Are you trying to suggest that the bible is pro-homosexual, but anti-homosexual activity.

__________________

Erm, no.

Just think about this for a minute. Religions other than those that accept the OT have marriage. Similarly the Old Testament doesn't outline the biblical basis for modern marriage at all (that would be Paul in the NT), but features a wide range of sexual relationships, not limited to but including, polygamy and incest.

Going further than that, what does the religious basis have to do with the modern sense of marriage? For centuries (heck, millenia), marriage has been as much about cultural norms, business and politics and straight up love as it has been about religious sacriment. Arranged marriages were the norm for centuries, mostly worked out arround business considerations. That is the reason it became so encoded in western law - to clear up the political and business implications of such unions, which were the primary purpose of most.AHEM
[youtube]xWqgD7lGneU[/youtube]

The bible is against sex that isn't for the purpose of creation of new life. So, yes, in a sense, it is anti-homosexual activity, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about homosexuality in itself. It's technically against having sex with your wife just because you want to.

__________________

Gay marriage should be legal in every state, why? Why not?

Christianity and other religions should not even be in this debate...because "supposedly" our goverment does not endorse any religion.

To be honest, I think gay people are who they are, but I really am against marriage or whatever for them. There are 2 sexes for a reason. You mate with the opposite sex to keep the population of our species. Honestly, it's enough in that to me to believe that it's wrong.

Any thoughts about transsexualism while its out here?

__________________
Ag23.

Are you also against birth control? By the way, how would gay marriage effect you in any way?

To be honest, forcing others to get married to one of the opposite sex is basically a shotgun marriage, without the shotguns.

I'm Canadian, where Gay marriage is allowed in some areas, and the way I see it, people have a right to choose for themselves who to be with.

Yes, the survival of the human species may depend on breeding, but if you take everyone in the world and match them with someone else, a minority of people would choose the same sex as it is. It's not like the entire world will suddenly be gay, and the human race die out.

On that subject, there are plenty of species in this world, which mate with the same sex, why can't humans?

Just my personal opinion anyways

__________________

Yes, I am against birth control. Birth control kills the child after it's been conceived. It's like an abortion, just right after you have sex. Use a damn condom, it's not ending any life. Plus, if you are going to have sex, you should at least be mature enough to know the possible consequences.

Gay marriage doesn't affect me in any way. It won't affect anyone here unless they are gay. I just don't believe in that sort of thing. I don't think it's morally correct.

__________________
Ag23.

If it were 1880 would you also believe it was not morally correct for a white woman to marry a black man?

Erm, condoms are a form of birth control.

You seem to be thinking of the morning after pill here, which can (sometimes) cause a fertalised egg to be rejected. However, whether this terminates after conception is another issue, as conception itself is a process that involves several stages, and the pill simply interupts that process (normally by stopping the egg from embedding after fertilisation, so it can't develop).

Birth control is (in its simplest sense) anything that stops a birth taking place. So condoms, the pill (any type), implants, injections, the coil, morning after pills and even medical abortions could be classed as birth control, as could abstinance or other methods of avoiding sex that might result in a pregancy (eg, rhythem method). At the other end, sexual education is an important stage in birth control, and a stage that is obviously sorely lacking.

However, all that is besides the point.

The issue here is that if all sexual or romantic relationships should be about having children, surely allowing any form of birth control, including condoms, is immoral? If a homosexual couple is sinful because they can't have kids, how is that any different to a hetrosexual couple where the man has had a vasectomy, or where the woman is on the pill? They can't have children either.

Why it is so important for our species to continue to repopulate? I am just curious.

i have no problem with gays... i have a few gay friends...but as for it being legal in every state? i dont see why not but its not going to happen though...most southern states that are of the Southern baptist religon...find homosexuality a major sin.

__________________

Exactly. A state/ country/ Government should adapt to what it's people want, not what the world demands.

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

I see no reason why 2 people of the same sex should not be able to be married.
I honestly don't understand why some people are so opposed to this, does it really affect them, at all?

__________________


BullSport845: they should make computer dinners
Br3wMeisterSmith: "gigabites"
Br3wMeisterSmith: patent pending!!!111
Member# 765

well the government, Local state or federal...wants to be portrayed as strong and powerful. If a state was to make gay marriage legel...it would portay that state in a negative light to other people..they ( the government) does not want to be frowned upon. thats why its so complicated for this to be ratified

__________________

Absolutely not. Nope. Niente. Nil. NO.

God did not argue, tolerate nor condone it. He said no, so therefore, I support His decision.

__________________
Expect people to be better than they are; it helps them to become better. But dont be disappointed when they are not; it helps them to keep trying!

I though this was an argument about US law, not theology.

Hmm, I'm translating it as saying she believes it should not be legal in ANY state, and her reason is quite clear.

(Eats slaif)

-Slaphappy

__________________


We're not alone. There is more to this I know. You can make it out . You will live to tell - "You're Not Alone" / SAISON
Village Elder -=- Member 420 / Happy Father and Husband / RS Player Mod

Love's love. If two people of the same gender love each other, what's to stop them from expressing it? I'm a Christian, but I don't give a crap if two guys want to be with each other rather than with girls, just as I don't care if it's two girls together rather than the normal guy-girl relationship.

I don't enjoy what goes on PAST the love (ex. making love), but the actual love shouldn't be barred.

__________________

Goten is dead!

OK, I will go into more detail;

US law in particular should not be dictated by religious belief or doctrine. If the only factor in deciding the value of an action or behaviour is the religious perception of that action, then that action is surely itself religious, and so covered by the freedom of expression in the First Ammendment.

How about eating pork? There are areas in the USA and UK that have large Jewish and Muslim communities, where pork is found offensive and against Gods wishes to the extreme. Should it be illegal in those areas? Well, no, because the decision on what to eat in those cases is governed by the freedom of religion - if you choose not to eat pork, you have the right not to eat it, not to deny others it.

How about praying? If the majority found public prayer to be an offensive act, would that be sufficient to make it illegal? That would be flat out illegal, straight up freedom of religion question. Yet some people would stop Muslims praying in public if they had the power, because their form of prayer is strange and offensive. A religious act being condemned by the majority, and so illegally restricted.

In this case, imagine a religion where same sex marriage was allowed (a number of Christian groups, as well as universalists and other less common religions). In their eyes (a growing number) same sex marriage is fine in the eyes of God. To deny them this is to deny them their freedom of religion more than allowing it is restricting yours. If it is allowed, you can ignore it, just as you can ignore Islamic prayer or Jews can ignore my bacon and egg fryup. If it is not allowed, you are telling those people that their beliefs and lifestyle are not good enough to be recognised or even exist in the USA.

But I thought I would be briefer. If you want, I can pick the statement itself apart, and go into a properly theological discussion on same sex relationships and marriage, and the straight forwards ethical and moral debate to be had there, but frankly I'm too drunk and too tired to start that now.