Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I've heard all the rhetoric like you have. But a thought occurs to me. It's really a power struggle. The church has controlled marriage for 2000 years. It's losing that control that they're really afraid of.

I'm cherry-picking from this web page: http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm (http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm)

"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by?"

Well, churches will say that the church should define it.

"Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who?"

Just another variation on the other one. The church wants to dictate the rules of marriage.

"Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage."

If by "the institution of marriage" you mean the church controlling marriage, then yes, it threatens that control.

So let's look at this honestly. Why should the church have control of marriage? Are the only people who get married members of the church? The church controlling the definition of marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state that is supposed to be "sacred" to Americans. It sounds like the start of bringing in the "christian" version of Sharia Law.

it's no reason really. they use the bible as a manual for life, and that's most of it.

I always think the best response to the "against the institution of marriage" argument is that divorce is the biggest threat to the institution, and yet there are thousands and thousands more divorces each year than gay marriage, and it's accepted almost world-wide.

For me it's their club, their rules, they write their manuals and guidelines so if you would like to have a marriage in one of their institutions then they expect you, even demand that you follow their doctrine so-to-speak.  There are plenty of other ways to get married.  I say to hell with them as that's what many churches think about us.  Your head will start to hurt banging it against brick walls.

Want to protect the sanctity or institution of marriage for the sake of Christian Family Values? Let's look at what their good book says...


Did Doma make Divorce Illegal? No, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12   
Divorce and remarriage, not part of DOMA.  Hmmmm......

Did DOMA make ADULTRY Illegal? No, but the bible clearly says that it is such a grievous offense and threat to marriage that the penalty should be DEATH.  7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery".  Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death".

So it really boils down to the fact that they think homosexuality is gross so they should punish the homosexuals. There is no rational reason for them to pick out an obscure reference from their book and make it such a devicive issues. Lets start by banning marriage for those that break the Big 10 and the 7 Deadly!

I think they are afraid that gay people might be really happy when they get married, and become a bad example for straight folk.

Well, there are people who agree with giving all the rights of marriage to homosexual couples but simply think the word "marriage" can't refer to a homosexual couple in meaning yet, and so they disagree with it being called marriage.

I myself think that until recently, the meaning of marriage does mean de facto that it's between a man and a woman, because that's how the vast majority of people perceived it to be for so many centuries. Meanings of words change over time though as people use words differently over time, and I think from the current trend, after a while it will acquire a changed widely-accepted meaning that includes homosexual couples.

Quote from: FullMoon19 on August 24, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
it's no reason really. they use the bible as a manual for life, and that's most of it.

Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way - ironically in the New Testament, the most frequently cited "anti-gay" verses are in a section about not judging or a section about why it isn't necessary that a penis look a certain way (circumcision).  How you can interpret a verse in a section about not judging to mean "We should judge" is beyond me, never mind the uncertainty about translation, the huge difference between now and Bible times, that homosexuality is not equal to transgender (not that I think it says anything against being gay either), and the grace expressed elsewhere in the Book.  So don't lump us all into the hateful groups just because some of us believe the Bible.

The reason that I believe they interpret it that way is to seek justification for their hate and to feel "better" about themselves (they can feel "better" about being soldiers who are fighting against the great evil hordes who include any LGBT person, educated person, etc - they truly think they are the minority fighting a war against the majority and that God is going to help them win; It feels good to be an underdog that knows they are right, apparently).  I also think a lot of churches and members just plain haven't questioned anything that comes from their own upbringing, particularly when reinforced from the pulpit.

That said, there are accepting churches.  I wouldn't tell you to come to a specific denomination, not even the one my church is part of, nor even "LGBT affirming" denominations, as individual churches are sometimes hateful even when they are part of a non-hateful denomination.  But you would certainly be welcome at the church I'm part of, in addition to many others.  Unfortunately acceptance isn't easy to find in most churches, though.

Quote from: apple pie on August 25, 2011, 11:17:32 AMI myself think that until recently, the meaning of marriage does mean de facto that it's between a man and a woman, because that's how the vast majority of people perceived it to be for so many centuries. Meanings of words change over time though as people use words differently over time, and I think from the current trend, after a while it will acquire a changed widely-accepted meaning that includes homosexual couples.

It's also culturally dependent.  Many cultures had no problem with gay marriage, transgendered individuals, etc.  Even in recent history, many haven't.  And marriage in the USA looks absolutely nothing like it did when Jesus walked around Israel, nor even what marriage looked like when the USA was founded (among other things, women can actually own possessions[1], can sign contracts, can file rape charges against a husband, can divorce for any reason, can inherit the husband's possessions, can marry regardless of their and their partner's race, can have citizenship independent of their husband's, can vote, can have "unnatural" sex with their husband[2], can't be entered into contracts at her husband's whim, receives her own paycheck[3], etc.)  Nevermind that many of the founding colonies did not even register marriages legally, while others didn't see any point to a religious ceremony/service and kept it a 100% civil court issue.  I don't know if there is another social institution that has undergone as much change as marriage.

[1] Well, at least outside of shared-property states.  In shared-property states, it's a bit different, but the husband doesn't own it all like he used to.

[2] Excepting the invalid, but still-on-the-books laws in places like Virginia which make oral/anal sex between a man and a wife a potential felony!  (sarcasm ahead) But at least they are showing those homosexuals that they are unwanted.

[3] In many places, if a wife did have a job outside of the home, it was the husband that was paid.

I often wonder why they say that same sex marriage will destroy their marriages, unless one of them wants to leave and be in a same sex marriage.

Jack M^CCoy, of Law and Order said it best.  When asked if he supported same sex marriage, he said ...

QuoteLet 'em marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Thankfully, there are many churches whom performed same sex marriages and with each passing year, more and more denominations realized how wrong they were in their original interpretations.

"If you don't believe in Gay Marriage, don't marry a Gay person!"

It will be yet another thing that the Catholic Church and and others, find themselves on the wrong side of history. You would think that "god's true religion" would have a history of draging society kicking and screaming, to do the right thing but it seems to be the other way around...  I don't get it. Well, actually I do  :D

Quote from: Steph on August 24, 2011, 07:30:31 PM
For me it's their club, their rules, they write their manuals and guidelines so if you would like to have a marriage in one of their institutions then they expect you, even demand that you follow their doctrine so-to-speak.  There are plenty of other ways to get married.  I say to hell with them as that's what many churches think about us.  Your head will start to hurt banging it against brick walls.

Yes, except they want to make theirs the only game in town.

Quote from: JessicaH on August 24, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Did Doma make Divorce Illegal? No, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12   
Divorce and remarriage, not part of DOMA.  Hmmmm......

It's not so much the getting divorced part as the remarrying. When they make a rule about not allowing divorced people to get married, see the rebellion.

Quote from: Slanan on August 25, 2011, 06:35:39 PM
Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way - ironically in the New Testament, the most frequently cited "anti-gay" verses are in a section about not judging or a section about why it isn't necessary that a penis look a certain way (circumcision).  How you can interpret a verse in a section about not judging to mean "We should judge" is beyond me, never mind the uncertainty about translation, the huge difference between now and Bible times, that homosexuality is not equal to transgender (not that I think it says anything against being gay either), and the grace expressed elsewhere in the Book.  So don't lump us all into the hateful groups just because some of us believe the Bible.

Hmm...not sure I agree. I've noticed that often modern, moderate christians attempt to water down many of the bible's (including the new testament) more extreme passages, passing off fundamentalists as "not true christians" or "interpreting the bible incorrectly." It's largely the result of trying to modernise a religion that was created by people living 2000 years ago, when it was culturally "ok" in certain areas of the world kill someone for being effeminate, an "adulterer" etc. What I think modern christians need to realise is that their holy book cannot really be taken out of its temporal context and really be applied to the modern day. If it is, then one must certainly pick and choose which passages are applicable to modern society, and which are not. If modern law were based on biblical law, we'd be in a lot of trouble as far as human rights are concerned.

As far as interpretation, I'm wondering which ones you mean? Corinthians 6:9, Paul is not telling Christians to kill homosexuals, but he is telling Christians that homosexuals and effeminate men will not enter the "kingdom of god." It'd be grasping at straws to really interpret this as any other way than looking down upon homosexuals and effeminate men as sinners. And it isn't an isolated reference, either. And if we take the perspective of needing to be "compassionate toward the sinner," then we also need to examine how that also implies fault or defect, or something inherently wrong with homosexuality (whether one has compassion toward homosexuals or not).

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 24, 2011, 04:02:44 PM
"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by?"

Well...the bible. The problem is that the US claims to be a secular nation with clear separation between church and state. Unfortunately it doesn't often practice that separation when it comes to many issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender rights etc. etc.)

Quote"Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who?"

The bible...see above  :D

Quote"Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage."

If by "the institution of marriage" you mean the church controlling marriage, then yes, it threatens that control.

Yes, well, the church/importance of religion in modern western society. While many across the west are secularizing, you still have the good ol' fundies dragging their heels.

QuoteSo let's look at this honestly. Why should the church have control of marriage? Are the only people who get married members of the church? The church controlling the definition of marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state that is supposed to be "sacred" to Americans. It sounds like the start of bringing in the "christian" version of Sharia Law.

Well, that's what law was for hundreds of years, so I wouldn't say "the start." But generally, yes, we agree.

While it's certainly not acceptable to be personally bigoted, there is a difference between personal bigotry and advocating the state to oppress your hated group through violence or threat of violence, a distinction that eludes the Christian Right in the US. Though I'm not surprised. Leviticus, the foundation for homophobic tenants in the Judeo-Christian tradition, was primarily a holiness code for the priesthood of the tabernacle. As Israel was forming as a nation state, leadership sought control through religion. In this holiness code, among many strange symbolic prohibitions, is an attempt to establish a patriarchy, a facet of religion as power tool. Males and females were forbidden from wearing dress customary for the other sex. Eunuchs were cut off from the house of god. And in Deuteronomy and throughout the old testament, the state is granted power over marriage as a tool for reproduction (at the time, growing population meant growing state wealth and power), established men as owners of women, non-reproductive sex was forbidden, sex outside of state-sanctioned female ownership was forbidden, female sexuality was cast as disgraceful and dirty, and homosexual men were cut off from the patriarchy for being "woman-like."

In short, it's my opinion that the bible, especially the old testament, was a tool for state power at the time it was written. It's no wonder that a culturally informed interpretation of the text as promoted by many church institutions is wielded as a political tool to oppress anyone that threatens male privilege--all who subvert binary constraints of gender, sexually liberated women, and the queer community.

I will stop ranting now, I swear...

So, let me get this straight ... Charlie Sheen can make a 'porn family', Kelsey Grammer can end a 15-year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods (while married) were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?

From one of my facebook feeds.

