Never a good way to introduce yourself

[wolfpackjeeper]

which religion is it that embraces gay marriage? Not picking a fight, you just said you could think of a major world religion that embraces it, then didn't mention which one. Just curious.

 

[muduck18]

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage. I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays, I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs to participate in gay sex (and I have no desire to do so), but hey, if you want to do it, go ahead, just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

Well said.
but lets not forget the spreading of aids thing... breeding resentment and spreading aids.

.
Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

You wouldn't hear so much about it if people would stop fighting against equal rights for all. Get over yourselves.

here you go. if you believe that homosexuality is "OK" then you are not a true Christian. there is no such thing as a 'conservative' and 'liberal' Christian.

There is a Christian or Hypocrite

Should people have the right to bestiality? In the Bible Homosexuality is compared and punished the same as bestiality, and many people find it equally as repulsive.

Why do I keep responding? this is a completely useless thread..

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Well said.
but lets not forget the spreading of aids thing... breeding resentment and spreading aids.

Which straight people can spread as well.

here you go. if you believe that homosexuality is "OK" then you are not a true Christian. there is no such thing as a 'conservative' and 'liberal' Christian.

There is a Christian or Hypocrite

Should people have the right to bestiality? In the Bible Homosexuality is compared and punished the same as bestiality, and many people find it equally as repulsive.

Oh, so you speak the mind of God? You follow every word to the letter in the Bible? You follow every prohibition in Leviticus? I didn't think so. Hypocrite. Shut the hell up and stop trying to put yourself on a pedestal. You're just like every other conservative when cornered, you lash out against the opposition.

Why do I keep responding? this is a completely useless thread..

I don't know. You ran out of valid points quite a while ago.

 

[muduck18]

I don't know. You ran out of valid points quite a while ago.

While you have yet to put one up.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

You have been lashing out in every post, what makes u different? U still never said which major religion encourges gay marriage.

This is on my bberry so forgive the shorthand

 

[TheAlmightySam]

You have been lashing out in every post, what makes u different?

I have? I've been throwing out personal attacks? Where? The closest thing I can find is referring to that nonexistent OCD article as bullshit. Apologies if that came across as a personal attack - it was not intended as such. Interesting that the article has yet to materialize, though.

U still never said which major religion encourges gay marriage.

In my studies of Buddhism, the Buddha was neither encouraging to gays, nor condemning. He did, though, condemn other sexual practices.

From Mettanando Bhikko, a physician and Buddhist monk:
"[according to the principles of the Buddha,] homosexual people should not be discriminated against; they are humans who deserve all the rights and dignity endowed upon them as members of human race."

Although Buddhism does not make strong demands of its followers regarding sexual behavior, one of the five precepts is to "avoid sexual misconduct," which is spelled out fairly clearly in the Vinaya and never mentions homosexuality as forbidden.

Though few of us on this site might be Buddhists, it is a major world religion, as I mentioned. It does not encourage homosexuality (I never used that word), but it doesn't condemn it either. When someone says (paraphrasing) "every religion is against gay marriage," it would be a shame to not consider such a major and influential one.

 

[woody]

Since we're all pals here, I'll admit it:

I've been a lesbian trapped in a man's body for as long as I can remember. It's a difficult deal, as you may well imagine... and talking the wife into indulging me has been a less that fruitful venture. But she's old. Um I mean old fashioned. And mean, now that I think of it.

So I am needing a soul mate. Preferably not old (fashioned) and certainly not some other freak like me. Must be -40, female trapped in a female body, carniverous, kind, compassionate and willing to travel, rich would be a plus, as would be a functional knowledge of high explosives... (we'll count digits first date... adult show & tell! Less than twenty, without a real good story and I'm bailing out)

Thanks for listening...

Edit: mebbe I should post a wanted ad in the Classifieds?

 

[Darky]

You're speaking for every religion in the world? You're speaking for every religious leader of every religion on Earth? I have a hard time believing you represent everyone. I can think of at least one major religion that represents a large portion of the world populace that has no issue at all with gay marriage.

Most major religions are against homosexuality. Be glad that we evil conservative Christians aren't conservative Muslims, we'd kill gay people and you for defending them...:dunno:

Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

No, it's just Christian. Read the Bible, Romans 8 I think is the main chapter. Homosexuality isn't just called a sin in the Old Testament, it carries into the new. As far as your argument regarding the following of Levitical law, when Christ came and died on the cross, He fulfilled the law. He created a new covenant under grace. You are no longer required to adhere to the strict Levitical law. No one could, that's why the need for a Savior exists. If it was possible to make it on our own accord, Christ wouldn't have needed to endure the cross. As far as conservative Christians condemning gays, they're wrong. I'm a conservative Christian (in case you hadn't guessed by now...) and while I dislike the action, its no worse than any other sin. A sin is a sin. And we're all sinners, so I'm no more holy and righteous than a gay Christian (although in my worse moments I think I am). The only difference is which sin you're engaged in.


