gay marriage

[Diesel_tke]

Sorekara, you mention the US Constitution. In it we have "The Separation of Church and State". In your post you have referred to government many times, may I suggest you study up on two things? The writing of the Constitution, and Ancient Roman History.

"Many" times? I think I only saw him mention the government directly twice. But whatever. He wasn't giving his standpoint from the government. He qualified his statement as giving a perspective from the Christian view point. And he also mentioned a couple times why he thought it was incorrect.

Do you have anything specific you disagree with, about his view of why christians are against gay marriage? Because he also qualified the fact that it wasn't his view. So are your suggestions that he review the constitution and Ancient Roman History so that he could also write a piece about what the Roman's would have thought about gay marriage?

[Permalost]

Sorekara, you mention the US Constitution. In it we have "The Separation of Church and State".

That phrase actually isn't in the constitution.

[atheistmantis]

To Diesel and Permalost, I was incorrect to say that The separation of church and state was in the constitution. However, in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Of 1802 he wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Again I was in error in my last post. My reference to ancient Roman history was meant to illuminate the existence of homosexuality before there was a name for the term.

[Cake of Doom]

My reference to ancient Roman history was meant to illuminate the existence of homosexuality before there was a name for the term.

Yes, it existed in ancient Rome. Ancient Greece before that. It was fine as long as you were the "sword" and not the "sheath" and you didn't openly flaunt it in public [this is for the Romans, the Greeks were a bit more liberal].

Elagabulus (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus after taking Imperial title) often referred to himself as his chariot drivers wife and queen and looked what happened to him.

[/Roman pedantry]

[Cake of Doom]

Can't edit my post so:-

EDIT: The point being that homosexuality has never been wholly tolerated; the ancient world was never the big gay homotopia that hippies like to make it out to be and gays still couldn't marry so you'll have to find something else to reference.

[theAsthmatic]

Again I was in error in my last post. My reference to ancient Roman history was meant to illuminate the existence of homosexuality before there was a name for the term.

I am a little curious as to where you get your historical information.

Homosexuality had a name, in fact various names, in both ancient Roman and ancient greek records.

This is an over simplification but for example:
Tribadism (from the Greek to rub), used to mean sex between women: appears in Greek and Latin writings from at least the first century.

Also, have you perhaps heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes? It was a unit said to have been formed of same sex couples. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was a morale booster more than anything else. This was not without controversy even at the time, but that's not really relevant.

Spartans were expected to have male lovers, but they were also expected to get married (to a woman) and have children. A single man past a certain age and without children was still the subject of ridicule and disdain. So it certainly wasn't a utopia for the inclination, but it was certainly around and had not only words for it, but entire philosophical discussions based around it. Plato's Symposium for example. I'd recommend you give it a read, it's pretty funny.

[atheistmantis]

Thank you for the information. I will research it. Very kind of you to offer the guidance.

[Permalost]

The point being that homosexuality has never been wholly tolerated; the ancient world was never the big gay homotopia that hippies like to make it out to be and gays still couldn't marry so you'll have to find something else to reference.

I'm assuming you mean "Western civilization" when you say "the ancient world"? Cause there were other parts of the world that were more accepting of homosexuals and transsexuals. In the Pacific, for example. Marriage is also not the same institution across cultures.

[DCS]

I am a little curious as to where you get your historical information.

Not from academic works like the ones of Dover or Boswell.

[Cake of Doom]

I'm assuming you mean "Western civilization" when you say "the ancient world"? Cause there were other parts of the world that were more accepting of homosexuals and transsexuals. In the Pacific, for example. Marriage is also not the same institution across cultures.

Cheers for pullling that up. Yes; I should have said Ancient western civilisation.

[BoonDog]

I believe in the Christian God.(I don't call myself a Christian, because, I would be hypocritical.) That said, I believe that there's many Christians that have a very skewed view of the Bible, and how we as believers should behave.

I am a bit confused. You state you are not a Christian, but you are a believer. By Definition a Christian is a follower of Christ. It was first used by the Greeks in Antioch to refer to those who were following Christ�s teaching. You claim you are not following Christ�s teachings, but are going to lecture on how Christians should be following these teachings. See the Book of Acts 11:26

A little research into a man named John Calvin, will bring some light to the subject. In very short, this man came up with a doctrine for biblical interpretation, government, and believer behavior. This is called the 5 points of Calvinism.

