Finally.

The Core RPGC Main Forum
21

We live in the 21st Century, and God was proclaimed dead in the 20th Century: Why are we still making a fuss about two people of the same sexes being in love and wanting to form a bond?

In very many nations and states marriage is not only the only religiously accepted bond but also the only judicial accepted bond. At the very least they should be provided with an equal alternative.

Myself
Let people have the beliefs they want, but teach them that realities are different from person to person: World to world.

22

Most marriages take place under the auspices of a particular religion. However, marriage also carries with it several legal benefits recognized by the government, so marriage is not only a a religious institution. I think that the government should create some kind of marriage institution(‘civil unions’) that would give married gays the same legal benefits as married straight couples.

Whenever anyone speaks out against gay marriage, they say: ‘marriage is a religious institution’; ‘marriage should be between a man and woman’. If you want to argue against gay marriage, come up with some logical reasons in which you feel gay marriage would hurt society. You know what? Gay marriage could in fact be bad for society. I don’t really know. But Bush and co. aren’t convincing anyone by saying gay marriage is wrong because of moral reasons… and then not explaining why.

23

Um. I dont get where the bushbashing is coming from. Yea he sucks, but this is only in Massachusettes, and bush cant do anything to stop it (as much as he wants to), because its under MASSACHUSETTES constitution.

The only way bush has any sway in this is his relection. Its going to make his and all the democrats bids for president a living hell. They are going to have to straddle the fence perfectly if the want to win, because the country is 50-50 on this one, and the gay/lesbian community is one of the democrats largest donators.

24

Dennis Kucinish has already been supporting gay marriage. legislative stonewalling would be ironic on this issue because, if i recall correctly, Stonewall was the name of the gay bar which became the initial spark for the gay rights movement.

25

Originally posted by Epicgamer
[b]I’d just like to say that the bible also forbids crossdressing. And at the time it was “written” I don’t believe that most women would be seen wearing “men’s garments”. So if you were to take the meaning literally from that time, every woman who wears jeans and doesn’t repent is going to hell. <i>Oh, but that’s silly, that would never happen, times have changed.</i>

Needless to say, I don’t take much stock in religious text. [/b]

You haven’t, in fact, outwitted thousands of Christian theologians.

The Bible never forbids cross-dressing. God forbade the Israelites to cross-dress, but that has no bearing on Christians. There’s a difference between this sort of law and what’s called natural law. Natural law derives from the way God ordered the universe, and never changes. Sensible Christians do not justify their teachings on homosexuality with excerts from Israelite law. Rather, the most frequently cited passage is the Creation story. God created man “male and female” (Genesis 1:27), and blessed them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). It explicitly spells out the nature of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Homosexual “marriage” contradicts the reproductive basis of matrimony. Homosexual activity is also condemned as “a serious depravity” in the New Testament, in a general statement rather than an Israelite law (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Does this make Christian teachings clearer for you?

Xwing1056

26

Originally posted by ahkeeyuu
Further proof that George W. Bush is a moron.

I’d actually say it is smart of him to say that. He risks losing too much support by stating a side. By staying indifferent, he doesn’t risk people thinking about him badly because of his views.

27

Xwing, it doesn’t matter if the Bible says homosexuality is bad or not. What matters is whether or not it actually hurts society and mankind in general. Can you think of any reasons why this is so? Because I’m interested to know why opponents of gay marriage feel the way they do… besides the facts that homosexuality grosses them out, or its against Christianity, or because marriage is only meant for a union between men and women.

28

Originally posted by Curtis
Xwing, it doesn’t matter if the Bible says homosexuality is bad or not. What matters is whether or not it actually hurts society and mankind in general. Can you think of any reasons why this is so? Because I’m interested to know why opponents of gay marriage feel the way they do… besides the facts that homosexuality grosses them out, or its against Christianity, or because marriage is only meant for a union between men and women.

Your concerns are irrelevant to my reply to Epicgamer. If you’ll refer back to his post, you’ll see that it does not remark on homosexuality’s effects on society, but rather on the inconsistency of biblically based Christian beliefs - specifically, he questions why Christianity forbids homosexual marriage, but not cross-dressing. I responded in order to clarify Christian teachings for him and show their consistency with themselves.

