Gay marriage legal in MD

[2ndAmendment]

I have read every post very carefully. I clicked on the link in your signature to do research. I actually respect what you have to say and think that it is nice to converse with someone who has possibly read the Bible as much as I have. I do not want an argument, I want to debate to defend people I believe in. It is what I think Jesus would do, and that is how I live my life. Feel free to ignore me, I stay quiet for no one.

If that is the case, then quit twisting my words.

 

[ajhkmr97]

I believe the Bible in its entirety.


~Except for the Old Testament which is a guidebook for the Jews and does not apply to you.

"Church" has become a business rather than doing the work of God even if it steps on toes.

Has become a business? Church has always been a business take tithe or the
Crusades..It has not been 2000 plus years of pure driven individuals marching their followers through the gate of Heaven..

I definitely have to agree with your point of church being about all business. I dont understand why a priest cannot have a regular career and then preach Gods word. I really dont understand the concept of gaining personal profit from preaching God's word. When Jesus approached the Simon and Peter - he said "leave your nets and follow me and I will make you fishers of men". I thought there were several instances of scripture where Christ said to take nothing with you when you go out in his name sake. I could be wrong.

The tithe is to be used to maintain the church – not the people. God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden to till the earth – they were not allowed to eat from the tree of knowledge. Here some questions:

Could the tree would be analogous of the church?
Should Christians go out and make something of themselves and only go back to the tree for understanding?
Could it be seen that before Adam and Eve ate the apple, it was God’s wisdom that sustained their lively hood?
If so, could that mean that once man decided to use his own wisdom to maintain his lively hood, God cut the strings to let the bird fly from the nest?
Now a sword was placed at the tree to keep man from stealing from it. Is there a sword protecting the values of the church?
Are church values deteriorating because man is relying more and more on his own wisdom over God’s?
Has enough time passed of man relying on only his own wisdom to survive that God has been forgotten by many?
Is this drift from God’s wisdom a possible explanation for the segregation of social values?


I do agree with 2A as for as the old testament being law for Jews. Overall, I view the entire bible as being a guide and nothing more. I am skeptical as to what "man" wanted men to worship versus what "Christ" wanted men to worship. I dont know just how skewed scripture has become over the years nor what influences each author put into thier books. All I do know that I believe in Christ, the son of God - the maker of all seen and unseen.

 

[Geek]

Then give me the words of Jesus that says gay people are wrong

 

[Bustem' Down]

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. Yes, a civil union has nothing to do with God....but the common understanding is that a "marriage" does. Civil unions are a new concept to society. It will take longer for society to accept them. Christians will not accept civil unions as being legit. For a non-Christian that may not be a big deal but a majority of society are Christian/religious. Non believers are going to have to understand that society is like a big church congregation in itself. The Church congregation votes on policy (doctrine) to determine what is or is not an ethical practice - I don’t see how that is much different from what we do everyday in Government. If (assuming) a majority of society is religious – can it be sort of seen that Americans are part of one big church (country) but each "church member" (citizen) just has different understandings on how to practice their faith (freedom). Even for an athiest - their faith is that there is no diety but themselves - they have faith in themselves.

Essentially it all may be equated as:
Marriage = God related
Civil Union = Not God Related

A marriage and a civil union are not the same thing but they (in a manner of speaking - sound the same). What is that word the describes a two words that sound the same but have different meanings......umm...cannot remember. But I hope my point is understood anyways..

Again – all this is about perception and who knows (but God himself) – my perception may be off. I am open to new understandings of things…..

Never the less. There is no good reason to prevent it other than you don't like it personally. People just need to get over that.

 

[SamSpade]

I was listening the other morning to a radio program, and one of the things they discussed was health programs - and how gay couples on at least some of them do not qualify as "family" - because they're not 'married'. Later that day, I was working on tax preparations for a local outfit, and I of course ran across the married tax filing status. And as DJ pointed out - why do we have a special status for being 'married'? (As per doing tax prep, I can think of maybe ONE legitimate purpose - it keeps people honest regarding dependents and children, because - especially THIS year - you gain no EIC advantage any more from raising your girlfriend's kids without benefit of being married).

