[peakyesno]

In California, same-sex marriage has recently been upheld by the State Supreme Court as being legal. However, the ruling does not go into effect until June 16th and I am sure it will be contested before that date by people who just can't grasp the idea that gays can love each other too.
Quite honestly, I could never understand why anyone would want to marry except for legal rights where children are concerned or when a partner is ill and medical decisions must be made, etc.. My view on marriage has changed recently though as I am soon to wed (although not legally) my thai girlfriend (i am also a woman) of 2 years. Even though we love each other and have been together for 2 years, we cannot legally be recognized as married, therefore, she cannot move to my country as my spouse. Heck, we can't even get her a tourist visa to visit. Funny how a man can go online and order up a bride w/o even meeting her and legally get married but I can't legally marry my girlfriend of 2 years whom I support financially (and her daughter). Yeah, now marriage matters to me. Unfortunately, even though it looks like California will soon recognize gay marriage, it does not transfer over to immigration laws as they are federal laws that over-ride state rulings. Ahh, discrimination is still alive and well in the world. Guess its nice to know there are some things you can always count on. Right.

[DoterrFor]

I believe in liberation, but I draw the line at same sex marriages.

[Thomaswhitee]

Unfortunately, even though it looks like California will soon recognize gay marriage, it does not transfer over to immigration laws as they are federal laws that over-ride state rulings. That is beyond frustating!

[Thomaswhitee]

paul_au: I believe in liberation, but I draw the line at same sex marriages. Then don't have one.

[JacomoR]

Outside the context of religious dogma, marriage is a social institution. It amounts to a contractural relationship between two people to share certain assets because they ae entering into a partnership (in this case domestic). In such cases, the only objection that can be made is on religious grounds, which under the U.S. Constitution should not be a consideration. All citizens of the U.S. have the right to make and enforce contracts. Hence, there is no Constitutional basis for disallowing same-sex 'marriages.'

[L8fGLM4d]

in the US, isn't there something called a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage (e.g. in terms of inheritance, paying taxes as a couple/family, access to medical info, etc), but is simply not called "marriage"?

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

in the US, isn't there something called a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage (e.g. in terms of inheritance, paying taxes as a couple/family, access to medical info, etc), but is simply not called "marriage"?

Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004, and California since May 15, 2008, though this only affects state law; the U.S. federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts or California as being marriages under federal law, by means of the Defense of Marriage Act.

David

[L8fGLM4d]

yes I understand that, that's why I was asking about civil unions or registered partnerships or something along these lines, something that gives the legal rights but not the name "marriage". I think this is what we have back home at the moment.

[Thomaswhitee]

It's all very merky. Civil unions give some of the benefits to some place...not collectively recognized by all for all rights/benefits.

[Pjayjukr]

California just legalized same sexmarriage a few days ago I think. Ive never understood why people who are agianst even give a care. How does it affect them or their lives in any way? My point exactly, IT DOESNT!! It's not your life. And then I hear how Christians, etc (I am not bashing)... claim that they care and they're trying to save others... well its not your life... you cant save everyone. You can save yourself and only you. Who gave you the athority to decide someones life?? Am I right... any way, good topic!!

[ELURNSERB]

California just legalized same sexmarriage a few days ago I think. Ive never understood why people who are agianst even give a care. How does it affect them or their lives in any way? My point exactly, IT DOESNT!! It's not your life. And then I hear how Christians, etc (I am not bashing)... claim that they care and they're trying to save others... well its not your life... you cant save everyone. You can save yourself and only you. Who gave you the athority to decide someones life?? Am I right... any way, good topic!!

I also agree with you! It is not like they ae fighting for a right to go murder someone! They are fighting to live their life the way that makes them happy!

[Illirmpipse]

And then I hear how Christians, etc (I am not bashing)... claim that they care and they're trying to save others... well its not your life... you cant save everyone. You can save yourself and only you. Who gave you the athority to decide someones life??

(I am not judging) Christians who correctly understand the Bible would, I think, agree that living a homosexual lifestyle is not a salvation issue, any more than cheating on one's income taxes is a salvation issue. But I digress . . .

From the Christian perspective, Jesus's last command to his disciples was to preach the gospel to all peoples and make disciples of them, teaching them to obey everything that Jesus had commanded his disciples to do. That means that it is every Christian's calling to share the good news of Christ with others. So your question about "who gave you [Christians] the authority to decide someone's life?" is misdirected in two ways, but the answer is "Jesus". The ways the question is misdirected are: (1) sharing the gospel doesn't presume any authority over anyone--but Jesus clearly gave the command to do it; (2) Christians (or at least those who actually follow Christ) aren't trying to "decide someone's life" when they teach what Christ taught. Rather, compassionate Christians simply hope that others will come to know Jesus and experience the joy (and salvation) that that makes possible.

Now, I'll admit that some Christians are not very Christ-like in how they deal with certain classes of people, homosexuals in particular. They put the practice of homosexuality into a worse category than other types of behavior. The truth is that the Bible does not teach that the practice of homosexuality is any worse than lying. It does say that it's a sin, but it also says that we are all sinners.

But, to return to your question, you are quite right that no one can force anyone else to believe anything they don't want to believe. A true follower of Christ doesn't want to force anyone to believe in him--indeed, such a thing is impossible!

DogoDon

[Thomaswhitee]

It does say that it's a sin, but it also says that we are all sinners. Curious, as I know nothing about Christianity... if homosexuality is a sin (1) and we're all sinners (1) does that mean that a homosexual has more (1 + 1 =2) sin than non homosexuals?

