Proposition 8

Well maybe I rushed the stage a little bit when I said there shouldn't, be ANY laws enacted. I think the only kind of laws regarding marriage should be the whole "you can't marry people under 18 unless their parents say you can" law.

Ok so the law of consent should be taken away then?

You're godawful stupid.

Yay for necroposting! Lol. Idc. I wanna participate, too, as a Christian. :3

First off, lol @Anski

Secondly, as far as I know, with my Christian i's, God doesn't say anywhere "No homosexuality." As NAMKCOR pointed out, God did kill Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, there's a word "sodomite" which obviously roots from either Sodom or from wherever both the city and word originated from. A sodomite is one who engages in sodomy (anal/oral sex with opposite sex or intercourse with same sex). God's already gone over the matters of adultery so there's obviously gotta be a little sumthin'-sumthin' gay goin' on in Sodom. So he killed them, meaning it's bad.

Somewhere later on in the New Testament, in one of the letters, one of the apostles talks about homosexual practices. He says practitioners of those practices (along with a BUNCH of other stuff) would send you to hell or something like that.

I'm just getting my views as a Christian out there. I'm not a gay basher, for realz. I'm Christian and I'd like to have everyone share my beliefs but, hey, it's improbable. If a gay guy's Christian, the best he could do is just avoid the practices. Being gay's fine, but it's when you indulge in those practices that its wrong in God's eyes.

And as a closing statement from a Christian standpoint, I don't care about gays who do what they want. That's not my problem to deal with. However, I'm a boy (not a man ;-; ) of faith and if you get sent to hell and w/e, sure, you didn't listen. That's also not my problem.

Show me the actual passages.

Somewhere later on in the New Testament, in one of the letters, one of the apostles talks about homosexual practices. He says practitioners of those practices (along with a BUNCH of other stuff) would send you to hell or something like that.

so if being gay means you go to hell, then why is there a (married) pair of homosexual saints?
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

I'm tired of third party interpretations. That picture doesn't prove anything. I want to see the original pieces of scripture that either damn or accept homosexual unions.

I'm tired of third party interpretations. That picture doesn't prove anything. I want to see the original pieces of scripture that either damn or accept homosexual unions.

I think you neglected to read the part about all the records in the Vatican of same-sex unions held and sanctified.

Scripture, my friend. I want to see scripture.

does the scripture matter compared to that?
if the scriptures say "no gay marriage", then they obviously didn't care.

scripture, like everything else written, is subject to interpretation.  scripture will get you nowhere.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just want to see it written in the texts that the religion was based on.

@Holk: the basic claim of Catholicism (less so for many protestant denominations) is that since Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:9) - that is considered the founding of the Church and that it gives the Church the authority to rule on matters of faith and morals. So while sacred scripture is a source of revelation, the Church has the power to make rules too, and sacred tradition is just as valid a source of revelation. In which case there need not be any reference to it in scripture. Is it a valid interpretation? Most protestant denominations would disagree and are more bible-oriented and do not believe the Church has the power to make rules - everything must be based on the bible. Of course, most protestant religions also believe that faith alone can get you to heaven and your actions do not influence your judgement, and yet sins still exist for some odd reason. A lot of Christians are kind of dumb, it seems, though perhaps I am just misunderstanding the situation and I am the dumb one. But, I suppose if you were to take any random sample of 2 billion people, you'd likely get quite a lot of dumb people in your sample. In any case, I don't know that much about most protestant sects; when I was in Theology, we focused most on Catholicism.

I don't know anything about what NAM is talking about - I've not looked into those two saints, but when you're dealing with third century people there is very little evidence either way - maybe they were and maybe they weren't. Further, it wouldn't matter if they were gay, seeing that no saints are sinless or expected to be sinless, and all people who go to heaven are saints whether canonized or not. SO, gay people in heaven would not suggest that homosexuality is a sin or not a sin either way. The only person that such a claim would matter for is someone who believes that homosexual activity is an unpardonable sin, and I think Christian denominations that do not believe in redemption are fairly rare. OF course, it seems to me that a lot of Christians use their religion as an excuse to be intolerant without understanding or knowing what their religion teaches (and really, once a week for a few years hardly gives a person any significant knowledge of his or her respective theologies).

Show me the actual passages.

Sorry, had school.

Okay, here's proof Sodom had gays in it.

Genesis 19:5 says, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"

Oh, and a couple verses back, it says all the men, both young and old, came out. No women. And, as stated before, Sodom was killed, etc.

--------------------------------------------

This is the only one I could find after skimming through but the first one is "sexual immorality." I don't know about you, but homosexuality seems pretty immoral to me. If a law gets passed that homosexual marriage is allowed, I just want to point out that it does not automatically make it "moral."

