Because No religion Supports Homosexuality.
2006-12-30 08:58:09 · 45 answers · asked by saikot11 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
NO! my religion does. there are plenty of religions where people dont agree with it but there are plenty where people feel that the love between two of the same gender is just as strong as the love between a man and a woman! of course its not humiliation!!!
2006-12-30 09:02:02 · answer #1 · answered by Gwen 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Many religions support homosexuality. There are religions where there are Out pastors. There are religions where they will officiate at a same-sex marriage ceremony.
In addition, marriage is a societal construct. Religion does not own the practice. Two heterosexual people can get married by a JP and it holds as much weight as a church wedding.
Love is love in the eyes of God. He did not put us on this earth to judge, but to love one another.
2006-12-30 09:08:25 · answer #2 · answered by Jen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who cares about religion? Your religion can kiss my liberal white a**! And there are churches that support homosexuality, god do research before you come on here making a total a** out of your self.
Religion doesn't belong in the Government, nor do many people believe in your invisible "god" or your fake fictional book. I think Christians & you are not only a "humaliation" to society, but your church. By the way I've asked this before, but have never gotten an answer, why can't ignorant Christian bigots spell or speak correctly?
2006-12-30 09:06:19 · answer #3 · answered by Drew 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's your first mistake: there are TONS of religions that do support homosexuality. Many sects of Judaism, Buddhism, and even several Christian churches (Metropolitan Community Church, United Church of Christ, and a whole bunch more not to mention Catholic-based Dignity, and Integrity). So, as for religious marriage, no. We've already GOT religious marriage. As for legal marriage, which is completely seperate from religious marriage, there's zero reason not to let two men or two women sign a marriage certificate.
2006-12-30 17:14:27 · answer #4 · answered by Atropis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, there are many religions that have no problem with homosexuality as well as the fact that Marriage is a LEGAL issue, not a religious one. You can be married without involving any form of religion at all. Religion is "humiliated" by it's followers who use it as a method of backing up their own hatred and bigotry.
2006-12-30 09:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
First of all it is not all religions that promote hatred of gay people. There are many religions which not only tolerate it,but actually embrace it as a natural occurance.
The Dalai Lama is well known for his activism for human rights, and this specifically includes equal rights for gays. According to an Office of Tibet spokeman, "His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all."
Hindus believe the following:
Nowhere in the Hindu sacred texts is romantic love excluded to all but a man and woman, so there are no religious grounds to make a statement to the contrary.
Since homosexuals can experience romantic love, homosexual sexual relationships are not all the product of lust.
The three functions of marriage are given in the Dharma Shastras, books that are not binding to Hindus, and thus Prajaa is not a determining factor in Hindu marriages. Even if the three functions of marriage were binding in terms of marriages, Prajaa may be interpreted in a number of ways that do not involve procreation at all. Thus homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Sexual expression within a loving relationship is encouraged by Hinduism because it is not an expression of lust, but an expression of love and devotion to each others' happiness. Therefore, homosexuals in loving relationships (i.e. marriage) should be allowed to express their love sexually.
Homosexuality in Sikhism is, as in other religions, a very controversial subject. This is especially true in societies that are more tolerant of homosexuality. Most Sikhs however do not strongly disapprove of homosexuality.
The Reform Judaism movement, the largest branch of Judaism in North America, has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis and cantors. They view Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jews adopting the idolatrous fertility cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse or homosexuality. Reform authorities consider that, in light of what is seen as current scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality as a biological sexual orientation, a new interpretation of the law is required.
In my view religion is a cultural virus that, like a computer virus, once downloaded into the software of society corrupts many of the programs it encounters. It isn’t hard to find examples to fit this view; one has only to read the dailies coming out of the Middle East to see its nefarious effects or just take a look at the postings on this site to see how it is RELIGION that corrupts society.
2006-12-30 09:51:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't. I know some religions that do support any marriage between 2 mature consenting adults. I understand that the very idea may be humiliating to Christianity, but I don't really know what business it is of theirs. Any religion who does not sanction same sex marriages doesn't have to perform them. That doesn't mean that they should not exist.
Peace!
2006-12-30 09:01:23 · answer #7 · answered by carole 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
That isn't true. There are many Christian denominations who support, advocate, and perform same sex marriage in the US today. Reform Judaism too. The early Christian church had a ceremony for SSM. Too often one short passage of Leviticus is used out of context by some Christians in a contorted effort to control scripture for the furtherment of their own agenda. Back in the day Moses was leading his people who for generations knew nothing but slavery through pagan lands where Molech was the issue at hand. These pagans had rituals of sacrifice and ritualistic sex practices and statue worship et al that G-d did not want the people to emulate.
Those who use "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" are picking and choosing small portions of the entire text to fit their agenda. It needs to be looked at in its entirety in order to be properly used. When done so it becomes clear that G-d is warning against ritualistic sexual proclivity to honor false gods. This is furthered by no mention whatsoever of lesbians but bushels and bushels of admonishments and rules of engagement concerning heterosexual relationships.
2006-12-30 09:03:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well, i'm not gay and i'm defenatly not religious but i really don't think its necessary to have a gay wedding in a church (something they have been trying to do in canada). marriage is a religious ceremony and for people who are not religious it makes little sense to accually get married. for religious homosexuals, i'm sure they have found a way to justify getting married in a way that can suit them and their families (hopefully) if marriage were defined as 2 people joined in love then get a judge or a peace minister to marry the couple. theres just too much to concider. everyone should have equal rights and as long as religion exists that can never happen.
2006-12-30 09:06:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question contains an oxymoron. Marriage by definition, is between a man and a woman. In saying "homosexual marriage" you are stating something that is not possible without first changing the definition. I think changing definitions for person or political gains, while a time honored tradition, is dishonest.
If they want to call them "civil unions," or "gay unions" or whatever else and have the same rights and privileges as marriage, fine.
But don't call them marriages.
2006-12-30 09:03:54 · answer #10 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Anal sex is humiliating to religion. Eating pork is humiliating to some religions and eating beef to others. Thinking naughty thoughts is humiliating to religion. "Hating gays" is humiliating to religion. Working on sunday is humiliating to religion. Drinking is humiliating to religion. And on and on and on.
In other words, a lot of things are humiliating to religion. Getting all worked up over other people doing it is ridiculous. If your religion doesn't support gay marriage then don't marry a person of the same sex. If your religion doesn't like you to eat beef then don't eat beef. But there is no reason for you to tell others what they can and can not do simply because of your religious beliefs.
2006-12-30 09:02:55 · answer #11 · answered by kildarner 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