I Am Pro Gay Marriage Because I Am A Christian

Originally posted by GNUFanx86
reply to post by TheThirdAdam

 

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" -Matthew 7:21;23

What evil are you insinuating that I have done exactly? I have never engaged in any homosexual act, nor have I ever promoted them. I have, however, spoken against hypocrisy in our laws and in our Christian community. I have called upon others to respect the free will of their fellows as Jesus commanded us to do. I have asked simply to put aside discrimination when writing laws to govern as is it is the Christian way to do so. How again am I an “evildoer?’

Just because you say you are a Christian doesn't mean you are truly one.

Touché. Only God can truly know this…

You come off as a cultural Christian.

Could you please define "cultural Christian?"

You ignore theology and what the scripture teaches.

On the contrary, my friend. I have ignored your interpretation, as I am capable of reading and thinking for myself.

You want a feel good Christianity which is a false Christianity.

No I want true Christianity, which often times does not feel good.

You make a lot of assumptions, brother. I would spend some time in prayer and ask for guidance before attacking another brother in Christ.

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


Isn't the gay marriage agenda wanted to be enforced at the federal level? When they say they are denied their rights and it is unconstitutional, isn't that referring to the federal level? I have heard it many times and isn't that why they always go to the federal judges to make their cases?

Harry Hay, the originator of the gay marriage agenda, is also the founder of the Man-Boy Love Association. And what you are asking us if we think it should be legalized. That was what I answered without throwing the morality issue of being gay. The question I asked about adults and children is legitimate because there are a lot of child abusers out there who do use those philosophies. You really have to take that into consideration when making statements about any type of marriage contract.

So again, where is the line going to be drawn when it comes to marriage?

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


Here is the marks of Cultural Christian Link

look, there is no ancient greek word for homosexuality, the language paul wrote in. it's a mash up of words that can be translated into english as homosexuality, but other ones including child molestation

reply to post by WarminIndy


The supreme court is where appeals go when they are against the state, so yes they are making it a federal matter because the state denies their constitutional right to enter into contractual domestic partnership.

Where do we draw the line on age? This may sound crazy but I think 18 would be a pretty fair, considering that is the legal age for consent, just like the heterosexuals.

Im a straight male.....i have no intention of EVER getting married.
Marriage is for religious people, a piece of paper....worthless.

What really matters is that the people love each other....its not for you or I, to say who should love who.

Gay marriage is not allowed because its a religious ceremony.....why would anyone without faith want to be bound by a piece of paper that has no meaning to them?

I personally believe religion should be banned. It would solve multiple problems in modern society.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

I personally believe religion should be banned. It would solve multiple problems in modern society.

Just like the Soviet's did right? We know how that turned out it and it wasn't good.

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The supreme court is where appeals go when they are against the state, so yes they are making it a federal matter because the state denies their constitutional right to enter into contractual domestic partnership.

Where do we draw the line on age? This may sound crazy but I think 18 would be a pretty fair, considering that is the legal age for consent, just like the heterosexuals.

I didn't ask of age. What if a man wants to marry his dog and say the government is violating his civil rights? Sure, the dog is not complicit either, but does that matter to the man?

Ok there are two consenting adults. Does Harry Hay believe that age does not have any bearing on having sex? The Man Boy Love Association wants to end the concept of age being a requirement to having sex.

www.nambla.org...

These people say that age does not matter because it is all about love anyway. So if we draw the line at 18 and these people say it is ridiculous, what is the response to them?

From their website...

"Reluctant congratulations may be in order for the beneficiaries of New York State's gay marriage bill. Though marriage is not everybody's thing, one can understand the aspirations of those who long for social acceptance and for the open recognition of their love and choice of partners. I say reluctant because it is quite clear that a good segment of the gay community had to be co-opted by government to achieve their current but tenuous degree of acceptance and, now, the dubious privilege of attaching the word "marriage" to civil unions that would otherwise have had all the same privileges and responsibilities."

Open recognition of their love and choice of partners. Isn't that the same argument that gays of adult age use?

So if you limit them, then you violate their right of open recognition of their love and choice of partners.

NAMBLA believes their sexual attractions to be normal and natural. And if you say to them that they need partners who are 18, then they will say you are phobic. Where should the line be drawn? If you say 18, then the millions of men who are in this organization will use the same statements of the adult gay community to get themselves the same rights.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I didn't ask of age. What if a man wants to marry his dog and say the government is violating his civil rights? Sure, the dog is not complicit either, but does that matter to the man?

Can a dog enter into a contract? You're reaching here, please stop.

So if you limit them, then you violate their right of open recognition of their love and choice of partners.