And it occurs to me that the SANE path for gays to pursue is the right to have the same rights as those who gain them from marriage - without having to resort to marriage in the first place. I'm guessing that's fundamentally what gays want - the same rights and privileges, because, let's face it - it's never going to be completely accepted as an alternate lifestyle. Hasn't been for most of Western Civilization since at least Greek times, although sometimes it has been tolerated. And the Muslim world isn't going to embrace it any time soon, either.

That being the case - we have to somehow cut out all of the language pertaining to "marriage" in our legal system. I think people should be married in a church - period - just like they're baptized and confirmed in a church. Imagine if you had to have a BAPTISMAL certificate to get a driver's license, in PLACE of a birth certificate? Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Why should the state have ANYTHING to do with sanctioning baptisms? But they currently do, with marriages. And the situation with gays is, because by and large churches won't marry them, they have to go through the state - which should NEVER be doing this.

Which is why I favor civil unions, or whatever you wish to call it. If you're going to grant privileges to people who have signed a legal contract with one another, it has to be available to anyone (with sensible exceptions - you can't have people marrying dogs or stuffed animals - or dolphins).

 

[SAHRAB]

Never the less. There is no good reason to prevent it other than you don't like it personally. People just need to get over that.

The sad thing, it doesnt matter what Jesus, Jehovah, Mary, Allah, Buddah or David Koresh said about Same Sex Marriage.

this is a Legal Argument and the only argument those against it have is a religious one. the Vocal ones in this country are using the Religious Arguments of their own Faith, found in a Story book written years ago, to argue against it. what about a religion (lets say i follow the Greek religions) that doesnt forbid it?

We have a Freedom of Religion in this country, that doesnt mean Religion is the rule of law.

We are a nation of Laws, as such any arguments for or against must be based on that.

Otherwise, according to the 'Thumpers we couldnt even have a Freedom of Speech disccusion about whether there is a god or whether Religion has any right to be included in any Legal Discussion

 

[ajhkmr97]

Again though, the government doesn't care if it is a religious thing or not. Or atleast they should not, so in their eyes it's all the same. I call it a tomato (ta-may-toe), you call it a tomato (ta-mau-toe). In the end it is still the same damn thing.

Thats the problem - not everyone sees "marriage" and "civil union" as the same thing. That is why there is such an argument on this. Answer me this if you will. If the government put down in writing that a couple can either get a "civil union" certificate or a "marriage" certificate in order to benefit from tax benefits - would that be fine with you? You can take government out of religion all you want but as long as this country has a religious society (in general) - then it is going to be VERY difficult to take religion out of government. ESPECIALLY seeing that this country was founded on religious principals and values.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I do not want an argument, I want to debate to defend people I believe in. It is what I think Jesus would do, and that is how I live my life.

Matthew 7:21-22

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

I am sure Jesus would not be defending any sin. He would certainly forgive any sinner and would tell them to "go and sin no more. (John 8:11)". I believe in forgiveness is open to all.

John 3:16

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

That includes those that engage in homosexual behavior, but the key is repentance and following God's plan and going and sinning no more. Because we believe, we want to do what God requires of us, to be holy as He is holy.

God accepts each of us where we are in life, but He demands that we follow His way. If we truly repent, we will want to conform to His way. We may still sin but it will grieve us and we will confess to our Father and seek His forgiveness. He will be true and faithful to forgive us.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Then give me the words of Jesus that says gay people are wrong

The scripture from the Bible has already been posted. Thought you were reading?

 

[ajhkmr97]

Sodomy And The Bible

[This was copied from: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/]

Whenever amateur Bible thumpers seek to prove that homosexuality is wrong, they trot out the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18, 19), recounting how God destroyed the entire city because it was filled with sodomites. And sodomites, as we all know are men who have sex with other men (i.e. homosexuals) -- ergo, we can tell that God hates fags because he wiped out the city of Sodom and Gomorrah for being filled with fags!

What this kind of deduction really proves is the veracity of the saying "garbage in, garbage out," meaning that a shortage of the facts, added to prejudiced assumptions, inevitably leads to bogus conclusions. Sadly, such bogus conclusions can have dire effects on our society. Specifically, ignorant and prejudiced conclusions about the Bible's "position" on homosexuality have led to generations of unnecessary guilt, suicide, sexual repression, violence against homosexuals, and legal persecution.

