draft dodgers. You don't believe what the bible says, what does that make it a story?

[StrayRogue]

I don't. I hate religion. I don't need some ancient story to prove my point. But I thought the above would help you understand how homosexuality has been accepted for Millenia before our "enlightened" age.

Obviously you need some FACT:

Greek culture is often promoted as the most accepting of homosexuality. To some extent, this may be true. The Greeks developed a hedonistic attitude toward the human body and sexuality. Although we may think of hedonism as lustful today, Greek philosophers wrote of hedonism in much more glowing terms. They believed that the naked human body, both male and female, was worthy of respect and admiration. They took great pride in the physical form. Public nudity was both tolerated and often encouraged.

The art and statuary of the ancient Greeks reflects this love for the body, particularly the male body. A major negative of this attitude is that those who were handicapped or unattractive children were often left to die, killed, or used in sacrifice to a god. It was not unusual for men to comment on the attractiveness of other men, or for them to express affection for one another. At least part of the reason for this fascination with physical attractiveness and sex is that the Greeks had developed into a culture that had a great deal of leisure time. They were not required to work constantly in order to survive. Blumenfeld and Raymond wrote: “Similarly, the Greek attitude toward sex was, for the most part, value-neutral. …And, though exclusive homosexuality was probably discouraged as a threat to the family, it was widely tolerated both for older men who had children and for younger men prior to marriage.” (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 155)

The Greek military attitude toward homosexuality was that it brought a sense of comradeship. It was often believed that a person would fight harder to protect his unit if that unit included a lover or lovers. This unique form of male bonding is attributed by some to the greatness of the Greek military might. In spite of this encouragement of homosexual practices, the picture is different for those who were exclusively passive at anal sex. They were believed to be polluted, and to have become like women. Therefore, they were expelled from military service as untrustworthy.

The issue of being exclusively homosexual was extremely difficult. Although the Greeks recognized passion and erotic attraction to both and either sex, they were not tolerant of those who were not also attracted to women. This could very well be due to the recognition that society must be able to reproduce in order to survive. The union of a man and a woman is required to reproduce. “After the age of nineteen or so, the young man was expected to marry and establish a family. Those who did not, or who continued to engage in homosexual relations exclusively, were subject to ridicule, or worse. In addition, exclusive sexual passivity in men was met with criticism and, at times, treated severely. ... rape of a free boy/young man (no such sanctions existed for conduct with slaves) was harshly punished, and male prostitution (again, by citizens) was condemned severely.” (Ibid. 157-158)

Greek society only negatively defined homosexual activity when it was exclusive or related to prostitution by a citizen. In nearly every other instance, homosexual conduct was considered acceptable and practical. It was simply a way of enjoying the beauty and awesomeness of the male bodies that they revered so highly.

The attitude toward the family and education could have also played a role in the attitude toward homosexuality. The family was considered the basis for reproduction. Women were restricted in their sexual activity because they were needed in order to bear children. Men could have sex with either women or men, so long as they met their societal obligation to reproduce. This is probably why exclusive anal sex was prohibited. Catamites could not bear children for their partners.

Fathers were not seen as the primary agent of socialization, and the mothers were often only useful for nursing and caring for children. The state took the greatest amount of responsibility for the child. Education was the responsibility of the teachers and philosophers. Girls were excluded from the education system that was designed to teach boys how to be men. The student was expected to respect and admire his teacher. The teacher was expected to gain the devotion and affection of his student. Therefore, homosexual conduct between a teacher and student was considered a valuable part of the education process. The family, on the other hand, was simply needed for procreation.

[Ravenstorm]

Oh, hell. I'll cross post since I doubt anyone arguing against would bother to go look. Again, quoting from a friend's LJ:


And fuck you for screaming about a couple lines in Leviticus. Fuck you for being hypocrites. Who let you decide you could pick and choose which laws in the Bible are still valid and which aren't? If you're going to insist that every word of the Bible is truth, then you damn well better start following every law. Not just the ones you like. You know what? I know that book better than most of you do. I can quote it chapter and verse, not just the mean vicious parts.