NAMBLA believes their sexual attractions to be normal and natural. And if you say to them that they need partners who are 18, then they will say you are phobic. Where should the line be drawn? If you say 18, then the millions of men who are in this organization will use the same statements of the adult gay community to get themselves the same rights.

I had hoped that you would not make me address this revolting topic, but you have insisted that I go there.

First, homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things. I hope that you do not need me to define them for you. Are there depraved homosexual pedophilic crimes that child molesters commit? Certainly. Are there heterosexual pedophilic crimes as well? Yes, but by your reasoning heterosexual marriage should be banned as well. If you are insinuating that all gays are pedophiles, I ask you to please climb out from under that rock and go out and meet some people that live in the real world.

Pedophiles will be pedophiles. Is it sickeningly wrong? More than words could ever describe! But I don’t see how any of this has to do with equal rights to enter into civil union. I don't think any sane human being would ever stand up for pedophiles rights.

The tired argument of, “where do you draw the line?” is a cheap rhetoric used by people who have no real argument. Please don’t be that guy.

Originally posted by GNUFanx86
reply to post by TheThirdAdam

 

Here is the marks of Cultural Christian Link

Ummm... No. None of these things apply to me.

Just out of curiosity, how did you make the leap between anything that I have said and your conclusion about my spirituality?

Maybe I have missed some crucial bit of information, but as it stands, I can't help but question your reading and comprehension skills after this exchange.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I believe that marriage is a religious issue. It should never have been involved with government legislation in the first place. Therefore I believe marriage licences are absurd and unconstitutional.

I believe in the liberty of people to make their own religious choices as long as they are respecting the liberty of other peoples.

This is all I ask from society. Respect for Liberty.

I believe this is an illegitimate issue for these reasons. It is not my business what other people's religious beliefs are.

This is one of the worst cases of self-fullfilling premises I've seen for a while. At least the common missionary-christian circle-argumentation is half 'excused' by being ignorant about or ignoring rational reasoning.

But anyone taking a stance on societal principles should know better than this.

Why in the name of the great noodle master should marriage be the exclusive concern of religion? A completely absurd idea, not least because the question of WHICH religion will pop up soon also.

Just another way of sneaking 'christian values' in through the backdoor, similar to the many other self-proclaimed elitist-christian postulates.

Personally I find the thread worthwhile. It accentuates some of the more bizarre aspects of the unsolved US political scene. In Europe this 'problem' isn't a problem at all except for a few homophobes.

reply to post by bogomil


I'm not even Christian or religious. I am muzzleflash the truth seeker.

If you think the government should have rule over who you spend your life with, you are the totalitarian with authoritarian tendencies.

I am not sneaking in religious principals, I am trying to get them the hell out of government!

I don't believe in marriage by the way, as it is commonly understood.

Do you even know the definition of the word "Liberty"?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by bogomil

 

I'm not even Christian or religious. I am muzzleflash the truth seeker.

If you think the government should have rule over who you spend your life with, you are the totalitarian with authoritarian tendencies.

I am not sneaking in religious principals, I am trying to get them the hell out of government!

I don't believe in marriage by the way, as it is commonly understood.

Do you even know the definition of the word "Liberty"?

edit on 18-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

There seem to be some deep misunderstand here.

What liberal principles have been broken by individuals wanting to to have some type of formal recognition of their relationship? In some societies this can have practical implications; for some individuals it can have personal value and some people just do it from sheer social norms.

Highlighting a quote from this post: [" If you think the government should have rule over who you spend your life with, you are the totalitarian with authoritarian tendencies."]

How is a secular marriage a question of "government should have rule over .....etc" in a real liberal society, where you have several optional marriage-legislators, several optional forms of co-habitation/relationship forms or the option of none of this at all? It's free choices all along; also your non-believing in marriage,....though this is not applicable to e.g. atheists wanting to be married.

For my sake consenting adults can marry in any constellation they want, have any kind of ritual or legislation around it as they want, and if there was any such thing as consenting giraffes, I wouldn't have any objections to them being part of an interspecies marriage either.

reply to post by bogomil


You are missing the point.
If government is allowed to "recognize marriage" than this creates a problem.
Example : Gay people not allowed to marry.

People are raised in this government controlled society to believe the "ONLY" way to be 'married' is through government approval and licences.

Did you know that in the USA, marriage licences were only issued for inter-racial couples? They were the only ones required to do it in the first place. Why???

Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

So it's 'illegal' to be married without government consent, because we are slaves?

A marriage licence is technically by law, a corporation under jurisdiction of the state.

Did you know that historically in the USA that it was illegal for blacks and whites to get married? The marriage licence was created to legalize this under restrictions.

It is interesting to note the current definition of "marriage license" in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed [1991] (which is the one used in a Family Law court): Marriage license - A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry... By statute in most jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to lawful solemnization of the marriage."

