Gay Marriage

[liars_paradox]

I agree that schizophrenia "can" be troublesome for some people. But the word "schizophrenia" doesn't automatically mean a person is going to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.
You put the same judgmental tone to the word schizophrenia all by itself that you claim people put on homosexuality.
You automatically made the assumption that "anyone" who has schizophrenia "has" to be helped.
Why?
I'm not saying that you are a schitzophobe, but that kind of talk is the same thing someone prejudice of schizophrenics would say.

Nope, you're way off on this one. First off, schizophrenia is a disease. It doesn't matter if the person suffering from it is a danger or not, to be concerned only with that issue is selfish. If someone is suffering from a mental illness, then they need help and no one should just let this person go on without the help that he or she needed.

As for gays, on the other hand, they're not diseased. Jesus cured people who were mentally ill, but not once did he cure someone because they were gay. You really can't compare being crazy to being gay, because they're nothing alike.

 

[elephunky]

I just saw a massive Facebook group dedicated to the opposition of gay marriage and that got me thinking.

There are countries all around the world that are on their last legs, so to speak. There are all sorts of people who are impovershed to the point of starvation and death, plagued with diseases that are easily treatable with proper medicine. Our own streets are filled with the homeless and the destitute who are without hope for a future. Millions around the world are oppressed for their beliefs, their race, their class, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of addressing any of these problems, the average North American is more concerned with lining his or her own pockets. There are all sorts of problems we could theoretically solve, or at least help out with, but we don't, out of greed.

And yet the social issue that has got the Church up in arms is one man wanting to marry another? Like are we out of our collective minds? A bunch of children are starving and we say "Okay, turn the channel" but someone stands up and says that homosexuals should be able to marry and we say "How dare they?"

Anyone else think that there's something seriously wrong with this picture?

I do. I think its pretty disgusting that people would rather pour their money into rallies against those who love someone of the same sex than use it to help people living in absolute hell.

 

[liars_paradox]

I do. I think its pretty disgusting that people would rather pour their money into rallies against those who love someone of the same sex than use it to help people living in absolute hell.

Hey, just remember how Jesus felt when the Pharisees were doing the same things. Rather than giving to the poor and helping the needy, they enforced social control over the Jewish people. All the mean while, they casted judgment on others and came off as "righteous".

When Jesus spoke out against them, they saw their sheep flocking towards him and they had the Romans kill him. When the pre-Christians tried to reach out to their peers, the religious leaders at the time did same thing. They were so afraid of the Jewish society turning into a certain way that they demonized anyone who was different and made sure to include our religion's founding fathers along with them.

Likewise, any preacher or anyone in Christianity who uses faith to enforce social control is doing the same. Anyone who'd rather keep Western society, or just America, the way 'it's always been' instead of feeding the hungry are the same kind of people who crucified our Messiah.

 

[elephunky]

I find it a bit sad that its the most deeply floawed, deeply troubled and those who have issues with the idea God that do the most good will stuff in the community and outside of their community. Even though it may be extremely hard to do so, while we sit here and argue about homosexuality and prolife/choice.

It seems those with the power dont want to help, they want to argue. And those without the power dont want to argue, they want to help

 

[Nadiine]

I do. I think its pretty disgusting that people would rather pour their money into rallies against those who love someone of the same sex than use it to help people living in absolute hell.

most likely that's becuz you don't see that homosexuality is any threat
or sinful to start with.

Also, how do you know that people who donate to groups against homosexuality
don't donate it anywhere else? This is quite judgmental imo -
God judges financial stewardship, not us.
& since God is stringently against homosexual marriage, giving to this cause
IS done in His service. I hardly think He would dissaprove of it.

The greater good of the family unit is just as important as many
other things; alot of a person's opinion will simply hinge on their view
of homosexuality (or whatever the moral issue of the day is).

Too bad Christians didn't spend more money & time fighting
abortion. That would have been possibly MORE valuable to fight
than giving it all to charity.

