Hurray for San Francisco!

[shbaz]

Vel, just a clarification, since marriage is tied in with taxes and such it is state controlled. You must get a license at a courthouse in America to be married. Legally, you don't need a church or priest. Only a judge. My father's second marriage was by a judge in my Aunt's country home.

If anyone cares, last semester I changed my mind on my final paper and wrote a pro-gay marriage essay when I found that I was the only one who had chosen a different topic, and everyone else was writing an anti-gay marriage paper. I think it fairly well describes why eventually it will become legal and the arguments against it are fallible. Click here.

I think the funniest thing that was said to me during peer reviews was a comment on how "controversial" my title was. I read that person's essay, and it repeatidly stated how gay people need to repent and change their ways or they will face the same eternal damnation as murderers and other sinners. How quaint.

[Meowster]

Page not found

One of the arguments against Gay Marriage is that, once you let gay people marry, next it'll be pilligamy (sp) and suchlike, and society will break down. Sounds stupid to me, I'd like to know what you all think.

Also, a gem of stupidity from my teacher: "I mean, once they start letting gay people marry, what next? Bisexuals?"

I was so confused by that sentence I actually stared at him for like 30 seconds without blinking, trying to figure out if he was joking or not.

[Peter Thomas]

Okay, somebody has probably already commented on this, but I can't be bothered sifting through four pages of responses for it, so if I repeat, forgive me.

Btw, this is not a flame, but I am a very PASSIONATE christian, and I feel the need to clarify a few 'quotes' that have been 'quoted' from the Ags 'quotable' bible.

Firstly, LIVING FOR THE SIGN OF THE TIMES??? EXCUSE ME??!! (sorry - that probably sounded really amart-ass of me, but I am in a state of disbelief here) AHEM!! To quote Romans Chapter 13:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

If you want to interpret this as living for the times, then fine, but consider this:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."

How the hell do you just overlook a passage like THAT, and yet still claim to use the bible as a sort of 'foundation' for your argument?? The bible tells us to obey the laws, not to change them, or force them. And in case you're thinking "oh well that's all fine and dandy, they didn't have any problems back then," you're wrong. This was written under the rule of the infamouse Nero, who was NOT a very nice man...

Yes, it is true that God DOES love all men. He loves the fornicator, adulterer, idolater, and the homosexual. However, these people cannot practice these sins and inherit the kingdom of God, according to the scriptures. Hear God: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals...shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians. I believe it's somewhere in chapter six) Some major denominations have now accepted practicing homosexuals in their pulpits. The major argumentation to promote such acceptance is that "we must be tolerant" and "we cannot say homosexuality is a sin." Well, I'd say this bible passage is a pretty CLEAR argument otherwise.

Fornicators, adulterers, idolaters and homosexuals can obtain forgiveness (I Cor. 6: 11). However, they must cease their practices.

Okay, I'm done for now, but I have more ammunition if anyone wants to read another of my infamous
thousand-paragrapg-long-post  

EDIT: This does not mean that I'm homophobic. On the contrary: I have a number of homosexual friends, but they all know my stance, and if they can accept me, then I will accept them (within prayer, of course )

EDIT EDIT: Don't take this as Bible-bashing, either. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This post was written PURELY as rebuttal for the original thread that seemed to imply that the bible TOLD US to accept gay-ness

[shbaz]

Yuf, try again, it's there and I don't know why you wouldn't be able to get it.

Peter, there are many contradictions in the Bible. It's easy to take quotes out of context or to find something really broad that might fit a lot of things already denounced. I agree with you, I think it's denounced more than it is ever tolerated in the Bible. But man, if you don't want to "sift through" the responces and you post that much stuff, it's like walking into a room and getting a vague idea of what people are talking about and then going into a five minute rhetoric. If you don't care what other people think enough to read their replies, they're going to take you a lot less seriously as well.

[DGMacphee]

I knew it wouldn't be long till someone quoted the bible (and I just wanted an excuse to use this), but:

[Peter Thomas]

Shabz; I HAVE read all the posts now, and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I didn't just skip to page four, mind. I just kind of skipped over all the posts people (like DG ) made. If you're wondering why, just check the post above.  

Contradicitons in the bible?? no. People CREAT and SEE contradictions in the bible, but they are not there. Believe me, I used to think the absolute same thing. I had 1000's of contradictions that I'd found, but when I got to the nitty-gritty, I saw that nothing had changed. The main thing people try to pose as contradiction is merely CHANGE. They say the old testament says one thing, and the new testament says another... well DUH!! The saviour of the world wasn't IN the old testament, so SOMETHING'S gotta change in between times!!!!