Quote from: Berserk on August 27, 2011, 04:49:35 PM
Hmm...not sure I agree. I've noticed that often modern, moderate christians attempt to water down many of the bible's (including the new testament) more extreme passages, passing off fundamentalists as "not true christians" or "interpreting the bible incorrectly." It's largely the result of trying to modernise a religion that was created by people living 2000 years ago, when it was culturally "ok" in certain areas of the world kill someone for being effeminate, an "adulterer" etc. What I think modern christians need to realise is that their holy book cannot really be taken out of its temporal context and really be applied to the modern day. If it is, then one must certainly pick and choose which passages are applicable to modern society, and which are not. If modern law were based on biblical law, we'd be in a lot of trouble as far as human rights are concerned.

As far as interpretation, I'm wondering which ones you mean? Corinthians 6:9, Paul is not telling Christians to kill homosexuals, but he is telling Christians that homosexuals and effeminate men will not enter the "kingdom of god." It'd be grasping at straws to really interpret this as any other way than looking down upon homosexuals and effeminate men as sinners. And it isn't an isolated reference, either. And if we take the perspective of needing to be "compassionate toward the sinner," then we also need to examine how that also implies fault or defect, or something inherently wrong with homosexuality (whether one has compassion toward homosexuals or not).

1 Cor 6:9 has a word that is translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" or "men lying with men" depending on your version (and probably other choices).  This translation is very uncertain.  The simple answer is *we don't know* what 1 Cor 6:9 says.  That says, with verse 11 (the main point of that section), there's substantial debate over whether one is saved through faith in Christ or is saved through doing the right actions having been made capable of that through being saved.

That said, if talking about Christianity, I don't see anything which makes it okay to kill an adulterer in the New Testament (Christ does NOT kill known adulterers, for instance, nor does he call for their execution - which might be one reason people were mad at him).  As for the effiminent, Christ's disciples found the place to have passover by looking for the "man carrying water" (not a masculine task) and being taken by that man to the man who owned the house (there are many possible reasons for this), and Acts claims that the gospel was carried to Ethiopia by a eunuch).

I'm not posting this to argue theology, other than to say that there is clearly debate and discussion on these verses today - not just because some people might be trying to modernize a religion, but also because we're not sure of the facts and what the words mean.  There's nobody alive that natively speaks the form of Greek used in the New Testament, so there will be questions over translation.  These aren't just questions to make people feel better and pretend that things don't matter, but real questions.

I'd agree that the time/place it was written is vitally important to understanding, interpreting, and, for those with the ability, translating.  It's also important that we maintain freedom of conscious (you can't force someone to be a Christian, according to most Christians, yet plenty of Christians bizarrely have tried).  That's why law shouldn't reflect religion, in addition to nobody would be able to agree on which interpretations and law (look at the Bible riots in Philadelphia during the 1800s - Catholics and protestants couldn't agree on who's Bible should be taught in school - it resulted in several churches getting burned to the ground and several people being murdered).  It's best to leave that to each man's conscience.  And I'll leave who the "real" Christians are to God, but I do reserve the right to tell some I think they are wrong (I don't believe it's intellectually honest to lie about what I believe - and clearly we can't all be right, even if God's concerns might not be the same as mine!).

Christ does NOT kill known adulterers, for instance

Matter of fact, doesn't he call their bluff on that exact sin.  Isn't that the one where he said that: Well you who have not sinned cast the first stone.  And everybody walked away.  Apparently people back then were sexing it up too.

Quote from: Mika on August 27, 2011, 05:32:42 PMIn short, it's my opinion that the bible, especially the old testament, was a tool for state power at the time it was written.

You are, quite literally, on the mark. It was during the reign of Josiah that the oral traditions were written down  to be used specifically to hold the country together. It's easy to see his influence as he is described as being a righteous king, for he booted out the other religions and destroyed their places of worship. That was supposedly 500 years after Moses.

Religion seems to follow science by two or three centuries in so many aspects. Galileo was given pardon by the Catholic church only a decade or so ago. Religion, once a means used to attempt explanation for the unknown, has become ritual. With power, religioin has also become corrupt.

I'm not blasting the faithful. I'm just reciting history and offering my opinion on that history. There are many wonderful believers who are top notch members of society. Not all of them are bigots.... just the ignorant ones who are led around as the sheep they are.

Cindi

Not all churches are, just the extreme majority. In Christianity, nearly everything is based on tradition, and it takes a long time to change tradition.

Religion seems to follow science by two or three centuries

I don't think that we really have the luxury of waiting a couple, three centuries for these people to catch up.  I know I sure don't.

Quoteviolate the sacred institution of marriage

If it is so sacred, I wonder why Jesus didn't get married?

Quote from: bojangles on August 29, 2011, 10:13:02 AM

Quoteviolate the sacred institution of marriage

If it is so sacred, I wonder why Jesus didn't get married?

Depends on which way you feel about the "Holy Grail".  Some think that it is refers to the child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whom these same people think was married to Jesus.

Of course the churches poo-poo this idea.

Quote from: Berserk on August 27, 2011, 04:49:35 PM
Hmm...not sure I agree. I've noticed that often modern, moderate christians attempt to water down many of the bible's (including the new testament) more extreme passages, passing off fundamentalists as "not true christians" or "interpreting the bible incorrectly." It's largely the result of trying to modernise a religion that was created by people living 2000 years ago, when it was culturally "ok" in certain areas of the world kill someone for being effeminate, an "adulterer" etc. What I think modern christians need to realise is that their holy book cannot really be taken out of its temporal context and really be applied to the modern day. If it is, then one must certainly pick and choose which passages are applicable to modern society, and which are not. If modern law were based on biblical law, we'd be in a lot of trouble as far as human rights are concerned.

Actually, progressive Christians are not watering down scriptures. They are pointing out the misinterpretations of scripture that conservative Christians have done so well.

For example every clobbering verse throughout the Bible was and is misinterpreted. For example, the passage in Romans, many conservatives assume Paul is declaring homosexuals do not have a place in heaven. In the original koine Greek language in which the book was written said nothing about homosexuality. It was discussing those who changes their will or convictions with the slightest of thought...a weak spine.

The levitical laws are highly misinterpreted and especially the story in Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is HIGHLY misinterpreted. 

Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew have words that has many meanings and even when aligned within the text as a whole, the meanings still can be many things. 

Also, no one can interpret the cultures of 4 to 2000 years ago. We just cannot. To attempt to apply these same methods of law and instruction into today's society is foolhardy. It's like looking at a blue print of a Model T horseless carriage and saying we must stick to these plans. Society, culture, and religion has evolved and is continuing to evolve.

To practice these religions is fine and great but to try to impose civil and legal law based on centuries and millennial old laws is not a good idea.

QuoteAs far as interpretation, I'm wondering which ones you mean? Corinthians 6:9, Paul is not telling Christians to kill homosexuals, but he is telling Christians that homosexuals and effeminate men will not enter the "kingdom of god." It'd be grasping at straws to really interpret this as any other way than looking down upon homosexuals and effeminate men as sinners. And it isn't an isolated reference, either. And if we take the perspective of needing to be "compassionate toward the sinner," then we also need to examine how that also implies fault or defect, or something inherently wrong with homosexuality (whether one has compassion toward homosexuals or not).

That would pose a problem, however, in the Koine greek the word does not mean homosexual. It means weak willed, easy to change convictions. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

QuoteWell...the bible. The problem is that the US claims to be a secular nation with clear separation between church and state. Unfortunately it doesn't often practice that separation when it comes to many issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender rights etc. etc.)

I totally agree


Source: Took 4 years of undergraduate and graduate languages of Koine Greek, Classical Greek, Ancient Hebrew. Bachelor's of Arts in Theology and doing M.Div/Ph.D

Quote from: Valeriedances on August 29, 2011, 10:22:44 AM
Anecdote: I just drove through Georgia and there was a huge billboard along I-75 that quoted the bible in huge letters declaring, Homosexuality is an abomination. It quoted the famous Leviticus passage. It was shocking and upsetting to see the oppression, hatred and warning to all drivers passing through Georgia.
Apparently there are enough folks agreeing with this that contribute to paying for an enormous billboard.

Due to the popularity of the Survivor show, Georgia is planning to do its own, entitled "Survivor, South GA Style". The contestants will start in Atlanta, travel to Macon, Warner Robins, Tifton, over to Enigma, Willacoochee and down to Hahira, Lake Park and Valdosta. They will then proceed to Homerville, Waycross, Blackshear, Hinesville and Nahunta. From there, they'll travel to Savannah, Loudowissi, Augusta and finally back to Atlanta. Each will be wearin' saggin' britches, driving a pink Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm gay, vegetarian, voted for Al Gore, and I'm here to confiscate your guns." The first one to make it back to Atlanta alive wins.

Quote from: Annah on August 29, 2011, 12:29:40 PM
That would pose a problem, however, in the Koine greek the word does not mean homosexual. It means weak willed, easy to change convictions. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

It can also mean "soft" as in cloth, "fine" as in elegant, and "dulcet" as in music.

Fun fact: Up until the 14th century the catholic church had been routinly marrying same sex couples.

Do you have a reference for that statement Scarlet?

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 01, 2011, 11:05:45 AM
Do you have a reference for that statement Scarlet?

I don't know Sarah's/Scarlet's source, but it may be: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

The rite/sacrament he typically cites is Adelphopoiesis - a rite involving two men that celebrates a bond stronger than friendship.   Many of those who participated are shown in paintings in the same way that a married couple would be (with Christ between them, uniting them).

I don't know enough about Catholic churches to really know for sure how accurate he is (many Catholics very strongly claim he is inaccurate).

What if Transgendered people want to marry someone. Say a FTM wants to marry a female, would they consider that gay marriage?

Quote from: Kentrie on September 01, 2011, 12:10:37 PM
What if Transgendered people want to marry someone. Say a FTM wants to marry a female, would they consider that gay marriage?

In 2003, there was an official pronouncement that sex change operations are sometimes permitted (if they help with someone's inner turmoil or something to that effect), but that they don't change the person's gender - and that they felt it usually increased turmoil, so should generally not be done.  If it is done, priests are not to change the person's baptism records (sex), nor can the person marry, become a priest, or join a religious order.  They do officially see it as *somewhat* distinct from homosexuality, and as a very severe mental illness.

If they won't recognize gender for post-ops, they certainly wouldn't for a pre-op.

That said, I suspect in the Catholic church that there are all sorts of practices some individuals at the local level do that may not be approved by their bosses.  So there are probably pockets of acceptance - just not officially.

They are big on the "God created male and female" and that men and women have distinct roles.  Catechism 369-373.  That said, they do recognize God is neither male or female (which many protestants and evangelicals don't recognize).

Quote from: xxScarletxx on August 31, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Fun fact: Up until the 14th century the catholic church had been routinly marrying same sex couples.

I think that falls into this category:

Quote from: Slanan on September 01, 2011, 12:59:02 PM
That said, I suspect in the Catholic church that there are all sorts of practices some individuals at the local level do that may not be approved by their bosses.  So there are probably pockets of acceptance - just not officially.

But, yes, it did happen in some parts of the church.

Quote from: Slanan on September 01, 2011, 12:59:02 PM
That said, I suspect in the Catholic church that there are all sorts of practices some individuals at the local level do that may not be approved by their bosses.  So there are probably pockets of acceptance - just not officially.

