Canada and the gay marriage decision

I think you forgot to include lesbians - we want equal representation in condemnation please!

XVII said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/09/canada.gay.ap/index.html

Most Christians will say that gay marriage should never happen.

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage does happen, it happens all the tame. What the editorial is speaking of is legal recognition of same sex marriage.





The general problem with using biblical quotes to support discrimination is that the laws of western countries are based on constitutional documents not on personal interpretations of old religions books. Most of these constitutions have specific clauses stating that all citizens have the same rights such as the 14th amendment of the Construction of the United States. Biblical verses are inapplicable to these constitutions.

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.

Click to expand...

The problem with using Leviticus to support discrimination is that you chose one of the thousands of rules in this particular section of the bible and deem it applicable to modern Christians (and non-Christians) leaving out the fact that the vast majority of the other laws of Leviticus are ignored by modern Christians. For example modern Christians happily consume pork, wear clothing made of mixed fabrics, Christian me ignore the prohibition of interacting with women during their periods. Christian men shave regularly and so on.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV Provided as well for those who are not familiar with the KJV)

KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

Persons better versed in dead languages have ripped this quote apart many times before.



Allow me to summarize: Three words are found in the new testament are used to relate to homosexuals: inappropriate contentia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi.

inappropriate contentia translates as ‘pervert’. That’s all. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexuals.



Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. Apparently males were was not to be emotional.



Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly a rapist. Again nothing to do with gays, lesbians or the legal recognition of same sex marriage.



On a personal note…the rest of this laundry list of people Paul wanted his god to hate sounds like most of the televangelists I have ever encountered.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, anyone?

Genesis 13:13, But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Click to expand...

Considering the many problems with this myth I find it amazing that Christians wishing to justify personal prejudice would actually use this. Of course this may also be an indication of just how desperate some Christians are to justify their personal prejudice….but anyway…

according to the myth Lot is the only moral man in Sodom and that is why he gets his ticket out of town before the fire works start. So after the angels arrive to warn Lot supposedly every man (and they are supposedly all gay) in town gets horny and starts banging on Lots door demanding that the angles come out for an orgy and a Pampered Chef party. For some reason Lot (the only moral man around remember) offers these supposedly gay men his virgin DAUGHTERS for their sexual pleasure.

Problem 1: if all these supposedly gay men were out on the prowl for nothing but sex why would they need these angels to have it? (Were the Angels just so totally buff that the men of Sodom couldn’t help themselves?) After all there was a crowd of them around it would have been far easier to pair (or triple) up and go their merry way.

Problem 2: if all these men of Sodom were gay…why would Lot offer his daughters to them? Why would gay men bent on some between the sheet fun with a couple of buff angles want Lots daughters at all? It would seem that if the crowd really were homosexuals and if Lot really did want to spare the angles Lot would have offered himself up for the orgy.

Problem 3: if Lot truly was the only moral man then his actions must have been considered moral by what the very God who declared him to be so. But just how can we justify the turning over of one’s children to be gang raped as moral? And since even though Lot did offer to turn over his daughter’s to be raped he still got his ticket out of town we have to assume that the Jewish/Christian God feels that the sexual abuse of children is moral (or at the very least not morally objectionable).



So if one wishes to use the Sodom myth as a means to supporting discrimination they are left in the uncomfortable position of also supporting the sexual abuse of children because obviously your God thinks rape and sexual assault of little girls is nifty (or at least morally neutral )

Good for my Canadian friends.

From the CNN article
proposed legislation allowing gay marriage is constitutional, but the government cannot force religious officials to perform unions against their beliefs

Click to expand...

Don't see why this anybody's business except the couples getting married.

Good for Canada. A blow for rational people everywhere, and against bigotry, discrimination and homophobia.

That's great. And I like how the legislation permits gay marriage while noting that religious officials do not have to perform marriages they are against. Seems an ideal compromise.

I never get a good answer on this subject when I ask the age old question "what would Jesus do?". Seeing as how leviticus is made of archaic laws and social customs and is ignored, I don't see how it is a valid verse against homosexuality. That being said, there are only 2 more verses in the entire Bible that could be seen as deeming homosexuality a sin, and both are from Paul, not Jesus. Jesus never condemned homosexuality or even said it was bad. He named so many other things that were sins, but he would overlook such a large subject as homosexuality, if it was indeed a sin?

Even if Paul did indeed condemn homosexuals, he is not Jesus, he is just a man, and his opinion, while I'm sure it weighs heavier in the minds of christians then an average Joe, shouldn't override the words of Christ, or perhaps those who think so should explain why they call themselves Christians if they instead serve the will of Paul.