More importantly, those of you who claim to be Christians? Isn't the whole point of Christianity that Christ created a new Covenant with God's people? This is, you know, why there's an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. A covenant is an agreement, a pact. In the Old Testament, the old Covenant involved the old Law. The old Laws were harsh, unforgiving, bloody, primitive. When Christ arrived, he created a new Covenant, a new Law, and that Law was love -- love each other, love thy neighbor. Christ did away with the old laws, wiped them away, and in their place established a new law. Is that not the point of the New Covenant? So why exactly the fuck are all these so-called Christians clinging with such tenacity to the bloodiest of Old Covenant laws that fly in the face of the New Covenant's basic philosophy?

(clipped) ...

The blended fabric law (Lev. 19:19, for those following along) is exactly the one I always quote back whenever someone quotes Lev. 18:22 at me. That, and the fact that any time you get a zit you're supposed to go to a priest (Lev. 13:18-19). Or hey, cutting closer to the heart of some of these folks, how about the fact that anyone who curses his father or mother should be put to death (Lev. 20:9)? Ever yelled at either of your parents? Death for you! Ever muttered about your mom under your breath! Die die die!

Farmers! If you plant a fruit tree, you can't eat from it for five years (Lev. 19:23-25)! If you eat from it, you're breaking the law of God! Oh, and those of you who cross-breed cattle? Lev. 19:19 says you're disobeying God. Bad! O wate but that law dusn't count becuz then we'l waste owr food!!!1111 Shut up, hypocrite. If you're going to insist that the entire Bible is the exact literal Word of God, not open to interpretation or alteration, then you better start living by it. Additionally, those of you who kill animals to eat? Lev. 17:3. That's murder if you don't then take the animal to the temple to get the Lord's blessing. That'll be pretty tough to do in the local slaughterhouse, so good luck.

Let's not get into how many times you're supposed to do laundry and bathe any time you come into contact with a woman who might be within a week of having menstruated, or a man who might have jerked off that morning in the shower. Just coming near them means you're unclean. You suck, man. Should've been a better Christian.

But see? Christians don't use the laws as laid out in Leviticus. Isn't that fucking handy? Christians have a whole brand new covenant. It's just that the psycho morons like to forget that now and then.


Thanks to Peverel for putting it so well.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Gemstone101

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Thanks for proving my point over in the other thread TOJ.

And since when the hell is the Bible history. News flash, the shit in that is not true. IT IS A STORY.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

He didn't prove any point other then he's a bigot. You compare one person's views to an entire group is quite sad. I guess everyone in UK has bad teeth, all American's are arrogant, and all Canadians are US draft dodgers. You don't believe what the bible says, what does that make it a story?

Throwing the first punch again Sintik? Why am I not shocked. You are honestly saying human life started 12000 years ago, the earth was created in seven days, and all the other funky hell fire and brimstone happened? No? Otherwise then, its a story.

[Scott]

I'm not throwing a punch, I'm asking a question on why what he said makes the bible a story.

<<You are honestly saying human life started 12000 years ago, the earth was created in seven days.>>

The bible does not state how long each day is. 7 days does not equal 7 days with 24 hours in them.

<<and all the other funky hell fire and brimstone happened?>>

I won't touch this one because you're are so off base with this.

<<<No? Otherwise then, its a story.>>>

Yes I do believe it. It's not a story. Just because you don't believe in it, does not mean it's not true.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
long post see above if you want to read it

Raven

See that is where I am different.

I do think the bible is the word of GOD and everything in it should be followed.

Personally I am a sinner and right now if I died I would split hell wide open.

[StrayRogue]

Fact, Sintik, fact proves that the bible is false. Fundamentalists have dated the generations apparently back to Adam and Eve, 12000 years ago. This is when they say the world was created. One word. Dinosaurs.

Simple fact. Hellfire and Brimstone? The curses? Walking on water, feeding all those men and women? No. Believe it. Don't call me crazy when I start calling myself a jedi.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
I do think the bible is the word of GOD and everything in it should be followed.


Nowhere did he say he did not. He said one can not pick and choose which parts to follow and which to condemn. It's an all or nothing deal. And then there's the entire part of there being a New Covenant. Discussion of the above though should ideally go in the other thread as it is off topic for here.

Raven

[Scott]

<<<Fact, Sintik, fact proves that the bible is false. Fundamentalists have dated the generations apparently back to Adam and Eve, 12000 years ago. This is when they say the world was created. One word. Dinosaurs.>>>

FACT: You are making things up.