And I'm not being some ignorant snot-face, here. I went through a whole year of a 'gay-phase' (I can't believe I actually just typed that! ), and I AGREE that gay people don't CHOOSE to be gay. I would NEVER have chosen to be gay, given my religious background and my strict parents.

BUT, as I posted before, I gave in to the temptation without really knowing it, and it took a HELL OF A LOT OF GUTS to get out of it. And no, I wasn't brainwashed. My parents didn't know, the church pastor didn't know, in fact, NO ONE knew. NOT A SINGLE SOUL! so there was no external influence. It was something I took upon myself, and I'm truly greatful for it. That's why I stick with my gay friends today - I know what they're going through (only to an extent, of course), and I know they need all the 'suport' they can get. If I was to turn away now, it would be a bad rap against Christians everywhere...

[Timosity]

I think that sometimes people take the bible too seriously, it's just a bunch of stories written long ago, translated into many languages (which is a real problem as contexts of things are now just way out), if some of it helps you then that's great, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Imagine if a book by some famous people now was written, then in thousands of years it becomes folk law and some people took it too seriously. Could it become like the Bible? we might think it sounds stupid now. but that's exactly what we've done.

I would bet any money that Jesus was not really that well known (except in his local area) until after he died, and the legend grew from there. Just like artists in the past. The present ones won't be as famous until enough time passes before they stand out.


As for Marriage in any form (between humans) when it comes down to it, nothing physically changes between each party involved, it is all psychological, it may be proven in writing so it's all legal in the eyes of some beaurocrat, but it's all just a ceremony to celebrate 2 people that like each other a bit more than they like some others.

But who's to say that a person licensed to marry people wasn't crossing their fingers behind there back for the point that they are tricking everyone they are marrying in to beleiving it's real. There are pleanty of weirdo's out there so I'd say this type of shit goes on.

These people would have no idea and think their marriage was real, even if it wasn't legit. This is where it wouldn't matter anyway cause the papers are signed, and psychologically they would think they are married, so you can see the point of it being all psychological in the first place.

So it just seems silly that these laws still apply, but is there any way these people can get married in a place where it is legal, and then live in SF anyway?

I'd say just have an informal ceremony anyway, at least in your own mind you are married (which is the same as any other marriage) the difference being the legal things that come with it which to some people may not be important anyway.

It will happen eventually, when these radical christians finally realise that they are contradicting themselves by closing their minds off to other possibilities which is actually going against their religion. I bet you could also find something in the bible that says things are not set in stone. man, in that book you could rationalise anything to yourself, That's why a lot of people find comfort in it.

note: these are just my opinions

[Peter Thomas]

the bible is folk lore??

I respect your opinions, Timosity, however I vehemently disagree. I DO agree that wacko's exist who create cults based on nothing, and I cannot give a 100% PROOF that Christianity is not one of these, however I can give a STACKLOAD of 98% proofs if anyone cares to read them (?)

But then again, no one can prove 100% that ANYTHING religious or scientific exists. Hell, we all believe in the atom, but even THAT is still undergoing modification. It's all about faith.

And, I suppose, I have a lot of it.  8)

EDIT: I forgot to deal with part of your post, Tim. You said that maybe Jesus wasn't famous?? How 'bout the Mount of Beattitudes?? That has 'star struck' written all over it. Look into it if you don't know what I mean.

[DGMacphee]

Imagine if a book by some famous people now was written, then in thousands of years it becomes folk law and some people took it too seriously.

That could never happen!

[Peter Thomas]

That is quite possibly THE funniest photo sequence I have ever seen  

[DGMacphee]

And you wanted to skip my posts!

Who's laughing now, eh? ME!! THAT'S WHO!! HAHAHAHA!!

[Peter Thomas]

ME?? Skip YOUR posts?? NEVER!!! Whatever I said before was a typo....

[Sylpher]

I don't know if I have the smarts to try and tackle a subject that has been debated as heavily as this one but I would like to throw in some thoughts..

