# GAY MARRIAGE



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

LIVING HEREIN BAY AREA ITS A BIG ISSUE AND everyone here (gay couples) are trying to get married b4 a junction stops them what do u think? me mysef i dont care to each his own i dont see a big problem with it

p.s. dont forget our president said it should only be for a man and woman :rock:


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

As long as they're together and committed....they're not hitting on me!


----------



## Bigkrup444 (Oct 6, 2003)

It dont matter to me!! I fell the same way if 2 guys or girls wanna get married good luck. I could care less


----------



## Hypergenix (Dec 17, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> As long as they're together and committed....they're not hitting on me!


----------



## IDONTKARE47 (Jan 5, 2004)

i don't care, what they do it's their decision


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

thoroughbred said:


> p.s. dont forget our president said it should only be for a man and woman :rock:


 Lets not forget what CALIFORNIAN voters voted for 4 years ago. We voted that marriage shall ONLY take place between a MAN and a WOMAN.


----------



## RedRider748 (May 6, 2003)

its just wrong, man and women is the way it is and the way it will always will be. :smile:


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> thoroughbred said:
> 
> 
> > p.s. dont forget our president said it should only be for a man and woman :rock:
> ...


 Ya they seem to have alreay forgoten about that huh!


----------



## 14_blast (Oct 6, 2003)

I think it's wrong.....those pesky lesbians are taking away all the chicks!!!

I think gay guys are ok....the more gay guys out there, the more chicks for me.


----------



## rUBY84 (Jan 8, 2004)

I think its alright... theyre people too, they have rights. I really could care less if they want to get married. I dont think they should adopt kids, or be artificially insemenatied (sp?) because it would probably mess up the kids. "I have 2 daddy's!" Would they grow up and be straight - or learn to be gay?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Why shouldn't it be allowed?


----------



## RedRider748 (May 6, 2003)

Im not sure what everybody personally beliefs and personal faiths are, but it totally goes against what i believe in. Now im not some anti-**** person with a chip on my shoulder for gays, but changing laws and history to accomidate certain individuals sexual preferance is rediculous. just be gay and leave it at that.


----------



## marco (Jan 2, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> As long as they're together and committed....they're not hitting on me!


 hahahahahah


----------



## DuffmanRC (Oct 2, 2003)

IMO i think that gay people should go see a shrink, because i think that being gay is just a sickness because there is somthing wrong with a man when you dont find women attractive!


----------



## mantis (May 16, 2003)

I don't think they should be able to be legaly married. I think alot of them just want to push the agenda.


----------



## Hypergenix (Dec 17, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> thoroughbred said:
> 
> 
> > p.s. dont forget our president said it should only be for a man and woman :rock:
> ...


 The mayor of SF just doing this cause he just want voted for him if he run again for mayor that what i think...


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

DuffmanRC said:


> IMO i think that gay people should go see a shrink, because i think that being gay is just a sickness because there is somthing wrong with a man when you dont find women attractive!


 Wow How Intellectual.... I think all you who opose it are nuts. They are gay, so what! They aren't given the same rights as Other Humans? Yeah That Makes Sense..... Oh wait a sec, didn't our Grandfathers fight some guy who wanted to Tell other humans how to live their lives? They would be proud of us now! Booo....


----------



## Hypergenix (Dec 17, 2003)

first i was agianst gay peep but until one of my friend was bi my point of view change cause if hes happy w/ dating guy im happy for him but he cant sleep over here no more


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)

its wrong but atleast they cant breed and make more of em


----------



## Hypergenix (Dec 17, 2003)

in the bay area you alway going to see that or mostly work w/ one (if you noticed it or not).. just have to get used to them...
if they get marry they have less chance of hitting on you


----------



## KingJeff (Jul 22, 2003)

personally i dont care what they do just as long as they dont invite me for a 3some. Unless there 2 hot ******! jk


----------



## killarbee (Jan 23, 2004)

hey i'm dutch everything is possible here .. LMAO


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> Why shouldn't it be allowed?


 It is my PERSONAL opinion that marraige is a sacred and RELIGIOUS institution. Religion does not condone, advocate, or accept homosexuality so therefore I do not think it should be allowed (I know the Episcopalians are making strides). Do I hate gays or am a homophobe? Absolutely not. It is just my personal belief that marraige was made for a man and woman to come together as one, just as Eve was taken from the rib of the man, it is full circle for them to come back together again.

