Why are gay people a Christian target?

[Colorado127]

I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.

I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.

Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.

Ok, let me have it!

[faith]

Fallibleone"]

So I am married because I am in a heterosexual relationship, whereas a MARRIED homosexual couple (not a homosexual couple in a civil partnership) is somehow not married, simply because they are of the same sex, and even though they are in fact married.

Hi FO,

I have stated clearly that marriage has alway been since time and memorial for men and women only. The fact that someone now wants to include all same sex does not make it marriage. Because marriage was only something men and women could do up until the present age.
You can make it whatever you want. But it will not change the fact that a man and woman can only be made one flesh in Gods sight. Which is he reason for marriage in religion. Two same sex people can never have the union of marriage becoming one flesh. So clearly the understanding has to take all the information that marriage is a symbol of. I believe that a civil partnership is called this because they cannot be married in every meaning and sense of the word marriage giving it's full meaning in faith and without faith.

I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way.

In some countries civil partnerships are not in place. Homosexual marriage is. That's the point. Homosexual couples can get married. My question to you was would you not consider a homosexual married couple married?

Because they cannot be one flesh they cannot be married in the full sense of the word, as explained above. I suggest if we are honest it does not matter as long as they love each other and are committed to each other.

But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I do not believe in causing friction or taking away from the value and merit of a relationship because of what marriage or civil partnership may be seen to mean.
In all honesty I can only see marriage as a word meaning for a man and a woman to be joined in one flesh. I see civil partnership as a way for two people to have the same legal protection as those married. This is what is important.

I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

Clearly other countries do not see civil partnerships as being sufficient to provide for homosexual couples' needs. Personally I think homosexual couples are the best people to decide what is sufficient.

By the same ruling you could say a man and woman are the best to decide who marriage should apply to, a cop out really. As homosexuals have no problem with my view because they respect my faith and right to believe. They know I love them and vice versa we do not have a problem with honesty.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper?

I've no idea. I would suspect that most people in the West, homosexual or heterosexual, marry out of love.

Which is why the name of what the ceremony is, is not particularly important.
It is that the people concerned are happy and protected.

Love must come into the equasion, surely.

Yes - you sound as though someone suggested it doesn't. Why?

Love should be the only reason someone wants to marry or have a civil partnership.

Love Faith.xx

[Goat]

Hi FO,

I have stated clearly that marriage has alway been since time and memorial for men and women only. The fact that someone now wants to include all same sex does not make it marriage. Because marriage was only something men and women could do up until the present age.
You can make it whatever you want. But it will not change the fact that a man and woman can only be made one flesh in Gods sight. Which is he reason for marriage in religion. Two same sex people can never have the union of marriage becoming one flesh. So clearly the understanding has to take all the information that marriage is a symbol of. I believe that a civil partnership is called this because they cannot be married in every meaning and sense of the word marriage giving it's full meaning in faith and without faith.
[/quote[

So, because some bronze age nomads had some prejudices, we should keep them?
And, how do you know that two people of the same gender can not become one flesh? that is very metaphorical. I know gay couples whose love and devotion to each other far exceeds many heterosexual couples. I would say that is in the eyes of god, and I do not presume to speak for god.

What gives you the right to speak for God?

I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way.

In some countries civil partnerships are not in place. Homosexual marriage is. That's the point. Homosexual couples can get married. My question to you was would you not consider a homosexual married couple married?

Because they cannot be one flesh they cannot be married in the full sense of the word, as explained above. I suggest if we are honest it does not matter as long as they love each other and are committed to each other.

You keep on repeating this. Could you please show that it is an actuallity, rather than a prejudice? It seem to me they can be fully married in their own eyes, and
if it not valid in the eyes of God,God isn't talking.

But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I do not believe in causing friction or taking away from the value and merit of a relationship because of what marriage or civil partnership may be seen to mean.
In all honesty I can only see marriage as a word meaning for a man and a woman to be joined in one flesh. I see civil partnership as a way for two people to have the same legal protection as those married. This is what is important.

I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

Clearly other countries do not see civil partnerships as being sufficient to provide for homosexual couples' needs. Personally I think homosexual couples are the best people to decide what is sufficient.

By the same ruling you could say a man and woman are the best to decide who marriage should apply to, a cop out really. As homosexuals have no problem with my view because they respect my faith and right to believe. They know I love them and vice versa we do not have a problem with honesty.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper?

I've no idea. I would suspect that most people in the West, homosexual or heterosexual, marry out of love.

Which is why the name of what the ceremony is, is not particularly important.
It is that the people concerned are happy and protected.

Love must come into the equasion, surely.

Yes - you sound as though someone suggested it doesn't. Why?