Just a thought.

Most gay people want to get married because they want their “family” recognized for legal reasons, not because we desire to have our sexual relationship (if any) recognized. I don’t understand the obsession with the sexual aspects of gay marriage. No one brings it up about heterosexual couples. It’s not like we are demanding that you watch. It’s really no ones business. I know a few older gay couples that admit they don’t have sex anymore.



I personally don’t care if the first step towards recognition is called marriage. (Although I believe someday that it will become a non-issue and gay couples will be called married.) I would be just as happy if it was called “fart” as long as I had the same legal protections.



My first partner and I were together for eight years when he died suddenly at the age of 29 in a helicopter crash. His mother who had not spoken to him in 10 years (she disowned him for being gay) and his father who my partner had not seen since he was twelve, sued for wrongful death and split $360,000. They took everything that was in my partner’s name and left me with the debt on our truck. Now do you see the REAL issue here?



Every adult should have the right to determine who makes up their family. That is what this issue is all about. Last week my current partner and I celebrated six years together. We went to an attorney years ago and spent a small fortune creating legal documents that don’t even come close the protections that marriage provides. If he were to die in an accident tomorrow, there is still nothing preventing his parents from doing the same thing that happened before. I am not legally part of his family.

Sad story there blockwell , wish it didn't have to be that way. Hey my state should be making decisions on gay marriage soon (New Jersey). If all goes well you can always come up here to Mass. .

Canada, one of the truly free nations.

Vylo said:

I never get a good answer on this subject when I ask the age old question "what would Jesus do?". Seeing as how leviticus is made of archaic laws and social customs and is ignored, I don't see how it is a valid verse against homosexuality. That being said, there are only 2 more verses in the entire Bible that could be seen as deeming homosexuality a sin, and both are from Paul, not Jesus. Jesus never condemned homosexuality or even said it was bad. He named so many other things that were sins, but he would overlook such a large subject as homosexuality, if it was indeed a sin?

Even if Paul did indeed condemn homosexuals, he is not Jesus, he is just a man, and his opinion, while I'm sure it weighs heavier in the minds of christians then an average Joe, shouldn't override the words of Christ, or perhaps those who think so should explain why they call themselves Christians if they instead serve the will of Paul.

Just a thought.

Click to expand...

This arguement falls apart when you realize that Jesus also never spoke out against rape, pedophillia and many other sexually immoral sins.
How do I answer when someone states that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality?



First, as Bible believing Christians, we believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh - and believing so, Jesus' strongest stand on the issue of homosexuality had to be when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The Bible says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - and Jesus is part of the triune God. The Bible tells us Jesus was there from the beginning of creation (Genesis) - and He was responsible for creation as well. How much more clearer can Jesus have been in his 'speaking out against' homosexuality, than in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?



While it is true that the New Testament does not document any statements of Jesus specifically condemning or condoning homosexuality - He didn't need to. It was very clear. However, John 21:25 states that "…there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one…even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Further, it should be considered that there is no record of Jesus’ statements on other sexual practices like rape, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc. Yet it is unlikely that Jesus sanctioned these behaviors.



In addition, Jesus reinforced Old Testament law on sexual behavior in Matthew 5:27-30 and Mark 7:21-23. Old Testament law condemned the practice of homosexuality:



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



"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them hath committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." – Leviticus 20:13



Clearly, Scripture does not equate homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In fact, perhaps the best indicator of Jesus’ stance on homosexuality is found in Matthew 19:4-6, where He restates the Genesis 2:21-25 account of God’s ordination of the marital union. This reference is consistent with all of Scripture, which esteems marriage, the union of one man and one woman in covenant union, above every other relationship, and maintains that all sexual activity must take place within its confines. Any other sex outside that of the grounds of heterosexual marriage is considered fornication, condemned by God.


http://www.sbministries.org/thebible.html

let me remind you all that canada is not a christian theocracy.

kdet said:

This arguement falls apart when you realize that Jesus also never spoke out against rape, pedophillia and many other sexually immoral sins.
How do I answer when someone states that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality?

First, as Bible believing Christians, we believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh - and believing so, Jesus' strongest stand on the issue of homosexuality had to be when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The Bible says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - and Jesus is part of the triune God. The Bible tells us Jesus was there from the beginning of creation (Genesis) - and He was responsible for creation as well. How much more clearer can Jesus have been in his 'speaking out against' homosexuality, than in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Click to expand...

