I fail to see what is wrong with wanting to form a family, gay or straight, out of love and commitment.
2006-10-12 18:38:44 · 23 answers · asked by Desert Sienna 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Look at it from a political influence view as opposed to a religous view. The concept that "Nobility" was conferred by God linked the power of the church to the power of the state. The majority of the economies were based on the production of food and crops by small farmers and herders. The laws of the church were used to strengthen the control of the state.
Now to your question, same sex marriages produce no children. Small farms are dependant on large families to produce enough labor to handle the staggering amount of work involved in farming and herding. Therefore it was convenient for "God" to denounce homosexuals.
2006-10-12 20:14:36 · answer #1 · answered by Cain 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religion uses the Bible as an excuse while forgetting that it also says "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged", "Embrace A Sinner To Thy Heart", "Ye Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" & "Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin"
I'm not saying same sex love is a sin mind you, but the Bible says it is. I say that we should leave the right and wrong of morality to God. I'm Catholic AND an active Gay Rights Advocate. I'd love to see same sex marriage made legal and for everyone to be accepted for who and what they are.
2006-10-13 01:49:24 · answer #2 · answered by Daydream Believer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Same-sex marriage is oxymoron. Sex in marriage is by definition a union of opposite sexes, it implies a husband and a wife. Your wish to overthrow custom
has very adverse consequences in law, psychology, and plain cultural evolution. There are issues with inheritance, paternity, and role modeling (in Psychology). When you start to change values and definitions it becomes hard to draw a line. Polygamists, paederasts, and a multitude of sexual aberrants may want to be accepted under the new umbrella of "out of love and commitment", if that is all it takes to transform centuries of customs, traditions, history, and dictionary definitions.
Why not do the easy thing and call it by a new name and request that privileges granted under marriage be vested under the new definition whenever logical and applicable? That way, the marriage traditions of religious organizations would not feel that they are being mocked,destroyed or infiltrated.
2006-10-13 02:11:50 · answer #3 · answered by willgvaa 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i totally agree with you. i see nothing wrong with two people having a family....
the church bands same sex marriages, so people who are gay marry the opposite sex.. then years into the marriage, they finally come out of the closet and end up in a divorce.....
if the church would allow same sex marriages the divorce rate would be down...
but then the goverment also opposes it. I feel the gov. has no right banning same sex marriages.... if the person is happy then let it be...
same sex marriages are not hurting anyone....and there are other things to worry about besides same sex marriages...
the goverment saids it ok to have an abortion and end an life.. which is ok because every women has a right to do with her body as she pleases.. but I myself could not have an abortion... so if a women can kill a baby why cant she marry a women...
i think i need to run for congress.....
2006-10-13 01:44:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Brainwashing. I think that a married gay couple who adopt an unwanted child make a wonderful example for that child of tolerance, temperence and unconditional love. Obviously some religions don't offer that. For instance, is it just me or does it seem like christians bash more people in this chat room than any other faith? Maybe if they focused more on Jesus' teachings rather than quoting scripture from the hebrew bible, they might get a clue about love and tolerance and peace.
2006-10-13 02:01:04 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most religious texts are very old, and at the time they were written, a low population was a very bad thing. People were needed to farm, hunt, etc., and homosexuality was discouraged because it prevented the population from increasing.
Today, with the Earth's population coming up on seven billion, it's not a problem at all--if anything, it's helpful, especially seeing as many gay couple adopt children that were unwanted otherwise.
2006-10-13 01:43:57 · answer #6 · answered by angk 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
2006-10-13 02:38:44 · answer #7 · answered by Isolde 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, the scripture posted above only warns against that behavior. If you are not gay, then don't worry about it. But nothing give you the right to harm gay people physically or verbally or by denying them their human rights because of that scripture. Learn to check yourself and stopping judging people!
2006-10-13 01:45:21 · answer #8 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
WELL THIS IS A STICKY SUBJECT BECUASE SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET OFFENDED.WELL THE BIBLE SAYS NO ONE WHO COMMITS THESE ACT WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.PLUS LIFE WASN'T MEANT THAT WAY,WHAT IF WE WERE ALL GAY WE WOULD STOP CEASEING TO EXIST,BECAUSE MEN WITH MEN CANNOT REPRODUCE AND WOMEN WITH WOMEN CANNOT REPRODUCE.HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE IS A SIN.MOST CHRISTIANS DO NOT HATE OR DISLIKE HOMOSEXUALS THEY CONSIDER SIN THE ENEMY.ALL OF US HAVE HAD DOWNFALLS IN LIFE AND SIN IS SIN NO MATTER WHAT SIN IT IS.SO ALL PEOPLE MATTER!
2006-10-13 02:21:48 · answer #9 · answered by badexperience 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are probably many different reasons, but the two that seem to stand out to me are:
(1) Fear of those who are different (and on a related note, fear of one's inner self, inner desires, etc.);
(2) The concept that it is antithetical to the procreative imperative ("be fruitful and multiply").
2006-10-13 01:46:56 · answer #10 · answered by keraphem 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