Lunar Threads

Kizyr wrote:By the way, I'm not saying that bigotry against homosexuals isn't real. I mean, I think race is a fictitious concept, but racism is still real (and a real problem). Bigotry against homosexuals is similar in certain regards; it just requires more effort to create an identity centered about who you're attracted to... Though, I don't think it's so necessary to create that identity. I mean, I'm quite attracted to redheads, I don't need to create an identity based on that.

True. I do remember more than one person of my acquaintance calling himself a "breast man" or a "leg man", referring to which (feminine) features caught their interest the most. But the most negative reaction that's likely to incite is mild contempt, and they probably didn't define their whole social interaction by that preference. Probably. I'm not sure about one of them.

You make an interesting point about identity. To me it goes with the American love of labelling, categorizing, cubbyholing...things people do to avoid having to actually think and assess each person individually. If you can check off features for, oh, straight, Democrat, black, male, you can figure that you know what they think about X, Y, and Z without actually troubling to find out directly. It somewhat doesn't really surprise me that people assign labels to themselves as well.

Being a homosexual myself, I am all for gay marraige. But I'm not the kind of gay man to rant and rave about "How hard it is to be gay" or "I don't have any rights in this country" I'm content with my boyfriend of two years, we love eachother, and that's all that matters.

I would tie the knot with him if I was givin the chance. I think mostly to show our undying love and loyalty to eachother in such a joyous ceremony, and show our families that WE MEAN BUSINESS... when I think of the word boyfriend, I think of younger people. Being only eighteen, I understand it. But say being 30 and having a boyfriend, just doesen't go together(of course if your middle aged, single, and looking... it's understandable.) So I just hope within the near future we will have the right to get married. Even if it is no big deal.

I guess that's my two pennies on the subject, not much really.

That's a good point that "boyfriend" does sound like an uncommitted or casual relationship.

I see where it would be a lot easier to just say you're married than try and come up with some other off-color term like "soulmate" or something.

Ramza

Most gays have used life partner as a generic term. I might've implied this already, but I think getting hung up over nomenclature is absolutely pointless. I don't care what they call each other: soulmate, life partner, husband, wife, etc.

By the way, you likely won't want to hear this, but 18 is too young to be thinking about getting married anyhow. KF

Let me put a religious sense on things gay unions is a bad thing and I quote from the bible

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Now I don't know what to say about this but I think the words stand for themselves by the way if you want to look this up in your own Bible it starts in Romans 1:26-32 and if you want to get mad at me it's not my fault I just go by the Bible and I also agree with Aaron .

I have no desire to get into debate right now, but just to let all forum goers, if this even gets remotely heated, I will lock it. With current events on the board, it's not a good time to have any arguments going.

Kizyr wrote:Most gays have used life partner as a generic term. I might've implied this already, but I think getting hung up over nomenclature is absolutely pointless. I don't care what they call each other: soulmate, life partner, husband, wife, etc.

By the way, you likely won't want to hear this, but 18 is too young to be thinking about getting married anyhow. KF

I understand what you mean by being 18, and I agree. *nods* Just two years has built a strong relationship so far, I can honestly say if he were to propose to me, or whichever way that goes(Not something I really think about *ponders*) it'd end up in a yes...

Divine Dragon wrote:Let me put a religious sense on things gay unions is a bad thing and I quote from the bible ...

It's not a bad idea, but if you read the preceding posts you would've noticed that we've already been through the discussion from Christianity's point of view. All you did was quote a few Bible passages without any real explanation (and context leaves the interpretation of those verses wide open). Read up on the rest of the discussion and you'll find a more thorough analysis. There's a lot more to the issue than just a couple pages from Leviticus and Romans.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you don't make a complete point by quoting a few passages.

Kyo wrote:I understand what you mean by being 18, and I agree. *nods* Just two years has built a strong relationship so far, I can honestly say if he were to propose to me, or whichever way that goes(Not something I really think about *ponders*) it'd end up in a yes...

I know you might feel strongly now, but I've known so many folks who would have said the same exact thing about their significant other at 18 (myself, included). It's more obvious in retrospect, whether or not the relationship continues.

Case in point... I know of only one relationship that survived past high school into college. That's among about 12 or so that failed. And the one that 'succeeded' ran into its own severe problems. KF

Divine Dragon wrote:Now I don't know what to say about this but I think the words stand for themselves by the way if you want to look this up in your own Bible it starts in Romans 1:26-32 and if you want to get mad at me it's not my fault I just go by the Bible and I also agree with Aaron .

Way to have a mind of your own there. Head on over to the cheating on your spouse thread and be sure to throw in the passage that says any woman who is not a virgin when married should be stoned to death in the village square.

Way to have a mind of your own there. Head on over to the cheating on your spouse thread and be sure to throw in the passage that says any woman who is not a virgin when married should be stoned to death in the village square.

Damn, I can't stone Jenner yet...

Let me put a religious sense on things

LOLOLOL...exactly what people want to hear.

Look, I'm a Christian too. I'm no stranger to Romans 1 and its implication for "alternative lifestyles." But if you read through the thread, you'll realize that most everyone that believes gay marriage is a good and reasonable thing *doesn't* believe in Christianity. So, what relevant point are you making to *anyone* by quoting the bible? Everyone I know here that reads and believes the bible already agrees with you.

