Of course neither divorce, nor the marriage of homosexuals is allowed in your religion. I understand that completely. But a large portion of Americans who dispute gay marriage most likely aren't catholic, or practicing any religion faithfully of any kind. In a country that is washed with divorce perpetually through the television, the entertainment news, and even your neighbour, it seems, realistically, that divorce has become tolerated (50% divorce rate in the US if I'm correct off the top of my head), but it is still implied that gay marriage is unholy. Well, of course it doesn't follow the examples set out by the bible, but neither does the aforementioned divorce rate, the corruption in government and media, and Auntie Sally's personal interpretation of her income tax return as she pockets thousands of dollars in cash. I think its created a double standard for some; annihilating the possiblitiy of gay marriage is fulfilling their beliefs to god, while stealing, lying, cheating, divorce, mis-direction, and dozens of other shady personality traits are accepted. Of course I am by no way insinuating that you are among these people, but I find it odd that when a country is so consumed with being 'the land of the free', it sure seems to me that there is too much un-due influence from Georgy Dubya Bush and his religious practice over the rest of the country. Relgion and Politics don't mix well, they never will, especially in the US. Personally, and I speak from my understanding, I believe Canada offers a more proper perspective on how religion fits into the populations day-to-day life. Certain bills have passed in many states banning the discussion of the theory of evolution. Something like that does not make any sense to me... how can you ban scientific proof but continue to promote religious beliefs that can not be authenticated, and even if they could, how could you determine which religion to endorse. Freedom of Religion is one of the constitutional rights in Canada, I would imagine its similar in the US, but some of these bills, a lot of these republicans, and half a country of the US's citizens forget to acknowledge that. As religion and politics are often fused together, but remain seperate entities, whose rights are trampled on if the 'state' declares two gay citizens of the 'state' legally married. It won't affect any practicing catholics, in their eyes gays are already condemned. How can a 'state' or a country dictate what is the 'proper' religion to follow when diffusing the beliefs of so many different people into one law? Marriage is seen as a legal position to some, and a religious declaration to others. As for what I believe will happen to me when I die, well, I don't know what to believe, and no matter what anyone can suggest is the outcome, and can't be proven. If there is a heaven; a holy place of resting after life on Earth, I truly believe I will be accepted. I've lived an honest life filled with empathy and understanding for others, I've never committed a crime (except of course those speeding tickets)... and even though I get drunk, don't attend church and feel gay people should have the same 'legal' right (that is, not religious, but being recognized equally by the state)... I think I should get into heaven if the opportunity were to come up.
FighterAndLover Wrote:das_hips Wrote:Just curious to non-believers (and believers I guess) what do you think happens after death?
Oh boy, here we go...
Decomposition happens after death. Unless you're cremated. That's about it. Everything else is the epitome of wishful thinking.
As one of the people accused of spewing "anti-christian filth" on this thread, I have to respond. And I'm going to type really slowly so that my meaning is quite clear.
The problem is that many (perhaps most) evangelical christians are not attempting to control the members of their own church; they are attempting to extend their religion into public policy.
If you don't think, privately, that gays should get married, that's one thing. If your church forbids it for its members, that's another. If you attempt to prevent gays who are not members of your religion from being married, that's something entirely different. And it is no different from extending religious belief into laws restricting how women may dress, restricting women from holding high office, and banning the consumption of pork and alcohol or keeping dogs as pets.
The question is very simply whether your religion can dictate how others can live. Yet no one is dictating how you may live. No one is attempting to force you into arranged homosexual unions. No one is forcing you to have abortions. Nobody is advocating a ban on prayer. You are completely free in your religion; I ask only that you not attempt to impose your religious beliefs on others.
The expectation that christians should not attempt to impose their beliefs on others is not "anti-christian filth," and christians, no matter their rhetoric, are not a persecuted minority. The persecuted minority in this case, against whom "filth" is routinely spewed, are homosexuals.
And just by the way, when you die, electrical activity ceases in your brain and your consciousness also ceases. Nothing happens next, because consciousness is not permanent. It's the accidental by-product of the wiring of your brain. Of course, if I'm right, then when your consciousness ceases you'll be unable, by definition, to realize you were wrong.
