God bless the USA

[theGenius]

well if it makes people happy i guess this is a good thing, yet as a student of politics i cant help myslef, and i just have to put a few remarks in this thread that i think are not consideret enough in this debate.
it seems to me that the homodebate always is between liberal people and religios people, but never does anyone take a step back to properly evaluate the logic benhind it.
i am not familiar with the specifics of this law in the U.S. yet i can share some thaught on another contry were such a law is in action, sweden as an example:

so lets take a look:
swedish constitution says seperation of church and state
swedish constitution say you have religious freedom
and im sure there is a part where they say that no religion should be discrimminated against or priviledged in front of the law.
ok, all good and well. now you pass a law wich forces churches to marry gay couples. yet mosques are not forced to do so, at the same time mosques arent allowed to marry 1 men with several women, polygamy is illigal.
so how in the world do you want to preserve some basic structur and logic and equality and seperation between church and state while passing a law like this? it contradics itself several times over and in no way grants equality, especially not between different faithcommunities.
also, another flaw that many dont notice when debating this and demanding equal rights: you HAVE equal rights, any homosexual person is fully within his right to marry like any other person. a homosexual man can marry a woman any day of the week, its just not the right you want to have, there is a difference. laws dont have to bent to your sexual preferences in order to provide equality, go to a church with your 3 big-boobed fuckbuddies, demand to get married and you will find yourself equally dismissed. its simply a ritual the church doesnt practise.

other then that i dont understand why gays so badly wants the reconition of a club (yes thats how i see religious institustions, like a club) that obviously doesnt like them. thats like me trying to join a vegan club. or a black dude trying to join the kukluxklan.

with all that said, as a non-believer this would be my solution: separate church and state. the state should marry (civil union or whatever u wanna call it) all concenting adults, men with men, men with multiple women etc. whatever floats your boat. so you grant equality for all no matter your sexual preferences.

while religious institutions should be allowed to include or exclude whomever they want in their rituals. and that way grant a seperation between church and state aswell as religious freedom.

at the end i´d like to say that i really dont have problem with that law in particular, i know that homosexuals not always had it easy in the past and if this makes things better for them im all for it. to me its just a principal. all over politics, no matter what subject there is this inconsistency, the double-standards. why cant we for once be consistant, no exceptions, treat all equally, apply the laws we make universally and i believe the world would be a better place.

 

[HIBred]

i don't think the law states anything about churches being forced to marry people, merely states that it is against federal law to ban gay marriage..I think churches still have the right to refuse anyone ,they are private clubs as you say.The law does not hurt anyone of said religions,it only gives ppl of the gay community the right to marry like anyone else,in the eyes of the law not the eyes of god or garfield the cat or Marvin the Wonder Potatao. In the realest sense it does no harm whatsoever to churches or church people..being that the gay community is not allowed into those said churches anyway. That is their right as well.

 

[jasmine]

[QUOTE ="theGenius, post: 187991, member: 398"] bien si elle rend les gens heureux Je suppose que cela est une bonne chose, mais comme un étudiant de la politique i cant myslef aider, et je viens de mettre quelques remarques dans ce fil que je pense ne sont pas consideret assez dans ce débat.
il me semble que le homodebate est toujours entre les gens et les gens religiøs libérales, mais jamais personne ne prend un peu de recul pour évaluer correctement la logique benhind il.
je ne suis pas familier avec les spécificités de cette loi aux États-Unis mais je ne peux partager certaines thaught sur un autre contry étaient d'une telle loi est en action, la Suède comme un exemple:

