Think this easily: Black or White, Asian, Gay or str8, Lesbian, Handicapped, etc. They are still human. Now put this in math: A man marry a woman = 1 + 1. A man marry a man = 1 + 1. A black man marry a white woman = 1 + 1. What’s the different between 1 + 1 and 1 + 1, 1 + 1?
I won’t say that I am a supporter who watches the news closely and fellows everything about LGBT rights but I will admit to getting annoyed sometimes. Despite my sassy comments I make a lot of the time I really do care about how people feel.
The way I see the issues is they are real people and most of them have had more courage then I will probably ever display in my life to come out and say you know what I DO like the same gender. I admire them and it makes me mad to see the harassment they have to go through sometimes.
All over schools in Australia there is anti-bullying campaigns so I want to point out how much of a difference is there in bullying each other about popularity and bullying people over there preferences in gender. The person is still going to feel just as bad and it makes me mad as fuck. What right do we have to verbally attack a group of people when each and everyone one of us hates being harassed because of a perceived differences.
For people like Angel I totally get it and I wouldn’t want to make people go against their beliefs but its is my belief that there has to be something that can be done for them. The thing that annoys me the most though is when families don’t support a child because of this.
But Hey this is just what I think
The problem only really lies in the Church and whether the Church should allow Lesbians or Gays to marry “under the divine presence of God” and be given a blessing. Theres the case of Adam and Eve where man and woman were created to be together, but some make the case that all of those stories are made up which to an extent they are. There is no win or lose here but if you want my opinion, I do not think that gays and lesbians should be married in a Church - some will disagree and Im sorry.
Antoine
- im seriously stressing out, History GCSE on wednesday,
I’m neutral on the topic, I really don’t care.
Right now, there’s a referendum on Gay Marriage in my country. I’m not registered to vote, partially because I’m an apathetic shit, but I’d probably vote yes if I was.
What grinds my fucking gears is how people who are for gay marriage attack those who are against it. People have different opinions, and people are within their rights to express them. Personally, I don’t agree with what they say either, but it is their right to express their opinions.
I’d actually like to hear from others about what they think about this. Do you think it’s acceptable to ridicule the opposition for their different views or do you think it’s necessary to promote your opinion, or what do you think otherwise?
I don’t think either side should be belligerent about it. While I don’t share the same views as Angel, I do appreciate how he tries his best not to discriminate and he is able to talk to them and act as he normally would. That being said, I also agree with Buddy when he said that some LGBT people do parades only to get attention. I don’t like how we are publicizing love with parades like these. I think the supporters need to stop being pushy and attention-grabbing, and the people who don’t support it need to follow Angel’s morals 
If we keep going on like we are now, LGBT members will never get what they really want; to be accepted as normal people in society. The parades make it seem different than other relationships, and that is bad.
(I did not read all of the comments btw so sorry if I missed something)
My standpoint on gay is I think that it is wrong. In the end II think it really comes down to a personal choice as to where are your morals and what do you stand for seeing as how I stand for God I view it as wrong but if you do not believe in God then its your choice. The Bible says that God ordained it to be a man and a woman so this states that we where not made to be gay.
[details=“Spoiler”] Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.[/details]
On the other hand the United states was made on the fact that you may have religious freedom so to take away being gay is not right.
Moral of the story: As a Christian I view it as wrong as this is how God views it. From a political standpoint I view it as a personal choice and one the government can not chose to take away.
(I’m not religious, so I wouldn’t know much about the bible)
From reading your quote, I can’t really see where it says that two men together or two women together is a bad thing. Even though it says that a woman was made for the man, I don’t see anything that says that other relationships aren’t good. I guess it all comes down to how it is interpreted.