Yup. The priest at my parents' church had never dealt with a transsexual person before me, but he is perfectly accepting.

The Catholic church is progressing very well, though. It actually states that people cannot change their sexuality and that all are made/loved by god regardless of what sex he/she prefers. With information about transsexuals/transgenders becoming easier to access, I wouldn't be surprised if the Catholic church begins embracing trans-people more some time in the next few decades.

I haven't read all of the replies, but I've read enough to get the gyst of the conversation.

I'd love to believe in a God that is all loving, that is all caring, and that is always there for us.  That knows us (the real us) inside and out, and cheers and cries along with us.

That being said, Organized Religion has also been the most efficient form of mind control the world has ever seen.

I'm still undecided on the issue, it's hard to throw away years of belief for non belief, because while my belief may be battered and tried at times, non belief doesnt seem like freedom to me, it seems like giving up.  In the end, I dont care what someone believes, so long as their beliefs dont include making others miserable, or telling others how to live (not including criminal law and all that). 

Quote from: Slanan on September 01, 2011, 12:59:02 PM
That said, they do recognize God is neither male or female (which many protestants and evangelicals don't recognize).

What prevents that next step? If God is neither male nor female, and we are created in the image of God...

You're not supposed to ask those sort of questions!

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 01, 2011, 11:05:45 AM
Do you have a reference for that statement Scarlet?

Google is our friend people!!!!
http://marriage101.org/history-of-marriage/ (http://marriage101.org/history-of-marriage/)

Quote from: xxScarletxx on August 31, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Fun fact: Up until the 14th century the catholic church had been routinly marrying same sex couples.

I am getting a M.Div and a Ph.D. in world religions. That's not a fun fact but an historical error and something I never heard before and was not practiced by the Catholic Church prior to the 14th century. Boswell tried to make this a historical fact but has little scholarly foundation. No reputable college will try to use his sources as a valid source of historical research.

However, internet pages love him.

Quote from: xxScarletxx on September 02, 2011, 10:05:41 PM
Google is our friend people!!!!
http://marriage101.org/history-of-marriage/ (http://marriage101.org/history-of-marriage/)

don't believe everything you see on the internet.

Source: Former Priest

Quote from: Slanan on September 01, 2011, 11:28:20 AM
I don't know Sarah's/Scarlet's source, but it may be: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

I don't know enough about Catholic churches to really know for sure how accurate he is (many Catholics very strongly claim he is inaccurate).

Correct :) it was coined through Boswell in the 1980s; however, his "scholarly" details at historical detail is lacking. His research has so many holes and inaccuracies as well as mistranslations that the Jesuits just love debating him. Boswell isn't a very good debater.

I'm all for same sex marriage but when people try to "add things" to history it will do more harm than good.

Quote from: Annah on September 06, 2011, 08:45:29 AM
Source: Former Priest

Benedictus Iesus Christus, filius Dei vere

Some possible reasons:
1. Gay marriage does nothing to add to the population of the flock, something I know that's very important to certain religious denominations.  More followers, more money, more power.
2. Permitting gay marriage means you were wrong all along and if you were wrong on this, what else have you been wrong about?
3. Accepting gays means accepting de-masculinization and that means a breakdown in the patriarchy, an important element in most major religions.

Other stuff:

• I've heard Mormons believe it will ruin their chances of the men having 100 wives in the next life.
• I know many religious people believe they have a duty to their god to do whatever they can to increase followers of their faith and reduce the ranks of the sinners.
• And an awful lot of people take writings from the Bible out of context and use them to justify their prejudice and unwillingness to accept change.

Thing is, not one of these reasons stand up in the court of humanity and common sense.

Quote from: xxScarletxx on September 06, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
Benedictus Iesus Christus, filius Dei vere

Iesus est unus of plures dii omnes sunt unum et multa unum

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 06, 2011, 11:28:30 AM

Other stuff:

• I've heard Mormons believe it will ruin their chances of the men having 100 wives in the next life.

I can clear this up. I used to be Mormon. The promise is everlasting marraige or celestial union between a man and the women he marries. Polygamy is not allowed during this life, but if a man gets divorced or loses his wife by death, he can marry again and that marraige will be valid in the afterlife. So, in that way, Mormons do believe in men having more than one wife. Unfortunately, it doesn't go the other way. If a woman is "sealed" to a man and later divorces, she's stuck with him after she and he dies, according to their beliefs.[/list]

Quote from: justmeinoz on September 02, 2011, 04:49:30 AM
You're not supposed to ask those sort of questions!

I almost made a carreer out of asking those sorts of questions.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 06, 2011, 11:28:30 AM
Some possible reasons:
1. Gay marriage does nothing to add to the population of the flock, something I know that's very important to certain religious denominations.  More followers, more money, more power.
2. Permitting gay marriage means you were wrong all along and if you were wrong on this, what else have you been wrong about?
3. Accepting gays means accepting de-masculinization and that means a breakdown in the patriarchy, an important element in most major religions.

And is there anything in all that doesn't have to do with exerting control over people?

Quote from: Slanan on August 27, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
1 Cor 6:9 has a word that is translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" or "men lying with men" depending on your version (and probably other choices).  This translation is very uncertain.

I'm not posting this to argue theology, other than to say that there is clearly debate and discussion on these verses today - not just because some people might be trying to modernize a religion,

If you want to see who is modernizing religion, read the King James version and then read later ones. The older version doesn't have the word homosexuality in this passage but the modern ones do.

Quote from: Stephe on September 06, 2011, 11:13:00 PM

Quote from: Slanan on August 27, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
1 Cor 6:9 has a word that is translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" or "men lying with men" depending on your version (and probably other choices).  This translation is very uncertain. 

I'm not posting this to argue theology, other than to say that there is clearly debate and discussion on these verses today - not just because some people might be trying to modernize a religion,

If you want to see who is modernizing religion, read the King James version and then read later ones. The older version doesn't have the word homosexuality in this passage but the modern ones do.

I guess I feel I need to clarify the meaning of malikos. http://members.cox.net/gnlnews/1cor69.html (http://members.cox.net/gnlnews/1cor69.html)

Quote
One of the verses used to condemn ->-bleeped-<- is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In this article, we will do a thorough exegesis of the passage to determine its meaning and find how, if at all, it relates to ->-bleeped-<-.

This verse is cited as saying that the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of God. This idea is based on the King James Version's translation of the Greek malakoi.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10, KJV)

A comparison of the King James and New International translations, however, shows that this translation is not universal.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV)

"Male prostitutes" is a lot different from "effeminate." So what is the correct translation?

Approaching this verse, I at first thought it would simply be a matter of determining the correct meaning of this one word. In retrospect, it has turned out to be more like the process of pealing an onion. This has been compounded by the fact that most commentators and translators seem to have considered this verse either too obvious (perhaps read "inconsequential") or too linguistically difficult to have put much effort into explaining and translating it.

Let us then begin to peel this onion by looking at the meaning of malakos. The following can be extracted from Liddell and Scott [Liddell, Henrey George, and Scott, Robert, revised by Jones, Henrey Stuart, A Greek-English Lexicon With a Supplement, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1968), pp.1076f]:

QuoteMalakos has the basic meaning of soft.

of things subject to touch: soft.
A fresh plowed field is a "soft" field; soft, grassy meadow; soft-fleeced; a slow fire is a "soft" fire; marsh water is "soft" water; to sleep "softly" means on soft bedding; to sit "softly" means on a cushion.
of things not subject to touch: gentle; soft, mild.
"Soft" words are fair words; "soft" looks are tender, youthful looks; a "soft" scent is faint, or delicate; a "soft" climate is mild.
of persons or modes of life: soft; mild; gentle; and negatively: feeble; faint-hearted; cowardly; morally weak; lacking in self control;.
"Soft" music is effeminate or tuned to a low pitch. "soft" writing style is feeble. "soft" reason is weak; loose; bodily speaking, "soft" is weakly; sick; to be ill.

There is nothing here to suggest that the meaning is "effeminate," except in the musical sense. And certainly nothing to suggest prostitution.

Looking at other scriptural references is not particularly helpful either. Outside of this verse, the word only appears twice in the Septuagint and twice in the Gospels. In Proverbs 25:15 we hear about the power of a "soft" tongue (fair speech). And in 26:22, gossip is compared to "soft" food (choice morsels). In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, John the Baptist asks the crowd if they have come to see a man in "soft" clothing (fine clothes).

The early church fathers generally believed that in this verse Paul was talking about those who were morally weak. It was only in the late middle ages that interpreters started to claim that here "soft" meant some kind of sexual sin.

One argument put forth about translating this word has to do with the meaning of "effeminate" at the time the KJV was written. In the 16th through the 18th Centuries the term "effeminate" did not mean what it means to us today. At that time the term was applied to a class of men who were notorious womanizers. These men pursued women as a career, often living off the older rich women whom they seduced. The most famous of these was Casanova. The modern word would likely be "gigolo."

So far we have made little progress by working with the single word. It is appropriate to move to the next layer by examining the immediate verse. The original text in Greek is:

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

This passage lists ten groups of people who "will not inherit the kingdom of God." The Greek for some of these groups is well know; some other terms are difficult. All of the terms in this list are masculine plural. A point to remember about gender and number in Greek is that the feminine plural is only used for groups that are exclusively feminine. Mixed masculine and feminine groups are always referred to with the masculine plural.

Pornos, porne - A prostitute. The Greek root comes from the verb "to sell." In the New Testament, this term appears to have two closely related meanings. One is as the equivalent of the Hebrew zanah, as in "Tamar has been playing the harlot." (Gen 38:24) It was with sense of harlotry that the Pharisees protested that they were not illegitimate children in John 8:41. In 1 Tim 1:10 it is translated "adulterer" in the Hebrew sense when normally moichos is the proper term for an adulterer. Since moichos also appears in our list here, "adulterer" is not the likely meaning. The other meaning of pornos is in the proper sense of a prostitute or the patron of a prostitute. Because in the New Testament, the prohibition of prostitution is paired so often with the prohibition of eating meat sacrificed to idols, it is specifically referring to temple prostitution. The NIV translation of this word as the generalized "sexually immoral" seems untenable here and in every other verse where it occurs.

    Eidololatres - An idolater, a person or thing offered or dedicated to an idol.

    Moichos - An adulterer or paramour.

    Malakos - Soft.

    Arsenokoites - A slang term, this word only appears three times in Greek literature (here, in a commentary on this verse, and in 1 Tim 1:10). It probably meant a homosexual or a pederast. The majority of homosexuals in the Roman world were pederasts so it is difficult to determine whether it refers to the homosexuality part, the pederast part or both. In 1 Tim 1:10 it is translated as "perverts," a rather ambiguous word.

    Klepton - A thief.

    Pleonektes - A defrauder, greedy (in the active sense of taking what you don't deserve).

    Methusos - A drunkard.

    Loidoros - A reviler. A verbal abuser.

