Homosexual Marriages.

[redtrigger]

Should Homosexuals be allowed to marry. The simple and politically correct answer is yes. It seems that you should be allowed to love who you want. However marriage is a Christian church ceremony. If the church says homosexuality is wrong they are entitled to their opinion just as you or I. However I do not think that any government should recongnize marriages of any sort. Again it is a church ceremony, and the recongnition of which violates the founding American principle, though not always if ever practiced, of separation of church and state. Do not misconstrue my words, I have no problem with homosexuals, I have openly gay friends, and when I found out it did not change my opinion of them. So how should the law be amended. In my opinion the state should recognize the relationship of partners with gender being irrelavent. We are all numbers anyway. 555-55-5555 is in a civil union with 111-11-1111 and it be left at that. I do not understand why gender is so important, perhaps it is western civilization in general. In some eastern civilizations, love is what is important, so long as you love and cherish your partner what rests in between their legs is irrelavent.

Please do not take this as something that is hateful. I for one am agaist state recognized marriages period. It is a violation of the Constitution. PLease give me your input. If you have questions of my beliefs, I ask that you PM me, and I will try and clarify them.

[The Feral Underclass]

This isnt really philosophy.

In answer to your question: If gay people want to get married fine, if people want to marry their boyfriends or girlfriends or their brothers or their sisters or their fathers or their cats, then who cares.

[Rage Against the Right]

However marriage is a Christian church ceremony

False. Marriage is NOT a Christian church ceremony. Marriage has taken place in native tribes through out Africa and Southern Asia before Christianity was made up. Banning gay marriage is the real attrocity. Why should out constitution be directed towards Christians? I'm not Christian and I'm and American? There are millions and millions of American's who are or not Christian. Most other faiths seem to be accepting of gay marriage, I know for Jews are. Banning gay marriage is a display of power by the Christian right fucks! I reserve all of my hate for the racist, homo-phobic Christian right.

[October Revolution]

The fact the christian types are claiming that marriage was thier idea is abit strange like since you said it was practiced along time before christianity. If they wish to ban it in their own churches thats their problem but banning it across an entire country on the basis that it's a christian idea is abit flawed.

[Encrypted Soldier]

Sure, homosexuals should have the right to marry. After all, it's their life, they should be able to marry who they want to marry. Making homosexuals marry someone else would be just plain dumb. It would be like someone telling you,"No, you can't marry your girlfriend, but you can marry that girl over there." Thats just absurd. TAT is right, who cares who you marry?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

who cares who you marry?

Who cares about marriage at all? Two persons want to get together. Big deal. No need for this to be blessed by the church and the state and whatever.

[Eddie Van Halen]

Christian views on homosexuality are based mostly on natural moral law theory, written by St Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century.

One of his precepts was that 'sexual acts should only be used for the purpose of reproduction'. In time, christians all over the world (im not generalising, natural moral law is popular in most christian based religions, althought not all its members of course), have adapted this to mean that homosexual intercourse is wrong, as it can never produce a child.

This has been further adapted with regards to 'gay marriage', as christian marriage is traditionally a blessing from their god, to allow the act of sex, to produce a child, thus some beleive that gay marriage is wrong as it could never have these results.

Since this idea is based on an 800 year old theory, when society, people, and intelligence were all different, i fail to see how any 'loving christian' can subscribe to these ideas.

[October Revolution]

It's massivly out of date just like most of the concepts christianity is based on.

[blackwaffle]

I realise that saying i'm a christain puts the life (well, location at least) of this thread in danger, but...

Homosexuality isnt really condemned in the bible. I mean, read it. In the old testament you were supposed to stone someone to death for it, but the old testament is basically a bunch of strict rules God made up to show people that no one could follow them. Other than that, its hardly mentioned. Its not a sin, even by the crappy definition of sin that most christains like to use. Once you read the old testament theres actually edvidence that Jesus was a homosexual. He asks Peter if he loves him 3 times. In the greek there are 3 definitions for love, he uses each one once.
phila- friendship
agape-sort of like phila, but i think it has some different connotations
eros- sexual
so yes, peter said he was sexually attracted to jesus. I'm not sure what to make of that excatly, but it's sure an interesting thing to show the next christain homophobe you see.

[Debs'atron]

Homsexuals pay taxes and therefore ought to be afforded the right to marry. No private Institution should be made to marry anyone they don't want to marry. The problem is that Marriage and Civil Union are different. Marriages afford more rights. Gays should be allowed to be married but no one should be forced to perform them but the the government. Everyone should have to recognize them as married. Anyone who says God doesn't like the gays becasue it says so in one line is a biggot manipulating the bible, If I recall there are some 300 verses in the bible about poverty. I think that the Christian god has bigger priorities than whether men have sex with one another. Most christians are only read the parts of the bible that suit their priorities. So anyone who says God doesn't like gays, is a biggot, call them so loudly and give reasons drive back the festering perversion of faith. We're supposed to be all god's children damnit.

