gay marriages, UHHHH!! Options

[AngelinaTaylor]

i personally is against it because God didnt make us that way.

You personally IS against it, huh? Um.. "God" didn't make us that way? Oh man, is that why gays were born this way? I guess "God" doesn't like them very much.. What an arrogant statement. Also, very untrue.

Taylor``

[*I Shot JFK*]

I'm not here to change the way you think. I could care less if you don't believe in the same thing as me, Its your life not mine.

exactly. their lives, not yours. so why deny them their rights?

Reply to all of the above:

If you are a chirstian you love God. Loving God means learning more about him. Loving God means following his word. You believe that God is the only form of perfect love. Teaching my children about God and how to love God will be the best way to teach my children how to love.

WE WILL NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS, WE WILL NOT BE HOMOPHOBES, BUT WE WILL HATE HOMOSEXULAITY AS A SIN AND MAKE IT AS HARD AS POSSBILE FOR THOSE THAT ARE SINNING TO SIN. I WIL ALSO PROTECT MY CHILDREN FROM EVERYTHING THE BEST I CAN WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THEIR FREEDOM. IF CHILDREN BECOME GAY I WILL LOVE THEM BUT I WILL STILL VOTE AGIANST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

MY POINT OF VIEW AS A CHRISTIAN:

GOD FIRST - EVERYTHING ELSE SECOND

If you don't look at this from my side of the fence. You will never convince me otherwise. I would never hurt a homosexual becuase he/she is a homosexual. I would never bring up my views on homosexuality infront of a homosexual unless he/she asked of my opinion. The only reason i share them on this board is becuase this is the proper place to do so. I respect homosexuals as people... this is another reason i vote no against homosexulaity... think of it like me not allowing someone to do something that they want to do, but they are blind to the consequences(possible eternal damnation)...

thats fine. lovely sentiment and all that crap.

but do you understand why it cannot be a justification for the legal denial of gay marriage under STATE law? as in, not CHRISTIAN law?

[marzipan]

Aside from the Biblical and religious connections, why is homosexuality wrong?

that's what i'm wondering...


even though i'm christian, i think christians can't say that homosexuality is wrong because God didn't mean for it to be that way, because not everyone is Christian. and some people have to realize that. that could be a reason why people argue about it, the reason being that people argue about it from biblical views.

[n00b]

I think it's not a good idea.
They can't have sex (I think )
It also just makes alot of people fight about it more.

[AngelinaTaylor]

I think it's not a good idea.
They can't have sex (I think )
It also just makes alot of people fight about it more.

Not a good idea, why?
And yes, they do f**k.
Those people fight because they're idiotic.

Taylor``

[lKVNiiKINKYl]

I think it's not a good idea.
They can't have sex (I think )
It also just makes alot of people fight about it more.

Cause you know love is based on sex and how good you are in bed

[AngelinaTaylor]

Cause you know love is based on sex and how good you are in bed

Wait, what? Love is based on sex? HAHAHA, okay. How old are you again?

Taylor``

[lKVNiiKINKYl]

Wait, what? Love is based on sex? HAHAHA, okay. How old are you again?

Taylor``

Uh it was actually meant to be sarcasm...

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

Cause you know love is based on sex and how good you are in bed

Actually thats just a false statement in my opinion.If love was based on sex,then early teens and children who think their in love would have gone and had sex already.Love to me sure as hell is not based on sex and how good you are in bed.Love to me is the free will for your heart to feel connected to another,like two souls coming together through many ways.Gay marrage isnt wrong.

it is 100% acceptable to be homophobic. it is 100% acceptable to be religious

I agree.If your religous and you dont believe in homosexuality or in gay marrage.Then thats on you,but then again who are you to out and ban people who like the same sex and say they cant get married?Why just because you dont believe in it,doesnt give you the right to take the rights of homosexuals and say "you cant get married"thats messed up.Because if it was the other way around and homosexuals went around and said no religous and straight people cannot get married,well then it would kind of be a big big arguement.

