Gay marriage

[faso]

Well... the bible condemns many other things but you don't see all Christians abiding by them.

A list:
Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19)
Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17)
Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10)

The forth one is extremely applicable.

Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do them i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.

[Jay.C]

Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.

Ok, so what if I am a gay Christian. I know I am sining however I recognize that if I do not recognize that I am gay I will live the rest of my life unhappy and depressed. So I then remember that because god is so loving he will want me to live a happy life and I know that since he is most merciful I can be forgiven. Can I then be a gay Christian?

[chasej]

Sure, yeah - it's all well and good that everyone should be happy. But why are they so excited about marriage being extended to the general populace in the US when people are being murdered, raped and tortured everyday? It represents the awkward and knobbly system we as a global society have with dealing with things. "Hey, some guy got beheaded by ISIS" should not reasonably be less important than "yeah I can wear this ring now", but guess which one people are talking about. Yes it's cool that another ~1 in 10 people in the US are maybe a bit happier now, but the whole 'loving union' thing is kind of defeated if being legally married is a selling point in the first place.

People can do more than one thing at once. ISIS gets plenty of attention, in fact people have a bizarre obsession with them as they haven't really done anything that shocking when you contrast them with places like Saudi Arabia or Iran (that's a whole different point though).

So, while this is unbelievably hard to say, I've got to say that if I end up totally believing that homosexuality is wrong (a point I'm struggling with), then I'll have to believe it's wrong - for everyone.  But again, it's your choice what you do, I'll never try and change that.  But basically I'm saying that, yes, because I believe in an 'intolerant' God, I also have to be 'intolerant'.  (Don't take that the wrong way).

I'm not sure about the new testament. But I know to say the old testament prohibits people being homosexual is absurd. The Old Testament prohibits homosexual acts.

I think a further absurdity is the idea that sinning would take you to a 'hell', because if G-d puts people through eternal damnation He is not benevolent.

You cannot be a Christian and be gay. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality you cant simply pick and choose what suits you from your religion its either you take it as a whole or you dont at all.

see above.

Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do them i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.

what a crazy way to look at the world. you can do whatever you want as long as you recognise it is bad? no principles at all - it's just making it up as you go along, acting first and fitting your beliefs in later.

--
My opinion:
I don't think the state should regulate marriage at all. Marriage should be governed by religious institutions and civil unions/de facto relationships governed by the state. It's blatantly unfair that marriage is based off of secular or Christian definitions (the two main sides of the debate in Australia) which in turn restricts other cultures in Australia from preserving their own practices, it's anti multi-cultural.

[keltingmeith]

Committing a sin and believing something isnt a sin are two different things.
My religion does not allow me to certain things. Although i do them i know its wrong and can be forgiven as god is the most merciful. However, saying something isnt a sin when it is thats when you are in deep shit.

The whole point of having a faith is that it's yours - it's not about picking and choosing, it's about believing something and following through. Nowadays, most Christians have their own faith - that doesn't make them "wrong", or even not Christians. It just means they have a belief that they follow that is different to the traditional.

[slothpomba]

I feel that pretty much every religious text was wriiten to satisfy the needs of the society at THAT time. If, any religious book was written again in 2015, it would be totally different

This is your opinion but it's totally irrelevant to the debate. You may think that as a (non-religious?) person but so what? The vast majority of religious people believe their text to one degree of intensity or another is to satisfy the eternal needs of humanity. If it's created by God and God is perfect, surely so is the book.

This is typical of why these debates go nowhere. Non-religious people (who often know very little about religion) telling religious people how they ought to view their very own deeply held beliefs.

Sex outside of marriage is forbidden, and any sex within marriage should be for the sole purpose of procreation, according to the Bible.

This is a stereotypical catholic view, even then it's acknowledged sex can be for pleasure between a couple. Clearly someone missed all the erotic poetry in the songs of Solomon..

Spoiler

Songs of Solomon - 5

I slept but my heart was awake.
    Listen! My beloved is knocking:
“Open to me, my sister, my darling,
    my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
    my hair with the dampness of the night.”

I have taken off my robe—
    must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet—
    must I soil them again?

My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
    my heart began to pound for him.
 
I arose to open for my beloved,
    and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with flowing myrrh,
    on the handles of the bolt.

Song of Songs 1

She

12
While the king was at his table,
    my perfume spread its fragrance.
13
My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh
    resting between my breasts.
14
My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
    from the vineyards of En Gedi.