Matthew 26:11
10But Jesus, aware of this, said to them,
"Why do you bother the woman?
For she has done a good deed to Me.
"For you always have the poor with you;
but you do not always have Me.

Sometimes important battles come up and we have to focus
on that at that opportune time, or lose it - and those same
poor will still be there to help AFTER the fight.

 

[LightHorseman]

Yeah, its not like homosexuals are any form of threat to anyone.

 

[Inviolable]

Nope, you're way off on this one. First off, schizophrenia is a disease. It doesn't matter if the person suffering from it is a danger or not, to be concerned only with that issue is selfish. If someone is suffering from a mental illness, then they need help and no one should just let this person go on without the help that he or she needed.

Being mentally ill isn't a disease and there are people who overcome it all on their own. Schizophrenia may be for some people overbearing and dominate but for others it simply isn't.
Anyone who doesn't understand that there are people with a mental condition that can be overcome on their own is just as prejudice as any anti gay person, if not more so.

As for gays, on the other hand, they're not diseased. Jesus cured people who were mentally ill, but not once did he cure someone because they were gay. You really can't compare being crazy to being gay, because they're nothing alike.

He died for sin, so in essence he cured someone for being gay.
And the same thing applies. Just as there are people who very in stages of of schizophrenia there are gay's that very in stages of homosexuality.
Some are more extreme then others.
It's a fact that's been pointed out on these very forums.
A homosexuals life could have very well been "completely" different had they not been gay to begin with. Just as someone with schizophrenia may have very well lived an entirely different life had they not been schizo.
Hair color and being left handed would have almost no effect on the life a person has lived in comparison. So the comparison to schizophrenia is only reasonable. Anyone who can't understand that is purposely making themselves ignorant to reality.
Which I might add is something most people with schizophrenia fight their entire lives to understand better.

 

[Nadiine]

Yeah, its not like homosexuals are any form of threat to anyone.

Threat... the threat is to the fabric of society overall, and
to the family unit itself - in several ways.

God found it serious enough to place a death penalty on it.
I'd think there's something significant to it.

 

[Nadiine]

Being mentally ill isn't a disease and there are people who overcome it all on their own. Schizophrenia may be for some people overbearing and dominate but for others it simply isn't.
Anyone who doesn't understand that there are people with a mental condition that can be overcome on their own is just as prejudice as any anti gay person, if not more so.


He died for sin, so in essence he cured someone for being gay.
And the same thing applies. Just as there are people who very in stages of of schizophrenia there are gay's that very in stages of homosexuality.
Some are more extreme then others.
It's a fact that's been pointed out on these very forums.
A homosexuals life could have very well been "completely" different had they not been gay to begin with. Just as someone with schizophrenia may have very well lived an entirely different life had they not been schizo.
Hair color and being left handed would have almost no effect on the life a person has lived in comparison. So the comparison to schizophrenia is only reasonable. Anyone who can't understand that is purposely making themselves ignorant to reality.
Which I might add is something most people with schizophrenia fight their entire lives to understand better.

This better explains your example and I do agree with your points.

I have always contended against people comparing homosexuality
with things like hair color, skin color, etc. It is not an accurate
comparison in any way.

 

[overit]

Threat... the threat is to the fabric of society overall, and
to the family unit itself - in several ways.

God found it serious enough to place a death penalty on it.
I'd think there's something significant to it.

Ok...let's see now as this is NEVER answered properly- other then repeat soundbytes heard by certain groups or ministers...

Please tell me, explicitly what this "fabric of society" and threat to "the family unit itself" entails....and how gay marriage DIRECTLY would affect that.

Paritcularly considering that the family unit has already been threatened with our current divorce rates-even amongst CHristians...and the rate of infidelity, etc.... how is what they do in their marriage affect yours, the fabric or the family unit. Give me examples, why, how, etc, please.

