Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I'm always dismayed by self-proclaimed Christians who proudly state their opposition to gay marriage based solely upon their strongly held religious convictions. What is so disappointing to me is that their reason for their conviction is based not on the words of God but rather a thing that can best be summed up as the "Ick Factor". The Ick Factor is that feeling of revulsion that many heterosexuals experience when they envision homosexual acts and I do not see the need to detail this further. However I do want to examine the verse that I've seen written on several protest signs as well as in church articles decrying gay marriage, Leviticus 18:22. I copied it below along with the verses immediately around for a reason I will explain afterwards.

19 And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
20 And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Now honestly, I can't say that verse 22 has any hidden meaning other than what seems readily apparent - homosexual acts are wrong... until I look at the verses around it. All of the verses up to 20 state who is allowed for sexual relations, but 21 is a notable exception. It refers specifically to child sacrifice made to the Philistine god Molech and by mentioning fire it does not seem sexual in nature a.k.a pedophilia. So why is it inserted here unless pagan temple practices are the intent of this section? It is known that women copulated with sacred bulls in ancient Greece in observance of religious rites and that is possibly what verse 22-23 means to forbid. By extension, it is within reason to extrapolate that verse 22 could be an admonition against having sex with male temple prostitutes (pre-pubescent youths?) rather than an equal relationship between adults based upon real feelings. The transgression therefore has more to do with paying ritual homage to a false god than it does with having sex.

While I don't have the means to prove my assertion to be true beyond reproach, it makes logical sense in my opinion. "Ick Factor" aside, I can't really see how this verse can be used to bolster the Christian Right's position that gay marriage is evil. Ultimately, one can know in faith only what the Spirit reveals and in the absence of a booming voice from above speaking to the contrary, gay marriage is right course.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

First, I am an atheist and I am against gay marriage. I have 2 reasons for this.

Reason #1) They already have equal protection. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a strait man does, thus they are being treated equally. A gay woman has just as much right to marry a man as a strait woman does, thus they are being treated equally. They are not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.--they have the right to marry the opposite sex exactly like heterosexuals do.

Reason #2) Homosexuals have distinctly different relationships from heterosexuals. Why do they want to define their distinctly different relationships using the exact same terms as those that are distinctly different? Why not use a different term for them, instead of marriage?

As for civil unions, that is fine with me. I have no problem with them having the exact same rights, but they should not be described using the exact same terms. Why would a "normal" married couple want the same term used to describe them, also be used to describe a gay couple? Maybe pseudo-marriage would be better? Or, "this is my psuedo-wife."

It's funny, but as much as I disagree with the existence of god, in general, I usually agree with the position the church takes. It seems to me like some people always take a position opposite the church, because they hate the church so much, and not because they have thought things out. I try to think things out first, and it just so happens, my conclusions are usually in line with the church's. It's always irritated me when someone attacks a good argument, because it is the position of the religious right (so it must be wrong), instead of attacking the argument itself. I guess it irritates me so much because I am an atheist, and I hate to see another atheist take such a ridiculous, hateful, position. Also, to claim that the church is using hate against gays, is hypocritical. It looks to me, an atheist, more like the church's opposition is using it's hatred of the church to always take an opposing view, than the church is basing it's position on its hatred of gays.

Rodney

>>It seems to me like some people always take a position opposite the church, because they hate the church so much, and not because they have thought things out.

I strongly disagree with you here. I think most people look at the church, and see their flawed history.

Taking that into account they do tend to hold up opposite views of the Church as you stated, but to some extent, and for good reason.

The church, and most religion in general uses FEAR to control its flock, followers, fellowship, what ever you want to call it. This FEAR prevents them "The Follower" from actually being able to have their "OWN" opinion on subjects. The fear of eternal damnation, hell, etc. etc. Their opinion is the Churches opinion. Their for it would be asinine to even consider their opinion in matters of government. Because their opinion only reflects whats good for the church/religion itself, and not the whole of humanity.

The church basically denounces science, So discussing something logically with these people is impossible! Take their stance on evolution for example. Even if given overwhelming data on a subject, they refuse to accept it, because it goes against the word of their God, and thier God is ALWAYS right

Their for its not about HATE for the church, its the weak track record they hold in getting things right..lol

Just my opinion

I do agree with you on a couple things, God is always right.