    Harpax - A robber or rapist. The "extortioners" of the KJV is probably better than the "swindlers" of the NIV, for extortioners tend to use force to take what they want, rather than the indirect methods of swindlers.

This list is related to that in chapter 5 verses 9-11. There the NIV lists "the sexually immoral (prostitutes), greedy, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and swindlers."

The lists in 5:9-11 and 6:9-10 are bracketed by two discussions of "sexual immorality." One, in 5:1, discusses an instance of incest: "A man has his father's wife." The other, in 6:15-20, discusses joining the members of Christ's body to a prostitute. While the NIV translates both these passages as referring to "sexual immorality," the Greek refers to prostitutes. This is in obvious reference to the fact that at Corinth the worship of Aphrodite fostered prostitution in the name of religion. At one time 1,000 sacred prostitutes served her temple. This is a large number for city of about 650,000 people. Approximately one out of every hundred women was a prostitute.

In this context, it is a little difficult to figure out what kind of "soft" people are being talked about. Many translators seem to assume the first half of the list deals with sexual sin and the second half with other kinds of sins.

At this point it helps to enlarge the context. Verses 7 and 8 provide an introduction to verses 9 and 10, where the word adikoi gives the pivot to connect them.

"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged (adikeisthe)? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong (adikeite), and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked (adikoi) will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
(1 Cor 6:7-9a, NIV)

Now we can see that this is not a random list of ten kinds of sinners, but ten groups of people who might be sued for wronging someone. How then, might we translate these groups as the victimizers of others?

The first two groups are people who purport to buy or sell something that they cannot. Prostitutes are sellers of "love." But the one kind of love they can't sell is "true love." In essence they take money for something they can't give. The relationship between the prostitute and his/her client is mutually harmful. Idolaters or those involved in idol worship, try to buy and sell favor with the gods through gifts and sacrifices. Much of religion today is still idolatry in this sense. The sellers of heaven preach a religion of obeying the law instead of telling people of the grace that God has provided through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The next three groups are those who gain sex by force or persuasion. Adulterers are those who have illicit sex with married people. Pederasts are child molesters. Between these two "soft" may mean the seducers of unmarried people. Here is recognition of the truism: "Seduction is the subtlest form of rape." In this context, the interpretation of "soft" as being the Casanova's and Don Juan's of the world, makes sense.

The next two groups steal, either directly or by persuasion: thieves and defrauders or swindlers.

The last three groups show violence to others. Drunkards are those who become violent from alcohol. Revilers are verbal abusers. Slanders use words to harm peoples reputations. In either case, they do it out of hate. Spouse abusers, child abusers, and any who commit hate crimes would also be condemned here. Robbers and rapists use violence for gain.

So a possible translation of this passage might be:

"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and wrong, and you do this to your brothers! Do you not know that wrong-doers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sellers of "love," nor the sellers of heaven, not the seducers of the married, of the unmarried, or of children, neither thieves nor swindlers, and not those violent from drink, from hate, or for gain will inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Cor 6:7-10)

This interpretation places this passage within the main theme of 1:10-6:20 where Paul is arguing against the divisions that have grown up in the Corinthian church. "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (1 Cor 1:10) "For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?" (1 Cor 3:3) "The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement." (1 Cor 2:15) "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the saints?" (1 Cor 6:1) "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already." (1 Cor 6:7) An echo of this is in 2 Cor 12:20, "I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder."

Based on modern exegesis, this verse has nothing to do with ->-bleeped-<- at all. It's about the dangers of divisiveness in the church.

(c) Copyright 1999 Elisabeth Anne Kellogg, all rights reserved. You are expressly granted permission to copy this article provided you do not modify any portion of the text, including this copyright notice.

Thanks for linking this..

Lisbeth, thank you for posting that.

You're welcome.

Fascinating stuff regarding translation. Is there an original version of the Bible anywhere that people refer to when making translations?

> Btw, the Saudis are really naughty at doing (imo) tendentious translations of the Quran with heavy footnotes on whatever does or does not coincide with their view of things.

Quote from Lisbeth --

Let us then begin to peel this onion by looking at the meaning of malakos. The following can be extracted from Liddell and Scott [Liddell, Henrey George, and Scott, Robert, revised by Jones, Henrey Stuart, A Greek-English Lexicon With a Supplement, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1968), pp.1076f]:

Quote

Malakos has the basic meaning of soft.

of things subject to touch: soft.
A fresh plowed field is a "soft" field; soft, grassy meadow; soft-fleeced; a slow fire is a "soft" fire; marsh water is "soft" water; to sleep "softly" means on soft bedding; to sit "softly" means on a cushion.
of things not subject to touch: gentle; soft, mild.
"Soft" words are fair words; "soft" looks are tender, youthful looks; a "soft" scent is faint, or delicate; a "soft" climate is mild.
of persons or modes of life: soft; mild; gentle; and negatively: feeble; faint-hearted; cowardly; morally weak; lacking in self control;.
"Soft" music is effeminate or tuned to a low pitch. "soft" writing style is feeble. "soft" reason is weak; loose; bodily speaking, "soft" is weakly; sick; to be ill.
------------------------
Here is the definition given by W.E. Vine An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Effeminate - Malakos, soft, soft to the touch (Lat., mollis, Eng., mollify, emollient, etc., are from the same root), is used (a) of raiment, Matt 11:8 (twice): Luke 7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor. 6:9, "effeminate,: not simply of a male who practises forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.

Where is the Reverend Gene Scott when we need him?

Quote from: Sarah Louise on September 14, 2011, 10:43:10 AM
W.E. Vine An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Ah, yes, William Edwy Vine, an interesting theologian of the Plymouth Brethren. He exposited selected words according to the theological biases of the Brethren movement. I'll stick with the committee of Greek scholars from Oxford University.

Answering the question from a different perspective...

Churches are mostly conservative.  Conservatives don't like change.  Accepting gay marriage requires change. 

One day churches will admit, maybe even apologize, for their bigoted attitude towards LGBT people.  In 2007 the Catholic Church apologized for the injustices suffered by Galileo, when, in 1610, they found him guilty of heresy for saying the earth orbited around the sun and sentenced him to house arrest for life.

Okay, okay, I know.  Just ten years earlier Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for the same thing and they burned him at the stake and yet they never apologized to him.  But the Galileo apology, it's a start. 

It just takes time.  Conservatives are like that.

Its all about getting people riled up to get out the vote for republicans. Same with the abortion issue.

But the Galileo apology, it's a start.

Little late to help him out much.

The issue was in the background until a Federal Cabinet Minister, Penny Wong and her girlfriend announced they were expecting. Since then it has been a major source of Letters to the Editor.  I see the current opposition therefore as being more about maintaining male power, than about marriage per se,  due to the identity of those leading the charge.
It is interesting that the PM, Julia Gillard  is in a de facto relationship, declining the option of marriage, but is denying that very option to others.

Karen.

It's a lot easier to be a Christian nation when you're not saddled and weighed down with Christian values.

Im doing a Hermeneutic paper for "Paul and the Early Church" on 1 Corinthian 6:9. The New International Version and Common English Version is one of the only translations where they used "homosexual" and "Perverts who behaves like a homosexual" (Respectively).

I found it to be interesting that the Darby translation uses "who makes women of themselves" and the Inclusive Bible uses "pederasts"

Quote from: JessicaH on August 24, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Want to protect the sanctity or institution of marriage for the sake of Christian Family Values? Let's look at what their good book says...


Did Doma make Divorce Illegal? No, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12   
Divorce and remarriage, not part of DOMA.  Hmmmm......

Did DOMA make ADULTRY Illegal? No, but the bible clearly says that it is such a grievous offense and threat to marriage that the penalty should be DEATH.  7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery".  Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death".

I don't understand it either! They just pick and choose what supports their side in an argument! Like the divorce "ruining marriage". I believe most gay people stay together more than a lot of bad straight couples!
And my friend told me there were a LOT of other rules like women not being able to do certain things while on their menstrual period. So does that just not become enforced anymore? It's really hypocritical, i agree.

One of the funny things about society is how it takes prolonged exposure combined with large numbers of humans for a new concept to take hold and become accepted.  The only way any major organization will do an about face is if their bottom line is negatively affected.  But most people need to be beaten over the head for extended periods before they shake their old beliefs and adopt new beliefs.  Common sense, kindness, compassion and decency aren't very effective.

Well, I've actually spoken to a number of people on the opponents' side. It seems like they're as much concerned about their values as they're concerned about the state beginning to legislate church policy. In essence, they're nervous that if federal law grants marital rights to homosexuals then church policies against homosexual marriage will qualify as violations of anti-discrimination legislation. They also feel that the state has no business trying to legislate what they view as exclusively a church issue.

The opponents who are not driven solely by anti-gay bigotry (and believe it or not, there are MANY who aren't) appear to be failing to understand that marriage is a term with two meanings. They're meshing the state contract definition and the theological definition, and they won't hear of separating the two. When I asked Conservative Christians if they opposed giving homosexuals equal access to government benefits, they seemed fairly friendly to the idea of giving equal rights and benefits. But just as soon as the "m" word popped up, they suddenly became all cloistered. I've found that when I suggest that we remove the word "marriage" from all federal and state documents for ALL couples and grant homosexuals access to an identical contract that heterosexuals can get, the idea tends to go over fairly well.

The problem seems to be more one of semantics than ideology, with the exception of the members of the extreme right-wing.

I also speak with alot of christians on this site in particular.
http://www.christianforums.net/ (http://www.christianforums.net/)

My view based on my conversations on that website is that dispite whatever justifications they try to push, Christians just enjoy hurting pepole. Hence why they are opposed to it. dispite me trying to demonstrate that things in the bible need to be interpreted they all belive their interpretation to be infallable and if the bible tells them to harm homosexuals then they will and they will enjoy it.

I joined their and was completely open and friendly at first posting photos of myself in the "post a pic of what you look like" and told them about myself and my life including my transsexuality I was suprised at first they were friendly and accepting it turns out that they hadn't read what I'd posted in great detail however, listening more to the tone because when they learned about my past the mods forcefully edited my profile to remove the "Female" gender tag, blocked access to most of the forums by tagging me as "non-christian" a group with substantially lower posting priviliages than other users.

Additionally any attempt for me to pry into why they feel the way they do or revealing errors in logic they used in their biblical interpretation was quickly edited as I was "attacking" christianity.

When I discussed incidents where I was subjected to abuse by christians in the past everything I said was deflected away from themselves dispite many of them having the same mindset.

Christian moral code whole heartedly encourages persicution violence and bloodshed it's obvious that those considered more "virtuous" tend to have more violent viewpoints on issues like the death penalty against muslims and war in general...

The more devoutly you follow christianity the more vicious and inhumane you become.

Quote from: pebbles on October 30, 2011, 04:00:19 AM
I also speak with alot of christians on this site in particular.
http://www.christianforums.net/ (http://www.christianforums.net/)

My view based on my conversations on that website is that dispite whatever justifications they try to push, Christians just enjoy hurting pepole. Hence why they are opposed to it. dispite me trying to demonstrate that things in the bible need to be interpreted they all belive their interpretation to be infallable and if the bible tells them to harm homosexuals then they will and they will enjoy it.