Now, as for legal unions or something like that. My arguments thus far have been for the institution of marraige, and everyone knows this argument boils down to a legal one concerning taxes, etc, etc. So in this respect, I am not opposed to same sex unions being recognized by the states, because I feel if some gay people want to live together and share things as a typical "married" couple would, they should be entitled to that, and all the state privledges that go with it.


----------



## HypergeniX_CiviC (Feb 2, 2004)

Hypergenix said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they're together and committed....they're not hitting on me!
> ...


----------



## RedRider748 (May 6, 2003)

garybusey said:


> DuffmanRC said:
> 
> 
> > IMO i think that gay people should go see a shrink, because i think that being gay is just a sickness because there is somthing wrong with a man when you dont find women attractive!
> ...


 The question was asked about an individuals PERSONAL OPINION on gay marriages. I dont understand why you are PERSONALLY attacking other peoples opinions ( i.e. "those people are nuts") . Not picking a fight here, i just dont like somebody considering me "nuts" because i think gay marriage is WRONG.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Why shouldn't it be allowed?
> ...


Personally I think that basing your beliefs on a religious book is wrong - well, not wrong, because it can be a source of spiritual help, personal guidance etc. (which is a good thing), but basing moral decisions (questions about right and wrong, for example) on it is a different matter, because it corrupts the original idea: for example, when the Koran was written, jihad meant no more than a peaceful attempt to convert non-believers to Islam: no one thought of mass murdering infidels, just because they followed a different belief - nowadays extremists do, and wage war and violate every civil rule possible in the name of their holy scripture...

I'm not comparing fundamentalism with personal beliefs or Christianity (although Christian fundamentalism is as bad as any other type), but merely trying to point out that IMO. the idea behind it is pretty much the same, ie. basing personal moral standpoints on religious beliefs, which are easily corrupted as soon as we interpret them personally.
We are free to think what we want, and there are better sources than religious books or commandments, like rational thought (a gift unique to humans - use it...)

I hope I did not insult anyone with these remarks - that's not my intention: just stating my own opinion.


----------



## Kory (Jun 5, 2003)

I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## BUBBA (Sep 4, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Why shouldn't it be allowed?
> ...


 I agree,


----------



## InIndiana (Nov 6, 2003)

im against it.. simple as that, conflict of morals...basically what xenon said

Adam and eve not adam and steve...


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

Hypergenix said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > thoroughbred said:
> ...


 Your very right about that Hyper.. Majority that wins it for the mayoral votes, is from the gay district of San Francisco. Why do you think that of all the district in SF, the Castro (gay) Dist lets folks buy/serve alcohol until 2-2:30 am in the morn, where everywhere else is 1-1:30am.


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

14_blast said:


> I think it's wrong.....those pesky lesbians are taking away all the chicks!!!
> 
> I think gay guys are ok....the more gay guys out there, the more chicks for me.


 HAHAHHAAHA!!!
































rUBY84 said:


> I think its alright... theyre people too, they have rights. I really could care less if they want to get married. I dont think they should adopt kids, or be artificially insemenatied (sp?) because it would probably mess up the kids. "I have 2 daddy's!" Would they grow up and be straight - or learn to be gay?


 I think that gay Marriage is OK.. but there should be restictions on adopting. It wouldnt be fair for a kid to grow up leaning that their parents are gay. It can cause alot of psychological problems growing up for the kid, being teased and picked on throughout their lifetime.


----------



## hungryboi (Jun 6, 2003)

Marriage was founded by Christianity, therefore the laws of marriage should be controlled that way. I can't stand it when gay people act physically in public....but then again I don't really preferre watching straight couples doing the same crap either. I don't think I have anything against homosexuals. But yea, keep marriage the way the inventors of it wanted it to be.


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

hungryboi said:


> keep marriage the way the inventors of it wanted it to be.


 Inventors??? I dont think there are rules, even inventors can create, when it comes to love... gay or straight. How about if inventors only spoke of who you can and cant be with??


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

the toffee makes good threads


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Perhaps its just me, but its been like everyone is "coming out of the closet" now-a-days---like its a new trend. I just dont get it. I dont see why they need to flaunt it as much as they do. I mean its not like I or any other heterosexual person goes around flaunting how straight they are.