He

15
How beautiful you are, my darling!
    Oh, how beautiful!
    Your eyes are doves.

She

16
How handsome you are, my beloved!
    Oh, how charming!
    And our bed is verdant.

He

17
The beams of our house are cedars;
    our rafters are firs.

Incest couples (with the likelihood of deformed offspring) don't really fit the traditional view of marriage as a way to encourage procreation. However, with the changing of the concept of marriage to only focus on the love between two people, an incestuous couple could legitimately claim to be allowed to get married. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this within the next decade, at most.

I don't see this happening. Change doesn't happen without action and there's no real history of an incest rights movement, community or brutal oppression.

As far as we know something like 1/10 people are LGBTQI+. 1 out of every 10 people is really enough to build a mass movement in political theory terms. I'd wager the number of people who are actively practicing an incestuous lifestyle would not even be 1/1000 or 10,000. I do not see people suddenly becoming more incestuous either, just like more people won't become gay as a result of the change in attitude towards gay marriage.

[mahler004]

^{(Apologises for side tracking the current discussion)}

There's already been some states and counties not wanting to follow through with the SCOTUS' (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling. Louisiana has for example, claimed they will not issue any marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days (25 days is the amount of time the losing side can ask the SCOTUS to reconsider their ruling).

There are also some places not issuing marriage licenses to anyone (straight or gay). This will interesting as the SCOTUS ruling stated that marriage is a constitutional right under the equal protection clause and due process clause.

For those interested in reading the SCOTUS' ruling, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf which also contains the dissents. I found Justice Scalia's dissent the most interesting to read in how it was written and the reasoning behind his vote.

It does raise an interesting point about the Supreme Court's power - they don't have an army, and they can't enforce their decisions. Indeed, there's actually been a few times in history when the executive branch (President) outright disobeyed a Supreme Court decision (generally in wartime). Likewise, more conservative states will try and throw up barriers to same sex marriage (similar to how they throw up barriers to abortion, despite Roe v. Wade.) There are already a few 'religious freedom' laws in the works allowing civil employees (county clarks and the like) to refuse to marry same sex couples.

Well... the bible condemns many other things but you don't see all Christians abiding by them.

A list:
Eating a cheeseburger or anything that mixes meat and dairy (Exodus 23:19)
Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17)
Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8)
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8)
Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9-10)

The forth one is extremely applicable.

I will now proceed to ask all christian if they have consumed any cheeseburgers lately.

(Not a Christian). People will argue that, with Jesus, the Old Testament laws were set aside. So that's why Christians don't keep kosher (your first three and five) or conduct sacrifices.

Homosexuality, in contrast, is explicitly condemned by Paul.

This is your opinion but it's totally irrelevant to the debate. You may think that as a (non-religious?) person but so what? The vast majority of religious people believe their text to one degree of intensity or another is to satisfy the eternal needs of humanity. If it's created by God and God is perfect, surely so is the book.

This is typical of why these debates go nowhere. Non-religious people (who often know very little about religion) telling religious people how they ought to view their very own deeply held beliefs.

Agreed - and this is why serious discussion shouldn't happen on a message board, and why I'm a hypocrite.

[sjayne]

Well I'm just gonna say this outright, but this whole discussion has made me not want to use this site anymore. 

[chasej]

Well I'm just gonna say this outright, but this while discussion has made me not want to use this site anymore. 

Why? :/

[sjayne]

Why? :/

Well, over the past years this forum has been my inspiration, I've looked up to a lot of people on here and I still do. However this thread has made me feel really uncomfortable and I can only imagine what any gay young teen on this site would feel like reading it. Nobody seems to really be open to anyone else's opinion and it's just unhelpful.

[Russ]

Well I'm just gonna say this outright, but this whole discussion has made me not want to use this site anymore. 

Life involves a lot of things that are not particularly pleasant. Regardless of career or direction, you'll encounter incompetence, idiocy etc. Unfortunately, it's not much comfort to be on the 'right' side of the divide if it makes you miserable in the process. I strongly believe you should do only what makes you happy (or be egotistical enough to not care) and if you feel like you'd rather not engage in this discussion for your personal happiness then that's totally fine. Incidentally, you can message me if you'd like to talk about it, I may have some relevant life experiences.