There is no scientific proof that the bible is untrue. It took 6 days to create the world with man on it. What is 6 days to god? When you have a higher being, anything is possible. How do you explain miracles? Science can't explain some of them, so does that mean it couldn't happen?

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible as well. Terrible lizards. "in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" 7 days to god is not a 24 hour period. Just because some religious figure says something does not mean that everyone believes it.

<<<<Simple fact. Hellfire and Brimstone? The curses? Walking on water, feeding all those men and women? No. Believe it. Don't call me crazy when I start calling myself a jedi.>>>

Miracles happen everyday, why is it any different then walking on water? You have statues that bleed human blood and science can't explain it..... Weird?

As for the bibles stance on homosexuality. Yes it does state that it is an abomination before god. Do I believe it's wrong? It's not my call, it's God's call. I don't judge others based on how they live their lives. I don't expect people to be perfect. I don't think that you will go to hell for stealing, I don't think you will go to hell for hating others. I don't believe everyone who is gay is going to hell...... Have you even read the bible?

[StrayRogue]

I was force fed the tripe as a child. By your rationale, there is no scientific proof it IS true. Where-as with science we have found the very first settlement of people we are ALL related too. But please contiue with your brainwashed doctrine; It amuses me.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]

[Hamurr]

Canada is currently in the middle of this debate quite strongly as it looks like we will have legalized gay marriages here within the next few months.

The main sticking point on the issue tends to focus on religion and to some degree I can see the fears of religious people. Many people fear that the next step after legalized gay unions are achieved will be a gay couple trying (and possibly succeeding) in forcing a religious institution to accept and possibly perform a gay marriage.

The best way this legislation could have been done in Canada would have been if a clear statement on the protection of religious freedoms was bundled into the bill in an omnibus form. It would not quell all the dispute on the issue as extreme individuals on both side of the issue would never be satisfied, but it would satisfy the majority of the people who tend to land in the middle.

Most people of faith have little issue with gay marriages in general, they just fear it being forced into their own places of worship. Most gay couples have no interest in taking on the Catholic church in order to get married either, they just want the same legal recognition that hetro couples can choose to enjoy. There are many churches that will gladly perform a marriage for any couple, there is no need to pressure others to do the same thing.

If it was made clear that the right of individual religious institutions to choose who they will marry will be soldily protected, this would be a non-issue up here. I hope the USA can learn from our example when their time comes to tackle this issue. (and rest assured that time is coming soon)

[Scott]

<<<<Where-as with science we have found the very first settlement of people we are ALL related too.>>>

Oh it's the very first? You this how? We haven't searched/covered even 1% of the earth and you are 100% sure that it's the first settlement of man? Come on now.....

<<<By your rationale, there is no scientific proof it IS true.>>>

You're absolutely right. I can't prove everything in the bible no. I never claimed I could either.

<<<But please contiue with your brainwashed doctrine; It amuses me.>>>

I will, I enjoy watching you make stupid comments. People can see you are unable to have a common debate without making stupid comments. It's more amusing to watch you dig yourself a hole. Keep going and you might find that older civilization you didn't know about.

[StrayRogue]

Yeah Sintik, because your own put downs don't paint a picture. Tool. I posted the link for "proginator" of common man today, a while back. Why don't you get off your knees and go and read some science instead of some fantastical fiction that would look better on the silver screen, like Return of the Jedi.

[Miss X]

The bible contradicts itself so much, you cant possibly follow everything in it.
I'm sorry, I have studied religion, and its affect on society for the last 5 years and I can honestly say all it has done is forced me to confront the fact that 'God' does not exist.
Having said that, I understand that many people need a God, and need faith in their lives and if it helps you then fine. Its the opium of the masses, if it makes you feel better to imagine God exists then who am I to judge.
On the issue of prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals and other minority groups, it disgusts me. I am a firm believer that anyone who is so active in their hatred of homosexuals obviously has issues with their own sexuality they need to confront.
Those who feel they have the right to judge and discriminate against others usually have low self esteem, weak individuals who make themselves feel better by degrading and abusing other human beings. It saddens me to think there are people in positions of power in the world, who hold those points of view, however I, along with countless others will continue to try and educate and challenge those people, in the hope that changes can be made.
Vx

[Edited on 14-10-03 by Miss X]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hamurr
I hope the USA can learn from our example when their time comes to tackle this issue. (and rest assured that time is coming soon)

That's pretty much what prompted this 'marriage protection week' I'd guess. The extremists are getting scared that it will be legalized. And it will, I'm certain. The only question is when.

