Are you saying that God didn't create gay people?


God created all good things.  He created all people.  However, because Adam and Eve first sinned, everybody born on this earth sins.  That doesn't mean God likes it.  Why do you think he flooded the world?  Because he was angry with people's sin.  Why did he destroy the cities of Sodom & Gomorrha?  Because they were full of homosexuals...a SIN in God's eyes!  Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!

If you don't want it to be abominated, you need to take it back from the government. The government can't sanctify anything; it is a secular institution for dealing with our civil interactions, not our spiritual struggles.

That means that the goverment should stop calling anything "marriage."  It can hand out unions or partnerships and let the churches perform "marriage."


So if a hetero couple gets married w/ a justice of the peace and not a religious figure, would that make their union a marriage or a civil union?? ???

God created all good things.  He created all people.  However, because Adam and Eve first sinned, everybody born on this earth sins.  That doesn't mean God likes it.  Why do you think he flooded the world?  Because he was angry with people's sin.  Why did he destroy the cities of Sodom & Gomorrha?  Because they were full of homosexuals...a SIN in God's eyes!  Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!


Erm.....People don't just turn gay, they are born that way.  So therefore you are saying that god created gay people.

Go read you the book of Leviticus!


If you follow that book then you must not like the disabled, minorities, gay or any other people mentioned in there which it discriminates against.

Just because God allows sin to happen doesn't mean that's what he wants people to do.  That's why he gave the law.  Go read you the book of Leviticus!


Leviticus is God's law. The US Constitution, the state constitution, and all the marriage laws in this country are man's law.  The states cannot use God as the authority for their laws. The highest legal authority they can recognize is the US Constitution.



So if a hetero couple gets married w/ a justice of the peace and not a religious figure, would that make their union a marriage or a civil union?? ???


What I was suggesting was that the government would only ever hand out civil unions. When you file your tax return, it would ask whether you were single or "partnered" or something to that effect. The government would stop using the label of "marriage."

The battle over the word "marriage" would then be left to the people. No doubt many (even gay couples) would refer to their relationship as a "marriage", but churches and people could decide for themselves whether they consider anyone to be "married." It would not be up to the government to dictate who is really "married" because the definition would rest with the people in the way they use it in their daily lives.

The book of Leviticus is a load of sheesh, and is precisely what the KU KLUX KLAN uses to validate their hateful statements against people of colour, homosexuals, Jews...and anybody else they don't deem "perfect in God's eyes!!!"

Is this what some people want to believe?!?! This is exactly why I am NOT a Christian, nor will I ever be! I am physically disabled. I guess God doesn't like me! Oh well, I don't like him either! For all I care he can go to Hell! If God was so "loving" as many people are brainwashed to believe, then why would he be saying all of this stuff that's written in the book of Leviticus?

Here's an interesting site that I think EVERYONE should look at. I've posted it before on another thread a long time ago on the old board when just such a subject reared its ugly head:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/notes.html

I think you will find it highly informative. And go look in your Bibles, folks. It's all there in black and white!

Absolutely Vile

I agree. What I'm wondering now though is whether marriage is stirctly a religious ceremony. Certainly the tradition of marriage stems from religious rites and ceremonies, but so do many things in society. My wife and I had a civil wedding, but we're still considered "married" and the ceremony was still a "marriage" even though there was no formal religion involved. I don't think this issue should get bogged down in symantics which is the tendency of so many other discussions, but surely a "marriage" and "civil union" are technically the same thing. The real argument then should be, if the Church won't allow gay weddings in Church, should the State sanction civil marriages?





Thanks for noticing me!  :)  That was part of the reason I left this board in the first place--no one noticed me.... :\'(  (Pathetic whine coming from the computer)

I know what you mean about "is it religious?",  Now, my husband and I got married in a church by a retired pastor of some sort--neither of us was (or is) particularlly religious, but I know when he read the vows, God was  mentioned. 

Now.  For a homosexual couple, I do think that a "civil union" would do just fine, as it IS technically the same thing.  They deserve all the rights that a traditional heterosexual couple have.  But, if the idea behind them wanting it conducted in a church, well that would lead me to believe that they want the whole thing "approved" of by God..and if the bible says he doesn't condone gay marraige, then it would seem like they are just trying to ruffle feathers.  Why?? You can't change his mind!
I myself don't care if a person is gay, and I don't care if they are 'married'.  If they are living together as husband and husband, or wife and wife, or WHATEVER, and they are happy and not hurting anyone else, why should I worry about it??  It certainly isn't my business.  I've chosen my mate, and he is a man, and I am a woman--does that make us better somehow?  No. 

I have relatives that are gay.  They've been together probably pushing 20 years.  They aren't 'married', they've had no 'civil union', and they still seem happy as clams.  I think the ones from the homosexual community that are fussing so much about it are the same ones that want to shove it down everyone's throats that they ARE gay.  Why is that necessary?  I speak from the experience in getting a class reunion website organized...over the course of getting it together, I know of at least 2 classmates that had "come out of the closet".  Their ways of "coming out" were really different, and I think, got different resposes/respect because of it.  One was real calm--she'd done a lot in her life, and then mentioned, almost in passing, that she had "come out of the closet and was now celebrating ones diversity".  Cool.  The OTHER person made a HUGE point about talking about her "baby" (her girlfriend) and then went on..and on..and on.. about being gay.  Remembering this girl had a kid during Senior year, and had gotten married right after, I guess maybe she was just trying to let us all know what had become of the life she had--but she didn't have to be so LOUD about it, you know?  Another guy came to the reunion and brought his date along.  It was another guy.  Now, he'd never told any of us that he was gay, but after meeting his friend we pretty well deduced the situation.  All I'm saying is that the one girl who acted like she was still trying to convince herself, would strike me as the type that would be out screaming outside the courthouses and stuff.  Yet my relatives, together all this time, are just happy and don't feel the need to march in the gay parades to get their relationship across to the rest of the world.

And speaking as a fairly non-religious person myself---I shudder at the thought that God holding a grudge against people at all.  Now to me, the true criminals, I can understand if he doesn't think much of them!  BUT--I could've sworn I have heard that God and Jesus and all being forgiving entities (beings, whatever..you know what I mean!)..so why would they send somebody to hell for doing something that isn't hurting anybody else??  I mean, shouldn't we all be as happy as humanely possible?  I think the federal governmant should just stay out of it.  If the states want to decide whether they want it legal in their state, fine.  But I certainly don't think it should be outlawed or made illegal by G.W. or anyone else in that position of power.

Okay, I've ranted now.  Probably made it worse (sorry!) but after getting other opinions on the subject, I just had a lot to say!  ;D

The book of Leviticus is a load of sh**, and is precisely what the KU KLUX KLAN uses to validate their hateful statements against people of colour, homosexuals, Jews...and anybody else they don't deem "perfect in God's eyes!!!"

Is this what some people want to believe?!?! This is exactly why I am NOT a Christian, nor will I ever be! I am physically disabled. I guess God doesn't like me! Oh well, I don't like him either! For all I care he can go to Hell! If God was so "loving" as many people are brainwashed to believe, then why would he be saying all of this stuff that's written in the book of Leviticus?

Here's an interesting site that I think EVERYONE should look at. I've posted it before on another thread a long time ago on the old board when just such a subject reared its ugly head:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/notes.html

I think you will find it highly informative. And go look in your Bibles, folks. It's all there in black and white!

Absolutely Vile


As angry as you are about people using the Bible for their guidance, I wonder if you really know what is in it. (Granted, many people who use it for their guidance don't really know what it says, either.)

In the link you referenced, there were several laws and statements from Leviticus that were later nullified in the New Testament, when Peter was told to preach to the Gentiles.

Acts 10:15  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Among other things listed on the page, it mentions "Don't have sex with animals." Are you disagreeing with this?

I'm not saying we should use Leviticus for our laws in America; I just think you're taking the wrong approach for rejecting it. It's not that the law of God is unfair or discriminatory - really, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course God (the God of Leviticus, anyway) discriminates based on what he thinks is right.

The fact that the Ku Klux Klan uses the Bible doesn't make it wrong, either; after all, the Ku Klux Klan probably uses toilet paper, too.

The thing is, the US law should not use Leviticus or any other part of the Bible as the basis for its laws. It should use the principles of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the principles that separate us from other nations, both religious and secular.

Alright let me say I am for civil unions.  Don't let my stance on gay marriage fool you.  Here is what I think:

Gay marriage- Should be banned on the federal level, I don't like that but I feel its the only way to stop activist judges and mayors like Massachusetts supreme court and Gavin Newsom.

Civil unions- I have no problem with, should be left up to the states, the ones like California and Vermont who want them can have them, the ones that don't shouldn't have to like Ohio and Georgia.

Defense of Marriage act- I agree with this.  It means a state does not have to reconize another states' marriage laws.  For example someone from Ohio can't drive up to Massachusetts, get married, go back to Ohio and still be married, only states that allow gay marriage (and its currently only one, Massachusetts) and states that want to reconize a Massachusetts state marriage license can like California and New York.  This to me makes sense, since I KNOW my Georgia state CC permit ( which means I can carry a handgun with my all the time in Georgia and it doesn't have to be viewable to anyone, even the police) would not be allowed in ANY other state other then Georgia so why should another states' marriage license be reconized in states that don't want to reconize it?


This example is in error unless states, like NY have passed laws outlawing the practice involved.  It has to do with the Constitutional doctrine of "Full Faith and Credit" between the states.  That's why the "Defense of Marriage Act" HAD to be passed, otherwise, every state would be required to recognize VT's Civil Unions law.

With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?

With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


Good point.  But, on the other hand, I guess he made serial killers, too--so...?? 
Well, as they say:"...I think that god's got a sick sense of humor..."

Now.  For a homosexual couple, I do think that a "civil union" would do just fine, as it IS technically the same thing.  They deserve all the rights that a traditional heterosexual couple have.  But, if the idea behind them wanting it conducted in a church, well that would lead me to believe that they want the whole thing "approved" of by God..and if the bible says he doesn't condone gay marraige, then it would seem like they are just trying to ruffle feathers.  Why?? You can't change his mind!


What about people who are divorced wanting to have their new marriages conducted in a church and "approved" by God, even though some religions say God wouldn't approve?

You can't tell churches what to believe, except maybe when you're a member. If the Methodist church or the Non-denominational church or the Church of Happiness wants to perform gay weddings, you can't stop them.





I have relatives that are gay.  They've been together probably pushing 20 years.  They aren't 'married', they've had no 'civil union', and they still seem happy as clams.  I think the ones from the homosexual community that are fussing so much about it are the same ones that want to shove it down everyone's throats that they ARE gay.  Why is that necessary?

What is a wedding, if not a public declaration of two people's love and commitment? What would give you the right to say which couples get to publicly announce their relationships?


The OTHER person made a HUGE point about talking about her "baby" (her girlfriend) and then went on..and on..and on.. about being gay.

Have you ever stopped to consider how much straight people talk about their relationships?  How many times have you heard someone talk about their "boyfriend", their "girlfriend", their "husband", or their "wife"? The difference with gay relationships is that people don't expect them to be so open about their homosexuality, and they're not used to hearing so much about these relationships, mostly because they've been taboo up until now.

How many love songs talk about someone's "baby" that they love so much? What's so different about saying that when you're gay?

With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


So does that mean God LIKES child molesters?

This example is in error unless states, like NY have passed laws outlawing the practice involved.  It has to do with the Constitutional doctrine of "Full Faith and Credit" between the states.  That's why the "Defense of Marriage Act" HAD to be passed, otherwise, every state would be required to recognize VT's Civil Unions law.


Actually, since the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is part of the Constitution, wouldn't that still override the "Defense of Marriage Act"?  (That's why people are talking about a marriage amendment; that way, the definition would be in the Constitution and there would be no higher law to override it.)

I like the idea of rethinking vocabulary by eliminating the word marriage from public law and replacing with another word, thus separating the civil recongition of a committed union from the religious tites some folks use to publiclly proclaim such a union.  Good thought.

What about people who are divorced wanting to have their new marriages conducted in a church and "approved" by God, even though some religions say God wouldn't approve?

You can't tell churches what to believe, except maybe when you're a member. If the Methodist church or the Non-denominational church or the Church of Happiness wants to perform gay weddings, you can't stop them.






What is a wedding, if not a public declaration of two people's love and commitment? What would give you the right to say which couples get to publicly announce their relationships?




Have you ever stopped to consider how much straight people talk about their relationships?  How many times have you heard someone talk about their "boyfriend", their "girlfriend", their "husband", or their "wife"? The difference with gay relationships is that people don't expect them to be so open about their homosexuality, and they're not used to hearing so much about these relationships, mostly because they've been taboo up until now.

How many love songs talk about someone's "baby" that they love so much? What's so different about saying that when you're gay?


#1.  I am well aware that different churches have different opinions about marraige and divorce.  And I think each has the right to do so.  That's why there are so many different churches to choose from. Pick the one that believes the way you do, and let it be.  Not a tough call, in my opinion.  But as I said, I don't have a church.

#2  Okay. I didn't say people shouldn't "publicly announce their relationships".  As I said, I am married, and I think it was even in our local paper for everybody to see!  I NEVER said it wasn't alright for people to "declare their love and commitment".  They want to put it in the paper, go for it.  I have no problem with that.  But if you read my mention of that very closely, you'll see that I was discussing a specific person who was telling US all about it.  Just say you're gay if you want to.  But talk about something OTHER than just being gay, as well.  How's your kid?  Where do you live? etc., etc.  It was a class reunion for pete's sake!  I know we on the reunion committee didn't care about who you sleep with! We didn't have any married hetero couples going on and on about how straight they were.

#3 Yes, I am also well aware that people talk about their relationships.  Of course.  All I was doing was comparing the different approaches about being gay.  I couldn't care less, actually.

#4  I didn't say I had an issue with a person calling their same sex partner their baby!  Go ahead, whatever floats your boat.  I was simply pointing out THE DIFFERENCES in the way that these girls did it IN OUR CASE.


Look, I wasn't trying to start a fight.  I was trying to put in my $.02 about a topic, and in what context I had to gather information/opinions from.  If these conversations have just become a place to attack every little thing out of context, at least I will know that the next time, and not comment on that post on those anymore.  :-X

Hey, sorry if I sounded hostile at all; it really wasn't what I intended. I'm just trying to compare what you're faulting in someone's gay relationship with very similar things that happen all the time with straight relationships.

#1. It sounded as though you were saying gay people shouldn't be asking churches to recognize their marriages. Well, the churches don't have to, but that doesn't mean that the gay couples can't ask. It should be between those people and their church, and shouldn't really involve the law or even other people from other churches. (Sure, they have the right to stand outside on the sidewalk protesting what they think is an abomination, but they can't keep the church from performing the ceremony.)

#2. I suppose this could be similar to my distaste for hearing people talk so much about their sex lives - the only thing I'm not quite so sure about is whether she was talking to you about all the gay sex she was having, or if she just talked about her relationship and you couldn't help being reminded the whole time that it was a gay relationship.

See, when a guy says, "My girlfriend and I went on vacation for a few days, we saw some interesting places, and we stayed in a nice hotel", and a girl says the exact same thing, some people read more about sex into the latter one because it's a gay relationship and for a lot of people hearing "gay" forces them to think about "gay sex". It's something that maybe gets glossed over more in straight relationships, or doesn't bother people so much, because they're used to hearing about it.


#4. Okay, sure, a couple of couples had different ways of talking to you about their gayness and/or their relationships.

If a guy kept talking about his girlfriend, would you have had the same reaction? (I mean, granted, I don't know what all this girl told you about. If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship. Of course, some people go through such a tough time when they come out of the closet and struggle with themselves and their place in society, it's a bit understandable that they might talk differently about themselves and their private lives - especially if they have a feeling that they're finally able to be accepted for who they are and they end up releasing a lot of pent-up self-doubt by becoming more and more open about who they are and what they do.)

Hey, sorry if I sounded hostile at all; it really wasn't what I intended. I'm just trying to compare what you're faulting in someone's gay relationship with very similar things that happen all the time with straight relationships.

#1. It sounded as though you were saying gay people shouldn't be asking churches to recognize their marriages. Well, the churches don't have to, but that doesn't mean that the gay couples can't ask. It should be between those people and their church, and shouldn't really involve the law or even other people from other churches. (Sure, they have the right to stand outside on the sidewalk protesting what they think is an abomination, but they can't keep the church from performing the ceremony.)

#2. I suppose this could be similar to my distaste for hearing people talk so much about their sex lives - the only thing I'm not quite so sure about is whether she was talking to you about all the gay sex she was having, or if she just talked about her relationship and you couldn't help being reminded the whole time that it was a gay relationship.

See, when a guy says, "My girlfriend and I went on vacation for a few days, we saw some interesting places, and we stayed in a nice hotel", and a girl says the exact same thing, some people read more about sex into the latter one because it's a gay relationship and for a lot of people hearing "gay" forces them to think about "gay sex". It's something that maybe gets glossed over more in straight relationships, or doesn't bother people so much, because they're used to hearing about it.


#4. Okay, sure, a couple of couples had different ways of talking to you about their gayness and/or their relationships.

If a guy kept talking about his girlfriend, would you have had the same reaction? (I mean, granted, I don't know what all this girl told you about. If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship. Of course, some people go through such a tough time when they come out of the closet and struggle with themselves and their place in society, it's a bit understandable that they might talk differently about themselves and their private lives - especially if they have a feeling that they're finally able to be accepted for who they are and they end up releasing a lot of pent-up self-doubt by becoming more and more open about who they are and what they do.)


Okay, I understand you didn't mean to sound hostile.  It just came across to me that you were trying to pick a fight--and that's just not why I came here is all.  :)

I don't care if a church recongnizes a gay marraige.  Some do, some don't, I would imagine.  Heck my sister-in-law, though not married in a church, was MARRIED by a gay minister (or father, or reverand, or whatever he was)  All I was saying was that somebody pointed out to me that the bible is against gay marriage.  I just do question why, if the church/bible is against it, why would you even want to get married IN a church?  I don't know--I tend to avoid people that I don't like/don't like me.  Wouldn't people who think you are sinning be the same way?

She didn't ell us all about her sex life.  But when I put up a questionairre, that didn't say, "Hey are you gay?", I would've thought that saying your "domestic partner", or whatever you call her, was a female, and her name was so-and-so would have been sufficient.  But what she was doing that irritated us (the reunion commitee as a whole) was that she kept wanting to BE CERTAIN that we knew her "baby" was a girl named Joni(?), and she'd comment about it when there was no need to even mention your other half! And though my husband has called me "baby", I just felt like it was unneeded in that particular case.  Yes, we got the point the first time, Susie (not her real name, of course!  ;))...ya don't need to keep adding her in when we didn't ask about her at all.  Was there nothing else for her to talk about?  I mean, how sad.


If it was just about how much she was in love with her girlfriend, it's not really so much about being gay as it is about being happy in a relationship..

All I can say to that is that within a year of the reunion, she was begging I CHANGE her questionairre, because she had a new girlfriend.  So how much love was it, really? 

Before I step in it, that IS NOT to say straight couples have not gotten divorced-even in our class.  They have.  The curious thing about that particular situation was that she had previously sent me an image (picture) of she and her girlfriend CALLED theirnames.jpg.  After they broke up, she wrote again, and said it WASN'T she and her ex, it was her and her current girlfriend... ???
Why was the picture named after your EX-girlfriend, then..? 
I just changed the description..who am I to ask?  But it really seemed STRANGE to me!  :-\\

Oh....and if a hetero person had gone on and on about their "other half", even if it WAS the opposite sex, it would have bored and annoyed me just as much.  :D

somebody pointed out to me that the bible is against gay marriage.  I just do question why, if the church/bible is against it, why would you even want to get married IN a church?  I don't know--I tend to avoid people that I don't like/don't like me.  Wouldn't people who think you are sinning be the same way?


Well, there are so many people that disagree with so many things in the Bible or other people's interpretations of the Bible, it's not surprising that some people think churches (at least their own church) shouldn't be against homosexuality. It's like the people who say they don't believe God would send anyone to hell, or the ones who say that if they live a good life they'll get into heaven, and they don't bother reading all the rules that you can find in the Bible. Different people have different interpretations, and some will even pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe. If they want to make their own religion based around that, well... I guess it's up to them.



Oh....and if a hetero person had gone on and on about their "other half", even if it WAS the opposite sex, it would have bored and annoyed me just as much.  :D


Yeah, it's kind of like that Seinfeld episode where they're at a party and some woman keeps saying "Have you seen my fiancé? Oh dear, I seem to have lost my fiancé! The poor baby!" And then Elaine gets fed up and says, "The dingo ate your baby!" and walks off.

So, yeah, that's just a problem people have with going overboard - and doesn't really have anything to do specifically with being gay or straight.  ;)

With all due respect, O Religious Ones, if God hated gay people, why would He have made them?


I can appreciate your point, Rice Cube. I believe God (or a higher source) made people and then people became what they want to be from their own volition.

Erm.....People don't just turn gay, they are born that way.  So therefore you are saying that god created gay people.


"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.

I wouldn't be too sure about that - especially since there are even gay animals. Were they nurtured the wrong way? ;)

"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.


In your mind God might have created the people, but he didn't create me, so I don't live by his laws.

Ignorance is also due to how people are nurtured in their culture/society/religion etc.

I wouldn't be too sure about that - especially since there are even gay animals. Were they nurtured the wrong way? ;)


What's wrong with u sista?  Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...

What's wrong with u sista?   Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...


There are documented cases of animals that have mated with the same gender, and even some species that practice lifelong monogamy have instances of "gay" couples.

At any rate, the way the law gets decided should really have nothing to do with whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It's all about whether the government should give everyone the legal right to choose to marry the person they want. It hinges on the government's reasons for recognizing marriage in the first place. Unless the government's reason for having legal marriage is "to do God's will", then gay people going against God's will really doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

So what is the reason for having legal marriage? What benefits does it bring to society? Why would it need to be limited to unions of one man and one woman?

What's wrong with u sista?  Or are you saying gay people are animals?  Ok whatever...

No, she's saying that since homosexuality has also been seen in other animals, the "nature vs nurture" argument tends to imply the former rather than the latter.

If it's "unnatural", why do we see it in the natural world?

"Doctor?  I would like to have an amniocentesis so I can see if my baby's gay or straight..."

How many times must I say this? God created the people.  Homosexuality: nature vs. nurture?  Well, sorry folks but homosexuality is UNNATURAL!!! It is just people's pervertedness due to how they are nurtured in their culture/society/home/etc.


So that means that if I hang around my gay friend a lot, I'll become gay too? ::)

God didn't "Make" me a lesbian, it was all my choice

The nature/nurture debate is irrelevant anyway.

