dibattito Article: Against Gay Marriage? I Hear You. I Understand. But Here Is Where te Lose Me.

18

Against Gay Marriage? I Hear You. I Understand. But Here Is Where te Lose Me.

posted by Cinders

I respect most religious beliefs, mostly because I have a deep respect for the grounds they stand on. Those are very sacred grounds, with roots in history, culture, and philosophy. And these beautiful things are nothing to sneer at. People forget sometimes that this is where religion comes from, that we are religion as much as we are history.

I will always fight for a person's right to practice and believe in anything that feels right to them in their soul, so long as in practicing that religion, they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. In my time, both on fanpop and off of it, I have advocated for the rights of Christians, Muslims and Jews to practice without persecution from anyone else.

But while I will fight for your right to believe it, and I will try to understand it, that does not mean I have to agree with it. And often, I don't. For example, I don't agree with people who are against homosexuality, for any reason, even religious ones. I can understand and respect their reasoning for this position, but I can still think it's wrong from my own personal moral perspective.

That being said, disliking homosexuality, believing it to be a sin and preaching these beliefs, do not infringe on anyone else's rights to believe and act as they please. Christians who advocate against homosexuality and gay marriage are free to do so. If not for freedom of religion, then for freedom of speech. This should be and is protected da our Constitution.

But the important thing to remember is that while we are free to do just about everything in this country, we do not have the right, and therefore we do not have the freedom to infringe on other people's rights. Simply preaching against homosexuality does not do this, as people in the end are still allowed to make up their own mind about whether they agree o disagree and why. However, legislating against gay marriage, does.

If gay marriage were legal, it would not suddenly silence the people who believed it to be a sin, nor would it force those people to change their minds about it if they didn't want to do so. It would not threaten straight marriages, and it would not mandate 100% acceptance and Amore of homosexuality. I also don't believe it should make any church marry a gay couple, if such a religious ceremony would go against that church's values. Churches, after all, have the right to self-governance free of the mandate of the state. Isn't that what separation of Church and State was about in the first place? To protect the church from government meddling?

Gay marriage is no threat to the anti-gay philosophy. Odds are, it won't even directly affect the lives of most who are against homosexuality. They would have the right to preach and advocate for, as they see it, the salvation of souls, and that is their right.

However, da outlawing gay marriage, those against homosexuality are infringing on the beliefs of those who are not. After all, freedom of expression is a two way street, and they also have every right to preach and believe what they want. Just as heterosexual fiances have the right to a traditional wedding in the faith of their choice, people who don't believe homosexuality is wrong have that same right.

Basically, there are two philosophies in this country. One philosophy argues that homosexuality is wrong, and they have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. The other philosophy argues that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and they also have many different reasons and arguments for this claim. But both sides are equal in their passion and determination that they hold the correct philosophy. Each philosophy is, as far as I'm concerned, equal to each other. And each philosophy has the right to preach, advocate and practice as they see fit. For the secondo philosophy, that means being allowed to get married.

Look - I know those against homosexuality are dedicated to their beliefs, and I respect that. But no one is trying to take your beliefs away from you. But don't te see that you are trying to take their beliefs away from them?

We have all sorts of things that many consider morally reprehensible that are legal, among them, gambling, adultery, alcohol, and strip clubs. But they are legal because human beings have the freedom of choice. If these things are as wrong as homosexuality, then preach against them, da all means, try and help them, but don't legislate against their right to make those choices.

After all, if the only choice we have is to do good, what will doing good really mean? If someone forces te to make the "right" choice, did te even make a choice at all?

blackpanther666, NightFrog and 16 others like this

33 more comments

loading additional comments...

misanthrope86 "[i]Marriage was meant for man and woman. If it was also for gays, why didn't God make man and man or woman and woman instead of male and female?[/i]" - I have a very easy answer to that one, but you probably wouldn't like it... *cough* Love doesn't have anything to do with genitalia. If 2 men love each other, then they are a perfect fit. What they do with their junk is up to them. Marriage shouldn't be about who puts what sex organ where. Marrying someone should be about love. Two women who love and care for each other have more moral right to marry than a man who marries a woman and beats her. Yet legally, and in within religious context, that abusive man has more legal rights than a lesbian. I'm torn between ignoring the bible passages because I think they are abhorant, or ranting about them because this is the Debate spot... I guess I'll just say that the interpretation that these passages declare that homosexuality is wrong is a literal interpretation, but the fact that, and I am making an assumption here, you don't actually go out and murder gay people means that you have made a metaphorical interpretation about what the bible means when it says "they shall surely be put to death." How does one decide which parts of the sentence to take literally and which ones to transform into modern metaphor?

