Jump to content


Photo

homosexuality!!!


  • Please log in to reply
474 replies to this topic

#16 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 09 April 2005 - 04:13 PM

*
POPULAR

My typical tongue-in-cheek responses when asked about gay marriage in real life (don't take this as a true opinion):

"It's wrong, the parts don't fit."

"God created AIDS just to kill off all the gay people."


Now that I have that out of the way, lets get on with the real issue.

Incidentally, this debate is raging in Canada right now... With some people claiming that this issue could go so far as to bring down the government. Personally, I doubt this would happen. But anyways, I'm going to approach this issue with a Canadian perspective.

In Canada, homosexual couples have all the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. So there is no problem with unequal rights for gay couples. However, the homosexual community are angry over the fact that they cannot be labelled a "married couple" but rather simply a "common law couple".

Personally, I am for giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe that all humans were created equal, and should be treated as equally as possible. However, I am against giving homosexual couples the label of "marriage". Heterosexual marriages are, in my opinion, sacred. They have the special ability to create and foster a healthy environment for a child. This ability for heterosexual couples to reproduce is integral to the survival of our species, and I believe that couples that can further our species deserve special recognition. A man can live with another man he loves for the rest of his life, but I don't think they should have the right to be put under the same label as a man and a woman.

I am also going to use an argument posed by one of my friends instead of posing the idea as one of my own. She says that if gay marriage is allowed, and given identical recognition as heterosexual marriage, then in the future, children would not realize the distinction between the two types of marriage. This, she claims, is not right. I agree, this situation would result in a drastic decrease our ability to further our species and vary the gene pool.

Heterosexual marriages must be distinguished from homosexual marriages.

#17 sleepychikita13

sleepychikita13

    BoA*'s Albino Cat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,688 posts

Posted 09 April 2005 - 06:21 PM

I'm totally fine with Gay's and Lesbians, if thats how they want to live, then thats how they want to live. People have the right to do what they want to do, even though some are not legal (drugs), and some are not wise (physical harm to someone or themselves.)

Everyone was created equal, even though woman tried for years to gain the same rights as men, that is what the gay's and lesbians have been doing. If woman are allowed rights, then why not gay's and lesbians? Even though the bible says that its wrong for a two people of the same sex to marry, its not like the world revolves around the bible. (No offense to Catholics/Christians.) But there are different religions, even though Christianity is one of the main religions (or IS the main religion.) The world doesnt revolve on what one religion says, lets say Buddhists allow two people of the same sex to marry. (I'm not sure if it says they can or not.) And two Buddhists of the same sex want to marry, but the problem is... the bible stands in the way.

I hope you all get where I'm coming from.

And what bugs me also, is the fact people find it 'ok' to say 'thats so gay.'
Doesnt it sound stupid if i say 'thats so woman' or 'thats so jewish'
SO WHY ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT?!?!!?

(Anything that I have said about the bible, I dont mean it to offend any Christians)

#18 peaceb510

peaceb510

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 09 April 2005 - 06:50 PM

When people mention the words "gay" or "lesbo", my first reaction isn't eck or anything, I think it's perfectly normal. It's their life so you might as well let them live it the way they want to. I usually don't react to these words anymore maybe because I hear them to much, I only do something to my friends if they say it directly to me because they play around tooh much. And no, I don't despise them, I don't like them doing they're stuff in public but I feel the same way about regular couples, it's all the same tooh meeh. Kissing looks gross upclose haha, this is the point of view from a 14-year old... well I'm almost 15 haha I'm just immature.

#19 ninjaflare

ninjaflare

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 12:12 AM

For all you people who are against it because you are Christian..why should YOUR belief system be forced upon OTHERS? Also, can you give me the passage of the bible that says God is against homosexuality? I've never actually seen this for myself.

#20 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 09:28 AM

For all you people who are against it because you are Christian..why should YOUR belief system be forced upon OTHERS?  Also, can you give me the passage of the bible that says God is against homosexuality?  I've never actually seen this for myself.

View Post

Here you go:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

  - Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)

Interestingly enough, this passage doesn't seem to directly condemn lesbians. But that's another story.



As for the Christians forcing their belief system upon others part. This is expected and logical. You might not believe in the same ideals as Christians, but just think about it for a moment.

Let us say there is a God. This God, as is stated in most religions, is all powerful and all knowing. He is thus always right. This means that truth is absolute and not relative, and must be defined as what God deems to be right. If truth is absolute and God says that homosexuality is wrong, it is wrong for everyone, not only for a certain group of the population. Thus it is the duty of religious people to correct these wrongs.