permet donc jeter un oeil:
Constitution suédoise dit séparation de l'église et de l'Etat
Constitution suédoise dire que vous avez la liberté religieuse
et je suis sûr qu'il ya une partie où ils disent qu'aucune religion ne devrait être discrimminated contre ou privilégié en face de la loi.
ok, tout bon et bien. maintenant vous passez un droit forces de wich églises de marier des couples homosexuels. encore mosquées ne sont pas obligés de le faire, dans les mêmes mosquées de temps arent autorisés à se marier 1 hommes avec plusieurs femmes, la polygamie est illigal.
Alors, comment dans le monde voulez-vous préserver une certaine structur de base et de la logique et de l'égalité et de séparation entre l'Église et l'État en passant une loi comme ça? elle se contradics à plusieurs reprises et en aucune façon l'égalité subventions, surtout pas entre les différents faithcommunities.
également, un autre défaut que beaucoup Dont remarqué lors du débat ce et exigeant l'égalité des droits: vous ont des droits égaux, toute personne homosexuelle est pleinement dans son droit de se marier comme toute autre personne. un homosexuel peut épouser une femme tous les jours de la semaine, son tout simplement pas le droit que vous voulez avoir, il ya une différence. les lois ne devez pas plié à vos préférences sexuelles afin d'assurer l'égalité, aller dans une église avec vos 3 fuckbuddies gros seins, demande de se marier et vous vous trouverez également rejeté. son tout simplement un rituel la pratique de doesnt de l'église.

autres alors que je ne comprends pas pourquoi les gais veut tellement l'reconition d'un club (oui thats comment je vois institustions religieuses, comme un club) qui ne marche pas de toute évidence comme eux. des thats comme moi d'essayer de rejoindre un club de végétalien. ou un mec noir en essayant de rejoindre l'kukluxklan.

avec tout ce que dit, en tant que non-croyant que ce serait ma solution: l'église et l'état séparés. l'Etat doit se marier (union civile ou quoi que U Wanna appeler) tous les adultes concenting, les hommes avec les hommes, les hommes avec plusieurs femmes, etc. Quelle que soit Flotteurs de votre bateau. de sorte que vous accordez à l'égalité pour tous, peu importe vos préférences sexuelles.

tandis que les institutions religieuses devraient être autorisés à inclure ou exclure qui ils veulent dans leurs rituels. et de cette façon accorder une séparation entre Eglise et Etat aswell comme la liberté religieuse.

à la fin Id aiment à dire que je ne pas vraiment de problème avec cette loi en particulier, je sais que les homosexuels avaient pas toujours facile dans le passé et si cela rend les choses mieux pour eux im tout à fait pour. pour moi est juste un principal. partout dans la politique, peu importe quel sujet il ya cette incohérence, les doubles normes. pourquoi la pente nous pour une fois être cohérente, sans aucune exception, traitons tous également, appliquer les lois que nous adoptons universellement et je crois que le monde serait un meilleur endroit. [/QUOTE]
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-985863.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=
religion is made to serve the men and not the other there are also many churches practicing gay marriage. But I still agree with you when you speak of "private club" people are free to go where he wants to be accepted or rejected. But I thought the monotheistic religions were based on love of neighbor so why so much hatred. If it is a question of interpretation of the Scriptures; we find ourselves in the same register as the terrorists who also have a literal interpretation and dangerous

 

[stevo]

As a Christian, I am willing to love those that do not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

That's some Christian love is you ask me... Pretty sure these guys are loving their neighbours, we just don't support the cause that's all. Doesn't mean we hate you all.

 

[WaLLy]

 

[517Houston]

 

[SuP'Ryze]

I am not gay but i think thats the best way, also just humans, so why shouldnt they be allowed to marry?
Moreover i cant understand the guys saying "bah" and "uh" or something like "it shouldnt be allowed".

Just my own opinion.

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

To the people saying, homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so: The bible also says, that you can sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus), that people who work on sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus), that you shall be stoned if you plant different crops side by side. I think Deuteronomy says, that you´re not allowed to eat pork meat. No one really cares about all that stuff. But when it comes to homosexuality, people say: But the bible says...!

Mkay. Just want to get this out of the way real quick. Disclaimer: I agree with what the Moment has said thus far, and believe he has done so respectfully and graciously. Cheers to you.

Jana, in response to your argument, some people will say, "OH, that's from the old testament, so that doesn't count anymore, that God was a different kind of God," or, "I couldn't believe in a God like that." I'm not that person.

In the Reformed Christian faith, we believe that the Old Testament and New Testament are under the same covenant of Grace but two different dispensations. St. Augustine said, The New (testament) is in the Old concealed, the Old (testament) is in the New revealed. God hasn't changed his mind concerning his laws, he simply gave those laws as a sort of sign. And what does a sign do? It points to something else, of course. For instance, the sacrifice of animals (of which there was a great deal of in the OT), pointed to the eventual sacrifice of Jesus Christ, one who would take upon himself the wrath of God for all the elect. The killing of a goat wouldn't actually cleanse people, it just pointed to a future savior. Those who believed in the future savior were "Christians" because they followed the Christ who was yet to come.