Tyler47 [i]"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" Lev. 20:13[/i] Then what the hell are you doing on the internet? Shouldn't you be out hunting down and murdering gay couples?

chocolate18 Did I ever say I was the one to kill them? No. Do I have the right to murder them? No. I am only human and I do not approve death penalty nor murder because everyone deserves a second chance and i believe only God can judge people according to their deeds.

misanthrope86 But that was exactly my point. You have interpreted the bible as being opposed to homosexuality, using those biblical passages as evidence. But you choose to interpret the part that says "Go kill all the gays/atheists/drunks/adulterers etc" as more metaphorical, like shunning people, disapproving of people or denying them their rights. Why is it that you hold the belief that God is very specific about disapproving of homosexuality, yet you you don't think he is literally telling you to kill homosexuals? The phrase "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female" is quite vague, but the phrase "they shall surely be put to death" is a little more specific (granted, not much more...)

bri-marie See, I've never understood using the bible as an excuse to ban Gay Marriage. Mostly because the bible isn't followed correctly at all. People pick and chose what's evil and what's not -- regardless of what the bible actually says. How (and why) can we use it to decide what people are allowed to do and not allowed to do?

chocolate18 Did it ever say: "You must kill all homosexuals"? No. Maybe some of you did not see where Cinders and I started this conversation. It was also related to the Bible. I know not all of you are Christians, but if you are, don't tell me about that because i didn't write the Bible. And this is getting nowhere. What's so wrong about crying out an opinion?

misanthrope86 "[i]If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death...[/i]" - As I have already explained, this is a passage from the bible that you provided in your arguments. This says that MEN (capitalised for the LOLz) who have committed homosexual acts should be put to death. Whether you talked about this with Cinders or not isn't relevant. I was trying to understand your views. I wanted to know why you believe that the bible specifically and literally disapproves of homosexuality, yet you don't believe that the instruction to kill is literal. If your opinion is that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so, then thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. But if you express that opinion in this spot, you are going to be questioned about it. Answering questions about your opinion is an opportunity to develop that opinion.

chocolate18 Here is why the Bible disapproves homosexuality. You don't have to mind if you are non-Christian but since you asked why i believe that the bible specifically disapproves homosexuality and does not give instruction to kill is literal. The following is from the Church Documents in a nearby Church: C.C.C, Part 3, Section 2 2332 Sexuality affects all aspects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. 2357 Homosexuality refers to revolutions between men and women who experience an exclusive sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They close the sexual act to the gift of life and do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementary. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deepseated homosexual tendencies is not negligable. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. And....." Thou shalt not kill".

misanthrope86 There is still no explanation of why "God" would [i]literally[/i] say that homosexuality is a sin and then [i]metaphorically[/i] instruct you to kill homosexuals. Those statements that you have provided are further religious justifications for being opposed to homosexuality. If anyone chooses to believe that those justifications are righteous, then I guess that is their problem, but I want to know how people reconcile the literal and the metaphorical ideas in the bible. How do you know that "God" isn't metaphorically talking about homosexuality but literally wants you to kill homosexuals? It seems to me that rather than acknowledging that the bible is, in this instance, morally illogical, religious scholars and leaders have dedicated their time to justifying why "God" literally believes that homosexuality is wrong while dismissing the 'kill-the-gays' part as figurative. Even though the bible tells you not to kill (ie "Thou shalt not kill'), it also tells you that you [u]should[/u] kill people, as evidenced by the particular passages that we have been talking about here. The bible also tells its readers to kill non-christians and Atheists: "[i]Deuteronomy 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.[/i]" Throughout history, people believed that the bible was telling them to kill non-believers, so they killed them. Socrates was executed under the charge of being an Atheist. And up until the early 19th century, Atheists in Europe were executed (and after that, they were just jailed, the lucky bastards). Christians burned and drowned alleged witches. These murders occured because people believed that they were doing what their religions required of them. Yet, somewhere around the 19th century, someone decided that the bible didn't need to be interpreted literally. So they stopped killing people, but stuck with the discrimination. Why have christian religions rejected "God's" specific command to kill gays/atheists etc, but continue to cling to the believe that "God" literally dislikes homosexuality? "God" is very, very clear about killing homosexuals and non-believers, but is pretty unclear about what s/he thinks constitutes homosexuality. Surely, if people have mistakenly believed that "God" wants them to kill people, then is it not possible that people have also mistakenly believed that "God" disapproves of homosexuality?

