Gay marriage

[Aajj333]

Well this post isn't what you thought it would be when you first clicked on it, so here is my question

Should the government even be allowed to make laws regarding marriage my reason being is doesn't it violate the first ammendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting respecting the establishment of religion", or separation of church and state.

This also means that the bible should play no roles in politics in general. Right.?

[ProudConservative]

You have a valid argument here, and I will say this to you, the Church. The Church is a powerful machine, and the nation was also partly built on religion. That is my answer to you.

[CharlieHorse]

How does gay marriage have ANYTHING to do with religion?

Also, a marriage title has legel specificities and benefits, denying that to gays is like denying any other freedom.

As for the law, it has to be specific and direct for it to be considered excessive entanglement with the church.
Remember, the original intent was for the 1st to prevent the gov't from forcing religion, or destryoing religion.
Allowing all people to have choice is neither inhibiting nor advancing a religion.
Allowing gay marriage will make our society evolve into a better place.

[Iron Man]

How does gay marriage have ANYTHING to do with religion?

Also, a marriage title has legel specificities and benefits, denying that to gays is like denying any other freedom.

As for the law, it has to be specific and direct for it to be considered excessive entanglement with the church.
Remember, the original intent was for the 1st to prevent the gov't from forcing religion, or destryoing religion.
Allowing all people to have choice is neither inhibiting nor advancing a religion.

Because, apparently, you go to hell for being gay and what not.

[CharlieHorse]

Because, apparently, you go to hell for being gay and what not.

I think that's BS, the nicest person I know is gay.

[Iron Man]

I think that's BS, the nicest person I know is gay.

Exactly. How can an extremely nice person, that thinks about others before they think of themselves, be subjected to hell, ONLY because they are gay?

[Aajj333]

Exactly. How can an extremely nice person, that thinks about others before they think of themselves, be subjected to hell, ONLY because they are gay?

Do you think that I think that?????????????? I don't, I posted this because of all the marriage amendment debate for the past election. I'm sorry if it sounded like I think that because I don't.

[Cicero]

Exactly. How can an extremely nice person, that thinks about others before they think of themselves, be subjected to hell, ONLY because they are gay?

I think that's BS, the nicest person I know is gay.

Ugh. I hate being the "I'm a super Christian on this site" person, cause I'm not.


You don't get into heaven just cause your nice. You have to have Jesus in your life. For Roman Catholicism, you can get into heaven through good works (and a belief in God), and it's similar for Mormonism. For the denominational Christianity, you can only get into heaven if you have Jesus in your life, meaning you accept him in your heart and such. Roman Catholicism, especialy, condemns homosexuality. If you are Gay, or support the LGBTQ, you will be asked to be Removed from the church. Some do this, some dont. The pope especially, condemns homosexuality. Here's what the Bible says about homosexuality:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
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.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7)

FYI. These are not my views. It is the views of the bible.


But to the question at hand.

Technically, religion has no right to interfere on the rights of others. But of course if the majority of America is protesting for the illegalization of gay marriage, the government would be in a tuff position. Because the government is there to serve the people, and if the majority are against one thing, then they will go with the majority. But the good part for the LGBTQ is that Republicans are starting to re evaluate themselves. Republicans know that they will not stay in office for to long if they withold the same, old fashioned values. So within the next 10 years, probably, the republicans won't be as against the LGBTQ as it has for so long.

Another positive for the LGBTQ is that there are tons of celebrities who are pro LGBTQ. But then there are those who have admitted they're against gay marriage, or have said offensive remarks about gays that is a big sign of how they feel. The following s based off of what they have said:

Pro Gay marriage:
Ellen DeGeneris
Sophia Vergara
Clint Eastwood
Kate Winslet
Brad Pitt
Ann Hathaway

Adam Lambert

anti Gay marriage:
Donald Trump
Chuck Norris
Most Rappers (although starting to change)
Blake Sheldon
Cee-lo Green
Kirk Cameron
Mel Gibson
Ronnie Magro
50 Cent

[Sugaree]

Well this post isn't what you thought it would be when you first clicked on it, so here is my question

Should the government even be allowed to make laws regarding marriage,my reson being is doesn't it violate the first ammendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting respecting the establishment of religion", or separation of church and state.

The government should have no say in marriage, period. Keep it to the religions that are already here, and unless they are infringing upon the rights of others, the government can stay out. If a state recognizes a couple, be they homosexual or heterosexual, then the federal government can do the same and offer the same benefits. But there is no need to have this written in the books as law.

How does gay marriage have ANYTHING to do with religion?

Because marriage is a religious institution, and the government is, well, not a religious institution. Therefor, if a church does not want to perform a gay marriage, they have every right to deny it. Does that make it right? Certainly not. But there are plenty of other alternatives for marriage that don't have to go through religious pomp. Civil unions and marriages are the same thing, just with different names; just give civil unions the same benefits as marriages and that will do.

[Skyline]

The thing is the bible and laws collide all the time...

I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:12)
Yet women have the same rights as men.
(Don't quote me on that... I'm not a religion expert)
The way I see it, not everyone sees eye to eye, and who the hell is anyone to tell a gay couple they can't get married? I don't care if you're the president, its my life and I will live it as I choose.

