Originally Posted by Rmarques

... No it doesn't. For starters, there was no word that could translated as homosexuality before the 19th century.

Despite that, Corinthians 1:6 says:

You're probably thinking about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Even though there wasn't one word that could describe it, there wer a string of words that did and that were used in the Bible
Sodomy, lie with another man, etc.

Oh whoops, your right.
My mistake, I did mess that up
xD

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

I see it as the law intruding on a belief important to the very fabric of individual life.
You see it as a restriction placed upon innocent individuals simply because of the life they choose.

this offended me when you decided what my opinion on what defines marrage even tho i had not said my defanition and this is not it.

Originally Posted by juno rally

this offended me when you decided what my opinion on what defines marrage even tho i had not said my defanition and this is not it.

Ah no, I wasn't speaking specifically to you
I was using it you would use "one" or "person"
It was said loosely, not specifically.

And I wasn't saying that was your definition of what marriage is, I was saying how you view gay marriage being banned through the church.

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

Even though there wasn't one word that could describe it, there wer a string of words that did and that were used in the Bible
Sodomy, lie with another man, etc.
xD

The verse goes:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (KJV)


The abusers of themselves with mankind is the controversial one. The original word was "arsenokoitai" whose meaning is lost, it may have been created by Paul himself when he wrote that. However, if the "Arsen" part refers to the acient greek word "Arsen", the there's no way it could be a condemnation of male and female homosexuals, for "Arsen" means man. Some people translate as sodomites, which is a word that comes from the name Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God, because a crowd (supposely of males), wanted to rape the angels that had come down to Earth as men.

The effeminate part is also controversial. The original word, "malakoi", is used in the Bible to describe something soft. However, in the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.

So, we may all be reading one big mistranslation.

Source

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

Ah no, I wasn't speaking specifically to you
I was using it you would use "one" or "person"
It was said loosely, not specifically.

And I wasn't saying that was your definition of what marriage is, I was saying how you view gay marriage being banned through the church.

ah then i apologyse for the mis understanding.

the thing is. im really confused as to why the church reacts the way they do when it comes to gays.

after all i thought religion was ment to be a thing that brought faith and unity to people and brought about hope whilst under the watchful eye of the creator. things like, love thy nabour and brother and your brother and nabour is every one.

after all, the bible says "tho shall not worship and other god nor idol than i" (not going to mention my view with this and the cross as its going off topic) but in todays world christians get along with others from different faiths. thus overlooking this comandment.

we no longer follow alot of the rules set in the bible because they just cann't work in todays world like the deathpenalty and people having the same power as god/jesus (i.e. technology and scientists).

the church has evolved and exepted alot of things and its just really confusing why gay marrige cann't be accepted as well.

Originally Posted by Rmarques

The verse goes:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (KJV)


The abusers of themselves with mankind is the controversial one. The original word was "arsenokoitai" whose meaning is lost, it may have been created by Paul himself when he wrote that. However, if the "Arsen" part refers to the acient greek word "Arsen", the there's no way it could be a condemnation of male and female homosexuals, for "Arsen" means man. Some people translate as sodomites, which is a word that comes from the name Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God, because a crowd (supposely of males), wanted to rape the angels that had come down to Earth as men.

The effeminate part is also controversial. The original word, "malakoi", is used in the Bible to describe something soft. However, in the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.

So, we may all be reading one big mistranslation.

Source

This is one part that has just been something I've never been able to figure out.
Since it does say effeminate in the translated versions that's what I was taught to believe.
But God does say in other verses that the act of homosexuality is wrong, and just because one verse isn't translated correctly doesn't mean the others weren't.

Originally Posted by juno rally

ah then i apologyse for the mis understanding.

the thing is. im really confused as to why the church reacts the way they do when it comes to gays.

after all i thought religion was ment to be a thing that brought faith and unity to people and brought about hope whilst under the watchful eye of the creator. things like, love thy nabour and brother and your brother and nabour is every one.

after all, the bible says "tho shall not worship and other god nor idol than i" (not going to mention my view with this and the cross as its going off topic) but in todays world christians get along with others from different faiths. thus overlooking this comandment.

we no longer follow alot of the rules set in the bible because they just cann't work in todays world like the deathpenalty and people having the same power as god/jesus (i.e. technology and scientists).

the church has evolved and exepted alot of things and its just really confusing why gay marrige cann't be accepted as well.

