Printable View
I won't dispute that the trans community has high rates of depression, which itself is connected to the complicated issues that surround gender identity. Even so, it's ridiculous to say that all trans people are unhappy, or even more ridiculous to imply all LGBT people are unhappy. I know a FtM transsexual who is quite happily married, is a university professor, and has a young child. He seems happy to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
You obviously skipped over many of my other comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
First of all, I DON'T watch Fox news. I have no interest in opinion media and will certainly not let it dictate what I should think.
Secondly, as I said before, I DON'T CARE if gay marriage is accepted in this country one day. I hope this isn't too political a statement, but as you're the one that brought it up, if I agree with with a politician on everything but he/she supports gay marriage, I'm not going to vote (and I do vote) for the other candidate on that reason alone. I do my very best not to let my religious veiws sway my politcal ones. (I know, what a radical concept!)
I believe in the teachings of the Bible and I don't let someone just tell me what the Bible says. I study it for myself to the best of my abilities. Therefore, I would be a hypocrite to say that I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. But I also earlier admitted to having trouble with sins of my own so I'm certainly not going to be the one to "cast the first stone". The people that form the hateful pick lines are the bigots. You'll never see me among them.
Oh, and Juniper, if that's your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to it. But you don't seem to be respectful of mine. Yes, it does hurt that I'm being stereotyped into a group of people with which I don't belong. Therefore, in my opinion, you are no better than the hateful picketers.
If one doesn't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else--i.e., getting married--just because of their sexuality, then yes, I do believe that person is a bigot. Look the word up in a dictionary. The definition is apt.
What I always find frustrating about people with Shea's mindset is their absolute refusal to give any actual reasons as to why they find a gay "lifestyle" (a near-bigoted term itself, as Pip pointed out) so disagreeable, beyond that the Bible says it's wrong and it just "isn't natural."
If you read my recent post on my biblical view, you see why I really am sad you have to go through all the hostility against being gay. You probably don't agree with my biblical view, and that's okay. I just really want you and other gay people to know that I don't hate you or want to "deny rights" to you just because you choose to be gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
I'm really getting tired of repeating myself...:mad2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
I DON'T CARE IF GAY MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTED IN THIS COUNTRY. I DON'T LET MY RELIGIOUS VIEWS SWAY MY VOTING.
My conviction is for the Bible. You don't like that, fine. You don't have to. But if I believe in EVERYTHING else the Bible says, but don't believe that homosexuality is a sin because not "popular" to believe that way, well then, I'd be just as much a hypocrite as the gay bashing bigots.Quote:
What I always find frustrating about people with Shea's mindset is their absolute refusal to give any actual reasons as to why they find a gay "lifestyle" (a near-bigoted term itself, as Pip pointed out) so disagreeable, beyond that the Bible says it's wrong and it just "isn't natural."
I purposely said "If ONE doesn't want gay people . . . " because I knew your stance. I wasn't calling you a bigot. I was purposely not doing so, actually. I was just stating my view of what constitutes bigotry. It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).
And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.
Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay. :lol:
OH! sorry :blush5: I guess I was on the defensive because of what Juniper said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
I'm sorry if you guys got that impression of me. I was earlier refereeing a 2 and 4 year old while trying to come up with responses in this thread; maybe I misworded a few things. Several years ago, a woman asked me to play harp for her ceremony. But she said it was for her and her lesbian partner. Because of my religious views, I couldn't agree to play for it. But I didn't tell her she shouldn't have a ceremony. I don't tell people how to live their lives because I don't want anyone telling me how to live mine.Quote:
It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).
I'm not sure what you are referring to about what I "admitted earlier." The Bible does say all kinds of crazy things when they are taken out of context. When I first joined this forum waaay back in 2003 :D, I was fairly active in the religious text section. But I found that I just simply didn't have enough time in my life to devote to defending it all. So I really don't want to bring all that up here. I didn't want to bring religion up at all really. Someone else asked me my religious views directly.Quote:
And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.