Now we don't still kill animals in our churches. Why? BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO. We already have a savior, one that really works. In the same way, eating pork was given to the nation of Israel as a sort of test. God didn't hate the pig. 1 Tim. 4:4 says, "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude." When the gospel went global after the death of Christ, the old laws pertaining to Israel only fell away. The moral law remained, (ten commandments), but sacrificial laws and others never applied to the rest of the world.

Rom. 7:6 "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."

Hope this helped.

 

[Take]

If I knew this thread would cause so many drama, I'd still make it public.

However, my intentions were not to cause this and I'm glad it did't drag me in. I'm so sorry

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

However, my intentions were not to cause this and I'm glad it did't drag me in. I'm so sorry

Don't apologize! I don't think there's anything wrong with some polite argumentation. People are bound to disagree on a host of topics, and the longer people go without talking about disagreements, the worse it gets.

 

[Ethan]

It will be interesting, as more gay couples get married, to observe the divorce rates and other statistics dealing with family structure and the success of children.

Also,

Impossible to correctly interpret the Bible until your heart is in the right place. It is a living, breathing book.

Gays can get married now? Great. But it's a little disheartening when I get accused of being a bigot when people see that I am not changing my profile pictures to rainbows. The real problem exists in the failure of some Christians to see God's agenda, combined with the hypocrisy of some non-Christians.

If this decision truly means that love wins, I have yet to see any love from either side. And I honestly expect it to get worse unless more people turn to Jesus or become more tolerant towards Christianity itself.

 

[miniCyb3r]

It will be interesting, as more gay couples get married, to observe the divorce rates and other statistics dealing with family structure and the success of children.

Also,

Impossible to correctly interpret the Bible until your heart is in the right place. It is a living, breathing book.

Gays can get married now? Great. But it's a little disheartening when I get accused of being a bigot when people see that I am not changing my profile pictures to rainbows. The real problem exists in the failure of some Christians to see God's agenda, combined with the hypocrisy of some non-Christians.

If this decision truly means that love wins, I have yet to see any love from either side. And I honestly expect it to get worse unless more people turn to Jesus or become more tolerant towards Christianity itself.

People still read KJV? I didn't think people still read in ye olden English. As a Christian, I take pride in the fact that God had the rainbow first. People scream for equality, but will get offended by people who follow God's Word. They get offended by a book they don't even believe in. They get offended by us Christians, but it's wrong for us to speak out and disagree with them. Double standards.

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

People still read KJV? I didn't think people still read in ye olden English. As a Christian, I take pride in the fact that God had the rainbow first. People scream for equality, but will get offended by people who follow God's Word. They get offended by a book they don't even believe in. They get offended by us Christians, but it's wrong for us to speak out and disagree with them. Double standards.

Yes, I occasionally read it, and some of my teachers use the KJV very often. One of the great things about it is that you really have to pay attention in order to get it. You can't just skim through.

 

[miniCyb3r]

Yes, I occasionally read it, and some of my teachers use the KJV very often. One of the great things about it is that you really have to pay attention in order to get it. You can't just skim through.

Cool, cool. I use the NASB. I found that it's better and quite easier to understand.

 

[NickHouston]

As a former Christian I feel that I can see what neither current Christians, nor life-long non-Chrisitians can.

The bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish those who partake in such behavior. That is all well and good. That's what the book says.

What Christians seem to overlook is the part of the bible where god tells you NOT to judge. That only he can judge the sins of people. And if a man judges another man, they are committing sin.

The bible also teaches that all men (presumably including women) are equal and shall be treated equally. So in oppressing the LGBT community, you are not giving them equality and therefore are committing an act of sin.

The bible also states God created man and that his creation was a perfect one in his own image. If God created people to be gay, and they are created in his image, then could that mean that God is capable of loving people whether they are gay, straight, lesbian, transgender, etc.? I believe it even states in the bible that God loves all of his creation, so he DOES love the LGBT community.