Me too!
I can't understand why someone would preach love and tolerance then turn around and demand the execution of them

It's these churches twisting God's word to fit their wants and modern needs.
It's ridiculous, they are killing the word of God
):

Well I tell you something
I have no issue with gay people, a lot of my family is gay, a lot of my friends are gay and Im even on the committee for my schools GSA [Gay-Straight Alliance]
I strongly dislike the hate and judgements people do to people

Too true, but if the Church keeps evolving it will stray away from it's roots and become something it was neevr menat to be.

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

Not really, marriage as a holy union has been around since even before judaism.
It depends on which side your coming from
I see it as the law intruding on a belief important to the very fabric of individual life.
You see it as a restriction placed upon innocent individuals simply because of the life they choose.

A) CHRISTIAN marriage is a holy union. Not state marriage. This is non-debatable.
B) Gays are NOT fighting to be married through the church, they are fighting to be married through the state in order to inherit those 3000 some odd legal rights the rest of married folk get. Getting married through the court =\= getting married through the church. Ask the gay rights activists, do what you want in the church. We don't care. We are asking for the legal right for them to marry. Being as church's are not government institutions, you can chose to ignore a law passed to allow gay marriage.
C) You cannot prove that being gay is something someone's "chosen". That's just what you believe, but ask anyone that's ACTUALLY gay/bi and you will get a different response. I find it very unlikely that people would choose a lifestyle that normally puts them into a situation where they are often denied jobs, shunned from their families and society, and often the victims of prejudice violent acts. I remember being 4 and wanting a wife.


So look at this. Marriage is a holy union within the christian religion. but non-christians get married by the courts all the time, meaning that there is marriage outside the church. No one gives a toot about what you want in the church. ban it and burn it with fire, we don't care. According to the first ammendment, "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." this is not saying that we can/cannot make religious law. It's saying that state and federal law should not be based on religious law. Gay marriage being wrong and an unholy union is a christian belief, period. Good for christianity. But this is specifically saying that we cannot ban gay marriage because christians think it's wrong. So take relgion out of it. Disregarding religion, why is it illegal? It is the modern day witch hunt and scapegoat for descrimination. We used to not allow blacks to marry, different religions marry, or interracial marriages. Every century we just need someone to oppress. There is nothing wrong with federally legal gay marriage. It has NOTHING to do with the church. Look up marriage as defined by the united states of america and realize there is no word "holy" in or around it. Gays are NOT looking to get married through the church, i've said this countless times in this thread and you don't really seem to be grasping the concept. Gays want to be recognized BY THE STATE for being married. Church and state are two entirely different and unrelated entities.

OK, so it seems to me that the basic argument now is on whether or not the church and marriage are separate. While many may see church and marriage as going together, that is simply not the case. Marriage is not just a religious thing, otherwise there would be far fewer married couples in the United States. So why does everyone seem to think that gay people want to get married in a church or with the church's blessing?

This is no different than discriminating against interracial marriages and I can't believe how hateful some people, Christian and non-Christian, get over barring gay marriage. It does not hurt you or anyone else, so how can you have a right to say no to someone else's happiness. That said, obviously a marriage between two consenting adults is not the same as the marriage of a person and a cat etc because obviously the cat is not a consenting adult (unless this is a cartoon, TV show, or another piece of fiction).

Another issue that does not seem to have been addressed is that marriage is not just for the legal benefits. Although there are tremendous benefits to being married, some people just want to be married to reaffirm their love and commitment to another human being. Sure, they may get a tax benefit but for many it is an outward symbol of an inward love, and who are we to deny that stability just because these people do not fit into our cookie-cutter narrow-minded view of marriage?