[ReginaGeorge]

"Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get 'gay married'." :P

[CharlieHorse]

"Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get 'gay married'." :P

Exactly, I don't even know why we need a thread for it.

[TigerBoy]

You have a valid argument here, and I will say this to you, the Church. The Church is a powerful machine, and the nation was also partly built on religion. That is my answer to you.

If you mean the US, how do you make out it was partly built on religion? Some of your founding fathers and most respected presidents don't think so.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
John Adams, Founding Father

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law"

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823)

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”


Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and 3rd president


The bible is not my book nor christianity my profession.
Abraham Lincoln, 16th president.

I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of church and state
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president.


Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
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.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
1) Leviticus is part of the Old Law that was made obsolete by the New Covenant with Christ. See Hebrews 8:13. This is why you are ok with cutting your hair and wearing clothing of mixed cloth, and you are also allowed to eat shellfish, and no longer obliged to stone psychics to death.
2)all the other stuff in Leviticus that is repeated elsewhere in the old testament, that is the only one that includes homosexuality suggesting it wasn't considered a global part of the Old Law.
3)most scholars consider this section of the Old Law only applied specifically to priests, since it is concerned with ritual practices at the tabernacle.
4)Abomination means "ritually unclean" or "taboo" based on the Hebrew word “to’evah” it is translated from. The contextual usage of this word is more akin to 'scandalous' in the eyes of many scholars, and the word is used widely to refer to things as innocuous as different peoples sharing a meal table. It is also very specific to cultural perspective.


"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
Interpreting this tale as anti-gay is on record as being a medieval invention of the Catholic Church. In this particular passage, the 'strange flesh' refers to the fact that they've gone after Angels, so pretty strange indeed, especially since there were strong prohibitions against sex with non humans. This passage does not mention homosexuality, nor do the other 19 references in the bible to the tale mention homosexuality, while they do explicitly list other sins.


FYI. These are not my views. It is the views of the bible.
You've just interpreted the bible, however by presuming that the illustrate the case that Christians need to view homosexuality as sin, or even as a sin that needs treating so very differently from the daily sins that all Christians commit and some seek confessional absolution for.
FYI I have refutations for any other bible passages you care to quote, but I guess won't since you aren't trying to be the "super Christian on this site person" and its all a bit off topic.

And back to the OP - marriage is not a Christian invention nor is it only used by Christians, nor is Christianity the only religion in the states, nor is every Christian a member linked to a denomination or even religious at all. In the UK 68% of marriages in 2010 were civil, not religious. The state can do what it likes with marriage, marriage belongs to the people. To some marriage may be spiritual, but this does not automatically mean it is religious.

[Abyssal Echo]

The government should have no say in marriage, period. Keep it to the religions that are already here, and unless they are infringing upon the rights of others, the government can stay out. If a state recognizes a couple, be they homosexual or heterosexual, then the federal government can do the same and offer the same benefits. But there is no need to have this written in the books as law.



Because marriage is a religious institution, and the government is, well, not a religious institution. Therefor, if a church does not want to perform a gay marriage, they have every right to deny it. Does that make it right? Certainly not. But there are plenty of other alternatives for marriage that don't have to go through religious pomp. Civil unions and marriages are the same thing, just with different names; just give civil unions the same benefits as marriages and that will do.

I agree with ya us gays have Civil Unions....If Civil Unions had the same rights / benefits as a Marriage it would be fine.

Its just my opinion but, If the Gay community would leave the word MARRIAGE out of things the churches wouldn't have shit to say about things.

if you want a ceremony then go for it no need for it to be done in a Church.

[TigerBoy]

I agree with ya us gays have Civil Unions....If Civil Unions had the same rights / benefits as a Marriage it would be fine.

Its just my opinion but, If the Gay community would leave the word MARRIAGE out of things the churches wouldn't have shit to say about things.

if you want a ceremony then go for it no need for it to be done in a Church.

You've already got something like that in 21 states, 48% of Americans can have some sort of same-sex recognition. The problem with 'different but equivalent' is that Gays are still treated as second class citizens by that difference and it isn't legally equivalent in all regards.

Here in the UK we still miss out on some legal rights because Civil Partnerships don't link into all the existing laws, which is why we're looking at marriage. Same goes for France right now.

The other thing is the principle - "different but equivalent" is like Rosa Parks on the bus, or black only bars or whatever.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[CrossingtheCourtyard]

(Paraphrasing a Hank Green video) Arguments against gay marriage are all pretty much invalid. When one group of people is allowed to do something, and another is not, that's discriminatory and wrong.

As the government is the only group that is really allowed to make such changes, then yes, they do need to make these laws. Who else is going to?

[Gigablue]

I don't really see why marriage is a religious issue. As long as it carries legal benefits, the government should oversee it, and should give equal rights to all.

If certain religious groups are opposed to same sex marriage, they shouldn't have to preform the ceremonies, but they shouldn't get to impose their ideas on others.

[TigerBoy]

The bible specifically says that it's a sin.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. You show me where you think it does, and I'll show you why it doesn't. Perhaps best to take it to PMs though because it's rather off topic.