[Break the Chains]

I really don't see anything wrong with gay marriages. It's just another way to hold people down.

[Thomas]

People should be free to do as they please with their bodies as long as it does not have a negative effect on others. Therefore homosexual marriages should be allowed, on a moral and common sense side.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:17 PM

Once you read the old testament theres actually edvidence that Jesus was a homosexual. He asks Peter if he loves him 3 times.so yes, peter said he was sexually attracted to jesus.
??????????????????
What is the exact word describing that Peter was attracted sexually to Jesus?
That's nonsense, I think.....

[choekiewoekie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:17 PM


Homosexuality isnt really condemned in the bible. I mean, read it. In the old testament you were supposed to stone someone to death for it, but the old testament is basically a bunch of strict rules God made up to show people that no one could follow them. Other than that, its hardly mentioned. Its not a sin, even by the crappy definition of sin that most christains like to use. Once you read the old testament theres actually edvidence that Jesus was a homosexual. He asks Peter if he loves him 3 times.
I think you mean the new testament instead of the old when you talk about jesus...
Well in the letters of the new testament it is said you will go to hell for being homosexual.... Not like that means anything to me.

Ofcourse it should be legal. I think it is against human rights if you dont allow them to marry.

[blackwaffle]

The excat words. well there in hebrew or something. Heres a transaltion

jesus: Peter, do you love me as a friend? (agape)
peter: Yes, lord, of course
jesus: Peter, do you love me as a brother? (phila) philadelphia- ctiy of botherly love
peter: Yes, lord, of course
jesus: Peter, do you love me erotically? (eros)- we get erotic from this word
peter: Yes, lord, of course

and then jesus dies, and then peter denies him 3 times, and then jesus comes back and says "peter, you naughty boy, you. Im gonna build my church on you." and then peter is considered the first pope, but i dont really agree with that. and then small churches start and well, stuff happens.

[Taiga]

blackwaffle, can you indicate the exact number of chapter, etc?

[act_5]

blackwaffle...

i would like to thank you for completly warping the bible, the catholic church has been at it for hundreds of years and they still have trouble, you however are a born natural.

i really dont understand how marriage is the concern of the goverment anyway.

this really isnt about the christian church vs. everyone else

its about morally moronic idiots trying to justify their fear by warping the bible to their needs.

for the record, i dont think that it says anything about gay's anywhere in the bible
(dont think it was an issue in those days.)

[DUNKiNUTS]

The reason for the government to get involed becuase there are tax cuts and programs geared towards married couples. Morally it is up the the person. Bu that is almost always religion based. But how anyone can believe the bible on a days after SO many translations, i think they are crazy. Its like the game telephone. You start with the word Monkey, and after a hundred people it becomes a purple monkey eating a banana in a tree. So i think religion is more spirtual then rules. Its all in the person. But homosexual married by church wont be excepted for a while in my mind. But to have equal rights from the government doesn't mean you need the churches help.

[blackwaffle]

Twisting the words of the bible? Im just telling you it says. I didnt even say that i belived jesus was gay.

John 21 15-18

[guerillablack]

It's condemned in Quran.

[amusing foibles]

Does it really matter what religions do or do not condem homosexuality? It seems to me that a lot of people are grasping at straws trying to read out the homophobia in the bible. Even if, in the original traslation, Peter had the hots for Jesus and Jonathan was fucking David's brains out we still have "Focus on the Family" using the same damn bible and their passage quotes are a lot more convincing (for instance, you don't have to go back to the original Greek).

As for homosexual marriage, I'm of the belief that the love affairs of two people are none of the government's business (of course, I also think that marriage in general is kind of pointless). However, lacking that, I agree with the idea that there should only be government-provided civil unions and that the religious idea of "marriage" should be left up to religious institutions who can choose which unions to bless.

[Eddie Van Halen]

I provided medieval philosophy as the backbone of christian idiocy with regards to homosexuality.

And i think marriage as an institution should be disbanded as it was originally (in pre-christian times), concieved as a way a man could keep possession of a woman he particularly liked, making sure she wasnt available to any other, in a sense, a form of ownership.

[Rage Against the Right]

I don't know if you guys areall young or anything, but I have to disagree with you on the modern reasons for marrying. I think your right that in the olden days it might have been a form of ownership for certain western faiths, but I think today it symbolizes something much purer than that.

[Eddie Van Halen]

True about the whole purity idea, it is seen as that now, but i meant the origins of it were ownership basically, i think that if something is begun with inncorrect intentions, then it should probably be either seriosuly looked at, or gotten rid of.

Im not all that young btw lol :P

[amusing foibles]

My main objections to marriage have to do with it implying that all serious love relations must be "ok'd" by the state or some sort of religion, rather than being worthwhile on their own terms.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Ok, I will pile on.

Should homosexuals marry? That is up to their religious faith or lack thereof. The concept of marriage, if applied beyond a personal situation, becomes less useful.

I do not believe the state should recognize marriage at all.

Legally, homosexuals are entitled only to civil unions. The same should be true of heterosexual couples.