No, the five points of Calvinism are something different (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm)
Total depravity (Original Sin)
Unconditional election (God's Election)
Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)
Irresistible grace (Effectual Calling)
Perseverance of the Saints
He uses these five points to build other ideas of the role of the Church and the State. It is not until Chapter 20 of Institutes of the Christian Religion that Calvin defines his view of government.
But Calvin also noted the distinction between civil and religious jurisdictions, stating that �Christ�s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.� Institutes Ch 20.
http://wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Sit...Government.pdf
Of course Calvin believed the the life of the believer should affect the government and that the government should act in the same interests of God. However, he also realized that governments are established by humans and humans may make laws contrary to the ways of God.

Another point is what's called "The Great Commision." which is where Jesus told the Apostles, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature that will hear it."

This is not how the verses read. Please use the exact quotes. Here is the New American Standard Version of Matthew 28:19-20
�Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. �
The commission is to make disciples of all nations to follow Jesus. It is natural for believes to take this verse to apply even today as not all nations have been discipled.

Now, we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, we all know what happened there, and we all suppose why. Everyone assumes it's because of homosexuality, yet further research provides, that it was just an evil place, and the sexual part was merely a drop in the ocean.

Please cite where it was just a �drop in the ocean�. I can tell you exactly why it was destroyed. Genesis tells us why and how.

So, now, let's put this together from the average Joe Christian. Since all of this has been spread in various ways, and various interpretations of the Bible, (regardless of what the Bible actually says) We get the Gay Marriage debate.

Just like you are doing right now?

Christians believe that if they "allow" gay marriage, then God will be angry,,,,,At THEM, because they failed.

Source?


Here is a better explanation of why Christians may be against homosexual marriage. Marriage was a covenant set up by God in Genesis 2:24 between a man and a woman. �For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.�
In the New Testament there are verses that point out that practicing homosexuality is considered a sin. Maybe Christians feel that they cannot support laws that change their view of marriage since marriage is a religiously ordained act to them. Maybe Christians cannot support laws that call �good evil and evil good.� Isaiah 5:20 �Woe 1945 to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
These would be the Christians who read their Bible and take a literal interpretation of the verses in it.

[ChuckWepner]

A little research into a man named John Calvin, will bring some light to the subject. In very short, this man came up with a doctrine for biblical interpretation, government, and believer behavior. This is called the 5 points of Calvinism.

One of the points, (the most important imho) states, "The Church is responsible for dictating the morals of society." You can all imagine what this means. This was only one man's ideas, and it spread, and got accepted. So, now, we have many believers that hold to that one point. They don't even realize it. It's such a convincing argument if you read more into it.

Another point is what's called "The Great Commision." which is where Jesus told the Apostles, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature that will hear it." For some reason, most Christians feel this was a command given them. Okay, that's fine, if you have something you love, you want to share it. However, this was not given to all believers, only the apostles. Infact, the Bible says later, that not all should be teachers, and some were reprimanded for trying to teach and screwing things up.

I'm not sure what your source is on this, but you are way off the mark historically. The "five points" of Calvinism (also known as the "TULIP points" as a way to remember them) include nothing about the church dictating morals for society. They all have to do with the Calvinist doctrine of human sinfulness, God's grace, and salvation. They were also not formulated by Calvin himself, but by a Synod (a protestant church council) after Calvin's death. Some Calvin scholars argue that the Synod distorted Calvin's views.

(One should also keep in mind that Calvinism is not a majority view among Christians. Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and Lutherans all reject Calvinism; there is also a major divergence of opinion within Reformed and Evangelical Protestant circles over many of Calvinism's central tenets.)

The Great Commission doesn't have anything to do with Calvinism's points either (it wasn't clear whether you meant that by "another point"). In addition, preaching and teaching are clearly two separate roles in the New Testament, so your discussion here is rather confused.

Many of your claims about Christianity are highly debatable. I won't go through them point by point. Perhaps you should refer to Christian sources if you want to offer an account of why some Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage.

On the main point, here's a historian's summary of the Five Points:
http://www.historytools.org/sources/...-calvinism.pdf

The Five Points are

Total Depravity of Humanity
Unconditional Divine Election and Reprobation
Limited Atonement by Christ
Irresistable Grace
Perserverance of the Saints

[Permalost]

Now, we get to Sodom and Gomorrah, we all know what happened there, and we all suppose why. Everyone assumes it's because of homosexuality, yet further research provides, that it was just an evil place, and the sexual part was merely a drop in the ocean.

