TheMightyEthan Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) There are plenty of things the bible classifies as sins that most Christians don't consider sins anymore (like wearing clothes made out of two different types of fabric, to name the most commonly used example), so just because some Christians consider it a sin doesn't mean that all do. At its core being Christian just means that you believe Jesus Christ is the son of the One True God and that the path to salvation is through Him, everything else differs from denomination to denomination and person to person. Also, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, honest curiosity: does the Bible mention homosexuality being a sin outside of Leviticus? *Edit* - I don't know of anyone (except maybe Westboro Baptist Church) who considers being gay a sin, what they consider a sin is the homosexual sex, and a lot of them only consider it a sin because it's not within a marriage. Edited February 9, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) I guess it all depends on the dogma you adhere to and how strongly. Homosexuality Performing a homosexual act is a sin (good point Ethan), so is eating meat on a Friday, going to work on Sunday and coveting another person's possessions (thought-crime tastic). Also, apparently Deuteronimy sp? Also has some stuff on this as does Romans 1, though the "author" of that gospel has had a lot of stuff disregarded, like how cool slavery is, and how women are 2nd class citizens. Edited February 9, 2012 by Thursday Next 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Some dogmas require you to not eat meat on both Friday and Wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) There are plenty of things the bible classifies as sins that most Christians don't consider sins anymore (like wearing clothes made out of two different types of fabric, to name the most commonly used example), so just because some Christians consider it a sin doesn't mean that all do. At its core being Christian just means that you believe Jesus Christ is the son of the One True God and that the path to salvation is through Him, everything else differs from denomination to denomination and person to person. This is one of my main problems with religion. So many sects that argue about the silliest differences, yet they all agree on hating a few things that really shouldn't be hated (disliked, deemed wrong, wrap it however you like it's the same.) Also, and I'm not trying to be argumentative here, honest curiosity: does the Bible mention homosexuality being a sin outside of Leviticus? Not that i know of, but it's been a while since i last read it. *Edit* - I don't know of anyone (except maybe Westboro Baptist Church) who considers being gay a sin, what they consider a sin is the homosexual sex, and a lot of them only consider it a sin because it's not within a marriage. Still good enough for me to not understand gay Christians. Edited February 9, 2012 by Kovach_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Having done a bit of reading around the intertubes, it seems that "some scholars" as there always seem to be, are of the opinion that the word taken to mean "homosexual" could just be a misinterpretation of "prostitute" or generally "sexual deviant". In Corinthians the word arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης) appears in a list of sexy/raucous/otherwise fun things that you can't do. Someone somewhere along the line has taken the Ancient Greek translation of an Arabic word and decided that it means homosexual intercourse and thus it is banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Going back to the legal side of things, my view is that it's not the law's job to prohibit people from committing sins, it's just the law's job to prohibit people from hurting other people. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 From a biblical perspective it's considered a perversion. Most Christians I know consider it akin to struggling with alcoholism or pornography addiction. It's not something you want to be addicted to, you feel helpless against it and it's something you're very prone too. It's something that you have to actively overcome. I'll prep for the incoming firestorm now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 At least you're aware it's a pretty controversial stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovach_ Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well, there's no problem with him believing it to be so as long as it's not actively bothering anyone. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well, there's no problem with him believing it to be so as long as it's not actively bothering anyone. ^Ditto^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 This all made me wonder... are religious marriages legally binding in the US? Yes and no. If you just do a religious ceremony that doesn't mean anything legally speaking. The typical procedure is you go to the county courthouse and get a marriage license which is good after a 3-day waiting period, then you take that marriage license to the church and after the ceremony the married couple, the "officiant", and two witnesses sign the marriage license, at which point you are legally married. Then you have to file the marriage license back at the court house. You can also have a judge perform the marriage, but the procedure is the same except you do it in a courthouse (typically, though you could do it wherever you wanted) instead of a church and there's usually less ceremony associated with it. That actually varies from state to state. NY for example requires a 24 hour waiting period. Some states, such as Nevada, have no waiting period (which is why so many people elope in Vegas.) I don't know whether it was NY or a service from our preacher but the Pastor who married us filed the paperwork for us. We also got two marriage certificates. One from the State of New York and one from the Lutheran Church (not bad for a Methodist boy from the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yeah, I was just trying to explain the "standard" to the extent there is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mister Jack Posted February 10, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338&feature=context&context=G21864b8FOAAAAAAAIAA 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Kids are "fringe benefits"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Kids are "fringe benefits"? Seriously, are you just trying to be argumentative? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Kids are "fringe benefits"? Kind of missed the boat there, chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) It's just such a bizarre statement. If you want to actually get on the boat, she says her hetrosexual marriage was so wonderful that she wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of that but the argument is flawed because hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are inherently different. Edited February 10, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the point was that kids was not so much the reason to get married as it was another wonderful thing she got out of the marriage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It's just such a bizarre statement. If you want to actually get on the boat, she says her hetrosexual marriage was so wonderful that she wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of that but the argument is flawed because hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are inherently different. Inherently different? How so? Because we have sex in a different way, or because children are impossible without a sperm donor/adoption? Or is this a morality play? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 If you want to actually get on the boat, she says her hetrosexual marriage was so wonderful that she wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of that but the argument is flawed because hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are inherently different. No they're not? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Clearly it's different if for no other reason than genders involved. We have two separate names for the relationships which indicates the difference, homosexual and hetrosexual. There are differences. You could propose that the relational aspects are the same, I think that is what she's trying to do but she's using her experience in a hetrosexual relationship as basis and that's faulty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Clearly it's different if for no other reason than genders involved. We have two separate names for the relationships which indicates the difference, homosexual and hetrosexual. There are differences. You could propose that the relational aspects are the same, I think that is what she's trying to do but she's using her experience in a hetrosexual relationship as basis and that's faulty. And these differences affect her argument how? If that's true, then I guess only homosexual couples should be allowed to decide on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. Oh, wait, that's not how it works at all, stubborn, bigoted assholes are traditionally the ones that get to decide that, and they tell us that we can't marry. If straight people can be hateful prudes and judge what gay people can't do, I don't see why a straight person can't say that we can marry. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I suggest you watch the video again, Yant. Specifically the bit where she mentions 'equality'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 There are differences between the two types of relationships; to suggest otherwise seems disingenuous. That said, no matter what your personal beliefs are, everyone in the US has the right to "the pursuit of happiness" whatever that might entail, and insofar as no one else's rights are infringed upon. I'm not sure where government & some people in the US get the idea they need to go around controlling everybody's personal choices, including marriage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) FWIW the political argument is over definition of marriage and state endorsement. I'm fairly certain that nobody is "controlling everybody's personal choices". There used to be sodomy laws but those were struck down by the supreme court and I don't see anyone fighting to get them reinstated. They weren't even really being enforced, the case was really a setup just to get the ruling overturned on the books. Edited February 10, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.