Except that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for homosexuality. And even if they were, of course, that's the OT, the laws of which are not binding on Christians.

kdet said:

While it is true that the New Testament does not document any statements of Jesus specifically condemning or condoning homosexuality - He didn't need to. It was very clear. However, John 21:25 states that "…there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one…even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Further, it should be considered that there is no record of Jesus’ statements on other sexual practices like rape, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc. Yet it is unlikely that Jesus sanctioned these behaviors.

Click to expand...

So, we can 'assume' that Jesus spoke against anything we like, but it wasn't recorded? Perhaps Jesus spoke against a zillion other practices that we all do and think nothing of it, but what he said about them wasn't recorded.

Bottom line - since Jesus said nothing about it, we cannot conclude that he either approves or disapproves of it.

kdet said:

In addition, Jesus reinforced Old Testament law on sexual behavior in Matthew 5:27-30 and Mark 7:21-23.

Click to expand...

And in other places, Jesus was quite happy about changing and/or disregarding OT law. So from that we can't conclude a single thing about his attitude towards homosexuality.

kdet said:

Clearly, Scripture does not equate homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In fact, perhaps the best indicator of Jesus’ stance on homosexuality is found in Matthew 19:4-6, where He restates the Genesis 2:21-25 account of God’s ordination of the marital union. This reference is consistent with all of Scripture, which esteems marriage, the union of one man and one woman in covenant union, above every other relationship, and maintains that all sexual activity must take place within its confines. Any other sex outside that of the grounds of heterosexual marriage is considered fornication, condemned by God.

Click to expand...

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of many others, many of them 'bible-believing christians.' Remember that your interpretation of the bible is not perfect, and may be wrong in this and many other areas.

Mark 7:21-23 does not mention homosexuality. Neither does matthew 27-30. Leviticus is laughable unless you don't wear mixed clothing, eat shellfish etc. Sodom and gomorrah do not mention homosexuality.

Rape is a violent act, it is easy to see he did not condone violence against the innocent. Pedophilia is not mentioned by Jesus or leviticus, probably because there were very different morals regarding this at that time. Interestingly enough I don't see rape condemned in leviticus but I do see it condoned in Deuteronomy.

Back later, time for dinner .

Electric Sceptic said:

Except that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for homosexuality. And even if they were, of course, that's the OT, the laws of which are not binding on Christians.

So, we can 'assume' that Jesus spoke against anything we like, but it wasn't recorded? Perhaps Jesus spoke against a zillion other practices that we all do and think nothing of it, but what he said about them wasn't recorded.

Bottom line - since Jesus said nothing about it, we cannot conclude that he either approves or disapproves of it.

And in other places, Jesus was quite happy about changing and/or disregarding OT law. So from that we can't conclude a single thing about his attitude towards homosexuality.


In your opinion. Not in the opinion of many others, many of them 'bible-believing christians.' Remember that your interpretation of the bible is not perfect, and may be wrong in this and many other areas.

Click to expand...

No, it is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion of most bibical scholars and a belief held by most mainline denominations of Christianity, Judsim and Mulisms

Many Christian denominations hold that homosexual behavior is and always has been a sin. Most Christians would emphasise that they do not condemn people who experience homosexual temptation, but only for giving into it and indulging in homosexual behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_homosexuality

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION." (Lev.18:22)

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion (perversion)" (vs 23)

"Defile not ye yourselves in ANY of these things: for in all THESE the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:" (vs 24)

"And the land is defiled (U.S.A. & Canada both soon?) therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself VOMITETH out her inhabitants." (vs 25)

I like how Canada treats everyone like real people.

Vylo said:

Pedophilia is not mentioned by Jesus or leviticus, probably because there were very different morals regarding this at that time.

Click to expand...

probably because people were expected to live to their 40's and have children by the time they were 15.

laws should be made for the people, not the religion.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is ABOMINATION." (Lev.18:22)

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion (perversion)" (vs 23)

"Defile not ye yourselves in ANY of these things: for in all THESE the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:" (vs 24)

Click to expand...

Don't forget

11:4-7: "Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoog and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unceal to you."

11:10-11: But anything in the seas or rivers that has not fins and scales, of swarming creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable and not eat any of their flesh. And you shall detest their carcasses.

17:10: if any one of the house of Israel or the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from amoung his people

19:19: You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall now sow your field with 2 kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

19:27-28: You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves. I am the Lord

23:3: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places.

24:16: Whoever blasphemies the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

24:17-18: Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life.