Government Drops Defense Of Anti-gay-marriage Law

I wouldn't say the New Testament is "gay-friendly." Homosexuality is expressly denounced by Paul in one of his letters (I can't remember which off the top of my head), and indirectly attacked via broad terminology which condemns all sexual sin many times.

What I would say is that the New Testament is "people-friendly," in that it teaches all people are equally sinful and that the grace of Christ is available to all of us anyway--not by our merit, but by His.

The New Testament condemns a lot of behavior, but it forgives all of it, as well.

That type of argument will work better on any Christian who is familiar with their Bible and can quote the aforementioned New Testament passages.

Not interested in getting into a bible discussion here but most of the people that I've spoken with that are against gay marrige while using the bible as their reason use new testament verses to argue their point and not old testament ones.

Furthermore, claiming truth in theology arguments is in and of itself a flawed proposition. This is an argument that has no "right" answer and can a best lead you to a circular discussion that has no end.

Regarding your statement that those who fight against gay marrige would have issue with a complete seperation of religious and secular unions, I think that you are mistaken. The legal contract of marriage is not nearly as important to these people as the religious contract of marriage. I think for the most part they would be quite pleased with the state leaving them alone in this regard.

I'm really not sure which letter you're talking about. I'd have to see these passages to believe it. There are also translation issues to consider: several English editions of the bible, including the King James, mistranslate the original Greek words for concepts like sexual sin into things like our modern word "sodomy." (The Greeks were famously quite OK with sodomy and didn't consider it unnatural at all, so it makes little sense to add this modern baggage to their terms.)

I'm truly and honesty unaware of anywhere in the New Testament that condemns homosexuality the way the Old Testament does.

the whole marriage ceremony itself is riddled with christian based implications. if you think about it, a country that values seperation of church and state, the gov't cant tell christian churches to start accepting something their religion doesnt tolerate. now if they just made a law where any homosexual male or female were allowed to just goto a courthouse, get a paper that defines them as a legal couple recognized by the fed, as a christian id be fine with it. what i cant accept is them violating what i consider to be a a religious experience by having the whole vows, the chapel, the minister, etc.

theres nothing wrong with gays getting legal partnerships, but eh, i wish theyd quit acting like severely opressed minorities.

Which verses are you thinking of? The standard ones I've seen include Leviticus and Genesis, which are Old Testament.

Anyways, I'm not claiming the Bible is actually right or wrong about any of this stuff (again, I'm an atheist), I'm saying that a lot of Christians in America seem to have a very particular interpretation of it when it comes to issues of homosexuality, and that interpretation seems to be wrong.


lol Wait a minute, a change in the laws to allow gay marriage DOES leave straight couples alone: making marriage ceremonies legally hollow and requiring everyone to get civil unions instead explicitly doesn't leave them alone. I think what you're really trying to express here is that these people want the religious aspects of marriage all to themselves: they don't want gay people to participate. And what I'm saying is that, as soon as you remove the legal aspects of marriage, this "protection" disappears ENTIRELY. The only thing preventing same-sex couples from getting married right now is the fact that the forms you have to fill out at the courthouse say "Husband" and "Wife": the legal machinery simply isn't set up to process same-sex couples. When it was set up to process them, several states freaked out and held votes to ban it. Notice that straight couples never had the legitimacy of their ceremonies affected one way or the other: they just had to share the space. What you're proposing here is actually a far more radical change. Gay and Lesbian Churches will start holding religious ceremonies everywhere and there will be no legal hurdles preventing them from doing so, as there are right now. As soon as that happens, we'll hear the same outcries that marriage is 'under attack', etc.

I'm referring to I Corinthians 6:9. I have three versions on hand:
ASVNRSVKJVI'm much better with Hebrew than I am with Greek, but most scholars I'm acquainted with argue that the two Greek words that form the final two items listed here, combine to form an idiom which refers to both those who give and receive in homosexual sex. Though, I'm sure there are people who would disagree.

Paul (the author of I Corinthians), despite being a Roman citizen, was a Jew. He wrote in Greek, but many Jews had a strong distaste for Greco-Roman culture--especially their sexual practices.

Hrmm. Well, I guess I stand corrected.

This is a generational epidemic. most of us (americans) do not go out & vote against our elders (or pressure political figures) in the great numbers that the people in the age range of 50-90 do. These goofy archaic ideas will eventually fade as these older generations do. Its a shame people will be treated poorly in the mean time.

I wasn't really trying to correct you or prove you wrong. You were welcoming arguments on the point, so I figured I'd help you be more prepared for what might come.

If it's any consolation, I agree with your conclusion (that most Christians who take issue with gay marriage have screwed up theology), just not exactly with how you got there =D

Let the gays marry but don't let them have the ceremony in a church. Problem solved. Not fair to not give them equal rights.

Now I'm interested. Why do you think their theology is screwed up?

Suppose a church wants to let them have a ceremony there. Suppose the church was established by gay theists. (They exist.) How is it equal rights to tell them that straight people can have their ceremonies there but not gay people?

Hell, why are we even telling gay people what they can or can't do in the first place?

I think it's funny that some think that marriage was originally a religious institution.

Seperate but equal worked with those dern black people didn't it?
....owait!
it didn't.
what are you getting on again?

this point speaks on many levels to those pushing the whole "keep gays away from churches and it'll be all okay" approach.

my opinion:
live and let live.
seems like an extremist "gays our invading, they will make all our children gay" kind of concept sits behind the concept of disallowing gay marriage IMO.

