Jesus would support gay marriage bill: Senator

Hawk · July 7, 2005

Wtf are you talking about? o.0 Learn the scriptures before you critique them, or you look like an ass

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Genesis 19. Read it yourself. But you're right, I was in error - there were actually 2 daughters involved, not one.

Here is a link. I knew the old testament had a lot of garbage in it but this example is over the top.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, hate to break your wet dream but you should read your own link. Also while your at it learn to read, since you obviously are having trouble with it.

SparHawk:

Religions have no problems with Gay people, they have a problem with Gay sex. Simple as that. If 2 men want to hang out go for it, if they want to have anal sex with each other don't call yourself a Christian. Its not really complicated

Riverwind · July 7, 2005

Religions have no problems with Gay people, they have a problem with Gay sex. Simple as that. If 2 men want to hang out go for it, if they want to have anal sex with each other don't call yourself a Christian. Its not really complicated

So if two men promised never to have anal sex would it be ok if they got married?

Melanie_ · July 7, 2005

Hawk -

I can see this is has touched a nerve for you, and I am sorry if I offended you. But, I stand by my post, and you have done nothing to refute it other than to say I am wrong. If you read the link, you will see that what I have said is clearly written in the passages, so unless you are reading a different Bible, I don't understand how you can say I am incorrect.

mirror · July 7, 2005

He's reading from a different bible! :lol:

Hawk · July 7, 2005

Hawk -
I can see this is has touched a nerve for you, and I am sorry if I offended you. But, I stand by my post, and you have done nothing to refute it other than to say I am wrong. If you read the link, you will see that what I have said is clearly written in the passages, so unless you are reading a different Bible, I don't understand how you can say I am incorrect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't explained how God was ok with 2 daughters of Lot being raped, since I see it nowhere in your text. I see that you desecrated a piece of scripture, and put a meaning on it that isn't at all in the texts. Add onto that the fact you claim God is ok with rapists and yeah I would have to say you certainly hit a nerve.

SparHawk:

Yes. But not redefining marriage, marriage by definition has been one man and one woman. That should not be changed. However I am not against homosexuals having a civil union and the same rights as married couples (NOT more rights), so they aren't infringing on my rights and traditions (and the rights and traditions of 99% of Canada)

Melanie_ · July 7, 2005

I was simply responding to Argus' post that God's views on sexual immorality were shown when he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. Since He let it pass that Lot offered his daughters to be raped, and then fathered children on them, I can only assume that He didn't find this as sexually immoral as homosexuality.

Hawk · July 7, 2005

I was simply responding to Argus' post that God's views on sexual immorality were shown when he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. Since He let it pass that Lot offered his daughters to be raped, and then fathered children on them, I can only assume that He didn't find this as sexually immoral as homosexuality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What??? Wow you like to assume things =p So because God doesn't strike down every sinner all at once he is 'letting them slide' and obviously supports them, wow LoL

Sorry afraid you might possibly be mis-interpreting things a 'wee bit'

Melanie_ · July 7, 2005

Actually, I don't think I'm misinterpreting at all, but I also don't think either one of us is going to convince the other. Lot's actions are arguably just as offensive as those of the men of Sodom, yet they are given barely passing observance by those who use this story to prove the immorality of Sodom, which was my original point. Those holding up this story say that this is proof of God's view on homosexuality, yet these other deviances are glossed over.

Technocrat · July 7, 2005

I hate to break it to all the christians out there but marrige did not begin with christ or christianity. Christianity is what about 2000 years old MAX. Humans have been getting 'married' in one form or another thousands of years previous to that. Therefor the institution of marrige is not in the religious domain as it was prevelant long before the modern organized religions that we know today even existed.

Come back to reality, take a class on ancient history or anthropology... you can learn a thing or two. Ignoring thousands of years of history only highlights the current ignorance of the past.