While a significant number of Americans have little or no interest in the Bible's position on homosexuality (turning elsewhere for their moral standard), the fact yet remains that all of us are affected to some degree by spurious biblical interpretations of the past and present. American culture is deeply saturated by "Christian" moral codes, and our laws regarding sexual conduct were originally based on them, having been modeled on English law, which was in turn derived from the do's and don'ts of the Church. Current attempts to challenge these laws and their penalties (in some cases up to 20 years in prison for acts of consensual sex) are still being countered by morally outraged individuals who invoke the Bible's alleged standards for sexual conduct.

So what then does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Let's briefly examine those parts of the Bible most commonly presented as "evidence" against homosexuality: the story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis, the book of Leviticus, and words of St. Paul as recorded in the book of Titus.

============================
There is too much to paste here and I dont want to be disrespectful by over posting on content. Goto http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/ to read what the article has to say. Then comment on what you think

 

[2ndAmendment]

Remember this.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

That includes those scriptures saying that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God and the like.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Notice that is does not say those that formerly did homosexual acts. Matter of fact it specifically says that some believers were formally involved in this kind of sin and are forgiven, but they gave up their practice of the sin.

 

[2ndAmendment]

[This was copied from: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/]http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/bible/ to read what the article has to say. Then comment on what you think

This is not an unbiased site by any means. The term thumpers is a clue. Did you look at the first page of the site? "PURE EVIL SINCE 1996" gives the intent of the site.

Typical non believer trying to justify sin in their life.

 

[Geek]

I do not think a religion that encourages us to enter the most narrow gate and sit on a loafty perch and watch as our loved ones and children who may not have repented burn in eternal hell is worth the paper it is written on. I will not go to that "heaven" even if I am invited. What kind of afterlife would that be? Who in their right mind would want to go there, and roast their righteous marshmellows on the screams of good people that lived well? I think it is a horrible deformed version of the message Christ gave us on earth. I believe in Him, and His words..
My prayer is that anyone that reads this thread and loves someone that is gay finds peace and happiness in knowing that they are loved by God. If you are living a good life and have love, honor, and courage, the reward is positive energy. Get married, live, love and grow...

 

[ajhkmr97]

This is not an unbiased site by any means. The term thumpers is a clue. Did you look at the first page of the site? "PURE EVIL SINCE 1996" gives the intent of the site.

Typical non believer trying to justify sin in their life.

2A - I know...I know.... and agree......but I do think that it is important to be open minded about what the article says. There are some good points made. No, I dont agree with everything but would it be narrow minded of me to dismiss what was being said simply because I disagreed? The author definately has sarcasm but dont let that distract you from what he is saying. I just took everything with a grain of salt and thats it.

 

[Geek]

2A - I know...I know.... and agree......but I do think that it is important to be open minded about what the article says. There are some good points made. No, I dont agree with everything but would it be narrow minded of me to dismiss what was being said simply because I disagreed? The author definately has sarcasm but dont let that distract you from what he is saying. I just took everything with a grain of salt and thats it.

I think you are right about keeping an open mind. I think it is hard to use a document that has possible errors in translation and so many different versions as a swift guillotine. It is best used as a reference to be interpreted to be relevent with the current society. I think you are on the right track...

 

[Toxick]

I think you are right about keeping an open mind.

Glad you feel that way.

I think it is hard to use a document that has possible errors in translation and so many different versions as a swift guillotine.

Something I posted a few years back...


The oldest manuscripts of ancient writers like Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus (among other) amounts to a small number of copies that were made a thousand years or more after the originals were written. There are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original. Scholars accept these documents as adequate reprentations of the originals.

Why not the bible?

The earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals. And we're not even talking about a handful of copies that can be compared with one another to determine accuracy or consistance. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic tranlations, 2,000 Ethiopian thranslations and about 1,000 other early translations.

Further, in the first centuries after Christ, thousands of letters, and other documents were written in which people quoted from other documents that would later be assembled into what was to become the New Testament.. These quotes are so extensive that even if there wasn't a single bible in existence, you could go back to those letters and documents and using only those written within 250 years after the death of Christ, you could find every word of the New Testament, with the exception of 11 verses.

