This is both the beauty and the horror of Christianity: the Christian morals. Even those people, who are not Christian, are –for the most part- raised with the Christian idea on morality. To most, the moral teachings of the Bible (follower of said religion or not) are mostly sound and wonderful rules and concepts to follow.
Christianity has such a large moral and religious standing that it simply cannot be ignored in the issue, despite the fact that it is more of a civil right problem, than a religious problem.
Basically, if the Christian morals label it as an abomination, most people are more than happy to agree based on either fear of hell or the fact that most of morals of the bible are correct, so why not this one as well?
For most, the thought of a man screwing another man, or a woman having sex with another women is not only wrong but perverse. The bodies just do not fit together, therefore, should not be together, making any thing done in bed a sexual perversion and a mockery of what sex is suppose to be.
Yes, we can say that just because the Bible and the government says it is wrong does not mean anything, but if it truly meant nothing, then why are so many people fighting for the right of marriage equality? Why do so many homosexuals want to be recognized by both church and state that their love and relationship is as ligit as any other? Because, deny it all we want, we all have a desire to be accepted in some way or another by the whole. We all have a fierce and driving need to be equal to one another. So as stupid as it may seem, as much as we say that what the government and religious people say, deep down, most people wish for the recognition they feel marriage will provide them.
As for the who child thing, I personally see nothing wrong and neither do any of the questionnaires or surveys provided on the subject. However, just because information is out there to disprove the fears of heterosexuals concerning children of homosexuals, does not mean that the information will be taken seriously or even make a difference.
For example, there is plenty of information about Goth, what it is, what it is not. Yet people STILL continue to believe the stereotype. Why? Because people like to believe the worst of others. It gives us something to hate other than ourselves.
For most heterosexuals, the fear of homosexuals raising children is a large factor in the debate, because it is still highly debated on whether or not being gay is actually a choice. If it is a choice, then maybe most homosexual’s children will wish to follow the same path as the parent. If such a thing happens, what might happen to society as a whole when more and more people become open to the idea of homosexuality and it is not wrong as some would have us believe. Might less children be born, maybe the end of humanity? Might it lead to a global lack of morality?
Then there is just the fact that marriage is suppose to be sacred. How can something be sacred if such perversion is allowed to influence it? Let us ignore the fact that divorce rates have already shot to hell any chance of marriage ever being completely sacred in my eyes, but to some the only way for marriage to regain its good name is to keep it ‘clean’. And keeping it clean means strictly having male/female relationships.

The more I read your comments, the more I like you.

I'm straight, as far as I can tell, and I support marriage for any and all consenting adults. If governments can't figure out how to work that, then by all means, they can get out of the marriage business.

Oh, no! I don't share, and I don't play well with others! LOL. I've already told my husband it is a good thing we live in the times we do, because if there were more than one woman in our house, there would be cat fights!

I'm not polyamorous either. But that's only because I have an aversion to crowds.

-- Nephele

Well, you'd have to agree to it in the version that I'm thinking of! So, he couldn't force you to share if you didn't want to.

Seems so much of the same sex marriage ordeal has the naysayers alluding to but tiptoeing around the nature of how the same sex couples have sex. I wonder if maybe thats all it's really about since the bible doesn't even talk about contemporary homosexuality as it stands today. Really even many men who claim to not be homophobic will cringe and become defensive in the wake of seeing a gay male couple together. Their thoughts go to the specific things the couple might do in their bedrooms. We all hear how 'unnatural' it is for them to do the things they do, but isn't it odd that a GREAT many straight couples have done those exact same things? So very many contemporary heterosexual couples have admitted to it, so really what's the big difference?

Also, if marriage is for procreation, what about not only sterile couples as someone else pointed out, but people like me who have made a decision to never have children? Looks like I may not be getting married now if that's the sole purpose of marriage. And here I was thinking it was all about love. Silly me.......

Love...what a foolish notion *faints dramaically*.

The main problem i see withthe bible, and i will quote from a book i read "...while the bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others."

This is very true. The bible makes homosexuality sound evil, but anyone with half a mind and the ability to use it knows that anyone, of any sex, should have the right to be together if they so chose.

This is also coming from a book that says that a woman should not have a voice, and must obey her husband in all things. But then, i have always considered the bible to be a little sexist. Any why should it not be? Look at the era it was written in. Women did not even have rights until...like what the early-mid 1900s (please correct me if i am wrong!!!!)? I mean african americans (and other nationalities) were freed from slavery before women even had a right to vote. And as i recall in the OLD testament, slavery was acceptable.

and you cannot say that what is in the old testament is no longer relevent, becuase the 10 commandments are in there. Besides, the sexist remarks against women are found in the new testament.