:lol: Sorry Tony. I've just recently returned to the forums and am not familiar with you yet. :D When you said "I'd be happy enough to be gay for a bunch of superficial reasons" I misunderstood that to mean you were gay. It changes the meaning of the rest of your post. It's unclear now what your point really was because I can't see what you were responding to when I scroll down. It dosen't help that it's after midnight and I'm ready to crash... :lol:Quote:
Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay. :lol:
I get ya, Shea. And don't let Juniper put you off. She's brash with everyone. Anyways, we need a replacement for Bien around here, even if you're not as hardcore as him. :D
:D Thanks Mutatis. I'm not sure who Bien was, but I hope I suffice :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Did the business they bring help? If there's one thing that sorts people's minds out it's money. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
Just to clarify what I said to you before I said under the impression that you were against gay marriage, I apologize if I mistook what you said. Look, if you believe being gay is a sin, that is your belief, but then again drinking and gambling and divorce are pretty big sins too from the biblical perspective; alcohol gambling and divorce are all legal though, so I fail to see from a religious perspective how gay marriage somehow would undermine the morality of the state. Furthermore the majority of western nations are all secular states and as such law and religion should not mix. Until drinking and gambling and divorce are made illegal I fail to see how using the law to prevent gay marriage is an un-hypocritical stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
To be honest I think the Bible has issue with everthing that is not single minded.
It has issues with people liking each other regardless of gender race and sexuality.
I think that it is devisive and influences people to think and act differently from others who are bound to be different.
I am pretty sure the Bible is not so much about who is gay or not but it is about the underlaying ideology that all are to comply to one thing and one thing only. It is a pretty devisive power trip.
I believe it uses homsexuality as a base to divide people's ideas opinions . It does not allow room for one to reflect and think without being influenced by this terrifying god it makes out to be and brings in concepts of hell and heaven to keep people influenced and scared.
I do not believe that God is that terrifying or indeed punishing I would say it is the total opposite.
Had the Bible not been I am pretty sure would have totally accepted and lived side to side with other people with different aspirations and sexual orientations without a single issue.
I think the Bible uses God as a tool , a punisher, in order to ensure that people who think may be different would comply a guilt trip it imposes and it does work but not all the times.
This is my honest opinion and is not meant to offend any Bilble believers.
No worries, Alex. The veiw I take on the matter isn't a common one. I can see how I had been misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I just want to say here, that drinking is not a sin, drunkenness is. As far as I can tell, gambling is not specifically a sin either, but the Bible teaches Christians to be responsible with finances. And the only biblical grounds for divorce is marital unfaithfulness.Quote:
Look, if you believe being gay is a sin, that is your belief, but then again drinking and gambling and divorce are pretty big sins too from the biblical perspective;
To sum that up, everything in moderation. :D
But that's just it, I'm not using the law to prevent gay marriage. If a politician I like (how can you really wholly agree with any of them :rolleyes: ) wants to make gay marriage legal, I'll still vote for him/her. If the issue of gay marriage is on the ballot by itself, I'll probably skip over it for the same reason I wouldn't play my harp for the lesbian ceremony.Quote:
alcohol gambling and divorce are all legal though, so I fail to see from a religious perspective how gay marriage somehow would undermine the morality of the state. Furthermore the majority of western nations are all secular states and as such law and religion should not mix. Until drinking and gambling and divorce are made illegal I fail to see how using the law to prevent gay marriage is an un-hypocritical stance.
I think this where I'd gotten misunderstood: when the head of Chick-Fil-A said that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, I didn't see that as a political statement against gay marriage. I saw it as him stating his personal beliefs which happen to fall in line with mine and I know that it's a "Christian company". If he did actually make a political statement against gay marriage, then I missed it, sorry. But even if he did, I'm not going to boycott his restaurant for it. If I started boycotting companies because they support gay marriage, then I might as well go join the Amish. :D
I can see and respect your opinion. But I'm curious, do you believe this way because that's what you read in the Bible (because I can think of passages that actually are the opposite of some of the things you say), or is it because you've come across too many "Bible thumpers"? I only ask, because I've come across a miriad of people, "Bible thumpers" and "quiet quoters" alike, who will completely take verses out of context to fit their own adjenda. So I can see how so many people come up with your conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
I'll never forget the time I was talking to a coworker and she was telling me about how interracial marriage is a sin.:yikes: After I picked up my slacked jaw, I asked her where it says that. She quoted 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked." She apparently was not a good speller. She explained to me that we shouldn't be mixing our "eggs" with other races. I tried to explain to her that first of all, the "yoke" in that passage is talking about a yoke of oxen, not egg yolks.:smilielol5: And secondly, the context of the passage is Paul warning the Christians in Corinth to not accept idolaters into Christ's assembly and has nothing to do with race.