Galatians 5:19-21 says, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;/idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions/ and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

--------------------------------------------

Anyhoo, that's the best I could do for now.

@MA: About the protestant religions and the sin "[existing] for some odd reason," it's that at the final judgement, people will be saved and judged and etc. I don't really know exactly. It hasn't happened yet. Anyways, from what I know, all sins then will be accounted for and punishments will be given out accordingly. Yes, you may go to heaven but you can still be punished somehow. Don't ask how because I'm not God. >_>

Also, the Bible states that homosexual practices are what's wrong. My pastor told me that if you're homosexual (and he goes by the fact that homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE) and you're a good Christian, the best thing to do would be to contain those urges and live a life of celibacy. It's just as hard as a heterosexual and would be merited just as well.

EDIT: Just a reminder. This is the Bible I'm talking about. All arguments are towards the fact/opinion/faith that the Bible is true. Even if you don't believe in the religious part of the Bible, it can be used as a historical textbook. You kinda need to trust it to do that but, hey, don't you do that for any historical textbook that exists?

"sexual immorality" is very general and vague. :/
I don't really like it when vague statements are used to condemn something specific.
it's all interpretation.  one person may see it totally differently.

Also, separation of church and state.  Laws should not be made based on religious doctrine.
Laws should be there to protect people from theft, murder, and things like that.  Not to govern moral standards, or to enforce the views of a particular religion or religions.

No, one of the epistles talks about adultery and homosexuality. I forget which one, I'll look for it later.

In the meantime, you got Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Idk about you, but that seems pretty straight-forward to me.

What if lie means to tell a non-truth?

It doesn't say it's a sin either, it just says they'll be killed, which in and of itself is a sin.

No, one of the epistles talks about adultery and homosexuality. I forget which one, I'll look for it later.

In the meantime, you got Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Idk about you, but that seems pretty straight-forward to me.

but you can't lie with a man as you would a woman.
also: that really only says 'bisexuality is wrong' seeing as a gay would never lie with a woman in the first place.

my main issue is that when the bible comes up in this type of debate, people love to say that 'god' declared it, or that it's  the word of god or something like that.  It's neither.  It's the opinions and viewpoints of a handful of people in that day and age, written down as a record.  You can't say 'god hates gays', but you can easily say 'Leviticus hates gays'

edit: lastly, that's jewish law
and the same section also says eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are sin, and that it's fine to beat the fuck out of your wife and sell your daughter into sexual slavery.

What if lie means to tell a non-truth?

Lol

It doesn't say it's a sin either, it just says they'll be killed, which in and of itself is a sin.

Yeah, but God killed people all the time so he'll do what he wants, lol.

[quote author=NAMKCOR link=topic=30954.msg390322#msg390322 date=1231472965
but you can't lie with a man as you would a woman.
also: that really only says 'bisexuality is wrong' seeing as a gay would never lie with a woman in the first place.
[/quote]
But the problem would be that the guy's lying with the man. That's what's being pointed out. If it was just about being with someone else, it would have said "no adultery."

my main issue is that when the bible comes up in this type of debate, people love to say that 'god' declared it, or that it's  the word of god or something like that.  It's neither.  It's the opinions and viewpoints of a handful of people in that day and age, written down as a record.  You can't say 'god hates gays', but you can easily say 'Leviticus hates gays'

Yeah, but Leviticus is a book of the Bible, God's word. >_>

edit: lastly, that's jewish law
and the same section also says eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are sin, and that it's fine to beat the fuck out of your wife and sell your daughter into sexual slavery.

Lol Idk what to say to that. I ain't a scholar on OT stuff.

Yeah, but Leviticus is a book of the Bible, God's word. >_>

did god write the bible?
no.
the apostles did.
were the apostles prophets?
no.
they were average people who watched Jesus do his thing.
word of the apostles =/= word of god.

Lol Idk what to say to that. I ain't a scholar on OT stuff.

if one part of Leviticus applies, it all applies.

The apostles didn't write the bible. Two of them wrote two of the gospels, and a few other books, but a lot of the New Testament was by Paul (not an apostle), and then two of the gospels are by Luke and Mark, both of whom were not apostles.

ANd the Old Testment was written by prophets - none of it was written by apostles.

In any case, any book of the bible is considered to be divinely inspired. However, much of the Old Testament is considered "changed" by the coming of Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus' entry into the world changed the relationship that God had with the world (end of the Old Covenant God made with Abraham and beginning of a New Covenant, hence the words Old and New Testament). In fact, Jesus often changed the laws set down in the Old Testament specifically; with regard to divorce he expressly forbids it and says that Moses allowed it only because of the "hardness in men's hearts"; with regard to the commandments he quotes only two: love of God and love of neighbour. This doesn't make the Old Testament irrelevant, by any means, and since God is not supposed to be temporal, the God represented in the Old Testament is still considered to be the same God that is now, but the added revelation is supposed to have taken the emphasis away from action and on to intention. A good action with bad intention may be sinful while a bad action with good intention may be virtuous. Technically, this does mean they can pick and choose what parts of Leviticus to follow or not follow, as long as they can justify why they believe that part of Leviticus no longer applies under the New Covenant or applies only in limited circumstance.