Christians don't just throw away the Old Testament. They just don't listen to the stuff like rules for the Jewish people.
You may not, but its clear from the bible that you should do. Did you not read Hebrews 8:13? The chronicle of the process is in Acts 15. Paul also confirms this point in Colossians 2.
And if you do not follow the rest of Leviticus, why not? Why should you pick and choose which bits to follow and which bits not to follow?

You are perfectly entitled to interpret the bible as you see fit (assuming you are morally content to pick and choose to suit yourself) but you shouldn't presume to speak for all Christians, nor expect me to respect your interpretation when it comes to using those interpretations to judge others so harshly.

God specifically says over and over that its a sin and an abomination.
When did he do that? Also, see above regarding 'abomination'.


It's great you wanna think God Made homosexuality
Where did I say that?

It's not, It specifically says in so many verses that he is against it.
Did you read any of what I wrote previously? It appears not.

Edit, reluctantly as again this is off topic:
Romans 1:26-32, is Paul condemning a paganistic sex cult. He's not happy is he? What he's not happy about is idolatry incidentally. This passage isn't about condemning homosexuality as its primary focus. Where in this is it talking about gays? How does pagan sexy times have any relevance to that specific issue over others?

Corinthians and Timothy both revolve around how you get "abusers of themselves with mankind" from the translation of the word "arsenokoites" which is an extremely rare greek word (and actually this is its first recorded use). Makes you wonder why they didn't use one of the greek words they already had at the time to make it clear they meant 'homosexuals'. So we've got some strange obscure word used here. Its a compound word (like "honeymoon") that means "men" and "beds". It doesn't mean "menbeds" obviously, so in the same way that 'honeymoon' doesn't mean literally a moon made of honey, you need to look at context to see what it means. The only contextual appearances of this word is where it appears in lists of economic crimes, so this implies its some sort of prostitution, others have said it simply means promiscuity. Quite a stretch to suggest that one word could be substituted for 'any and all gay sex' when they could have said that if they wanted.

Your other examples are all relating to Sodam and Gomorrah. I don't think you've been paying very close attention if you still think they have any relevance.

[Abyssal Echo]

You've already got something like that in 21 states, 48% of Americans can have some sort of same-sex recognition. The problem with 'different but equivalent' is that Gays are still treated as second class citizens by that difference and it isn't legally equivalent in all regards.

Here in the UK we still miss out on some legal rights because Civil Partnerships don't link into all the existing laws, which is why we're looking at marriage. Same goes for France right now.

The other thing is the principle - "different but equivalent" is like Rosa Parks on the bus, or black only bars or whatever.

dude all a Marriage is is the UNION of 2 people with a ceremony usually performed by a minister / Preacher in a church or place the couple choose to have the ceremoney. vows can be exchanged infront of a Justice of the peace or a ships Capt. means the same as its done by a Preacher. either way you're joined as a couple / married. Prob is to get SOCIETY to see it that way.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[dusman77]

Ugh. I hate being the "I'm a super Christian on this site" person, cause I'm not.


You don't get into heaven just cause your nice. You have to have Jesus in your life. For Roman Catholicism, you can get into heaven through good works (and a belief in God), and it's similar for Mormonism. For the denominational Christianity, you can only get into heaven if you have Jesus in your life, meaning you accept him in your heart and such. Roman Catholicism, especialy, condemns homosexuality. If you are Gay, or support the LGBTQ, you will be asked to be Removed from the church. Some do this, some dont. The pope especially, condemns homosexuality. Here's what the Bible says about homosexuality:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
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.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7)

FYI. These are not my views. It is the views of the bible.


But to the question at hand.

Technically, religion has no right to interfere on the rights of others. But of course if the majority of America is protesting for the illegalization of gay marriage, the government would be in a tuff position. Because the government is there to serve the people, and if the majority are against one thing, then they will go with the majority. But the good part for the LGBTQ is that Republicans are starting to re evaluate themselves. Republicans know that they will not stay in office for to long if they withold the same, old fashioned values. So within the next 10 years, probably, the republicans won't be as against the LGBTQ as it has for so long.

Another positive for the LGBTQ is that there are tons of celebrities who are pro LGBTQ. But then there are those who have admitted they're against gay marriage, or have said offensive remarks about gays that is a big sign of how they feel. The following s based off of what they have said:

Pro Gay marriage:
Ellen DeGeneris
Sophia Vergara
Clint Eastwood
Kate Winslet
Brad Pitt
Ann Hathaway

Adam Lambert

anti Gay marriage:
Donald Trump
Chuck Norris
Most Rappers (although starting to change)
Blake Sheldon
Cee-lo Green
Kirk Cameron
Mel Gibson
Ronnie Magro
50 Cent
Really thorough. I'd like to add to it though. Those verses you pulled that "condemn" homosexuality don't necessarily do so. Matthew Vine dismantles the argument here against homosexuality. For all who do no know about him, look him up and watch his video about it.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[Sugaree]

You've already got something like that in 21 states, 48% of Americans can have some sort of same-sex recognition. The problem with 'different but equivalent' is that Gays are still treated as second class citizens by that difference and it isn't legally equivalent in all regards.