Her adjenda was a racist one, so that was how she was going to read and teach that passage. I've heard similar things come from other people depending on their adjenda.
Paulclem, I wish it would have changed their views. One has to consider their ignorance being stemmed from a lack of application to ample educational opportunity along (and more importantly) with the dangerous religious dogma they happily subscribe to without critical thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Their views were brought over and passed on from their distant forefathers whose sub-saharan point of origin still retains those views-to point of systemic violence. It is embedded in that culture, which is not my own.
Thank you Mutatis. I was trying to say that gays always seem to have a good time - it's hard to deny - and I'm not a little bit envious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
A difficult situaton. In the UK, those old attitudes are embodied into modern mind sets at least. It must be more difficult in societies like yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
Oh please, you articulate the lingo like it was your college major. "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle" - do you realize that that sentence doesn't make sense, and that no one outside of the American opinion media uses it? What you've brought to the table so far has really just been very typical religious right rhetoric. That's not necessarily a bad thing, we really do need a replacement for Bien.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
I did say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
And then I further elaborated:Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Why should I be? You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering). And for what reason? where is the logic behind being anti-homosexual (or, if you want the faux-lighthearted rhetoric, "against the homosexual lifestyle")? They're not hurting anyone. Also, why is it immoral for me to vocalize my strong disagreement? How much harm does opposing homophobia cause? No where near as much as your "belief" which I'm supposed to respect without question for some reason. You did choose this belief you know, and so I hold you accountable for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
Shea, so in other words, you disagree with homosexuality but keep your opinions to yourself? You would for instance abstain from voting on a ballot specifically addressing gay marriage in your home state?
While that's good news for your country, as a science-minded person, I do have a problem with you stating it has not been proven that homosexuality is genetic. The problem here is you are claiming your beliefs subscribe to the scientific method, but of course your opinions, as you have made clear, are gathered from a book. In other words, you get to the conclusion first, then try and find justifications for it. This is where your ignorance shows, both in the above example, and also in your use of the term 'gay lifestyle' (you haven't explained what you mean by that).
Would you re-think your opinion of homosexuals if, somehow, scientfic evidence provides proof that homosexuality is not a choice?
It's a false dichotomy anyway, but it's your fault that we are being made to go down this route. People do indeed choose who they want to partner and can indulge in sexual curiosity as they like, as long as it is with consenting adults, and that for me is completely fine.
Well being gay is clearly natural because it is not a belief like we believe in religions.
It is a not choice or a trend it is a fact of life.
I think that people who have issue with someone different from them have issue with god too.
It'll never be "unbiased" enough (because whenever science doesn't corroborate your opinion, it's biased).Quote:
Originally Posted by Babyguile
I really want to respond to everything here, but I'm very busy today.
But I just wanted to say, Juniper, I think I know why you believe I watch Fox news (when seriously, I really don't). My parents do. Everytime we go to visit them (which is maybe once or twice a year), it's on ALL the time. I disagree with A LOT of what my parents believe religiously and politically, but not everything, and maybe I've "picked up" a few phrases that flagged me as a Fox news viewer without realizing it.
Honestly, the channel that's mostly on our TV, is Disney Jr.
Can I also just mention that not all Christians agree on the 'cause' of homosexuality or exactly what the Bible says about it.
so what is their thoughts on this if they do not agree with the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset
Many Christians don't see the Bible as a literal history book, but a book of stories and metaphors and use it as guide for life rather than a dictum to be blindly followed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Okay, so I'm sorry that suddenly my life is very full at the moment. As much as I want to respond to everyone, I simply don't have time right now and probably won't be on much at all the next couple of weeks.
