Civil Rights vs. Gay Marriage Rights

There are soo many scripture passages pertaining to homosexuality...but just one example today:

Romans 1:27-32 (Verbatim) and in the NEW TESTAMENT

"Likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men commiting what is shameful, and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobediant to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
who, knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those whp practice them."

Now that is some tough stuff, very harsh and strict...how you managed to look that over and make such an ignorant statement is beyond me.

Aheffel, good points and well said.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]There are soo many scripture passages pertaining to homosexuality...but just one example today:

Romans 1:27-32 (Verbatim) and in the NEW TESTAMENT

"Likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men commiting what is shameful, and recieving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobediant to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
who, knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those whp practice them."

Now that is some tough stuff, very harsh and strict...how you managed to look that over and make such an ignorant statement is beyond me. [/B][/QUOTE]
paul, who wrote romans, was writing that about a specific group of men. you would generalize everything written in the new testament to get it to fit with your phobias?

Trypd-
First of all, don't let my constant arguing with you annoy you too much, I think you're a cool cat, I promise.
The whole point of my Big post up there was to explain that it is possible to intelligently understand the bible without saying "It contradicts itself." Because if you really understand everything, then you understand that it does not contradict itself.
No kidding that there are a lot of different ideas of what the bible is supposed to be saying, that's not news. But it seems reasonable that if someone is claiming that their viewpoint is true, then their viewpoint better do a damn good job of taking EVERYTHING into account, and not just shrugging parts off and saying "I don't know why it says that, maybe it's a mistake." The reason I consider my view to be correct is because I don't make excuses for things, I know that scripture backs up scripture.
My point is that I do not buy this crap people spew about how the bible contradicts itself, so homosexual sex isn't a sin. You can't possibly have a full understanding of the whole bible and actually believe that.
Furthermore, I don't have any homophobias that I'm trying to justify here, I don't hate gays...that's not a very Christian thing to do, now is it?
However, the topic actually up for discussion here is whether or not gay marriages should be allowed...and for the sake of seperation of church and state, and a continuing unquestionable upholding of civil equality for ALL people...I think that they should be allowed.
"Sin" or not, homosexuals aren't going away any time soon, so it's my Christian duty to respect them, and their privacy. Also, it's my duty as an American Citizen to allow them to have entirely equal protection under the law.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]paul, who wrote romans, was writing that about a specific group of men. you would generalize everything written in the new testament to get it to fit with your phobias? [/B][/QUOTE]

I think we went over this already....this is not my POV ...personal phobias?....please.

Pauls specificity was homosexuals although that name wasnt around at that time... not a sacred cult of gathered men...historically homosexuality was a mainline thing...and Paul wrote against it.

men never used to marry men, how are you so sure he was talking about homosexuality and not sex outside of the bonds of marriage?
besides, as i have discussed in other threads, that is still an outdated text. heterosexuality back in their day served a major purpose. without babies, their family line and clan would have fallen apart.
the guidelines i follow are ones i've formulated out of my personal experiance and from things i've been taught. following a 2,000 year old text (1,800 years if you want to attempt to be a little more linear, as some of the bits of the bible weren't written by the people said to have authored them, but rather written down from their descendants from the oral traditions they passed down). much of the information in it has expired with the passage of years. if you can say that you won't accept the old testament to contain laws to still follow because it's outdated, why choose to accept the new testament as containing the necessary laws to follow? it all boils down to what your pastor/preist/minister told you is acceptable to believe, and what you choose to believe. so don't tell me it's not about your point of view, because it is, yours and that of the church you belong to. that's why there are so many sects, so many branches off christianity, because they all have taken different parts of the bible to be "the truth".

ok if your arguing never use 'you'...cos i think your talking to me and i already told you im not christian....whats in the bible isnt neccesarily what i beleive.....its another debate entirly how the bible came about...whether it was oral storytelling, some imaginative cat writing crazy stories...or the divine word of god given to man to write down...so men can have a "healthy" "right" way of living.
Now im not a bible follower but i can say that things in there are not "outdated"many things a lot of things actually still hold water...i mean ecclesiastes is a fucking trip...its wisdom is profound and the teachings of jesus about love and compassion do you consider that outdated? or even the concept of seperation of church and state was developedd by the teachings of christ and we were discussing how we need to utilize that just in the preveious posts...so to say the bible is an outdated text is "generalizing" it.
The way of god is for man and women to be together...obviously hes against it..hence sodom and gomorrah....so hes talking against a man and a man being together....it being outside the marriage is a seperate sin....but homosexuality...and the act of it is wrong according to god and the bible.
back then marriage was an institution not of love but of like you said procreation...women were dirt in the greek/roman societies so why would you marry a man back then? Paul is not writing of the bonds of marriage in that particular passage..hes writing that the act of a man and a man is wrong...nothing more nothing less.