Also, I hope you understand that the verses from 29 to 32 aren't some specific attack on homosexuals...your post makes it sound like you thought the whole section was Paul's rant on the bad attributes of anyone who is homosexual. That would be wrong. Just want to make sure we're all clear on that.

Head on over to the cheating on your spouse thread and be sure to throw in the passage that says any woman who is not a virgin when married should be stoned to death in the village square.

Now Mr. drumlord, you know better than that. Even Divine Dragon (I think) knows better than that. Most Christians who recognize the Old Testament Law demanding such a thing would turn immediately to the passage where the Pharisees ask Jesus what to do with the adulteress that is about to be stoned...we all know this classic story...Jesus says, "whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." Everyone walks away (eventually), and then Jesus (presumably the only one without sin that could cast the first stone), goes to the woman and says "does anyone here condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." Divine didn't even pull out an OT law (specifically those from Levit.), but rather an NT passage from Paul.

That wasn't an entirely serious point on my part...just saying that you ought not equate the verse you quoted with the one DD quoted...though I stand by my statement that there was really no reason for DD to quote it, except maybe to incense people against Christianity one more time, which is exactly what they need [/jk]

Ramza

Now Mr. drumlord, you know better than that. Even Divine Dragon (I think) knows better than that.

I think Rich (drumlord) was being more sarcastic than anything. It should serve it's point if Jenner reads the thread, as we're in a purity race and should make for some fun banter.

Also, I hope you understand that the verses from 29 to 32 aren't some specific attack on homosexuals...your post makes it sound like you thought the whole section was Paul's rant on the bad attributes of anyone who is homosexual. That would be wrong. Just want to make sure we're all clear on that.

Actually I am quite clear with that but, I did not write that post my girlfriend did I made the mistake of giving my gf my password so now I have to change my password for all the boards that I post on which luckily isn't that many so although I am a christian I could care less about what homosexual's do in their own home.
(I have to stop giving out my passwords to my girlfriend )

I'm going to have to say something here...going from both conflicting points in my life - my Christian faith and my sexuality...

Both sides of this debate have serious flaws that I've seen. People seem to forget that the Bible is an entire book that has a context to it. You can't simply quote scripture and loosely use it to back up your point without truly examining the text AND how it fits into the entire message of the Bible.

And I'm saying this for BOTH sides of the argument, b/c I've seen people use scripture here incorrectly and (worse) LIGHTLY to argue both sides of the point.

Forgive my outburst on this. I'm just having a difficult week and this is a very difficult subject for me, because I understand both sides of the argument, with equal sympathy.

Divine Dragon wrote:Actually I am quite clear with that but, I did not write that post my girlfriend did I made the mistake of giving my gf my password ...

Never mind the fact that I don't even buy that, but it doesn't matter. You're responsible for what happens on your account, so if you lend the password to anyone you will still be held accountable for any activity on the account.

It's already clearly specified in the rules: http://lunarthreads.com/viewtopic.php?t=11
You're expected to know them prior to posting, so you can't complain that you didn't know. KF

Pisces wrote:People seem to forget that the Bible is an entire book that has a context to it. You can't simply quote scripture and loosely use it to back up your point without truly examining the text AND how it fits into the entire message of the Bible.

I'm going to have to pseudo-disagree with you there. What I think people more commonly forget is that the Bible is a collection of books, each with its own context and bias. Yes I was being facetious up there, and as was pointed out, many things in the Old Testament are essentially moot points because of the New Testament. But even in each, you have several different writers. The Bible is more of a work than a book. And I would say you do get inconsistancies between writers, at the very least due to some writing about first hand experiences and some not.

But I digress a bit there. My initial point was that when quoting scripture, you have to not only consider its context but also in which part of the Bible it is from. It's so often in our culture you hear things like homosexuality being bad, "spare the rod, spoil the child", have as many babies as you can, etc. etc. and people never choose to look at the context. Were these quotes direct from God? From Jesus? Or were they part of a story? Perhaps a lesson from one of the disciples?

Plus, though I love to throw them out myself just for argument's sake, quotes like the stoning one I did are typically from the Old Testament. The Old Testament God was fairly angry, occasionally having his followers destroy entire countries, raping their women, and burning their lands. But things change. I don't pretend to understand why such a horrible thing would be necessary, but I do understand that in the New Testament, Christ died for our sins, so such acts are no longer necessary. In other words, you can't discredit Christianity based on such things when it has dealt with them itself.

But now I'm mumbling and nobody likes a mumbler.

I would call that more of a "clarification" than a "pseudo-disagreement."

Of course, I'm with Eric and drumlord on this one.

Ramza

In my personal opinion I am completely for gay marriage because I really don't have a reason to be against it. Also, most of the arguements that I have heard for anti-gay marriage are based on religious problems, and if you didn't notice, there's supposed to be a separation of church and state. Hmm, yeah, that's about it.

Ozone out.

When going through some of my uber old emails, I came upon an interesting page somewhat relevant to this discussion

http://whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

So much for freedom of religion huh?