Riverwind · July 7, 2005

Yes. But not redefining marriage, marriage by definition has been one man and one woman. That should not be changed. However I am not against homosexuals having a civil union and the same rights as married couples (NOT more rights), so they aren't infringing on my rights and traditions (and the rights and traditions of 99% of Canada)

The British Privy Council redefined the meaning of the word 'persons' in 1929 to include women. This decision went against the traditions of many living at the time that believed that only men could be 'persons' under the law. Do you also argue that this was a mistake and the Privy Council should have respected the views of the traditionalists and created a new category called a 'civil creature' that offered the same rights as a 'person' in law to women?

Black Dog · July 8, 2005

Yes. But not redefining marriage, marriage by definition has been one man and one woman. That should not be changed. However I am not against homosexuals having a civil union and the same rights as married couples (NOT more rights), so they aren't infringing on my rights and traditions (and the rights and traditions of 99% of Canada)

How does teh marriage of two gay people who you don't know affect your life any more than the marriage of any two hetero people you don't know?

Are you less married now than you were a couple of weeks ago?

Religions have no problems with Gay people, they have a problem with Gay sex. Simple as that. If 2 men want to hang out go for it, if they want to have anal sex with each other don't call yourself a Christian. Its not really complicated

So is it the fact they are gay or the fact they have anal sex? What about lesbians? What about hetero married couples that indulge in a little backdoor shenanigans? Why would the Almighty have such a great interest in the particulars of sex?

The_Rebirth · July 9, 2005

For those crazy christians that forgot, Jesus was a liberal.

theloniusfleabag · July 9, 2005

Dear Black Dog,

So is it the fact they are gay or the fact they have anal sex? What about lesbians? What about hetero married couples that indulge in a little backdoor shenanigans? Why would the Almighty have such a great interest in the particulars of sex?

Evidently some US states still have 'sodomy laws' on the books, and 'going up the Hershey Highway' is still 'tresspassing' according to the laws of 'god' as laid down in the bible.

Hawk · July 10, 2005

For those crazy christians that forgot, Jesus was a liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus was not

1) Corrupt

2) Without Morals

3) Without Principles

4) Against war or defending yourself ("An armed man guards his home")

5) Accepting of pre-marital sexual relations (look up the 10 commandments)

6) Against Israel

7) Against His own religion

8) Accepting of practising homosexuals

Just some food for thought =p

Riverwind · July 10, 2005

For those crazy christians that forgot, Jesus was a liberal.

Jesus was not

1) Corrupt

Neither are most Liberals.

2) Without Morals

Just because someone does base their morals on a literal interpretation of an old book does not mean they do not have morals

3) Without Principles

Again. Just because someone's principals aren't the same as yours does not me they don't have any.

4) Against war or defending yourself ("An armed man guards his home")

What about 'turn the other cheek'? I am pretty sure Jesus would have been against the slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqis based on faulty/manipulated intelligence reports.

5) Accepting of pre-marital sexual relations (look up the 10 commandments)

Just because someone does not believe that state should legislate against pre-marital sex does not me they are for it.

6) Against Israel)

He was against the Jews who abused there power - he cleaned out the temple.

7) Against His own religion

He created a religion that fitted exactly into his world view so it was hard for him to be against it.

8) Accepting of practising homosexuals

He did not say anything about that.

Hawk · July 11, 2005

Neither are most Liberals.

You obviously are talking about a different Liberal party, we ARE discussing the Liberals that have, for the last decade, been involved in all manner of scandals and under-the-table deals? Oh, and lets not forget the media outlets trying to gloss it over and the universities and colleges trying to rationalize their behavior.

Again, we must be talking about different parties

Just because someone does base their morals on a literal interpretation of an old book does not mean they do not have morals

No, but actions speak louder than words, louder even than written words. Liberals have shown their true colors countless times throughout history, they are elitist and gain power by convincing the people they are interested in helping when they are merely interested in personal gain. Nobody that has morals could stomach a true Liberal, let alone be one.

Again. Just because someone's principals aren't the same as yours does not me they don't have any.

