US Presbyterian Church votes to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian

[Fiyero]

If you don't think homosexuals have higher rates of disease you are basically covering your eyes and saying "lalalala I can't hear you"

Depends on where and what demographic. Worldwide, no they don't. And why do you reduce gays to nothing more than sex acts and diseases? You don't call heterosexuals out on that, so stop with the double standard.

[Fiyero]

Well, for Mormons God is male and is eternally married to a female and has children in a traditional family relationship similar to what exists on this earth. The pinnacle of everything we do and our joy will rest in the eternal family relationships so you could see how being gay would make it difficult to have future progeny in the next life assuming things work like they do on this earth where a male and female are required. That isn't to say there is no place for gay people. Presumably though to become like God in every way you would have to enter a similar relationship. All I know is God loves all of his children and he has a plan for all of us. Ultimately, these things will be worked out but for now we can only act on what knowledge we have been given.

No offense, but glad then I'm not a Mormon and don't believe that. It's bad enough I'll never have a family/relationship on Earth. To have to see everyone else with one while I'm alone in Heaven too? No thanks.

[sawoobley]

I certainly try like crazy and pretty much defy your typical stereotypes.

Just saw this. In Mormonism a gay person who faithfully lived the gospel would not be denied any blessing in the next life. Even if God himself had to change your nature or whatever he could not and would not deny someone a blessing just because they were unable to fall in love with a woman due to their biology. This is my opinion but it is completely consistent with Mormon doctrine. The only way this would not be the case would be if being gay was a choice and according to what you and others have said it is not a choice.

[sawoobley]

No offense, but glad then I'm not a Mormon and don't believe that. It's bad enough I'll never have a family/relationship on Earth. To have to see everyone else with one while I'm alone in Heaven too? No thanks.

Well, I'm not trying to sell you anything. All I can do is explain my position since you asked how being gay would be a hinderance to becoming like God.

[Fiyero]

Just saw this. In Mormonism a gay person who faithfully lived the gospel would not be denied any blessing in the next life. Even if God himself had to change your nature or whatever he could not and would not deny someone a blessing just because they were unable to fall in love with a woman due to their biology.

If God needs to change our nature, why doesn't he now? He could change a gay person's orientation or gender, whichever solves the issue. Yet he refuses to.

This is my opinion but it is completely consistent with Mormon doctrine. The only way this would not be the case would be if being gay was a choice and according to what you and others have said it is not a choice.

Definitely not a choice, I can guarantee you that.

[DizzySmalls]

If God needs to change our nature, why doesn't he now? He could change a gay person's orientation or gender, whichever solves the issue. Yet he refuses to.

It's a waving away of the issue. Fall in line and God will write you an IOU, you just have to die first. Then the stain of your gayness will finally be wiped free.

[sawoobley]

If God needs to change our nature, why doesn't he now? He could change a gay person's orientation or gender, whichever solves the issue. Yet he refuses to.

Why doesn't he heal the amputees, the retarded, the mentally ill, the socially awkward, give fathers to the fatherless, give money to the poor, feed the hungry, give relief to the tortured, restore chastity to the raped and molested, etc? If gay people were the only people having difficulties your question would make more sense. There is a purpose for it all and he has promised relief in the next life. Going through the whole purpose of life is beyond this thread though.

[Fiyero]

Why doesn't he heal the amputees, the retarded, the mentally ill, the socially awkward, give fathers to the fatherless, give money to the poor, feed the hungry, give relief to the tortured, restore chastity to the raped and molested, etc? If gay people were the only people having difficulties your question would make more sense. There is a purpose for it all and he has promised relief in the next life. Going through the whole purpose of life is beyond this thread though.

But being an amputee, mentally ill, socially awkward, etc. are not supposedly the worst sins on Earth like being gay is. Clearly it seems to be an extremely important situation he should want to address asap.

[Scorer]

Depends on where and what demographic.

anywhere you'd want to live gays have higher rates of disease.

Worldwide, no they don't.

if your argument is that gay sex isn't risky because africans are even worse, then I'll just about rest my case.

And why do you reduce gays to nothing more than sex acts and diseases? You don't call heterosexuals out on that, so stop with the double standard.

actually considering I'm comparing the riskiness of homo and hetero relationships, yeah that is exactly what I did to heteros. Its a narrow reduction because its a narrow argument.

[HeroesFall]

I need to ask a REALLY stupid question, and then you guys can get back to your bickering....

why do homosexuals want to get married under a relgious viewpoint that doesn't agree with them, why even care?


It just seems like another effort of "doing something because everyone has to agree with you and see things through your eyes."



