Oh yeah is that so?

Well as I said it is irrelevant either way, so your post is just as offtopic as the last, unless you are arguing that it is ok to deny rights to people based on their lifestyle choices.
source

You're making out religion to be a scape goat. The reason why gays aren't allowed to marry is because of morality. Conservative Americans see gay marriage as immoral. Some think this is because of Christian teachings, some just see it as wrong.

This question will help demonstrate my point:

If there were no religion, and only people's secular morality to follow, do you really think that gay marriage would be accepted?

My answer is no. Even if you don't believe in the divine revelation aspects of the Bible, it is simply one big morality tale.

People would still think that gay marriage is immoral simply per virtue that it is same-sex.


The people dictate the government. It's the people who are unwilling to actually see both sides of the problem. It's the people who are taking Christianity's word for granted, even when Christianity has no word on modern homosexuality.


Uh what? The Bible is said to be a record of God's divine revelations to man. I'm quite sure those who wrote it believed in God.
The people of the Old Testament believed in stoning those who disobeyed their laws to enforce strict social guidelines. The formation of the Jews and their culture and especially their separation from other (more lenient of such immoralities) cultures was paramount to the Jews and to their writings.

Christianity says that hedonistic acts are immoral. They are. They just understood homosexuality as a hedonistic lifestyle. This is the difference conservative anti-gay Christians don't make. Your understanding of Christianity's opposition of homosexuality isn't what actually occurred.

Check out my post on the first page that explains why and how Christianity came to oppose homosexuality.

I agree, the bible doesn't say "gays should not be allowed to marry". Besides that why are non-religious people allowed to marry anyway if it is a religious argument?

Religious arguments just don't make sense at all...


Check out my post on the first page that explains why and how Christianity could be considered a kind of mental illness.

For the people who use Leviticus 18:22 as a basis to deny gays equality in marriage and general life, here is something they should consider if they are honest beings..

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

The first is Moral sin, which is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."

The second is Ceremonial uncleanliness, which is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

If the verse is considered in isolation -- as it is most often done -- then a logical interpretation is that the verse condemns all sexual activity between two males.

However, if Leviticus 18:22 is considered in the context of its surrounding chapters and previous verse, then it is clear that it refers to some forbidden idolatrous activity in a Pagan temple from which the ancient Israelites must separate themselves.

Molech, like many pagan gods of the day, had sacred male temple prostitutes, and Molech's followers believed that having sex of any kind in the temple would please Molech and increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock, and their fields.

Verse 21 mentions the sacrifice of children to Molech.

Verse 22 should more accurately read "A ‘pure’ man shall not have sex with male temple prostitutes," which would continue the admonition in idolatry.

In fact, the entire Chapter is about idolatry. Consider Chapters 17 and 19, which both speak of idolatry. Why would a writing about sex be inserted here out of the blue in between two chapters on idolatry unless it also is meant to address idolatry?

If you look at Chapter 18 as a whole, and verse 22 in context to the whole chapter, then this verse must speak of idolatry and false worship in some manner.

Therefore, it is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, but rather a condemnation of the sexual promiscuity of the many idol-worshipping sects in the land the Israelites were coming into.

If you hold Leviticus' statements as being a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, do you also obey the rest of the old law? It is written: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it [all of the law]" (James 2:10).

That said, if you believe that Jesus’ blood washed away all those sins so that you can now see or have sex with your wife or girlfriend when she’s on her period without having to worry about asking for forgiveness.. or that Jesus’ blood washed away the sin of marrying a non-virgin and not having to kill her anymore if she was, so that people can now marry non-virgins without asking for forgiveness or being seen as ‘glorying in their sin’…

You would have to admit that the same applies to homosexuality, besides the fact that it only was a ‘sin’ of ceremonial impurity to avoid if you were entering the Temple in Jerusalem that doesn’t exist any longer anyway… the English wording of “A man shall not lay with another man as with a women” is an incorrect translation.