I joined their and was completely open and friendly at first posting photos of myself in the "post a pic of what you look like" and told them about myself and my life including my transsexuality I was suprised at first they were friendly and accepting it turns out that they hadn't read what I'd posted in great detail however, listening more to the tone because when they learned about my past the mods forcefully edited my profile to remove the "Female" gender tag, blocked access to most of the forums by tagging me as "non-christian" a group with substantially lower posting priviliages than other users.

Additionally any attempt for me to pry into why they feel the way they do or revealing errors in logic they used in their biblical interpretation was quickly edited as I was "attacking" christianity.

When I discussed incidents where I was subjected to abuse by christians in the past everything I said was deflected away from themselves dispite many of them having the same mindset.

Christian moral code whole heartedly encourages persicution violence and bloodshed it's obvious that those considered more "virtuous" tend to have more violent viewpoints on issues like the death penalty against muslims and war in general...

The more devoutly you follow christianity the more vicious and inhumane you become.

So said Pebbles to the Christian transsexual. Dear, I realize that you had a bad experience on that forum, but it sounds to me like you just happened upon a gathering ground for a bunch of fundamentalists with their heads firmly up their...well...you know.

The fact is that Christian morality itself doesn't really have a uniform structure beyond the golden rule and the ten commandments. From those two points onward the issue of what is right and wrong becomes hotly debated. Catholicism settled this matter within its own church by naming the Pope as the emissary of God, and therefore the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Protestantism has no such figure, and so there are a billion different forms thereof, each with their own idea of what is and is not Christianity. It isn't that there AREN'T people who meet the description you give, it's that not ALL Christians or Christian morality ITSELF meets that description.

Don't believe me? Methodists and Baptists have this wonky rivalry going on in the American south, Catholics and Protestants in Ireland literally SHOT at one another, and so forth. Meanwhile, it's pretty unusual to hear about Quakers or Universalists getting up in arms against other religions, let alone those within Christianity. It's all about the group you run into.

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 27, 2011, 12:22:59 AM
Well, I've actually spoken to a number of people on the opponents' side. It seems like they're as much concerned about their values as they're concerned about the state beginning to legislate church policy. In essence, they're nervous that if federal law grants marital rights to homosexuals then church policies against homosexual marriage will qualify as violations of anti-discrimination legislation. They also feel that the state has no business trying to legislate what they view as exclusively a church issue.

On the other side, gay and lesbians are concerned about religious organizations getting involved in government legislation.  They have no business getting involved in politics, law and any other government activity, at least not as long as they enjoy their tax exempt status.  I'm sure the gay-lesbian community would be happy to avoid all those phobic churches and leave them alone if they just stayed out of government affairs and stopped sticking their noses into the lives of others.

Religious organizations enjoy a lot of latitude when it comes to violating the requirements their tax exempt status, and it's not because they really aren't violating them.  They should follow the letter of the law and either drop their tax exempt status or stop their involvement in government affairs.

There are at least some of us religous people (I am Christian) who agree that religion shouldn't run government.

Personally I think my church and every other church in the USA should pay taxes.  Jesus was not anti-tax!  (heck, he told people to pay their taxes)  I also think ministers shouldn't have special rights to marry people - either let everyone who meets some basic requirements be able to be an officiant or let nobody but civil servants.  But don't give religion a special place here.  If I want my minister to marry me, let that be simply a 100% religious event, with no civil significance - and likewise let my civil ceremony have no religious significance if you so desire.

The Puritans (at least a significant group of them) had it right concerning marrigage: they established marriage as an entirely civil matter initially in the northeast USA.  They didn't see marriage as a rite specifically discussed as a in the Bible (they saw the Bible talk about marriage, but not commandments about the order of the actual ceremony nor anything that indicated it was a duty of an overseer, bishop, elder, etc), so they kept weddings out of their churches.  If you wanted to get married, you went to the courthouse and didn't pollute the church with your civil contract.  The minister most certainly didn't marry you!  (some also did "bundling" if they wanted to make sure the guy didn't try denying he impregnated the gal - the parents let them sleep together in the daughter's room prior to marriage, so that he couldn't deny the kid was his, putting the gal in the unfortunate position of no longer being seen as an attractive [and valuable financially] mate to anyone)

The Baptists and others in the south had different ideas - that's where the US idea of a church wedding came from, outside of some denominations that view marriage as a religious event (such as the Catholic church).

The idea of the church legislating marriage isn't universal.

And personally I'd just assume to keep politics out of my church period.  I think there are few things less holy, honorable, and good then politics, so I'd rather keep them as far away from the holy, honorable, and good as possible.  :)  It does go both ways.  When the church starts politicking, it gets corrupted.  I'm not the only one that sees it this way, although sadly a lot of US Christians have been basically brainwashed into thinking that God, being all-knowing, would want one of our candidates to win an election!  What a small god they serve.  :(

That said, some churches will continue to think that somehow God would be pleased if they made the stupid laws rather than letting elected representatives do so.  And I don't think anyone will stop that (and this is hardly unique to Christianity - it happens in all major religious as far as I can tell).  All we can do is speak out against it and make sure to vote for candidates who understand the difference between church and state.  I'm probably a "bad" Christian to some (I try to think!), but so be it!

I don't see any "bad" Christian in that response, in fact it sounds pretty right on.

If you're a bad Christian, then I'm a she-devil wearing the guise of a Christian, because I think you're right on too!

Lisbeth, I'm a transgender woman whose been married for 31 years. I've heard much of the arguments and reasons why the church is against gay marriage. Mercifully, many churches are changing their attitudes about this. Some never will.

Divorce is what is ruining marriage, not gay marriage. I point out that if these folks were so concerned about marriage then why don't they work with couples that are struggling. Concerning DOMA, marriage needs to demonstrated in a constructive and positive way. My spouse and I have had struggles, but we've had many more times of joy and happiness.

I've gone through the scriptures many many times and God does not condemn homosexuality, ->-bleeped-<- or gay marriage. God does condemn inhospitality (the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah), discrimination, and the unconcern for the poor and downtrodden.

Gennee, you make an interesting point.  While Christian groups are out campaigning to "protect" marriage they are completely ignoring saving the marriages that already exist.  Personally, I believe whatever entity performed the ceremony and legally married a couple, that same entity should be the one that will grant a divorce.

If the Catholic Church married you, the Catholic Church should be the one to grant a divorce.  Same goes for every other church.  The only time you go before a judge to obtain a divorce is if you were married by a judge.

I don't get it either.  Homosex couples should have the same opportunity to be miserable as the straight ones

Quote from: gennee on November 01, 2011, 01:14:57 PM
.

I've gone through the scriptures many many times and God does not condemn homosexuality, ->-bleeped-<- or gay marriage. God does condemn inhospitality (the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah), discrimination, and the unconcern for the poor and downtrodden.

genneee take off those glasses and reread Sodom and Gomorrah being nuked because the men were all homosexuals thinking it would be cute to have sex with male angels.

Quote from: lilacwoman on November 02, 2011, 06:26:45 PM
genneee take off those glasses and reread Sodom and Gomorrah being nuked because the men were all homosexuals thinking it would be cute to have sex with male angels.

LOL exactly.  Or read the book of exodous

Hey, Sodom and Gomor'rah weren't destroyed by God because there was gay guys looking to have sex with angels.  They, along with Admah, Zeboim, and Bela were destroyed by a deep space impact on June 29, 3123 BCE.  And that is told in the book of Genesis.

But even if some guys wanted to have sex with angels, isn't that what all guys wish for?

angels are heterosexual male spirited so you saying all guys are homosexual?   

judging by reports from prisons, seminaries, scouts and boys schools that is probably the truth.

First what YOU believe and live like is good. i respect that .
But remember that *groups* are power blocks so the want MEMBERS.
And its a fact that gay and mtf cant make members for them so the are not wanted.
As lovable and good the can be (we stay humans ).

Quote from: lilacwoman on November 06, 2011, 05:34:46 AM
angels are heterosexual male spirited so you saying all guys are homosexual?

A picture tells a thousand words...

lols  but nice lingerie  >:-)

Why don't you turn your back to the church?
If a lot of people would do that, they would be begging for coming back, hey...it's their income, and money talks.
Than you can make demands.
If you see the wealth of some churches than you know that the holy word of money is far more important to them than the holy word of the bible.

A corrupt church's followers should abandon it. But they get what they really want out of the church: a pat on the head and assurance that if they just keep the money flowing and the obedience blind, they'll never have to worry about their souls' fate and get to reap the societal rewards for being a "good Christian". It's sickening, the Apostles warned of these kinds of churches and worshipers, and they're an irrevocable reality. As long as corrupt preachers and lazy worshipers continue to exist, there will be corrupt churches. It's lazy spirituality coupled with a perfectly human desire for community. They don't want to question the group (lest they be ejected) so they stop thinking.

In essence, the LGBT is getting the same crap we've always gotten: the rest of the kids on the schoolyard beat us up and laugh at us so as to blend into the background and not be targeted themselves. The best among them sit silently on the sidelines and pray not to be noticed by the group while secretly weeping for the victims. It's an all too human thing to want to fit in, and in order to fit in there has to be an "other" that everyone who fits in hates. In a just society the "other" would bring their fate upon themselves; society in reality is not so just. We did nothing to deserve being the scapegoat other than be few enough in number to be convenient targets.

I may be foolish, but I believe in humanity. I believe that if I reason with these people, if I appeal to their sense of fairness, of justice, of morality, that maybe they'll come to realize what they're doing and stop. So far I've a success rate of zero. But I'll keep believing in people.

To answer the original question the reason churches are against gay marriage is because of certain scriptures which have more importance placed upon them than others.

Leviticus 20:13
[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The above scripture is the one I see used most. It appears to be pretty straight forward and easy for a straight person to see.
There some the straight folk don't see however. These are just as bad because the word says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Below is an example.

Proverbs 11:1
[1] A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

If a person uses scripture to judge or condemn another such as a gay person but excludes scripture which shows straight people in need of a Saviour as well it is out of balance. That is an abomination too.

I used one scripture to show where gay sex is listed as an abomination and one scripture to show where one's thoughts, actions or words being out of balance is an abomination. Hence, my answer is balanced and no abomination.

But, there are many things that are an abomination. Gay folk are just easy for some to pick on so they can feel good about themselves I reckon.

The problem with following scripture is twofold:

One, interpretation is a huge problem.  One of the reasons I lost interest in the religion I was born into was hearing so many versions of the same story from people who were supposed to know what they were talking about: priests and nuns.  It was clear to me the Bible, as one's sole guidance, had long ago lost its value in modern society.  And that realization came before I even entered high school.

The second problem is the individual reader's fault - quoting the Bible out of context.  But it's done all the time and there's never a shortage of people will fall in lock step with the bible thumper.  Lemmings looking for a leader.