Here in the UK we still miss out on some legal rights because Civil Partnerships don't link into all the existing laws, which is why we're looking at marriage. Same goes for France right now.

The other thing is the principle - "different but equivalent" is like Rosa Parks on the bus, or black only bars or whatever.

So we can get laws passed that recognize what a church may call a "marriage" as a civil partnership. I mean, it's a different name, but the same thing. Religions call it marriage, government can call it civil partnership.

[kylem1229]

Im not gay, but im still in support of gay marriage. The first ammendment gives us personal freedom and rights. Therefore those who want to be bi/gay or whatever, should have the right to do so.

[dusman77]

The bible specifically says that it's a sin. Christians don't just throw away the Old Testament. They just don't listen to the stuff like rules for the Jewish people. God specifically says over and over that its a sin and an abomination. This isn't me interpreting anything. Christianity does look at the Old Testament and say "Oh, you know what, this book is old and there is nothing true in the Old Testament" both new and old are just as important. This isn't just for Catholics, but the denominational Christians and even Mormons too.

It's great you wanna think God Made homosexuality and that he is alright with it, but according to the Bible. It's not, It specifically says in so many verses that he is against it.

But here I have found specific versus about homosexuality in the NEW testament (unless you're gonna say the Christians believe the New Testament is obsolete too)




That's probably not enough evidence either so heres more:


Here is the law of God speaking against it:


I hate when people lie and say "God doesn't care about homosexuality" when it says that he does over, and over, and over again. At least be truthful with yourself and acknowledge he does speak out against it.

I'm a liar, I'm not gonna say "God doesn't care if people lie" cause I know that's not the truth. I know he hates liars, I'm not gonna be in denial about what is so obvious in the bible.

Here is even more:



So you're saying he made all those several versus speaking out against homosexuality, just to say (in your opinion) that he is alright with it in the New Testament (which I have proven you wrong about) ?

Obviously God is againt homosexuality.

And no, I'm still not being the super Christian on this site. Because I am just correcting you.


Ill quote what the bible says about liars, thieves, and people who look at guys with sexual desire. Which I am all 3 of those.

I would like to point out that not one of these verses point out homosexuality is wrong. It leaves implications and gaps, and they are often misinterpreted. However, when researching the Bible, not only does it contradict these verses, it actually provides examples that SUPPORT homosexuality.

[TigerBoy]

dude all a Marriage is is the UNION of 2 people with a ceremony usually performed by a minister / Preacher in a church or place the couple choose to have the ceremoney. vows can be exchanged infront of a Justice of the peace or a ships Capt. means the same as its done by a Preacher. either way you're joined as a couple / married. Prob is to get SOCIETY to see it that way.
Yep I agree. As long as that union is the same as everyone elses' I have no problem with it.


Apparently you ignored all the bible quotes I did.

Which ones did I ignore then?


Also, if you were right about the Old Testament not applying to Christians (which you aren't) then the Ten Commandments wouldn't apply to Christians either. Which obviously they do in the Christian world.
This is a strawman argument. First off, I'm telling you what is in the bible which you can read for yourself from the citations I've given you. Second, I didn't say the Ten Commandments were obsolete. This is also covered by the various citations.

Lastly. A union of 2 people is a union who cares what its called or where its done
Exactly - as long it is called the same and done in the same places for EVERYBODY.

Also on your definition of abomination - you are defining the English word, which is precisely the wrong thing to do. You need to look at the original Hebrew word. Once its been translated into English you've got a problem. Translators have to make choices like using literal translations (problem: honeymoon), or start guessing the intent based on context (problem: human interpretation based on knowledge of culture or history) etc.

@Fisk - sorry I deleted my reply to you when I was editing this following a flurry of other posts so I didn't double post. Yeah what you say is fine and might work legally. I think the existing civil-married couples might be upset by not being able to call themselves 'married' any more. The Church might feel excluded too if it had to use a different word to everyone else. I think it just moves the problem to be honest.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[TigerBoy]

What about Sodom and Gommorah? God destroyed that city because of its homosexuality.
No he didn't. Where do you think it says that?

Also, if the bible was so in favor of homosexuality, why would the Christians discriminate against homosexuals,
Because those Christians are sanctimonious bigots.


why would , for hundreds of years, people discriminate against homosexuals if the bible said "Being gay is good and is perfectly normal"?
Because they'd get called 'fag' or 'fag enablers' or the WBC-equivalent of the time.


You can't tell me that for hundreds of years Christians got the bible wrong when it said that homosexuality is a sin. So for thousands of years and thousands of scribes Christianity got it wrong?

Yep, exactly that. About all kinds of stuff actually, but lets not get distracted here.


Because a few dozen theologians and over the course of a few decades say the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Intelligence is in short supply, and the religious prefer 'sheep'.


If homosexuality was so natural in the bible, and if God is supporting it. He would've included it in passages like this one:
Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
It would've said "Wife or Husband". Not just wife. So from this one verse alone, it disproves your whole argument.

No it doesn't, because your reasoning is flawed: this is a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Try again.