Love should be the only reason someone wants to marry or have a civil partnership.

Love Faith.xx

Be honest with yourself,You make claims about 'one flesh',but that is a metaphorical concept that you can not prove. I do not see that you talk for God.

[faith]

goat"]
So, because some bronze age nomads had some prejudices, we should keep them?
And, how do you know that two people of the same gender can not become one flesh? that is very metaphorical. I know gay couples whose love and devotion to each other far exceeds many heterosexual couples. I would say that is in the eyes of god, and I do not presume to speak for god.

What gives you the right to speak for God?

You know yourself that man and woman are one flesh because woman was taken from man and from Adam and Eve all flesh was descended. You also know that this is why marriage is only for man and woman for God made woman to be mans companion, he did not make Adam and Steve because they could not multiply.
Clearly the reasoning is Gods if you have a problem I suggest you ask him about it. Unless you do not believe Yhwh and the scriptures.(Old Testament. Torah)

I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way.

In some countries civil partnerships are not in place. Homosexual marriage is. That's the point. Homosexual couples can get married. My question to you was would you not consider a homosexual married couple married?

Because they cannot be one flesh they cannot be married in the full sense of the word, as explained above. I suggest if we are honest it does not matter as long as they love each other and are committed to each other.

You keep on repeating this. Could you please show that it is an actuallity, rather than a prejudice? It seem to me they can be fully married in their own eyes, and
if it not valid in the eyes of God,God isn't talking.

Again did any of the prophets or indeed the Kings of Israel marry a man?
Then why do you ask me to prove that which is proved by the fact no one man ever married another man, and no woman ever married another woman, in the Torah? I believe if you know the law then you know the answer. Why do you think believing in a Messiah makes us ignorant of the presence of the true God and his true teachings of the Torah?

But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I do not believe in causing friction or taking away from the value and merit of a relationship because of what marriage or civil partnership may be seen to mean.
In all honesty I can only see marriage as a word meaning for a man and a woman to be joined in one flesh. I see civil partnership as a way for two people to have the same legal protection as those married. This is what is important.

I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

Clearly other countries do not see civil partnerships as being sufficient to provide for homosexual couples' needs. Personally I think homosexual couples are the best people to decide what is sufficient.

By the same ruling you could say a man and woman are the best to decide who marriage should apply to, a cop out really. As homosexuals have no problem with my view because they respect my faith and right to believe. They know I love them and vice versa we do not have a problem with honesty.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper?

I've no idea. I would suspect that most people in the West, homosexual or heterosexual, marry out of love.

Which is why the name of what the ceremony is, is not particularly important.
It is that the people concerned are happy and protected.

Love must come into the equasion, surely.

Yes - you sound as though someone suggested it doesn't. Why?

Love should be the only reason someone wants to marry or have a civil partnership.

Love Faith.xx

Be honest with yourself,You make claims about 'one flesh',but that is a metaphorical concept that you can not prove. I do not see that you talk for God.[/quote]

I have already proved this with Adams rib being used to create Eve.
They both came from one flesh. Unless your saying God is a liar. You do not see that which you refused to see but you will repeat what I have said when you speak about God in the future. Simply because you dare not call God a liar.

Love Faith.xx

[McCulloch]

Marriage was not originally a legal matter.

Citation required

Marriage came from before there was any laws and agreements. Go back and check your history. Before the Law marriage was ordained by God, a man leaving his Father and Mother and becoming united to his wife. Where did marriage come from to be able to arrange a contract? Look at the teachings of Moses.
You believe your own scriptures, don't you?

Marriage (pair bonding as it is known when it occurs in other species) predates belief in God.

[McCulloch]

You know yourself that man and woman are one flesh because woman was taken from man and from Adam and Eve all flesh was descended. You also know that this is why marriage is only for man and woman for God made woman to be mans companion, he did not make Adam and Steve because they could not multiply.
Clearly the reasoning is Gods if you have a problem I suggest you ask him about it.

No, the reasoning is of those who claim to speak for God. You have done nothing to show that any of the Bible is from God.

In all honesty I can only see marriage as a word meaning for a man and a woman to be joined in one flesh. I see civil partnership as a way for two people to have the same legal protection as those married. This is what is important.

That's mighty white of you! But your objection to recognizing same sex marriage by civil secular authorities is religious.

I have already proved this with Adams rib being used to create Eve.
They both came from one flesh. Unless your saying God is a liar. You do not see that which you refused to see but you will repeat what I have said when you speak about God in the future. Simply because you dare not call God a liar.

I would say that God isn't a liar, but really I think that it would be more accurate to just say God isn't. Why do you wish to base civil law on religious precepts?