Wanting to have a union by the state I can understand. Wanting a religion to accept your viewpoint because its what you want, is just..... senseless? I can't wait to see these guys go after Muslims, but first should probably start with womens rights. I mean I'm sure the radical feminists and homosexual community will have no problems dealing with the radical Muslim community. Or is it just attacking the luke warm targets that makes it desirable? Face it, the bulk of Christianity in the USA is luke warm. Anyways, back to your scheduled bickering for no other reason than to appease the atheists / agnostics and make them feel they've won. So much easier to just move on and agree to disagree, but then that would make life easy.

[Fiyero]

why do homosexuals want to get married under a relgious viewpoint that doesn't agree with them, why even care?

Because some of us value both?

[HeroesFall]

But if it makes multiple mentions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong, and the Bible is the basis of this religion, why do you value it?


That's like an open wheeled racer wanting to race in Nascar using his open wheel car because he likes Nascar. OK, maybe a bad example, but point is, why do you want to be a part of something that doesn't agree with you? So you want to change want it states so it fits your worldview, but now its no longer what it originally was. If it isn't what it originally was, and its changed to suit you, why don't you just start a new system based on what you believe and go from there? No one is going to get upset about it, people do it all the time.


It just seems like another desire for others to recognize you're the same, but you're not. If you're different be different, don't expect everything to skew around that difference so you can become "normal."

[Fiyero]

But if it makes multiple mentions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong, and the Bible is the basis of this religion, why do you value it?

Because some of what's written is valuable. Some of it is left over from a bygone era of patriarchy, barbaric morality, ignorance, and paganism.

It just seems like another desire for others to recognize you're the same, but you're not. If you're different be different, don't expect everything to skew around that difference so you can become "normal."

I don't think it's asking a lot to not be viewed as evil just because of the gender i'm attracted to. It will never be the majority, but that doesn't mean it needs to be demonized.

[HeroesFall]

I don't think most Christians / people in general view homosexuals as evil. Maybe a couple decades ago, but not this generation, or future ones. I only detest PDA, and that's all forms of sexual preference.

From what I was taught growing up, hate the sin not the sinner. Some people can get upset and say, "well that's part of who I am." To that I respond, be who you are. Everyone commits sin, really. There isn't a single unblemished person on this website / anywhere. So committing a homosexual act is sinful (feel free to decide whether the act is being in a relationship, anal, scissoring, whatever). Pre-marrital relations are also considered a sin. When I'm able, I commit that sin regularly. I don't expect the Bible to be re-written for me because I don't believe I should have to be legally married to express a form of physical intimacy with my girlfriend; I just accept that at the end of the day, I may get in trouble for it.

Is anyone willing to fight that fight, is it also a part of what's outdated? Or are the principles and morality potrayed by the Scripture meant to trascend time? My pitch is I don't see why people have to change something if that's what it is. Just own up that you may not be following it to a 'T' and move on. I mean folks got upset when hardcore religious folk tried to "change" homosexuals. Now homosexuals are trying to "change" religion - or at least Christianity. It works both ways. You can have both if you value both, but it doesn't mean it should change to suit you (as a collective not individually).



My 2 yen, obviously everyone has their own worldview.

[SDC77]

The more that churches move in this direction, the greater congregations will be in more literal (or extreme) denominations such as Baptists and Pentecostal. While it makes sense to be more inclusive, there are many who need rigidity within their faith.

[gnahc92]

You have a choice to either to accept the laws of God as truth or reject them.

If people don't want to come to the church because of the laws of God, that's on them. It's simply their choice and I pray that they make the correct one.

I think the only reasonable thing to do is to reject the laws of that particular, specific god. That god has not been shown to exist nor has it been shown that such a god gave us a particular set of laws.

[Kharvok]

There has been a push in liberal theology to find ways around the biblical prohibition against homosexual acts. The arguments will be some combination of:

Levitical laws only applied to the priesthood, the prohibition of homosexual activity only referred to rape, or it only referred to temple prostitution, Paul didn't really know about loving same sex monogamous unions, Paul was also talking about rape, or temple prostitution, or who even knows what he was talking about. And then various variations on those.

So they're willing to believe that their all-loving, all-powerful God allowed the entirety of Christianity to misinterpret this for 2000+ years?

I don't see how someone could justify their viewpoint on this using the bible as their reference.

[lasher]

So they're willing to believe that their all-loving, all-powerful God allowed the entirety of Christianity to misinterpret this for 2000+ years?

I don't see how someone could justify their viewpoint on this using the bible as their reference.

Yes, it does seem that that is what they are willing to believe. It is interesting to note, as you just have, that the reinterpretation of the texts to be gay affirming has had a single occurence in history, which of course started in the 1960's.