You make some very good points. Most people I know who are in favor of gay marriage might wish their religious institution recognized them as equals but what they want is equal protection and recognition /under the law/. The law which will have no effect on religions. That website though preaches against 'civil unions' just as much as it does 'marriage'.

But no, they have to force their morals down everyone else's throat in the same horrible belief system that led to the Crusades and Inquisition. Our way is the only right way.

But as I said before, fortunately America is not a theocracy despite what some people would like.

Raven

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[Ilvane]

I believe in God, but I do not agree with the Fundamentalist Christian right that is out there at this time in America. I don't see why it's so difficult to give gay couples the same rights as other couples. Why should a couple that is comitted to each other for years have to fight for equal benefits as a married couple? Because some people think it's immoral? We are a country of freedom, so why is it that this is considered something so wrong?

We don't judge people for being heterosexual, do we?

-A

[DCSL]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Exactly. In millenia though, people are still unable to accept that is a part of culture, and a valid one at that. It was in Greece, Rome, and it pretty much is now.

Yes, ancient Greece was much more enlightened than pretty much anywhere today, especially modern America.

[Edited on 14-10-03 by StrayRogue]


You know I love you, Stay, but that's such a pile of shit. Even bigger a pile of shit than the House of the Dead movie and that's saying something.

Greece and Rome may be considered enlightened if you are entirely for the other side of the coin (gay male unity only.) It was said that true love and partnership could only be found between men. Women were only for the getting of children to many minds in the Classical period. They were almost (almost) animals.

I could recite chapter and verse of ancient Athenian law concerning the varying status of men versus women. In fact, Athens, the most commonly acknowledged ancient 'enlightened' civilization had the worst set of laws concerning the rights/protection of women and slaves of that time in Greece.

There are two other Greek areas where we have some knowledge... Sparta and Gortyn. Sparta we know of from a more realistic, everyday cultural view where as in Gortyn we only have a legal framework and can only guess at how much of it was really applied. In both, women were definitely treated better than they were in Athens. Not very well, considering the rumors of the same male-male love philosophy in Sparta but at least they were encouraged to be strong even if it was only to bear strong sons. In Gortyn, women could actually inherit without having to marry the first to come along and hand it over to him. Even the wife of a serf could possess property in the forms of livestock and movable items, which was not at all the case in Athens.

And all of that seems downright barbaric in comparison to America's laws. Don't condemn all of America for one president and one outdated rule of behavior. And certainly learn more about ancient cultures before you put them up on a pedestal like that.

[HarmNone]

It would seem to me that secular and religious matters are being confused here, as is often the case.

There is a difference between the legal construct that is "marriage", and the religious ritual that is "marriage". It would seem to me that a lot of this argument could be circumvented if we simply renamed the legal construct and stopped calling it marriage. Then, the religious groups could maintain their ritual and all the do's and don'ts that go along with it, while there remained a legal way for those who do not subscribe to the same belief set to share their lives with the protection of the law.

HarmNone believes we can share this planet without judging one another so harshly :)

[Ravenstorm]

You'd think so. Except that the religious right behind this are also pushing for that Constitutional amendment. They don't just want 'religious marriage' to be illegal, they're against civil unions and whatever you want to call any form of legal equality and recognition for same sex partners.

You see, they have the monopoly on Truth so everyone else alive better toe their line.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Hence, the separation of church and state upon which this country was founded; and, why we must fight tooth and nail to maintain that separation!

I have no problem with the religious factions having their rituals and their rules. However, I do not believe that everyone must be subjected to those rituals and rules. I do not press my beliefs on others, nor do I wish to have their beliefs pressed on me.

HarmNone believes there is room for all

[Savanae]

This kind of thing really gets me upset, but I will try to keep a level head and not lose myself in this post so please bare with me.

It's should not matter to anyone if boy A likes other boys or girls. It should not matter if said boy likes girls and maybe likes to dress as one while he is at it. It should not matter what gender girl A likes be it one or the other or even both. It should not matter if either of these people sleep around, or stay pure till they commit to some one. It should NOT matter but for some reason it does.