The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
It was actually also used to refer to people who are weak-willed, cowardly or lazy and a host of other things too. Its about as precise a term as "dickhead" - its just a negative word. There's no valid reason here for picking on boy prostitutes over all the other negative connotations, and even then it wouldn't affect those who weren't 'kept boys' even using your definition.



If God were so supportive of homosexuals, why in the world would he say words like "unnatural" or "vile"?
In the following verse
This passage is not talking about homosexuals. It is talking about the pagan cult which was committing idolatry, and rejecting the truth that is known to them (as Paul writes in verses 18-20). What is being picked up here is people going against what was their original natures as a direct corollary to what this entire passage is actually about, i.e. a pagan sect turning away from god. So this is condemning straight people for sex with the same sex (i.e. against their original nature). By the same logic a gay person would also be condemned for having sex with the opposite sex since again, that would be going against their original nature. This passage doesn't say 'gay sex is wrong' it says 'going against your nature is wrong'.


I've already addressed Leviticus and Corinthians - please go read my previous post.



When you look up meanings in the bible. You look at the literal meaning, when it says abomination. It means the literal word for abomination. Scribes have already done the work for us and translated the Hebrew word of abomination to our language.
You might, but I don't. Bible scholars spend a great deal of time looking at the finer points of translation.

Holy fuck it seems like people are just ignorant, I'm laying the damn facts right there and you guys are saying "Nope. When god says that homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God he only means..."
Its called "debating". You make points and I show you how you are wrong. You then reply by repeating yourself, not reading my points, swearing, and proselytising all the while claiming not to be super religious. I then reply with more explanations of how you are wrong. "Debating".

Stop living in denial by thinking "God supports homosexuals". God loves homosexuals, but HATES the sin. God loves the sinner, hates the sin. God loves the sinner, but DOES NOT support the sin.
It's sad how much in denial you are in believing God supports sin.
When I have reasons and explanations for alternative interpretations that is not unreasoned denial, that is denial of your version of things. Its called disagreement. Its allowed.

The bottom line you are missing here is that you do not have a personal and exclusive right to interpret the bible in one particular way.

[ProudConservative]

If you mean the US, how do you make out it was partly built on religion? Some of your founding fathers and most respected presidents don't think so.


John Adams, Founding Father


Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and 3rd president


Abraham Lincoln, 16th president.


Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president.




Oh, 2 Founding Fathers and 5 presidents. Look in the Constitution, and you will find it. Even my government teacher who has a political science masters degree says it was partly founded on religion.

Unfortunately, none of them prove your so-called point.

Yes, I edited it, just after Tiger quoted and posted before I could finish though.

[TigerBoy]

Oh, 4 presidents. Look in the Constitution, and you will find it. Even my government teacher who has a political science masters degree says it was partly founded on religion.

Ah ok so your teacher knows what the founding fathers thought better than the founding fathers in their own words huh? "Whatever."

Next you'll be telling me your dad's bigger than my dad.

[ProudConservative]

Ah ok so your teacher knows what the founding fathers thought better than the founding fathers in their own words huh? "Whatever."

Next you'll be telling me your dad's bigger than my dad.

Again, look at the CONSTITUTION. Read it, live it, breathe it, I don't care. Learn it, and maybe you'll have a better understanding of the Founding Fathers.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[TigerBoy]

Again, look at the CONSTITUTION. Read it, live it, breathe it, I don't care. Learn it, and maybe you'll have a better understanding of the Founding Fathers.
You made the claim and I refuted it based on the very clear views of those founding fathers and notable presidents I quoted. If you are correct you can prove me wrong by a) citing where it says that in the constitution and b) naming the religion you believe it is built upon. However you do it, the burden of proving your claim lays with you.

I'm not a US citizen, I don't claim to know your constitution, so feel free to educate me.


Well, America was partly founded on Christianity. Your from England, I doubt you know more than a History teacher that spent several years getting a history degree in America.

Please see above.

Great job not reading the verses. Which clearly talk about homosexuality. Can't deny the part in white.
Yeah, see I can. "Great job" on not reading the part where I said previously:

I've already addressed Leviticus and Corinthians - please go read my previous post.

Thought of any good reason for why I should believe that your interpretation is the 'right one' over the vast number of other interpretations of the bible yet?

Edit:
Oh gosh I see more has appeared in your post as if by magic...

(1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.[1]

What is this quoting? Better to quote the good book and let us draw our own conclusions.
The error is in point 3 - the city was destroyed because they tried to gang rape the angels, amongst other sins. The interpretation of this as being about homosexuality crept in during the middle ages as I already said way back. Nowhere does it say "because of homosexuality" in relation to this story. Of all the references to his story, the sins of pride, laziness, adultery etc are all listed out. Not once does it support the interpretation that the sins included homosexuality, let alone soley about homosexuality. Again already said all this.

It's common knowledge
Nope sorry, another fallacy. Argumentum ad populum Just because it is, or you claim it is, common knowledge doesn't make it a fact.

[Cicero]

Posts removed

[TigerBoy]

You sound pretty cocky, and like you know everything about America. One of the big reasons those immigrants moved from England is because of your guys' king. Not just religious freedom. If it were truly for religious freedom, they wouldn't have remained Protestant, they would've changed religions when moving. But they didn't. They stayed Christian. Which disproves they wanted to not be Christian.