I don't understand how basic logic is not present in many religious folks. You preach about this loving, all knowing creator and yet you say that some of the people he created are better or worse than others? You try to take basic human rights away from your God's creation simply because you interpret the book wrong?

I say if we take the right to marry away from the LGBT community then we should also kill any woman who has sex before she is married as she is considered a harlot and shall be put to death by stoning(according to the book). And then what about those evil people who eat shrimp and crab? We should take their rights away because the bible forbids us from eating shellfish!

Now that that's out of the way I'll repeat again:

America is NOT a Christian nation. We have no religion established. We will never have a religion established. That's just a simple fact. Just like it's not a nation for only white people. We allow people of all races, religions, ethnicity, sexual orientations, genders, etc. and shall not treat one better than the rest.

We have something called freedom of religion, which can also be a freedom FROM religion. Meaning you can not dictate what anyone does based on your own religion. You can disagree, you can protest, you can complain about it on a gaming clan forum. But you can NOT take my or anyone else's rights away because your holy book disagrees with it.

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

As a former Christian I feel that I can see what neither current Christians, nor life-long non-Chrisitians can.

The bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish those who partake in such behavior. That is all well and good. That's what the book says.

What Christians seem to overlook is the part of the bible where god tells you NOT to judge. That only he can judge the sins of people. And if a man judges another man, they are committing sin.

The bible also teaches that all men (presumably including women) are equal and shall be treated equally. So in oppressing the LGBT community, you are not giving them equality and therefore are committing an act of sin.

The bible also states God created man and that his creation was a perfect one in his own image. If God created people to be gay, and they are created in his image, then could that mean that God is capable of loving people whether they are gay, straight, lesbian, transgender, etc.? I believe it even states in the bible that God loves all of his creation, so he DOES love the LGBT community.

I don't understand how basic logic is not present in many religious folks. You preach about this loving, all knowing creator and yet you say that some of the people he created are better or worse than others? You try to take basic human rights away from your God's creation simply because you interpret the book wrong?

I say if we take the right to marry away from the LGBT community then we should also kill any woman who has sex before she is married as she is considered a harlot and shall be put to death by stoning(according to the book). And then what about those evil people who eat shrimp and crab? We should take their rights away because the bible forbids us from eating shellfish!

Now that that's out of the way I'll repeat again:

America is NOT a Christian nation. We have no religion established. We will never have a religion established. That's just a simple fact. Just like it's not a nation for only white people. We allow people of all races, religions, ethnicity, sexual orientations, genders, etc. and shall not treat one better than the rest.

We have something called freedom of religion, which can also be a freedom FROM religion. Meaning you can not dictate what anyone does based on your own religion. You can disagree, you can protest, you can complain about it on a gaming clan forum. But you can NOT take my or anyone else's rights away because your holy book disagrees with it.

When people use the "judge not" argument, I just have to face palm. Everything has a context. If no one judged, there wouldn't be any order on earth. God has given the right to help correct others. Just read proverbs. Those who listen to advice become wise.
Matthew says, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."
in 2 Timothy we read,
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

So there, the Bible doesn't just say JUDGE NOT and let evil run rampant.



And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

 

[MikeK]

Why is everyone interpreting the bible here? Aint no one forces Christians and christian churches to have same-sex marriages. Equally, no person of any religion may deny rights of other people in the XXI century. Why? Because the state is separate from church and because otherwise we would've been back to the middle ages with all the religious wars and discrimination.

The absolute majority of countries are now multi-national and multi-religios. Speaking especially the US, a country of freedom (at least that's what most americans think of the US as far as I understand) founded by immigrants who were forced to run from their homeland because of religios discrimination, how can a US citizen now deny the rights of other people based on their religion? Since when is christianity the main religion? Why should we not ban alcohol or pork since muslims do so? Or why should we not ban all other religions becase the other religion says that it's the only one? Because we don't live in goddamn Iran, I suppose.

Everyone has EQUAL rights, from which they shall be able to choose what they want, freely.

This common sense also dictates that someone that wants to marry their sister or cousin would be entitled to the same rights. For all we know, people will eventually want to marry cousins, siblings, or even animals and be demanding equal rights.