First of all, Das Hips, please separate your ideas into separate paragraphs
But in response- In my opinion, allowing the marriage of gays is as degrading to the value of holy matrimony as the divorce rate is. Yes- the divorce rate is absolutely disgusting, especially here in the states. You'd think people would be able to pick marriage partners that would blend well with them, rather than hastily "gettin' hitched" and 'loping to Vegas...
It seems marriage is hardly taken seriously enough in these days. I do believe gays should have the ability to be united, and receive the benefits of a marriage. However, to call it a marriage (and for it to be done in a church) is more or less a slap-in-the face to christians practicing "traditional" marriages.
Furthermore, it does much to upturn traditional family life. Studies have shown that children react and develop better under the love and guidance of both a mother and father. Imagine an adopted son, trying to learn how to become a man as his two mothers know close to nothing about it.
Yes, the same thing happens under divorce, when a single parent is forced to raise their children (or a widowed parent, for that matter), but this helps to prove my point that allowing gays to marry degrades the value of marriage as much as the horrendous divorce rate does.
In response to your thoughts of "if there is a heaven, I'll go to it", I have a Bible passage (take it for what it's worth)
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."
We
cannot get to heaven of our own accord, it is through faith in Jesus.
FighterAndLover Wrote:Studies have shown that children react and develop better under the love and guidance of both a mother and father. Imagine an adopted son, trying to learn how to become a man as his two mothers know close to nothing about it.
Um...what qualifies as 'being a man'? It is undeniable that the quality of character of the parents matters a hundred times more than what gender they are. If I had two parents who were both like my mother, I would be the most incredibly friendly, family-oriented and faith-driven person in the world. Conversely, if I had two of my father, I would be the coldest, most cynical crotchety asshole in the world, distant from family and believing only in looking out for number one. My parents' genders are not in evidence here, only their quality of character. Two lesbians could raise a child to be a hell of a lot better human being if they are fundamentally good, loving people with the child's interest at heart.
FightandLover Wrote:We cannot get to heaven of our own accord, it is through faith in Jesus.
This is the doctrine of a person terrified that there might not be anything else out there, afraid that if there is no heaven and no eternal reward for 'good' faith, there is no reason not to be a murderous, wicked pig all your life and never apologize for it. It's also the doctrine of people terrified of human nature, unable to comprehend why we have the capacity for jealousy, greed, lust and betrayal, and desperately seeking reason to believe that it all will be set aside in the end if you identify yourself with a religious ideal.
Nay, this is the doctrine of a person absolutely disgusted with today's society. Twenty years ago, no one accepted homosexuality as a genetical trait, it was a disease. More specifically for psycologists, it was a mental disease. The moral standards of our society since have been dropped, and we have accepted homosexuality (in all of its moral wrongs) into our nation as easily as divorce and abortion.
Our president has the right to ban gay marriage in our nation because of morals. To many people homosexuality is as morally wrong as drug use, bank robbery, or speeding tickets.
But today- our corrupt society accepts homosexuality, whereas two decades ago it would have been deemed wrong. It seems our integrity is lacking of late, and the world as a whole is digressing.
Wow, grooveless knows me so well. You're right, I'm terrified that there is nothing else out there.
Or maybe I'm just certain there is "something else" out there? You can call it fate if you want, but for me there's too much evidence that there's a higher being somewhere helping control the ebb and tide of life.
Last year, when my friend lost control of his '96 Blazer on some ice, I stared death in the face, and his name was tree. My life didn't flash before my eyes, I was unafraid. Unafraid, not because I claim to be the toughest person, or most courageous, but because I am so certain that there was something more waiting for me after my days on this earth have ended.
My life didn't end on that fateful December day. The car skidded sideways, and the tree collided with the back passenger-side door, about 2 feet away from my FACE. I was saved by 24 measly inches... go ahead and call it fate, ye unbelievers (you can quote me on that in future posts, as I'm sure someone will) but I know it to be otherwise.
FighterAndLover Wrote:My life didn't end on that fateful December day. The car skidded sideways, and the tree collided with the back passenger-side door, about 2 feet away from my FACE. I was saved by 24 measly inches... go ahead and call it fate, ye unbelievers (you can quote me on that in future posts, as I'm sure someone will) but I know it to be otherwise.