It’d be rather shallow to wave Bible verses in atheists’ faces as models for behavior.

Xwing1056

29

Originally posted by Curtis
[b]Most marriages take place under the auspices of a particular religion. However, marriage also carries with it several legal benefits recognized by the government, so marriage is not only a a religious institution. I think that the government should create some kind of marriage institution(‘civil unions’) that would give married gays the same legal benefits as married straight couples.

Whenever anyone speaks out against gay marriage, they say: ‘marriage is a religious institution’; ‘marriage should be between a man and woman’. If you want to argue against gay marriage, come up with some logical reasons in which you feel gay marriage would hurt society. You know what? Gay marriage could in fact be bad for society. I don’t really know. But Bush and co. aren’t convincing anyone by saying gay marriage is wrong because of moral reasons… and then not explaining why. [/b]

I was talking to my history teacher about this today - he brought up an interesting argument against gay marriage (he’s for it, but seeing it from the other point of view). Before Christianity, when human societies were primarily tribal, back in the way-old-days, homosexuality was looked down upon because it decreased the tribe’s possibility for survival (since it didn’t bring about any children). Now, survival wasn’t just a grunt work thing - it was these tribes’ ENTIRE LIVES - it represented their ties to the natural world, which is pretty deep and important. So the hatred against homosexuality was well-founded.

Judeo-Christian religions carry this mindset over, but as the trend in religion tended toward monotheism, the beliefs the assimilated tribes held about the natural world were transplanted almost directly onto the gods or ultimately God. So, the beliefs against homosexuality which preceded the founding of Christianity are essentially, spiritually extremely meaningful to people. It’s insensitive to assume that it isn’t just as meaningful to people today. Like…if you’re talking about marriage as faith-based ceremony, then I would say that devout Christians are right in denying homosexuals the right to partake in said ceremony. The beliefs of Christianity, in the oneness with God (originally nature) go against the idea of a homosexual union (as the “union of two souls” has a specific ideal behind it).

On the other hand, if you’re talking about marriage as a civil ceremony, then if we are to assume that men and women have the same legal rights in society, then from a civil standpoint there is no difference between men and women, and as such gay marriage should be allowed.

I think the problem is probably one of semantics - if there were a word for the state institution of marriage (which applied equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, affording them the same rights, etc.), that wasn’t the same as the word for the religious ceremony of marriage, then I don’t think there would be so much complaining - you’d only get bitching from religious fundamentalists who think that the church and state shouldn’t be separate, and they bitch at everything anyways.

-Mazrim Taim

30

Originally posted by Xwing1056
Homosexual “marriage” contradicts the reproductive basis of matrimony. Homosexual activity is also condemned as “a serious depravity” in the New Testament, in a general statement rather than an Israelite law (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Would you mind making it clear where the in the Bible <i>marriage</i> is strictly mentioned to serve the purpose of “multiplying”? As far as I know there is no mention of marriage in Genesis, and rather marriage is merely interpreted as a holy union between husband and wife. Granted, I also think either the definition of marriage should be changed to include the possibility of homosexuality or that there should be another word to designate the union of two homosexuals on the exact same level as a marriage, but the “purpose” of matrimony here seems rather derived personally than defined in the text.

31

Originally posted by Xwing1056
[b]You haven’t, in fact, outwitted thousands of Christian theologians.

The Bible never forbids cross-dressing. God forbade the Israelites to cross-dress, but that has no bearing on Christians. There’s a difference between this sort of law and what’s called natural law. Natural law derives from the way God ordered the universe, and never changes. Sensible Christians do not justify their teachings on homosexuality with excerts from Israelite law. Rather, the most frequently cited passage is the Creation story. God created man “male and female” (Genesis 1:27), and blessed them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). It explicitly spells out the nature of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Homosexual “marriage” contradicts the reproductive basis of matrimony. Homosexual activity is also condemned as “a serious depravity” in the New Testament, in a general statement rather than an Israelite law (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Does this make Christian teachings clearer for you?