As far as marriage rights, my solution is to evict the gov't from marriage, period. Let marriage fall to the church since it was largely a religious thing anyways. If your church condones homosexuality and is willing to marry a gay couple, then let them marry in that church. Marriage would serve as a testament to your friends and loved ones of your devotion and commitment to your spouse. For tax benefits, we'd go to a universal civil union. Marriage would be in the church, whatever church you attend be it Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. Civil Union would be legal and would afford you all the rights currently given under marriage. It would be open to straight or gay.
See, we "conservative" Christians are capable of thinking up solutions that keep the majority happy.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Ok, they tolerate it. But I am unclear on if two dudes walked into a temple, would the shaman[?] marry them?
I do not attend often, but at my parent's church there are two couples. Both are accepted and welcomed but
Neither could be married. So I am not sure that buddism is much of an example.

It just seemed to me that you were attacking Christianity and others who believe in it. Forgive me if I am wrong
But that is how it came across

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Most major religions are against homosexuality. Be glad that we evil conservative Christians aren't conservative Muslims, we'd kill gay people and you for defending them...:dunno:

Never said conservatives were evil, and trust me, I don't think that at all. I just disagree with conservatives on many (but far from all) points. That doesn't make anyone evil.

Anyway, some conservative Christians have killed gays and their supporters. That's evil - not conservatism, but the actions people perform in the name of their god / leader / whoever.

I'm glad we live in a country where no religion is able to enforce its views upon others. That's what I'm arguing to prevent.

No, it's just Christian. Read the Bible, Romans 8 I think is the main chapter. Homosexuality isn't just called a sin in the Old Testament, it carries into the new. As far as your argument regarding the following of Levitical law, when Christ came and died on the cross, He fulfilled the law. He created a new covenant under grace. You are no longer required to adhere to the strict Levitical law. No one could, that's why the need for a Savior exists. If it was possible to make it on our own accord, Christ wouldn't have needed to endure the cross. As far as conservative Christians condemning gays, they're wrong. I'm a conservative Christian (in case you hadn't guessed by now...) and while I dislike the action, its no worse than any other sin. A sin is a sin. And we're all sinners, so I'm no more holy and righteous than a gay Christian (although in my worse moments I think I am). The only difference is which sin you're engaged in.

Eat pork? Then you're a sinner. Had sex with a girl on her period? Sinner. Does your church ordain women? I seem to remember something about that in the New Testament as well. There's lots of rules we find no longer applicable to our time.

Look, Jesus didn't want us to blindly follow the rules - that's why he got in the faces of the Pharisees. They followed the letter of the law without ever thinking about what it meant and why. They never questioned whether it was even applicable anymore. We have to avoid the mistakes of the Pharisees. This doesn't mean throw out the law, but it does mean we have to question it, over and over, and make sure it still makes sense.

As far as marriage rights, my solution is to evict the gov't from marriage, period. Let marriage fall to the church since it was largely a religious thing anyways. If your church condones homosexuality and is willing to marry a gay couple, then let them marry in that church. Marriage would serve as a testament to your friends and loved ones of your devotion and commitment to your spouse. For tax benefits, we'd go to a universal civil union. Marriage would be in the church, whatever church you attend be it Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. Civil Union would be legal and would afford you all the rights currently given under marriage. It would be open to straight or gay.

This is an acceptable solution to most, so long as the rights given are identical. But why not call it marriage? Why does it matter that it have a different name?

See, we "conservative" Christians are capable of thinking up solutions that keep the majority happy.

Like all groups, some are willing to think outside the box, but some get caught up in the dogma. Cheers on being the former and not the latter.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Ok, they tolerate it. But I am unclear on if two dudes walked into a temple, would the shaman[?] marry them?
I do not attend often, but at my parent's church there are two couples. Both are accepted and welcomed but
Neither could be married. So I am not sure that buddism is much of an example.

The temple I attended while doing my research had no issue performing a ceremony for a gay couple. I spoke with the monks there told me that it wasn't much of a hotbed issue to them, or many others. There are sects of conservative Buddhism that prohibit it, but they're the vast minority, in my understanding.

Additionally, I couldn't find any reference to homosexuality being prohibited in the Buddhist texts I read.

The Buddha promoted monogamy (or celibacy in some Buddhist orders), and my understanding is that he would have accepted monogamy in whatever form it might have taken.

It just seemed to me that you were attacking Christianity and others who believe in it. Forgive me if I am wrong
But that is how it came across

Far from it. I'm attacking the logic that tries to force-feed "Christian" (that's in quotes) morality onto the law without a rational basis. If you've got a non-religious reason gays shouldn't marry, I'm all ears. If you're trying to mask the fact that some Bible verse says so, and you want all of America to follow that, then I take issue with your purpose.

