Gay Marriage - A minority view?

[WantToTrade]

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version) 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.

I thought that passages like this are obsolete because of the New Testament otherwise we would still be running around killing gays and anyone who work on the sabbath day, or whatever else it says. Also I thought that only God can judge us but somehow we feel that we have the power to judge gays as subhuman and immoral.

[34RickyWilliams34]

You clearly have no idea what the Bible says and are trying to twist it fror your onw purpose. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we have to accept what all people do regardless of all else.

Also, please expalin to me how this verse is misinterpreted or the translation is twisted??...

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version) 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.

You're right. I have never studied the bible in the same obvious tone that you have never studied Christian values. The entire concept of Christianity is to love one another, as we are all made from the same Creator. You are choosing to ignore that convenient fact when you say that you don't have to accept all people. The ego likes to put itself on a pedestal by allowing you to think you are better than someone else for any reason. Homosexuality is a convenient one...

And you point out the exact reasoning for the problem, the King James Version of translation. I ask you, do you believe in the Old Testament? Then I shall stone you to death for wearing clothes of mixed cloth on Tuesdays. Do you have a problem with that?

[theonedru]

Having a right or not having a right does not quantify you as second class. I do not have the right to smoke marijuana but that does not make me second class to people in Canada. I do not have the right to drive 150 miles per hour on the interstate but that does not make me second class to people in Germany.



Are they supporting the suppresion of gay rights or are they supporting their own beliefs which are in direct conflict?



So if I disagree with your solution, be it right or wrong, then I am automatically in the wrong?

How can you even compare beeing a drug addict to beeing gay one is a choice one is not, or speeding (illegal) to beeing gay come with a more relitive argument

[RedGoneWILD]

I still don't see how disagreeing with something means that you are discriminating against it.

If that is the case then I am discriminated against as well. I like to hunt and the anti-hunters are discriminating against me. I like meat and the animal rights activists are discriminating against me.

Using the logic that I see some here using, if you disagree with someone's lifestyle and vote against it then you are in favor of discriminating against them.

That makes no sense. This is typical liberal crap. If you disagree with what we want then we will label you with a negative term and put you in the position of defending yourself against our label. Label me all that you want but just because I am against something doesn't mean that I am in favor of discriminating against them.

i never said if you disagree with gay marriage you are discriminating...you can disagree with it all you want

it is not illegal for you to hunt. it is not illegal for you to eat meat...but again you are using bad examples....it is the same as telling a gay person they cant hunt or they cant eat meat because they are gay. it is applying different rules to people simply because of sexual orientation.

[theonedru]

and once again for the leviticus argument

Leviticus 18:22 - "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The actual, literal translation is "With a male thou shall not lie in the bed of a wife [ = married woman], it is detestable"

It's an admonition against adultery, not against homosexual sex, or homosexuality, in itself.

[dfr52]

Having a right or not having a right does not quantify you as second class. I do not have the right to smoke marijuana but that does not make me second class to people in Canada. I do not have the right to drive 150 miles per hour on the interstate but that does not make me second class to people in Germany.



Are they supporting the suppresion of gay rights or are they supporting their own beliefs which are in direct conflict?



So if I disagree with your solution, be it right or wrong, then I am automatically in the wrong?

When other citizens w/in the country are given those rights then yes it does make those excluded 2nd class citizens.

[pwaldo]

Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

Maybe everyone in Maine just voted the SAME way Obama would have voted?

[ensbergcollector]

So I'm a little late to the party, but have read through the entire post. I have to add my little piece:
I really appreciate those who went to just enough school to say they understand the bible, read it, and live it everyday. If you ACTUALLY did what you say you do, you would understand the teachings of Jesus Christ were to accept everyone and love everyone as a brother. Remember, everyone is created from the same cloth and in the same eyes as Christ. How can you honestly say as a minister, that you would discriminate against a piece of Christ? Binding individuals for whatever reason because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is a creation of the church and the insecure ego structure of our minds.

I also really appreciate those who take the bible and use the translation that suits them best. You criticize someone who pulls out the verses that are, in fact, discarded and ignored in modern time because someone chose to say they no longer apply...yet you stick to your guns on the most controversial, misinterpreted line in the entire manuscript.

I'm curious to know your stance on the adulterers out there. Will you remarry an adulterer? Do you allow them the privilege of re-entering the "sanctity of marriage" after going against one of the holiest of holy's, the ten commandments?

I'm also interested in your "commitment" statements. Somehow it sounds like you think gay men and lesbians are not able to 'commit' to one another. I can rattle off at least 10 gay couples I know who have been together 10+ years. I have a hard time counting that high for the heterosexual couples I know--including my own parents.

Interesting choices we all make...

my commit statement had nothing to do with homosexual couples. I apologize for not making that clear.

since you can obviously read my mind, care to tell me which "controversial, misinterpreted line in the entire manuscript" I am using? i haven't quoted a single scripture.

I will ask again. Those who keep using the "cloth of two fabrics" argument, is it your assertion (because it sounds like it is) that nothing in leviticus is true anymore? Are you saying that nothing listed as a sin is a sin anymore?

[gsj68]

marriage is a religious act,what is the government doing regulating,taxing,passing laws on a religious act?dont we have seperation of church and state here?

[34RickyWilliams34]

my commit statement had nothing to do with homosexual couples. I apologize for not making that clear.

since you can obviously read my mind, care to tell me which "controversial, misinterpreted line in the entire manuscript" I am using? i haven't quoted a single scripture.

I will ask again. Those who keep using the "cloth of two fabrics" argument, is it your assertion (because it sounds like it is) that nothing in leviticus is true anymore? Are you saying that nothing listed as a sin is a sin anymore?

As for the commitment statement, fair enough. Just wanted to clarify whether or not you were saying gay couples were not capable of a similar level of commitment as straight couples.

You stated in a previous post that the scripture is clear that man is not to lay with man. Meaning that particular scripture directly states that homosexuality is wrong. I disagree with that translation.

I am not asserting that everything listed in the Old Testament be discarded, but I am also confused and want clarification... Which of the "sins" from those books do we still believe to be sin, and which do we ignore? If you discard the "cloth of two fabrics" because it's not a worthy sin in the current day, why aren't all of them discarded? Who chooses? Because the last time I checked, the Christ hasn't returned to earth to inform us which of his previous dictions we are no longer to obey.