If Boy and Girl A are healthy, take care of them selves and are all around good people what the heck does it matter what they do in their bed room, is yours so damn lacking that you need to pry open their doors and point and scream?

Seriously now, no one is laying in the middle of the class room teaching your kids how to have sex with a visual demonstration of the act so come on give it a rest. We are talking about consenting adults who for what ever reason love another person.

If you get to tell people what they can or can not do where does it stop? I was sent this site today and if this is where religion is leading count me the heck out of it.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/10/03/news/casper/f060e8d5f0ddf401c07f72e2617c79c6.txt
Why is it people have this desperate need for self validation that seems to only come when they are berating and putting down some one else. How damn Christen it has become to have people screaming out about damnation on every street corner in the town I live in. hey swarm you like a pack of fleas telling you how you are doomed unless you do this that or the other thing its getting nuts.

I don't bother anyone; I don't stand on the street corner screaming at people who just want to walk by. If that’s what they want to do fine by me I just want to be left alone. I am sure most others feel the same way when it comes right down to it. I don't want to be preached at about what I believe I can probably down right guarantee you my friends wouldn’t want to be preached at about whom they love.

It's no body's damn business except the people involved in it.

Suzanne

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Quite incorrect. Homosexuality is found in every mammalian species so is quite 'biologically legitimate'. It is totally 'normal' and 'natural' even if it is not 'the norm'. And a perversion of what? God's will? God created everyone including homosexuals and doesn't make mistakes, does he?. Nature? See above.


That depends on your theological beliefs. Being of Khabalist influenced descent, God is imperfect, flawed. See man.


Originally posted by theotherjohn
See that is where I am different.

I do think the bible is the word of GOD and everything in it should be followed.

Personally I am a sinner and right now if I died I would split hell wide open.

This is a picture perfect case. Anyone curious as to the reasons of intolerance and religious perversion? Blind faith and fear of asking.

The Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and almost every religious text has been translated, edited and re-written to fit the times they were chosen for. When one doesn’t bother to dig, to question, to understand the history of any text, they willingly choose the path of ignorance. Unfortunately to be completely understanding of the evolution of any theological text, you have to dig into volumes of history and learn more than one language. There are vast differences in versions of the Christian Old Testament from 100 years ago and a Torah from the same era. Those differences become more pronounced as we move forward.


Originally posted by Gemstone101
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible as well. Terrible lizards. "in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" 7 days to god is not a 24 hour period. Just because some religious figure says something does not mean that everyone believes it.

Translation is everything. Point to where dinosaurs are mentioned? Case in point is the word “Jehovah”. It’s a European transliteration blunder.

I’m nitpicking, it’s my nature. I think you’ve handled both debates pretty damned well.

Harm beat me to the punch however. In the U.S. we have a separation of church and state. To deny the legal union of a homosexual couple violates the constitution. Theological beliefs are an individual issue, they have no place in a mass setting.

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by Tsa`ah]

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles:

The ironic thing is, of course, that there's nothing against lesbians in the Bible.

...and that Leviticus prohibitions are meant to apply only to the Cohenim...

not that most Christians follow them anyways...

"Sacrifice an animal!" "That sounds like some weird pagan crap!"

In addition, many of my more Christian friends enjoy girl/girl porn.

The irony continues...

[StrayRogue]

Nice post Tsa.

And yeah Dex, I should have been more clear. They were alot more enlightened in theories of sexuality (this became lessened when the Romans made it against the law several centuries later), but yeah, they are miles behind us on issues of race, culture etc. I should have clarified that more.

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You'd think so. Except that the religious right behind this are also pushing for that Constitutional amendment. They don't just want 'religious marriage' to be illegal, they're against civil unions and whatever you want to call any form of legal equality and recognition for same sex partners.
Raven

Its not only the religious right. I didnt see Clinton make it legal either.

My views on this is it is asinine to me that a gay couple that has been together for 20 years cant visit their loved one in the hospital or whatever and other benifits of getting married gives. The answer is to give them something equivalent to marriage like the union thing someone else mentioned. Forcing a church of any religion to marry them though isnt right either.