[Fallibleone]

So I am married because I am in a heterosexual relationship, whereas a MARRIED homosexual couple (not a homosexual couple in a civil partnership) is somehow not married, simply because they are of the same sex, and even though they are in fact married.

Hi FO,

I have stated clearly that marriage has alway been since time and memorial for men and women only.

This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to tradition. A member of Edwardian society could have said 'Suffrage has always been since time in memorial for upper class males only' with as much justification. If everyone had said 'yes you're right, and since it's always been that way, let's jolly well keep it that way', you'd be disqualified from voting today. Would you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

The fact that someone now wants to include all same sex does not make it marriage.

I think you'll find it does in those countries where homosexual marriage is allowed.

Because marriage was only something men and women could do up until the present age.

There's that pesky logical fallacy again. You'll need some of that annoying evidence stuff to back this one up, as I disagree with you about that. It only takes one single example of a homosexual marriage in history to prove your statement wrong, and I'm looking into it as we speak.

You can make it whatever you want. But it will not change the fact that a man and woman can only be made one flesh in Gods sight. Which is he reason for marriage in religion.

I see - and yet I apparently am married in your eyes, even though the ceremony was a civil one.

Two same sex people can never have the union of marriage becoming one flesh.

I don;t know anyone, straight or gay, who can become one flesh with someone else.

So clearly the understanding has to take all the information that marriage is a symbol of. I believe that a civil partnership is called this because they cannot be married in every meaning and sense of the word marriage giving it's full meaning in faith and without faith.

Except that marriage is not the things you say it is, otherwise I am not married. I am not of 'one flesh' with my husband and nor is anyone else, unless there is a strange branch of Christianity somewhere that espouses the practice of the bride devouring the groom at the altar. I was not married 'in the sight of God'. Yet I'm married according to you.

I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way.

In some countries civil partnerships are not in place. Homosexual marriage is. That's the point. Homosexual couples can get married. My question to you was would you not consider a homosexual married couple married?

Because they cannot be one flesh they cannot be married in the full sense of the word, as explained above.

NO ONE becomes 'one flesh' with another human being. I'm sad to say it, but this is religious clap trap which doesn't mean anything. Take a look at it for a second for goodness sake. 'they cannot be one flesh'. Does that look like a sensible collection of words to you?

I suggest if we are honest it does not matter as long as they love each other and are committed to each other.

It clearly matters to you, and to those homosexuals who are in fact LEGALLY MARRIED.

But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I do not believe in causing friction or taking away from the value and merit of a relationship because of what marriage or civil partnership may be seen to mean. In all honesty I can only see marriage as a word meaning for a man and a woman to be joined in one flesh. I see civil partnership as a way for two people to have the same legal protection as those married. This is what is important.
I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

I think what is important is whatever is important to them, not what someone else, unaffected by their choice, feels is important.

Clearly other countries do not see civil partnerships as being sufficient to provide for homosexual couples' needs. Personally I think homosexual couples are the best people to decide what is sufficient.

By the same ruling you could say a man and woman are the best to decide who marriage should apply to, a cop out really.

There is no cop-out involved. Why should you, a heterosexual (I assume), have any say in what homosexual people are allowed to do, when it doesn't affect you in any way?

As homosexuals have no problem with my view because they respect my faith and right to believe. They know I love them and vice versa we do not have a problem with honesty.

Perhaps the homosexuals you know have no problem with your view. You're not able to expand that out to include all homosexuals. I'm pretty sure that there are those who would indeed have a problem with it, as I do.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper?

I've no idea. I would suspect that most people in the West, homosexual or heterosexual, marry out of love.

Which is why the name of what the ceremony is, is not particularly important.
It is that the people concerned are happy and protected.

And yet you won't accept the word 'marriage' as something applicable to same sex couples.

Love must come into the equasion, surely.

Yes - you sound as though someone suggested it doesn't. Why?

Love should be the only reason someone wants to marry or have a civil partnership.

Forgive me, but you didn't answer my question. You sound as though someone suggested love does not come into the equation. Why?


Just for clarification, you do in fact seem to be saying that those married homosexuals from other countries are not married, even though they are married. Is that correct?

Edit: for spelling. And quote trouble, as usual. Tsk.

[JoeyKnothead]

How is the homosexual demand for equal rights different from that of polygamists or zoophiles or pedophiles (and don't give me this nonsense about consent: homosexuals claim to have been born with their attraction and, so, choice is not the issue)?

--Homosexuals, having more than likely been BORN that way, have CHOSEN to accept their lot, and live the life they feel they were destined to. Polygamists have been condemned for reasons that escape me. I say if someone wants to marry a hundred people, that is their business, not anyone else's. Zoophiles have a, ahem, partner that cannot give informed consent. Pedophiles have a victim who cannot give informed consent. Quit bringing animals and small children into a debate about consenting adults.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals but not to rapists?