I always thought that part of the reason why marriage is a legal thing is because the government is under the assumption that you as a heterosexual couple will procreate therefore putting more people into our country and keeping the cycle of life going. And by having more people being born, the gov't will have more people to tax and get money from.


----------



## Hypergenix (Dec 17, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Perhaps its just me, but its been like everyone is "coming out of the closet" now-a-days---like its a new trend. I just dont get it. I dont see why they need to flaunt it as much as they do. I mean its not like I or any other heterosexual person goes around flaunting how straight they are.
> 
> I always thought that part of the reason why marriage is a legal thing is because the government is under the assumption that you as a heterosexual couple will procreate therefore putting more people into our country and keeping the cycle of life going. And by having more people being born, the gov't will have more people to tax and get money from.


 seem like you getting hit on by lesbain too much huh?









When i used to live in the bay area, gay guys alway keep on hitting on me, that why they get into trouble alot


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

dont they have a right to be in a tax-paying relationship just the same as straight people?

are they "less" than regular people or something?

there is still a lot of hate going around, but it is on its way out.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> Personally I think that basing your beliefs on a religious book is wrong - well, not wrong, because it can be a source of spiritual help, personal guidance etc. (which is a good thing), but basing moral decisions (questions about right and wrong, for example) on it is a different matter, because it corrupts the original idea: for example, when the Koran was written, jihad meant no more than a peaceful attempt to convert non-believers to Islam: no one thought of mass murdering infidels, just because they followed a different belief - nowadays extremists do, and wage war and violate every civil rule possible in the name of their holy scripture...
> 
> I'm not comparing fundamentalism with personal beliefs or Christianity (although Christian fundamentalism is as bad as any other type), but merely trying to point out that IMO. the idea behind it is pretty much the same, ie. basing personal moral standpoints on religious beliefs, which are easily corrupted as soon as we interpret them personally.
> We are free to think what we want, and there are better sources than religious books or commandments, like rational thought (a gift unique to humans - use it...)
> ...


 Judazzz,

I respect your opinion on this and you do show some valid points using the Koran, etc. However I must say that I agree with the complete opposite of your statement. The ONLY thing to base your "morals" on is religion. It is very true that the true meaning of some of these doctrines have been twisted by evil people, yet in my mind, the basis for ALL morality is on religion, and in my circumstances, the Bible. And the Bible says its wrong:



> Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."


Now I am not a bible thumper by any means, and I definatly dont hold up the moral code I am now writing about....and again I state, I am not against homosexuals in the least bit, in fact I think they should have legal unions and benefit from tax breaks etc.

The question was stated as MARRAIGE....and to marraige I disagree.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Puma said:


> there is still a lot of hate going around, but it is on its way out.


 Please dont confuse morality with hate. Simply because I believe in the religious sanctity of marraige does not make me a hateful person.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Marriage is no longer a religious institution. I think gays should have the right to get married for more than just tax and health care benefits. They should have all the rights everyone else is afforded. I mean get real...do you think marriage has anything to do with religion? Please......if that were the case then then Elvis would not have the right to marry people, only people that go to church should be allowed to get married, there should be no premaritial sex allowed, and with the seperation of chirch and state there should be no tax benefit for married couples.
Who cares, let people live.


----------



## ChosenOne22 (Nov 23, 2003)

its ok if they get together, but then a marraige is defined as a man and a woman, if a man and a man or vice versa is together then technically its not a marriage...just give them a commitment ceremony kinda thing where they are committed to each other for life..but not marriage


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Wow...very interesting thread. I have been reading it for some time now and quite enjoy this type of debate.

The way I see it, there are two different foundations that you can stand on when it comes to this issue. The first is Biblical (and with me being a Pastor it is obvious where I stand on this one), and the second is Non-Biblical.

Biblically it is wrong to enter into a homosexual relationship, does this mean that you get a one way ticket to hell, NO it does not. It is considered a sin, just like lying, stealing, murder, gossip, or badmouthing Xenon







The Bible does not, and will not accept the union between a man and a man. I do not understand how someone can claim to be a "pastor" or religious leader, and say that the Bible is the foundation of their beliefs, and support this type of union. The verse/verses that support this stance are already listed by other members.