So I'm going to generalize my answers.
Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.
That said, I'm going to give you my bottom line.
I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE. Therefore, I appreciate NOT being called a bigot because I won't write gay fiction and I choose to publish with a company that doesn't accept gay fiction. I actually chose them because they don't publish anything that has harsh language or "pink parts" in them. I like that I can pick any of their books to read and not be made to feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather be called a prude than a bigot.
In one sense I can respect you for not forcing your beliefs on other people, or as you put it: "not tell[ing] anyone how to live their life." But there is a mixed message in your post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
I don't think people should be condemned for not supporting something. I do not understand why people are so offended by the notion of gay marriage: I know all the biblical logic and it still baffles my mind. But if you don't agree with something you don't agree with something - beliefs are not in of themselves logical. So you don't agree with homosexuality - fine.
But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.
The pastor who said that homosexuality is a sin and all "them gays" should be put in a fenced area until they die off - in this case, he meant that homosexuality is a sin. He put himself as a superior power talking about inferior beings. You may not wish to kill every homosexual in the world (I would guess you probably don't) but by recognizing it is "sin" you are participating in the same dogma.
Let it be known that I am not attacking you or your beliefs and I stated, I can respect your disagreement with homosexuality (even if I don't understand it) - I'm just questioning your language.
No, I get what your saying. I guess the issue here is, I'm not vocal about it. But the minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting. My bi-sexual friend knows what I believe. But she also knows I'm not going to shove my beliefs down her throat because I feel she needs to be a "better person." She IS a good person and we have fun on our "Mommy-day-outs." If she one day comes to agree with me biblically, then that's great. If not, that's her choice, and she won't be any less my friend for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Wait, what? I think if you think you can choose to be gay, then you're in the closet. No offense though, I just think that's the logical application for that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
So sinners can be good people? Why label them at all. No, I'm not suggesting you use the word to the same extent that a bigot preacher does, but there is a moral judgement in the word, whether you accept it or not. We alone cannot choose the societal connotations of our wordsQuote:
Originally Posted by Shea
The part of the bible which calls homosexuality an abomination was written at a time when the bisexual Hellenistic culture was competing with the Jewish one and young men were going to gymnasiums to work out nude instead of going to Temple to study the Torah. So the priests tried to demonize the Greeks and Macedonians, a great way of doing that being to demonize them for their bisexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shea
It was simple propaganda. The bible has to be open to interpretation. A too literal reading and you can justify any kind of discrimination.
The message of love was far more hammered-home in the gospels than that of discrimination. I doubt if Jesus were ministering today he'd be wasting his time trying to deny a group of people the right to marry. I'm sure he would be working on world hunger and ending war and overpopulation and economic trouble and a million other causes before the issue of gay marriage even entered his mind.
Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
[QUOTE]Damn, should I stop working out nude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Double Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
I doubt marriage was even on the agenda at the time I am sure marriage is fairly newish concept and was not during Jesus time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Marriage came about with the birth of cathedrals and church buildings and as far as now these buildings were not about when Jesus was around.
Notice the manger being the place of birth of Jesus.
Oh manger is French means ''to eat'' used with reference to people.
It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No, just no. The peoples of the mediterranean and beyond were marrying centuries and probably thousands of years before Jesus. I don't know where you got this idea from but marriage was an institution established LONG before Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
You have a God who came to the earth and made the sermon on the mount. You read the sermon on the mount and then ask yourself whether a one so wise as that would really be taking the trouble today to deny rights to a long-despised group of people. It can easily be argued that the message of the gospels is positive towards homosexuals. For a long time in the western world homosexuals were stupidly hated and to a large degree this bigotry still exists. Christ was about promoting the welfare and pride of the weakest - of the poor, the ill, the despised, the righteous.