[AngelinaTaylor]

Uh it was actually meant to be sarcasm...

I'm relieved.

Taylor``

[sadolakced acid]

i love jesus

i want to f**k him in the ass!

does he love me back then?

[*mipadi*]

I think it's not a good idea.
They can't have sex (I think )
It also just makes alot of people fight about it more.

Aren't people going to fight about it no matter what?

[Frostedflakes616]

I am NOT against it at all. I know it is against my religion. They say gay marriage is a sin, but I'm sorta against some of my religion beliefs. People should be able to love and like who they want.

And I know most of you know that it says that God loves us all. But if he loves us all, then he should love us for who we are, not based on what gender we like.

[xXYouMeBedNowXx]

The religious standpoint of Gay Marriage is approached on two different sides. Like I said before, the Ban on Gay Marriage was a proposal of political stature:

The fine points of the republican view of the amendment is simply to stir up political views of conservatives in America. By bringing up a controversial issue, the Bush Administration and other Republicans will galvinize and replenish their support for future elections. Their focus was not to bring about change for the benefit of society, but rather to control a rather egotistical agenda for better support in later issues.

Think about it, anyone that opposes the amendment will shoot down the Republican views; and anyone that is for it will side with the Republicans. Both of these views would create a rather ironside foundation for both parties. The reaction to the Same-Sex political issue is usually a direct "yes-or-no" response, and is hardly an "in-between". The Bush Administration believes that the majority of Americans are conservatives that will support a traditional (and if traditional, usually majority) view to rally support for upcoming issues.

To address the influence of homosexuality:

On an ethical point of view, this is clear to me: I am in full support of gay marriage. I am a homosexual myself.

I am rather sure that homosexuality is of a much more biological nature than it is of any environmental nature. I don't recall waking up one day and making a conscious decision to become a homosexual. The biological attraction is what makes me homosexual. Much like any woman has an attraction to a man or vice-versa, it would seem biological, natural, and completely irresistable. It is the exact same for us. When I first felt feelings for someone else of the same gender, there was nothing that told me I should have an attraction to him, in fact I was rather drilled into my head that I shouldn't be having this attraction, but nonetheless I follow my gut instinct that I was born with.

People have asked me when I "figured out" when I was a homosexual. It did not occur to me at a certain time. When you first liked a boy or a girl, I hardly believe it was a conscious decision to suddenly do so. It would seem natural and nearly a blur I suppose. It is the same for us.

I lived a very good childhood. I was not abused, nor neglected. My family was wealthy, I lived in a good environment with a good score of education. I was brought up well and healthy. I am still a homosexual in spite of all of these facts. It is not a choice. The homosexual world is not a place that is easy or completely pleasurable to live through. There is always the prospect of finding others like yourself, and past those filtering those few to be the one person you wish to spend the rest of your life with. There is always the rejection of your family, your friends, your peers. There is always the glaring prospect of the AIDS epidemic. Why, I ask, would anyone in their right mind (which I certainly hope you deem me to be, I certainly do) actively and consciously choose to become a homosexual? It simply wouldn't make sense.

And from the religious POV:

I am not religious, at least, not in the conventional way. The only set of morals that I live by are the ones that I have set for myself, because the ones that I have done so for myself are only the ones that have been taught to me and I deem sensible and correct by my standards of good. In other words, I have only filtered my morals through a simple question: Whether or not is human by the standard I deem most sensible. Humanity to me is more important than any God that I know to exist: simply because I understand God to spawn from Humanity and as much as we may have drilled our own heads into believing, quite possibly not the other way around.

The Gods of our time were created by those of the past, and the ethics and morals of that past we now know were manifest into what we call Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Religion sets down a set system of ethics and morals that have simply been taught and retaught over and over again.