Non-Biblically speaking, I have a problem with it as well. Why do they need this? It seems like in todays society if one group of individuals are getting a perk, then everyone feels like they should be getting the same perk. I find that to be a crock of crap. I am married and have two children. I have all the perks that go along with being married. Look at our bodies with a man and a woman. They were made by God or by evoloution (depending on what you believe) to work together to come together and concieve a child. It is the natural order. How is that same thing supported in a homosexual relationship? Just because you found somewhere to stick it, does not make it a natural order. It is then, according to logic, an unnatural order.

Now you could make the same arguement about certain medical practices...lets say test tube babies. It is an unnatural order, but used none the less. Now lets say that Wendy and I cannot have children, should we go to court and say "We should not have to pay the $50,000 for test tube implantation becasue we have the RIGHT to have a baby like everybody else"? NO! That is stupid! It is our choice to have a child this way, so it is our responsibility to deal with the concequences of our choice to have a child this way. We need to be adults and pay up the $50,000.

Same thing goes for the Homosexual relationships. Can they be involved in an unnatural relationship...sure. But then stop whininig and complaining about not having the same "Rights" as everybody else that is in a heterosexual relationship. You made the choice to enter into the relationship (not to be gay, but enter in the relationship) so be adult enought to live with your choices and the ramifications of such.

Rights are defined as life, liberty, and the PERSUIT of happiness. Nobody is stopping them from persuing happiness. Nowhere does it say that they deserve or need any seperate rights. What will they want next? Affirmative Action? Tax Exempt status? Sex changes (for some) who feel that their right is denied because they are in the wrong "body" and they have a right to be who they are on the "inside"? Tax breaks because they cannot have children and it cost them money to adopt? Seperate governmental authorities that will represent them in all political needs? All of these things have been suggested!

The line needs to be drawn, and I do not think they need the same rights as married people...and it has nothing to do with what I believe in scripture.

Just my thoughts...

Jeffrey


----------



## jovons (Jul 28, 2003)

many people nowadays believe in evoluntion theory... i wonder why is that i did not see homosexuality in the animals...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Hey Jeff, 
I apreciate you oppinion, but dont agree with your argument. According to this logic 


> Look at our bodies with a man and a woman. They were made by God or by evoloution (depending on what you believe) to work together to come together and concieve a child. It is the natural order. How is that same thing supported in a homosexual relationship? Just because you found somewhere to stick it, does not make it a natural order. It is then, according to logic, an unnatural order.


Women that can not have children should not be married because it there is no reason to have sex if it is only for procreation.

I am not for special rights for anyone, just the right for gay couples to forum a union in the eyes of the state and their peers, and get the benefits of that union.


----------



## jovons (Jul 28, 2003)

PastorJeff said:


> Biblically it is wrong to enter into a homosexual relationship, does this mean that you get a one way ticket to hell, NO it does not.


 i have heard that they won't inherit the kingdom of heaven... i'll find out the verse for you...


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Hey Jeff,
> I apreciate you oppinion, but dont agree with your argument. According to this logic
> 
> 
> ...


 GG - That is not what I meant. I am not assigning value to an individual based on the ability to have or not have children. Nor am I basing the value of a homosexual individual on the same basis.

My point in that was that there is a natural order in how our bodies were made, not a value of importance based on the ability to concieve.

Hope that makes sense.

Jeffrey


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

grosse gurke said:


> I am not for special rights for anyone, just the right for gay couples to forum a union in the eyes of the state and their peers, and get the benefits of that union.


 exactly. A union, NOT marraige.









jovons - There is examples of homosexuality in nature. Look up the Bonobo Monkies....


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2004)

im against it because of my religious beliefs so i try not to watch the news when they talk about it. but my wife was watching it when i heard them talking about getting equal rights as far as being more eligible to recieve medi-cal and other government handouts. *it sounds like another way for more people to feed off of the people who are hard working tax paying citizens. *


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2004)

sorry to reply again but it cut off half of my first reply....

i love my country but the abuse that our government aid programs has to stop. if we didnt waste billions of dollars on people who truely dont need it our state wouldnt have this defficit. im not against helping people who need help. doesnt everyone know of at least 1 family or person who recieve welfare or some kind of aid that they really shouldnt be getting? i know i do.

sorry that was off the subject.