First of all the bible contradicts itself. I don't have time at the moment to argue this point and I don't even know if I would want to if I did but it does. If you take the bible on a completely literal level (Which I personally think is BS because if you are supposed to take the bible 100% literally then god and jesus sure had a thing for farm animals (what with calling all his peeps sheep and lambs))

However if you are to take the Bible 100% literal, as I have been told you are supposed to by varrying reliogus.. folks. Then if the Bible in one section says 'Thou shalt not kill' and in another says 'Hey it is cool to kill' Then no matter what the nitty girtty.. no matter what the context.. the simple logic is contradicting. Now the only way out of that is to forfiet to the fact you are not supposed to take the Bible 100% literally because if you were supposed to that would just be scary.

Which on second thought I am going to leave it at that thought because this is a topic on homosexuality and not Bible contradictions. So lets not get off topic.

Now, to get it out in the blue.. I do not agree with homosexuality. Besides for religous reason (Which I will admit do play a part) I disagree for other psycological reasons which I am willing to discuss at a later time because I don't think it is appropriate here.

However.. To say that two people can't do something I disagree with without any solid evidence of it being any way wrong other then my personal views is not only wrong in itself. It is the same mentality (As someone pointed out all ready) that causes racism and other such nonsense. Which as well isn't only wrong it is flat out dangerous. History can prove that without any aid from my small little opinion.

My only concern is one I never considered before in the past but was brought up I think by Mills. Adoption. For me that is very difficult to break down because alot of peoples arguments in this very thread as well through-out the world is..

'It doesn't directly effect me what 2 consenting adults are doing so I don't really care/good for them/woohoo for cheeries.'

However, we are bringing a child into the equation. A child has no say at all if they would like to be raised in a homosexual home. 'What is the difference if the parents are the same sex as long as they love them right? ... Or, Hey sylpher that is the same as saying a white baby diesn't have a truely have a choice being raised in a ___(Insert non-white culture of your choosing)____ home?' Which I agree is a good point.

However I believe and know for a fact on a psycological level women/mothers connect on a level with a female baby/child different then a male can as well vice versa and crossed both paths.

'But Sylpher, what about single parents.. Mom runs off in the night and dad is forced to raise 2 daughters' I agree.. That sucks. Though in that case it is forced because mommy ran off with the mail man or perhaps passed away very young. Not because of anyones sexual preference.

So what do you do? Force homosexual couples to only adopt same sex babies? No.. that doesn't seem right. Not allow them to adopt at all? No.. not right either. Just let em do whatever who cares! Wee.

I don't know. The adoption subject is one I think I personally am gonna have to think about some more because I am a firm believer that a child needs a female and a male role model in child development.

I don't know.. again these are just my thoughts on the matter.

[Timosity]

Yeah Peter, faith is the only thing that I agree upon cause that's what belief is all about.

I just have a hard time trusting in something written by people that I don't know, how do you know what was going through their minds, how do you know they were not trying to con people, how do you know that the English translation actually makes sense (once translated the contexts can't be derived from the english)

whoever wrote some of the quotes you mentioned about homosexuality being a sin, how do you know that person wasn't a homophobe, or maybe that person didn't know about the physical facts behind it (we still don't know now, but there is enough eveidence in this day and age that it isn't just a choice of lifestyle)

So I don't think a couple of books written long ago can stand up today, sure a lot of it can be used for good, but I'm sure if those people were around today, some of their opinions would be different.


There's just some things to think about, And I'm not trying to bash christianity, I just don't think the bible was intended to be used the way that it is.

You said that maybe Jesus wasn't famous?? How 'bout the Mount of Beattitudes?? That has 'star struck' written all over it. Look into it if you don't know what I mean.

I know what you're saying, but what I mean is people all around the globe had no idea about it back then, what about people in Asia, The America's, Africa, Australia, and pleanty of other places. The idea of the Earth being a globe didn't exist, a lot of things weren't taken into account. It was just events that happened in a small part of the world, and has now been spread quite far.

anyway, I don't want a religious debate cause there are no winners, and they can go for longer than time itself. Everyone has their own ideas, & IMO everyone is right in what they decide cause in your own world, it's about what matters to you.


And DG, as much as it is a joke, that is exactly the type of thing that seems funny now, but in 2000 years after a certain part of the population are killed, and others that survive find these things in archives, they might start to believe these as facts from the past. And one thing for sure is the fact that the humor will be hard to understand over time, which is something we probably forget to look for in the bible.