Though I find legal recognition of marriage troubling, I support gay marriage in the current climate. I figure it is better to support an equal rights moment for one of the last horribly discriminated minorities, than to waste my time devaluing religion in a society where so many cling so rabidly to it yet.

[bolshevik butcher]

Homosexual couples should have the same rights as anyone else.

[Rockfan]

We've just had all this shit in New Zealnd. We had this chruch lead march to parliment with like, all the chruchs members. And this is'nt a small chruch, it's a nation wide one. But really who cares man, who cares.

[Karl]

yes, im not gay but im pretty sure their was a separation of church and state, dont bend the constitution. If our country is about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why do we go against what we preach? let them be happy.

[blackwaffle]

As much i despise the religous right (despite the fact that i am a christain) I think i should inform you all that this "seperation of church and state" phrase isnt in the constitiution.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:49 PM

John 21 15-18
I read 22 versions of this part of Bible (including 3 Greek). There was just a word "love"(φιλω - phila).
So, I think, you can't affirm that Peter was sexually attracted to Jesus.
Greeks indeed divided love in several aspects. But there is no evidence that three words "love" said by Jesus were these three kinds of Greek love.

[TrenzTheLeader]

Marriages should not be recognized by government...=taxes

[I've Defected]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 10:03 AM
As much i despise the religous right (despite the fact that i am a christain) I think i should inform you all that this "seperation of church and state" phrase isnt in the constitiution.
its an amendment.

i wish religion really was the opiate of the masses, so those who take the bible too literally would O.D. and die off.

[blackwaffle]

no it isnt. it isnt in there at all.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

go... look...

[guerillablack]

no such thing as homophobia.

[America]

What a bunch of idiots! Homosexual marriage is not illegal. Go to your backyard and have a solomnization cerimony w/ you and your same-sex partner. WHO CARES WHO RECOGNIZES IT!!! That is the correct word: not "illegal", but "recognition". The state of Massechusetts will recognize the marriage. Whether California or Utah has to recognize that based upon the Full Faith and Credit clause of the federal constitution has not yet been decided (also, the Defense of Marriage Act of '96 has not yet made it to the Supreme Court.)

I don't have any more time to explain this.

America

[Pawn Power]

I think only same-sex marriages should be legal.

[America]

Same sex marriages of two women who are 18 - 27 and hot should be legal. As long as they provide video.

America

[Right_is_right]

It is not a homosexual's right to get married. They just hunger for publicity. Why do you think they go on gay parades. You don't see straight parades. But the thing is, when a democracy decides that a gay marriage shouldn't be recognized by law, then they have the right to decide what the definition of the marriage should be. Otherwise, it would be minority tiranny. I have to stress this again, I personally can't understand which right is being infringed upon when we do not recognize their marriage. Isn't the definition of a word what most people believe it to mean? In the US, they elected a president who is antigaymarriage. So since the majority put him in, let him do what he believes in. It probably means most of the people are antigaymarriage.

[Right_is_right]

i used "they" alot in the previous post. I should have said majority.

3rd line : recognized by law, then they(the majority) have the right*
6th line: In the US, they(the majority) elected a president*

I don't hate gays. I just don't like when the minority try to impose changes on what I and a lot of others, think should be the definition of marriage.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:16 PM
It is not a homosexual's right to get married. They just hunger for publicity. Why do you think they go on gay parades. You don't see straight parades. But the thing is, when a democracy decides that a gay marriage shouldn't be recognized by law, then they have the right to decide what the definition of the marriage should be. Otherwise, it would be minority tiranny. I have to stress this again, I personally can't understand which right is being infringed upon when we do not recognize their marriage. Isn't the definition of a word what most people believe it to mean? In the US, they elected a president who is antigaymarriage. So since the majority put him in, let him do what he believes in. It probably means most of the people are antigaymarriage.
By your logic, segregation laws in the south and "Jim Crowe" laws should still exist against blacks. Further using your logic, slavery should not have been abolished, and the U$ should have remained a colony of the British.

[CamusforU]

Bottom Line is that homosexuals should be allowed to marry...Too many people view homosexuality as a choice rather than genetic. The state has no right whatsoever telling people who they can and cannot marry. The constitution of our great country has no limitations on marriage of the sexes and therefore all unions should be accepted by all people.
In addition, marriage is not a relgious union either. It is the spiritual union between two people regardless of sex. You cannot help falling in love, and if it happens to be with someone of the same sex, then so be it, it is up to the individual to decide sexual orientation.

[blackwaffle]

Oh my....

Right_is_right, I have a question for you... Why are you against gay marriage? I will tell you that I feel that is morally wrong (yes I changed my opinion on this) but that the state should still allow it because it doesnt harm anyone. Its between 2 consenting adults. Gays should be treated as normal people.

CamusforU, It isnt genetic. Love is a choice. eh, you even said: "it is up to the individual to _decide_ sexual orientation". anyway, I agree with you that the state should stay out of marriage as much as possible.