Tyler47 ^ You said everything I was going to say.

bri-marie The bible also specifically states not to eat shellfish, [i]"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)[/i] but I have yet to see Christians protesting outside sea-food restaurants. Nor do they protest outside tattoo parlors, despite the fact that, again, very, very clearly, the bible says: [i]You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.[/i] And there is no "misinterpreting" what that's saying. The bible also says to stone (to death) anyone who curses their mother and father: [i]"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."[/i] But [i]that[/i] isn't followed either. The bible can be interpreted as being supportive of cannibalism: [i]"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."[/i] {Which, is actually a pretty big contradiction to what Leviticus says we can eat.) Human beings move. But, somehow, [i]that[/i] interpretation is deemed as wrong. I don't understand, as misanthrope has been saying time and time again, how the killing parts is interpreted as metaphorical, but the "homosexuals are bad" part [i]of the same passage[/i] is interpreted as literal. I also don't understand why some parts of the bible [i]that are very clearly said to be bad and we are very plainly told not to do them[/i] are just thrown away and never practiced. Why is it okay to eat shellfish, cut our hair, and wear clothes made from two materials, but it's not okay for a man to marry another man (or a women to marry another women, ectect), [i]when all are[/i](supposedly -- only the first three are very clear about what it what)[i]said to be abominations and that we shouldn't do them[/i]?

chocolate18 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" - It didn't say that "we shall be the one to punish them". If it was an instruction, it should have said" you shall put them to death". He'll be the one to take control of it. Also, i am aware that not all people are Christians. If their religion says it's okay then that's their decision, if they want to be homosexual or not but it is already clear that Christianity does not approve homosexuality even if others do. Just to let others know, I won't mind other comments . It's a waste of time. It also says that we must also treat them with respect, for they are human beings as well not because homosexuality is approved, but because they are called to chastity.

ThePrincesTale ^If you're ok with the idea that some people aren't Christian, like you say, and that it's their decision, like you say, than it logically follows that you're ok with the idea of gay marriage. It doesn't impact you or your faith. YOU don't have to get married to the same sex. But it'll doubtless bring happiness and rights to others, without taking any from you, so why not just legalise it? That's what I don't understand.

misanthrope86 So... God will kill homosexuals again after they die? Or he will kill homosexuals while they are on earth...? Because I'm pretty sure he hasn't slaughtered all the gay people... I will say that is probably the best argument for that passage that I have encountered. Not the killing gay people part, but the idea that the bible isn't necessarily telling people what to [i]do[/i], but rather guiding how they think about things. And its a clever trick, because it has worked. And the fact remains that religious people used those passages in the bible to justify killing people, and now they use those passages to justify discrimination. The idea that loving someone of the same sex is something that needs to be punished, in this life or any other, is an idea that damages relationships between people. I think as well-meaning as some religious people are, they do not understand the pain they cause people when they say things about homosexuality being wrong. I guess the flip-side of that is that people like myself will never understand how it feels to be opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons. But that brings us back to the point of the article here. Your personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, cannot dictate other people's choices, and they certainly shouldn't dictate what rights they have. If, as you say, that your religion teaches you to respect people, why does that respect not extend to granting them the same rights as you have?

chocolate18 My religion teaches to respect but not to approve. This debate started about how we feel about gay marriage. That is how I feel about gay marriage. I can't change you feelings, you have your own brain and it is so darn obvious that no matter how much time we spend debating to one another that has been active for months now that our points of view isn't changing one bit about homosexuality since the usual debates last for less than a week. You don't have to ask why I'm against gay marriage. It's already said that Christianity does not approve homosexuality even if some Christians are gay like my classmate. It's not that i don't understand how it feels but people have their decisions. I never said i'll go kill all the gays i find, i just pasted the Bible passage to give proof that the Bible does not approve it.

ducky8abug4u @Chocolate18, Listen to your heart rather than the translations of an ancient manuscript. God lives in your heart. God's presence resides in a field where everyone is accepted, welcomed and loved. If you must follow the teachings of your faith, as you believe it to be, for your sake, follow a path that opens your mind and heart to everyone. We are all God's children.