I agree with Sylpher about it being best for a baby to have Male and Female role models as parents, (note the word best) but it isn't always possible, and I don't have a problem with any combination of parents, as long as they are treated well & have role models to cover where they lack.

of course parents can be bad people, but I think a balance of Male and Female helps, that can also be an Aunty or Uncle, Grandparent, Friend that helps fill these roles

[Meowster]

Should women work and be independent, when it so clearly goes against the grain of the bible? Hmm? There is a lot of stuff the bible says that Christians 'overlook' because it is convenient. What about that one bible story, where the man goes to rape another man, and the owner of the house gives them his daughter and slave-woman in place of this man he barely knows. Nice story, that one. Oh, then he kills them for being impure.

If you're going to insist that being gay is against the bible, and that's the reason you would not allow marriages, perhaps you'd better disallow a lot of the stuff that happens in the modern world.

[DGMacphee]

And DG, as much as it is a joke, that is exactly the type of thing that seems funny now, but in 2000 years after a certain part of the population are killed, and others that survive find these things in archives, they might start to believe these as facts from the past. And one thing for sure is the fact that the humor will be hard to understand over time, which is something we probably forget to look for in the bible.

Hmmmm...




BEHOLD! YOUR NEW SAVIOUR!

[Nacho]

The 4 books which compose the new testament were choosen in a funny way: It was said that Constantin in his council told God "God, make us a signal to differenciate the good books than the apocriphs" and a white dove came from the sky and sellected John´s, Mark´s, Lucas´ and Mathew´s books.

Cool, but new documents reveal the thruth. It was very plausible that a group of experts sellected the most appealing books of all which related Christ´s life and put them up in a table in the place where the council was being cellebrated, while the apocriphs were lyng in the floor. Then, Constantin entered in the room and told "Good, if we have choosed badly, made us a signal!" (Of course,God did nothing, and Constantin sellected the most appealing books for the romans).

The new testament are a big lie. Christianism have been avoinded pages and pages of important information, like the one talking of the live or Mary, the brothers of Jesus, the marriage between Jesus and Mary of Magdala... It is specially shocking to see that the anciant good Mitra was born by inmaculate conception in a cave, died crossified and returned 3 days after, like Isis. Most of the "magical" or "supernatural" facts were by Jeusus are a compendium of ancient tales...

So... how can you still believe in Bible like a history book, or a guide??? The original documents of the biblical era paint Jesus as a normal man, married, with Brothers, a revolutionary leader, enormously charismatic and seen as a danger by Rome.... but the supernatural thingie was all invented half century after his dead.

Take the bible as a guide... It is cool, I still feel amazed when I read it and realise that Saint Paul invented such an appealing history, full of good feelings and a nice philosofy... But don´t take it as a book of history or laws...

Bible still consider mastubation a mortal sin, and we´re still here ( )

So... IMO, if you´ve something to complain about wedding between people with the same sex, thing and argue, but don´t use an old fashioned 2,000 years old book, we just can´t argument against that...  

[Las Naranjas]

There was apparently some 50 gospels floating around in the 2nd century, including those purported to be written by Mary Magedelene and Judas.

Whilst there's other evidence that suggests that there was a split in the early church between Paul's followers and the disciples/christ's family [including Jacob and James, who mysteriously dissapeared from the catholic endorsed bible in the 1500's]/magdelene it would be interesting to see whether the stories in Paul's gospels, where the apostles are shown as total idiots, Magedelene as a prostitute and Judas a traitor, are political jabs against rival leaders of the emerging church who, unlike Paul, had the advantage of knowing Christ during the time of his teachings.

[Nacho]

The scrolls of the Dead Sea?

[Miez]

There was apparently some 50 gospels floating around in the 2nd century, including those purported to be written by Mary Magedelene and Judas.

Whilst there's other evidence that suggests that there was a split in the early church between Paul's followers and the disciples/christ's family [including Jacob and James, who mysteriously dissapeared from the catholic endorsed bible in the 1500's]/magdelene it would be interesting to see whether the stories in Paul's gospels, where the apostles are shown as total idiots, Magedelene as a prostitute and Judas a traitor, are political jabs against rival leaders of the emerging church who, unlike Paul, had the advantage of knowing Christ during the time of his teachings.

Also - Paul was a wealthy Roman citizen, who had big plans for Christianity, but could only execute these plans if he carefully selected and rewrote passages in the scripture to make them "digestible" to the Roman public and leaders. In fact; Christianity (homophobia and all) as we know it today is based on Paul's version of it. Read some of the books by Michael Baigent and learn some interesting facts, kids ...  

Oh yeah - and hurray for San Francisco indeed. It's a lovely city.