 

[liars_paradox]

Being mentally ill isn't a disease and there are people who overcome it all on their own. Schizophrenia may be for some people overbearing and dominate but for others it simply isn't.

Here's the thing. You say it isn't a disease, and I say it is. How do you define disease? This is something that they taught me in my critical reasoning class. Before we argue on what a disease is or isn't, please give me your definition of "disease" or else we'd sit forever arguing semantics.
As for my definition of "disease":

"disease." Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 10 Jun. 2009.
an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its partsthat interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms,bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors

Schizophrenia is defined by the medical community as a "disease" because, it does appear to be related to physical conditions of the brain and can be treated through physical means such as medication. The fact that a person's brain under a PET-scan, fMRI will often times show up differently than a normal person does indicates that schizophrenia is more than how a person thinks or behaves but can be the very condition that their brain is in. However, it depends on the category of schizophrenia a person might fall under and the underlying cause behind it, which I'll talk about later.

Anyone who doesn't understand that there are people with a mental condition that can be overcome on their own is just as prejudice as any anti gay person, if not more so.

This is why your comparison doesn't work. Schizophrenia is something that is treated physically through medication, so therefore it's as much as a disease as having a heart disease or any of the other physical illnesses.
However, some people argue homosexuality as being something that the person chose to do. If that person chose to be a certain way then they are responsible for their behavior. If that is the case, then schizophrenia couldn't be compared to homosexuality because no one chooses to be schizophrenic.

He died for sin, so in essence he cured someone for being gay.
And the same thing applies. Just as there are people who very in stages of of schizophrenia there are gay's that very in stages of homosexuality.
Some are more extreme then others./quote]

It's a fact that's been pointed out on these very forums.
A homosexuals life could have very well been "completely" different had they not been gay to begin with. Just as someone with schizophrenia may have very well lived an entirely different life had they not been schizo.

What you said is that a person's life would be different if it was different. This really isn't isn't an argument and it isn't evidence that proves anything either.

Saying someone's life would be different if they weren't gay is the same as saying someone's life would be different if they had a different color car or anything else. Change one aspect of your life, and it becomes different.

That is, unless your vague expression "'completely' different" was meant to denote something else, in which case you would also have to define what you mean by "completely different".

Hair color and being left handed would have almost no effect on the life a person has lived in comparison.

In comparison to what? That wasn't even a complete sentence. I'm not trying to split hairs here, but should I just make assumptions about what you meant to say about everything or should I expect you to be more specific so we don't argue over completely different things?

So the comparison to schizophrenia is only reasonable. Anyone who can't understand that is purposely making themselves ignorant to reality.

How so? Schizophrenia is categorized by the medical community as a "disease" and I think most people would agree with that. Schizophrenia is a disease and it is of physical nature, and that is the reality of it. Whether or not it was caused by an event or by drugs or anything else, the fact remains that real schizophrenics suffer from a physical condition of the brain and requires medical treatment to "overcome" it.

Schizophrenia isn't as easy to overcome than it is for a person to overcome having a faulty kidney. It doesn't seem like anyone would ever try to overcome having a kidney disease without seeking medical help, likewise schizophrenia isn't something a person can handle on their own either.

Which I might add is something most people with schizophrenia fight their entire lives to understand better.

Last point about schizophrenia, is that many don't realize that they even have the disease to begin with. In reference to those who suffer from the hallucinatory kind, a schizophrenic can't be treated until someone puts them into a physical state where their brain will process input from their senses correctly. If the part of the brain which interprets input from the senses isn't fixed, then they'll continue to get false about their own environment. So, for these people fighting to overcome their illness would be impossible for them to do on their own.

On the other hand, schizophrenics who would fall into the category of those who are delusional may not need physical, medical treatment, depending on the nature of the underlying cause. Sometimes these delusional types will listen to reason and can be responsive to psychiatric treatment, but other times the reason why they come up with the wrong conclusions about the world is because of the way their brain is structured.