A more explicit excerpt of Scripture regarding the Christian viewpoint on this matter is:
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]
Leviticus 20:13 New Living Translation (NLT)
13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
[/details]
Granted, there are hundreds of such directives given in this particular part of the Bible. For an explanation as why to Christians follow some of these commands but not all of them:
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]
There are three big types of laws that are found in the Old Testament (the part of the Bible often cited for being “old-fashioned”, “outdated”, nonsense, and generally inapplicable to our modern day and age). The Old Testament talks mostly about God’s creation of the Earth and chronicles the history of the Israelites, who were initially a nomadic group that eventually settled down in the area where Israel and Palestine are today. The legal code they followed in this time period was largely given to them as they came out of Egypt (as documented in the books of Exodus and Leviticus). We find that God gave the Israelites pretty much three big types of laws:
[ul][li]Civil law: These laws are directed at the nation of Israel alone and are intended for the government of rule of Israel. The command for Moses to appoint a panel of judges to hear about complaints from the people is an example of a civil law. The concept of “an eye for an eye” and the rule to tithe 10% of your income are also civil laws - Christians don’t observe them (as laws).[/li]
[li]Ceremonial law: These laws are for reparation of the relationship between the Israelites and God as a result of their sin. These are all the laws regarding sacrifices, what to do with lepers, not eating shellfish, not wearing certain clothes, not eating blood, etc. The people had to abide by these laws in order to make up for their shortcomings of sin; thus, there were strict procedures for making offerings to God.[/li]
[li]Moral law: These laws describe God’s character, and are not directed at only the Israelites, but are intended to be applicable regardless of the time period. These laws include the ten commandments.[/ul]
Christians only observe the third type of law listed here, moral law, because civil law was only intended for the Israelites to aid them in their government, and we believe that Jesus is our atonement to God (not sacrifices and offerings), so the ceremonial law does not need to be observed. This is why Christians do not give burnt offerings nor have dietary restrictions, because we believe that Jesus paid for our sins and thus restored our relationship with God.
Therefore, we follow only the moral law, because they reflect God’s character and are applicable to anyone who wishes to worship and follow God. Jesus himself in the New Testament also taught these principles. Regardless of Christ’s sacrifice, God’s character remains the same, and thus we follow these laws.
[/details]
However, while we believe that homosexuality is a sin, we do not believe that people should die for it.
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]
The laws in the Old Testament are only valid in respect to what they deem as “wrong” or “right” - they provide a guide to discerning what is wrong or right. The punishments that correspond with them were made with the “old covenant” with God in mind - that is, the covenant made before Jesus came. Under that, people had to repent for their sin with sacrifices and offerings, and the price for sin was death.
Under the new covenant brought by Jesus and through his death, we have a new way to God, and thus the punishments for sin are no longer what they were before.
[/details]
Thus, homosexuality is regarded as a sin under Christianity, but (almost) nobody wants to go around stoning the LGBTQ community.
Also, the concept of religious freedom that we cherish and often take for granted in the United States must also be considered when we decide whether a Biblical directive should be a federal law. Conversely, the outcome of this case and other LGBTQ cases at any level will probably not change the Christian viewpoint that homosexuality is fundamentally a sin.
One more question, dealing with the NLT quote. How is homosexuality a capital offense?
A crime, such as murder or betrayal of one’s country, that is treated so seriously that death may be considered an appropriate punishment.
A murder? No.
A betrayal of one’s country? Most countries seem to be secular by 1996 (when the NLT was published)
Bible translations word the original Aramaic and Greek in vernacular. Most people, by 1996, know what capital punishment is; thus, the NLT uses the term “capital punishment”. It’s not like the people that wrote the NLT decided to suddenly make it a capital punishment; that particular verse has always read that way, but has not necessarily been quoted as “capital punishment”. For example, the English Standard Version translation:
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]Leviticus 20:13 English Standard Version (ESV)
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.[/details]
The original Hebrew can be read at this link if you choose to view it:
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]http://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/20-13.htm[/details]
Now, if I did not misinterpret the question, you are asking why homosexuality is originally deemed as a sin that was worth killing someone over.
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]
The reasons homosexuality is regarded as a sin punishable by death:
[ul][li]It directly undermines the order God created through Adam and Eve; procreation is not possible through homosexuality, and God’s explicitly gave the command to procreate and fill the Earth.[/li]
[li]Because it undermines God’s command (to procreate and fill the earth), it is seen as rebellion against God.[/li]
[li]People become desensitized to it and do not see it as a sin. Murderers will always know that they’ve done something inherently wrong when they kill someone (except for psychopaths, and many may ignore their conscience); the same conviction does not apply to homosexuality.[/li]
[li]People who practice homosexuality (some of them, at least, in today’s world; not all) promote it and condemn others who don’t approve of it.[/li][/ul]
In short, homosexuality had the capability of undermining the basic family structure and the sinlessness of the Israelites. That might not sound like a big deal, but back then, God supposedly traveled with the Israelites as a big floaty cloud thingy (in the day) and as a pillar of fire (at night). He provided food, warded off disease, and looked after his people. Most critically, God was holy and perfect, yet the people were not. People had to be very careful to repent for and make offerings for their sin, because if they did not, God would quite literally leave them (and he did, on several occasions, when the people did not repent). Therefore, it was critical that the issue of sin be addressed - so that God wouldn’t leave them. In other words, homosexuality became a matter of national security.