The correct translation is: "A ‘pure’ man shall not have sex with male temple prostitutes." .. which no longer exist anyway..

A fun side note, Rome the most glorious nation that has ever existed was polytheistic for the most part... Rome's gods were bisexuals. As was the case with so many polytheist religions. This also mirrored itself in society, were man on man action was common and nearly expected. If it was okay with the best nation this world has yet to see, I think it's alright by me. But, that deals less with gay marriage and more with gay relations.

Even though I am a christian. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. If 1 person loves another person, then they should be able to be together. Who am I to tell them who they can love or not.
When I see a couple, I don't see them as a male and female, female and female, or male and male. I see them as a equal being just like myself. Equal being.

Also on a side note.
It pisses me off when people bash on christians, saying they are all stupid because they believe in a God. I know you're entitled to your own opinion, but don't be a fucking idiot when you say stuff. If you don't believe in God or the bible then ok. But don't be an idiot and call us a bunch of idiots. Not everyone has the same view on a subject. And if you think that is the case, then you need to get your head out of your ass.

Well, just to be sure, you are the one who pulled this offtopic and decided to start this fight...


If I say that I am wearing a donkey as a hat, and refuse to change my mind no matter how much evidence is thrown at me, would I be stupid?

Either stupid, or a troll.

As I said before, I consider being a Christian to be akin to a mental illness, you are forced to make irrational choices, in the same way that a schizophrenic might. Actually there are probably a lot of parallels between Christianity and schizophrenia. Since Christianity often causes serious behavioral and emotional problems, classing it as a mental illness is not out of reason.

Essentially the intersection of refusing evidence and thus being stupid, and having such behavioral and emotional problems and thus being mentally ill, is where we can define Christians as idiots.

Of course, I would not have put it so bluntly as you did, but to quote a humorous (though crude) way to put it that I once heard; "Christians are 50% stupider than most people because they believe in something that isn't real".

Though one could argue that Christians are merely naive, believing in God the way a child believes in Santa, one must acknowledge that a child probably won't get violent if you tell them Santa doesn't exist, and children grow out of their belief - it is often a sign of immaturity to believe in Santa, children will also turn their belief once given evidence and assurance. Christians hold on to their misguided beliefs much more tightly, often to deadly effect. Which leads me to a second point, provided by a certain Mister616; 'Christianity is not something we can ignore, it is a deadly cancer'

You say that like immaterial arguments have been refuted by whatever. There is no certain grounds about theological, metaphysical problems. There is no convincing evidence for or against it. You can make inferences, and you can formulate arguments. This is not "something is obviously this way, but they are trying to brainwash people into thinking the other way." Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Please share if you do.


I'm going to start deleting sections and posts like this. It is way off the topic of gay marriage, and simply exists to bash Christianity without making any valid points.


There is no evidence for or against. There are no definite proofs or disproofs with knowledge of the kind religion deals with. A name for this knowledge is "doxa", greek for an opinion supported by arguments and reason.


So we're making jokes now?


You, and warcry are making light of an extremely opinionated subject. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof for or against God (and subsequently divine revelation)/ the soul and the body/ the immaterial/ and the nature of existence. All knowledge we have on these subjects are philosophical doxa. Stop saying you have already disproved Christianity's claims and standpoints, no one has, and no one will ever definitely provide evidence beyond the shadow of the doubt either way.

Now can we keep the theological subjects in theological threads and gay marriage subjects in gay marriage threads?
In other words, get back to gay marriage.

It's not fair that you make a big reply then basically threaten to punish me if I reply If you think it is offtopic then why did you reply? That makes you at least as offtopic as I was...

But I digress...

How should we proceed then? We need to decide how to treat people who think imaginary things are real in order to continue this discussion.

what do you mean by modern? don't Christians have to believe the bible how it was written?

oh, and

yeah you aren't helping yourself here

Read what TomPaine wrote about Levititititicus 18:22. Scroll up or click