Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[crait]

I just want to add that the bible is the number one source responsible in modern times for gay bashing.

And that is equally offensive as SGG's statement on how he feels about religion.
-DarkPacMan77-

I don't find that offensive. Many bad Christians try to use it as a tool to stop what they think shouldn't be allowed when it never says to not allow it.

All i have to say bout this, is yeah it could mean what you think and it couldnt. my reasoning being that the words gay and queer meant very different things before it became slang a long time ago. so that phrase could have e verydiff meaning then what you are trying to convey.

Of course, I kinda agree with you on this, TheTyler0013 because the Bible has been translated and re-translated many times over the years and not everything will have the exact meaning as it once did.

why do any of you personally care what two people you dont know do? They aren't hurting anyone! this is crazy gay people aren't on any agenda to stop you or your family from being straight. they just want to f**k, love and be happy. marriage isn't just your fun little religious get together ceremony. Its mentioned everywhere in our LAWS. They want the same rights EVERYONE else gets.

why do any of you personally care what two people you dont know do? They aren't hurting anyone! this is crazy gay people aren't on any agenda to stop you or your family from being straight.

Exactly why this should not even be getting press time.


As for the quote on Jonathan, It seems that some of you are in willful denial about what is being said.

Here it is in modern English:

2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Now I don't know about you but I personally don't want a man to love me more than a woman would. If this isn't what is being said please offer an alternative, plausible explanation.

Anyone?

yall want facts so here.

the loss of a true friend, which is inestimable; he lost him who both could, and undoubtedly would have given him a speedy, and quiet, and sure possession of the kingdom, whereas now, he met with long and troublesome interruptions. Of women - That is, that love wherewith they love their husbands, or children for their affections are usually more ardent than mens.

here, I cry for you, Jonathan, my brother. You were very special to me. The way that you loved me was wonderful. It was more wonderful than the way that a woman loves.

the verse shows David’s personal feelings about Jonathan. 1 Samuel 18:1-4 describes when this special friendship started. Jonathan even gave his royal coat to David. Jonathan knew that David would be king instead of him. But Jonathan was never jealous. In this verse, ‘love’ refers to the serious promise that David and Jonathan made to each other with God. (This happened in 1 Samuel 20:12-17; 20:23; 20:42.) David had married Jonathan’s sister Michal (1 Samuel 18:27; 19:9-17). But she had not been as loyal to David as Jonathan had been

he is just saying he was more loyal than his wife, he was a amazong friend.

there.

[BKFraiders7]

yall want fact so here.

the loss of a true friend, which is inestimable; he lost him who both could, and undoubtedly would have given him a speedy, and quiet, and sure possession of the kingdom, whereas now, he met with long and troublesome interruptions. Of women - That is, that love wherewith they love their husbands, or children for their affections are usually more ardent than mens.

here, I cry for you, Jonathan, my brother. You were very special to me. The way that you loved me was wonderful. It was more wonderful than the way that a woman loves.

the verse shows David’s personal feelings about Jonathan. 1 Samuel 18:1-4 describes when this special friendship started. Jonathan even gave his royal coat to David. Jonathan knew that David would be king instead of him. But Jonathan was never jealous. In this verse, ‘love’ refers to the serious promise that David and Jonathan made to each other with God. (This happened in 1 Samuel 20:12-17; 20:23; 20:42.) David had married Jonathan’s sister Michal (1 Samuel 18:27; 19:9-17). But she had not been as loyal to David as Jonathan had been

he is just saying he was more loyal than his wife, he was a amazong friend.

there.

Good job Tyler.

well i am just sick and tired of ppl reading someting with out doing some research on the subject. its not a one layer sentance, you have to read into it, the bible is eant to be deciphered, not read once. Not to mention Que left out the other parts of the book of samuel where it make this verse make sensewhich i have stated in "()", and clearly is not a homosexual referance about the two men.

so please dont just surface read and claim to know what your talking about.

Sorry if i came off rude. not my intention just stating the facts.

[crait]

Airplanes, please read my post on Page 2 that I directed towards you. I'm interested in why you think the way you do. If you answered my questions, maybe I could understand your viewpoint a lot better.
In fact, can anyone go back to that page an answer those questions that I have?! Please?

My question is if it is ok for say, crait to support gay people because he supports the lifestyle or what not, why is it considered rude if someone else disagrees with that lifestyle?

I never said I support being gay, so don't say that I did. I don't believe it's right and I do not believe that people are born gay. I do, however, advocate that we shouldn't outlaw something if it doesn't effect anybody especially if it doesn't harm anybody. And whenever you ask how is it rude to disagree with someone's lifestyle, it isn't. But, if you hate the lifestyle, that's borderline racism.

