DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I'm gay and Lutheran (fairly liberal Lutheran... ELCA if that means anything to anybody), and I have realized that parts of the old testament have almost no place outside of the context in which it was written. Laws in Leviticus: A man shall not lie with another man, don't let cattle graze with other kinds of cattle, don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric, don't cut your hair nor shave, people who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God. If men can shave their beards, men can sleep together. Hypocrisy is a nasty habit. And besides all that, marriage isn't even necessarily a Christian doctrine. Its been happening since times before Ancient Greece! And guess what? In Ancient Greece, China, Egypt, and the early Roman Empire, there have been same-sex marriages, including two Roman Emperors (Nero and Elagabals). Sooooooo.... IMO gay marriage should be legal. Edited April 8, 2011 by DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliban of Sycorax Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 And besides all that, marriage isn't even necessarily a Christian doctrine. Its been happening since times before Ancient Greece! And guess what? In Ancient Greece, China, Egypt, and the early Roman Empire, there have been same-sex marriages, including two Roman Emperors (Nero and Elagabals). There were a decent amount of gay or at least bisexual Roman emperors, Caligula was bisexual, and Hadrian had a male lover and wept bitterly upon his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I have realized that parts of the old testament have almost no place outside of the context in which it was written in. I think parts of any "testament" or similar in any religious text have no place EVEN IN the context in which they were written. also lol @ "in which it was written in" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) I think parts of any "testament" or similar in any religious text have no place EVEN IN the context in which they were written. also lol @ "in which it was written in" Well we're all entitled to our own opinions, and I think the bible has a lot to teach people, even if parts of it are horseshit. also lol @ grammar nazis thinking they rule the world Edited April 8, 2011 by DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 The argument has long since strayed from the idea of marriage recognized by some religious institution--I'm a Buddhist myself, and I don't personally want a blessed marriage--I just want equal benefits. Gay people cannot, as of now, be listed as next-of-kin, allowed hospital visitation, file "married" on their taxes, or file together for insurance. There is no "threat" to the institution of marriage, marriage is a religious concept and has always been. Fact: A religiously blessed marriage does nothing practical. To get the proper tax benefits it is necessary to go and file for a marriage license. Get over it. Okay then. If benefits are the only thing that matters to you, would letting religious couples keep their marriage as 'between a man and a woman' be alright with you while gay couples enjoy 'civil unions' which are given equal legal rights by the state and government, but not be an actual marriage, be alright with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Okay then. If benefits are the only thing that matters to you, would letting religious couples keep their marriage as 'between a man and a woman' be alright with you while gay couples enjoy 'civil unions' which are given equal legal rights by the state and government, but not be an actual marriage, be alright with you? See, Snowy. The thing is, some religious leaders want to marry same sex couples as well. Government having any involvement in "marriage" of any kind is stupid. Government should provide civil unions for all―homosexual, heterosexual, or other―and let the individual churches make up their own damn minds, or fail trying. Edited April 9, 2011 by Balcerzak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Bal, while I understand and respect (and either agree, or am very close to agreeing with) your opinion; this is one I want the person I'm replying to to answer. Edited April 9, 2011 by Snowy_One Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Okay then. If benefits are the only thing that matters to you, would letting religious couples keep their marriage as 'between a man and a woman' be alright with you while gay couples enjoy 'civil unions' which are given equal legal rights by the state and government, but not be an actual marriage, be alright with you? Seperate but equal isn't equal, no matter how you cut the cake. Nobody wants to force a church to marry gays, but they do want gays to be able to have a marriage. They should be able to call it whatever the fuck they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 See, Snowy. The thing is, some religious leaders want to marry same sex couples as well. Government having any involvement in "marriage" of any kind is stupid. Government should provide civil unions for all―homosexual, heterosexual, or other―and let the individual churches make up their own damn minds, or fail trying. Bal, will you civil union me? *ahem* If the government turned all marriages into civil unions (for stuff like taxes, benefits, etc.), I shudder to think of how horrible things like tax laws and insurance benefits would become. Furthermore, some states might have a slightly bigger, um, issue passing something like this *cough*Utah*cough*. BUT if it were to be implemented federally, in a sensible way, that would be extremely cool. The churches can do whatever religious thing(s) they want with marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 also lol @ grammar nazis thinking they rule the world only the easy to read parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I am utterly surprised that not one, but two, people have ignored the subsequent post asking that only the person to whom I was replying too respond. Ah well... Suppose I better get down to it. Seperate but equal isn't equal, no matter how you cut the cake. Nobody wants to force a church to marry gays, but they do want gays to be able to have a marriage. They should be able to call it whatever the fuck they want. Remember my post just last page? The big one near the bottom? Yea, you're barking up the wrong tree here; both in whom you are targeting and in what you are saying. If the government turned all marriages into civil unions (for stuff like taxes, benefits, etc.), I shudder to think of how horrible things like tax laws and insurance benefits would become. Furthermore, some states might have a slightly