--Informed consent.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to pedophiles?

--Informed consent

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to adulterers?

--In the sense that someone has promised to be with only the one person or group of people, then they have broken their vows. Homosexuality in itself is not a breaking of vows.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to pet lovers?

--Informed consent

There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that makes it different from pedophilia or zoophilia (all three are sexual/romantic attractions that are contrary to nature).

--It is apparent to most rational minds why homosexuality is not bestiality or pedophilia. It's always the religious who make this case.

There is nothing inherent in homosexual behavior that makes it different from adultery (God considers both to be sin and both involve sexual/romantic behavior outside of opposite-sex marriage).

--Adultery is when someone makes a vow to be with only the one or group they have promised to be faithful to. Homosexuality in itself is not adultery, as they have not promised anything.

The homosexual "agenda" is the attempt to force society to declare their unnatural attraction and sinful behavior to be natural and perfectly acceptable.

--The homosexual 'agenda' is the attempt to share in the same rights as everyone else. These are our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers. They deserve whatever rights we all have.

[daedalus 2.0]

Again did any of the prophets or indeed the Kings of Israel marry a man?
Then why do you ask me to prove that which is proved by the fact no one man ever married another man, and no woman ever married another woman, in the Torah? I believe if you know the law then you know the answer. Why do you think believing in a Messiah makes us ignorant of the presence of the true God and his true teachings of the Torah?

So you can't prove it didn't happen?

However, you miss the obvious reason: The men who created the religion were homophobic.

How can you tell me that a "fallen" human (as you said all were after Adam and Eve) could distinguish between a sign from God and his own feelings of homophobia? Religious people always see their feelings as justified by God in the end. That is why you always feel you have an answer: you make something up and then claim that God meant it that way. That way you are never wrong and never have to question yourself.

BTW, Jesus helped a gay guy and his lover in the Bible. And Jesus never married, so maybe Jesus is trying to tell you not to marry? After all, marriage laws were changed under Paul, not Jesus. Two different people.

[McCulloch]

How is the homosexual demand for equal rights different from that of polygamists or zoophiles or pedophiles (and don't give me this nonsense about consent: homosexuals claim to have been born with their attraction and, so, choice is not the issue)?

Well, perhaps to someone who accepts the Biblical injunction that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, consent in a sexual relationship is nonsense. But to me, consent is very important. In the case of zoophiles and pedophiles, there is a lack of consent with one of the partners. The presumption under law it that a non-human animal or a child, does not have the ability to give consent to such a relationship. In the case of two adults of the same sex who consent to a sexual relationship, why not?
Polygamy is a more knotty problem. If polygamy is allowed, there should be some form of protection to ensure that consent is give by all parties. Why would you, a Biblical religionist, imply that polygamy, nowhere condemned in the Bible, is wrong?

Homosexuals, having more than likely been BORN that way, have CHOSEN to accept their lot, and live the life they feel they were destined to. Polygamists have been condemned for reasons that escape me. I say if someone wants to marry a hundred people, that is their business, not anyone else's.

I would add that it is also the business of each of those hundred people, wouldn't you?

[JoeyKnothead]

How is the homosexual demand for equal rights different from that of polygamists or zoophiles or pedophiles (and don't give me this nonsense about consent: homosexuals claim to have been born with their attraction and, so, choice is not the issue)?

Well, perhaps to someone who accepts the Biblical injunction that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, consent in a sexual relationship is nonsense. But to me, consent is very important. In the case of zoophiles and pedophiles, there is a lack of consent with one of the partners. The presumption under law it that a non-human animal or a child, does not have the ability to give consent to such a relationship. In the case of two adults of the same sex who consent to a sexual relationship, why not?
Polygamy is a more knotty problem. If polygamy is allowed, there should be some form of protection to ensure that consent is give by all parties. Why would you, a Biblical religionist, imply that polygamy, nowhere condemned in the Bible, is wrong?

Homosexuals, having more than likely been BORN that way, have CHOSEN to accept their lot, and live the life they feel they were destined to. Polygamists have been condemned for reasons that escape me. I say if someone wants to marry a hundred people, that is their business, not anyone else's.

I would add that it is also the business of each of those hundred people, wouldn't you?

I apologize to one and all. I am trying to learn how to do the quote thingy properly. In the post you are referencing I tried to make sure I used the -- In front of my responses. If I failed to do so accurately, please bear with me while I learn this system.

Again, I apologize for any confusion my dooficity may have caused.