I don't understand why I'm considered a dumb donkey if I choice to believe something different then you, or trust the teachings of the bible.

You're not but no one here's said that being gay is against the Bible and have been able to cite it. Please cite it.

Would anyone object to two females getting together and doing stuff? Probably not... This is also considered gay.
Now, when we put two males together people automatically become less humble about the situation.

Actually, no one's said that two woman together isn't gay because that wouldn't be true. I view it as being gay/homosexuality and I do not support it.

if it is ok to be gay then why is there males and females on this earth? Isn't the whole point of life to just reproduce and populate the world?

Well, there's males and females on Earth to reproduce. The point of life is to praise God. The point of marriage is love.
Do you not believe that gays are able to love?

On that note... How come some animals display what we would call homosexual traits? Are they not "god's" creatures too?

You're completely right about that, Que.

That is why anytime the word "knowledge" is used it frequently means the union between a man and woman

When have you ever seen that, before? I haven't.

You could easily say that Christianity is an obnoxious religion because it discriminates against gays

No, it doesn't. Bad Christians do. They try to use it as a tool to prove something is wrong.

Now Marriage wants to be changed to include same sex couples.

I'm pretty sure Que and DPM have cited many points in time where marriage was between the same sexes. So, no, it is not something new.

What if a Christian visits this forum and sees your posts p***ing on Christianity? How is that any different?

I get on quite often and even though I am a strong Christian, I don't hate the posts because someone is trying to convey their views. I do agree that there are a lot of Atheists out there who try to make it their life's dreams to mock Chrisitans kinda like those stupid Apple advocates who try to do anything to make PC users mad. Que and DPM are more aggressive when it comes to religion and their views but not being reasonable with the views is idiotic. Just as it's idiotic for atheists being stubborn and not reasoning with the many truths and facts that support religion.

who are homosexuals hurting by getting married?

its not about is it hurting anyone. just about how you feel about the subject and do you agree or dissagree. thats all.

Well, why can't someone disagree with it without making it illegal.

If a person is born with being gay, then he/she can't help it.

What gene makes someone gay?

God didnt make them Gay.. He says in the bible that. He says its a unreal (as in not real.) love.

Show me.

Me too, please.

will you personally go to hell if they marry? no.

Saddly, some people believe that they will. This is through many religions and not just Christianity but there was an example involving a crazy Christian lady that came to mind whenever I read your post. She protested this supposedly gay army guy's funeral saying that it was a blessing from God that he is gone from the Earth. She hates people that are like that and tries to use the Bible as a weapon and her reasoning behind it even though the bible does not say two gay people cannot be in love and that you cannot love God, who you haven't met, if you hate someone, who you have met.

I have a question :
This debate was supposed to be opinion-wise so how on earth did it turn into a Religions' debate?

Check out this next quote:

I don't want this thread turning into the Religion Debate Thread but religion does pay a big part of it.

God actually "did" make "Adam and Steve", in the way that Adam and Eve themselves were not originally intended to reproduce anyways.

You have a good, thorough point on this but it says in the Bible, the very first few pages, that God made woman from man. So, he did intend on them being different because woman were made for man. Woman just ended up giving childbirth. So, though I see where you're coming from, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you. If you believe in the Bible, then I guess I proved you wrong.

Let people do what they want... Tryin to force your views on others is stupid.

The basis of Pastafarnianism in its entirety.

One such thing that comes to mind is divorce rates. A lot of people try saying that you can't allow gays to marry because then they will divorce a lot and such. I find that kind of... well, in our day and age, practical to assume. I mean, most marriages these days probably fail as it is but I think that it wouldn't harm anything more than typical marriages if gays divorced at even two times the rate of straight couples.

I've never heard that before but I'd like to note that I'm completely against divorce. I see it as ill-Christian. It's simple: If you're not sure you want to spend your life with someone, don't marry them.




Please, please someone, SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG!


Whoa, that was a lot of quotes! I think I've quoted everyone that's posted in this thread except Yumiko.

[BKFraiders7]

Even tho I dont really like NKJV version (I like KJV) here is one way God says gay is wrong.

"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
(NKJV)

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

This plainly states that a "gay" man or woman can not go to Heaven. I dont think it is that simple though, I believe if you are a true follower of Jesus Christ and you truly devote yourself to his teachings you wont be gay in the first place.