In anycase, going too deeply into that would be distract the point of our argument. My point is, that schizophrenics aren't anything like gays because there is hard evidence that their brains are physically different from other people, depending on the underlying cause.

 

[liars_paradox]

Threat... the threat is to the fabric of society overall, and
to the family unit itself - in several ways.

I don't think Jesus cares about these kind of things. The Pharisees used the same kind of argument to justify their beliefs, that their way was the only thing preserving Jewish society. Yet, Jesus called them out on numerous occassions over neglecting the poor and hungry and looking down on "sinners', the violaters of the Law (Bible).

God found it serious enough to place a death penalty on it.
I'd think there's something significant to it.

Perhaps, but you do know the story about the adulteress, right? (John 7:53-8:11) Do you think Jesus approved of the Pharisees' method of enforcing social control by taking what God said in that context?

Even though God said that a woman or a man who commits adultery should be killed (with the exception of rape as it is implied in the passage about women adulterers), Jesus didn't have the intention of honoring this Law through their condemnation and punishment. Instead, he saved he honored the law through love and save the woman's life. Another instance in the bible where the issue of the Law is brought up, Jesus said in Mark 7:7 that these Laws were Laws of men and aren't necessarily God's intentions.

Although, I don't advocate being gay or anything silly like that, my own argument is that we shouldn't focus on them or single them out. For this behavior is the same behavior exhibited by the Pharisees. They wanted to stop people from becoming prostitutes, theives, and all manner of immoral people so as to save the people of Israel from disappearing from the Earth. But, they did this while neglecting to help those in need and instead put their engergies into controlling the minds of their followers.

 

[elephunky]

That would have been possibly MORE valuable to fight
than giving it all to charity.

Yes...what good could possibly come from helping those in horrific poverty and disease...*sarcasm*

 

[Zebra1552]

Threat... the threat is to the fabric of society overall, and
to the family unit itself - in several ways.

What studies back this?

God found it serious enough to place a death penalty on it.
I'd think there's something significant to it.

Homosexuality is only condemned as anal sex in the OT, not homosexual acts in general. That doesn't come until the NT, Nadiine.

 

[Inviolable]

Here's the thing. You say it isn't a disease, and I say it is. How do you define disease? This is something that they taught me in my critical reasoning class. Before we argue on what a disease is or isn't, please give me your definition of "disease" or else we'd sit forever arguing semantics.
As for my definition of "disease":
Schizophrenia is defined by the medical community as a "disease" because, it does appear to be related to physical conditions of the brain and can be treated through physical means such as medication. The fact that a person's brain under a PET-scan, fMRI will often times show up differently than a normal person does indicates that schizophrenia is more than how a person thinks or behaves but can be the very condition that their brain is in.

looks like the same reasoning I'd use, only your post said "Mental Illness" and you pretty much described forcing help on everyone with a "mental illness"
Don't label a mental condition as an illness. It's the same thing that leads to prejudice.
And not "everyone" who is mentally disabled "has" to receive treatment to overcome their condition. I've witnessed people who have handled their condition all on their own. Sticking them in a box and forcing your brand of treatment on them is also the same as prejudice.

This is why your comparison doesn't work.

Once again you're labeling a condition. Schizophrenia can be compared to homosexuality in that the description of homosexuality "even from some homosexuals" can be compared to schizophrenia. But only in the description itself.
Each offers a life changing paradigm, each offers a decline in social tolerance and each forces individuals within their respective categories to examine their emotional status on the subject.

What you said is that a person's life would be different if it was different. This really isn't isn't an argument and it isn't evidence that proves anything either.