also. ive never felt threatend or angry at homosexuals untill just recently when my wife was telling me about her sisters-boyfriends-gay brother. he has had full blown aids for many years and has known about it. even though he knows he has AIDs he still has unprotected sex with a lot of other men due to the fact that he is a gay prostitute. now i know that you cant lump a group of people together and say they are all like this but what kind of twisted person gives a deadly decease to others with no remorse? oh yeah and for all the gays in SFO.....he lives in your town.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2004)

another quick thing.....anyone that says that my story of the gay man spreading aids doesnt concern us who arent gay.....your wrong.

what if a man who doesnt want anyone to know he is bi-sexual pays this guy to have sex and gets AIDS. then he goes out and has sex with women who dont know he is "bi" and having unprotected sex with men. then the problem spreads like wild fire. or maybe hes married and getting a little manly love on the side.....then his unsuspecting wife now has aids...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

The problem I see with what you are saying piranhadaddy is that you are attributing this to a "gay" man when in reality you are describing a f*cking jackass which has nothing to do with his sexuality. There have been hetro men that have done the exact same thing, knowingly spreading AIDS to women so I dont think this has anything to do with gay men or gay marriages, just a demented person that deserves to be shot in the head.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> The problem I see with what you are saying piranhadaddy is that you are attributing this to a "gay" man when in reality you are describing a f*cking jackass which has nothing to do with his sexuality. There have been hetro men that have done the exact same thing, knowingly spreading AIDS to women so I dont think this has anything to do with gay men or gay marriages, just a demented person that deserves to be shot in the head.


GG - Well said! This is now a criminal act, not to be attributed to homosesexual or heterosexual.

Jeffrey

{{Edit - GG...where does Wisconsin stand on this issue? I have heard rumblings that they (Wisconsin) are thinking of allowing the same thing. What have you heard? They more than likely will wait it out and see what comes of all this before making a move - Jeffrey))


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I really have a hard time buying this state doing anything to futher minority rights....although there is a large gay population I dont think they would be strong enough, at this time, to have any real pull. I do think the outcome will play a large part in the rest of the US and gay rights.


----------



## Kory (Jun 5, 2003)

jovons said:


> many people nowadays believe in evoluntion theory... i wonder why is that i did not see homosexuality in the animals...


 Actually there is a type of monkey that has sex with males.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Kory said:


> jovons said:
> 
> 
> > many people nowadays believe in evoluntion theory... i wonder why is that i did not see homosexuality in the animals...
> ...


 My dog will hump anything...he dont care :sad:


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2004)

piranhadaddy said:


> now i know that you cant lump a group of people together and say they are all like this but what kind of twisted person gives a deadly decease to others with no remorse?


 i hope that story didnt take take away anything from the thoughts i posted as well.....it was just a story i thought worth sharing.


----------



## micus (Jan 7, 2004)

whohhh gg u just saved me from writing a post i agree with your stance on this
totally...

ohh wait i just wrote a post meh,, wut ever!!!


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

> They were made by God or by evoloution (depending on what you believe) to work together to come together and concieve a child


or both if you wish.









who said you dont see homosexuality in other animals? not true.

take any primate out there....you find homosexuality in both genders, masturbation, polygamy, and even infanticide in some species.

and aids coming from sex with monkeys?? what a load of horse-sh*t, that shows a complete lack of scientific inquiry.

most scientists believe that the hiv virus is actually a derivative of the siv virus, common to some primates, many of which are eaten by native peoples.

there is no credible evidence that the aids virus is a product of some idiot having sex with a primate.....



> maybe hes married and getting a little manly love on the side.....then his unsuspecting wife now has aids...


what a great way to characterize gays - a bunch of animals going around having unprotected sex.

do straight people have a monopoly on safe-sex?

i have no religious beliefs, and furthermore i believe that there is nothing that has dragged-down humanity more than religious practice.

remember kids: atheism cures religious terrorism


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

> many people nowadays believe in evoluntion theory...


yeah, they do. since it is the unifying theory of biology with mounds of evidence to support it, it is impossible not to short of dogmatic-idiocy.

even the pope supports it.