Page 2 about Gay Marriage and POLITICS!?!

And its actually civilized..way to go ffxiah i'm proud of you today. I have this weird warm and fuzzy feeling that won't go away. Something must be wrong with me.

Suppose I'm sort of obligated to answer that, lol.

The answer I gave before is part of it: Christ died for all humanity (all creation, if you want to get technical), not just the straight parts.

Second: The Greek word for sexual sin (pornea) includes all forms of sexual immorality (homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, rape, etc.), not just homosexuality. Jesus taught that anyone who desires to commit any given sin is guilty of actually committing it. The logical end to this is that everyone is guilty of murder, theft, sexual immorality, and many other things. So, all those Christians who even fantasized about having sex before they were married, are just as guilty of pornea as practicing homosexuals.

Third: We do not live in "The United States of Christianity." I think this speaks for itself. But just to clarify, the Bible actually teaches that Christians should abide by the laws of the country they live in and be model citizens (as long as that doesn't mean they must deny Christ). I think, as stated before, the Constitution would be appropriately interpreted as defending the rights of gays to get married. Since this in no way requires they deny Christ, Christians should gladly accept it.

Lrn to read the thread k. We already discussed this and moved on.

Calling people extremists simply because they believe differntly than you shows that you are more interested in getting your way than finding a solution that can work for both sides. By using inflamatory and inaccurate language you are just a mirror image of the people you argue against.

Idc if the church doesn't like gay ppl and don't want them do have the ceremony. But it is definitely not fair from the government to give married couple different rights then to gay ppl which would never be able to get these rights because they can't marry. Just because of the church. How can the CHURCH decide such a thing? If married ppl wouldnt benefit from it and get different rights from the government then I wouldn't care. But they do.

This came completely out of left field by this administration. As always in politics, when something happens like this it is to deflect attention away from something else. Stay vigilant!

2012 cannot come soon enough for this White House.

*grin* I'm so going to remember that.

The third bit sounds pretty slam-dunk to me. Trying to play devil's advocate, I was tempted to say that a Christian might claim that allowing gay marriage does require that they deny Christ, but even that, I don't think could be maintained reasonably: they personally are not doing anything un-Christian when the gay couple across town gets married, even if they believe that the gay couple is.

So, put simply, you don't have to like it, but you have to live with it because the Constitution says so and Christ told you to respect that, biotch.

I think I'll have to say this again... Let the gays marry, in churchs of their religion, so they can be just as miserable and drained of their souls as hetero couples are. Because everyone needs to experience that nagging *** of a spouse at least once in their life.

In this case the churches would be left to squabble amongst themselves over yet another subject.

It doesn't involve government and no ones rights are being infringed upon. Win/win.

who is calling people extremists?
learn to read.
"seems like an extremist concept" is not the same thing as calling someone an extremist.
you don't have to be an extremist to have said ideals.
HURRDURR.
it's funny that you told me to learn to read.
when you say we already covered it means you already covered it so it shouldn't be mentioned anymore if I disagree?
wot?
hence the reason i quote what you said.
learn to read.
:D
nice try dictating a thread with the royal "we" there.
:P

This away from the religious bit, but I think one of the weights attached to allowing gay marriage is that the next step is pressing for legal joint adoption by same sex couples. There is a concern this will have some impact on adopted children (wondering why they have two fathers or mothers, having to explain their parents to other children/classmates/prospective partners, being dragged into anti-gay discrimination just because of their parents, etc.), and of course people who are concerned that gay couples will encourage homosexuality or homophobia in their adopted child(ren).

Had a long debate session about this whole topic, and the director firmly held that this second decision was what kept the gov't from doing anything solid about gay marriage (besides ban it). I kind of want to see how kids feel who were brought into same-sex parenting at different ages and in different areas (either coming along with one of the two partners from a previous relationship, or from in vitro, or whatever - not sure if an adopted child in a country where it's legal would be quite the same). I imagine they exist, right? Plus there are terrible straight-couple parents all over anyway.

The passage for the third bit is I Peter 2:13-17, just in case you end up needing that info =P

NRSV

I wonder if they've held any studies about something like that.
Seems like something someone would hold a study for.

Well, I personally am more interested in getting my way than finding a solution that can work for both sides. I frankly don't care if the opponents of gay marriage get all worked up if when gay couples start sharing vows in churches or have their relationship recognized by the state or have it called marriage, or whatever. It's not their place to decide who can and can't be in a relationship or what sorts of religious beliefs they're allowed to live according to. If a gay couple wants to be married before God, that's their choice: if a Christian finds that blasphemous, too freaking bad, it's not their decision. They can think whatever they want, but they shouldn't have the power to decide other people's lives for them. If finding a solution that can work for both sides means giving them that power, then there should be no compromise.

Divorce attorney's across the nation are wetting themselves right now. That can't wait for gay marriage to be recognized.

Completely agreed. Sounds good to me.

Putting aside the fact that groups other than Christians have been performing marriage ceremonies for centuries, there are so many denominations of Christianity that it's offensive to assume none are accepting of gay marriages or that gay people cannot be religious. And to be honest, the argument that your religious rights will be infringed upon when gay marriage becomes legal is so old to me as a Canadian. Everyone was crying over the exact same thing when it became a legal here. The government included passages reiterating freedom of religion so that no religious institution would be "forced" to perform a ceremony they felt was against their belief system.