Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Post Reply New Topic

Fundamentals made by men.
Also, few christian gay people feel exactly the same way so that is why they would want to be able to get married and live their sexuality until marriage, some churches that accept homosexuality do that.

Any church that performs "homosexual marriages" is corrupted, and I'm sure you know that. Christianity does not allow homosexual acts. This does not mean that the Church is against homosexuals, on the contrary. It is against the desire to be in bed with each other that is view as corrupt. The same would be same for a man and woman who get together before marriage.

Please, inform us where the leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, condems homosexuality? The speaking out against Homosexuals is not Christian based. If there is a passage against Homosexuals spoken by Christ, please point it out to us.

I also want to out point again, that the current preception of marriage in the United States Protestant Christian Religion, is a minority one in the world and in the history of the world.

There is no excuse to give married heterosexual couples special legal rights over everyone else in our society. The state should not be involved in the condoning or forbidding of personal relationships between two non-related consenting adults.

This comes across pretty clear to me:





There are many things Jesus didn't say, are we to interpret that as giving proof to it being allowed? Any rational person would understand that it does not. From the above passage, Jesus stressed the importance of a union between a man and a woman--never man and man, or woman and woman. Do you then need him to precisely say "I condemn homosexuals and their right to marriage!"? Such a thing would be superfluous.

How trustworthy are you with the authority of Paul? There are very clear statements made by him concerning the nature of such acts.

Also, if one is to assume that the Trinity is true--that Jesus was in the beginning, then the quotes found in the Tanakh apply. Even if he wasn't, there is no need to doubt he followed the previous laws prescribed.


And are you serious about your comment about the world's perception? My parents aren't originally from America. Trust me when I say that no Church or Temple would ever marry a homosexual in their country without some backlash. Islamic countries? Right.

That is unless I misinterpreted what you meant.

that passage, to me, sounds more like the meaning is "stay with your spouse because you're stuck with them" kind of deal. of course not that strict...but certainly not the petty treatment of marriage that it gets today.

Certainly, yes. The last part is certainly indicative of a marriage that is meant to last. But how can one get past the "Made them male and female. A man [to] be united to his wife...and the two become one flesh"?

Now, as it seems people are misunderstanding my position, I've never condemned homosexuals. From what I believe, and my understanding in the nature of certain faiths, there is nothing wrong with liking or loving your own sex--whether it be a love of friendship or a love of want. The problem lies with the urge to go through with such emotions, in the case where it be more than friendship.

I am not arguing that heterosexual can be good, as your quote implies. I am arguing that Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, never spoke against Homosexuals, or homosexuality. So to say all homsexuality is against Christ, is not supported--it can only be speculated. Christ himself, did not union with a woman, so it could not be considered an absolute order of God, unless you believe that Jesus disobeyed God.

Further, your claim that it is "superfluous" for Christ not to mention Homosexual as being against God, while speaking to population unaware that adultry, murder, rape, abuse of woman, theft, greed, and dishonor, are all wrong, seems to weaken your argument considerabily.

Is homosexuality more instinctively known as wrong than rape, murder, or adultry?

Paul's words against homosexuality were not words of God, or Jesus, but just his words, as he admits to such at the beganing of the letters in which his thoughts are reveilved. He also believed that women were not fit to speak to men about God.

My comment was not that homosexuality was accepted universally. My comment was that your view of a marriage, one man, one woman, in a loving forever equal partnership with God to have children, is not the normal view of marriage. Most marriages are about money, wealth, and politics, not two people in love. The definition of marriage has always changed in the past due to the political and social norms of the time. Piligamy, wife rape, and marrying of 14 year olds was common until the 20th century. Your view of marriage, which you think of as the correct Christian view, has only been around for a short period of time, and pretty much only in the western world.

I get a little nervous at the idea of discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation. If it is ok to discriminate against gays, then why not against people who are celibate or asexual? There are some things that I think are not anybody's business, unless they are hurting others. But some people seem to think otherwise.

As far as gay marriage goes I am neither for nor against it. However, I do question the motives of some of those who are for it, because the word I hear coming up over and over again in discussions for it is "benefits"--usually in some kind of financial context, such as insurance. If there were no benefits to be obtained from marriage, whether straight or gay, would there be so much agitation for it? The late philosopher Ayn Rand had some pretty harsh words to say about people who had their hands out for money and benefits they themselves did not earn, and I think she would be one of the leading critics of gay marriage today if she were still around. However, if I were a divorce lawyer, I would definitely be for it! More marriages=more divorces.