Yes of course. I said if they weren't a homosexual. Which would indicate "different" but a little more specific. At least I thought it was a little more specific. I didn't say, if a different person was different would they be not who they are?
To be or not to be.. that is the different. NO!
More specifically, if a homosexual was heterosexual, would that person go on to buy a house with a white picket fence and a Volvo SUV with a lab named Jojo and a tree named sunshine in the front yard.
Not a pink house but a blue and white one and the couch would be child proof instead of that funky puma design we all love so much.
There ya go. Can you answer that question? Nah, that's to specific now.
Just skip it.

Saying someone's life would be different if they weren't gay is the same as saying someone's life would be different if they had a different color car or anything else.

I believe that a longer penis would also make a mans life extremely different. But hair color or choosing the color your car should be in the end really isn't to extreme a change.
You know in one life the gay guy enjoys having a penis in his mouth and the other he doesn't. Which isn't in the least like picking out a blue car over a yellow one. Also in one life a gay guy would want to marry another gay guy and buy a bar that offers drink specials to cross dressers. And in the other life he'd marry some girl some where and have kids and probably get a Volvo SUV. While hair color wouldn't really make you decide to buy a gay bar or get an SUV.

Change one aspect of your life, and it becomes different.

Really?

That is, unless your vague expression "'completely' different" was meant to denote something else, in which case you would also have to define what you mean by "completely different".

No, "completely different" would be the difference between buying a gay bar or having children.

In comparison to what? That wasn't even a complete sentence. I'm not trying to split hairs here, but should I just make assumptions about what you meant to say about everything or should I expect you to be more specific so we don't argue over completely different things?

If you have the ability to think on your own, I'd suggest making assumptions and hoping for the best.

Schizophrenia isn't as easy to overcome than it is for a person to overcome having a faulty kidney. It doesn't seem like anyone would ever try to overcome having a kidney disease without seeking medical help, likewise schizophrenia isn't something a person can handle on their own either.

I never said it was easy, I just said people can overcome it on their own.
And you even said it varies. There are some cases that are a lot more mild then others.

 

[Nadiine]

What studies back this?


Homosexuality is only condemned as anal sex in the OT, not homosexual acts in general. That doesn't come until the NT, Nadiine.

o dear...........

Ya, I'm sure they were out marrying these gay couples too.

I'm sure they stood outside the tent of the MEN ONLY
& said, 'just make sure you 2 don't do THAT act... anything
else is just fine with us".
yup

Lev. 18 uses to LIE with man as you would LIE with a woman.
1) to lie down
a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

to lay down for sexual activity - or to lay on or be laid on.....
with man as with a woman. It's real clear that sexual lust
and activity is prohibited.
Romans 1 says the same thing in essence also:
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

To exchange the natural use of one for the same sex -
to lay w/ another man as with another woman.

The context is clear that it's sexual (as with a woman) and the
same word is also used in other sexual instances in Genesis:

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down 7901 , the men 582 of the city 5892, [even] the men 582 of Sodom 5467, compassed 5437 0 the house 1004 round 5437 , both old 2205 and young 5288, all the people 5971 from every quarter 7097:
Gen 19:32 Come 3212 , let us make 8248 0 our father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196, and we will lie 7901 with him, that we may preserve 2421 seed 2233 of our father 1.
Gen 19:33 And they made 8248 0 their father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196 that night 3915: and the firstborn 1067 went in 935 , and lay 7901 with her father 1; and he perceived 3045 not when she lay down 7901 , nor when she arose 6965 .
Gen 19:35 And they made 8248 0 their father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196 that 1931 night 3915 also: and the younger 6810 arose 6965 , and lay 7901 with him; and he perceived 3045 not when she lay down 7901 , nor when she arose 6965 .

 

[Zebra1552]

o dear...........

Ya, I'm sure they were out marrying these gay couples too.

I'm sure they stood outside the tent of the MEN ONLY
& said, 'just make sure you 2 don't do THAT act... anything
else is just fine with us".
yup

Lev. 18 uses to LIE with man as you would LIE with a woman.
1) to lie down
a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

to lay down for sexual activity - or to lay on or be laid on.....
with man as with a woman. It's real clear that sexual lust
and activity is prohibited.
Romans 1 says the same thing in essence also:
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

To exchange the natural use of one for the same sex -
to lay w/ another man as with another woman.