However, as a christian, its not my acts that can get me to heaven or sent to hell.
You dont earn your way to heaven.
Its by faith alone, in beleiving christ is your saviour.
Not by acts, less any man should boast.

I beleive there could be evolution of some types of animals. But thee originals were created by God. As were we. Give us humans a little more credit. We surely did not come from a monkey.

It takes more faith to beleive we came froma monkey then to beleive in divine creation.

And if you find a christian who says hes not a sinner, hes a lying.
Everyone sins.

As far as the gay thing goes, Homosexuality is a sin, it wont keep you from heaven if you are a saved christian, however, if you are a saved christian,you should want to do the right thing.

I say love the sinner and hate the sin.

At my church, which is baptist, we encourage free thinking. It is simple , if you are a saved christian, you should live that way.
I think we all would be better off if everyone just showed love and respect for each other.
Thats what christian life is all about. And just because we say something is a sin, doesnt mean we hate the person doing it, just the sin.

I consider myself a christian but not with such a strict way of thinking. I don't see a problem with same sex marriages, the words in those verses sound like they have been written by two guys down the pub, obviousley very noteworthy guys who wanted to keep there dignity while writing such a thing. No offense meant to anyone here, its all about how people interpret the real scriptures, and who interprets them. They don't say anything about lesbians not going to heaven, so to me these rules sound like they have been written in a male point of view only, and why don't they care so much about lesbians, lol. really can you see my point, I have no strong views at all but I wish they would let a woman interpret these scriptures and make a new bible, I don;t see any harm in that, it would also maybe make things clearer.

steve

I am agnostic, I suppose. And, I am FOR gay marriage. Marriage is not a religious issue. Many people get married in churches, and many religions have adopted the marriage ritual into their beliefs, but marriages often occur and are legal outside of a church. It is just a piece of paper proclaiming to the world that 2 people have entered into a legal bond. Marriage should be legal for all people of all sexual orientations, and if the specific religions want to ban it within their community, they should have the right to do that. This is a typical case of seperation between church and state.
-----
1.1 Ball Python 0.0.1 corn snake 1.0 Bearded Dragon
0.0.2 fish 1.2 cats 3.1 kids 1.0 husband and now...
0.0.1 Pink Zebra Beauty Tarantula
2.0 Solomon Island Boas

3 good posts in a row! I love it. I of course have made my views on religion clear. I am as also stated against the concept of a Gay marriage (ick factor aside...call it a partnership and give them legal rights-I'll back that). But monkeying with the constitution to support one groups prejudice over another's is wrong! Except in cases involving a minor or rape, the government should stay out of the bedroom.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

` Much of the opposition to gay marriage comes from big business. They don't like the idea of having more dependents to provide benefits to.
` They are happy to unite with their fellow reactionaries, the religious right, in trying to force one group's opinion upon another, for very atavistic reasons.
` Then, combine them with the right-wing republicans, who favor less government services to those who need them, in order to save taxes for the highest payers, the wealthy.
` You end up with a triumvirate of dogmatic, self-centered, and avaricious people, who believe that what they believe is right, because they believe it. Therefore, it is right for anyone that they are able to force into conforming. Look at the Middle East, people. There's the example of this belief system run amok. Hell, over there, if they disagree with you, just kill them. That sure solves the problem.
` How can letting people express commitment to each other hurt anyone? Too much of this ancient dogma is tearing this world apart.

` I must admit, the "Ick Factor" gets me, too; however, I feel that if I can't rise above that reaction, my snakes ought to be keeping me, instead of the opposite.
-----

I realize I'm getting to this a bit late, and that it will probably be buried here forever for no one to see, but I had to share.

The direct translation of the Hebrew in Leviticus 18:22 is basically "A man should not lie with another man in a woman's bed. It is ritualistically unclean."

So this fits in with your theory about pagan practices and means that the bible

a) has no beef with lesbians
b) is ok with gay men, as long as they don't do it in a woman's bed

And ritualistically unclean - a far cry from "abomination"! I think King James must have had one of those heterosexual agendas we keep hearing about.

-Z