Here's an example that may be more applicable to you. A law is made that says killing other people is wrong. However, a group of people do not believe in this philosophy, and choose to go on a muderous rampage. What do you, as a follower of a belief that killing is wrong, do? Can you claim that since they do not believe that killing is wrong, they can kill all they want? My guess would be no. This is a somewhat more extreme version of why Christians feel that they must outlaw homosexuality.

You may not agree with the Christian viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong, but try and understand their reasons for doing what they do.

#21 ninjaflare

ninjaflare

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 09:55 AM

See, the thing about your killing example is that killing infringes upon another persons right, a right to live. What negative effect does a same sex couple have on society? Besides the fact that people don't accept it. You know, just half a century ago interracial couples went through the same thing? No one was willing to accept them. If a black male and white female were together, they wouldn't even be able to buy a house because people were so against that kind if thinking. Again, what harm did an interracial couple bring to society? None.

I do try to see it from a Christian's perspective, but when George W. Bush is stating that he is a Christian, and God doesn't accept same sex marriages, thats when I think it's out of hand. What ever happened to separation of church and state? The President blatantly says that he will outlaw same sex marriages because it's God's will, or something to that effect. Point is, he's using his religious beliefs to enforce a law. I'm not an expert at the constitution so my argument may be really flawed, but: the first amendment states that there should be no laws respecting any establishment of religion, and that it shouldn't restrict people from exercising whatever religion they choose. For one thing, isn't the ban on same sex marriages respecting the Christian faith? Thats a really gray line for me, so I could be wrong (seeing as how it was passed in several states already, heh). All I'm saying is that by me going by my belief system (to allow same sex couples) I'm not restricting anyone's freedom.

I've seen rallies where people are holding up signs saying such things as "GOD HATES ****" or "**** are going to burn in hell!" among other things. I'm wondering is how can people be so totally against this issue, as to start publically claiming that God will condemn them, and also use such prejudiced words?

#22 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 10:20 AM

Just to put this into context, I am not against homosexuality so much as I am against it being recognized as the same as heterosexuality. But anyways, for the sake of argument, here goes:

I have already stated that killing is an extreme example. Whether or not homosexuality infringes on another person's right to anything is irrelevant, if there is an absolute truth, then that truth must be followed. Might seem close-minded to you, but it logically makes sense. A line must be drawn, you draw the line at when an act infringes on another person's right. A Christian may draw it at when an act infringes upon what is "right" in terms of biblical teachings. But homosexuality can infringe upon "rights" of other people in certain ways (not nearly as strong as murdering someone of course). Homosexuality is a major contributor to the spread of AIDS since anal sex results in bleeding a lot more than vaginal sex. This can be said to infringe upon another's right to good health, and even their right to live, as AIDS has no known cure.

I am not American, so I will stay outside of the American Constitutional mumbo-jumbo. However, it does seem to me that the United States isn't exactly all that separate in church and state. Take all the "In God We Trust" text we see on all your coins and money. Also, a law against homosexuality isn't so much a law favouring Christianity as it is something that was voted upon by the American public and passed by a majority. They may have gotten their beliefs from the church, but everyone gets their beliefs somewhere. In a democracy, if something is voted for the majority, it is passed.

There are always extremists. One should never take these people as representative of any group.

#23 Cori

Cori

    Teh Hajiman Sexy Fail Kru's Ultimate non-asian BoA fan

  • BoAjjang Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,296 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 10:32 AM

I have 4 gay friends, I highly doute that I have a problem with it, There all sho cute!!!! :P......but girls......I feel weird around but, the one I know (but not really my friend) shes like, 'I don't try making people gay, I go for people that are, sho your safe' Im like 'good!'.....the four guys I know, two are dating and the other two, I talk to one all the time, but hes been away lately and the other, I saw him at my play :lol:.....gay guys are sho fun to hang around!

#24 Kat

Kat

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 12:39 PM

For all you people who are against it because you are Christian..why should YOUR belief system be forced upon OTHERS?  Also, can you give me the passage of the bible that says God is against homosexuality?  I've never actually seen this for myself.

View Post

Here you go:

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

  - Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)

Interestingly enough, this passage doesn't seem to directly condemn lesbians. But that's another story.