> Adam and eve not adam and steve...


so, you want to take a literal interpretation of your bible huh?

perhaps you overlooked this verse relating to homosexuals - leviticus 20:13 
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

so, fellow christians who use "part" of your book instead of "all" of it - do we kill them or not? and HOW do we kill them?

remember these verses too - Dt 28:15


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

It is not up to us to kill anyone....


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

i am of the opinion that killing people is NEVER justified.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Puma said:


> i am of the opinion that killing people is NEVER justified.


 I am not viewing this as the literal act of murder, more like death of the soul...but thats just my interpretation....


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Puma said:


> so, you want to take a literal interpretation of your bible huh?
> 
> perhaps you overlooked this verse relating to homosexuals - leviticus 20:13
> If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> ...


 I understand what you are saying, but there is a problem with your exegesis of scripture. Your timeline interpretation is way off.

The old testament was used for direct instruction on the way that the people should live their lives. Given/written for the Isrealites (or the Jewish community). The leaders of this were called the Sanhedran (spelled phonetically) and they studied the Old Testament to the letter, especially the talmud.

Then Jesus came, died on the cross, rose again and asended into heaven. All of that and the years that followed are contained in the New Testament. They both are to work together. The Old Testament is prophecy of Christ, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy. (Side note for the movie "The Passion"...that is why the Sanhedran hates Jesus so much and have him killed. He was speaking what was considered heracy calling himself God - So they plotted to have him killed to shut him up)

THEN they would kill someone for being disrespectful towards their parents. You mouth off...you get stoned (with rocks being thrown at you...not pot







). If we still adhered to that today, there would be large piles of dead teenagers everywhere.

The Old Testament and the New Testament are to be used together and you have to look at "How was this scripture used then?" and "What does this mean for today?" I do take the scripture as a literal translation of what we are to do today. But you have to balance social norms of then against what does the entire Bible say about a given subject. THIS IS WHERE ALL THE INTERPRETATION PROBLEMS COME IN! That is why you have Baptist, Evangelical, Methodist, Catholic, and so on...they all differ on the interpretation of the scripture, not the scripture they use.

If you combine the Old and New Testament...then Xenon and his interpretation is exactly correct.

We are to love the sinner, but hate the sin....and that goes for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, liars, murderers, gossips and so on.

Hope that makes sense...

Jeffrey









P.S.

The Catholic church changed their stance on Evoloution many many years ago. Pope does not support it anymore to my knowldge (I could be wrong, and if I am, I stand corrected)


----------



## dracofish (Jul 13, 2003)

hungryboi said:


> Marriage was founded by Christianity, therefore the laws of marriage should be controlled that way. I can't stand it when gay people act physically in public....but then again I don't really preferre watching straight couples doing the same crap either. I don't think I have anything against homosexuals. But yea, keep marriage the way the inventors of it wanted it to be.


Hmmmm, marriage has been around a _lot_ longer than the Christians have. So, you think all the other ancient civilizations out there that predate Christianity didn't have legal contracts between two people, usually a man and a woman, binding them together as husband and wife? Get real...some people act like there was no world before the all-knowing Christians came and "dehethenized" it...









As for marriage being a union for procreation only...that's only a religious opinion. I believe that marriage should be a union of two like souls, not only to make babies. My b/f and I are going to get married someday, but we never want to have children...does that make us sinners in Christian eyes? Eh, whatever, me being a follower of the Old Religion already damns me in those eyes anyways, so like I care...:laugh:

As for homosexuality, I personally think it's a little messed up, but I would never turn my back on someone that has chosen that path. I myself have been a victim of losing friends and family because of the path I have chosen (my religious one), so I would never do that to someone else, even if it is a sexual prefrence. Because some people are that way, I believe that they deserve in every way to be able to enter into a marriage just like anyone else. And before anyone goes spouting off that it's a sacred union, it's not. Christians and other religions say it's a sacred union, but they didn't "invent" marriage to begin with. It's a LEGAL union in it's purest form. Perhaps that's why you can be legally married by a JP or even a Wiccan Priestess...that only exemplifies that it's not a sacred union left only to those who deserve it in other's eyes.

Oh, and for the whole thing about the Catholic Church accepting the theory of evolution and then denouncing it...I think they take lessons from some of the homosexual movie stars. I'm in! I'm out, no I'm in! Nope, I'm out! Make up your damn minds!!!!


----------



## 14_blast (Oct 6, 2003)

Man, ultra liberal demo's ie Barbara Boxer and Barney Franks are not supporting gay marriage.


