question for those opposed to homosexuality based on the bible

Stifler's - posted on 06/08/2011

i don't see how homosexuality affects anyone bar the person who was born gay and has to face people debating about whether they chose this and whether they are the downfall of society.

Rosie - posted on 06/08/2011

no it's interpreted for you amanda. how you can't see that is beyond me.

Charlie - posted on 06/08/2011

And look here a site saying Jesus was FOR homosexuality .

http://www.ralliance.org/JesusProGay01.h...

Not saying I believe it but or not , just sayin' it's about as biased and one sided as yours Amanda.

Amanda - posted on 06/08/2011

I just recently started getting on COM a lot lately when i started my post about GOD. and yes i like to look at these topics :) and if I feel like i want to comment on something, I will. even if it is a few years old. and the link i posted gives scriptures on homosexuality so it's not what i want or don't want to hear. it's the Bible and truth.

Joy - posted on 06/08/2011

Ahhh a glitch on CoM's...surprise, surprise! LOL

Stifler's - posted on 06/08/2011

why are there random threads that are old reappearing? :S it's all over COM and i keep replying thinking they are new and then read back through and i've already commented!!

Joy - posted on 06/08/2011

Amanda, do you intentionally seek out old, controversial threads or something? You posted on one yesterday that I'd posted on years ago. And by years, I mean TWO YEARS (June '09 had been the last post on it until you yesterday). It HAD to have been buried deep. In my experience on CoM's, when topics are that old and that buried, it's best to just start a new one. Just sayin'.



Edited to correct a spelling error.

Rosie - posted on 06/08/2011

more mumbo jumbo bullshit of someone feeding you what you WANT to hear amanda. use your mind, and know the history of the times, know what words were translated, and if all else fails, use the words of jesus himself. cause he never once mentions homosexuality. i honestly dont' understand how someone who follows someone who is supposed to be loving and wonderful thinks it's alright to condem other people. who are you to do that?

Amanda - posted on 06/08/2011

http://carm.org/homosexuality

Maria - posted on 04/15/2011

This is what i really hate just because i say "A womans place is in the kitchen and in the bedroom and should only speak when spoken too" doesnt mean im saying its an irrefutable fact. Obviously its not but its what i believe (hypothetically). I just hate saying well in my opinion. . . this is what i believe. . . why must we always have a disclaimer if i say somethng dont take it as it is a fact that applies to everyone. These are our opinions!! unless we have actual research which u can clearly see the difference between. Idk just thought id say that haha its just annoying! No she did not mean it like that. Its just what she thinks and its a fact that she lives by but obviously she knows thats not how everyone else lives their lives.

Toni - posted on 04/15/2011

Nikki there are several precedents for none discriminatory laws, including laws for the right for same sex couples to marry and laws that homosexuals should have the same rights as everybody else!

Johnny - posted on 04/15/2011

It is my opinion that belief in a creator god is problematic for the further growth and development of society. I can even demonstrate instances of harm which these beliefs have caused. Yet my opinions on the matter have not been and should not be written into law. It is a matter of civil rights. People have the right to choose to be believers and I have the right to choose not to be a believer. My lack of belief should not over ride another person's belief.

In this case, some people believe that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. Their belief being codified into laws against same sex marriage over rides the civil rights of another group of people who do not share that belief. However, if gay marriage was legalized in America, it would not stop those who believe that it is immoral and unnatural from continuing to be opposed to it. No one would be forced to enter into one of these marriages or even attend one. No one's civil rights would be violated.

I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal. People here continue to be opposed to homosexuality and are allowed to hold that view. Their rights to their own beliefs are still upheld. But those beliefs are not being allowed to over ride another person's rights.

Rosie - posted on 04/15/2011

why do you have your opinion nikki? is it purely based off of the bibles teachings? have gay people done anything to you, that makes it so you don't believe they are in fact human and deserve the same rights as everyone else? you do live in a free country right? there are gay people who live in the same country correct? and they don't have the same rights as you, because?.....why?



in this country people can believe in whatever they believe in. you have the right to believe gay people are unnatural immoral people. you also think the same about liars, and remarried people, and women who speak in church, and thiefs right? you would like to see all of those people treated the same way gay people are right? if not it's hypocritical to say the least.