There are small differences in all those manuscripts - however, all these differences, most are a matter of spelling or word order changes that were made as the styles changed over the ages. In fact a total of only about 200 words, or 1/10 of 1 percent of the entire new testament are subject to more than trivial differences. And no single doctrine of Christiantiy in all it's denominations througout history depend on a piece of disputed text.


As for the Old Testament, the discovey of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in over 2,000 years those who copied the Old testament were so meticulous that no significant changes were made to the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.




I can provide citations for all the above facts, if anyone's remotely interested. Might take a while for me to dig that stuff back up though...

 

[Geek]

Wow, that I did not know..I stand corrected..though the mention of homosexuality and the actual translation of the words can be debated.

 

[bcp]

OK, then don't have homosexual sex.

(I'll also note that gay or lesbian relationships are not about sex any more than straight relationships are - it's part of the whole, but the focus is on love, family and building a life together, just like any other relationship is.)

I think that you mistake my opinion on gay marriage as hate, this is not the case.

as far as you as a human goes, If we were somewhere in public and I knew you were gay and you were in a fight, I would be the one picking you up and dusting you off should that be neede,,, I would not be the one knocking you down.
If you were on hard times and there was something I could do for you, I would.

I do not hate you, I do not choose to avoid talking to you or shooting pool with you etc... you would be welcome in my home to visit.

I can not however condone a gay relationship, it is just not in me. I do not, or will I ever in my mind recognize any union between same sex couples as a marriage.

I would not freely give my opinion to you on the subject,, unless you asked, then I would be truthful in my thoughts. I hope you would expect the truth from me.

It goes back to what would Jesus do on these forum conversations on a regular basis.
I think that we can look to the bible and answer that question with ease.

Jesus would not allow you to be attacked or scorned by others, yet at the same time he would let you know that homosexuality is a sin, and he would ask that you not sin anymore.

now, thats the bible, if you dont follow the faith as reality, then there should be no problem with the biblical sense of the conversation, it basically falls down to the legal issue. I have posted many times that there are legal issues that can be addressed with a civil union. this gives everyone what they want.

as far as marriage being a government thing, its not.
Marriage was recognized long before governments began to regulate it for the purpose of tax revenue. Government is the one that stepped into a religious thing, not the other way around.

 

[vraiblonde]

they look at it as natures mistake and they are correcting it.

They just say that so they can pretend they don't have a mental illness. The vast majority of gays don't have those kinds of issues - they stay the gender they were born with and get along just fine.

If I decided it was nature's mistake that I was born a human, and wanted to surgically turn myself into a cat, wouldn't you think that was nutzoid?

They've been osticized all their life for acting like the other sex and having naturally born-given effeminate mannerisms

Most gay men have naturally born effeminate mannerisms and they don't cut off their winky to feel "normal".

After all they are the ones that cry about being not accepted by society... do something about it!

This is another excuse. My BIL has no problem being "accepted" - he has a highly successful career and zillions of friends. In fact, the only gay man I've ever known who #####ed incessantly about being "accepted" was a whiner freak who had serious psychological issues that had nothing to do with him being gay - in fact, I think the only reason he decided to be gay was to further his "outcast" image.

My former roommate and maid of honor went lesbo and, when we were teasing her about buying a weenie and growing a moustache to widen the dating arena, she said that she's not interested in straight women because she can't relate to them sexually. She said, "You, Dee Jay, are looking for a man. I'm not a man." I suspect most gays feel this way, which is why they don't go tranny.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Thats the problem - not everyone sees "marriage" and "civil union" as the same thing. That is why there is such an argument on this. Answer me this if you will. If the government put down in writing that a couple can either get a "civil union" certificate or a "marriage" certificate in order to benefit from tax benefits - would that be fine with you? You can take government out of religion all you want but as long as this country has a religious society (in general) - then it is going to be VERY difficult to take religion out of government. ESPECIALLY seeing that this country was founded on religious principals and values.

It would be perfectly fine with me. They want to be able to express themselves just as straight couples do. To have the same benifits and rights as straight couples do. They are not seeking to go to church. And I don't see this country being founded on religious pricipals so much as it was founded on freedom and freedom from tyranny and oppression. The religious aspects of it are just a by-product of the men who founded this country. If the founders were of Islam, then this country would have Islamic undertones. This country was not founded by people seeking religious freedom, that was only one very small group of colonists. It was founded as a country free from an oppresive King.