Gay Marriage

[FWI]

Originally Posted by Shmoo

Hey, don't make a general statement like this. There are many people that follow the bible strictly, but there are many that don't. throughout my life, I've encountered mostly non-strict followers. I'm catholic, but I don't follow the bible strictly. I believe that the stories jesus told were meant to show morals, not be taken literately. for example, if jesus tried to explain the origin of man to people, they wouldn't understand. so, he created the simple story of adam and eve to show this and temptation. someone who is strict might say "oh, you need to go to church every day and follow the bible to be christian", but they're wrong in my eyes. if you're a good person, you should go to heaven (if there is one). religion, sexual preference, and other lifestyle choices should not affect this. i live by the bible for its morals. that is all.

I do assume you may have used it more as an example than a truth, but the story of Adam and Eve first shows up in Genesis, many many many years before Jesus was born. You are right in that Jesus often chose to speak in parables, however he often deciphered them for his disciples who were to then go out and teach those truths.

Strict, fanatical, evangelical, etc. etc. are very negative terms and exclusive terms for a group of people who often vary very much on the topic. Many "Christians" don't attempt to follow all of what the Bible teaches, however in my experience it's more because they are unaware of what it teaches in that specific instance.

As far as the good person comment goes, allow me to at least give you this perspective. The whole concept of getting into heaven from the "Christian perspective" is that of one of grace (a gift you don't deserve, which you accept), rather than one of works (one that you earn). Jesus himself said that he was the "way the truth and the life" and that no one got to his Father (whom he claimed to be God) except through him. This is a discussion completely separate in and of itself (which I'm sure may sway this thread away from its purpose) however.

[chiefwiggum654]

Beautiful discussion. FWI you are my hero for being a Christian and actually understanding the issue.

There's only one thing I hope to point out to people in this thread, most of which already know this, but to the few who don't, marriage is not a solely religious term and to offer a solution as obviously discriminatory as "separate, but equal" is not a fair solution. Gay marriage supporters, or at least, most gay marriage supporters, are not asking that Churches be forced to marry gay people. I agree with you all 100% that they should be not forced to go against their beliefs. All I ask of you is that, when there are Churches who will marry gay people, do not tell them what their beliefs are. I really doubt anyone in this thread would, but I've talked to people who would and it's always a depressing conversation.

[FWI]

Originally Posted by chiefwiggum654

Beautiful discussion. FWI you are my hero for being a Christian and actually understanding the issue.

There's only one thing I hope to point out to people in this thread, most of which already know this, but to the few who don't, marriage is not a solely religious term and to offer a solution as obviously discriminatory as "separate, but equal" is not a fair solution. Gay marriage supporters, or at least, most gay marriage supporters, are not asking that Churches be forced to marry gay people. I agree with you all 100% that they should be not forced to go against their beliefs. All I ask of you is that, when there are Churches who will marry gay people, do not tell them what their beliefs are. I really doubt anyone in this thread would, but I've talked to people who would and it's always a depressing conversation.

First of all, I appreciate your first comment.

Second of all, I need clarification on what you meant by "telling them what their beliefs are."

[Zoen]

Originally Posted by FWI

First of all, I appreciate your first comment.

Second of all, I need clarification on what you meant by "telling them what their beliefs are."

Basically, he doesn't want the Churches forcing words into the mouths of gay couples telling them what they believe in and what they're doing, even if the Church is wrong...I think.

At least that's what I'm perceiving from that statement.

[chiefwiggum654]

Originally Posted by FWI

First of all, I appreciate your first comment.

Second of all, I need clarification on what you meant by "telling them what their beliefs are."

Yeah sorry I was a still a bit high when I wrote that last night.
All I meant was that people who don't think gay people should get married in Churches shouldn't tell Churches who are willing to marry gay people that they can't.
And like I said, I really doubt anyone in this thread would.
What Zoen said also makes sense, but it's not what I meant.

[FWI]

Originally Posted by chiefwiggum654

Yeah sorry I was a still a bit high when I wrote that last night.
All I meant was that people who don't think gay people should get married in Churches shouldn't tell Churches who are willing to marry gay people that they can't.
And like I said, I really doubt anyone in this thread would.
What Zoen said also makes sense, but it's not what I meant.