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

So if were going by the bible- Which yall have been doing- its pretty easy to see God does not like Same Sex (Gay) marriage. Now, I assume someone will come along and say I dont believe that part. Which doesnt make any sense to me how they can believe and trust in one part but not the other.

[DarkPacMan77]

so please dont just surface read and claim to know what your talking about.

Sorry if i came off rude. not my intention just stating the facts.

If you're referring to Que and I by mentioning "surface reading" the Bible, that's absurd. And you aren't stating facts about the scripture, you're stating how you paraphrase and deciphered it to make your point just as Que has paraphrased and deciphered that scripture to make his point. None of this is "fact" without having birth records, official documents (personal letters for instance), or claims by witnesses. By having faith that the Bible is fact, no matter how you interpret it, you're always wrong without being able to cite real-world evidence. Instead, we're debating the contextual meaning of the Bible's passages here. I hope that makes sense in regards to this "gay passage" we've been discussing. I do very much appreciate how you not only mentioned how you interpreted the passage but also gave supporting passages for closure to why you think that way. That really helps people who may disagree with you realize where your point is coming from - something NOBODY has done in this thread so far that has a differing opinion than myself, so thank you. I'd like to retort. You mention that Samuel 20:12-17 is a supporting passage of the vow that David makes with Jonathan and I have to agree, that's a pretty strong interpretation and it's easy to see how you interpreted it in that fashion, so +3 rep or gold stars or whatever for bringing that to light. Great point! It can, however, also be interpreted that the reason they were so close could have been bisexual in nature which may be being directly expressed in Samuel 18:1,3 which I'll quote below.

And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

This passage speaks that "Jonathan was knit with the soul of David". If you've ever heard your grandmother say anything like, "oh that boy is knit with that girl" or anything you will know that this is a line used to describe not only an attraction, but an "infatuation". There's many passages that make Jonathan and David seem gay though, like Samuel 18-4 which can be worded differently throughout various versions of the Bible but underscores the message that "a man who loves another man is getting naked in front of him", something that all versions of the Bible agree on. Many versions even make sure to mention that he removed his girdle, which would reveal his penis to David. The question then becomes "just how good of friends are these guys"? You defended the passage Que linked to well, but the sexual orientation of Jonathan and David is still far from being locked down as a mutually heterosexual relationship. Their relationship, at times, can easily be interpreted as being gay or bisexual.


@ ace - I'm not going to speak any further on why "Adam and Steve" is a stupid justification for not being ok with gay marriage any longer. You're obviously not listening and picking around what I'm saying. It isn't that you align yourself with the Christian faith that is the issue like you keep on repeating and repeating (which I never said). In fact, I said it was perfectly ok to align yourself in such a way but that without knowing where the religion actually started out in the first place that it was a pretty retarded thing to bring up "Adam and Steve" because, yes, people like Que and I will quickly make sure to turn that phrase against you. If you're offended by that, sorry, but I'm not the one that made you post that ignorant post either. To you, it's not ignorant, but to me, it is. For you to be angry at me over it I must have struck a bad chord with you and I'm not sure how. I'm the guy sitting here saying, "it's perfectly fine to believe what you believe but you should know where the religion itself derived from". But you'd rather insist that I'm trying to say that you're wrong because you're Christian and that's just completely f**k up because I would NEVER say that "I am right because I'm Agnostic", but I did, however, provide ordered points of interest referenced to historical fact, which you did not. Nor did you cite any passages of holy text to aid your message. All you're doing is implying that my post(s) directed in your way mean that I'm saying you're wrong because you're Christian and if that's the message that you got then you are completely wrong. I think you're assuming that because I'm Agnostic that I automatically assume that you're wrong about your points because we believe different things. What you don't realize, however, is that the assumption you've come to expect from me is the exact same from your eyes when you look at me and think that I'm wrong because I'm agnostic. The only difference is that I try to backup my points and you don't. And heck, I'm sorry if that makes you mad, you're a valued moderator, but that's just the plain truth about our posting habits in this thread.

