You already know what most people will say.
Far right: Yes. It is a difficult choice, but can be overcome. There are bad things to being gay, but some people live with it the way geeks live with ridicule because of their strangeness that they could change.
Far left: No. You can't choose who you fall in love with. You're just born that way. Why would someone choose to be teased, rejected and alienated by society and their loved ones?
Well, to be fair to the right, some people, like geeks or weirdos, don't care about being teased or bullied or rejected because of the things they like. Even straight couples are willing to be teased or rejected because of their choice of a partner, but it's for love, right? Then again, is there really such a thing as true love at all?
Maybe it's just physical. Let's be honest, being gay or straight depends mostly on sex. If you fall in love with someone online then find out their not th gender you like, you probably wouldn't want to be with them the same way you did before.
For all we know, we do choose who we fall in love with. We make decisions about how to interperet our feelings, how to react to a person's actions or thoughts, when judging something they do or believe in, those are all little choices. Bu are they really what make us fall in love with people?
But it's true, if you want to love someone, why make it someone you're family or friends would reject you for? Why pick someone you can't have kids with or marry?(If that's what you want)
In Chrsitianity, the Bible says at least three times that being gay is wrong. But the only reason it would be wrong is if it's a choice, because sin is about disobeying God's will and rejecting the truth of his law and words. You can really only go against God's law by choosing to reject or go against it, like choosing to steal or choosing to ignore Jesus once you've heard the truth, or choosing not to even try to be a better person. So how can something be a sin if you don't choose to do it? (please no religious bashing from any sides in this discussion) Many christians who don't support being gay say that it's a hard thing to overcome but can be done, but how many gay people do they know that have actually stayed celibate or gone straight?
Main questions wiht this issue: Is it a choice? Can you choose who you fall in love with? Why or why not? If it is a choice, why would you choose to be gay at all?
EDIT: If you have anything directed specifically at me, the one posting this, I'm not going to read it. The discussion is mainly for other people who wanted to discuss it, and I lost track of the comments months ago anyway.
I want to get married in the future, and I'm not saying that the church has to recognize my marriage, but I don't want to have to settle for some civil ceremony.
Equally though, I think you'll agree that it's unreasonable to force people to perform an act that they believe is fundamentally wrong. Churches should be allowed to choose whether they wish to perform gay marriage ceremonies under any legislation.
Marriage isn't a religious thing though. It's a legal thing, and I don't care if the church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage ceremony, that's not what I'm asking for. I just want the state/country to recognize gay marriage. Not the church.
You said, and I quote "but I don't want to have to settle for some civil ceremony" thereby implying you want a religious ceremony. Whether or not you may have one at a particular church however is up to that church. Like I said, it isn't reasonable to force a church to perform a ceremony it fundamentally disagrees with.
Interestingly, you also said "By saying that marriage is a holy bond with God, that's basically denying the validity of the marriages of millions of people who did not get married in the church". I don't know what kind of God you imagine, but the one I know personally isn't limited to churches. He exists everywhere.
Marriage does not exist solely in the church. People who don't believe in God get married all the time, and it has nothing to do with God or the church, but their marriage is legitimate. I don't want to force a church to perform a ceremony it disagrees with. I don't want to get married in a church because they disagree with it. I want the STATE and the COUNTRY to recognize gay marriage and all the benefits that any straight couple gets with it. I don't want a civil union or domestic partnership because it's not the same thing.
Yes, not religious, but many religious people want to be accepted by their congregation because their congregation is their community. Whether our community is religious or not people want to feel accepted and included. This is probably why homosexual advocates seek religious change so they can be both married and not shunned by their loved ones. That is my opinion, I may not understand :)
I strongly agree here. Gay marriage should be legal, but no one should force churches against their will to perform marriage ceremonies.
I believe that Christianity only mentions gay twice (Lev 20:13 & 1Tim 1:10). In the first occasion the second "man" is a different word in Hebrew, probably a young man while the first refers to an older man. This is probably a condemnation of child abuse, not homosexuality. Nevertheless, homosexuality is mentioned very little in the bible and significantly less many other sex crimes (who are much more clear in their meaning). I personally cannot see how it is christian to both condemn homosexuality while also making rape almost impossible to prove. Seriously, the physical act is not wrong, unless it is rape, which is probably the main reason for the law. It is a choice, but one shaped by one's genetic and social background. Some people must live with the temptation while others are more heterosexually inclined.Note: inclined means sexual orientation, it is another issue all together what their sexual behavior is.
