I support them.
Couldn't give a hang about Leviticus - it's a pretty sick twisted little book. There's a whole section on what knickers priests should wear.
2006-08-29 15:15:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
It has nothing to do with "uniformity," and the Old Testament isn't ALL obsolete. If it was, why would it still be part of the Bible?
I am currently torn on the issue. On one hand, diversity is very important, and letting people make their own decisions is, too. And gay people have enough people shoving the "gay is bad" mentality down their throats, and they get beat up and teased and ostracized because of it, which is absolutely wrong. Every gay person I have been friends with told me the same thing- they didn't CHOOSE to be gay, they just ARE. I believe them. But on the other hand, I feel obligated as a christian to not just let people go around sinning, even if they don't believe in God (not to say that straight people don't sin - we all do - and I feel just as obligated to stop people from cheating, etc). But I feel like there's nothing I can really do.
2006-08-29 15:33:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by pseudonym 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that gay people should be able to get married because it is a religious institution. A priest or pastor is supposed to do it and you do the whole thing about it being witnessed by God. I do however think that gay people should be allowed to have some sort of civil union, complete with all the rights that straight people have. I feel that if two people love one another than they should have the right to commit and have a ceremony just like all the straight people do. Just make it a civil union and not a religious one.
2006-08-29 15:20:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Native 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
You must admit the part where it explains how to get rid of mildew from a house is useful even today.
Personally I am for gay marriages as I consider a secular mariage is just a legal union recognising a loving relationship. As long as gay people don't want a religious ceremony in a religion which is against this there should really be no issues about this (I recognise some people DO have these issues but I cannot see logic in their reasoning).
2006-08-29 15:12:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by monkeymanelvis 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Study history before the fall of every great nation, the queers were embraced as normal. The queers being out in the open, is one of the signs of the end. God created laws that man should follow. He created Adam and Eve as examples of right union, he did not create Adam and Steve as examples of a perfect union. As far as marriage goes, God as little to do with what people call marriage today. I wouldn't mind much if people stop calling queers, gay because there is nothing gay about queers. Note, all queers are hell bound.
2006-08-29 15:50:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most Christians today pretty much stick with the New Testament doctrines, such as Romans 1:26,27. Seems to me that "recompense of their error" might include AIDS. I don't see how any good can come out of condoning gay activity -- married or not. And to promote an unhealthy lifestyle among our youth, which is what is happening in public schools, is nothing less than criminal.
2006-08-29 15:23:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cee T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman and con only be defined as such. If you open it up for one group of people how can you stop anyone or anything else from being "married"? Will the people who want to marry a family member be allowed to marry as well? Or what about someone who wants to marry and animal, are their rights being violated as well? It's too much of a slippery slope as far as I'm concerned.
2006-08-29 15:17:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by southfloridamullets 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Im not against it, per se, however I would like to see some research that deals with the issue of long term ramifications with respect to the nuclear family.
My guess is, it will do nothing to impact it, and the chance is remote, however we cant forget that the nuclear family is keeps the burden and expense of child rearing outside the governments domain, should society ever change those norms, we are in for some trouble.
2006-08-29 15:13:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I agree! There is stuff about animal sacrifices, weird laws and other wacky stuff they don't follow in Leviticus. They only choose to follow the scripture against homosexuality because it supports their worldview. Funny, how everything in the Old Testament is supposed to be obsolete, except for that one little quote.
2006-08-29 15:07:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by i luv teh fishes 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
To address the "don't have families" point:
1. Infertile heterosexuals (and bisexuals who love someone of another gender) don't procreate, either. Their marriages are still legal.
2. According to US Census information, which was quoted in *Christianity Today*'s website, 22 percent of two-male couples and 34 percent of two-female couples are raising children.
2006-08-29 15:14:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by GreenEyedLilo 7
·
3⤊
0⤋