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

> The old testament was used for direct instruction on the way that the people should live their lives


says who? that is YOUR interpretation of those events, and while many share your idea dont think that all christians do.

as an atheist, i have always thought it funny that christians lable certain pieces of scripture as a "bad translation" or "bad interpretation" , but then they turn around and say that "this" verse means "this" or "that verse means "that" .......



> The Old Testament is prophecy of Christ, and the New Testament is the fulfillment of the prophecy


once again, that is YOUR interpretation......and DEFINATELY not shared by millions of other people out there.....jews would be a good example.









also, for every so called "fullfilled" prophecy that christian historians like to "claim" has occured, there are many other biblical prophecies that can be seen to have NOT occured.



> you have to look at "How was this scripture used then?" and "What does this mean for today?"


that is one hell of a gray area, wouldnt you agree? :smile:

ask the christian sitting next to you sunday in church is HE agrees with your modern interpretations of what you should and should not do.



> That is why you have Baptist, Evangelical, Methodist, Catholic, and so on...they all differ on the interpretation of the scripture, not the scripture they use.


this is all for the CHRISTIAN faith, not any of the other million religions out there such as buddhism, hinduism, satanism, judaism, druids, wiccans, etc. etc. etc. - who do NOT use your bible.....at least as anything other than interesting reading material.

i choose atheism for many reasons, one of which is that i am sickened by the twisted and violent human-nature behind the bible.

for any "touching" verse of book of the bible there exists a good old fashioned genocide or ethnic cleansing demanded by god for "his" people.

the chrisitan god has the manners of a spoiled child IMO, and i dont condone the violence that this faith used to push its dogma into other cultures (go to china and talk to people about it, see what they say.)

just my $0.02, and i appreciate the comments from everyone.


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

evolution and biogenesis are two different things, though they are often lumped together by people who are ignorant of the theory and what it really says.

evolutions does NOT try to explain the origin of life....that is for your advanced physics department, not biology.

evolution explains how organisms change through time. the old "i dont believe man came from some stupid monkey" is ignorant. evolution uses evidence to show that they both shared a common anscestor.

there is no reason in the world that both religion and evolutionary theory cannot mix......it just depends upon how far you take it.

-sorry- back on topic.

i DO support homosexual marriage with every ounce of my being, and i always will.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Puma - You bring some great comments, and they are the same comments that I hear many times per week. There is one main difference. I never said that MY beliefs are the foundation for an atheist, Buddist, Muslum, or anyone else for that matter.

What I described above is not MY take on things...but rather what is foundationally understood by the general Christian community. Within my comments are not the end all answers to which you have raised questions. I was making a statement regarding the killing of someone back then, to what that means for us today (us being those that believe in scripture being the inerrant word of God)

Either way, this thread is about marriage in the homosexual community, not a debate about complete scriptural interpretation...so I do not want to hi-jack this thread.

You and I are going to view this very differently, as we are on the polar opposites of belief in God...and there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT...if you do want to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me and we can keep discussing it.

Either way, good thoughts...very educated...

Jeffrey


----------



## 14_blast (Oct 6, 2003)

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2004/02/19...y_Marriage.html


----------



## Puma (Jan 27, 2004)

yeah, i can see this getting hijacked easily enough....my bad. :sad:

i also hear your side of the story many times per week, i live in southern missorui if THAT tells you enough







........i dont exactly have the majority opinion 'round here.



> but rather what is foundationally understood by the general Christian community


i disagree with you on this still. IMO, there really is no such thing as the "general christian community" - views and interpretations are all over the place.

but hey, "we cool"









*end of hijacking, back to subject at hand. *


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Puma said:


> i also hear your side of the story many times per week, i live in southern missorui if THAT tells you enough
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah...that is true. You are quite smack dab in the middle of religious land! It must make for uncomfortable situations at times!

Understand...I know what I am trying to say with the term "General Christian Community", but you are 100% correct when you say that there are "views and interpretations are all over the place". You are not kidding!

Sometime you and I will have to chat about the differences and simularities of what we believe or don't. This type of conversation does not happen that often, and when it does it usually ends up in heated words. So this is a good thing!

Thanks for being open with your thoughts and opinions...

Jeffrey


----------