I love these people who think God himself reached down out of the sky the save them, then and there. I didn't realize you were so critically important to the Divine Plan...I bow before you. :lol:
Actually, your religious brethren are severely misguided as to the natural extent of homosexuality. You seem to think we should consider it a mental disease, something created through deficiencies in the human brain, or something we created just because we had the capacity for rational thought and we somehow decided we'd delude ourselves into believing we can be homosexual. Dozens of species throughout the natural hierarchy exhibit homosexual tendencies. It's not an aberrance created my misguided minds, it's a natural part of any natural order.
By the way, if I were God, I'd have to worry about galaxies colliding. I don't think I'd concern myself with whether Tom loved Jim or Susie, as long as he loved me and appreciated what I'd done for him.
FighterAndLover Wrote:Twenty years ago, no one accepted homosexuality as a genetical trait, it was a disease. More specifically for psycologists, it was a mental disease. The moral standards of our society since have been dropped, and we have accepted homosexuality (in all of its moral wrongs) into our nation as easily as divorce and abortion.
Our president has the right to ban gay marriage in our nation because of morals.
Twenty years ago, homosexuality may not have been accepted into the mainstream, and yes, in many psychological praxis texts, it was seen as a mental disorder. The same could be said for any number of "disorders" such a fetishim, or in reference to the non-sexual, some forms of Autism. People, thankfully, have become more accepting and enlightened. Your moral standards, may not be the standards that everyone has set for themselves. Discrimination based upon sexual preference is just as wrong as sexual or racial discrimination. I do not see how homosexuality could hurt you personally enough to say that others don't deserve to live the life they choose. The president does NOT have the right to ban gay marriage because of semanitics in our doctrines, or his own extreme beliefs. America is a nation in which there is a separation of church and state. I have no problem with having a deeply religious leader. However, once those beliefs help him decide what is right for the entire nation, a border is crossed. At this point, I am not sure what else to say, as I feel angry and sick that people can be so cruel and self-righteous as to think that they can have the final say in others' private matters. Gay marriage is not an assult on morality. It is the assertion of equality without hypocrisy.
-Jenna
FighterAndLover Wrote:Wow, grooveless knows me so well. You're right, I'm terrified that there is nothing else out there.
I didn't mean you personally. The Christian religion is now self-sustaining. That is to say, it was an anthropological creation to try and explain the meaning of life and create some sort of order in society, both of which arose out of the 'nihilistic paralysis' people felt. Now, however, it's established and the principles alone keep people coming back for more generation after generation. You are following the lead of the people I spoke of earlier; you yourself probably do not identify with Christianity just because of those issues, but your forefathers sure did.
FighterAndLover Wrote:I see there is too much evidence that homosexuality is wrong (why can't two same-sex people reproduce)
Its called love dude. Love is much more than mere reproduction. Come on.
Im someone who just happens to be the brother of a homosexual, and I cant even begin to express myself as to how much love and respect I have for him. He is one of the most wonderful people in the world. My family is stronger and closer than before ever knowing, it has made us better people. Its a beautiful thing.
Im sorry to get so personal, but I think thats your problem. It seems quite apparent that you have not been affected by close personal experience. Therefore you feel you can sit there and decide that these people are immoral, disgusting, etc without having the slightest grasp as to who they truly are.
Never under-estimate the capacity to love.
FighterAndLover Wrote:Nay, this is the doctrine of a person absolutely disgusted with today's society. Twenty years ago, no one accepted homosexuality as a genetical trait, it was a disease. More specifically for psycologists, it was a mental disease. The moral standards of our society since have been dropped, and we have accepted homosexuality (in all of its moral wrongs) into our nation as easily as divorce and abortion.
You're right, and at one time the earth was square, dragons flew and we burned witches at the stake. Mankinds morals have evolved and prejudice and ignorance are not as rampant as they once were, despite the recent victory of the rhetoric slinger himself, George Dubya, most of modern society evolves, the US has engaged in moralistic de-evolution the last four years and will continue along that line for the next four, thanks to the moralistic judging of the religious zealots in office and their all knowing supporters. Kind of a paradox to assume the label of "moralistic" to something so hatefull as prejudice. Or maybe the moral is one of hate.