All i am saying is, if you are going into this debate based on the christian sense of right and wrong based SOLELY on the bible, then you MUST take into account the time period it was written in, consider any bias, and by whom it was written and what we know of the person. Then you must think of the here and now, and then you can see, quiet clearly, how things have changed and becuase of these changes you must then understand that some things that might not have been acceptable then...is surely acceptable now.

I think the only thing that poeple really dilike is the sex itself that is taking place in the bedroom. Yet, as you i think alluded at, i think many men are not really that adverse to anal sex and most are not quick to condemn it in general. I think any man who has ever thought about having anal sex, or wants to have anal sex should not condemn other men becuase they want it as well...except with other men. I seriously hope i am not being to graphic...sorry if i am. Besides even if they do want such a thing, it really is no concern of mine or anyone else.

In todays age, though i feel love should have a part of it, getting married is more for security than it is for a little stupid piece of paper. a paper does not make a couple married in my opinion, it only gives you the benefits that the govenment allows to those baring such a title. But to get the title, you must go through the process. It is so wrong to allow gay couple to go through that process so that can get the same benefits?

I seriously do not see how that is being unreasonable. Personally i feel that like salvery and the women's rights... homosexuality will be next to recieve its freedom. At least i hope.

That becomes problematic when one of the tenets of many Christians' faith is that the Bible is the word of the divine and therefore infallible.



Gay men engage in anal sex a lot less than you might think. The statistics vary, but it seems that oral sex is more common.

But regardless, you're right. What adults do consensually in the bedroom is no one else's concern.

So true, no Christian would consider the fact that the Bible might not be whooly true. For most (if not all) it is infalliable. According to some i have talked to "The bible has no time it was written in a way to be meant for past present and future. Like God, it has no time." or somthing like that.

That is interesting, i have never actually looked up statistics on anal sex or the like...so i suppose that was an assumption on my part. Personally, i do not care either way. It is their lives. If they can find pleasure in each other's company, and wish to get recongiztion for their commitment to each other then by all means give it to them.

I guess I must be one of the strange Christians, as I don't take the Bible word for word, but rather as a starting place for research and prayer. Of course, being the total nerd that I am, I had to go and research the different versions and found out that the translations into English may not be 100% accurate! I mean, in commissioning the King James Version, the King "gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy." Most of the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew, and the New Testament from Greek...and some smaller portions even from Latin texts. Knowing this, I try to look up meanings of words to that I may get a clearer understanding.

So as for same sex marriage, it is something I must continue to pray on and see clarification from the source. I know what the scriptures say, and what I've been taught. I do think that gays and lesbians do deserve rights just like everyone else to get insurance for their significant other, get the same break as married couples on taxes, etc. I just don't know how we go about doing that. I believe in not judging people for the lifestyle they choose to leave, but in loving everyone the same and letting God be the judge...especially considering as many translators as the Word has gone through, there is the possibility that we are reading something wrong!

Not all of them are like that, there are plenty of liberal-minded Christians out there. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, where most didn't see the whole of the Bible as the divine word but that of fallible men inspired by God.

But I've seen the other side of the coin too, having spent three years of my life at a Christian school that had a strong fundamentalist bent. At this point in my life, I've all but rejected any religious belief.

Just a little haha along the lines of gay marriage for ya...

Definition of Marriage brought to you by Betty Bowers - America's Best Christian.

~spidey

That is true, not all of them are, but the way i was raised, the bible was law and nothing about it was wrong. In my life i have only met two accepting christians. All the others pretty much said "it is my and the bible's way or it is striaght to hell with you". After going through those judgements my whole life and hearing them pass such ignorant judgments on others, i got tired of it.



you truly are a blessing to the christian faith, Gothic butterfly. you are accepting of people and do not force others to believe EXACTLY what you believe. it is not, 'do as i say or you go to hell' tpy eof attitude you have, and i love that about you.

And it is for the reason you mentioned, about the translations, that i feel i cannot fully bring myself to believe or trust the bible with my faith. When the bible was translated, many things were lost, misunderstood, or twisted / re-arranged or changed completely with the purpose to converge and convert.
I feel that it was 'lost in translation' a long time ago. I cannot bring myself to put my faith and spiritually in something that has so much room for inaccuracy.