you can go on believing what you believe. that's the beauty of our country. but as soon as your beliefs start to infringe on other peoples rights that's where the problem arises. my beliefs or opinions don't take anything away from you. it doesn't make it so you aren't considered equal in the eyes of the law. my belief doesn't cause fathers to beat their 3 year old babies to death because they "think they're gay".



i am simply astounded how many christians out there can't see this in all of it's hypocritical glory. justification after justification is given for their beliefs on this subject, but as soon as ANYTHING else from the bible, even new testament, is mentioned, it's excuse after excuse after excuse as to why those things are allowable but homosexuality isn't. pick and choose to be bigoted because your pastor says so? i do believe the bible also talks about how god is the only judge, and those who sin shouldn't be judging others. oh and that pesky bit about loving thy neighbor, not really seeing much love coming from the group that claims they love the sinner-not the sin, cause well, EVERYBODY sins, right?

Jenni - posted on 04/15/2011

No but laws are passed based on the fact that everyone is entitled to freedom of choice, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We wouldn't force people to practice only one religion or force unreligious to be religious.



Why should it be law.... since we don't all follow the same beliefs that same sex couples don't have the right to marry. Since not all of us are inagreement about it being a sin... or even believe in sin for that matter. Why shouldn't it be left up to individuals to choose what they believe. Same as in in situations of abortion. I may feel abortion is wrong in most cases... I may believe it's immoral. But at the same time I also understand not everyone believes the same way as I do about it. So I am pro-choice. It is up to others to decide for themselves. I would never vote against abortions because I do not believe I have the right to force my *opinion* on others. In fact, I will fight for their right to choose.

Krista - posted on 04/15/2011

It's 'cause their mom painted their toenails pink when they were infants. Poor kids never stood a chance...

Esther - posted on 04/15/2011

That's right. But somehow one opinion is put into law whereas the other opinion is disregarded.

It always amazes me that non-gay Christian people can just decide that being gay is a choice when there are millions upon millions of people who are ACTUALLY gay who will tell you that that's just who they were born to be from the get go and they've known from a very early age that they were "different".

Krista - posted on 04/15/2011

So then, upon which facts should the laws be based?

Nikki - posted on 04/15/2011

It is an opinio that eing gay is immoral and unnatural.
It is also opinion that marriage between two same-ex partners is okay.

You are stating opinion, not fact.

Jenni - posted on 04/15/2011

No, I agree Nikki that was off topic.



Fact: Homosexuals are people too and deserve the same rights and freedom of choice as the rest of us.



And they base that fact on the laws passed in many countries and a few states in the US that says homosexuals have the legal right to marry.



Edit to add: And allowing them to marry harms *no one*. So why shouldn't they have that right?

Krista - posted on 04/15/2011

When it comes to making laws. Things should be based on fact and precedent.

Ah...but WHOSE facts?

To some, it is a "fact" that being gay is immoral and/or unnatural, that God exists and that he has dictated that being gay is wrong.

To others, it is "fact" that there is not one thing wrong with being gay, and that gays have every right to marry, just like the rest of us do.

So upon whose facts should the law be based, hm?

Nikki - posted on 04/15/2011

Debate on a subject should stay on that subject. We got off on talking about getting paental permission for marriage. That is what I was reerring to.

Esther,I thinkyou missed the point of my comment.

I was stating that opinions are just that, opinions.

When it comes to making laws. Things should be based on fact and precedent. And I don;t see how that applies in your statement.

Esther - posted on 04/15/2011

If it's just an opinion and everyone should respect that, then why shouldn't all those millions of homosexuals be respected for their "opinion" that this is what they were born to be and their "opinion" that they are confident enough in their love & commitment that they too want to be married?

Jenni - posted on 04/15/2011

Nikki, isn't that kind of the point of a debate? To argue or challenge opinions? To deliberate opposing points of view? Otherwise, it's kind of just a discussion than a debate and doesn't belong in this forum.

Nikki - posted on 04/15/2011

"you're implying that if a man does NOT ask his parents' permission, that it shows disrespect towards the parents and a lack of confidence in their love and commitment?"

No, i am not, I said that is what it meant to ME. Again, It is an OPINION.

And, I agre tha it is a tangent,and if we are going o continue this, it shold not be in this thread.

And, I was referring to the fact that the thred iscalled "questin fo those opposd to homosexuality based on the bible."

I understand your opinions, and I respect you for havg them.

I just don't feel that I am being given the same respect.