Mark
FighterAndLover Wrote:Personally, (while hesitating because I know I could be beginning a huge battle) I see there is too much evidence that homosexuality is wrong (why can't two same-sex people reproduce) but I guess that goes along with my beliefs...
Indeed I did bite off more than I could chew.
I make no claim that homosexuality is disgusting, nor do I "discriminate against", "hate", or "think they deserve less rights" as was previously slandered.
I see homosexuals in the same sense as me: a sinner, incapable of fulfilling God's wishes. The difference is, while I cannot recognize all of my sins, I do repent for them, including those I don't know about, while a homosexual cannot be truly penitent if they continue to practice homosexuality.
In that respect, it is the same for divorced people. We do not allow the divorcer to take part in our church, unless they have repented and admitted that as a sin.
As for the mockery from grooveless, well you can scoff if you want, but your laughter at me for my beliefs is no worse than someone making a gay joke about the other guy's gay brother, so just know that...
After seeing these forums, it appears us Christians are a diminishing minority... and to all that have debated with me, while we differ in opinion we all share one thing.......................................
Wir Lieben Das Hips!!!! :mrgreen:
FighterAndLover Wrote:...Twenty years ago, no one accepted homosexuality as a genetical trait, it was a disease. More specifically for psycologists, it was a mental disease. The moral standards of our society since have been dropped, and we have accepted homosexuality (in all of its moral wrongs) into our nation as easily as divorce and abortion.
...
But today- our corrupt society accepts homosexuality, whereas two decades ago it would have been deemed wrong. It seems our integrity is lacking of late, and the world as a whole is digressing.
I don't think anyone here should be complaining about "anti-christian filth"....
If you'd like to be an effective ambassador for evangelical christianity, here's a small suggestion: try not to suggest that homosexuals are mentally ill and inherently immoral, and that accepting it indicates a lack of integrity.
You're making a poor case here.....
hmmm perhaps I have been making a poor case, it is very hard to indicate tone over the internet, and even harder to convince people to even consider your points...
My only point was to show that homosexuality is a sin (no, no worse than wishing ill things on people, disobeying parents, etc. etc.) and whether we believe in a higher being or not, I think everyone must agree that they sin, or "wrong" others.
In my religion, there are two ways to "evangelize" people: Law and Gospel. They each have "SOS"'s attached to them; the law shows our sins, and the gospel shows our salvation.
Law shows us that we are sinful, unclean without God, while Gospel shows the "good news", the good news being the free gift of eternal life, and God's forgiveness.
I think a big misinterpretation by non-believers is why Christians want to evangelize. They feel Christians force their practice on others (and maybe there's partial-truth there) and that Christians want to spread so that they are a majority, so that they are not alone, and so that they don't feel dumb for their beliefs.
This is not true, Christians evangelize because they want other people to have what we have. "What do you have?" people snicker, what do I have? I have someone to talk to when the rest of the world seems far away, a best friend who won't betray me. I have a Father who loves perfectly. And I have something to look forward to beyond this world.
FighterAndLover Wrote:My only point was to show that homosexuality is a sin (no, no worse than wishing ill things on people, disobeying parents, etc. etc.) and whether we believe in a higher being or not, I think everyone must agree that they sin, or "wrong" others.
Really? How so? Who, specifically, do they harm? I think you'll discover that with the exception of outright homophobes, and those who cloak homophobia with religion, very few people will agree that homosexuals harm anyone by their behavior.
FighterAndLover Wrote:I think a big misinterpretation by non-believers is why Christians want to evangelize. They feel Christians force their practice on others (and maybe there's partial-truth there) and that Christians want to spread so that they are a majority, so that they are not alone, and so that they don't feel dumb for their beliefs.
This is not true, Christians evangelize because they want other people to have what we have.
Enter the straw man. Sorry, that's not why "most people" believe christians evangelize, but you're welcome to keep believing in your little straw man if it makes criticism easier to dismiss. I think if you actually polled "most people," you'd find they're aware of the New Testament's command to spread the good news, and they'd point to that as the reason evangelical christians feel the need to, um, spread the good news.