A reason not to differentiate between civil unions and marriage is because this separation is what leads to discrimination. Separate but equal institutions anyone? Seems to me that if they are legally the same thing but called something different it will just encourage discrimination!


OK, so that was long winded and probably didn't entirely make sense, but I tried my best!

Originally Posted by jediobiwan

OK, so it seems to me that the basic argument now is on whether or not the church and marriage are separate. While many may see church and marriage as going together, that is simply not the case. Marriage is not just a religious thing, otherwise there would be far fewer married couples in the United States. So why does everyone seem to think that gay people want to get married in a church or with the church's blessing?

This is no different than discriminating against interracial marriages and I can't believe how hateful some people, Christian and non-Christian, get over barring gay marriage. It does not hurt you or anyone else, so how can you have a right to say no to someone else's happiness. That said, obviously a marriage between two consenting adults is not the same as the marriage of a person and a cat etc because obviously the cat is not a consenting adult (unless this is a cartoon, TV show, or another piece of fiction).

Another issue that does not seem to have been addressed is that marriage is not just for the legal benefits. Although there are tremendous benefits to being married, some people just want to be married to reaffirm their love and commitment to another human being. Sure, they may get a tax benefit but for many it is an outward symbol of an inward love, and who are we to deny that stability just because these people do not fit into our cookie-cutter narrow-minded view of marriage?

A reason not to differentiate between civil unions and marriage is because this separation is what leads to discrimination. Separate but equal institutions anyone? Seems to me that if they are legally the same thing but called something different it will just encourage discrimination!


OK, so that was long winded and probably didn't entirely make sense, but I tried my best!

Exactly. use the term civil union and you will start having "civil union" sections of places that are crappy and crime ridden. It's only asking for bad crap to come along.

Many think that homosexual marriage is "defiling the sanctity of marriage." yet we allow people like Brittany Spears to marry over 2 people that want to dedicate themselves to each other for the rest of their lives....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The problem I have with using Old Testament to condemn homosexuals is that most people who do it neglect and overlook everything else in their the quest to do so.

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of
my roof.". Genesis 19:4-8

The people of Sodom were punished for attempting to molest the visiting angels but it was totally ok for Lot to offer his to virgin daughters to a crowd of psychotic rapists. I just find that wrong.

I'm sure that this passage has probably already been quoted somewhere in this debate but I'm just tossing my two cents in the bucket.

Here are a few more old testament favorites:

"Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar; and Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, The Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." (Genesis 16:1-2 RSV)

So adultery's ok if God says it is.

Exodus 21:16
"Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death."

Numbers 12

Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses

1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. 2 And they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. 4 And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, "Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting." And the three of them came out. 5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. 6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.

10 When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. 12 Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb." 13 And Moses cried to the LORD, "O God, please heal her—please." 14 But the LORD said to Moses, "If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again." 15 So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. 16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.

So both Miriam and Aaron commit the same crime but Miriam is stricken with leprosy and left outside the camp for seven days and nothing happens to Aaron...
Ok then.

Deuteronomy 21:18

The Incorrigible Son

18 "If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they chastise him. 19 His father and mother shall have him apprehended and brought out to the Elders at the gate of his home city. 20 Where they shall say to those city Elders, "This son of ours is a stubborn and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard. 21 Then all of his fellow citizens shall stone him to death.

Deuteronomy 22:05

Wearing clothes improper to one's sex.

5 "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your god."

Guess pants are out ladies.

the union of two persons in a way that they never seporate has been around way before any religion. the name of marrage and the whole sremonial side of it is usually what people think of when they come into this subject but its not how it started. at first it was just two persons grouping together. it must have been, you have to agree with that as there is no way that some one in a church or other holy place could have randomly thought of the idear of two person bonding and wishing to be with one a nother for the rest of there lives.

i dont have any sources but i do know how to give an example. look out your window to any group of birds making a nest, its always a male and female and there always together, they aint married (in the sence that human do) but they are still a couple that will live together for the rest of there lives.

marrage only exists to us as it is because we need legal documentation saying that the two persons are married. religion need not play any part in it unless the two persons wish it to be.

