Should gay marrige be allowed?

MamaMoo_2

essex1990 wrote: »

Well my local reverend i spoke to said that there is nothing in Christianity that forbids homosexuality. The only references which can be INTERPRETED as such are in the Old Testament (aka The Torah!). He also told me that the bible should not be taken literally as it was written a long time ago by man and not by God himself. He told me that the use and meaning of language can change and that translations of other languages into english are not always accurate.

Sounds like to me the reverand told me there is nothing wrong about being gay and God wouldn't love me any less nor want me to be unhappy.

You will also find that before in Britain it used to be legal to have a handfastening - a 'marriage' for a year and a day initially then renew their vows on the day after to be 'married' for eternity. It was allowed to be between ANYONE old enough to consent and the last country to abolish this was Scotland. Now these ceremonies are no longer legally binding and people are forced to include either a civil ceremony or a registry office signing.

Also the European Court of Human Rights have recently announced that the 'right to marriage' does not extend to homosexuals despite the prologue implying that these are basic rights afforded to every citizen that lives within the European Union. I would argue that the judges that decided that were saying what their personal thoughts about it was not what the European Convention of Human Rights dictated. Interesting that the court which is meant to be championing human rights and equality would give this judgment though. Thankfully none of those judgments are actually binding on any country but are only used as influence - it does however legitimise the homophobes.

I also spoke to my priest about it earlier.
He highlighted a few passages to me, including (in a letter by St Paul, so the New Testament)

Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God

Although the Old Testament also says

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination

And those words appear in several passages, and are spoken by God, so a fairly clear standpoint.

My priest said that the Catholic Church is fairly unmovable on this point, and it is a sin and an abomination.

I told the priest that personally, I believed that there was no severe issue with homosexuality, as the male body (as designed by God) was designed with a G-spot that is most easily stimulated with a penis. I sao that I understood that the mentality of homosexuality could be attributed to the devil, but that would only be mental influence, and that the devil, surely, could not alter God's design, and therefore the placement of the male g-spot was made by God, a God who doesn't make mistakes, so it was purposeful and right.
The priest argued something about it being placed as a test of faith, and to resist was right, but I think I had him pretty much cornered.

I pointed out that as God is all loving, and a forgiving God, that homosexuals would be forgiven for their 'sins'
I also Said that I believed that God would forgive any homosexual who lived a rich and full life, and a charitable Catholic way of life otherwise, as they had done God's work, and lived a fulfilling life joined in love with another human being, and that this would be more pleasing to God than a heterosexual who repeatedly committed multiple different sins, renounced God, and squandered their God-given talents etc.

Apparently, I gave him some good points to ponder.

pmduk

The catholic church has absolutely no moral right to pontificate on other's sexuality issues when it can't keep its own house in order

GillsMan7

Gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

fluffnutter

The religious argument is an irrelevancy. Bigotry and intolerance exist everywhere - religious bigoted people merely use religion as the reason for their bigotry; non-religious people will have some other spurious excuse.

I know many, many very devout people who are incredibly warm and tolerant and believe God wants everyone to be happy - these people don't view homosexuality as wrong or evil. They know that the bible is an interpretative text written by many over a long period and it inevitably reflects the views and social conventions of the time.

I wish people would stop using God, or faith, or religion as an excuse for their own intolerant and bigoted views.

hartleysjam

of course it should, love is love one of my best friends is married to her Wife and very happy they are too!

esuhl

fluffnutter wrote: »

I wish people would stop using God, or faith, or religion as an excuse for their own intolerant and bigoted views.

But that's the whole point of religion, isn't it? People who are uneasy with taking responsibility for their views because of the apparent lack of objective values in the world crave an external belief system to be the pseudo-logical foundation of their life. If you yourself can't tell (or decide) the difference between right and wrong, it's easier for you pick a religion to instruct you than it is to bear the responsibility of your actions alone in a world without objective meaning.

Once a person has adopted religion, they no longer need to be responsible for their own actions. Instead of saying "I object morally" to such and such, they can offload all such responsibilities to their religion. They can disapprove of homosexuality and support laws that unjustly persecute homosexuals with a clear conscience. In their minds, intolerance and bigotry magically disappear. "After all," they will say, "God told me to do it". The Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience illustrates how extremely powerful and corrupting such appeals to authority can be.