Instead of us voicing an opinion of your own, some people have chosen to grill me on why I believe that way i do. I think it is inappropriate nd no a true debate on he ssue anymore, as much as it is someone trying to prove my opinion wrong, and my explaining myself over and over.

it isan opinion and therefore, cannot be wrong or right. I can back up what I believe with as much fact as you can back yours up with. This debate has been going long before this thread was started and will contine long after it is gone.

I don't agree with your opinion, you don't agree with mine, that is the nature of the beast, but my opinion is not going to waiver just because i am told by any of you that it hould change, and neither should yours.

Krista - posted on 04/15/2011

If the OP only wanted the Biblically-inclined to respond to this question, she probably would have gone and posted it in one of the Christian groups, instead of in a debating forum.

And I find your reasoning rather bizarre -- you're implying that if a man does NOT ask his parents' permission, that it shows disrespect towards the parents and a lack of confidence in their love and commitment? How on earth did you come to THAT particular conclusion?

But, perhaps this calls for a new thread, as it's off-topic...

Nikki - posted on 04/15/2011

I understand that you guys all disagree with me. I am glad you can voice your opinions, I was asked by another peron to explain my position and opinion and that is what i did. Since the entire post was my opinion, i didn't reiterate it at the beginning of every sentence.

So, disagree. Attack my wording, I don't care. I am just being honest and open about this.

And my daughter will be raised that any man who loves her enoug to marry her will respect her prents enough t ask our opinion and permission. It isn't all about giving her hand away, but someone being confident enough in their love and commitment to ask parents for permission.

And this debate is about homosexuality ad the bible abd those who oposeit based on that, so really the question isn't for anyone else is it?

Johnny - posted on 04/14/2011

Our relationships with other people are our own business. If Nikki wishes to be a submissive wife, it does not effect me in any way. I choose to be equal with my husband in almost every way, and that does not effect her in any way. There is absolutely no logic in making one's own personal choices into society's rules. The only reason that we have the right to state what others can do in their own private life is if it causes harm to others. And thus, as a choice, it is no longer a private concern but a public one.

As an aside, my husband, for some odd reason, spoke to my dad about his wish to propose to me. My father said pretty much exactly what Krista said, "her"hand" is not mine to give away." Luckily, my father knew my husband well enough to know that he did not mean to refer to me as my father's property. Otherwise, he might have also added that he didn't approve. I think my husband just wanted to show that he respected my family and respected their daughter. And he's seen too many movies, lol.

Krista - posted on 04/14/2011

My husband asked my father permission for my hand and i love that.

And that's fair enough -- some people DO love that. If my husband had done that, I would have reminded him that I am not my father's property, and hence, my "hand" is not his to give away.

My quibble with Nikki was that instead of just saying, "I feel a woman should be submissive to her husband", she stated it as an irrefutable fact: "A woman should be submissive to her husband"...at which point several of us said, "Exsqueeze me? I don't THINK so."

Johnny - posted on 04/14/2011

After this I'm still not sure what one person's religious beliefs have to do with another person's rights.

If you disagree with homosexuality, then don't be gay.

I don't believe in the bible as the word of God, so I'm not a Christian.

It is really so incredibly simple.

Maria - posted on 04/14/2011

Whoa havent checked into this thread in a minute. havent read all the comments just saw NIKKI's and i agree with the post she has on this page. My husband asked my father permission for my hand and i love that. yea i think we are equal and blah blah but at the end of the day he is the man of the house

Julianne - posted on 04/13/2011

A woman is SUPPOSE to be submissive to her husband??
Well i believe in equality...we deserve to be our own people.

On your "its not natural for a man to have sex with another man" If it was not natural, men would not have a g-spot in their anus....which is why anal sex is pleasurable for a man. If they were not designed to have anal sex, that spot would not be there.

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

True, Jennifer. Why are people not claiming that they're being persecuted because they're not allowed to burn witches anymore?