View Post


The interesting part that I find in this piece of text being used to say that God said homosexuality is wrong from a Christian point of view is that this isn't the Gospel that says this. And if I remember Jesus himself never states that homosexuality is wrong. It's always some prophet and not "the lord". Therefore it isn't really god's words saying it, it's someone else using the power and the trust of the people to say this kind of thing.

As a Christian, and what I have seen growing up in an extrememly Christian community, Christians take the word of Jesus before the word of anyone else, and I know that Jesus never actually commented on homosexuality at all, stemming to believe that he didn't either have a valid opinion on it, or he did not think it an important enough topic to comment on.

Either way, I just always find it interesting that the Christian god never said anything on it, and really the only people in the bible who did were prophets and not direct speakers of god.

#25 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 12:53 PM

I think we may be falling off topic right now, but what the heck.

The Old Testament surely holds some clout in the Christian community, or it would not be included in all our Bibles. A prophet may not directly say the word of God, but they are supposed to reveal the teachings of God.

#26 Kat

Kat

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 01:31 PM

It still holds some relivance to the topic.

That may be true, but you also have to consider that a prophet is still man which mean he can interperate god's message as his own. Also, since he is a man you can not trust that he isn't lieing about what he's saying as well. If it came out of Jesus's mouth then there would be no doubt that it was god's intent, but since it was a prophet the idea that he may have twisted what he heard, or made up what he said to fit his own ideals is still there.

That's why I find little relevance to a prophets words as opposed to something in red text. <= this means what Jesus said.

#27 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 01:43 PM

If Jesus's words contradict something that has been said by a prophet, I would believe Jesus. However, there is no contradiction in this case, so the prophet is the best we can get to the truth. The big argument raging over this quote doesn't seem to be whether or not Jesus said it, but the translation of the quote.

#28 Kat

Kat

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 01:57 PM

For the sake of arguement, if it's such a debated quote, translation wise and such, then why do people continuosly stand by it? Do they have no other reason than this one quote to validate god's support of homosexuality, or lack there of? Such things as mistranslations and the differences in intrepretations are reasons why religion is not able to to fully support a position so controversial as this and why you must have another, valid, reason to support your answer.

I guess sometimes people support something so much that they lose site as to what is true and what isn't as long as it tells people that they are right.

#29 Coolin

Coolin

    BoAjjang Administrator

  • BoAjjang Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,366 posts

Posted 13 April 2005 - 09:23 PM

Before I continue, let me thank you Kat for providing such an interesting discussion. I truly appreciate the time and effort you've made in your posts. It's ones like these that truly make creating the Serious Discussion forum worth it.


In response to the "is it really that important?" point you made: this one line of the Bible has the potential to be extremely explosive if interpreted in a certain way. Incidentally, this interpretation seems to be the most common one. In the original Hebrew edition, I think that the part that says "that is detestable" can be interpreted in two ways.
1. This is a major sin against God.
2. This is simply one of those laws for the Jewish people, sort of like the demands for kosher food.

The first interpretation means it's pretty significant.

You do have a point though. Supposedly (from what I've heard, I'm not exactly a good Bible reader) Leviticus was a black sheep in the Bible. I think as far as the prophets go, he's one of the lower ones. The argument that if Jesus hasn't said it, it's not important is one that makes sense. However, all of the books of the Bible must be treated as the truth (even if there are varying degrees of importance) if one truly believes in the divinity of the Bible. One less hardline interpretation is that homosexual marriage isn't exactly a major sin since it hasn't been reiterated as such by the Bible. Of course, I can always be proven wrong if someone finds another line condemning gay marriage. I can feel a somewhat more liberal shift in my opinions right now. However, I still believe that homosexuals should not be put under the label of "marriage." Due to the uncertain nature of the interpretation of this line, I really cannot have such a hardline stance against homosexual marriage either.

According to the separation of church and state, religion should have no role in the decision of politicians. As a result, some non-religious arguments must be given to support your stance. I still stand by my initial post in this thread. However, I believe that this religious debate over Leviticus 18:22 is important in shaping the opinions of a vast majority of the population.

I'm not sure if this post can as easily be responded to as my previous posts since I'm not really expressing a hardline argument in this one. If you can, by all means, please do. But if someone else goes on another tangent, I won't mind.

#30 benn

benn

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts

Posted 14 April 2005 - 01:12 AM

as free-thinker i dont really know about this god or bible thing..............but in ancient time, particularly anciend greek...gay was allowed.....they can show their love openly...acturely there is no word to disscribe 'homosexual' at that time. if the ancient people can compromise why cant we?!

Edited by benn, 14 April 2005 - 01:12 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users