We do not know what the word means. The word was probably made up when the verse was written. At most we can speculate about it's meaning. Besides, the same sex what? The only other word that has translation issues, is Malakoi, which means soft, efeminate. Both words are right next to eachother. So... The same sex effeminate? What the hell does that even means?

We probably will never know really. Anyway it doesn't to much matter, because the Bible has the same thing again and again, such as being a lesbian is wrong. It is elsewhere. Thats the point I was trying to put across.[/size]

Numbers 12

Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses

Why wasn't Aaron punished? Because he begged for forgiveness upon her and him. Miriam did not. Its really that simple... If you beg for forgiveness you have to deal with its punishments on earth. You are forgiven in the spiritual realm, but not earth. Sometimes it happens in both. What we think of as an lucky break.

God's judgment is true, and is right. Whether we care of not. Because he doesn't see things through our eyes, just a few years ahead. God can see through the entire span of time. Something happens because of everything good or bad. If its bad we are supposed to deal with it, because once we get to heaven it is supposed to be so great we don't care what happened on earth.

I know this has been brought up before but the bible also says over and over that lots of other things are wrong and yet the church generally does not seem to care. I think the church is entitled to think gay marriage is wrong if they wish but not to prevent others from becoming married because isn't that one more form of judging others? Because I am pretty sure the bible has quite a bit to say about that too!

Originally Posted by jediobiwan

I know this has been brought up before but the bible also says over and over that lots of other things are wrong and yet the church generally does not seem to care. I think the church is entitled to think gay marriage is wrong if they wish but not to prevent others from becoming married because isn't that one more form of judging others? Because I am pretty sure the bible has quite a bit to say about that too!

Well theres verses such as this.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. Mathew 7:1

Simply states if you judge, be ready. You to shall be judged. Its that simple.

Luke 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. That does not mean do not judge and you'll be alright and perfect. No, not at all. IT just means if you judge, prepare to be judged.


Most of those verses have wordings as the same. Judge you shall be judged, do not judge on something that you are committing as was, etc.

Kinda like bashing gay marriage when your gay yourself, a example right there.

If you find any verses I can easily explain them to you. If you cannot see there point.


Yes the church seems to forget a lot of things, well not forget. Simply not focus on it. Its impossible to focus on everything at once, though that does not make it right to do so! Its bad, sadly we are human and we are not perfect. We need to better though, to address everything. Hopefully someday we will get better, and work on striving to do better.

Well you know what?
If they want to get married then fine, let them.
But if I have the choice to vote yes or no to it, I would vote no
Simply put, it's against my God's wishes and opposite of my moral standings.

Originally Posted by admonished nonsense

Why wasn't Aaron punished? Because he begged for forgiveness upon her and him. Miriam did not. Its really that simple... If you beg for forgiveness you have to deal with its punishments on earth. You are forgiven in the spiritual realm, but not earth. Sometimes it happens in both. What we think of as an lucky break.

God's judgment is true, and is right. Whether we care of not. Because he doesn't see things through our eyes, just a few years ahead. God can see through the entire span of time. Something happens because of everything good or bad. If its bad we are supposed to deal with it, because once we get to heaven it is supposed to be so great we don't care what happened on earth.

Aaron didn't beg forgiveness until after she was stricken and clearly he was not stricken as well. If you're going to use God's ineffable ability to see the future, please explain why the slaves were ever held captive in Egypt in the first place?

I really get tired of hearing it was God's will.
It was Hitler's will that the Jews be exterminated.
Just because God is a Deity doesn't mean that you should blindly believe that mass genocide, pestilence, slavery, and being stricken with leprosy are great when they're done in his name.

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

Well you know what?
If they want to get married then fine, let them.
But if I have the choice to vote yes or no to it, I would vote no
Simply put, it's against my God's wishes and opposite of my moral standings.

well if you live in the United States, you need to leave, because voting no in support of descrimination is against the very reason this country was founded. So get out plox

Imposing your own personal morals on others just because they are your own morals leads to a very slippery slope...