Xwing1056 [/b]

First of all, you seem to think that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to Christians but only to Jews. Isn’t it interesting how Christianity is basically reformed Judaism? Is the Genesis you refer to the same Book of Genesis found as the first book in the bible and attributed, by legend, to Moses as it’s writer (as are Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)?

This seems to be the passage in question: Deuteronomy
22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The book of Deuteronomy is by my recognition the fifth book of the Old Testament. Were you aware that the Christian Bible is the Old Testament as well as the New Testament? In fact, without the canonization of the Christian Bible in the 5th century CE, we wouldn’t even be able to call the Jewish Bible the Old Testament!

How can you accept the first book of the Torah as canon and disregard the last four as pertaining purely to Jews? That seems a little intellectually dishonest. Is it possible that you are using the Jewish bible in an entirely one sided manner for your own arguments benefit? No Isrealite law?!? Are you reading just the Book of Mormon or the Watchtower?! The entire fucking Bible is Isrealite law! Jesus of Nazareth never intended to start your religion, he was a political activist who wanted to bring the Kingdom of God (the Jews were actually talking about a real political state when they said this!) to replace Roman rule. Infact, the New Testament can be boiled down to pretty much saying “Yeah, those Roman gods? Our guy can do everything they can.” Unfortunately, the pharisees didnt want things to get too out of control (because they were sitting on the goldmine that was the Second Temple) so they strung jesus up and only the radicals jews followed after jesus. the entire argument against homosexuality in the NT is just a continuation of the old testament stuff, along with making superreform judaism seem alot different from rome by shunning acceptable roman practices. in rome however, if you were on the recieving end of anal you were the other guys bitch and a social pariah.

32

>Your concerns are irrelevant to my reply to Epicgamer. If you’ll refer back to his post, you’ll see that it does not remark on homosexuality’s effects on society, but rather on the inconsistency of biblically based Christian beliefs - specifically, he questions why Christianity forbids homosexual marriage, but not cross-dressing. I responded in order to clarify Christian teachings for him and show their consistency with themselves.

You didn’t mention anything about homosexuality’s effects on society, BUT I have to assume that because you go to such great lengths to prove that Christianity has a consistent stance regarding homosexuality and cross-dressing, means that you believe the beliefs of Christianity have very important bearings on the matter. From what I’ve seen, most people who oppose homosexual marriage do so because they think its wrong, but they can’t intellectualize any reasons why without referencing religion and then leaving it at that. Maybe I was only picking on you because I wanted to try to bait someone who is against homosexual marriage(this is another assumption on my part) into actually explaining why such a thing would hurt society and mankind in general, without using theology or religion to do so. Yeah, you could say that marriage is basically for the children, and that if you can’t make children through marriage, what’s the point? But really, unless you can prove or attempt to prove that homosexual marriage will be HARMFUL to humanity, then why not? What I said is very relevant to your general attitude, even if it wasn’t relevant to your specific post, because you’re basing your opposition on theology, which can’t cut it when we’re talking about real government. Keep one thing in mind: I realize you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. But the laws of our government have to be based on reason. Its really not as clear-cut as that, of course, but still…

And I realize that the individual religions have their own right as whether or not to sanction homosexual marriage. But I think the government should create some kind of legal union that would give homosexuals the same benefits as religiously married couples do; marriage isn’t only a religious thing, it has legal ramifications.

33

Originally posted by Cless Alvein
Would you mind making it clear where the in the Bible <i>marriage</i> is strictly mentioned to serve the purpose of “multiplying”? As far as I know there is no mention of marriage in Genesis, and rather marriage is merely interpreted as a holy union between husband and wife. Granted, I also think either the definition of marriage should be changed to include the possibility of homosexuality or that there should be another word to designate the union of two homosexuals on the exact same level as a marriage, but the “purpose” of matrimony here seems rather derived personally than defined in the text.