I agree they shouldn't be told that they can't. I'd be more than interested to hear their motives however. I know a hand full of California Churches participated in the "Gay Marriage Window" of those few months. I must say though that I am baffled by that. I'll have find someone who is on the other side of that story to hear why they accept it.

[BloodAndHonour]

I've recently proposed to my turtle Mr Happypants, you're all invited except Hot Shot, you aren't invited.

As for gay marriage I really don't give a fuck what they do there is no real bonus to marriage outside of religious beliefs anyway, if they wanna risk losing half their shit then good luck, its already packed.

[Jebus]

I think the biggest issue for me is the practicality of same sex intimate relations. Love originally developed (like most human traits) out of necessity as it was a great way to both force us to protect another life and create more. This "desire" to reproduce and protect those nearby was absolutely essential in the success of the human race. The only way I can imagine two people of the same sex being in a completely monogamous relationship is if we as a race have actually evolved to reduce the rapid rate of growth the human population has gone through. I am not gay myself but I have A LOT of homosexuality in my family. Not in my immediate family but outside that about 25% of my family is gay. This irritates me quite a bit because I would like to see to my family name continuing and at this rate it doesn't look good.

Anyway... The point I really want to push here is the evolutionary practicality of same sex relationships. Are we really evolving in a way that reduces the rate of our growth? Has our species as a whole begun to realize that our planet won't be able to sustain our rate of growth and subconsciously begin to adjust? That's a big pill to swallow but for me it's the only way I can rationalize it.

[FWI]

Originally Posted by Jebus

I think the biggest issue for me is the practicality of same sex intimate relations. Love originally developed (like most human traits) out of necessity as it was a great way to both force us to protect another life and create more. This "desire" to reproduce and protect those nearby was absolutely essential in the success of the human race. The only way I can imagine two people of the same sex being in a completely monogamous relationship is if we as a race have actually evolved to reduce the rapid rate of growth the human population has gone through. I am not gay myself but I have A LOT of homosexuality in my family. Not in my immediate family but outside that about 25% of my family is gay. This irritates me quite a bit because I would like to see to my family name continuing and at this rate it doesn't look good.

Anyway... The point I really want to push here is the evolutionary practicality of same sex relationships. Are we really evolving in a way that reduces the rate of our growth? Has our species as a whole begun to realize that our planet won't be able to sustain our rate of growth and subconsciously begin to adjust? That's a big pill to swallow but for me it's the only way I can rationalize it.

It's nearly impossible to trace, but going back through history there has been evidence of homosexual acts since we've recorded history. The more awareness and what seems like the more people who feel that specific way, in my own opinion, is based more along the lines of the slow but gradual march towards cultural acceptance. There used to be a time when "coming out" meant death. To put it short, cultural boundaries have allowed for the people who feel those feelings to be more open about them.

I'm not at all discrediting, or even disagreeing with what you said... just giving another layer.

[chiefwiggum654]

Originally Posted by Jebus

I think the biggest issue for me is the practicality of same sex intimate relations. Love originally developed (like most human traits) out of necessity as it was a great way to both force us to protect another life and create more. This "desire" to reproduce and protect those nearby was absolutely essential in the success of the human race. The only way I can imagine two people of the same sex being in a completely monogamous relationship is if we as a race have actually evolved to reduce the rapid rate of growth the human population has gone through. I am not gay myself but I have A LOT of homosexuality in my family. Not in my immediate family but outside that about 25% of my family is gay. This irritates me quite a bit because I would like to see to my family name continuing and at this rate it doesn't look good.

Anyway... The point I really want to push here is the evolutionary practicality of same sex relationships. Are we really evolving in a way that reduces the rate of our growth? Has our species as a whole begun to realize that our planet won't be able to sustain our rate of growth and subconsciously begin to adjust? That's a big pill to swallow but for me it's the only way I can rationalize it.

I don't really see what evolutionary practicality has to do with gay marriage.
Not to mention we're a bit past the point of needing every couple reproducing to sustain the population.
It sounds like you're undecided on gay marriage, but I can't really tell, so which are you?
If you're against it I'll have a few more things to say, lol.