End of long, unnecessary, and off-topic post.

[stuff]
End of long, unnecessary, and off-topic post.

thanks for the correction on that first part , my mistake.
My point, however, remains the same, the Bible is still the word of man, not the word of God.

What bothers me the most about Proposition 8 is not that it's disallowing homosexual marriage, or anything of the like.  It's that it was created because of religious beliefs.

Laws should NOT be based on Religion, or founded in Religion.  Laws exist to protect life, safety, and property.  Laws should be concrete, not subjective.  Religion and religious text is subjective, and interpreted differently by different groups of people.

Laws should be a layer above religion, not that they're more important, but allow me to explain what I mean.

it's like an if statement.  and I think I'll use pseudocode to explain it.

Code: [Select]

if law == true then
   if religion == true then
       //true
   else
       //false
   end
else
   //false
end


Religion is more specific, and is more about protecting moral innocence and keeping up a particular belief, rather than anything else.  There is (supposed) separation of church and state for a reason.

"Render under caesar that which is caesar's render unto god that which is god's"

But - yeah, MA. XD Such as the "you can't eat some foods" changed by Jesus. And the letters the apostles wrote? They were Jesus' disciples and they were closest to him and heard him teach every time. They knew what was up and gave knowledge that they had gotten through Jesus to other people.

It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not God so why should we listen to you?" They know what's up and know the word of God so... yeah. XD

And NAMKCOR, religion is heavily based into many things. Pledge of Allegiance, people get days off from school because Jews have their holidays, money says "In God we trust," etc. Plus, is there evidence that Proposition 8 was made because of religious beliefs? As Edgeworth says, evidence is everything!

Lol, but now that the topic of religion is mostly off, it is time for me to bid adieu~

I bet all those priests who molested children knew what's up.

But - yeah, MA. XD Such as the "you can't eat some foods" changed by Jesus. And the letters the apostles wrote? They were Jesus' disciples and they were closest to him and heard him teach every time. They knew what was up and gave knowledge that they had gotten through Jesus to other people.

It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not God so why should we listen to you?" They know what's up and know the word of God so... yeah. XD

Actually, it's nothing like that.  It's like saying to a preacher "Oh wait, you're not god, so that means your words aren't God's words."

And NAMKCOR, religion is heavily based into many things. Pledge of Allegiance, people get days off from school because Jews have their holidays, money says "In God we trust," etc. Plus, is there evidence that Proposition 8 was made because of religious beliefs? As Edgeworth says, evidence is everything!

http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154
The Mormons make up the vast majority of the donators to the Prop 8 rallying.

http://www.adventistsfor8.com/Info.aspx
This article just pissed me off.  It's mostly outrage that something would ever change.  But at the bottom, lo and behold, 4 religious reasons all based on the same church.

Note: I'm not saying the only reason it was instated was religion, but none of the reasons given by anyone are anything besides HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO ALLOW THOSE DIRTY STINKING GAYS TO HAVE FREEDOM, or GAYS ARE GOING TO HELL DAMN THEM ALL NO MARRIAGE.

Here's a summary of what I see as the arguments against it:

How dare people be different.  How dare they not believe that homosexuality will damn you forever.  How dare they give these sinners a basic right.    If they pass this my child is going to become inexplicably gay!  This will destroy society as we know it.  How dare the law support any moral views but my own!

I'm ashamed that I was brought up in the religion that pretty much singlehandedly swayed this opressive law into being passed.

The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry would damage society, require changes to what was taught in schools about marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong.

Sorry, what would threaten your free exercise of religion? If you're not gay and not trying to marry, then whether this was passed or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. If the mormons got their way, we'd be undoing decades of work on equality for women and blacks.

If people are homophobic, the thought of gay marriage scares them, the solution is fairly simple. Simply don't practice it. There is no need to opress others with your skewed views.

So moo, why does it matter so much to you what other people do with their private lives? Why won't you just leave them alone? Why do you want to force them to have to live according to your beliefs?

Sorry, what would threaten your free exercise of religion? If you're not gay and not trying to marry, then whether this was passed or not, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. If the mormons got their way, we'd be undoing decades of work on equality for women and blacks.

hehe, according to the mormon church, Blacks were souls who were punished for not fighting one either side in the war between Satan and God.