I think his point is that way back when the Bible was first followed (and the stories in the old testament go way back even before the finished product, cause they were taken and slightly reworked from civilizations all over), “multiplication” WAS the sacred union. The creation of new life was sacred; and marriage was the binding of two souls together in order to create new life from them. This was back when we didn’t have an overpopulation problem and life expectancy was way, way lower. I mean, if you want to follow the spirit with which Christianity was formed, I’m afraid you have to make the religious sort of matrimonial union strictly heterosexual. Having a homosexual Christian marriage, in the spirit of the Bible (and thus of God), is impossible; as the purpose of marriage is to create life (which is sacred and that’s why marriage is so sacred). I mean, even if you’re not Christian, you have to see that that’s what they believe, and respect it.

That’s why I think there should be a very clear distinction between religious marriage and civil binding.

-Mazrim Taim

34

Originally posted by Silhouette
First of all, you seem to think that the Old Testament doesn’t apply to Christians but only to Jews.

I said nothing to indicate that. When God forbade cross-dressing, he was specifically addressing the Israelites, not humanity as a whole. The Israelites were bound to follow, due to their covenant with Him (they would be His chosen people, and in turn would obey his commandments). People of non-Jewish background never had access to this covenant. No matter what, those rules can <i>never</i> apply to non-Jews.

The covenant to which Christians have access does not require the same things as the Israelites’ covenant. People quote the passage where Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it, as if to incriminate modern Christians for that belief. I’m not certain why they assume that fulfilling the law means keeping <i>everything</i> that was already in it. In fact, Saint Paul and the earliest Christians were the ones who decided that candidates for Christianity need not become Jews first.

The rest of your argument extends from the quotation above, so my response applies to it as well.

Xwing1056

35

Originally posted by Xwing1056
I said nothing to indicate that. When God forbade cross-dressing, he was specifically addressing the Israelites, not humanity as a whole.

Oh, perfect. When God said the purpose of marriage (?) was to “multiply and be fruitful” he was specifically addressing Adam and Eve, not humanity as a whole. :stuck_out_tongue:

36

Why is religion even being adressed? This is a civil issue, saying marriage is purely a religious ceremony is like saying athiests shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

37

Atheists shouldn’t be allowed to take part in the Christian ceremony of marriage.

Atheists should be allowed to have the civil benefits a state-sponsored marriage provides.

There’s a huge difference - people are just arguing the religious side though cause they’re bored I think, about whether or not homosexuals should be able to marry religiously.

-Mazrim Taim

38

As more “freedom” is being given, people will become more lazy.
I don’t really care, as long as it doesn’t have an effect on the masses, where evryone turns homo-sexual because it is “acceptable”, goddamn that would suck… :kissy:

39

Originally posted by Cless Alvein
Oh, perfect. When God said the purpose of marriage (?) was to “multiply and be fruitful” he was specifically addressing Adam and Eve, not humanity as a whole. :stuck_out_tongue:

Adam and Eve symbolize humanity (e.g. with the story of the apple). The Israelites were an actual group of people.

Edit, for readers in general: Perhaps you’ve noticed the tendency among some very visible fundamentalists to quote isolated passages from the Bible and use them to justify whatever they want. The typical response, by this community, is to despise them for the way they take things out of context and use them to their own ends.

It’s equally shallow to criticize the Bible by quoting a handful of passages that seem to contradict some Christian belief, and yet are completely out of context.

It’s as shallow as saying “According to Paradise Lost, it’s better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.” That’s a quote from Satan. Or better, “The Matrix says that there’s no such thing as love.” The Arab man at the train station tells Neo that “love” is just a word, and Agent Smith says it’s a human invention, but anyone who’s seen the third Matrix knows that love has a critical function in it. Interpreting the message of the Bible is like interpreting the message of any work. You’ve learned how to do it in English class. You’ve probably learned that taking isolated quotations from characters in a book does not prove anything about the book’s message. Pointing out superficial contradictions between a biblical quotation and a Christian belief is irresponsible interpretation, and very simple-minded.

Xwing1056

40

Well, then it really depends on the degree to which you believe the bible literally then. A lot of people also believe in Adam and Eve as actual people.