I think the Bible was pretty clear that it was condemning homosexuality, because of this little double standard in the story:

Lot and 2 angels are kicking it on the outskirts of Sodom, when some Sodomites come to see him. The Sodomites are like "hey big boy, where are those other dudes you were with? We wanna fuck em.". Lot tells them they can't have sex with those dudes, but can fuck his 2 virgin daughters instead (Lot, of course, being the voice of morality). Apparently having weird strangers fuck your virgin daughters is fine, but nothing gay!

The Sodomites say that's unacceptable and we'll fuck you instead, but Lot is saved by a deus ex machina and the Sodomites are blinded.

[Pete838]

That phrase actually isn't in the constitution.

If I recall, it was first said in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, then it appeared again in a Supreme Court majority opinion (Everson v. Board of Education) written by Justice Hugo Black.

[Sorekara]

I am a bit confused. You state you are not a Christian, but you are a believer. By Definition a Christian is a follower of Christ. It was first used by the Greeks in Antioch to refer to those who were following Christ�s teaching. You claim you are not following Christ�s teachings, but are going to lecture on how Christians should be following these teachings. See the Book of Acts 11:26

I understand your confusion. I don't feel I live my life exactly as a follower of Christ should at the time. So, I think it would be hypocritical to call myself a Christian. I never said I wasn't a follower. I never lectured on how anyone should follow anything. I stated what I believed, and what I understand, and what I have studied.

The Acts 11:26 is another whole other subject and has not much to do with this discussion. Maybe you meant something else.

No, the five points of Calvinism are something different (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm)
Total depravity (Original Sin)
Unconditional election (God's Election)
Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)
Irresistible grace (Effectual Calling)
Perseverance of the Saints
He uses these five points to build other ideas of the role of the Church and the State. It is not until Chapter 20 of Institutes of the Christian Religion that Calvin defines his view of government.
But Calvin also noted the distinction between civil and religious jurisdictions, stating that �Christ�s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.� Institutes Ch 20.
http://wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Sit...Government.pdf
Of course Calvin believed the the life of the believer should affect the government and that the government should act in the same interests of God. However, he also realized that governments are established by humans and humans may make laws contrary to the ways of God.

You're right. I was mistaken. I thought it was part of the 5 points.

This is not how the verses read. Please use the exact quotes. Here is the New American Standard Version of Matthew 28:19-20
�Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. �
The commission is to make disciples of all nations to follow Jesus. It is natural for believes to take this verse to apply even today as not all nations have been discipled.

I didn't post Bible quotes, because I wanted to keep my long post short. But, You're correct. However, if you look at (AKJ) Mark 16:16-20 You'll see, "Go forth and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them, etc, etc," . If you look later in James 3:1 "Not many of you should be teachers." Still, if you take Acts, and the Great Commission from Matthew and Mark, no body except the apostles were given the command to preach the gospel. However, you could take the part about, teaching them to obey all the commands I gave you, and say we're all supposed to preach the gospel. I don't see it that way. Especially reading the rest of the NT. It seems precept upon precept applies here. However, I believe I'm correct, but, am open to the fact that I may not be correct. As it stands, this is how I see it. If further study proves me wrong, then I'll retract.

Please cite where it was just a �drop in the ocean�. I can tell you exactly why it was destroyed. Genesis tells us why and how.

Just like you are doing right now?


Source?

Ezekial16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..."

So, it's not only homosexuality. If you look into the history of things done in Sodom, you'll find what they did.

Here is a better explanation of why Christians may be against homosexual marriage. Marriage was a covenant set up by God in Genesis 2:24 between a man and a woman. �For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.�
In the New Testament there are verses that point out that practicing homosexuality is considered a sin. Maybe Christians feel that they cannot support laws that change their view of marriage since marriage is a religiously ordained act to them. Maybe Christians cannot support laws that call �good evil and evil good.� Isaiah 5:20 �Woe 1945 to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
These would be the Christians who read their Bible and take a literal interpretation of the verses in it.

I never argued that Christians believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Few Christians are calling homosexuality good. I understand why they don't want gay marriage. What I don't understand is why the need to keep it illegal. Gay people will be gay regardless. The US Constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness and guarantees the freedom of religion. If churches were forced to perform gay marriages, I would be fully against it. Even though, I wish everyone believed in Jesus, and were Christians, I also understand that, they're not. No law will change that. A law requiring people to follow a religious belief doesn't lead to good. History proves this. My point is, if gay marriage is allowed in our country, it doesn't make Christians a failure, and it doesn't mean Christians support it. As believers, we should understand that this world does not belong to us, as the Bible says, "We are not of this world.". You seem to have some frustrations in your replay. Sorry, I wasn't meaning to bash Christians, or Christianity.