But some of these ethics and morals change.
Slavery was one of them.
Feminism was one of them.

I believe that any set of moral code that you set for yourself has the potential to become a religion, for that is what a religion is: a set of morals and ethics. Some systems of ethics are more popular than others, because they were inheritly taught from generation to generation. That's my view on religion. All religion does is set a general standard of ethics and morals.

These are mine: Equality should be granted to all people.

But to add more to the religious aspect:
Many religions preach to hate the sin, not the sinner. And it is something that I believe is noble, something I understand is rational, and correct. However, the definition of Sin is rather ambiguous. Murder has its obvious reprecussions, as does rape, or stealing. But I am yet to find the sins of homosexuality. Christian views are line with many political views, because the one thing that we find that is in common with each other is that both moral codes are based off humane ethics. What, if I may ask, is the humane sin of homosexuality?

The government is asking for a political view on the subject, much less influenced by religion. However, the Bush administration is aware that very few people will take that into account.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Actually thats just a false statement in my opinion.If love was based on sex,then early teens and children who think their in love would have gone and had sex already.Love to me sure as hell is not based on sex and how good you are in bed.Love to me is the free will for your heart to feel connected to another,like two souls coming together through many ways.Gay marrage isnt wrong.
I agree.If your religous and you dont believe in homosexuality or in gay marrage.Then thats on you,but then again who are you to out and ban people who like the same sex and say they cant get married?Why just because you dont believe in it,doesnt give you the right to take the rights of homosexuals and say "you cant get married"thats messed up.Because if it was the other way around and homosexuals went around and said no religous and straight people cannot get married,well then it would kind of be a big big arguement.

im sorry, but did you read the rest of my post?

[NinjaxMageLayout...]

^Yes some of them.Not all.

[*Uronacid*]

The religious standpoint of Gay Marriage is approached on two different sides. Like I said before, the Ban on Gay Marriage was a proposal of political stature:
To address the influence of homosexuality:
And from the religious POV:
But to add more to the religious aspect:
Many religions preach to hate the sin, not the sinner. And it is something that I believe is noble, something I understand is rational, and correct. However, the definition of Sin is rather ambiguous. Murder has its obvious reprecussions, as does rape, or stealing. But I am yet to find the sins of homosexuality. Christian views are line with many political views, because the one thing that we find that is in common with each other is that both moral codes are based off humane ethics. What, if I may ask, is the humane sin of homosexuality?

The government is asking for a political view on the subject, much less influenced by religion. However, the Bush administration is aware that very few people will take that into account.

You're extremely smart, and the first person to accually come from an angle that would question the relgious stand on homosexuality instead of just talking about human rights, and "freedom". :P

I guess it's just one of those issues that I don't want to misinterprate. I am a christian, and I love God. I have always said, "If you believe in Christianity, you can't just believe in half of it. You have to belive in all of it."
I believe the whole bible. If it is possible to be condemned to hell for being a homosexual I don't want to risk being condemned to hell for it... I don't want my kids or anyone else to be condemned to hell for it either... I see voting agianst it as loving your neighbor. I really see voting against homosexuality as the best thing I can do to protect them and/or other people from possible eternal flames *shudder*... :/

[*I Shot JFK*]

You're extremely smart, and the first person to accually come from an angle that would question the relgious stand on homosexuality instead of just talking about human rights, and "freedom". :P

I guess it's just one of those issues that I don't want to misinterprate. I am a christian, and I love God. I have always said, "If you believe in Christianity, you can't just believe in half of it. You have to belive in all of it."
I believe the whole bible. If it is possible to be condemned to hell for being a homosexual I don't want to risk being condemned to hell for it... I don't want my kids or anyone else to be condemned to hell for it either... I see voting agianst it as loving your neighbor. I really see voting against homosexuality as the best thing I can do to protect them and/or other people from possible eternal flames *shudder*... :/

well, i would observe that basic human rights are mor eimportant than the religous angle, but whatever.