Again, the Liberals have proven they have no principles, get over it and stop being delusional.

What about 'turn the other cheek'? I am pretty sure Jesus would have been against the slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqis based on faulty/manipulated intelligence reports.

Turn the other cheek applies to Christians who are persecuted for Christ's sake, read the context of that passage. I do know though that Jesus would certainly be against appeasing a group of sadistic people who themselves have killed thousands, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself and in the case of a government, your people.

Just because someone does not believe that state should legislate against pre-marital sex does not me they are for it.

That doesn't really matter, since the FACT is that Jesus does not approve of it while the majority of Liberals do. I also find it funny that the right-wing gets called religious extremists but now you are defending that Jesus, the head of the largest religion on the planet, was in fact a left-winger hahahahaaa.

He was against the Jews who abused there power - he cleaned out the temple.

He cleaned out the temple because they turned it into a market, read the scripts before using them to support your arguments. Not to mention he himself said, "give unto caesar the things which are caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's", does that sound like someone against anyone who abused their power?

He created a religion that fitted exactly into his world view so it was hard for him to be against it.

The religion existed long before he was born, his birth was prophesied by the Jewish Prophets. Most Liberals are secular and against any influence of religion in government, how is that compatible with the same God that had the Israelites build temples to him and guided their kings (that listened to him anyways haha)?

He did not say anything about that.

He taught in the temples from the Old Testament, therefore he obviously supported it. After his death all that changed was redemption and sacrifice was no longer needed for atonement, that doesn't change the fact the Old Testament speaks against homosexuality. So until I read somewhere in the New Testament that 'Thou shalt sleep with other members of the same sex as thou heart desirest, for my son sacrificed his life that ye may do this' I am gonna stick with the un-challengable assumption God's original take on homosexuals remains unchanged.

Black Dog · July 11, 2005

He taught in the temples from the Old Testament, therefore he obviously supported it. After his death all that changed was redemption and sacrifice was no longer needed for atonement, that doesn't change the fact the Old Testament speaks against homosexuality. So until I read somewhere in the New Testament that 'Thou shalt sleep with other members of the same sex as thou heart desirest, for my son sacrificed his life that ye may do this' I am gonna stick with the un-challengable assumption God's original take on homosexuals remains unchanged.

Homosexuality is, according to the popular interpretation, one of many things deemed to be "abominations" by God (Leviticus also forbids the wearing of clothing made from two kinds of fiber, approaching a woman during her "time of impurity" and, my personal favorite, shrimp). So why so great a focus on homosexuality over all the other "abominations"?

cybercoma · July 11, 2005

He taught in the temples from the Old Testament, therefore he obviously supported it. After his death all that changed was redemption and sacrifice was no longer needed for atonement, that doesn't change the fact the Old Testament speaks against homosexuality. So until I read somewhere in the New Testament that 'Thou shalt sleep with other members of the same sex as thou heart desirest, for my son sacrificed his life that ye may do this' I am gonna stick with the un-challengable assumption God's original take on homosexuals remains unchanged.

Homosexuality is, according to the popular interpretation, one of many things deemed to be "abominations" by God (Leviticus also forbids the wearing of clothing made from two kinds of fiber, approaching a woman during her "time of impurity" and, my personal favorite, shrimp). So why so great a focus on homosexuality over all the other "abominations"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wasn't the book of Leviticus a set of rules outlined for the priests and not necessarily everyone who follows the faith?

Hawk · July 11, 2005

Agreed not all things should be interpretted from Leviticus, hence why we aren't out hunting down and stoning gay people. However I am going to be fairely safe in assuming his stance hasn't changed on the whole issue since he commanded the priests in that manner =p

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

stubblejumper · July 11, 2005

Of course, he would be. Jesus taught acceptance and compassion.

He who is without sin may cast the first stone.

Black Dog · July 12, 2005

Wasn't the book of Leviticus a set of rules outlined for the priests and not necessarily everyone who follows the faith?