By explaining how to argue a point in a debate as opposed to (for example) swearing and getting frustrated, and also by saying "please educate me" I sound cocky? How does that work, exactly?

Also while I have no interest in going off topic further to discuss history, I think you'll find that Protestantism is a Christian religion, but hey, what do I know.

[ProudConservative]

Anyone can believe in any religion in America, even it's as stupid as worshipping a hotdog. People of other religions not Christianity, weren't granted the privilege of free religion, moved to America.

Also, I found a bunch if quotes from the Founding Fathers. http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html

Seriously, before you post, especially about the Constitution, know what you're saying. No, not a lot of them were Catholic, mostly Protestant, some deists.

[TigerBoy]

Anyone can believe in any religion in America, even it's as stupid as worshipping a hotdog. People of other religions not Christianity, weren't granted the privilege of free religion, moved to America.

Also, I found a bunch if quotes from the Founding Fathers. http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html

Seriously, before you post, especially about the Constitution, know what you're saying. No, not a lot of them were Catholic, mostly Protestant, some deists.

Yep all interesting, thanks. None of that actually indicates where religion is actually employed in the constitution other than in the very abstract sense of an inspiration of general morality. You yourself have said that some of the founding fathers were 'deists' - deism is a rejection of organised religion. Jefferson, Madison and others were very careful to ensure that the constitution was divorced from any particular religion. I am more convinced by the very clear refutation of your statement by John Adams which carries the weight of being part of a legal treaty and thus an official statement on behalf of the nation, rather than something casually said over dinner or whatever.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[CharlieHorse]

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Or even this one...


1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


Those were written a long time ago when people thought homosexuality was evil. We know now that it's a common thing, and it's a good thing for society. Make updates maybe? :p

[TigerBoy]

@Mrcharkteeth - quite right. It also doesn't help if you use really bad translations. If you pick something other than a 'fag hating' bible translation, it says something completely different:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corintihians 6:9-10 QJV p554



Doesn't matter what you say about these books. They clearly state what God says about homosexuality. Both new and Old Testament versions.
Ok I am just going to assume you didn't mean to randomly repeat the leviticus & the 'fag hating' mistranslation of the corinthian bits I already dealt with because that would just be getting bizarre now.

And yes, it does matter what I say, or rather what my views are, thanks so much, seeing as this isn't a black and white issue as the bigots want everyone to think. So far you've failed to show me where the bible tells me homosexuality is wrong, or where your interpretations are better than my interpretations. The interpretations I've given you offer a way of reading the bible without having to support bigotry. Whether you want to do that is entirely up to you.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[TigerBoy]

THE ABOVE IS WHERE THE BIBLE SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. I'm not saying in society it's wrong. I'm saying in Christianity it's wrong.
For the third time I'm showing you the scriptures that say that homosexuality is wrong. These are interpretations, it says it right there (I even did in in colors so you know)

That is just one of Christianity's interpretations. You are still missing question I've put to you several times already : why are the interpretations you are showing me any better than the ones I already prefer?

See, I can do colours too ...

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corintihians 6:9-10 QJV p554

It doesn't matter which bible you quote it from, if you analyse the individual passages against the most authoritative and oldest versions of those passages it comes down to the scholarly points I've already discussed. I can sit down and write a completely new version of that passage right now, but the Olly Bible translation is only as good as my source and my skill and honesty as a translator. Did you know Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of great chunks of the Bible? It didn't mean his version was 'right', but it was 'right for him'.

[Sugaree]

Anyone can believe in any religion in America, even it's as stupid as worshipping a hotdog. People of other religions not Christianity, weren't granted the privilege of free religion, moved to America.

Also, I found a bunch if quotes from the Founding Fathers. http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html

Seriously, before you post, especially about the Constitution, know what you're saying. No, not a lot of them were Catholic, mostly Protestant, some deists.

Actually, Christians were pretty persecuted in the earlier days of America. Most of this country was Protestant or Puritan for a few decades. It's more probable that the Founding Fathers were Protestant or even Anglican in belief.

[Cicero]

That is just one of Christianity's interpretations. You are still missing question I've put to you several times already : why are the interpretations you are showing me any better than the ones I already prefer?

See, I can do colours too ...

1 Corintihians 6:9-10 QJV p554

It doesn't matter which bible you quote it from, if you analyse the individual passages against the most authoritative and oldest versions of those passages it comes down to the scholarly points I've already discussed. I can sit down and write a completely new version of that passage right now, but the Olly Bible translation is only as good as my source and my skill and honesty as a translator. Did you know Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of great chunks of the Bible? It didn't mean his version was 'right', but it was 'right for him'.

Fuck me -_-

I misunderstood what you've meant. Now I understand.

Well most of the translations have something similar to what I said, not your. Most include the homosexuality word.

[TigerBoy]

Fuck me -_-

I misunderstood what you've meant. Now I understand.

Well most of the translations have something similar to what I said, not your. Most include the homosexuality word.

True, but you don't need me to tell you the reason for that I'm sure ;-) From my point of view the whole point of this sort of discussion is just to get people thinking more critically about these things and seeing that other interpretations are possible and valid, and hopefully showing LGBT Christians they can feel ok about themselves.