[NoSex]

However, the definition of Sin is rather ambiguous. Murder has its obvious reprecussions, as does rape, or stealing. But I am yet to find the sins of homosexuality.

The theological use of the term "sin" is an interesting aspect of what many theists would describe as a moral system. This is interesting because the application of the word sin seems to, in no way, reflect the nature of common ethical study. No where in a sophisticated ethical system will you find the mere act of denying an authority immoral. However, "sin" is such that if one does not adhere to an authority figure (most commonly the divinity of God) that individual has commited an immoral act. Despite this, in a true ethical system, we would find that circumstances are influential when authority figures are meaningless in a moral discussion. If an authority figure told you to end someone's life for non-justifiable pretense, just because it was commanded would not make the act moral, nor would it make the denial of the commandment immoral.

The divergence the term "sin" has from any actual ethical system or theory is made even more clear with the idea of original sin or the conception of a human (or non-human) sacrafice as a means of repentance for the sins of believers in the said sacrafice. None of these ideas reflect any kind of moral justification or appeal to ethics.

This divergence becomes scary once the idea of punishment and reward is set forth in response to the "sins of man."

You're extremely smart, and the first person to accually come from an angle that would question the relgious stand on homosexuality instead of just talking about human rights, and "freedom". :P

Your use of quotations around the word freedom suggests detestable qualities.

I believe the whole bible. If it is possible to be condemned to hell for being a homosexual I don't want to risk being condemned to hell for it... I don't want my kids or anyone else to be condemned to hell for it either... I see voting agianst it as loving your neighbor. I really see voting against homosexuality as the best thing I can do to protect them and/or other people from possible eternal flames *shudder*... :/

I thought freewill was supposed to be a value held by christians?
How insane is it to give freewill to mankind, unwelcomed and uninvited to life, yet put a gun to their head once they do not behave exactly the way you wish?

[sadolakced acid]

hey, this applies here too! how cool!

christian values should not govern this country

[*Uronacid*]

hey, this applies here too! how cool!

christian values should not govern this country

NIETHER SHOULD YOURS :O!!!!!
This is a republic, the majority should govern the country.

Your use of quotations around the word freedom suggests detestable qualities.

I thought freewill was supposed to be a value held by christians?
How insane is it to give freewill to mankind, unwelcomed and uninvited to life, yet put a gun to their head once they do not behave exactly the way you wish?

-No-one is truely free in this country... that's why there are so many idiots who think that anarchy is a good thing... personally I would rather have communism than anarchy... >.> People are evil, and selfish... They all need to be controlled to a certain extent

-Without freewill how can we truely accept God or love God... That's the entire basis for christianity. Love... you cannot love without free will... without free will you cannot make the choice to be selfless... :/

[sadolakced acid]

NIETHER SHOULD LIBRAL VALUES :O!!!!!

the constitution doesn't say freedom from liberal values. it says freedom from religion.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Uronacid:

Christianity is a religion that requires faith and not logic or reason to accept as truth. Our country is free from religion because our forefathers recognized that there is and will forever be more than one religion practiced by the citizens of America. Our country cannot base its laws on something that is not accepted as truth, universally. When there is no other opposition to allowing gay marriage other than "Christianity says its bad", it should be allowed, because that opposition isn't founded on something that is fact. It has yet to be explained WHY Christianity is opposed to homosexuality. It just says so. I can't fathom why you don't understand this.

If I said I was part of the religion Tahrakism (this is made-up) and that my book of worship said that homosexuality should be forever accepted and even embraced, would that be justification for homosexual marriage to occur? Simply because this book says so?

It's foolish for a book to be your only reasoning for opposing homosexual marriage, and even more so to base a law that affects an entire nation as large as the United States on said book.

[xXYouMeBedNowXx]

Your use of quotations around the word freedom suggests detestable qualities.