-

You can have a reasonably constructive discussion about the role of same sex marriage in society, since I do genuinely believe there is an interesting perspective as to social definitions and so forth. Having said that XKCD is (as ever) relevant to some of the comments in the last few pages:

[Cogglesnatch Cuttlefish]

I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst religion may have it's merits (bringing people together for a common "good", etc etc.), it needs to adapt, or the interpretation of its texts and teachings needs to adapt and modernise. It's simply nonsensical to me for someone living in the modern day to follow teachings/writings from hundreds of years ago. You wouldn't use everything (or most things) from a medical textbook from the 1800s to learn how to treat people, why would you use everything (or most things) from a book written hundreds of years ago to learn how to live?

It's my understanding somewhat rudimentary understanding that God was created as a concept (and I'm talking way before Jesus and his homies) to explain the unknown. What is known and what is unknown is constantly changing, as we continually know more and create questions that we don't know the answers too. Hence, God as a concept should be continually changing. Hence, interpretations of God's teachings from long ago should too.

I have no idea how to relate this back to gay marriage, so I won't even try, but just my view on whatever I just gave my view on.

Although i hate to digress (sorry if i'm interrupting!), you bring up an interesting point. But it seems as though your view is based on the premise that religion and the concept of 'God' was developed by mankind which would of course deem religion archaic if that was the case. Let's look at the religion of Islam for example. Muslims believe that religion was sent by God in order to be adopted as a way of life by mankind in the form of a book (The Quran) believed to be the unaltered word of God. How can they prove that the Quran is in fact the word of God? Well, muslims point to the fact that it contains verses alluding to modern scientific phenomena (the water cycle and embryology are examples off the top of my head). And in the year 500 or thereabouts, such things were virtually unheard of. So it is inconceivable really that somebody actually knew of these things that long ago when modern science has just recently begun discovering these things. Some sort of divine presence is the only explanation really. Anyway, this is quite a broad topic (and this is not a thread about religion). Check this out it's pretty interesting http://www.whyislam.org/submission/the-holy-quran/the-quran-and-modern-science-3/

[faso]

Ok, so what if I am a gay Christian. I know I am sining however I recognize that if I do not recognize that I am gay I will live the rest of my life unhappy and depressed. So I then remember that because god is so loving he will want me to live a happy life and I know that since he is most merciful I can be forgiven. Can I then be a gay Christian?

Most merciful that does not mean he forgives every sin. If you are a Christian and believe you are gay your struggles to fight your homosexual desires  will not go un rewarded and maybe a test of faith. To end this you cannot be gay and Christian ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

For eulerfan
If they have there own faith they're not Christians genius call them whatever you want if you don't follow christs teachings your note a Christian lol. CHristian derives from Jesus last name if you haven't noticed.


For Mahler
No you can't you are still committing a sin and are responsible for it. It's just accepting it as a sin rather than denying it is a sin are two different stories.

[Clockwork]

It does raise an interesting point about the Supreme Court's power - they don't have an army, and they can't enforce their decisions. Indeed, there's actually been a few times in history when the executive branch (President) outright disobeyed a Supreme Court decision (generally in wartime). Likewise, more conservative states will try and throw up barriers to same sex marriage (similar to how they throw up barriers to abortion, despite Roe v. Wade.) There are already a few 'religious freedom' laws in the works allowing civil employees (county clarks and the like) to refuse to marry same sex couples.

I've been thinking about this outcome for a while and I won't be surprised if it comes down to a big Federal v States showdown. Too bad certain states won't just accept the decision and move on.

[Jay.C]

Most merciful that does not mean he forgives every sin. If you are a Christian and believe you are gay your struggles to fight your homosexual desires  will not go un rewarded and maybe a test of faith. To end this you cannot be gay and Christian ITS IMPOSSIBLE.

For eulerfan
If they have there own faith they're not Christians genius call them whatever you want if you don't follow christs teachings your note a Christian lol. CHristian derives from Jesus last name if you haven't noticed.


For Mahler
No you can't you are still committing a sin and are responsible for it. It's just accepting it as a sin rather than denying it is a sin are two different stories.

I really just struggle to see the parts where it outlines the sins that god can be lenient on. Like where does god rule the line on sins he can be iffy on? I legitimately thought all sins were equal as they were all prohibited. I just don't think that under the conditions you're applying that if a christian has not followed ever part of the bible to the T that they could be considered as a true christian.

[faso]

I really just struggle to see the parts where it outlines the sins that god can be lenient on. Like where does god rule the line on sins he can be iffy on? I legitimately thought all sins were equal as they were all prohibited.

They're are major sins and minor sins. Adultery is a major sin, swearing is a minor sin. Not all sins are to the same degree. This is the same for Jews and for muslims.