ThePrincesTale ^Wow...that was amazing. Hear hear. *applauds*

misanthrope86 I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you about the differences between respect and approval. In order to respect homosexuals, it seems like you would need to approve of them having the same rights as you. But you don't have to approve homosexuality, yet you can respect homosexual rights. But by opposing gay marriage, you support the [b][i]dis[/b]respect[/i] of homosexuals. And that, again, is the point of this article: you can be opposed all you want, but your opposition cannot dictate everyone else's lives. LOL. I don't anyone here thought you actually killing gay people. But this is the debate spot, so we were debating those bible passages. And if you are using the bible as evidence, then we all need to gain an understanding of your interpretations of those passages. I like ducky8abug4u's comment too. Its a metaphor I can get behind.

chocolate18 The number of men and women who have deepseated homosexual tendencies is not negligable. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

misanthrope86 Well... ok... So you do think gays should be allowed to marry? Because you respect them...? Even though you call them "disordered"?

chocolate18 No, i do not approve gay marriage. And that was from the Church document CCC Section 2. I won't answer other comments unless they gets a little out of hand.

ThePrincesTale Their "condition"? ... I wasn't aware that sexuality was a 'condition'.

ThePrincesTale *sigh* I get that your religion disapproves of homosexuality, and for that reason you disapprove of it too, but that doesn't mean you have to disapprove of gay marriage! This is about rights and justice, and those should not be influenced by faith. Homosexual people getting married does not impact your life in any way, nor does it inhibit you from practising your faith. In short, legalising gay marriage would not affect your rights, but illegalising gay marriage WOULD affect another's right.

scarzzz Chocolate18, you got a long way to go kid. Long way.

blackpanther666 This article is really good! Another awesome Cinders article!!! XD @chocolate18. You say that, yet is not up to your religion to dictate whether a gay couple can marry, or not. As much as I respect religion, this matter is for the law to decide, not God... The law appeals to everyone, no matter what gender, race, age or sexual orientation they are... God is a belief by Christians and has a large following, but Christianity also cannot make lawful decisions, because that is up to the judicial system and government. Religion and the State, Law and Judicial System just do not mix.

11

Atheist nightmare

added by Sappp

video

atheism

creationism

god

religion

banana

8

American Soldiers having fun Killing Civilians in Iraq

added by DrDevience

Just fucking watch it.

video

politics

george w cespuglio, bush

war

facts

iraq

civilians

soldiers

murder

7

Yes Obama!

added by MajorDork74

Source: CafèPress.com

10

ah the liberal

added by lunchboxdude

Source: rightwingstuff.com

12

Will Rogers

added by MajorDork74

Source: RightWingStuff.com

7

Self-explanatory

added by MajorDork74

Source: RightWingStuff.com

9

Self-explanatory

added by MajorDork74

Source: RightWingStuff.com

2

BNN Donor mostra

added by Sappp

The final part of the BNN Donor Show.

video

politics

bnn

donor mostra

hoax

1

Closed Campus for highschools/ parents rights

posted by tammystramp

My Son attends a public school of approx. 60 highschool students, he will be 17 in August, He is a mature responsable young man, he has good grades and an after school job. the administrator is dead set against allowing any student to leave at the non class period lunch hr. even with a note from parent. Does the adm. have più authority than parents. The lunch hr. is not considered a class period. Most students want to walk to the store thats on the same side of the strada, via as the school and about 2 blcks away. The school lunch is not muc to be desired.

14

Cops Yells at Skateboarding Kid

added by maybeastarbucks

Was the kid being disrespectful o was the cop overreacting?

video

controversy

controversial

cop

dude

skateboard

8

rustler advert

added by amazondebs

do te think this advert is very clever? sexist? funny? degrading?

video

controversial

advert

sexism

16

Abortion dibattito

added by blisslikethis

Source: epologetics.com

18

My rights as a parent vs. school.

posted by swedezilla

I have a beautiful, intelligent, wellbehaved 13 anno old daughter. She's never been in trouble in school. Her teachers Amore her. Her only "problem" is that she has her own style, and have had it ever since she was a toddler. She never liked the color rosa o played with dolls. She Amore punkmusic and rock. She paint, read and play guitar. She wants to be a child psychologist when she grow up. She Amore school.
Now to the problem. My daughter came home from school the other week and told me she got detention. She has to stay in detention for 2 weeks during lunchbreak. Why? Because she have blue...