My one question for anyone against gay unions is this: How would a gay couple being married lessen the meaning of your marriage? I dont see how it possibly could. Id love my girlfriend the same no matter who else was married.

[Warriorbird]

Of course. Part of my dislike of the current Democratic party stems from their mamsy pamsy weakness on any issue a real social liberal would stand up for.

[Artha]

Marriage \Mar"riage\, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry,
v. t.]
1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal
union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;
wedlock; matrimony.

[Edited on 10-15-2003 by Artha]

[longshot]

There are people who believe that being homosexual is a consious decision.

They think it is a life-style. One that is chosen.

People who fall into this group generally feel that gay marriages are forcing them to openly accept another lifestyle that they are against. The usual reasoning is based somewhere in the bible, or sin, or morality, and even the "it's counter-evolutionary" arguments.

I'm a heterosexual. I always have been. I never chose to like girls.

I do.

I'm a man who likes women.

So, I ask all of you, when did you choose to like members of the opposite sex?

You didn't, did you?

The same can be said of homo-sexuals.

I have a good friend who is gay. He never chose to like dudes. He just does. He can't really do anything about it. That's the way he was wired.

He never chose. He was born that way.

You wouldn't deny someone the right to marry based on race, would you? You were born what you are.

Individual religious beliefs have no place in determining the laws on this.

I'll end by agreeing with someone who stated it quite concisely.


Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Harm beat me to the punch however. In the U.S. we have a separation of church and state. To deny the legal union of a homosexual couple violates the constitution. Theological beliefs are an individual issue, they have no place in a mass setting.

[Edited on 10-14-2003 by Tsa`ah]

edited for spelling...

[Edited on 10-15-2003 by longshot]

[Ravenstorm]

I was reading another friend's LJ and she said something quoteworthy on this subject. So I am:

Marriage is about partnership. It's not about sanctity in the eyes of your god du jour, and it's not about cranking out babies. It's about the fact that life is a long and difficult road, and no one should have to go it alone.

What the hell does that have to do with gender?


Thank you Naudiz. Very well said. And it got me wondering - and hence, posting - about exactly what she is wondering. Call it whatever you want. Gay marriage. Civil union. Whatever. Why the hell should anyone object to this? Just how does it affect the lives of anyone but the two people involved?

Two people love each other enough to want to form a legal commitment to each other and this is a bad thing? Is your life so empty that you care who someone else loves? It isn't your business. It doesn't affect you. If you believe that your 'deity du jour' finds it wrong, fine. Leave it to Him, Her or It. Stay the fuck out of other people's lives and worry about your own.

That's always been the worst, the absolute worst, part of certain religions. it's not enough for them to be 'right' in their own eyes. They have to make certain everyone else is too. This is what Stray objects to and by damn, so do I.

Thank God (yes, I deliberately used that) not every religion proselytizes. And thank God not ever person who is religious believes in doing so.

Personally, I hope every single person tells their political and religious representative how wrong it is to keep two people who love each other from commiting to each other and being protected under the law of the land. Let God worry about any other law.

And no, this isn't particularly addressed to anyone here. I just felt like ranting a bit and the thread was already made.

Raven

[Camri]

I agree with Raven. Live your life, and allow others to do the same.

I knew a woman while I was growing up that was married and had 3 children. Her husband died young, and she finished raising her children alone. When the kids were raised, she entered into a lesbian relationship that lasted almost 20 years.

The adult children of this woman strongly opposed this relationship.

When she became terminally ill, and had to be hospitalized, her partner of almost 20 years was denied by her adult children, the right to spend the last few moments of her time on earth with her. She was also not allowed to attend her funeral.

Her partner had spent the past 20 years loving her and caring for her needs. In the last couple years of her life, her partner was the one that fed her, and made sure all of her medical and comfort needs were met.

If they would have had the right to marriage, nobody could have denied either of them what seems like a basic human right. To be with the one they loved in her final hours of life, and to say goodbye.

I have a few gay and lesbian friends. I don't know any who would try to force their lifestyle on anyone. Nor do they wish to invade a church or religion that does not want or accept them. I think mainly they just want to be left alone to live their lives how they choose. Why is that too much to ask? Don't the rest of us do exactly that, everyday, and assume it our right?

Harmnone is right, also. In the US we have seperation of church and state. This is not a religious issue, unless you choose personally to make it one.