What gets me is how involved religion is in the debate on same sex marriage. In America there is this little thing called the seperation of church and state, yet it is all to obvious that religion has influenced the decision- or at least enough for the creation of the Denfense of Marriage Act.

Now i am not trying to condemn anyone with my posts, just to show that many people are not, under any circumstance, open minded to others.


EDIT : Spidy- i am still laughing that was funny as hell. i am saving that video.

I love the use of the MP40 in that. It's clear that Christian marriage is thus practiced by Nazis. She's clearly a genius.

Of course, another thing comes to mind in all of this...in terms of the basic need to find some way to afford the right to two people that married couples currently have. Technically, this goes beyond homosexual couples!

Think about it...some of the biggest complaints are that they do not have the same rights as married couples...such as putting their partner on their insurance, protection of property should one pass on, etc. There are other cases...non-romantic...where this also comes into play, and we need to consider those, as well.

Example...there are these two women who live in my neighborhood. They are sisters, who are both divorced. One has a son with MD, and her ex is not paying his support. She gets disability payments and medicaid for her son, but she has no insurance for herself because she is unemployed (and the cost of care so she could work would take all of the income, so she might as well stay home and care for her son herself). Her sister moved in with her to help her out. They have very successfully maintained a household together for years. Now, the sister that is working cannot put the other on her insurance because it isn't allowed...she is neither a spouse or a minor child! At the same time, under Texas law, because both women were married at least 5 years to their ex-husbands and have not remarried themselves, should one of them pass on, their ex-husband can come in and take the other sister to court for half of the estate that her and her sister built together (he can even contest the will, being the woman's last legal spouse)...and if the surviving sister is the one with the disabled adult child...they both most likely end up on the street, or in an expensive court battle.

Even better...what if the situation was not between sisters, but best friends? Say both I and my best friend lose our husband or divorce, and we decide it is better for us to maintain a home together, because it would be too difficult for each of us to do it on our own? There is no romance involved.

Though I don't condone homosexuality by itself due to my beliefs, I do feel for the people who choose this lifestyle that they do not have the rights to care for the people they love and protect what they build together. I don't know if this means that homosexual marriage be allowed, or that we find some means to extend these rights to not only homosexual couples, but also what I would call a household partnership...two adults of any preference or relationship who agree to build a household or an estate together.

I think it comes down more to what is the definition of a family. The traditional folks will argue this one, for sure! I know my mom and I have very different views on family! To her, family is only your actual relatives...mom, dad, children, grandparents, siblings, first cousins, etc. Beyond first cousins, she says it doesn't even really matter. I on the other hand accept ALL cousins, and I also believe in extended family! My best friend...though not related to me...is part of my family and my kids consider her their aunt, because we have a relationship like sisters. My daughter's friend who lived with us for a spell is family...her family turned their backs on her, she calls us mom and dad, we treat her like one of our kids, etc. She is family! I think to truly being accepting and providing rights, the nation in general needs to change their definition of a family...because in this day and age, there are so many different "flavors" of family than their were is say the 1920's.

And anyway...who are we to judge? Last I knew, NO Christian was pure! Everyone at some point has done something in their lives that I'm sure God frowned upon. And for all the Christians who think that homosexuals are going to burn in hell...how do they know? I mean, we are supposed to show our children the same love that God shows us...right? Do we curse our children for eternity because they lie or steal a candy bar from the store? No! We teach them, give them some punishment so that they know it was wrong, and move on...loving them! I personally do not think that God will curse a person to eternity in hell for simply being homosexual. That person could be a very good person...feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, helping friends and family in need, otherwise living a clean life outside of their bedroom. I think the God I know will take all of that into consideration. For all we know, it could be like my son with the pencils in his nose..."Now, what you did wasn't very smart, but I'm not going to hold that against you." WE DON'T KNOW! I don't think anyone but Jesus is ever close enough to God to KNOW how He thinks or how He does things, and even Jesus showed loved to the sinners! Shoot, I'm pretty sure that there are things that go on between my husband and I in the bedroom...a married man and wife...that most Christians would gasp and say we are going to burn in hell for it! That is between us and God...not us and the rest of the world. I seriously doubt that God is going to send us to hell for what goes on in our bedroom, considering all else we do for the Kingdom, and the relationship we seek with Him!

Sorry, it just ticks me off sometimes the way a lot of Christians think, and how we are all perceived because of it, and what the rest of the world does to people because of the Christians who think they know it all, but don't really have a clue! In the end, it isn't about marriage at all, but the rights that are tied to the word...and everyone deserves the right to provide for a loved one!