[NiceBoat]

The question I have now is this: Why should I as a non christian be barred from marrying a man if I so wish because it will jimmy rustle most Christians, most Muslims and some orthodox Jews? Now that one relatively major denomination of Christians support gay marriage, doesn't that mean the biblical interpretation on marriage itself is up for debate? Even if I happen to agree with Lasher and most other Christians that homosexual relationships are largely forbidden in the bible. I certainly do not see much evidence for them from the times I have read the bible.

[Jawja]

Are people *still* arguing about this? /yawn

If some dude wants to stick his winky dink up another dude's corn hole, like ... omg, I'd have to try really, really hard to think of something I care less about.

And everybody thinks they know God! And what he wants, and what he approves of! Because of some ridiculous "holy" book handed down by some nomadic desert arabs from thousands of years ago. Sheesh. Whoever thinks they know God, from that book? Is in for a very rude awakening upon death. When it happens, don't say I didn't warn you.

[DizzySmalls]

When it happens, don't say I didn't warn you.

Lol are you going to be there or something?

[ohsoreal]

cowardice heretics of peace.

Heretics? lol. This aint 15th century AD.

The jimmy rustling is awesome ITT.

[Fiyero]

I don't think most Christians / people in general view homosexuals as evil. Maybe a couple decades ago, but not this generation, or future ones. I only detest PDA, and that's all forms of sexual preference.

Being called an abomination, perverted, diseased, spawn of Satan, sodomite, child molester are all probably worse than being called evil. Yet all those adjectives are used against gays by the so called loving Christian crowd.

From what I was taught growing up, hate the sin not the sinner.

A lovely cop out coined by Gandhi.

Everyone commits sin, really.

Yes everyone does. But most people don't get attacked and berated for it every single day of their life, nor are they attacked merely for who they fall in love with.

I mean folks got upset when hardcore religious folk tried to "change" homosexuals. Now homosexuals are trying to "change" religion - or at least Christianity. It works both ways. You can have both if you value both, but it doesn't mean it should change to suit you (as a collective not individually).

The difference between ignorant religious folks are trying to alter biology through harmful means. Those trying to change Christianity are merely trying to create a more educated institution.

[Fiyero]

So they're willing to believe that their all-loving, all-powerful God allowed the entirety of Christianity to misinterpret this for 2000+ years?

I don't see God making any effort to stop people from misinterpreting/mistranslating. Geocentrism was a very long misinterpretation. God didn't put a rush on correcting people on that one. The KJV has numerous mistranslations that are quite questionable. Yet they still persist hundreds of years later.

[Fiyero]

Yes, it does seem that that is what they are willing to believe. It is interesting to note, as you just have, that the reinterpretation of the texts to be gay affirming has had a single occurence in history, which of course started in the 1960's.

Considering homosexual wasn't actually added until the 1940s, why would you expect it any earlier? Sexual Orientation wasn't even coined/discovered until the late 19th/early 20th Century. Wasn't really an issue to address until recently thanks to the advancement of science.

[lasher]

Considering homosexual wasn't actually added until the 1940s, why would you expect it any earlier? Sexual Orientation wasn't even coined/discovered until the late 19th/early 20th Century. Wasn't really an issue to address until recently thanks to the advancement of science.

total nonsense. Just because the words 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexual' were not used does not mean people did not understand that some people were only attracted to one sex. This was known even in plato's time.

[Fiyero]

Lol are you going to be there or something?

I'm pretty certain the anti-gay crowd will be in for a rude awakening. The amount of suffering they've caused isn't going to get them a pat on the back, regardless of the morality of homosexuality itself.

[Fiyero]

total nonsense. Just because the words 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexual' were not used does not mean people did not understand that some people were only attracted to one sex. This was known even in plato's time.

I don't think that's how they viewed things back then. Role/position seemed to be more representative then what we call biological orientation. If they knew about biological attractions as opposed to just behaviors/roles, why are attractions not addressed? They discussed Eunuchs, why not discuss those exclusively attracted to the same sex?

[lasher]

I don't think that's how they viewed things back then. Role/position seemed to be more representative then what we call biological orientation. If they knew about biological attractions as opposed to just behaviors/roles, why are attractions not addressed? They discussed Eunuchs, why not discuss those exclusively attracted to the same sex?

There were same sex marriage rites at the beginning of the imperial roman period. Roman literature describes people in same sex relationships. Plato's symposium describes men who are only attracted to other men and women who are only attracted to other women. Just because the exact words and terms we have now were not used at the time does not mean people did not know there were men and women who only were attracted to their own sex. Therefore your assertion that no one ever tried to make the bible gay affirming because they didn't know about people who were only attracted to their own sex is false.

[HELIX35]

If you don't think homosexuals have higher rates of disease you are basically covering your eyes and saying "lalalala I can't hear you"

Do you have a point?