bigger, um, issue passing something like this *cough*Utah*cough*. BUT if it were to be implemented federally, in a sensible way, that would be extremely cool.The churches can do whatever religious thing(s) they want with marriage. The point I was trying to make is that there is much more too it than just legalities and/or 'rights'. If there was nothing more too it, than the easy-out of gay civil-unions/straight-marriages where they are the same except in name and gender pairing only would be a option that would leave more people satisfied than not and would require much less effort to get enacted. That this isn't the case shows that there is much more. So far, it seems to be a culture difference to me; or at least culture has a huge part to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliban of Sycorax Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Okay then. If benefits are the only thing that matters to you, would letting religious couples keep their marriage as 'between a man and a woman' be alright with you while gay couples enjoy 'civil unions' which are given equal legal rights by the state and government, but not be an actual marriage, be alright with you? Did you not notice the "I'm a Buddhist so I don't care" statement? I don't want a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Whatever wedding. I DON'T. That doesn't mean others don't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Remember my post just last page? The big one near the bottom? Yea, you're barking up the wrong tree here; both in whom you are targeting and in what you are saying. Just because you've aimed the question at a specific person doesn't mean no one else can respond, ESPECIALLY when the question really is very general and hardly personal at all. The point I was trying to make is that there is much more too it than just legalities and/or 'rights'. If there was nothing more too it, than the easy-out of gay civil-unions/straight-marriages where they are the same except in name and gender pairing only would be a option that would leave more people satisfied than not and would require much less effort to get enacted. That this isn't the case shows that there is much more. So far, it seems to be a culture difference to me; or at least culture has a huge part to do with it. There isn't much more too it though. Gay civil unions and straight marriages are not an easy out, and I explained why they are flawed. Everybody should get the same thing, either the one or another, and it has little to do with "culture" (though opposition to it might, but seriously, fuck everyone opposed to it), and more to do rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I'm appalled they allow these Christian marriages. They should call them Christian partnerships. We should keep the Jewish marriage a sacred act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliban of Sycorax Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Or they should just make religious marriage not important and give everyone civil union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Or they should just make religious marriage not important and give everyone civil union. I second this. It also cures some of the immediate association of marriage in a church with a pastor/priest, which is biased towards Christians. I mean seriously, why is America still so strongly clinging to Christianity as a kind of unofficial national religion in this day and age? I understand it back in the early days of the civilization (Pilgrims and such), but for a country that claims freedom of religion (and from religion), we sure do like putting christian principles into our laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted35362 Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Homosexuality shattered my already battered heart, but I still don't have any problem with it. Why do some people hate the idea of it so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 what, did the boy you ask out have plans with someone else? i'm sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaketheGr3at Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I am perfectly okay with Gays of any kind and am perfectly okay with them getting married. I believe the also should have the right to get married any way they want. You can't oppress your views into someone and hope they'll change like Americans always do. Also with Dan on not understanding why America is still clinging to Christian views and incorporation them into our laws but that is what our country was based of off so I understand why it still happens. But I honestly don't understand why people hate Gays so much. Stop worrying about other peoples business and deal with your own shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What the hell are you talking about? America is not the only place where homosexual couples don't have the same rights as others, and really, we're one of the areas in the world that are better about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaketheGr3at Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What the hell are you talking about? America is not the only place where homosexual couples don't have the same rights as others, and really, we're one of the areas in the world that are better about it. I wasn't trying to trash America if that came off like that. America is where I live and I only know how some Gays are treated here (Wisconsin to be specific) so I can't comment on how this are in other places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Alrighty, I just got the impression that you thought the US was especially bad about it. WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES THOUGH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliban of Sycorax Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What the hell are you talking about? America is not the only place where homosexual couples don't have the same rights as others, and really, we're one of the areas in the world that are better about it. See: Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex unions. In 1989. Over 20 years before it was even considered in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 See: Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex unions. In 1989. Over 20 years before it was even considered in the US. That's not even relevant. He said we're better than some places, not everywhere on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 See: Denmark, the first country to legalize same-sex unions. In 1989. Over 20 years before it was even considered in the US. See: Iran where homosexuality is punishable by death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts