Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

Christians should be allowed to practice their religion, but they have no right to tell people who they should and shouldn't marry. Its none of their business.

A little off topic:

NOG are you going to tell women that have been raped that they have no right to an abortion because its against your religion? Is it even any of your business what a woman does with her body?

 

True, everyone is entitled to practice their own religion...but no one group should have precidence over what others - even those who are not of the same religious group - should do or say or act...

 

Nataraja, I'm glad to see you here, if only because I can pass the non-interference torch your way and stop banging my own head against the brick wall of fundamentalism here.

Welcome!

 

Well, actually, they can do that - provided you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense. Any religious following can decide who does and who does not meet criteria for marriage in their religion. For example, since my wife and I have never practiced Islam, it would be entirely reasonable for an imam to refuse to perform a religious wedding ceremony for my wife and I. The point I'm making is if a certain group will not marry homosexuals, I think it is within that religion's rights to tell their following that.

Furthermore, if gay marriage is ever legalized, and two gay Christians get married in a civil ceremony, it is almost assured that their marriage will not be recognized by their church. I further think that the church is well within their rights on this point too.

Finally, I don't want to want this post to sound like gay-bashing. I'm not anti-gay, and I'm not even a religous person. The last time I set foot into a church was when my brother got married in a church a couple of years ago. That being said, I'm not anti-religion either. I believe in the doctrine of freedom of religion, and following from that, I feel that religions can chose to establish whatever rule set they wish on those that subscribe to that faith.

Since they don't MAKE you belong to that church, if you find yourself at odds with the rules imposed by your church, perhaps it is time to look for a different denomination that is more in step with your beliefs. To put it another way, I do not think the onus should be on the church to change their practices to confrom to the congregation. They have every right to say, "These are the rules" with membership in that church contingent upon you following those rules.

 

I think I may have been misunderstood...

Church is not the only option you know. Gays should be entitled to marriage that is recognised by the law.

 

Sorry Cuch. That's why I said "provided you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense". I had assumed that because in the U.S., there is currently very little hope of getting homosexual "marriage" recognized by law (with Massachusetts being a noteworthy exception). However, I think the odds for getting civil unions approved are a little better (but still not good) in the more immediate future. I agree that if you're talking about civil unions, then no, the church has no place in those discussions.

 

Marriage doesn't need to involve a church. If it did, then how what about the majority of marriage's done in the world that don't take place in churches. It would make all traditional wedding customs invalid.

Marriage is the outward declaration that you want to join with another person whom you love in a commited relationship...or something similar along those lines. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on marriage or marriage customs, and it never has and it never will.

 

I do agree with you Aldeth. I don't think the church should have to marry gays if its against its policy (for lack of a better term).

 

@Nataraja,

I agree. My previous post simply stated that if you are speaking of marriage in the religious sense, then a religion has the right to decide who can and cannot get married under their rules. For many religions, it's sacramental or the equivalent for non-Christian religions. I agree that there are a great many marriages that are conducted by non-denominational ministers, and Jusitces of the Peace. Neither of these are religious weddings, but are equally valid in the eyes of the law.

However, it also doesn't make sense to say that there is a complete disconnect between marriage and religion either. For a great many people, it is important for them to find a life partner who shares his or her religious values. And I don't mean that just in a general sense. For some people, it's not good enough for both of them to be, for example, Christian, but of the same sub group, such as both Catholics, or both Mormons, or both Baptists, etc. Taken in that light, marriage is more than the outward declaration that you want to join with another person whom you love in a commited relationship.

I'm also skeptical when you say that the majority of the world's weddings do not take place in churches, unless you literally mean Christian churches. If you include temples, synagogues, and other places of worship, I'm inclined to believe that the majority of the world's weddings do take place under the auspices of some religion, with a great many of them taking places at some center of worship.

 

I'll admit to not having read the entire thread (12 pages is a bit much at this time of night)....but I just feel like voice-ing my opinion on the subject that began this thread...

In my opinion, religion has its rights to its views of Homosexuality, just as I have a my rights to disagree with it...I personally find nothing wrong with it, and would fully support any of my friends who would wish to engage in homosexual relations/marriages...

Religion, which I'll admit to not knowing huge amounts about, is a somewhat interpretive affair...people interpret what was written hundreds upon thousands of years ago, in a different language, that has been translated several times before we get to today...and in my opinion I think it may have lost some of its meaning in that time...Every person to have translated it has given a personal inflection on it, even without intent...

To be honest I don't know where I'm going with this, but its just something I keep in mind when thinking about religious beliefs...they have their right to think what they think, just as we can disagree with them. Yet in my opinion they only have a right to express this dis-satisfaction, and I do not think they should be able to exercise any force beyond their religion (which as far as I know they can't)...people who follow a religion make a choice to agree with what is being said by their religion, and also have a choice to stop believing if they so desire...

Just my opinion.

 

I think that for homosexual marriages it's more that they want their union to have the same rights as a heterosexual union. They don't necessarily want to impose on any religion, they just want to have the same protection from the law when the relationship ends, and other things that marriage has. It doesn't even have to be 'marriage' in the sense that we all think, it could be a special recognition that entitles them to the same rights.

I always thought I was doomed to never be married, and that would let my family down...however, I've fallen inlove with a woman, suprise suprise...and when I'm with her I can't even stomach my past, or even looking at another man like I used to.

I still believe in the 'born gay' thing. However, I feel that anyone can fall inlove with anyone. It's about love, not about sex.

 

Nice to see I don't miss much when I have trouble with my internet connection for a couple days. Basically poeple that don't like Christianity sayiong that I'm full of it for claiming that Marriage is a religious ordinance. Rather insulting that the best you can do is to say that I'm wrong and think that's good enough.

But a couple things on this last page I need to respond to...

So Christians are mentally ill? Man have you got your facts wrong. The biggest danger to a child is that they be raised with no overriding sense of morality (and that's what I pick up from the "Who says your morality is better than anyone else's" arguement)...

Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 7:1:

Now these are the words which Jesus Taught his disciples that they should say unto his people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgement.

Basically, we have the laws, and that is how we are judged. We are, barring some condition of reduced accountability, equal before the bar of justice. The law of God is the same before us all.

By our sins, we degrade ourselves, whether we perceive this or not. Also, the Book of Mormon has a quote that is relevent to this regard:

Mosiah 3:19:

For the Natural man is an enemy to God, and has been so since the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteh off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ our Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Basically, through obedience, we elevate ourselves. We seek to emulate the example of one who was perfect--Jesus the Christ.

And what do you have to be smoking to make sense out of them?

Common Law relationships have had to seek those legal answers, and in some cases, it's just as complicated as a divirce. Couldn't those laws extend to Homosexual relationships?

A mighty change of heart, perhaps? I believe that God gives all who face such challenges that same opportunity that you have been given.

Sexual relations and temptations involve powerful emotions. Those of you who are married or engaged to be so may be able to back me up on this or correct me on this, but I think that those emotions are hard to distinguish. It's not about choosing who you are tempted by, but who you covenent with and how you honour those covenents.

 

What do you have to be smoking to make sense of anything Joseph Smith made up?

 

Blind obidience makes you a slave of outdated laws, made by man. remember you only have their words for it being divine.

Secondly there are two forms of marriages, does made by a religius institution, for example the christian church, now does marriages are recognised by the state and gives certain rights, as does any other major religions marriages, then there is the state marriages, which without any religion involved does the same. Anybody regarding of faith or lack of the same can be married by the state and get the advantages that follows (several countries has cheaper insurences and so on if you are married) and it is only the last form of marriage we want to be legal for gays, well that and more sensible religions that dont mind people being gay.

So no one is touching the christian marriage or forcing gay people into your church. as long as you accept that your religion does not rule the country and therefor can not forbid gays to get a State marriage.

(Note: this was mainly ment on countries who hasn't got these basic rights for gays yet, my country does and surprisingly we havent seen a moral decline)

 

So while I was being raised I was exposed to the 'biggest danger' ever? Having parents who didn't teach me to worship God and who themselves did not worship? Because that's obviously the most important thing we can teach our children and things such as acceptance, compassion, rational thinking and a 'live and let live' attitude take the back seat.

Christians being mentally ill... in some regards, yes. They actually think there's this great big invisible man who is watching your every move and you must do as he says because if you don't you will go to hell and burn and suffer and be tortured for all eternity!... but he loves you. And the only proof of this is some 2000 year old book written by men.

 

What about those Christians who literally believe the Earth to be 6000 years old or Adam and Eve being first humans?

 

That in itself is interesting considering recorded human history goes back at least 10, 000 years...nevermind unrecorded human history which goes back more than 100, 000 years.

 

Nothing. It didn't really make sense until I stopped smoking the funny stuff. Secondly, it's not made up, regardless of what anyone says here.

I know you must not read most of my posts, but you seem to have missed the part where I have repeatedly claimed that my faith is anything but blind. You only have my word for it's divinity because you will not test it in prayer for the possibility that I might not be stringing you a line only tio laugh at you when you do it.

First off, there is no reference in the Book of Genesis that it was 2000 years from Adam and Eve to the Grat Flood. Secondly, I couldn't find a reference to say that it was 2000 years from the flood to the birth of Christ.

Third, How do we get AD if there was no Christ? Doesn;t that refer to After Christ?

Fourth, if the history is unrecorded, how do we know it really happenned? The presence of the Bible as a record of hte people gives me a bit more credibility in this case, doesn't it?

Fifth, Any attempts to reconcile the Creation with other things that Science has taught has yielded little other than ridicule. I suspect that some of you are less interested in intelligent debate and more interested in entertaining yourselves at my expense. Get a life...

 

we know the age of each and everyone in the bible, because they where so kind throught the first testomony to write "and xxx lived to he was yyy old, then he died" or they add, this happened when zzz happened over there, much like greek historiens did.

So scholars around the world, have for fun or whatever reasons they have, counted the years, which im off the top of my head gives, some 4000years of historie before christ

this one made me laugh, come on, even you must be able to see that just because we make a timeline out from an event from the dominent religion at that time, dosn't make the religion right.
and the only reason this calender is used around the world, is again because currently our civilization is dominant.
Muslim, jews, chinese, japans and so on, has actually different calenders based on thier believes.
you might as well say the easterbunny is real, else we wouldn't have easter.

reread what he said, we have 10.000 years of recorded history, dating some 5-6000 years further back then the bible.
babylons, egypts, chinese people, just to name some, have recorded history way before the bible timeframe.
secondly the undrecorded history is based on archeology, we have dated human remains 100.000years back, which is way further back then the bible goes.

get over yourself mate, your the one who havent been able to give a good explanation for the whole 7 days roughly 6000 years ago, while science has proven the earth to be several million years old.
Creative periods? a word christians invented some 30years ago, because they had to find somekind of explanation with science proving the bible wrong.
cant cope with facts? go hide behind your bible, but please be quite while you do so.

 

The city of Jericho was founded at least 10, 000 years ago and has been settled ever since, with each new city building its foundations on the previous city and so on.

However, during the time that Joshua and his people were entering Canaan, they have found that Jericho suffered some destruction and its walls had fallen out, not in, which would happen during an earthquake. Other dating of the entrance into Canaan isn't so clear cut. Certain cities that were said to have been destroyed weren't, and some had been destroyed long before, while others still weren't destroyed at all.

Recorded human history, written down, goes back at least 10, 000 years. Unrecorded history goes back at least 100, 000 years. The age of the earth is not something that is in dispute here, nor the age of the universe. Both are incredibly ancient and it is a scientific fact that the world is older than Genesis claims it to be.

This is yet another reason to doubt the Bible as being 100% accurate, and if it is not 100% accurate, then it's decree about homosexuality could quite possibly be a mistake or added later by someone. That isn't to say that there is no goodness about the Bible, because it is a good book, and a lot of what it says is relevent to us...some things are timeless, such as stories of love and stories of how selfish people end up losing. But it should not be taken as 100% literal, because if that was the case, then you would have to take every single verse as being literal.

Gnarf, you need to take a critical rationalist perspective of things. Not everyone is a Christian, not everyone is a Latter-day Saint, and people have differing views on things. Just because you believe the Bible, as far as it's translated correctly I might add, and also the Joseph Smith books as being authorative, it doesn't mean that anyone else will. Not everyone here takes the Bhagavad Gita as being authorative, not even I do, however, it is still a good book with valuable lessons. But that nonsense about Krishna being God...pffft, we all know Shiva is God