But the reason churches are against gay marriage is first and foremost about money.  Once the tide changes and gay marriage is generally accepted, AND CHURCHES THAT DON'T ACCEPT GAY MARRIAGE BEGIN TO LOSE DONATIONS, then the churches will change their tune and find some way they can re-interpret the Bible so they can say, "We've re-read the Scripture and we realized God loves and accept us all for who we are."

"We've re-read the Scripture and we realized God loves and accept us all for who we are, so you can give us money again."

FIFY

While there are (too many) churches that are seeking money, I think assuming that is the main motivation (or would motivate the majority) is building a characterature of Christianity that just isn't accurate.

I've been in many churches - large ones, small ones, anti-gay, affirming, etc.  I can only think of one or two that would change their beliefs for money, at least of the dozen or so I was a part of.

The majority sincerely believe what they are saying, as do their members.  They sincerely believe gays are going to go to hell, and truly think that they can "save" gays by helping them de-gay themselves. This is not done to get money from gays, but rather out of the idea that they are morally right and gays are morally wrong.  Couple this with some self-hatred by some members, the combination of politics and religion by well-known preachers, and a distrust of academia - these things all factor together.  Money is a relatiely minor part of it - seriously.

Most churches would rather close the doors than change what they see as the word of God.  They'll give up the money (seriously).  Now, some churches would change thier beliefs for money - absolutely - but they are not the majority of churches or believers.  If money could solve this problem, it would have been solved years ago.

People who care about equality and Christian love need to focus on the real issues - not a strawman.

Here's a blog I wrote about this

The time has come......so it was said. I think we all try to get along with people as best we can. Although that's never much been a priority in my life to which I think some of my family will testify, I've always tried to give people the benefit of the doubt. We all have our ways of finding our way and we many times take a wrong turn or just storm off in determined wrongness only to have to circle back eventually. And so in the humanity of us all, I try (or at least I hope I try) to give people wiggle room and to bite my lip when I can for the sake of keeping things from boiling over into unnecessary hurtful incidents. And so when it comes to the rights of homosexuals in this country, because so many of my dearest friends are religious people I've tried to understand. But recently I came to a sad realization, that what I was doing in a sense of neutrality was actually taking a side, that old line, that sometimes 'not saying something IS saying something." or "All that it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." And so although I stand to lose a few friends for this I guess I have to make a stand because my silence equals complicity.


Most people who know me know that I have always advocated for the rights of homosexuals to marry. Way way back, even before it became the cause of the day. To me the story was simple. It was always about family. Since I had a broken family, I began to rely on my friends as my family. And so I built up a strange menagerie of people (mostly feeling the love after a couple of Long Island Iced Teas) that I "loved" and quite a few of them were gay guys who just did me the honor of hanging with me in a night club without pawing at me like a gorilla in heat. It was great fun dancing the night away at the Hippo. I saw a lot of casual flings and a few very serious partners.

But I eventually moved on from this life on the edge and settled down. After building my own family by getting married and having kids, it dawned on me that this society doesn't allow for the same sort of moving on for the gay people we know. In some strange way we seem to expect the homosexual male in society to dance the night a way in a disco, then pause long enough to make us lots of fabulous fashions and decorate up a storm. Then faster than you can do two snaps up it's fast forward until you are now some sage old man wandering through the streets in a Sting song. You can be a Queen, a diva, and you can be fabulous.........but uh, the guys making thanksgiving while the family comes over and the kids run around the table chasing the dog........not so much.

For me what is being denied homosexuals by resisting the idea of marriage, is not keeping the sanctity of marriage sacred for the straight people who want the right to get drunk in Vegas and what the helling it up to the altar......or for jailed murderers to legally be allowed conjugal visits........because that's what marriage often amounts to in the straight world.......oh that and marrying teenagers.....oh and divorce.......lots of it............but I digress..........

But what is really at stake here is the right to build a legally recognized family. That reality that says these are my children and this is my spouse. This is my family. And to be able to say that without feeling like you are kidding yourself or putting on some sort of bravado to stick it to the straight man. No, just to be able to be a family and have it count in the world and matter to you rather than it counting to you and mattering in the world but in the wrong way.

I've had a lot of round about discussions with friends who have pulled this new tactic of insidiously sliding the conversation into a no man's land of "Can't we all just get along?"........ "It's not MY point of view," they say " and I have nothing against homosexuals at all.........but I'm sorry God made it clear that they are sinners, and I'm not saying one sin is worse than the other, we're all sinners.......but acting on homosexual impulses is a sin in the eyes of God so I'm sorry I don't know the ways of God and who am I to judge God. I just can't support sin."

And of course, that's perfectly agreeable, that's perfectly fine isn't it? They aren't really condemning the homosexual, and if they really feel this strongly about their faith this is just one of the bad things stuck in there that they are trying to be compassionate about right?


Except I don't believe it. The bible, if you are using that, has a whole plethora of God policies, like not wearing gold, not setting up a pagan Christmas tree, not bowing down to engraven images........." There's plenty to choose from and yet for some reason, being gay which is mentioned just a few times is up there like a hot priority in the bible. Now if people do follow the rest of it that's one thing. But if you don't, and yet you concern yourself with stopping homosexuals from getting married, well then I guess you aren't rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar now, are you? The whole point of Romans 13 was that the secular world is the secular world and not a concern of those devoted to a spiritual world. In other words, you live in the world and so you must deal with it, but it is not your concern.

So why are so many people concerning themselves with it?


I see homosexuals as not "THEM" over "THERE" but as part of the world in which we all live. I consider these people my brothers and sisters across the board. And like any cranky prejudiced person there are things about this community that annoy me and that I don't like. However, they are members of the greater family, our family, family planet earth. You know........the people? And bigotry is bigotry no matter how finely you try to split the gay hair and make it not so, that you are oppressing people based on your own personal preference. We are all in this together in the world and people should never ever have to ask to get the right to build a family.

The gay hair gets split again with that sentiment as people pour out the accusations of pedophiles wanting to marry children and beastophiles wanting to marry donkeys and philophiles wanting to marry file cabinets and such things. And of course at this point the gay hair has already been split so finely that it just doesn't hold up any more.

But if I have to lose a few friends in the process, I guess that's what is going to come of this. I consider it oppressive and wrong and just downright cruel to deny two consenting loving adults the right to build a family together based on the objections of a 2000 year old book, that you don't seem to follow to a tee anyway. At the end of the day, that gay hair has been split away. And I'd rather lose a friend than support oppression based on ignorance.


PS Yes I know that Matthew 22 is Caesar.......check out Romans 13, you might be surprised.

It merits mention that my statement that they get to stay as long as they "keep the money flowing" was secondary to everything else I said. The main concern of these churches is obedience, not donations. As long as you don't say anything that the group doesn't like (such as equating homosexuals to actual human beings), whether you donate or not is secondary (though appreciated).

I didn't really create a strawman. I just framed my argument to resemble one unintentionally.

Since I grew up in a Catholic environment, went to Catholic schools through college and had a lot of exposure to how the Catholic Church works...

There is no doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church would bend and even break "the rules" if they saw their financial survival in jeopardy.  They have proven that time and again.  The most notorious proof is the pedophile priest scandal. 

And there are plenty other churches that would fall in lock step if they saw donations drying up.

Former and first director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, teamed up with recently released from prison Jack Abramoff to protect the then existing casinos in Alabama.  Reed said he could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households" in Alabama, as well as "the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, [and] the Christian Family Association." Reed would require a $20,000 per month retainer for his services.  Abramoff jumped.

The gist of this whole thing is these guys saw Christians as easy prey.  As long as you presented things to them as being for or against God's will, they will support you, and donate.  And they did.  This is why predators who want wealth and power prey on the religious, especially the Christians.  Because of their blind faith, they are easy pickings and what they pick is money out of your pockets.  Take that ability away, and watch everything change.     

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on October 30, 2011, 11:20:15 PM
So said Pebbles to the Christian transsexual. Dear, I realize that you had a bad experience on that forum, but it sounds to me like you just happened upon a gathering ground for a bunch of fundamentalists with their heads firmly up their...well...you know

Oh no no no... My views are formed a combination of factors I only visited them because I had suffered first hand the horrors of christian bigotry.

I didn't understand why they hated me so much. So I sought them out and yes I've been mistreated on those forums too. Their fundimental moral fiber accociated with their faith in the bible, makes them either outright violent and abusive or if not an active participent at the very least gleefully complacent and a distant facilitator at witnessing these occurances never acknowledging fault in their interpretations and quick to play the victim when you cry in pain. I've seen it in my life first hand and online that forum and others like it...

If they were just isolated indivduals then I ask why are we still treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens? why did my assailants get away without any justice ever wrought upon them?

I know the answer... Because... They are the majority pepole empathize with THEM. Their christian values whitch are the values of a bigot.
My gift from my encounters with them is this seething prejudiced hateful anger... Ultimately it's the only thing I trust to protect me from begin made into there victim once more. I'd rather become twisted and spiteful than be made into that again.

Pebbles, in order to explain what is happening I have to first explain the concepts of diffuse and concentrated interests. I'll also set the frame of reference in the USA, which I suspect you're from.

Diffuse Interest -> A person (or group) who only marginally cares about the issue at hand, if at all.
Concentrated Interest -> A person (or group) who cares deeply for the issue at hand, and devotes serious amounts of resources to pursuit of an end.

Diffuse interests have to be given an incentive to be driven to participate in collective action. Concentrated interests will act regardless because their passion on the issue itself is their incentive to act.

The reason transpeople are relegated to 2nd or even 3rd class status (especially in the US) is because most people have so little exposure to transsexuals aside from the constant badmouthing from a very concentrated interest group (politically active fundamentalist Christians). A diffuse interest group (your typical Christian) is given an incentive (threats of pedophilia, rape, drug use, and an increased general crime rate) from a hostile concentrated interest group to work against us. So they frequently do, because they don't often hear differently about us and don't have to care about the facts since it's not them that's being targeted. Considering that most Americans are Christian (if only in name), two plus two leads to four. You end up with undereducated diffuse interests saying things that the concentrated interests told them because it's all they know.

But you can't just run around screaming that people are pedophiles and/or rapists and expect to last very long. Eventually you'll slip up and upset the diffuse interest or some evidence will come along to refute you if you're lying. Even McCarthy only lasted so long before people started wanting to see his list of Communist conspirators and became tired of his excuses not to reveal it. Something more permanent is needed, in this case religion and science. The concentrated interests (fundamentalist Christians) frame their arguments with Moralism and recruit pseudo-scientific agencies to "conduct research" [create propaganda] so that their arguments are more lasting. The idea is to make the argument sound convincing and simultaneously so far above most peoples' heads that they can't be bothered to try to examine the argument in detail because they don't believe they'd understand it anyway (see: Sophistry).

A diffuse interest confronted with a simple, radical claim will look into the claim for validity because this doesn't require much effort or time. A diffuse interest confronted with a complicated, radical claim will be too lazy or disinterested to examine the particulars because it becomes a daunting and time consuming task, and besides which they're not actually shooting themselves in the foot if they place restrictions anyway. In the case of anti-trans legislation, Joe Six-Pack votes to keep us out of bathrooms and unmarried because he doesn't have to face the consequences of these laws and thus doesn't care enough to sort the truth from the bull->-bleeped-<-.