Esther - posted on 04/13/2011

I'm sorry Nikki - I appreciate you defending your side of the equation but the argument seems inconsistent to me. You say that what happened in Greek & Roman times is irrelevant because those "marriages" weren't what today's marriages are about. Well, my marriage isn't what your marriage is about either. God knows (no pun intended) I am in no way submissive to my husband. And yet both your marriage and mine are legal. My marriage was not performed in a church and God did not enter into the equation in any way shape or form. In the eyes of the law however, your marriage has as much validity as mine. You argue that the Greeks & Roman traditions are not applicable to today because they also condoned pedophilia and we’ve since come to understand how wrong that is. Well, that just supports the argument that we’ve been trying to make. Traditions evolve. Just because something has been done a certain way for x amount of time does not mean that it’s A) the right way to do it or B) should stay that way forever. That’s why people these days are generally free to choose their own partner rather than have that dictated to them by their parents/family. That’s why people these days tend to marry for love, not property. That’s why people these days don’t tend to marry in their teens. That’s why interracial marriages are now A-OK. We live and learn. Most of us have learned that homosexuals are not sexual deviants, but totally normal people with the same dreams and desires as heterosexuals. And they too want to be able to make their love and commitment for each other official. Nobody is asking anyone to re-write the bible. If the bible wants to continue to say it’s a sin – have at it. But don’t take away people’s right & ability to make those moral judgments for themselves. Gay people marrying each other has no downside for anyone. Denying them those rights & that respect has a HUUUUUUGE downside for a large number of people. Not just the homosexuals themselves, but their children (some do have children you know), their families etc. It’s just wrong. The thing is though, I may never convince you, but I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are on the wrong side of history. This IS inevitable. I just hope people come to see that sooner rather than later.

Jenni - posted on 04/13/2011

Nikki, i was just comparing submissive/dominant roles in historical same sex couples, to historical and contemporary submissive/dominant roles in hetero couples. I don't buy the whole it was only Man-boy love. There were also adult/adults joined in religious partnerships. But one was typically submissive (a slave) and the other was a Roman citizen. It was looked down on for a Roman male citizen to have a relationship with another Roman citizen because it questioned their stature in society. The same as it would question a man's stature in certain societies for a man to marry a very dominant woman. It is only now becoming socially acceptable for a man to play a submissive role in a relationship, and a woman to play a dominant role.



And who questions whether or not it's natural? Certainly not science. Religions do. Religions based on text written 1000s of years ago. Excuse me if I feel that's a little outdated, culturally influenced, translated and perverted in the last few thousand years.



I mean... Even traditionalists don't practice witch burning these days. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". (Well actually some sects of Christianity do in Africa).



But dang it all to hell, these laws developed by heretics that go against God! Laws developed to protect all of our freedoms' of beliefs, civil liberities and our right not to be burned at the stake for not conforming to one religion.

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

A woman is supposed to be submissive to her husband. I know I will get crap for that too.

But a man is the head of his house and the woman manages the family as part of her dedication to him.

According to YOUR beliefs, that is. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between your opinion and fact.

Toni - posted on 04/13/2011

No in YOUR opinion a woman is supposed to be submissive to her father and then to her husband, in my opinion and many others a couple should be respectful and co-operative with each other NEITHER should be submissive!

Toni - posted on 04/13/2011

Nikki you keep saying homosexuality is not natural yet men are designed to orgasm from anal penetration,! If it wasn't natural for men to have anal penetration they wouldn't have been designed that way!

Nikki - posted on 04/13/2011

A woman is supposed to be submissive to her husband. I know I will get crap for that too.

But a man is the head of his house and the woman manages the family as part of her dedication to him.

And did any of your husbands ask your parents permission to marry you before they proposed?

Mine certainly did. And there is nothing wrong with that. It was often completely determined by the families who would marry whom. And if a girl's father consented to the marriage, she had no place to say no since he was the head of her home. I don't think that is a very good argument either.

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

In the bible, homosexuality is a sin.

And in "Tim Gunn: A Guide to Quality, Taste and Style", wearing Crocs is a sin.

What the heck does a book YOU follow have to do with how I live MY life?

Nikki - posted on 04/13/2011

In the bible, homosexuality is a sin.
As far as the men marrying young girls thing, yes they did.MEN married young WOMEN. Girls weren't married until the had begun their menses, and as we still see now, could bear children.

The fact is that it is not natural. It is natural for a man to be with a woman.

The Greeks and Romans only used these relationships to "help young men grow up" so it was okay to be forced to have sex with someone of the same gender until you were 18 or 19 and then after that if a male took a submissive role in a sexual relationship , he was looked down on. So it was in effect pedophilia.

So, Christianity didn't say it was wrong for two adult men to be in a sexual relationship, society did.