Apologies if it came across otherwise.

 

[Darky]

Never said conservatives were evil, and trust me, I don't think that at all. I just disagree with conservatives on many (but far from all) points. That doesn't make anyone evil. Yeah, sometimes I let my sarcasm overtake me...



Eat pork? Then you're a sinner. Had sex with a girl on her period? Sinner. Does your church ordain women? I seem to remember something about that in the New Testament as well. There's lots of rules we find no longer applicable to our time. Pork, porking on a period, those are under the old covenant. If you're a Christian, you're under the new covenant. As far as ordaining women, in many churches, that's still a practice. Everybody has a role. In my church you won't find a female pastor, but my mother in law is the worship leader. As far as any of these activites making someone a sinner, you must've missed where I said, "We're all sinners." All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Look, Jesus didn't want us to blindly follow the rules - that's why he got in the faces of the Pharisees. They followed the letter of the law without ever thinking about what it meant and why. They never questioned whether it was even applicable anymore. We have to avoid the mistakes of the Pharisees. This doesn't mean throw out the law, but it does mean we have to question it, over and over, and make sure it still makes sense.
Jesus got after the Pharisees because of the motivation behind their blind obedience to the law. They obeyed the law because they were supposed to. They completely ignored the role of grace and love. Jesus said the of all the commandments, "the greatest of these is love". All of the law hangs upon love. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. They asked, well, who is my neighbor? That wasn't the point, love all as yourself. Part of that love is pointing out to people when they're wrong. You do it in love, not like, "Hey idiot, don't ya know you're not supposed to lust after women?! Frickin retarded perv..." You should approach any wrong with the attitude of love. Lik when my kids try to go near our woodstove, I pull them back and tell them, "No, stay away from that, it is very hot and will burn you if you touch it."



This is an acceptable solution to most, so long as the rights given are identical. But why not call it marriage? Why does it matter that it have a different name? The whole point is for the rights to be even for all. That's why it would be civil union for all. Why not call it marriage? If you legalize gay marriage as marriage currently functions in the eyes of the law, there's too much opportunity for the more extreme gays ("militant gays", if you will) to try and sue a church for refusing to marry them. It also would maintain the sanctity of marriage for the churches that don't believe in gay marriage while also allowing the churches who do to marry gays as much as they want.



Like all groups, some are willing to think outside the box, but some get caught up in the dogma. Cheers on being the former and not the latter. I do my best.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Pork, porking on a period, those are under the old covenant. If you're a Christian, you're under the new covenant.

I find the new covenant pretty vague on the topic of homosexuality, personally. Romans 1:26-27 is the oft-quoted passage, but I have a hard time taking it in a vacuum. Seems to me that Paul is speaking of Roman pagans (Rom 1:18-24) and admonishing the Christians for bashing on the pagans, saying:

(1) You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (2) Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. (3) So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? (4) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

- Rom 2:1-4, NIV

It's nebulous, at best, what Paul is getting at here. I have a really difficult time accepting this as pure condemnation of homosexuality, especially considering how infrequent it's mentioned in the New Testament - not to mention that there's significant controversy regarding how much of the Pauline Epistles were actually written by Paul, and how many were added after the fact. There's a lot of question about the authenticity of some of his writings by scholars (Elaine Pagels, professor of Religion at Princeton, Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby, and others)

I always wondered - if homosexuality was such a huge issue for God, how come Jesus doesn't say a word about it? Of course, we only have limited writings regarding what he said, but it's interesting that all four of the gospels are devoid of anything to do with homosexuality. Seems like if the son of God were really concerned about it, he might have said something.

Or maybe it's not that big of a deal afterall...

Jesus got after the Pharisees because of the motivation behind their blind obedience to the law. They obeyed the law because they were supposed to. They completely ignored the role of grace and love. Jesus said the of all the commandments, "the greatest of these is love". All of the law hangs upon love. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. They asked, well, who is my neighbor? That wasn't the point, love all as yourself. Part of that love is pointing out to people when they're wrong. You do it in love, not like, "Hey idiot, don't ya know you're not supposed to lust after women?! Frickin retarded perv..." You should approach any wrong with the attitude of love. Lik when my kids try to go near our woodstove, I pull them back and tell them, "No, stay away from that, it is very hot and will burn you if you touch it."

I seem to remember something about, "how can you remove a splinter from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?" I'll stick with not pointing out the faults of others; I've got too many of my own. "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone," and all that.

If you legalize gay marriage as marriage currently functions in the eyes of the law, there's too much opportunity for the more extreme gays ("militant gays", if you will) to try and sue a church for refusing to marry them. It also would maintain the sanctity of marriage for the churches that don't believe in gay marriage while also allowing the churches who do to marry gays as much as they want.