I believe a certain genocidal maniac can aptly summarize: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

Think about it! It wasn't until the House Committee on Un-American Activities conducted mass subpoena of random civilians (not just celebrities and political activists) that people actually started to give a damn that McCarthy and his ilk were violating essentially the entire Bill of Rights and started asking questions. Same situation with us transfolk, only there's basically nothing the members of the Religious Right can do to shock your disinterested Christians into questioning them since the disinterested Christians won't suddenly be disallowed from entering public restrooms or have their marriages invalidated arbitrarily by referendum and then constitutionally banned.

Your typical Christian falls into the category "disinterested follower" on trans issues. Their tunes (unlike those of the fundamentalists) will change upon seeing transpeople suffering in person. Here in Denmark Socialdemokraterne is filled with such Christians.

People and power do not like change. It's a basic simple concept. Yet, change is inevitable in every aspect of our lives.

wow. These points are all amazing. This is so true. The way people behave cheating on each other and betraying each other has become socially acceptable. Why on earth is gay marriage such an issue? ::)

Quote from: fionabell on December 14, 2011, 04:06:42 AM
wow. These points are all amazing. This is so true. The way people behave cheating on each other and betraying each other has become socially acceptable. Why on earth is gay marriage such an issue?

Gays, guns and God.  If you want to push emotional hot buttons, you have only to start there, at least in the USA.  We are so conditioned to believe the spin that has been placed on making any changes in the status quo many believe it will be the end of civilized society if we mess with it.

You hear about a 'godless society" but I have yet to read about any time in history where there was actually a godless society.  I know many christians have made the claim pagans lived in a godless society but that is definitely not true.  They had gods, just not the same ones christians had.  A godless society would be one controlled by atheists and I don't know of any societies like that, at least not any that had any real power.

But the fear attached to living in a godless society is enough to cause many to lose their common sense. 

It's the same with guns here.  "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns."  Gun control is seen as a very bad thing yet if you go back to the wild west, what did you have?  Gun proponents will say, "Hey, at least back then if someone drew a gun on you he'd have to think twice that maybe you're faster on the draw and he may end up dead."  Great!  A gun-toting, trigger-happy society.

Of course gays will usher in the end of morality and the degradation of society.  "If we allow gay marriage, the next thing they will be asking for is to marry their dog."  Yeah, good point!  Yet people actually believe that kind of stuff.

I say let's put an end to ignorance.  That could cure a lot of people of a lot of phobias.

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 15, 2011, 02:10:04 PM
Gays, guns and God.  If you want to push emotional hot buttons, you have only to start there, at least in the USA.  We are so conditioned to believe the spin that has been placed on making any changes in the status quo many believe it will be the end of civilized society if we mess with it.

You hear about a 'godless society" but I have yet to read about any time in history where there was actually a godless society.  I know many christians have made the claim pagans lived in a godless society but that is definitely not true.  They had gods, just not the same ones christians had.  A godless society would be one controlled by atheists and I don't know of any societies like that, at least not any that had any real power.

But the fear attached to living in a godless society is enough to cause many to lose their common sense. 

It's the same with guns here.  "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns."  Gun control is seen as a very bad thing yet if you go back to the wild west, what did you have?  Gun proponents will say, "Hey, at least back then if someone drew a gun on you he'd have to think twice that maybe you're faster on the draw and he may end up dead."  Great!  A gun-toting, trigger-happy society.

Of course gays will usher in the end of morality and the degradation of society.  "If we allow gay marriage, the next thing they will be asking for is to marry their dog."  Yeah, good point!  Yet people actually believe that kind of stuff.

I say let's put an end to ignorance.  That could cure a lot of people of a lot of phobias.

It is said that "an armed society is a polite society."

Personally, I have no problem with any sort of relationship between consenting adults.  As far a church or faith-based marriage is concerned, churches will continue to sanction those marriages that fall within the tenets of their faith.

It makes no sense to me for government to regulate marriage.  I don't see it as a essential function of government.  But, if government regulates, or "allows," same-sex marriage, why not different forms of marriage such as polyamory, polyandry, or polygamy?

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 20, 2011, 04:15:36 AM
Even McCarthy only lasted so long before people started wanting to see his list of Communist conspirators and became tired of his excuses not to reveal it.

Think about it! It wasn't until the House Committee on Un-American Activities conducted mass subpoena of random civilians (not just celebrities and political activists) that people actually started to give a damn that McCarthy and his ilk were violating essentially the entire Bill of Rights and started asking questions.

And don't forget the effect the media, or I should say one person in the media had on the downfall of Sen. Joe McCarthy....

Edward R. Murrow...  "Good Night and Good Luck"!

But to the topic in question, Government is involved in the business of marriage to collect taxes! And think about it, families help drive the economy. Now correct me if I'm wrong...but the reason the Mormon Church banned polygamy was because it was required for them in order to become a state.

It will probably take another generation for the Churches to accept Gay Marriage and even us in general. Though they are trying now, its still a forced effort, and one that often provokes the thought of "we have to do something for/or about you people..." As I told a Pastor(who is actually Gay ???), "Do what? What are going to do for me?". My feeling is stop freaking out about us, you don't have to do anything, just accept us!

As for the prior comments on change, it takes time, but once in motion it doesn't stop.

What's wrong with owning guns? Whats wrong with being Trans or Gay? What's wrong with believing  in God, or not?

Quote from: Jamie D on December 15, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
It is said that "an armed society is a polite society."

And as long as you are well armed and people know you are proficient in the use of those arms and are unafraid to use them, people will be polite to you.

But that proficiency with arms always invites a challenge.  Therefore the disruption of politeness is assured.

;)

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 15, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
And as long as you are well armed and people know you are proficient in the use of those arms and are unafraid to use them, people will be polite to you.

But that proficiency with arms always invites a challenge.  Therefore the disruption of politeness is assured.

;)

Self defense is a fundamental natural right.  Owning weapons is a deterrent to the unlawful use of force against me, my family, my property, or my community.  If every criminal knew that his/her intended victim was armed, able, and willing to resist, there would be fewer violent crimes.  It is a fundamental facet of nature that predators tend to prey on the weak and defenseless.

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 15, 2011, 07:19:44 PM
And as long as you are well armed and people know you are proficient in the use of those arms and are unafraid to use them, people will be polite to you.

But that proficiency with arms always invites a challenge.  Therefore the disruption of politeness is assured.

;)

Quote from: Jamie D on December 15, 2011, 10:58:24 PM
Self defense is a fundamental natural right.  Owning weapons is a deterrent to the unlawful use of force against me, my family, my property, or my community.  If every criminal knew that his/her intended victim was armed, able, and willing to resist, there would be fewer violent crimes.  It is a fundamental facet of nature that predators tend to prey on the weak and defenseless.

ISN"T THE TOPIC  "WHY ARE CHURCHES AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE"? SO WHY ALL THE GOD AND GUNS STUFF, TOS 15. SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO IGNORE OTHERS.

Quote from: SandraJane on December 16, 2011, 05:49:19 AM


ISN"T THE TOPIC  "WHY ARE CHURCHES AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE"? SO WHY ALL THE GOD AND GUNS STUFF, TOS 15. SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO IGNORE OTHERS.

You're right.  The topic did drift and I apologize.

However, there is a linkage.  From the short time I have been visiting ans posting here, it is apparent that many of the contributors intensely dislike political conservatives and conservative ideals.  So, as in a post, above, "Gays, guns, and God" are linked.

A person who opposes same-sex marriage does not necessarily oppose gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transsexuals.

A person who is religious does not necessarily hate the GLBT community.

A person who exercises and protect his/her natural, constitutional, and civil rights is not hurting anyone else.

I believe some of the most basic human rights are "the right of conscience," "the right to do what I want (so long as I am not harming another)", "and the right to be me."

Other people drift too...

But why are Churches against Gay Marriages? We have Conservatives on this site also, and not everyone that owns a gun, supports Gay/same sex marriage, and believes in God, and is a Christian is Conservative...but a lot are :laugh:

I'm a teen...and come from a conservative Christian home. I've heard all the arguments both ways. The scriptural proof against it to me is more or less solid in the New Testament however the problem is this: Conservative Christian seems to have a propensity to focus on abortion and gay marriage both of which are, frankly, menial and non-salvation threatening issues. This in stark contrast to the over 2000 (??) times poverty and injustice are mentioned and linked to salvation. Why are they? It's more than them controlling marriage it's a belief with solid basis but too much emphasis.

Quote from: Joan/Jonas on December 21, 2011, 04:34:32 PM
I'm a teen...and come from a conservative Christian home. I've heard all the arguments both ways. The scriptural proof against it to me is more or less solid in the New Testament

Those anti homosexual versus in the New Testament isn't as solid as you may think. 1 Corinthians 6:9 doesn't mean homosexuals at all; the greek word alludes to someone who forces another person, through sexual coercion, into a sex trade.

Romans, Paul speaks against homosexuality, not in a sense of going against the gift of righteousness that God gives you, but because these are issues that may prevent you from focusing more on God. Paul uses the same language concerning straight marriage too "It is better not to marry but if you burn in lust then do so" (paraphrased).

The senior pastor at my church is a married out-of-the-closet lesbian. Oh, so is the associate pastor, too.

Don't believe me? Come on over to San Mateo, CA, on a Sunday and I'll introduce you to them.

Churches in general are not against gay marriage. No. There are those churches that are, true. But not all churches are.

Quote from: SandraJane on December 16, 2011, 04:07:02 PM
Other people drift too...

It's called train of thought, so common within human conversation one has to make a conscious effort to avoid it.  It's done here all the time.  The only time it becomes a real issue is when the thread gets hijacked.
...

Many churches now accept gay marriage.  I suspect the aversion that was long ago so prevalent just stemmed from old ways not evolving due to the fact no one really gave it much of a thought.  At least not until a strong gay movement brought discrimination to the table of discussion.  Things like DODT being repealed by the government have probably helped many religious organizations take a second look at their policies.

But there is still a substantial number of people who are against gay marriage and those people are led by very vocal, bigoted organizations that mask their real intentions with a religious affiliation.  And their followers follow because it's easier to let someone else do their thinking.  When you get all your information from a single source, there will always be those who recognize this and take advantage of it.  And behind every one of these bigoted actions there is a monetary motive.

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 23, 2011, 02:46:11 PM
It's called train of thought, so common within human conversation one has to make a conscious effort to avoid it.  It's done here all the time.  The only time it becomes a real issue is when the thread gets hijacked.

Took a little while, but train of thought? Okay good analogy, it had gotten off the tracks! :laugh:  Sail or Sale? Sounds like...

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 23, 2011, 02:46:11 PM
But there is still a substantial number of people who are against gay marriage and those people are led by very vocal, bigoted organizations that mask their real intentions with a religious affiliation.  And their followers follow because it's easier to let someone else do their thinking.  When you get all your information from a single source, there will always be those who recognize this and take advantage of it.  And behind every one of these bigoted actions there is a monetary motive.