:P

You're extremely smart, and the first person to accually come from an angle that would question the relgious stand on homosexuality instead of just talking about human rights, and "freedom". :P

I guess it's just one of those issues that I don't want to misinterprate. I am a christian, and I love God. I have always said, "If you believe in Christianity, you can't just believe in half of it. You have to belive in all of it."
I believe the whole bible. If it is possible to be condemned to hell for being a homosexual I don't want to risk being condemned to hell for it... I don't want my kids or anyone else to be condemned to hell for it either... I see voting agianst it as loving your neighbor. I really see voting against homosexuality as the best thing I can do to protect them and/or other people from possible eternal flames *shudder*... :/

Many thanks for it.

I will not attempt to convince you of your opinions. If there's something harder to change than facts, it's opinions. Understandably, people are afraid of consequences that may result due to their beliefs. However, these beliefs do not apply to all people of the American culture; which, you must remember, is what this impacts. Even as you said, not all people follow the Christain faith in their completeness. Furthermore, people that do believe Christianity in its entirety should be careful not to encompass every person, especially the diverse US.

The theological use of the term "sin" is an interesting aspect of what many theists would describe as a moral system. This is interesting because the application of the word sin seems to, in no way, reflect the nature of common ethical study. No where in a sophisticated ethical system where you find the mere act of denying an authority immoral. However, "sin" is such that if one does not adhere to an authority figure (most commonly the divinity of God) that individual has commited an immoral act. Despite this, in a true ethical system, we would find that circumstances are influential when authority figures are meaningless in a moral discussion. If an authority figure told you to end someone's life for non-justifiable pretense, just because it was commanded would not make the act moral, nor would it make the denial of the commandment immoral.

The divergence the term "sin" has from any actual ethical system or theory is made even more clear with the idea of original sin or the conception of a human (no non-human) sacrafice as a means of repentance for the sins of believers in the said sacrafice. None of these ideas reflect any kind of moral justification or appeal to ethics.

This divergence becomes scary once the idea of punishment and reward is set forth in response to the "sins of man."

Touche

Therefore, religions seem to inherit their own individual system of morals and ethics. However, as I said above, we cannot apply Religious morals and ethics to the whole of a country that is not under the same circumstance.



BOTTOM LINE:
We cannot take this into religious standpoints, for it is only a subgroup of America; instead, we must take into action what America is as a whole: Human.

[torey]

I see not as to why two people who are genuinely in love should not wed. Love is love in any form. Who are we to say what is ''right'' or what is ''wrong''? We are merely human. Thus, we are flawed, and we do in fact make mistakes. The sooner we all realize that none of us are that of a ''higher being'', the better off we all shall be. When I say ''higher being'' I am not associating that with any religious beliefs. I use the term loosely, and I aim it toward power, in-general. I thought I should elaborate as to what I meant when I used that terminology to save myself from any flaming that I may endure.

Lastly, in case anyone was wondering as to what my sexuality and or religion is [not that it matters, per-se], I will say this . . . . I am Christian, as well as bisexual. I was born into Christianity. I have always, and still do feel that this is the right religion for me. Yes, I firmly believe this at the age of fifteen. Although, there are few aspects of this religion that I disagree with. I am certain that you all can assume as to what aspects these are.

I believe that homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are not choices. I believe that we are all born this way. However, in some cases, these things may be developed. I know many people who are half-and-half on this issue. Some of the people whom I have spoken to that claim they are homosexual or bisexual say that they have been sexually assaulted, thus, their believing that this act made them ''this way''. I can just as easily argue the fact that I was raised in a Christian house hold, and that I have never been sexually assaulted. So, how did I end up being ''this way''? I certainly did not choose to be ridiculed by the close-minded bigots of today's society.

If homosexuality and bisexuality are in fact sins, then, God shall take these sins away on his own time, as he had given up his lone son, Jesus Christ, to forgive the flaws of thy humans that he created.