Originally Posted by Kyoko Otonashi

well if you live in the United States, you need to leave, because voting no in support of discrimination is against the very reason this country was founded. So get out plox

As much as I really hate to say it and I know you're just mad... :3
This country was founded on the principles of freedom of speech which means anyone's speech.
If they really cared about anti discrimination then the founding fathers wouldn't have been slave owners.

However, that doesn't make them right in that regard and I'm totally with you.
Gays should have the right to the same health benefits and legal rights as straights in a country that truly stands behind its separation of church and state.
Or, in my opinion, everywhere else as well.

Originally Posted by Jaina Solo

As much as I really hate to say it and I know you're just mad... :3
This country was founded on the principles of freedom of speech which means anyone's speech.
If they really cared about anti discrimination then the founding fathers wouldn't have been slave owners.

However, that doesn't make them right in that regard and I'm totally with you.
Gays should have the right to the same health benefits and legal rights as straights in a country that truly stands behind its separation of church and state.
Or, in my opinion, everywhere else as well.

disregarding the constitution of america and blatantly oppression millions of people because they don't think their lifestyle is right isn't "speech" it's prejudice and against the law. Saying you don't like gays, i don't care. Voting against their freedoms, i do care about. I don't like prejudice people nor people that completely defile what our wonderful country was founded on

Originally Posted by Kyoko Otonashi

well if you live in the United States, you need to leave, because voting no in support of descrimination is against the very reason this country was founded. So get out plox

Or not.
I have freedom and the right to vote what I want on what I want for whatever reasons I want.
It's in the Constitution.

And you saying that my reasons aren't just is just as bad as someone saying your reasons aren't just.

I have nothing against gays, but I do have something against gay marriage.
If I have the ability to prevent an abomination to God, then I will.

Originally Posted by Kyoko Otonashi

disregarding the constitution of America and blatantly oppression millions of people because they don't think their lifestyle is right isn't "speech" it's prejudice and against the law. Saying you don't like gays, i don't care. Voting against their freedoms, i do care about. I don't like prejudice people nor people that completely defile what our wonderful country was founded on

Slow down. The constitution of the United States of America states:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's anyone's freedom. Even if you disagree with them. If it were illegal to vote for homosexual rights in the country at this point in time clearly we would not be holding elections on the matter. As I said that doesn't mean that they're right. We had the same votes on the rights of slaves and women in the past. All I'm saying is that they have the legal right to vote however they want in an election in this country. They can't be kicked out or forced to leave because someone wants to take that right away from them.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There is currently an amendment to protect people based upon their race. But there is currently no amendment to protect people based upon their sexual preference.


-In order to avoid double posting.-

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

And you saying that my reasons aren't just is just as bad as someone saying your reasons aren't just.

I have nothing against gays, but I do have something against gay marriage.
If I have the ability to prevent an abomination to God, then I will.

Deuteronomy 22:05

Wearing clothes improper to one's sex.

5 "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your god."

So you would vote against woman's liberation too, should you have the option to do so?

Originally Posted by ToxicQuiddity

Or not.
I have freedom and the right to vote what I want on what I want for whatever reasons I want.
It's in the Constitution.

And you saying that my reasons aren't just is just as bad as someone saying your reasons aren't just.

I have nothing against gays, but I do have something against gay marriage.
If I have the ability to prevent an abomination to God, then I will.

way to spit on the constitution, then.

FIRST AMMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

I've said it a hundred times, and i will say it 100 more times. This country was founded on the principles of freedom of religious persecution. What you are doing is creating religious persecution, forcing religious law into federal law, and disregarding the separation of church and state.

Give me a good reason why you should be allowed to break the law. My reason is just because i'm following the law and i'm not hitler

Originally Posted by Kyoko Otonashi

FIRST AMMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

Homosexuality is not a religion.
And he is not breaking any laws.