Something else to note, I have found in my life that people most ardently against homosexuality are often homosexually inclined and were taught that homosexuality is wrong, therefore their anger comes from their own self-hatred and is externalized through homophobia.
You are forgetting about Jesus. Jesus specifically condemed sexual immorality on several occasions, and given the contents of the OT laws, we know that homosexuality was included within that catagory. If Jesus had intended to correct that conception, he would have said so, given the many other OT laws he explained how he was fulfilling (capital punishment for example)
Could you direct me to those passages please. I'm having some trouble finding any new testament reference to sexual immorality.
In the future, I'd recomend you use BibleGateway.com
In the meantime, I'll refer you to Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21 as being the relevent passages I'm talking about. Jesus, when talking about Sexual immorality, was refering to the OT laws. Remember, if he wasn't, he would have been very specific as he was on other occasions.
A protestant friend of mine put it this way , the only choice gay people have is to live in sin or to abstain and be unhappy for the rest of their lives.
That is what we call in debating circles a "false choice". The implication being that it is nessecary to be sexually attached/active in some way in order to be happy. Leaving aside the more theoretical argument that since it is sinful, by definition God would not allow a sin to be necessary for our happiness, there is also the more concrete point that we know full well that sexual attachedness/romantic relationships etc are not necessary for happiness. We know this because of monks, eunachs, and sundry other people throughout history who were unattached and yet happy and successful. While the Bible does tell us that most of us are called to marriage, some are not. Paul wasn't. Jesus wasn't. It's not something we should expect or demand in order to be happy. I used to struggle with that one a lot. Our culture does bombard us with the message that if we're not attached, we're somehow not a whole person, but that's just not true.
I have no issues with gay marriage ,any long term commitment deserves to be recodgnized as such.
I know those passages, there is nothing there about sexual immorality as you put it.
Right, despite the fact that I quoted the words "sexual immorality". Okay... just ignore that then.
Unless you are going to stretch the bits about : adultery, divorce and evil thoughts.
Adultury was an older translation of the word, however more modern translations recognise that the word Jesus used was more broad.
I mentioned that viewpoint simply because it follows through on the religious viewpoint that any same sex feelings should be ignored and opressed.
Thats just it though. It doesn't. You have to add in the notion that romantic relationships are somehow massively important for that to be an objection.
I do agree that a fysical relationship is not necessary for happiness. But is it fair to deny two concenting adults such a relationship if they wish it ( or activly guilt trip them out of it). One does not need a ' better half' to be a whole person but the recognition of ones identity on a very basic level is.
If it isn't part of what God created as best for someone, then it's ultimately very fair indeed.
My viewpoint on longterm relationships is this: If people choose to spend the large majority of their life together and want to make this perfectly clear to their enviromnent then it is understandable that they would want some sort of ceremony to demonstrate this.
A cermony is fine, but why does it require legal recognition.
Marriage as an institute has udergone a lot of changes in that past centuries. Until 1215 it wasn't even a holy sacrament ,you just needed a few witnesses
Buzz! Wrong. Check your Bible. Marriage was a holy institution in Anchient Israel. That's much further back than 1215
Erm...please bear in mind it was you who asked the question. If my answers "serve no real purpose" then please explain why you asked? Either you were wasting my time, or you are backing out after having been proven wrong. Or am I creating a false choice, and you actually have a third option.
I could easily have gone for the basic text criticism of the NT and followed it up with some evolutionary biology.
I fail to see how evolutionary biology would prove/disprove whether Jesus was talking about sexual immorality broadly or specifically, but I'm interested to see you try.
Example: only spouses or family can visit in certain hospitals , although I did hear that that was going to change.
You can designate a specific partner/other individual at a hospital as definite visitor.
Married couples pay more taxes,if people voluntarily opt to get married I'm not going to complain if it benefits society.
No they don't. Married people generally pay less tax. The government offers tax breaks on certain issues as a result of being married in order to give a partial economic intensive.
And yes marriage was an institute way back, but it only became a holy sacrament in 1215 ( easily verified).
Buzz. You are still wrong. Marriage was a religious and legal institute back in ancient Israel. See all the various legal issues that Leviticus and others raise on the issue. If you want to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand in 1215, you're more than welcome to, but don't expect it to win you any arguments. Marriage has been a legal entity far longer than 800 years.