you're trapped in your own thought cycle. i never said the bible as a whole is outdated, i said it's parts are outdated. which ones you choose (and i use "you" as a general statement) to believe as being outdated and which ones you choose to say still "hold water" is your interpretation of the bible. meaning that you cannot actually claim to know what god is and isn't against.
and again i say how can you judge what parts of the bible are outdated (ie old versus new testaments)? you cannot claim to know which bits are and which aren't. it is your interpretation or your faith's interpretation.
seperation of church and state was addressed by jesus in the bible. yes, and i'm all for that. yet so many religions in america attempt to bend the government to their will, yet shout "seperation of church and state" when the government attempts to do the same. you never hear "seperation of church and state" during abortion rallies, or when the churches speak out against gay marriage rights.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]you're trapped in your own thought cycle. i never said the bible as a whole is outdated, i said it's parts are outdated. which ones you choose (and i use "you" as a general statement) to believe as being outdated and which ones you choose to say still "hold water" is your interpretation of the bible. meaning that you cannot actually claim to know what god is and isn't against.
and again i say how can you judge what parts of the bible are outdated (ie old versus new testaments)? you cannot claim to know which bits are and which aren't. it is your interpretation or your faith's interpretation.
seperation of church and state was addressed by jesus in the bible. yes, and i'm all for that. yet so many religions in america attempt to bend the government to their will, yet shout "seperation of church and state" when the government attempts to do the same. you never hear "seperation of church and state" during abortion rallies, or when the churches speak out against gay marriage rights. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, just trying to explain what you dont seem to understand. So your lost and i wont let you take me along for the dizzying experiance....The not outdated portions of the bible is not my "interpretation" but simply what society and a huge portion of the western populace believe...they do belive in love and compassion etc etc...i wouldnt have used those examples if i was the only one who still thought that was not outdated.
No dont mix lobbying christians with what the bible teaches...i said before that not all christians follow the bible like their religion teaches them to....dont group all of christianity with those hypocrites. and as well like i said there are only a few people and its in the minority that follow jesus' teachings to the T. theresw alot of hate out there even in religion....but i dont need to tell you that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]No, just trying to explain what you dont seem to understand. So your lost and i wont let you take me along for the dizzying experiance....The not outdated portions of the bible is not my "interpretation" but simply what society and a huge portion of the western populace believe...they do belive in love and compassion etc etc...i wouldnt have used those examples if i was the only one who still thought that was not outdated.
No dont mix lobbying christians with what the bible teaches...i said before that not all christians follow the bible like their religion teaches them to....dont group all of christianity with those hypocrites. and as well like i said there are only a few people and its in the minority that follow jesus' teachings to the T. theresw alot of hate out there even in religion....but i dont need to tell you that. [/B][/QUOTE]
you're right in that you don't need to spell out for me to not lump all christian religions together. i understand that some are less anal about somethings than others.
and i do understand where you're coming from, i was there 5-7 years back. i don't think you understand that just because a majority believes certain parts over others means that that majority is correct. it's not god's word anymore, it's man's interpretation of god's word.

I liked this discussion but i dont have much room in me noggin to type anymore long letters......until next time tryp!

same here, see you next time.

So am I the only that thinks it's really funny that there's an Old and New testament? I never really thought of it, but I mean, it's admitting that God fucked up. Cos most christians don't care about the Old Testament and only the New.. So what, God's word the first time around isn't good enough for you? HRM.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]So am I the only that thinks it's really funny that there's an Old and New testament? I never really thought of it, but I mean, it's admitting that God fucked up. Cos most christians don't care about the Old Testament and only the New.. So what, God's word the first time around isn't good enough for you? HRM. [/B][/QUOTE]
to christian's it's something to build on. it's not saying god fucked up, it's saying the people need to know more, and it needs updating. that time was a time of great turmoil among the people.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Diabetic [/i]
[B]Has anyone ever heard of a book called "Stranger at the Gate"? It's an interesting biography of a gay pastor, who is now openly gay, but for years had tried to "cure" his "sickness". He even resorted to shock therapy. Interesting read. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is when I hear things like this that it blows my mind that people think that all homosexuality is a choice. Yep - he chose to have a sickness and try shock therapy. Seems it would have been easier to just stop being sick, since he could choose and all...

Still - wouldn't God have just put out the New Testament to begin with? I mean, really now.. It's so silly. The more I look at religion, the harder it is to keep from laughing.

There were gays before christians ever existed, and now that god is dead, they are still here.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by alene [/i]
[B]It is when I hear things like this that it blows my mind that people think that all homosexuality is a choice. Yep - he chose to have a sickness and try shock therapy. Seems it would have been easier to just stop being sick, since he could choose and all... [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. More and more researches show that homosexuality has nothing to do with choice. But, [B]even if it were[/B] a question of choice, this does not mean some people do not have the right to choose homsexuality. Just as you are allowed to choose an afiliation to a party, for example. I'd rather have a gay son then a republican son, just to illustrate.

I always used to say, if my kid is gay - I'm cool with that, just don't let him be a fucking nigger.

I agree with you, Disx, about the new/old thing. Seems all-seeing god needs to change his mind sometimes.

Can't blame him, I mean, there are just [i]so[/i] many socks to choose from, you know?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]I always used to say, if my kid is gay - I'm cool with that, just don't let him be a fucking nigger. [/B][/QUOTE]
i think you'd see that one coming. not like he'd come to you when he was like twenty one and say, "dad, i'm black."
unless you were blind.

I think maybe, just maybe, he was kidding.
Maybe.

I don't know. Life is full of surprises.

[url=http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61982,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3]Further news on same-sex marriages.[/url]