I know that molesters can be either sex and can violate people of either sex. I was not trying to degrade people who have suffered through this. But, the Ancient times argument is just as refutable as any other.

Jenni - posted on 04/13/2011

I'm certainly not saying that all sexual practices by Romans and Greeks didn't contain abuse nor do I agree with pedaphilia, of course. As Krista said, I was just showing that religious ceromonies did exist in history joining same sex couples.
And how different is a submissive male marrying a dominant male to a submissive female marrying a dominant male?
I don't think I need to point this out to you but in historical, traditional 'marriage' the woman (submissive) didn't have a choice in who she married. Same as the (submissive) male in a same sex union may not have had a choice in who he married.

But we're talking about consenting adults here. We're not talking about people taking advantage of children. Or slaves. Or submissives. We're talking about two consenting adults who love each other and want to join their union in marriage. Two consenting adults who want to enjoy the same freedom and liberities as any other consenting adults.

Rosie - posted on 04/13/2011

and soon after, christianity reared it's ugly head and decided that it would be illegal. i really think that alot of the reason homosexuality is considered a sin is because of practices of pedophilia like you described. however plenty of people married young girls at the time too, why didn't that cause as much stink? people have been fed the line of it being unnatural for years, or dirty, or pedophilia when it IS natural, not dirty and not only associated with pedophilia (as many women on this site can attest, they were molested by men as children).

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

So, in effect of saying that Greeks and Romans did it so it must be okay.

No.

They brought it up as an example to counter your false assertion that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Nikki - posted on 04/13/2011

As men, particularly the pater familias, wielded complete authority in Roman society, the Roman experience of same-sex relations is often characterized by dominant-submissive interactions, in which opprobrium was directed at the shamefulness of a grown man who assumed the passive role, and the opprobrium of "effeminacy" was directed towards self-indulgence and luxury, and never as a result of same-sex relationships In short, a Roman citizen male could acceptably penetrate (whether a male or a female) but not be penetrated – catamite was commonly used as a slander for the penetrated. Slaves still were considered legitimate sexual partners, though their sexual assault was disgraceful.

Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated. This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.

The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization. These tribal communities were organized according to age groups. When it came time for a boy to embrace the age group of the adult and to "become a man," he would leave the tribe in the company of an older man for a period of time that constituted a rite of passage. This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood.

The rite of passage undergone by Greek youths in the tribal prehistory of Greece evolved into the commonly known form of Greek pederasty after the rise of the city-state, or polis. Greek boys no longer left the confines of the community, but rather paired up with older men within the confines of the city. These men, like their earlier counterparts, played an educational and instructive role in the lives of their young companions; likewise, just as in earlier times, they shared a sexual relationship with their boys. The adult man enacted the role of the penetrator in these relationships, while the youth was the passive, penetrated partner.

An elaborate social code governed the mechanics of Greek pederasty. It was the duty of the adult man to court the boy who struck his fancy, and it was viewed as socially appropriate for the younger man to withhold for a while before capitulating to his mentor's desires. This waiting period allowed the boy to ensure that his suitor was not merely interested in him for sexual purposes but felt a genuine emotional affection for him and was interested in assuming the mentor role assigned to him in the pederastic paradigm.

The age limit for pederasty in ancient Greece seems to encompass, at the minimum end, boys of twelve years of age. To love a boy below the age of twelve was considered inappropriate, but no evidence exists of any legal penalties attached to this sort of practice. Traditionally, a pederastic relationship could continue until the widespread growth of the boy's body hair, when he is considered a man. Thus, the age limit for the younger member of a pederastic relationship seems to have extended from 12 to about 17 years of age.

The ancient Greeks, in the context of the pederastic city-states, were the first to describe, study, systematize, and establish pederasty as a social and educational institution. It was an important element in civil life, the military, philosophy and the arts.[6] There is some debate among scholars about whether pederasty was widespread in all social classes, or largely limited to the aristocracy.

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greeks who engaged in passive homosexuality past the age at which they were the passive members of pederastic relationships "made a woman" of themselves; there is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium heaped upon them by their society

Thiasoi were communities of women in which Greek women could receive a limited form of education. Critically, however, girls in these communities also experienced homosexual love, sometimes for their mistresses (Sappho writes of her love for various students of hers) and sometimes for each other. As the polis evolved, however, marriage came to be an integral instrument for the organization of the culture, and women were confined to their houses; the thiasoi were no more. Girls were taught from their infancies that it was their duty and destiny in life to give their love to the men who would one day be their husbands. Female homosexuality had no place within the constraints of this new social organization.