Doesn't that interpretation undermine the notion that God disapproved of homosexual behaviour? If your statement is correct on preiests are disallowed from engaging in homosexual behaviour (and do I really need to say any more about this?)

Agreed not all things should be interpretted from Leviticus, hence why we aren't out hunting down and stoning gay people. However I am going to be fairely safe in assuming his stance hasn't changed on the whole issue since he commanded the priests in that manner =

Well, what about his stance on cotton/poly blends or prawns? Don't you think its a wee bit hypocritical to pick and choose which of god's statuates to follow?

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

What a crock. By this logic, the only way gay people are acceptable is if they do not express their identity (in other words: remain celibate). The sinner is the sin.

kimmy · July 12, 2005

I believe the issue with Leviticus is not overly complicated. I think while the Jewish regard it as god's law, Christians regard it as Jewish law.

Christian opposition to same-sex marriage would certainly be more credible if it were based on a New Testament source rather than dredging up Leviticus each time this comes up. Is there a New Testament opinion one way or the other? I'm not a Christian, but I shall use my amazing powers of research to gather information.

This passage...

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

suggests Jesus viewed marriage as being a man and a woman.

There also appear to be a number of letters from Paul that object most strenuously to homosexuality...

Paul asserts that homosexuals won't go to heaven...

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And here... well... uh, Paul seems to have been having a bad day when he wrote this one...

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

(more Wrath for you, buddy. Step away from the idol. Now.)

Now, I'm not exactly sure how Paul's letters fit into the overall scheme of things. From what I've been able to gather, Paul's letters in the New Testiment were written between around 50 and 58 AD, somewhere around 20 years after Jesus died. So, while Paul might be one of the key figures in interpreting and promoting Jesus' teachings, how sure can we be that he got it "right"? Paul, from what little I've read of his writings, seems to have a judgmental nature that doesn't seem in step with Jesus himself.

Nonetheless, Paul is a key figure in the Christian faith, and his writings seem to be considered to be important and authoritative interpretations of Jesus' teachings. So, given that Christians attach importants to Paul's portions of the New Testiment, there does seem to be support for Christian opposition to same-sex marriage. And Jesus himself, while not promising wrath for homosexuals, does seem to endorse a man-woman definition of marriage in his own words.

Black Dog, would you consider this a fair examination of why Christians can be opposed to same-sex marriage without also opposing shrimp and pork-chops?

-k

newbie · July 12, 2005

Kimmy, I think your assertions are valid re why Christians may oppose same sex marriage. On the other hand, though, Jesus never did say specificially his views on homosexuality. We are led to infer, and that can be dangerous. For an example of that I need only point out how many interpretations of the Bible are out there floating around. I think if this topic was as important and moral back in Jesus' time as it is today, he probaby would have spoken directly on the issue. I don't hold Paul's views with much credibility as he was formerly a persecutor of Christians and probably had many killed. His conversion doesn't erase his previous actions IMO. In fact, did Paul ever meet Jesus other than the famous light flash on the way to Damascus? As most Chistians take the OT as Jewish law applicable to that faith, it would seem to void the whole debate.

Black Dog · July 12, 2005

Black Dog, would you consider this a fair examination of why Christians can be opposed to same-sex marriage without also opposing shrimp and pork-chops?

Jesus said also:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matt. 5: 17).

In other words, yes Christ uphelp the Old Testament teachings of Moses, including prohibitions on sexual behaviours, diet etc. So, I say again: why are Christians so selective? If one injunction applies, then all do. If any do not, all do not.

newbie · July 12, 2005

Just a clarification, in Mark 12, when asked which commandment was the greatest Jesus said: 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

Doesn't say too much about following Moses' law. But this is point. Black Dog, you're absolutely right. Christians like to cherry pick and seem to dislike it when folks who disagree with them do the same thing. I'm not against Christians. But I cringe when some of them tell me I have to either accept everything in the Bible as literal or accept none of it.