Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[Scorn]

At best, there was never any reference to homosexuality in the early bibles. At worst, we cannot possibly know that the original ambiguous passages refer to homosexuality.

Yes, all of our Bibles were written 150 years ago (little sarcasm)...... Check out the Septuagint, or the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, or any of the 25,000 New Testament manuscripts we have preserved that go back as far as the 2nd century.

Again, I'm not going to argue to a non-Christian that homosexuality is wrong. If you're a Christian and want to debate it, then create a thread in the Same-Faith Debates, and we can go at it, but it's rather off-topic here.

I've gotta go now - a gay friend of mine is coming over to have dinner with me and my wife tonight.

Yes! My point exactly. Now if someone could just enlighten me as to where any of those great books of antiquity show us where it says homosexuality is a sin.

 

[linwood]

I've gotta go now - a gay friend of mine is coming over to have dinner with me and my wife tonight.

While he/she is there try to explain to him/her why you don`t think he/she is entitled to the same rights within our society as you are because of who he/she sleeps with.

Now please enlighten me as to where any of those great books of antiquity show us where it says homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

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 wish it wasn`t there but it is.

You`ll notice however Christians today don`t want to follow the law correctly though.
they don`t advocate death.

Hypocrisy?
You be the judge?

Oh well, thats why I`m an atheist.
:woohoo:

 

[Scorn]

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
-snip-

Leviticus 18:22:
[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][size=+1]"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

[/size][/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Leviticus 20:13:
[/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][size=+1]"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."[/size][/font]

Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

 

[linwood]

I don`t think it matters scorn since the verse doesn`t directly mention these fertility rights Christians will deem any man lying with man an abomination..

Remember..I don`t think it`s right either.

 

[Scorn]

I don`t think it matters scorn since the verse doesn`t directly mention these fertility rights Christians will deem any man lying with man an abomination..

Remember..I don`t think it`s right either.

Yeah I know.
Ergo my earlier post that at best we can say it didn't mean homosexuals and at worst it is at most, ambiguous.

 

[Bastet]

If anyone is interested in taking a public survey on this subject, go here.

 

[anders]

Scorn,

That six passages link was great. I haven't read all of it yet, and I have some minor disagreements regarding the purpose of the Sodom chapters, but basically and regarding the important facts we agree. (I think the message is that the God of Israel will rescue His people, however threatening their posittion is, like in Babylon, if they just believe in Him.) Points like if there are 943 or 947 instances of yâda` are unimportant; the site is very well researched and I agree completely with the main conclusions. Like there is no mentioning anywhere in the Bible of any kind of sexual practices being performed in Sodom. And remember, the all-knowing God himself was so unsure of what was going on in Sodom that he had to visit Earth in person to find out. OK, he finally chickened out and sent two angels to Sodom in his place, but the message is obvious. Moreover, those angels found no evidence of anything worse than hostility (or was it just curiosity?) towards strangers.

 

[Scorn]

And remember, the all-knowing God himself was so unsure of what was going on in Sodom that he had to visit Earth in person to find out. OK, he finally chickened out and sent two angels to Sodom in his place, but the message is obvious.

That doesn't sound like God! Hehe

 

[Firecat89]

Well, I'm not christian and I could care less whether the christian God agrees with me, I believe in an all-loving God, and I know if you're gay, the christian God still loves you but is disappointed/ashamed in you and wants to send you to the burning pits of hell, so on and so forth. I do agree to disagree, but then that would take fun out of debating, which is really what we're trying to do here, n'est-ce pas? And being homosexual myself really makes me a good candidate for such a debate. An' it harm none do as ye will. With bad biblical stories about gays, you have your bad biblical stories about heteros too. I don't know why we'd be singled out *yawn*.

 

[muslimah]

I agree with Henry on this one. I'm Muslim and in our religion, homosexuality is a major sin. It is clearly stated in the Bible and the Qur'an. It doesn't really matter how the government runs because we're supposed to follow the law of God in every aspect of our lives. We should set our lives to revolve around religion and not the other way around. If homosexuality was not a sin than homosexual partners would be able to procreate but that isn't possible. I think that our problem is that we change our lives according to "the times" but that's the test to see if we can stick to the rules no matter what!!

 

[Scorn]

Welcome muslima,

If procreation was a prerequisite then this would exclude heterosexuals that choose not to, or cannot procreate as well would it not? How does that fit into this world view? This is really rhetorical as I think this specific question has been covered.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

i see a more practical side. thousands of children are waiting to be adopted. why do we need more children? the bible and the quran are outdated, they were written during a time when there was a lack of followers of their faith. now its exploding with members. who needs more people?

i dont think children are a prerequisite to marriage, its love and equality and willingness to raise children(adoptive).

relgion should stay out of government. there are atheists who believe in same sex marriage. Im hindu, i dont believe its a sin, i have the right to get married to any person i want. your religion should not have a say in my rights. this is a political matter, not a religious one.

okay, let me make this comparison (as ive done a thousand times). one religion forbids blacks to have equal rights as whites. okay. so other major religions forbid homosexual couples to have equal rights as heterosexual couples. ???? do you finally get it.

i understand that you blieeve its a sin, i just dont understand how others can feel they can restrict others rights.

 

[Green Gaia]

I agree with Henry on this one. I'm Muslim and in our religion, homosexuality is a major sin. It is clearly stated in the Bible and the Qur'an.

I am not a Muslim, nor am I a Christian, so why should I be forced to follow the rules of your religion? Why should my secular government adopt laws based on any religion?