[Jebus]

Originally Posted by chiefwiggum654

I don't really see what evolutionary practicality has to do with gay marriage.
Not to mention we're a bit past the point of needing every couple reproducing to sustain the population.
It sounds like you're undecided on gay marriage, but I can't really tell, so which are you?
If you're against it I'll have a few more things to say, lol.

My post wasn't about marriage at all. Seems that sexuality was designed with reproduction in mind which is why I'm confused with homosexuality in the first place.

I think instead of messing around with marriage and stuff people should try to look deeper into the issue. Should we be accepting of gay people? More and more people are claiming this can be based in genetics which would open the possibility of hereditary homosexuality. Most hereditary traits are formed out of necessity.

I honestly don't believe the issue of whether or not gay people can be married is worth discussing. The church is not the place for change and has a long history of rejecting changes like this which has caused it to lose viability as a method of spiritual enlightenment.

In short:
-I'm fine with homosexual couples being married legally.
-Leave religious beliefs alone. They will work themselves out or flop over.

I just wanted to add another point into the discussion. I know not every couple needs to reproduce. The reason I'm concerned is because with high calorie diets, ease of long distance travel, ridiculous dependence on technology and homosexual couples what would happen if something catastrophic happened and the human population was suddenly cut in half? We would probably lose another half just trying to recover. I'm not saying homosexuality is going to end the human race in the event of a huge disaster but I'm sure it won't help. I see no gain in choosing a mate of the same sex over an opposing gender.

I'm not sure I did a good job explaining that but hopefully you will do your best to understand the point(s) I'm trying to make.

[Katss]

There is a difference in my opinion between a legal marriage and a religious marriage before god..

Aside from that.. I have no problems with and support gay marriages.. a life partner is a life partner..

[vlcmskater]

Everyone is their own person with their own preferences and the ability to make their own choices based on those preferences.

I personally don't care if a man and a man wanna get married my only thing is that I don't sit in public and flaunt my girlfriend about kissing her and fondeling her everychance I get and I don't expect to see them do that either.

[chiefwiggum654]

Originally Posted by Jebus

I just wanted to add another point into the discussion. I know not every couple needs to reproduce. The reason I'm concerned is because with high calorie diets, ease of long distance travel, ridiculous dependence on technology and homosexual couples what would happen if something catastrophic happened and the human population was suddenly cut in half? We would probably lose another half just trying to recover. I'm not saying homosexuality is going to end the human race in the event of a huge disaster but I'm sure it won't help. I see no gain in choosing a mate of the same sex over an opposing gender.

Is this seriously worth discussing over the actual issue of gay marriage?

Originally Posted by vlcmskater

Everyone is their own person with their own preferences and the ability to make their own choices based on those preferences.

I personally don't care if a man and a man wanna get married my only thing is that I don't sit in public and flaunt my girlfriend about kissing her and fondeling her everychance I get and I don't expect to see them do that either.

I don't know that I've ever seen two gay people being overly affectionate in public, and I live less than an hour away from San Francisco.
I can guarantee, however, that I've seen many straight couples doing exactly that.

[Jibblet]

I would say yes to gay marriage, although it would kind of suck because it would add to the overflow of cases in divorce courts and such lol.

[chiefwiggum654]

Originally Posted by Jibblet

I would say yes to gay marriage, although it would kind of suck because it would add to the overflow of cases in divorce courts and such lol.

Eh, gay people make up 2-3% of the population, so it wouldn't do that much.

[Outlaw]

I have no objections to giving homosexual couples a civil marriage, a religious (Church) marriage on the other hand, boils down to whether the Church is willing to go ahead with it. Government should not intervene in the Church's decision and neither should the opposite happen.

[lord-underdog]

Originally Posted by Katss

There is a difference in my opinion between a legal marriage and a religious marriage before god..

Aside from that.. I have no problems with and support gay marriages.. a life partner is a life partner..

i knew there was a reason i liked you.

would you mind being my life partner?

[Jebus]

Originally Posted by chiefwiggum654

Is this seriously worth discussing over the actual issue of gay marriage?

No. It is however worth discussing. I could start an entire new thread for such a discussion but I don't really think that it's necessary.

I'm pretty sure there has been a general consensus on the legality of homosexual marriages.

[Katss]

Originally Posted by lord-underdog

i knew there was a reason i liked you.

would you mind being my life partner?

haha sorry I am taken..