Common sense does not dictate so. You might have heard that inbreeding causes huge genetic disorders because dangeroud allogenes get their chance to cause the illnesses which otherwise dont get to show up (hope you dont deny the fact that genes exist?)

Incest is illegal, Sodomy is illegal. Homosexuality isn´t. Do you really compare Sodomy to Homosexuality now?

Btw: Homosexuality still can get you killed in many countries.

That's not the argument. The first two are not illegal everywhere while homosexuality is illegal in quite a few countries.
Law is, thankfully, not a religious book - people are there to change it as the majority pleases, due respect given to the natural rights of minorities (at least if you believe in democracy to some little extent).
Having understood this, you merely need to look at the policy after all these decisions on sexual relations.

-Why is inest illegal? It's dangerous.
-Why is sodomy illegal? Frankly, I don't know if there is any risk of some animal, lets say a primate monkey, having a child after sodomy. If the risk exists, the reason behind the banning policy is clear. If it doesn't, well, it's more of a morale question which may then be subject to change along the majority opinion. Maybe another argument against sodomy could be that animals can't consent to that sort of behaviour and therefore one would be torturing animals. Idk.
-Why are same-sex marriages illegal or not allowed in certain countries? Well, because public opinion changes slowly. There may be NO reason to ban whatever actions when two (or more, lol) adults understand and agree to do what they want as long as they don't disturbe the rights of others.

Btw, what do you mean by saying "illegal"? Not recognized and allowed by law or banned under a threat of criminal penalty? These are two different things. For example in Singapore (which is quite a nice place to live otherwise) there's a possibility of being criminally charged for lgbt sex...

And I would go even further if two siblings want marries and if they are adults I totally agree.

I fully agree with everything else you've said up there except for this sentence. Once you have sex between siblings or other relatives (at least as long as they are able to give birth to a child) that child will be put under huge risk of genetic disorders. That's where actions of two people are no longer their own private actions, these actions are dangerous for their children and the population => they may never be allowed (at least as far as no way to fix the possible disorders is found by the medicine).

Care to explain how it is "utter fucking nonsense"? So I should have the freedom to go kill anyone I want? Or steal anything I want? Elaborate more on what you are trying to say because it doesn't make any sense thus far.

If one kills you, one deprives you of your natural right to live and be healthy. If one steals your wallet, one deprives you of your right to posses property. If one has sex with his or her lgbt lover, NOT A SINGLE RIGHT is violated. Please, don't tell me now that you dislike people having LGBT sex and that's the right which is violated because there's no such right. I may dislike a dozen types of thinking and behaving but I cannot try to get those banned because those people equally will not like the way I think or behave. Doing something others don't like (as long as there's not violating of a human right or freedom) may not be banned.

 

[Jana]

Tbh, I have to facepalm when people come up with that "homosexuality is bad and a sin in the bible" argument. All of us are sinners. We sin everyday. I don´t know any Christian, who lives exactly after that what the bible teaches. So why are some of these people (I don´t say all, cause that is of course not the case) judging homosexuals? Can´t they just let them live in peace? In the end, it should be about love. I always thought that god loves all of his creations equally, at least that´s what I was tought in school. It´s not a "fault" to love someone. I loved my ex-girlfriend. It was a relationship like every other heterosexual relationship. And I would love to have something like that again someday. And then, maybe I want to marry. Why can´t some people accept that? I´m not even talking about marriage in church.

Also, I want to say that I was personally offended, when Moment compared homosexuality with sodomy. Yes, both are a sin in the bible. But it´s not the same in real life! We live in the 21st century. Can´t we just all accept and especially respect each other? I´m not asking you or someone else to support gay marriage. All I´m asking for is respect. Respect, that I love a person that happens to have the same gender as I do. I can´t change what I am and who I love. Homosexuality isn´t a choice, it´s a part of me. And I don´t hurt anyone with it.

I respect your believes. And I don´t want to force my opinion on anyone. But I have made some bad experiences with people believing in god and the bible. My friends have as well.

I know that my post may seem a bit chaotic but I just wanted to say what was on my mind.

 

[animal66]

All i'm saying is that if Jana want's to get married, i want to be her bridesmaid

 

[Jana]

I´ll make you wear a pink dress
I bet you´d look gorgious in it!