Though this has yet to happen in the countries that have legalized gay marriage, at least as far as I can find. Put a provision in the law to protect churches, rather than calling it something else. Separate but equal has never worked, and calling something by a different name is just begging for some lawmaker to discriminate. I trust gays not to sue a lot more than I trust politicians to be fair.

 

[Darky]

I find the new covenant pretty vague on the topic of homosexuality, personally. Romans 1:26-27:
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
is the oft-quoted passage, but I have a hard time taking it in a vacuum. Seems to me that Paul is speaking of Roman pagans (Rom 1:18-24) and admonishing the Christians for bashing on the pagans, saying:

I added on 22-32. This is the King James version, believed to be the most accurate when compared to the original transcripts. The people are accused of making idols of God. Read verse 27, it's pretty clear.
However, I'm not necessarily here to try and convince you that God views homosexuality as a sin, that's between you and God to figure out. I know what the Bible says on it, and that's what I'm going with. But as I have been trying to help you understand, it's not a matter of are they bad people or not, are they below me, it's a matter of sin. They're sin doesn't make them less than me and my sin.

I seem to remember something about, "how can you remove a splinter from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?" I'll stick with not pointing out the faults of others; I've got too many of my own. "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone," and all that.

When casting stones, that means you have condemned that person. We are not called to condemn. Jesus didn't condemn. There's nothing wrong with pointing out to someone that they're messing up somewhere, if you do it with the right attitude. From the Proverbs: "The wise man loves instruction". How do you love instruction/correction if no one is able to correct you when you're wrong? If you see someone about to step out in front of a speeding semi, are you going to stand by and let them because the other day you stubbed your toe?

Though this has yet to happen in the countries that have legalized gay marriage, at least as far as I can find. Put a provision in the law to protect churches, rather than calling it something else. Separate but equal has never worked, and calling something by a different name is just begging for some lawmaker to discriminate. I trust gays not to sue a lot more than I trust politicians to be fair.

There's nothing separate about it. One institution will be strictly in the church, the other will be strictly for the gov't. It removes the gov't from what was largely a religious ceremony adopted by the government. Everyone has equal access to both marriage and civil union. I see no "separate but equal".
You have to remember, America is a bit different from the world. We have a strong attitude of entitlement. A lesbian couple already tried suing a fertility doctor when he wouldn't violate his religious beliefs by impregnating one of them. He did refer them to another doctor in his practice who had no qualms with doing the procedure. They sued to try to force the first doctor to do the procedure. Why not just write a law protecting the churches? Because that still leaves the churches high and dry as to the sanctity of marriage. My plan gives both sides access to what they want without stepping on the toes of either. If you're gay and want a church wedding, there are plenty of liberal churches out there who'd do the ceremony. If you don't want gays to be married, your church doesn't have to be a part of it. If you want tax benefits and survivorship rights, you file for a civil union, gay or straight.

 

[BobDog]

So just for the fun of it I read the forum rules:

"Although the administrators and moderators of Forums -::- North American XJ Association will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Forums -::- North American XJ Association, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Forums -::- North American XJ Association reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

If someone would just post something w/ subjects that pretain to the 'blue' words, we could call it a wrap!

 

[Darky]

So just for the fun of it I read the forum rules:

"Although the administrators and moderators of Forums -::- North American XJ Association will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Forums -::- North American XJ Association, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Forums -::- North American XJ Association reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

If someone would just post something w/ subjects that pretain to the 'blue' words, we could call it a wrap!

If you want it gone, you post something from the blue section. or I'll kill you

 

[BobDog]

If you want it gone, you post something from the blue section. or I'll kill you

golly....it was so much easier to bait folks when we were all little kids.....if nothing else worked you just grinned real big and said, "I double dog dare ya".
I miss those days sometimes....weren't any gay kids until HS. I was sheltered so I didn't know about gays until college. Still remember what I said. "YUCK, you have got to be kidding me!?":dunce:
Looking back tho....that young priest at church was actin pretty funny?????:laugh:

 

[Darky]

golly....it was so much easier to bait folks when we were all little kids.....if nothing else worked you just grinned real big and said, "I double dog dare ya".
I miss those days sometimes....weren't any gay kids until HS. I was sheltered so I didn't know about gays until college. Still remember what I said. "YUCK, you have got to be kidding me!?":dunce:
Looking back tho....that young priest at church was actin pretty funny?????:laugh:

look closer at my post...

 

[BobDog]

:doh:Yeah I know you're going to kill me.....damn its always something......

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Is Buddhism a religion per se? I am on a computer now instead of in the car on my blackberry so I can ask longer questions.

I always thought of Buddhism as a philosophy or a lifestyle.