If people want an excuse to discriminate against gays.....the bible is hardly the place to go to find justification. The origin of their hatred lies only in their own hearts and any scriptural corroboration is mere projection, the result of confirmation bias and simple ignorant misreading.
Call me crazy but I am quite sure the Greeks and Romans had marriage, and even then no one thought of it as a novel concept but a rather old one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
You're crazy! Jesus came down to earth and clearly sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
"Look guys, I know you have been around for thousands of years, and i've been watching you. I even hid out in that bush you set on fire a while back....but seriously, this massive orgy thing has to stop. That is why I have invented this thing called marriage: it's when you pick one partner and stay with them (until you get bored or find some seriously flaw and then do everything you can to get rid of that person. ) This will solve all our problems."
Unfortunately this part was taken out of the Sermon.
Apparently the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history. But if it was all recorded, I bet there would be examples of same sex marriages and poly marriages as the norm in some cultures or groups especially before the ceremony got so tangled up with religion.
I for one think that it is far more important for people to be happy, than to be forced to live a lie.
Would anyone want to be married to someone who was actually gay , just because in their developmental years , parents, teachers and peers forced them to hide their true selves and act straight ?
It is better for everyone if we are all aloud to express ourselves truthfully, that way less people will get hurt.
In my own experience I knew I was Bi from a very early age, I was attracted to both sexes before I even understood what attraction was, so there is no doubt in my mind that it is something you are born with and fighting it just makes everyone unhappy.
As for the bible view of things I have to agree that it was written at a very different time to our own, the bible that we read today is only a very small part of what was written anyway , there were probably loads of bits taken out that said love who you want and women are not the inferior sex.
Plus I am sure that there were political reasons for wanting other nations to believe you were a large force of fertile men with loads of offspring ready to take up arms when they grew up.
And Jesus seems like a pretty cool guy to me, he wouldn't be encouraging us to hate people for any reason let alone something that is not their fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluehound
We on the ice are very liberal and I said before that we allow everyone to get married (in the church too). But there is a group here called 'the cross' (there are probably groups like that all over the world) they think they can make you stop being gay. This was a big issue here a while back, mainly because it's a small country and almost everything becomes a big issue.
Oh and about the bible, what about that missing part they found in 'Red Dwarf' that explains a lot.
[QUOTE]Ok. Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
One of the reasons why marriage came about was because homosexuality was feared to become the norm. In order to single out those who do not conform toQuote:
You have a God who came to the earth and made the sermon on the mount. You read the sermon on the mount and then ask yourself whether a one so wise as that would really be taking the trouble today to deny rights to a long-despised group of people. It can easily be argued that the message of the gospels is positive towards homosexuals. For a long time in the western world homosexuals were stupidly hated and to a large degree this bigotry still exists. Christ was about promoting the welfare and pride of the weakest - of the poor, the ill, the despised, the righteous.
a) religion-
b) straight sex
is then punished using marriage as a sacrilege only to those who obey god and are straight.
People do not need excuses because the religion does it for them.Quote:
If people want an excuse to discriminate against gays.....the bible is hardly the place to go to find justification. The origin of their hatred lies only in their own hearts and any scriptural corroboration is mere projection, the result of confirmation bias and simple ignorant misreading.
there are no records of marriage certificates but there are thousands of books and literary material dating back to the pharoahs even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
[QUOTE=cacian;1158178]EVERY GREEK AND ROMAN PRIMARY SOURCE, PREDATING CHRIST BY CENTURIES, SPEAKS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, OFTEN IN GREAT DETAIL.Quote:
Ok. Prove it.
Proved. Next!
Plato (almost 400 years before Jesus) makes numerous references to marriage and marriage laws in The Republic. He also reportedly died at a weeding feast.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Hammurabi's Code (long before Jesus) references marriage laws and the rights of women after marriage many times.
The law of marriage has nothing to do with laws of homosexuality. The idea of homosexual acts and marriage are two separate matters in the ancient world. The purpose of marriage was strictly business. A man married a woman so he could take possession of her (and then have kids to take possession of them). A man would not marry another man because a man would never take possession of a man who he respected, only slaves.