 

[Lightkeeper]

I agree with Henry on this one. I'm Muslim and in our religion, homosexuality is a major sin. It is clearly stated in the Bible and the Qur'an. It doesn't really matter how the government runs because we're supposed to follow the law of God in every aspect of our lives. We should set our lives to revolve around religion and not the other way around. If homosexuality was not a sin than homosexual partners would be able to procreate but that isn't possible. I think that our problem is that we change our lives according to "the times" but that's the test to see if we can stick to the rules no matter what!!

Homosexuals can procreate. Not all heterosexual couples procreate. Coupling is about love and not necessarily about procreation.
procreation is not about love it is about keeping the human race going. You can procreate without marriage. There are many rules in former scripture that do not apply to today's society. You have to use the common sense which God gave you.

 

[MagickIsFun]

Yes, with full-fledged handfasting equal in all ways to heterosexual handfastings !
nothing wrong with same-sex handfastings in wicca.

 

[Melody]

I am not a Muslim, nor am I a Christian, so why should I be forced to follow the rules of your religion? Why should my secular government adopt laws based on any religion?

Maize,
I have been struggling with this question for the last month. Fortunately I have a husband who likes to play devil's advocate so I get the opportunity to really think about what I believe and why.

Here is the conclusion I finally came to yesterday. I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and is written in a way that we can find God's answers to life's questions. If the Bible says it is wrong or forbidden, then I must follow His Word even if I may not understand why and I must teach my children those beliefs and values as well.

My soul searching came as a result of someone suggesting that I just sit back and do nothing and my concern that this was just another way of giving permission to something my belief says is wrong.

After much prayer and study (and help from my devil's advocate), I believe that my greatest responsibility is in following in Christ's footsteps and letting my life be a witness to His love and mercy....and then letting Him take it from there. That Christian beliefs are only for Christians and do not apply to non-Christians.

I'm not sure I am explaining this clearly, but my heart is clear with God and that's the important thing.

Oh and in answer to (Feathers?) earlier question of can I just sit back and "not vote".....yes, I believe that is an acceptable course of action.

 

[Mercury]

my two cents . . .i am a heterosexual. when i was younger and a devout christian ( 20 yrs ago ) i believed homosexuality was a sin ( also because this was reinforced to me by my strict father). i in fact hated and despised them ( not very christian of me i know. ). until my brother had a son who turned out to be gay. i was there at his birth and helped raise him. my nephew is a good person with a good heart. my brother does not think so ( because of my nephew's sexuality ) and has a difficult relationship with his son. this breaks me because i love them both. i believe that when my nephew decides to take a partner - he should have the same rights as heterosexuals. homosexuals are people too and as such deserve respect, understanding and above all - equality.

 

[Pah]

Oh and in answer to (Feathers?) earlier question of can I just sit back and "not vote".....yes, I believe that is an acceptable course of action.

I am happy that you can stand in your faith and can allow the diversity

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know if the ethical problems associated with homosexual marriage have been discussed.

1) We need to respect eachother's life plans and goals in a free society, as long as the goals do no harm to society. We only get one shot at life that we really know of (irregardless of what you think of the afterlife, we only really know for sure that we need to make the best of this life), so we need to respect what others are trying to do with their lives.

2) Homosexuals are prevented from very practical rights: hospital visitation and health insurance. I am not sure of the ethical value of denying a person hospital visitation rights when there is a provable close relationship. Also, making it hard for people to get health insurance is just as socially destructive as the conservatives think homosexual marriage will be. That is, we can see that it is destructive to deny folks hospital visitation (I would be furious and possibly violent if I could not be by my wife's side in the hospital) and health insurance, and only forsee possible decay of society if homosexual marriage is granted.

Happy reading

 

[anders]

I don't know if the ethical problems associated with homosexual marriage have been discussed.

I misunderstood this post when first reading it. I see no problem for anyone with same-gender marriages.

1) We need to respect eachother's life plans and goals in a free society, as long as the goals do no harm to society. We only get one shot at life that we really know of (irregardless of what you think of the afterlife, we only really know for sure that we need to make the best of this life), so we need to respect what others are trying to do with their lives.

Agree completely.

2) Homosexuals are prevented from very practical rights: hospital visitation and health insurance.

I have seen references to this "hospital visitation" thing before, but now it's about time that I get an explanation. Please tell me, if the USAmerican laws forbids friends, neighbours, Christian volunteers, Red Cross volunteers and whoever, to visit hospitalized persons? That seems incredibly cruel and unnecessary to me.

Once upon a time, when I was a young Christian, on Saturdays some of us used to visit elderly people who weren't able to go to church. We, sometimes 8 or 10 of us, went out in twos and sang a couple of hymns and read one of the Sunday texts. It would have been rather equally possible that we had decided to visit hospitalized persons who did'nt receive visits from relatives. If we had, we would have raised the hell we then believed in, if we had been denied visitation rights.

Another case: one neighbour has had a couple of heart attacks. I find it just impossible that anyone would have tried to prevent me visiting him during his hospitalizations.

My mother (88) had a stroke last year. During the, fortunately, few days she was in hospital, why shouldn't friends and neighbours or whoever be allowed to visit her?

The reason that I got to writing this time is probably that a former fiancée of mine two weeks ago had a complicated operation in a major neck artery. For several reasons, to which she fully agrees, I didn't go to the country where she lives, but I sure would have wanted to be there during her recovery. She's rather all right now, BTW. If I had decided to go there, I would have fought to be admitted.

Finally on this matter, one of the most positive experiences in my life was when I fell ill in India during a course in Hindi. When I was in hospital, receiving IV infusions of several kinds for 8 hours, my classmates visited me. I was 59 years old at the time, and the six of them were girls of some 25 to 35 years. Imagine what I would have thought, if they had been denied access!

I know nothing about insurance in Sweden. It seems that people with an active HIV infection can't get a life insurance. But such decisions are founded on very clever statistics, so it's hard to argue against insurance companies.