As I said before...

the way the law gets decided should really have nothing to do with whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. It's all about whether the government should give everyone the legal right to choose to marry the person they want. It hinges on the government's reasons for recognizing marriage in the first place. Unless the government's reason for having legal marriage is "to do God's will", then gay people going against God's will really doesn't have anything to do with the debate.

So what is the reason for having legal marriage? What benefits does it bring to society? Why would it need to be limited to unions of one man and one woman?

IMHO, God didn't literally make Adam and Eve.  The story of the Garden of Eden has deep theological and anthropological roots.  I think it is more useful as an allegory.  The story is symbolic.  It reveals the Original Sin of mankind, the origins of man's imperfections.  If I take it literally, I find the whole thing rather absurd.  To point to it and say "Man and Woman together, that's what God intended," is tantamount to the familiar vulgarism, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"!

Is the government's definition based on God's or not?

If not, what is the point of discussing what God says is right and wrong?

If it is based on what God said, what is it doing in our law?

IMHO, God didn't literally make Adam and Eve.  The story of the Garden of Eden has deep theological and anthropological roots.  I think it is more useful as an allegory.  The story is symbolic.  It reveals the Original Sin of mankind, the origins of man's imperfections.  If I take it literally, I find the whole thing rather absurd.  To point to it and say "Man and Woman together, that's what God intended," is tantamount to the familiar vulgarism, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"!


Don't start on this Maxwell, it's a whole other argument!  :) I can't take Genesis literally because there's too many holes in the script. Adam and Eve had two sons, and they took wives, but if Adam and Eve only had sons, where did the wives come from? Were they Adam and Eve's offsping also but unworthy of being named? If that were so and there were no other people, then Cain and Abel must have married their sisters! That would make us all the descendants of incest. Earlier in this thread, somebody said to read Leviticus, but then someone else said that most of Leviticus is redundant because of teachings in the New Testament. You can't have it both ways. Before this discussion descends even further into argument of (Christian) religious dogma, I appeal to what I said in my very first post, which pretty much amounts to treating others the way you would want to be treated. That's in the Bible too.

Adam and Eve had two sons, and they took wives, but if Adam and Eve only had sons, where did the wives come from? Were they Adam and Eve's offsping also but unworthy of being named? If that were so and there were no other people, then Cain and Abel must have married their sisters! That would make us all the descendants of incest.

That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)


Earlier in this thread, somebody said to read Leviticus, but then someone else said that most of Leviticus is redundant because of teachings in the New Testament.

Irrelevant (to most Christians), but not redundant. But anyway, after God told Peter that some of the old laws about "unclean" things no longer applied, Paul still preached against homosexuality - so most Christians believe that those laws or principles still apply.


Still, why are we getting back into the Biblical argument again? The government's version of marriage is already different from what's set forth in the Bible.

That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)


There are quite a few instances of incest in the Bible, however, it's not considered very socially acceptable is it? :)




Still, why are we getting back into the Biblical argument again? The government's version of marriage is already different from what's set forth in the Bible.


Exactly.

That's easy to answer - women weren't important enough to be named. ;)

And for the record, I don't think the Bible says anything against incest. (David would have let one of his sons marry his half-sister, if he hadn't raped her first.)



One of the most censored books from school libraries is The Holy Bible.  Look, Noah got drunk on the Ark and, while drunk, was sexually molested by his son, Ham.  Noah condemned Ham and his descendents to servitude forever.

Who needs Jerry Springer anway?  You've got the Bible!

Philbo wrote:
No, she's saying that since homosexuality has also been seen in other animals, the "nature vs nurture" argument tends to imply the former rather than the latter.
If it's "unnatural", why do we see it in the natural world?
I'm not saying I believe this, but, from a Christian perspective animals are different from man.  Animals are innocent, they live in an "unfallen" state.