-DarkPacMan77-

[ace]

@ ace - I'm not going to speak any further on why "Adam and Steve" is a stupid justification for not being ok with gay marriage any longer. You're obviously not listening and picking around what I'm saying. It isn't that you align yourself with the Christian faith that is the issue like you keep on repeating and repeating (which I never said). In fact, I said it was perfectly ok to align yourself in such a way but that without knowing where the religion actually started out in the first place that it was a pretty retarded thing to bring up "Adam and Steve" because, yes, people like Que and I will quickly make sure to turn that phrase against you. If you're offended by that, sorry, but I'm not the one that made you post that ignorant post either. To you, it's not ignorant, but to me, it is. For you to be angry at me over it I must have struck a bad chord with you and I'm not sure how. I'm the guy sitting here saying, "it's perfectly fine to believe what you believe but you should know where the religion itself derived from". But you'd rather insist that I'm trying to say that you're wrong because you're Christian and that's just completely f**k up because I would NEVER say that "I am right because I'm Agnostic", but I did, however, provide ordered points of interest referenced to historical fact, which you did not. Nor did you cite any passages of holy text to aid your message. All you're doing is implying that my post(s) directed in your way mean that I'm saying you're wrong because you're Christian and if that's the message that you got then you are completely wrong. I think you're assuming that because I'm Agnostic that I automatically assume that you're wrong about your points because we believe different things. What you don't realize, however, is that the assumption you've come to expect from me is the exact same from your eyes when you look at me and think that I'm wrong because I'm agnostic. The only difference is that I try to backup my points and you don't. And heck, I'm sorry if that makes you mad, you're a valued moderator, but that's just the plain truth about our posting habits in this thread.

-DarkPacMan77-

Sorry if you didn't catch it but the whole point I was trying to make to begin with is that I shouldn't need justification to believe what I believe. You already know that I'm a Christian, there was no reason for me to show you how I interpret the bible. The truth is I haven't read the bible enough to search for whatever verses you would accept as a retort to your argument, but whatever I would have used would have been my interpretation, I thought that would have been obvious. It wouldn't have solved anything, all of it would've still been my opinion. Some of the posts I have made in this thread were my attempt at trying to think about it from someone else's view, or my way of trying to be open minded.

Although it is human nature (I would assume from my personal experience) that if someone doesn't agree with you then they are wrong in your eyes. That's the whole point of an argument, trying to get someone else to believe what you believe because you think they are wrong. If you don't think I'm wrong because I'm not agnostic then why are you agnostic? That and I assumed that giving my interpretation of something wouldn't be a very good retort since that is what I believe the Christian faith is all about, which comes to another problem of people interpreting the bible how they want to and not how it is meant to be interpreted by God. Religious debates like this prove how pointless an argument is where both sides aren't backed up by factual evidence that is 1,000 years old. I'd be glad to have an argument over something where both sides have their own factual evidence for support instead of interpretation or opinion, if there is anything we actually disagree about outside of religion or marijuana.

But anyways my whole point is, I'll believe what I want to. I don't need justification for disliking oranges, and thinking that they should be banned from Florida orchards. Nor do I care how people in the past felt about oranges.

And yes crait, I'm racist because I don't support homosexuality. I would help a gay dude out if I saw him on the side of the street getting beat up or something, it isn't the person that I disagree with it's the act of being gay. Most of that post you took out of context though was based on someone elses point of view (which I already stated, maybe you should have read that first) and circumstantial.

Why do you people care so much about how I feel yet you could care less if some homosexuals got married?

Oh and the adam and steve thing wasn't a reason for my opinion, it was an expression of how I feel. The Adam and Eve thing though is the same as there being men and women in this world to reproduce.

[DarkPacMan77]

@ Ace

1. You don't need justification for believing what you believe but when you say something like "Adam and Steve" for why you don't want gay marriage legalized you should expect someone who DOES want gay marriage legalized to support their opinion and since you are a Christian, it is particularly easy for me to cite back things that you may or may not be familiar with in order to justify my point, perhaps more so than you can, but that does not mean that you are wrong for believing what you believe.

2. I don't think you're wrong because you're Christian. I think you're just less correct because you haven't looked into other religions or ancient history predating Christianity for answers to religious questions. See, you can ask me a religious question and I can answer it from multiple different religious views as well as Agnostic even though I only personally align myself with Agnosticism. But just because I've studied, say, Buddhism or Greek Mythology doesn't mean that I should accept those for the truth just because that was what I was led to believe by reading the texts. No, instead, in regards to religious questions or issues seeking religious guidance, such as gay religion often is, I find it important to look at things from multiple angles of religious content if I'm going to judge something religiously. But that's just how I think of things. I realize that most people do not think like this or do not know enough about multiple religions or such to do that without research, so I don't expect people to "be like me" in that regard.