So, in effect of saying that Greeks and Romans did it so it must be okay. I guess pedophilia is okay from your stand point as well?
The only “marriages” were of emperors or upper aristocracy who controlled the government and only did t to legitimize their affairs. Sounds a little like a certain King of England doesn’t it? Making your religion fit your desires.
Either way, it was legitimizing something that was looked down on in society. Just because they did it, doesn’t make it right? Would you turn over you teenage son to one of these “paderastic” relationships?
I don’t think so. It is a hard truth to hear but, even though it was practiced, it wasn’t looked well upon.

Rosie - posted on 04/13/2011

gay marriage was somewhat popular during ancient roman times. 2 roman emperors were married to men. and there were also same sex marriages in early china in a region called fujion. :)

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

I do believe that some groups are persecuted for their beliefs or in the name of giving out new "rights".



Bullshit.



Don't tell me that religious people are being "persecuted" because they think that gays should not have the same rights that they take for granted. Criticism does NOT equal persecution.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_She...



THAT is persecution.



April 6, 2009 - Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11 year old child in Springfield, Massachusetts, hanged himself with an extension cord after being bullied all school year by peers who said "he acted feminine" and was gay.



September 15, 2008 – A Bourbonnais, Illinois elementary school bus driver was charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student passenger. The boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other students to chase and beat the child.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...



THIS is persecution.



The religious aren't being persecuted -- they're simply being disagreed with, and not allowed to unquestioningly run society anymore.



Not having everything your own way anymore does NOT equal persecution. It simply means that times are changing, and your viewpoints are becoming antiquated. So spare me the talk of persecution, m'kay?

Jenni - posted on 04/13/2011

Well Greeks and Romans united same sex couples in religious ceromonies...

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

Do Christians not have a "right" to srand up for what they believe also?

Absolutely. You have every right to not get gay married.

Nikki - posted on 04/13/2011

kati, I didn't say christianity specificaly. Marriage has been used for centuries in rituals of fertility, to solidify foreign relations, or to unite groups of people, e.g. tribes. All of these are religious ceremonies, not necessarily christian ceremony. Pagans, druids, and other polytheistic religions view marriage of handfasting or whatever they call it as a religious ceremony, or spiritual ceremony. And i don't recall hearing that any of them united two women or two men until recently, and by recently i mean within the last ten years or so.

and Krista,
Do Christians not have a "right" to srand up for what they believe also?

I never said that there were no institutions such as marriage before christianity. you have to remember that the first two thirds of the Christian bible was around before Christianity. And the questions that were posed came from that part of the bible. Which is common to Christians, Jews, and even Muslims.

I do believe that some groups are persecuted for their beliefs or in the name of giving out new "rights".

We already have it a lot better in this country than many people realize. And the only "rights" guaranteed to us by the Constitution are those in the first nine amendments. There are others that were added later, but the tenth amendment grants individual states the authority to govern all aspects not expressly covered in those first nine amendments. So really it isn't the federal government's place to make law on this is it.

And also, isn't it funny that you make the assumption that i am a devout Christian based on my traditional beliefs.
I don't remember saying that at all. I was raised in a religious home and was taught how to read and studied the Bible just like any other text. So who is the hypocrite here really?

Krista - posted on 04/13/2011

I just think that people with traditional beliefs, such as mine, christian or not, are attacked for rejecting change and for their beliefs. And that this is done in"defense" of other people's beliefs which causes rifts in society.



Um, no. It's in defense of peoples' RIGHTS, not their beliefs. You are more than free to have your beliefs. But the moment that your beliefs start infringing on someone else's rights, that's when I put my foot down. So like Esther said, if you want to believe that being gay is wrong, then that's your prerogative. But if your belief causes you to take concrete actions to prevent gays from being legally able to wed, then that's when I will quite happily "attack" you for that.



And actually, marriage was not necessarily derived from religious beliefs. Most anthropologists believe that marriage came about because in ancient tribes, nubile women were often a source of competition and jealousy among the men of the tribe. So, to reduce this, access to women was institutionalized so as to moderate the intensity of this competition.



Aside: It always amuses me how some Christians seem to think that there were absolutely no ethics or social conventions before their religion came around...