If Christians (and others) stopped using religion as an excuse for their intolerance/bigotry, their continued belief in their religion would by hypocritical. If they believe some parts of scripture but not others, they either need a clear reason to make such discriminations, or else they will have to concede that their religious beliefs are arbitrary and originate from their own internal value system. They would be responsible for the arbitrariness of their beliefs once again, and could not logically use religion as a justification for their behaviour.

fluffnutter

esuhl wrote: »

But that's the whole point of religion, isn't it? People who are uneasy with taking responsibility for their views because of the apparent lack of objective values in the world crave an external belief system to be the pseudo-logical foundation of their life. If you yourself can't tell (or decide) the difference between right and wrong, it's easier for you pick a religion to instruct you than it is to bear the responsibility of your actions alone in a world without objective meaning.

Once a person has adopted religion, they no longer need to be responsible for their own actions. Instead of saying "I object morally" to such and such, they can offload all such responsibilities to their religion. They can disapprove of homosexuality and support laws that unjustly persecute homosexuals with a clear conscience. In their minds, intolerance and bigotry magically disappear. "After all," they will say, "God told me to do it". The Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience illustrates how extremely powerful and corrupting such appeals to authority can be.

If Christians (and others) stopped using religion as an excuse for their intolerance/bigotry, their continued belief in their religion would by hypocritical. If they believe some parts of scripture but not others, they either need a clear reason to make such discriminations, or else they will have to concede that their religious beliefs are arbitrary and originate from their own internal value system. They would be responsible for the arbitrariness of their beliefs once again, and could not logically use religion as a justification for their behaviour.

Very true. But again that's the fault of the person, and not some external concept which is, after all, still created by people.

The fact remains, many religious people are intolerant. But many aren't, ergo, it's not religion that's making them intolerant.

I think I just tire of the argument 'religion's to blame for this, that or the other ill'. It's not. People are to blame for the bad things they do. Whether they choose to commit their atrocities under the name of God, the Tooth Fairy, or their love of asparagus is irrelevant.

jpwhittle

As a christian, i dont have any fixed stand on the subject. I do believe that if jesus was walking the earth today as 2000 years ago, he would not be condemning people for who they are. You only have to read the stories of jesus time to see it was the outcasts that he socialised with. If 2 people are happy with eachother then who am i to judge? One of our teachings is let him without sin cast the first stone, and i for one know i am far short of perfect, I couldnt list all the things ive done wrong today on this site. I also believe that we are taught to love the sinner hate the sin.
I do believe my God would be as understanding and loving to a gay person as he would me when i was swearing like a trooper this afternoon. So when my gay friend gets married next year, will i be staying away or will i be there with her? Ill be at her side with as much love for her as i have had since the day i met her. If thats what makes her happy then so be it, who am i to judge?
What i dont agree with is the laws being changed so a church HAS to marry someone, And before anyone shoots me down for this and asks if they should be able to turn straight couples away? yes they should, I once belonged to a church that refused to marry people who only wanted the church for its pretty pictures. Totally the churches perogative, you shouldnt be getting married in a church for its backdrop.

TheSaint_2

As a Christian - I try to follow Gods commandments, and any priest that says it is ok is denying his faith and will suitably burn in hell for it.

Just because popular belief is to allow it does not make it right.

TheSaint_2

esuhl wrote: »

Once a person has adopted religion, they no longer need to be responsible for their own actions. Instead of saying "I object morally" to such and such, they can offload all such responsibilities to their religion. They can disapprove of homosexuality and support laws that unjustly persecute homosexuals with a clear conscience. In their minds, intolerance and bigotry magically disappear. "After all," they will say, "God told me to do it". The Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience illustrates how extremely powerful and corrupting such appeals to authority can be.

What a load of complete crap. The whole of point of religion is to TAKE responsibilty for your own actions. I will stand up and be counted on this issue and will not shift the "blame" for believing it to my church. That is why so many Christians of the early church were stoned or burnt to death - because they refused to bow to "peer" pressure.

Christ said - love everyone - that includes anyone that is gay or whatever. He said love people, not their sins. The distinction is quite clear.

What makes me mad is when so called Christians try to say that being gay is ok. The two do not mix. If you want to be gay - then thats fine, just don't pretend to follow a bible you must either have never read or ignore parts you don't like.

Don't go ask your "priest" either, work it out for yourself by reading the bible (and pray to God).

I don't care if they want marriage - they just can't have a Christian one because it goes against Christianity (and muslims would say the same too).