The context is clear that it's sexual (as with a woman) and the
same word is also used in other sexual instances in Genesis:

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down 7901 , the men 582 of the city 5892, [even] the men 582 of Sodom 5467, compassed 5437 0 the house 1004 round 5437 , both old 2205 and young 5288, all the people 5971 from every quarter 7097:
Gen 19:32 Come 3212 , let us make 8248 0 our father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196, and we will lie 7901 with him, that we may preserve 2421 seed 2233 of our father 1.
Gen 19:33 And they made 8248 0 their father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196 that night 3915: and the firstborn 1067 went in 935 , and lay 7901 with her father 1; and he perceived 3045 not when she lay down 7901 , nor when she arose 6965 .
Gen 19:35 And they made 8248 0 their father 1 drink 8248 wine 3196 that 1931 night 3915 also: and the younger 6810 arose 6965 , and lay 7901 with him; and he perceived 3045 not when she lay down 7901 , nor when she arose 6965 .

And where does it say anything against lesbians in the OT? And again, where are your studies that show gay marriage is harmful to families and such as you claimed?

 

[Nadiine]

And where does it say anything against lesbians in the OT? And again, where are your studies that show gay marriage is harmful to families and such as you claimed?

That's not what you said GC. You just said ONLY anal sex
is condemned in the OT... then the NT it's anything else.

The same sex sexual activity is abomination - the NT is simply
elaborating on it just as Jesus did with giving further detail
to Adultery.

It was not commonly practiced whatsoever (even in the USA in
the 70's it was looked down upon and even called a mental
illness by the medical board) - and Jesus gave the
marital covenant definition in Matt 19 that is the first marriage
example of Adam & Eve -
It was never common or accepted in OT Israel.

If you want to try to support homosexuality in the bible, good
luck the evidence is against you, and you can join the many
who here to try to do the same.
Jump on the bandwagon

 

[peace4ever]

I just saw a massive Facebook group dedicated to the opposition of gay marriage and that got me thinking.

There are countries all around the world that are on their last legs, so to speak. There are all sorts of people who are impovershed to the point of starvation and death, plagued with diseases that are easily treatable with proper medicine. Our own streets are filled with the homeless and the destitute who are without hope for a future. Millions around the world are oppressed for their beliefs, their race, their class, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of addressing any of these problems, the average North American is more concerned with lining his or her own pockets. There are all sorts of problems we could theoretically solve, or at least help out with, but we don't, out of greed.

And yet the social issue that has got the Church up in arms is one man wanting to marry another? Like are we out of our collective minds? A bunch of children are starving and we say "Okay, turn the channel" but someone stands up and says that homosexuals should be able to marry and we say "How dare they?"

Anyone else think that there's something seriously wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, most people have no clue why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That's because most people don't learn from history. The sexual union is a copy of our union with God. So God takes it very seriously when we defile His creation and His design for the human being. Thus, sexual immorality is not only blasphemous, it degrades the value of a human being to reducing humanity to the level of animal bodily gratification. That's not only an affront to God and His design for humans, it's an abomination to Him.

 

[LightHorseman]

Unfortunately, most people have no clue why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That's because most people don't learn from history. The sexual union is a copy of our union with God. So God takes it very seriously when we defile His creation and His design for the human being. Thus, sexual immorality is not only blasphemous, it degrades the value of a human being to reducing humanity to the level of animal bodily gratification. That's not only an affront to God and His design for humans, it's an abomination to Him.

Aside from the tradition, started in the 9th Century, that the destructiuon of S&G had anything to do with homosexuality... on what, exactly, do you base your assertion that homosexuality had anything to do with said cities' destruction?