I coordinate our Allies training on campus and fully disbelieve it is a sin... then again, I don't much believe in concepts of sin. However, I work with people on a daily basis who are open and supportive of the LGBT community, but still present this concern from their faith of Christianity. I have no idea how to talk with them about that and simply refer them to our Chaplain's Office on campus. When I do say anything, I usually say that as an atheist, all I know about Christianity is what you put in your commercials...and the commericals seem to profess a great deal of love, friendship, and support.

[pprropeciaaa]

I'm thinking when I get my own planet, marriage will be legal for everyone, but divorce will be illegal, bigamy will be illegal as well as adultery.

[TOD4wDTQ]

I normally don't bother with topics as these. It's like beating a dead horse, however since I'm bored at work I might just as well hand out my opinion.

Imo the bible have been used and misused to support alot of different actions since it was written.

In my opinion most people who misuse the bible do it by not using it at all. They just fine one quote and and build their church on it by quoting or misquoting it.

The bible should be read with a understanding about the authors language, culture, understanding and motive. The context is being nearly as important as what is actually written.

To prove this its not to difficult to find many quotations that can and have been used to promote a message that is different from classic christianity.

Just a few.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

1 THESS 2:15
The jews killed Jesus and the prophets. The jews are enemy of the mankind.

1 EPHESIANS 5:24
Wives should be husbands subordinates because the husband is the head of the wife.

EXODUS 22:16, DEUTR 22:28-29
A rapist must marry his victim

DEUTR 22:23-27
A rapist who raped a engaged woman should be killed if he raped her in the countryside, but if he raped her in town both.

1 PETER 2:18
Slaves must comply with their masters and obey and respect them

1 COR 14:34-35
Women should shut up in church. According to the law they should not speak, if they have questions they shall ask their husband when they get home.

DEUTRONOMY 22:5
A woman can not wear mens clothing, this is offensive to god.


What Jesus said about homosexuality:


What the bible said about homosexuality:

The concept of homosexuality as we know it was coined around 1870. Obviously the authors of the bible could not have known about homosexuality, so what did they know about?

In the classic greek world it was common for men to have sex with other men, it was even more common for men to have sex with boys, the infamous greek boy love which often were related to slavery
In fact greek have a special word for it "arsenokoitai" who litterary means a man who have sex with other men, but it is mostly used within the context of prostitution or the boy love.

In roman 1:26-27 Paul writes generally about living amorally and gives the example of .... prostitution and boy love as sexual perversions. As the true christian he is he also bashes people who have purly sexual relations.

He simply writes about the world he saw. Prostitution, orgies, relationships between adult men and small bous. If he wanted to say anything about what we refer to as homosexuality he could have been clearer and better.

The same for 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. These texts aren't about gays who love each other and have a relationship. Paul talks about promiscuity, punters and idol worshipping.

Based on Pauls specific rulings on prostitution, promiscuity and pedophiles, one would stretch the fact a bit if they wanted to make it into a general ruling about gays.


In Lev 18:22 are basically alot of strange laws that are outdated. While it does not condone what seems to be sexual activites between same gender, Lev also states that sex during the womans period, tattos, having a dress with two kinds of cloth and long hair for males are forbidden. Often the punishment are harsh, like stoning. Thx god Lev does allow Polygami!

Sex between the same gender was what the heathens did. So if u did it, u became religiously unclean like if u ate pork. Hence the reference to idol worshipping. It wasnt an ethical ruling on homosexuality per se.


The sin of Sodom, Gen 19, was actually not homosexuality. Lott had welcomed guests in his house when suddenly "all the men – both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom – surrounded the house" and asked Lott to surrender his guests so they could have sex with them. Lott, like the hero he was, refused and offered his daughters instead.

It seems unlikely that every man in the whole town suddenly became homosexual, in Proverbs 19:13 its clear that Sodoms sin was how they treated their strangers, Jeus touches the subject in Luke 10:5-15 and its mentioned in IS 16:48.

The intended group rape mentioned in Sodom... what has that got to do with homosexuality? As much as any rape has to do with a hetrosexual relationship?


Sorry for the bad paragrahping.

[L8fGLM4d]

what comes to my mind is the story about the woman who is to be stoned for adultery and Jesus gives advice on who should cast the first stone. - wondering sometimes why some radical Christians don't seem to remember this one.

[Illirmpipse]

Curious, as I know nothing about Christianity... if homosexuality is a sin (1) and we're all sinners (1) does that mean that a homosexual has more (1 + 1 =2) sin than non homosexuals?

I assume that's a serious question?

One sin or a million sins, it's all the same.

But I'm curious . . . coming from NC, how is it you know nothing about Christianity?

DogoDon

[tevyrefficy]

Same sex unions, but not marriages, that should be between a man and a woman, if queers are satisfied with that then let em have em, if not then just tough.

[andrekuper]

I think if we spent more time on ensuring everyone operated with respect for others, be honest and benevolent... that would be all? Sex, love, unions is what happens...and not the starting point... trying to analyse it in isolation is about getting into a spin - and allowing 'quacks' to reason.

In my view, one of the biggest tragedies of human kind has been the entry of religious or other institutions (when they operate as powerful forces and not benevolent) between what should be the direct relationship between one person and what he or she beleives in. In fact they do so much in the name of the survival and promotion of their kind, that it almost seems that there is no God for them in the end?

[peakyesno]

I believe in liberation, but I draw the line at same sex marriages.

Apparently you do not believe in liberation. Or rather, you believe in liberation when it fits your ideals. That would be called selective liberation.