I'm not saying I believe this, but, from a Christian perspective animals are different from man.  Animals are innocent, they live in an "unfallen" state.



You could also argue that, scientifically, animals don't understand sexuality, and humans do (or at least they try to). Animals do without knowing why. Humans do knowing why (and why they shouldn't), but do it anyway. :)

Again, why does the government have any form of legal marriage? How could they defend it if it was challenged before the Supreme Court?

If any defense was enough to justify giving government benefits to marriage, what reasons could they possibly use not to extend those benefits to homosexual couples?


The answers to these questions are basically "because we hava a form of government that roughly represents the will of the majority."

-Why do we have a Veterans Day holiday and not a Conscientious Objector holiday?

-Why do we have separate men's and ladie's restrooms?

-Why do we subsidize tobacco production but not daffodil fields?

None of the above examples that I have raised are in violation of the text of the U.S. Constitution, and they are the result of the will of the majority of the people, involve government expenditures, and they all "discriminate" against groups of people in one way or another.

There is NOTHING is Common Law or written US law that bans general discrimination.  Only dicrimination based on legally-enumerated issues (race, creed, Vietnam Veteran status, handicap to some degree, etc) are banned.  The lack of all "discrimination" implies the lack of any rules or order whatsoever and would lead to anarchy.

I'm reading an interestin book called Sex, Time, and Power: How Women's Sexuualirt Shaped Human Evolution by Leonard Shlain, Viking, 2003, e points out that there are 4 characteristics that occure in about 1 in 12 human males (not necessarilly the same one).  They are left handed ness, partial color blindness (the inability to destinguse between red and another - usually green - primary color), and exclusive homesexuality.  These traits appear in women much less frequently, like 1 in 20.  Considering that we humans have spent 99.9% of our lives as a speicies were spent as hunters/gatherers, Shlain tries to find the advantages each might have aforded our survival - our ability to reach the age of reproduction, and to reproduce.  Clearly, exclusively homosexulal men don't reproduce, but they might hunt, and if existing hunter/gatherer societies are a guide, shared their catch with others.  They would, having no "wife" and no kids, add to the survival potential of the group. 

There is much, and growing evidance that homosexuality is hardwired into the genes of about 1 in 12 men and 1 in 5 women.  This is not to say that there is ONE "gay gene", but that many genes, acting in consort, "make people either gay or straight, bald or hairy etc. (to keep this short I will not discuss the advantages ofb the other traits).

Its a theory (an explanation of observable data) to be sure, but interesting in light of the religious debate this thread has taken.

The book also discusses the origins of religion, which might interest some respondants. 

The answers to these questions are basically "because we hava a form of government that roughly represents the will of the majority."

-Why do we have a Veterans Day holiday and not a Conscientious Objector holiday?

-Why do we have separate men's and ladie's restrooms?

-Why do we subsidize tobacco production but not daffodil fields?

The government represents the will of the majority except when it is limited by protections for the minority. There is, to my knowledge, no state or federal law barring plant discrimination. There are, however, state constitutional statutes that prohibit gender discrimination.

That might mean that men's and women's restrooms should technically be illegal (since they're "separate but equal" facilities) - it's just that no one has yet chosen to challenge them in court.


None of the above examples that I have raised are in violation of the text of the U.S. Constitution, and they are the result of the will of the majority of the people, involve government expenditures, and they all "discriminate" against groups of people in one way or another.

There is NOTHING is Common Law or written US law that bans general discrimination.  Only dicrimination based on legally-enumerated issues (race, creed, Vietnam Veteran status, handicap to some degree, etc) are banned.  The lack of all "discrimination" implies the lack of any rules or order whatsoever and would lead to anarchy.


While the US Constitution does not ban gender discrimination (except in voting), many states adopted general bans on gender discrimination. Massachusetts had such an amendment to their state constitution, and that's (part of the reason) why their supreme court ruled that they could not have a marriage definition based on gender.