And what about polygamy? If one spouse is good, several spouses ought to be even better. Let's all get in the act and dip our hands in!

Look....... As I said earlier, marriage is an out-dated concept. If your with someone you truely love, then you do not need a piece of paper to validate it. But who can guarantee you'll still feel the same about that person 12 yrs down the road?... At that point, breaking up becomes expensive.

My personal feelings of marriage aside, I don't think discriminatory rules should be applied. Whatever one group of people does, everyone should be able to do..... Meaning, gays have just as much right to get married as anyone else. As for Polygamists, if their wives/husbands know and understand those conditions, and are ok with it, and no abuse is going on, then they should have the right to marry as many husbands/wives as they choose..... But, some measures must be taken to keep them from over-populating or having too many children.
Most cases you hear about Polygamy though is usually some kooky off-brand Christian religious cult. And in most of those cases, abuse does occur. Against women and children, and that does need to be stopped.
But at the same time, men or women should have the right to be with as many partners as they feel is necessary, provided they are not abusing other people in the process. I personally am not much of a people person enough to want more than 1 mate, so if I luck out and manage to find my soul mate or my life partner, she's gonna be the only one for me. But, I support free will, if someone feels they must love more than 1 person, who am I to tell them they are wrong (as long as nobody innocent is being hurt)?

I support a restriction of rights due to the dangerous diseases associated with homosexual proclivity.

How would it feel to know that the chef who cut his finger while preparing your lunch, is a raving aids ridden homosexual? Yeah I know anyone can have aids, but aids is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

I also think gays should be required by law to wear medic alert type bracelets inscribed with the word HOMO. In a hypothetical situation where I see some guy get hit by a car, I would be much more willing to administer medical attention if I knew whether or not the person on the ground (possibly bleeding) is a homosexual.

Hey, don't knock sodomy if you haven't tried it.

Also, who would choose to be gay, looking at the way society - especially "people" (I use it for lack of a better term) like the OP.

Funny how the most hardcore homophobes usually end up being closet cases themselves - and usually pedophiles as well, unlike those who are "out".

Oh really? Hm...

Okay, Mr. Big I'm A Christian....without looking!

Please list everything Jesus Christ said about homosexuality.


Thanks for playing, and have a swell day!

Hm...the fastest growing AIDS population on earth is:

black women!


Shall I get your hood, cross and matches?

I am part of the queer and allied community and I believe that EVERYONE should have equal rights. I know many GLBTIQ people (including myself and most of my university friends). My friend who is a transgirl was assigned a male room mate because housing is based on biological sex, many of my friends can not legally marry the person of their choise (at least not yet). I am pansexual (really similar to bi) and the only relationship I have been in was a hetero relationship when I thought I was hetero but I do not know if the next person I date will be male, female, or someone who does not fit in the gender binary.

I think bigots should have to wear bracelets identifying them as such. That way medics don't waste their rescue efforts on people who are full of hate and only worsen the world. Or maybe you'd prefer building yourself a time machine and travelling back to Nazi Germany. You and your beliefs would surely be welcomed! Oh, and by the way, the population with the highest occurance of AIDS is heterosexuals in Africa. And, just so you know, they are called Sexually Transmitted Infections/Diseases. Anyone who has sex is at risk, including heterosexuals. Do you have sex? If so, then you could have one of those "dangerous diseases". It is quite sad that you have chosen to believe the propaganda produced by various anti-gay entities. If you truly believe "God's laws" should rule the Earth, tell him to get down here and do it. There are plenty of ancient texts stating various things. Just because one became really popular doesn't make it true. Thats like claiming a best selling science fiction novel is also true because millions of people bought (into) it.

Obcuria and Fred what I find funny is that if their really is a god I reckon that a fair minded, caring atheist will stand a better chance of being in gods good books than a couple of bigotted hate mongers like yourselves.
Do you realise that on a conservative estimate 5% of the worlds population is homosexual and if you bring in bisexual it gets above 10%. seeing as peple like yourselves think that a god created the world and everything in it maybe you should respect his creations or do you think that your wonderful god is not so infalable after all.
You winge about you government using your taxes to support gay people. Do you realise that (i presume you are from USA) your taxes being used to support religious groups flys directly in the face of what your founding fathers and especially Jefferson wanted. So try and be good christians and stop being soooo judgemental and hateful.