[Cicero]

Post removed

[TigerBoy]

It's great doing that. But I do not see how possible it is, there are small amounts of Christians that say homosexuality is ok. But the Catholic Church, Mormon church, and denominational churches teach against homosexuality. There will be only small amounts of Christians that will feel good about being homosexual, cause Christianity teaches homosexuality is like any other sin. No more or less than any other sin.

Its really very possible - it isn't factually correct to say 'small amounts' say it is ok. Here in the UK the Catholic population were surveyed (http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2010/at-odds-with-the-church-roman-catholic-opinion-ii/)and the opposite was found to be true: only 11% thought homosexuality was morally wrong. There are large number of faiths backing calls for equal marriage in the UK and stating they wish to perform the ceremony - clearly they don't have a problem about "feeling good" about being gay Christians within those communities.

It is also disingenuous to say 'more or less than any other sin'. The issue is precisely that the 'leaders' use it as ready currency: in the US particularly you seem to have some very loud voices who have a real problem with homosexuality far and beyond other sin. You have the pope using his 'peace' message to explain how gay marriage will lead to the end of humanity. Homosexuality is a headline grabbing, polarising 'sin' that these leaders continually highlight and push beyond any other.

You have a lot of very loud, very well funded right-wing voices in the US who are doing their utmost to convince the population that everyone agrees with their conservative views. They just discovered in the presidential elections they are very wrong about that.

In the UK we've seen a huge reversal in sentiment about the morality of homosexuality, and the growing support for equal marriage in the US suggest that the grass roots feeling on homosexuality is not in line with the moral teachings of some churches, and is going the same way.

In short, when you say "Christianity teaches" it is more accurate to say "some denominations of Christianity teaches" or "a dwindling number of Christian denominations teach".

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Why has religion always been complete nonsense? Gay marriage is as moral as straight marriage. Idk what the world's problem is.

[ProudConservative]

Yep all interesting, thanks. None of that actually indicates where religion is actually employed in the constitution other than in the very abstract sense of an inspiration of general morality. You yourself have said that some of the founding fathers were 'deists' - deism is a rejection of organised religion. Jefferson, Madison and others were very careful to ensure that the constitution was divorced from any particular religion. I am more convinced by the very clear refutation of your statement by John Adams which carries the weight of being part of a legal treaty and thus an official statement on behalf of the nation, rather than something casually said over dinner or whatever.

Yes, and by separating state and church, article 6, that ensures that religious institutions aren't controlled by government. Also, it doesn't just HAVE to be in the Constitution.

[TigerBoy]

Yes, and by separating state and church, article 6, that ensures that religious institutions aren't controlled by government. Also, it doesn't just HAVE to be in the Constitution.
I think you must be reading a different article six to me then:



All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


The only bit about religion there is that you can't have any sort of test for religion for entering public office (so you can't use religion or lack of religion as grounds for allowing or blocking someone from holding office).

[Skyline]

Those were written a long time ago when people thought homosexuality was evil. We know now that it's a common thing, and it's a good thing for society. Make updates maybe? :p

I agree 100%! That goes for almost every single document the US was founded on though...I just think its time for a change... Gays need a Martin Luther King Jr.

[Sugaree]

Yes, and by separating state and church, article 6, that ensures that religious institutions aren't controlled by government. Also, it doesn't just HAVE to be in the Constitution.

So why do religious institutions try to control the government? Why are people elected to positions of power based on belief? The separation of church and state has to go both ways for it to work.

[Cicero]

Its really very possible - it isn't factually correct to say 'small amounts' say it is ok. Here in the UK the Catholic population were surveyed (http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2010/at-odds-with-the-church-roman-catholic-opinion-ii/)and the opposite was found to be true: only 11% thought homosexuality was morally wrong. There are large number of faiths backing calls for equal marriage in the UK and stating they wish to perform the ceremony - clearly they don't have a problem about "feeling good" about being gay Christians within those communities.

It is also disingenuous to say 'more or less than any other sin'. The issue is precisely that the 'leaders' use it as ready currency: in the US particularly you seem to have some very loud voices who have a real problem with homosexuality far and beyond other sin. You have the pope using his 'peace' message to explain how gay marriage will lead to the end of humanity. Homosexuality is a headline grabbing, polarising 'sin' that these leaders continually highlight and push beyond any other.

You have a lot of very loud, very well funded right-wing voices in the US who are doing their utmost to convince the population that everyone agrees with their conservative views. They just discovered in the presidential elections they are very wrong about that.

In the UK we've seen a huge reversal in sentiment about the morality of homosexuality, and the growing support for equal marriage in the US suggest that the grass roots feeling on homosexuality is not in line with the moral teachings of some churches, and is going the same way.

In short, when you say "Christianity teaches" it is more accurate to say "some denominations of Christianity teaches" or "a dwindling number of Christian denominations teach".

That's only for Cqtholics in the UK. That doesn't include Catholics on a global scale. And What about Mormonism, or baptist, or Protestant, or Lutheran, or all those other branches?