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed): Intermarry - See Miscegenation.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed): Miscegenation - Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of a different race. [Now called "intermarry".] Statutes prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to equal protection clause of the Constitution.

According to the history and law books, government marriage licences in the USA are created to "allow" mixed race couples to marry.

Then for some reason everyone decided they had to have one. Odd isn't it?

So technically you are supporting a racist institution carried out by government.

a link to look over

It's just like when they "freed the slaves" they didn't. To make it "equal" so it would be fair, they just enslaved everyone else through contracts.

Same goes with marriage. Since it was ruled Unconstitutional to treat inter-race marriages as different than same-race couples, instead of doing away with marriage licences, they then made everyone else have to have one. See it's fair now, everyone has to get a licence.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You wrote:

["You are missing the point."]

You are right, I did.

I operated with the (hasty) assumption, that european liberal societies would be representatitive. Here the secular authorities are usually more liberally progressive than organized religion. Apparently not the case with the challenged US constitution.

My bad for not excluding US from the principles used in Europe; I should have known better.

reply to post by bogomil


No problem Bogomil.

I actually knew that was most likely the misunderstanding, between Euro and US politics / law.

That is why I went to show you where the US laws originated from so that you would see where the real problems arise from (in US law), as we must keep in mind this does not bear any effect on Euro law or vice versa.

So don't feel bad or anything. Your context clues led me to the answer and so I was happy to provide you that answer so that you could have the information you needed to see where our misunderstandings of each other originated from.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Thanks.

This thread does have some religion/secular-state implications, so I believe I safely can make a few 'political' comments.

It's rather characteristic of this (and similar) forums with a high percentage of US-citizens participating, that US norms tend to become THE norms (and as I said...my bad for omitting the differences to Europe), a problem which constantly is reflected through whatever facet of religion vs. secularism presented.

Many of our resident missionary theists on this forum have seemingly as little real knowledge of secular, liberal, egalitarian, constitutional and FUNCTIONAL democracies, as they have of science/logic procedures. Instead travesties in the form of what they suppose such systems are, are used as a shadow-boxing opponent.

And while I wouldn't like to present sweeping generalizations with cultural/nationalistic overtones such as: "Dude, you are american and blinded by your own black/white culture" (because I sincerely believe, this wouldn't be correct), I am sometimes tempted to do it. The digging down to kindergarten basics every time a theist claim is made can tax anyone's patience.

So I can only repeat my apology for initially responding to you from a 'shallow' attitude, where I didn't look at your basic premises carefully enough. I usually try to go deeper than the surface, but made a miss this time.

(PS I'm not a self-abasing 'repentant' by stressing my mistake, but rather an exponent of non-absolute attitudes...a kind of message to theists clinging to their absolutes for dear life at whatever cost.)

But to return to the subject at hand, I find it deplorable that so many OT-relating christians as a last measure take on the role of passive 'messengers': "I am tolerantly intolerant, only being the passive middleman for my 'master's' self-proclaimed rules".

reply to post by bogomil


Thank you for the kind reply.
You bring up many good points and I agree with pretty much everything you state.

One thing that we could do that may be interesting, is to dig up the history of various state-sanctioned marriage laws throughout various nations in Europe (which I assume will differ greatly from place to place), and we could probably even dig deeper into Roman times and discover where many of these procedures originally came from thousands of years ago. (In relation to the law and politics). Also we could probably study the very ancient sources throughout various religions, etc.

This type of research would deserve it's own thread and honestly, it would take a few days to complete because it is no easy task.

You are totally right that things are always different from place to place, and that far too often the 'US-centric" point of view is far too commonplace and that we need to be careful to separate this from other places where laws and traditions are almost certainly different in many aspects.

Even I am guilty of this mistake every day, so I have to constantly pay more attention to myself and what I am saying but obviously this is very difficult because there is only so much time and writing that much information at once can prove difficult for readers to stomach.

But again, thank you for the cordial and excellent discussion. I am enjoying the way this is turning out very much.

reply to post by muzzleflash


An excellent idea of creating a thread on the variables of consensus ethics, as such have manifested historically.

I recently joined a thread on such a theme, with participants from both sides of the theist/non-theist fence (and some like me not really having this fence as a center), and it turned out to be a peaceful and qualitative thread, as most of the contributors were more interested in communication than in preaching.

Unfortunately my own interest and competence is more on the lines of physics/logic/philosophy-of-science/epistemology, so personally I wouldn't take it upon myself to start and 'maintain' such a thread.

Should you some day feel inclined to do it yourself, I would however participate gladly (so please send me a U2U if it happens). It's about time, that the elitist christian propaganda-clichées on ethics are met head on.