The same pretty much applies to Christians today. God cannot reside in people who continue to indulge in sin. However, we are able to repent through Jesus’ sacrifice and not through countless offerings. So, we make an effort towards avoiding sin, yet having the realization that we are saved by Jesus’ sacrifice when we do eventually fail.
[/details]
This is getting pretty far from the original topic. If you have any other theological questions, we should probably take it into a PM, unless anybody else is interested.
I wasn’t wondering about the killing part, I understand Christians have gotten away from that part, or (most) as you said ;D. I was just asking about why it is deemed as either a) murder, or b) betrayal of your country. That’s what I found for the definition of capital offense.
Ah. Well, the definition I just looked up now for “capital offense” lists murder and treason as examples, but I’m pretty sure it’s not limited to those two things. It generally means any crime that is punishable by death.
Gotcha.
I’m pretty sure not ALL of the Bible is followed by Christian.
As a Christian we try to follow all of the commandments of the bible but we are still human too and so we can fail which is why we need salvation for all the wrong doing we have done against the bible (sin) so yes we do follow everything in the bible to the best of our abilities but the law says that we cant go around stoning people for being homosexual. These areas are commonly refereed to as the [glow=gray,2,300]gray[/glow] parts of the bible.
For most people the bible is a Apple contract, no one reads it, they just go to the end and click ‘I Agree’…
So you’re saying if it was legal, you would go around stoning gay people?
Also… There is a lot of stuff the bible says you can’t do, but you probably do anyway…
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” - Levictus 19:19 (ESV)
“Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” - Exodus 31:15 (ESV)
And the whole religious anti-gay thing, hating someone for something that they have no control over isn’t called religion, it’s called being a dick. And using some book written thousands of years ago to justify hate and intolerance is also being a dick. And saying that you can’t possibly support something because the bible says you can’t, whilst not doing a lot of things the bible says you can’t, is also called being a dick.
My reply, as a Christian, would be no.
See what I wrote previously about the three different types of laws in the Old Testament and why Christians only follow some of these laws but not all of them. It’s hidden in some spoiler somewhere.
[spoiler=Potentially Inflammatory Content]
Jesus himself made a comment on this particular piece of Scripture later in the New Testament. The Sabbath is intended to provide a time for us to make sure we attend to our relationship with God. In the Old Testament, this law made sure that the people took time off to spend it with God. In the New Testament, through Jesus, we have access to God 24/7 and thus the point of this law is now simply to make sure that we reserve time to spend with God.
Mark 2:23-27 English Standard Version (ESV)
Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
[/details]
Thanks, I get that a lot.
"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, [b]nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material[/b]." - Levictus 19:19 (ESV) "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. [b]Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.[/b]" - Exodus 31:15 (ESV)Quotes like this are mainly used to mock the Bible for unneccesary violence. And when you think about how old it is, that argument doesn't really make sense. Effectively, what Octo's done here is mock the 20th-century-[b]BCE[/b] texts for not adhering to 21st-century[b]CE[/b] moral codes. Maybe the bible needs updating. [details="Spoiler"] [img]http://i.imgur.com/J8GtIHn.png[/img] Graphics dutifully plagiarised from theoatmeal.com and the Fox network. Comic amateurishly compiled by me. [/details]
You might want to check the 20th Century BCE stuff. That was when stonehenge was being completed, and tamed horses and glass were invented. The first five books of the bible were written around the 12th century BCE.
And it’s true, they are often used to mock the bible, but it’s more the “I follow anything the bible says. Except for that bit, that doesn’t count, and that bit is a metaphor. And that bit is just an indication of the belief at the time, despite the fact it doesn’t state that. And that book doesn’t count any more, despite the fact I just used it to justify something” aspect of religions that is being mocked. (And yes, I have actually heard religious people say all that stuff)