[TigerBoy]

That's only for Cqtholics in the UK. That doesn't include Catholics on a global scale. And What about Mormonism, or baptist, or Protestant, or Lutheran, or all those other branches?

Since you made the claim that "there are small amounts of Christians that say homosexuality is ok." (which is clearly not the case in the UK) the burden of proof is on you to show it is true, and to do that you also need to justify what you mean by "a small number".

In order to refute your non constat claim, I've just given you figures that illustrate a trend that substantiates the opposite situation based on data from one of the most vocal opponents of homosexuality as well as outlining national trends in tolerance.

As a supporting point I'll add to that with some further statistics (http://wwsm.org.uk/news/2012/10/statistics-round-up--religion-in-decline-around-europe-and-usa)that indicate that whatever its position, Christianity's views are increasingly less relevant. 20% of the US have no religious affiliation (much higher in the younger generation), and on the topic of Catholics they are losing 12% of their membership annually due to child abuse scandals, bad experiences with religion etc.

[Majin Vegeta]

the constitution says separation of church and state but that's definately not true

and yes gay marriage should be legal and for it to truly be separate the church shouldn't have any say in the laws for the rest of the country

[Shadowin]

Let me start out by just stating that I'm not going to respond to anyone except the original poster this thread.

Now that that's out of the way, Where do I begin? The government we now uphold today was built on 18th century beliefs and standards, but has evolved as social morals have evolved and changed over the last 200 or so years. Amendments have been added since then and I will refer to amendment 14 section 1 which states that: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Which was originally intended for slaves who had recently been freed. religion stated that you could own slaves, so why not state that you can disallow gay marriage? This amendment states that you can't stop a person from perusing their dreams, and yet we refuse to let people get married. All because of religion. If anyone is very religious and easily offended i suggest you not read on. Religion was based on the fact that an almighty god could decide what you would and wouldn't do. The bible was a reflection of moral standards during the time it was written which states that marriage was a binding contract between a father and the man his daughter was going to marry that was a transfer of ownership. Women were property and could be owned much like a slave. Although during this time Men could own women and this meant that she would birth his children and clean, cook, and do various other household tasks. Men couldn't own other men which is why the bible in Leviticus stated that man shall not lay with men as he lays with a women. So in all actuality it was just saying that a man could not own a man. Do we still hold women as property? no of course not which renders the bible a useless tool which can be used to demean and belittle gay right.

[MrDaniel2K13]

Why all has all this only came about recently?

[Amaryllis]

If man was made in God's image, the existence of homosexuals hints that God must be a little gay. Not completely, but just a little. Maybe sometimes he just likes to gay it up a bit, you know?

Okay, seriousface.jpg now. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and many people wish to stick to tradition, but really, really? Progress requires change and if we choose to cling to the past, the future will not be whole.

Religion - and take note that this is but my opinion - should not play a role in politics, because there is not one religion and not all people share the same beliefs. That said, there are countries where religious text is law, such as Sharia law. But if we're simply talking about the bible, then no, it shouldn't matter.

We should not have a say in other people's love lives or who people choose to kiss. America ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are founding members of the UN, and despite the agreement not being law-binding, it should be withheld. If all humans are to be equal and free from discrimination, gay marriage should be allowed.

Unless all of the LGBT community are Christians or bible readers, a book - who's authenticity is questionable - really should have no say.

[TigerBoy]

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and many people wish to stick to tradition, but really, really? Progress requires change and if we choose to cling to the past, the future will not be whole.
Exactly. Tradition is not a valid reason for doing something, or adults would go around sucking their thumbs or pacifiers like they "traditionally" did as a kid. As far as definition, I think the important question there is 'who defines it', and since no one 'owns' the idea of marriage, it can be whatever we want it to be. Christianity certainly doesn't have a monopoly on it as it seems to think, and there were still same sex marriage ceremonies in the early days of Christianity before that one religion imposed its views.

We should not have a say in other people's love lives or who people choose to kiss. America ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are founding members of the UN, and despite the agreement not being law-binding, it should be withheld. If all humans are to be equal and free from discrimination, gay marriage should be allowed.

Excellent point.


Unless all of the LGBT community are Christians or bible readers, a book - who's authenticity is questionable - really should have no say.
Nor should a minority of conservative Christians impose their views on other Christians: let's not forget there are plenty of Christians who support equal marriage.

This isn't about 'gay rights' versus Christians, this is 'gay rights' versus some right-wing conservatives who in the US include well funded and noisy Christians.

[CrashingWaves]

I think the very fact that the first amendment gives us the freedom of religion also declares that any law derived purely from the bible or whatever is unconstitutional, because if a law is created purely on the merits of the bible, then it inherently infringes on a muslim's freedom of religion.

And as far as gay marriage is considered, to me, it is a matter of civil rights.

Anyways, who is the government to say who I can or can't marry? If a church doesn't want to marry me because it against their principles, fine. If the government refuses to acknowledge my marriage, it is time for a new government (or at least new legislation).

[Zenos]

Yes, and by separating state and church, article 6, that ensures that religious institutions aren't controlled by government. Also, it doesn't just HAVE to be in the Constitution.

Funny thing though is the religious groups are trying to control the government.