3. Your opinion on gay marriage is based on your beliefs with your religion, so, if you followed how I choose to rationalize things myself then you would be citing scripture from the Holy Bible to make your claim. However, I don't expect everyone to rationalize things like me. In fact, most Christians don't rationalize how I do because we just think very differently about the world so our thought processes aren't in line. It's ok to rationalize things your own way. You say you don't know much about particular scriptures to recall things and that's fine, but it's also perfectly fine to say, "my faith in my Lord and the teachings of the Holy Bible are ones that I've embraced and my conviction cannot be broken." That alone means I can't "win" any point I make, which is a luxury you have the option of calling upon. Since I don't rely on faith to base a decision like "how I feel about gay marriage" off of, I'm forced to rationalize with ancient history and such - a way you aren't even expected to necessarily think in the first place so I'm definitely not coming down on you for being religious.

Why do you people care so much about how I feel yet you could care less if some homosexuals got married?

I only care enough about what you think to show you that marriage, before the inception of Christian faith, had nothing to do with gay rights. "Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. For me, someone that doesn't align with a faith in the manner you do, the only way I can explain how I think your opinion about marriage itself is skewed is to cite to you that marriage itself is not a biblical term at all like many Christians think and that just because Christians don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a basic human right like it always had been before the inception of the Christian faith. That doesn't mean that I'm coming down on YOU for YOUR beliefs about the Christian faith. It means that I'm questioning why Christians think they have the right to tell someone else how to live their life that may not be Christian at all anyways. If I'm a gay person who happens to be of another faith than you, why would I have to be pressured into not being able to express my love for my mate in the same manner as you just because "you" (a Christian, not "you" yourself) don't agree with it. Just don't do it yourself. There's no harm in allowing it for others who feel differently.

-DarkPacMan77-

I am almost done but can't let you get off that easy...

he is just saying he was more loyal than his wife, he was a amazong friend.

Perhaps but I feel it is an odd choice of words at least for people in our era.

well i am just sick and tired of ppl reading someting with out doing some research on the subject.

You and me both!

its not a one layer sentance, you have to read into it, the bible is eant to be deciphered, not read once. Not to mention Que left out the other parts of the book of samuel where it make this verse make sensewhich i have stated in "()", and clearly is not a homosexual referance about the two men.

I did leave out other parts because this thread isn't really about David so much as it is about showing how the bible(used to denounce homosexuality) condones homosexuality in some instances. The strong feelings described towards other males don't make sense to me in any other context.

Using David and Jonathan again how should this be interpreted: 1 Samuel 20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
That is not a normal thing to express about another man. Pretty strong words for someone that didn't show up to dinner. Sounds like broke back mountain isht to me. I personally would use those words to express my feelings about a female but never another male. I guess I don't have (or want) it in me.

All jokes aside explain this one. Seriously I don't get why Saul then used these words after Jonathan returned from the fields after a tryst with David.
1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman[ a ho?], do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse[David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

I may be wrong about this but clearly Saul knew the deal. The words confusion and perverse are often used together to express sexual disapproval. On top of that, what did mom's nakedness have to do with it?

Of course it could all be a mistranslation, I dunno.

While on the topic of gay isht in the bible couldn't Judas have patted Jesus on the back when the soldiers showed instead of kissing him? OH and if Jesus was so famous in his time why did Judas need to identify him with a kiss?

I am ready to close the book on David and Jonathan and this thread, but would be interested in seeing your response first Tyler. However, if you wish to continue this debate I don't think this is the thread, feel free to open a new thread or PM me anytime.

lol ok. later i just got off work ,et me sleep on it

[ace]

It means that I'm questioning why Christians think they have the right to tell someone else how to live their life that may not be Christian at all anyways. If I'm a gay person who happens to be of another faith than you, why would I have to be pressured into not being able to express my love for my mate in the same manner as you just because "you" (a Christian, not "you" yourself) don't agree with it. Just don't do it yourself. There's no harm in allowing it for others who feel differently.

-DarkPacMan77-

That part of your post mind me think about why can't employees say Merry Christmas if they celebrate Christmas? Or why aren't stores calling Christmas trees, well, Christmas trees. Or the fact that the public school system is trying to strip away any form of Christianity present but I still see the kid in my class pray 5 times a day (I don't know the number, but you know what I mean). There is a lot of instances where people don't have equal rights because a majority of people don't agree with it. I know you didn't necessarily say that you agree with the very few instances that I mentioned, but I don't believe that is any different. That and it's just my opinion that if you don't think others are wrong because they believe something different then you, then you need to reevaluate your reasoning as to why you believe what you believe (excluding any open minded reasoning of course). But I'm not worried about offending someone for stating what I believe, sorry if that sounds mean or whatever, but if they can't accept the fact that I believe differently from someone then they shouldn't walk out of their house

[BKFraiders7]

"Marriage" is not "from the Bible", it's from social constructs that existed before Christianity itself existed. -DarkPacMan77-

Prove it please