Money and Power, prime motivations since the beginning of society, but its not just Local organizations at work here, there are large National level groups that want to see the LGBT gains quashed...and many say it in the name of God one way or another.

Quote from: Annah on December 21, 2011, 08:24:19 PM
Those anti homosexual versus in the New Testament isn't as solid as you may think. 1 Corinthians 6:9 doesn't mean homosexuals at all; the greek word alludes to someone who forces another person, through sexual coercion, into a sex trade.

Romans, Paul speaks against homosexuality, not in a sense of going against the gift of righteousness that God gives you, but because these are issues that may prevent you from focusing more on God. Paul uses the same language concerning straight marriage too "It is better not to marry but if you burn in lust then do so" (paraphrased).

Extremely important, recall the italicized words and sentences in various Bible versions? Text that wasn't found in all of the "manuscripts" edited in there by a local scribe or one higher up. The misrepresentations of important concepts and meanings, Paul's use of words being twisted to suite those who didn't want to deal there own ungodly behaviors and attitudes.

The good news out of all of this is that the churches who embrace LGBT are growing every year. There never has been a decline of a denomination saying "we change our minds...we think LGBT is a sin ...for the exception of the 900 CE).

Eventually, it will get to the point that the churches who condemn sexuality will be looked down upon like the churches who condemns interracial marriages.

I think the church likes people to have lot's of babies. More babies means more worshipers which means more money in the collection plate and more donated land from deceased spinsters. :angel:

Two reasons  I can think of- 
I have been doing some research and it is fairly obvious that Jesus didn't actually have much to say on the subject of sexuality at all.
Aside from the  "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" story, which some scholars think is a later accretion, there is only one sermon quoted. 
That is, that a man who lusts after the wife or betrothedof another obsessively, has already committed adultery.  I take this to mean he is looking at her a s a sex object, not a person, and disregarding her commitment to another. 
All the other references to sexuality in the New Testament come from Paul and others. 
I have to ask, who is more important Jesus or his later followers?  I would guess that  Jesus didn't think that these questions were of any great import.  He was more concerned with people living by the two Commandments he gave.

If those busy quoting scripture stopped to listen to themselves, if I am right, they are committing blasphemy, by making Paul et al, greater than Jesus ( who, remember, is God).  hopefully if they keep ranting no one will catch them out, and they will not have to deal with being exposed.

Secondly,  the Churches seem to insist that a marriage has to be consummated in an act of heterosexual penetrative intercourse, which reduces the woman to an object to be possessed.  Any marriage definition which differs, reduces the power of the patriarchal institutions over their female members, by indicating that men are not superior to women , by divine right. 

Hope that is not too obtuse, I could probably rave on for pages. :embarrassed:

Karen.

Great points Karen but you're missing the only point that is important to those who quote the Bible out of context - that "since the bible is god's word and the bible says this... then you have to do what I say or you are a sinner."  Oh, and one other thing, "as long as I can find something in the bible that supports my beliefs, I am always right."

So, since they somehow managed to take words from the bible, interpret them to support their prejudice against same sex marriage, then "god says gay marriage is an abomination."  End of story.

I tell people that if they force gay and lesbian people into marraige, that one day they won't be able to handle it anymore and will leave the family. It's a crushing blow to the spouse, children, and other close family members. Keeping LGBT people out of marriages that they don't want prevents all kinds of misery.  I often advise them to watch Broke Back Mountain to get what I'm talking about. I doubt that any of them do, but it is a marvelous film that demonstrates just what the religious people don't want to talk about. LGBT people forced into "traditional" marraiges will typically destroy their families sometime down the road.

I know from personal experience. It's been over twenty years for me since my transition, and I'm still dealing with family members. The religious BS will NEVER end.

Cindi

Oh... and if you ever get into a scripture argument with someone... just show them how the "Lord's Prayer" has changed since the oldest records in Aramaic .... yeah Arab. Look it up on the web. It is absolutely fascinating how this basic tenet of Christianity has changed SO MUCH over the years. Everything else has as well.  Go figure. Duh.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on December 21, 2011, 11:04:32 PM
The senior pastor at my church is a married out-of-the-closet lesbian. Oh, so is the associate pastor, too.

Don't believe me? Come on over to San Mateo, CA, on a Sunday and I'll introduce you to them.

Churches in general are not against gay marriage. No. There are those churches that are, true. But not all churches are.

Okay, so I realized my post might not have been very clear.

Of the two couples I describe above, all parties involved are lesbian. Both the senior and associate pastors at my church are lesbians who are married to lesbians.

And, for the record, all four lesbians seem to be quite happy with these marriages. Oh, they're parents, too.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on December 30, 2011, 10:23:10 AM
Okay, so I realized my post might not have been very clear.

Of the two couples I describe above, all parties involved are lesbian. Both the senior and associate pastors at my church are lesbians who are married to lesbians.

And, for the record, all four lesbians seem to be quite happy with these marriages. Oh, they're parents, too.

So I'm guessing your church is either Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical, right?  ;)

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 30, 2011, 03:06:25 PM
So I'm guessing your church is either Catholic, Mormon or Evangelical, right?  ;)

Right, not even close.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on December 30, 2011, 07:50:39 AM
Oh... and if you ever get into a scripture argument with someone... just show them how the "Lord's Prayer" has changed since the oldest records in Aramaic .... yeah Arab. Look it up on the web. It is absolutely fascinating how this basic tenet of Christianity has changed SO MUCH over the years. Everything else has as well.  Go figure. Duh.

Sorry, I have to add something. Aramaic is a completely different language to Arabic. Matter of fact, the Hebrew language shares more similarities to Arabic than Aramaic does. Even one of the most stated word is different. "God" in Aramaic is Elah and "God" in Arabic is "Allah."

Arabic stemmed from the Hebrew as well as Aramaic stemmed from the Hebrew. Both Aramaic and Arabic are daughter languages of Hebrew. There are thousands of literary differences when compared to Arabic and Aramaic. Even the verb formations are different.

Also, the Lord's Prayer isn't much different in Aramaic as it is in Koine Greek and in English (I can translate Aramaic). In Aramaic, a transliteration of the Lord's Prayer is:


The only deviation is the word "serene" which is translated to forgiveness. This is where Koine Greek states "and forgive us of our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

So arguing the changes of the Lord's Prayer will not help your case much. However, you could argue to them to recite it because many fundamentalist Christians do not even know it to the point where they can recite it.

Kia Ora,

::) Slightly off topic but what the heck.......................

::) Have you heard of MOM =Mixed Orientation Marriages, they're quite common, [I'm sure many churches know of it and turn a blind eye]...It's where a lesbian and gay man go through a 'Marriage Of Convenience' to keep up the 'appearance' of a 'normal' married couple, but have sexual relationships with same sex partners who could also be in a similar MOC, and they are just seen as 'close' friends[very close so it would seem] ...

::) The couples keep 'MOM' about their private life [and by the looks of things so does the church ]!

Metta Zenda :)

Kia Ora Zenda.   
What we have then is people lying in the sacrament of marriage, if it's a church wedding, rather than being honest.

Quote from: FullMoon19 on August 24, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
it's no reason really. they use the bible as a manual for life, and that's most of it.

yes that is a possibility

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 31, 2011, 05:49:58 AM
Kia Ora Zenda.   
What we have then is people lying in the sacrament of marriage, if it's a church wedding, rather than being honest.

maybe that is correct way to look at it

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 28, 2011, 04:56:54 AM
Two reasons  I can think of- 
I have been doing some research and it is fairly obvious that Jesus didn't actually have much to say on the subject of sexuality at all.
Aside from the  "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" story, which some scholars think is a later accretion, there is only one sermon quoted. 
That is, that a man who lusts after the wife or betrothedof another obsessively, has already committed adultery.  I take this to mean he is looking at her a s a sex object, not a person, and disregarding her commitment to another. 
All the other references to sexuality in the New Testament come from Paul and others. 
I have to ask, who is more important Jesus or his later followers?  I would guess that  Jesus didn't think that these questions were of any great import.  He was more concerned with people living by the two Commandments he gave.

If those busy quoting scripture stopped to listen to themselves, if I am right, they are committing blasphemy, by making Paul et al, greater than Jesus ( who, remember, is God).  hopefully if they keep ranting no one will catch them out, and they will not have to deal with being exposed.

Secondly,  the Churches seem to insist that a marriage has to be consummated in an act of heterosexual penetrative intercourse, which reduces the woman to an object to be possessed.  Any marriage definition which differs, reduces the power of the patriarchal institutions over their female members, by indicating that men are not superior to women , by divine right. 

Hope that is not too obtuse, I could probably rave on for pages. :embarrassed:

Karen.

that is two ok resons from my view

Quote from: Connie Anne on December 30, 2011, 10:23:10 AM
Okay, so I realized my post might not have been very clear.

Of the two couples I describe above, all parties involved are lesbian. Both the senior and associate pastors at my church are lesbians who are married to lesbians.

And, for the record, all four lesbians seem to be quite happy with these marriages. Oh, they're parents, too.

Thank you for the kind invitation

Quote"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by?"

Well, churches will say that the church should define it.

That being the case then there is NOTHING to violate that "rule" technically it as it is.. still a marriage between a man and a woman. Whether they mean in actual SEX rather than spiritual union or bother is really ambiguous. If its spiritually, then there is really nothing to violate this rule, if its physical, then I would then argue any SRS woman is in fact a physical woman and therefore does not break the rule either.

Quote
"Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who?"

Quote
I really don't recall reading anything in the bible that even suggests this.

Just another variation on the other one. The church wants to dictate the rules of marriage.

"Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage."

If by "the institution of marriage" you mean the church controlling marriage, then yes, it threatens that control.

Technically it could only be regarded as "Same sex" IF it were two men or two Women wanting to marry, Meaning that they are BOTH physically that gender. Considering the fact either a SRS Woman or man does NOT have the physical genitalia of the partners sex, then its not same sex at all, and lawfully should marry as their correct roles with out actual violations of any laws or religious bigotry. If a man is attracted to a TS and want to have sex with her, because she still has her "male" genitals and that TS agrees then technically that is same sex.. So its regarded as homosexual in nature the relationship. I don't mean to upset or offend anyone when I say that, but that's really how you can define the differences here in same sex attitudes and how it affects marriage, civil rights and partnerships.  Its just as much if a guy is attracted to a TS or a POST OP woman, thinks she is attractive, and likes her breasts, and other womanly features, then that's not "gay" he's being straight. Confusion over these things often causes homophobia in people because they think its wrong. Reality for this is, no, they are just either a closeted gay themselves, or just terrified of the fact they found a transgendered person attractive.

Just my two cents. I hope I haven't upset anyone with my comments, but I really think social attitudes are down to the fact people are confused about their own sexuality in the first place, and often place strict rules on society to stop people trying to experiment with the gender divide. Its just good old fashioned bigotry imposed by narrow mindedness.

Kat.