Lev 20-13: When a man sleeps with a man as he does a woman, they have both done the detestable. They must be killed. Their blood will be on their own heads.

http://www.songofjoy.org/Homosexuality.htm#about:


Context and interpretation makes all the difference, you see.

Regards,
Kate

Yes, I've read all of Lev. But none the less, it says homosexual relations are wrong. Your website said that the bible said it was wrong because the cults did it, but it was still wrong.

According to the codes, though, it is also "wrong" to wear a wool/cotton blend sweater or eat an undercooked steak.

As far as Christian doctrine goes, remember that the teachings and salvation of Jesus were to free us from much of Old Testament doctrine.

My point is not to point out an incorrectness on your part, but to illustrate that it is not such a clear-cut issue.

Wrong, Jesus was to removie the PUNISHMENTs of the sins. OF course, not all of the codes are followed. But people still agree with some of them. Such as interbreeding and pedophilia.

Many of Jesus's statements and actions are contradictory to Old Testament doctrine (notice I didn't say "sins" as you misinterpreted above). The use of violence is one of the most notable. "An eye for an eye..." (Ex. 21:24) vs. "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39).

Other instances can be found:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy60.html


Here again we see more of a controversial, rather than black-and-white, issue. And again, it's open to interpretation. Therefore, before you jump to a conclusion that a person is "wrong," it is best to consider that all sides have an opinion, usually backed by a worthy source (Jesus, in this case).

Are you serioous?
Are you going to try to use the bible against homosexuality.

Remember that not everyone is Christian.

Here is my problem (and I'll preface all of this by stating, in no uncertain terms, that I am not even remotely close to being a Christian): If someone calls himself/herself a Christian, he/she doesn't get to say "well I agree with this part, but not this part." If the bible is the word of God, then ALL of it is. Not just some of it.

If God is infallible (which he's supposed to be), then all the doctrines he supposedly set forth would still stand. An infallible being is not going to go "whoops! Just kidding! You can wear polycotton blends now, my children! I changed my mind!"

So either it's all to be followed or it's all crap. If you believe in God and Jesus and the Bible and all that, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you follow and which parts you don't.

If one is going to say "well that's not really realistic anymore blah blah it's not important, it's not culturally relevant" etc, about the obviously silly bits (like the mixing of fabrics or what-have-you), then one has to also be willing to entertain the thought that the more serious issues (such as homosexuality) have to be reevaluated in terms of cultural relevance as well.

However, this all falls under the problem of...presuming to know God's intention and all that. And as I previously stated...either God's infallible or not. Presuming to know which bits he wants us to follow and which bits he wants us to toss out is basically a sin.

I'm really tired and I'm supposed to be packing. I wonder if this even made sense.

not all christians believe in the bible as the word of god.

you can beleive in jesus and god, but not hell and heaven.

religion doesn't have to follow the strict rules of a specific sect.

Well, they sort of do. I do agree with you in that not all religions set rules that all people must strictly adhere to, but when they make their own rules and start following those rules pertaining to their faith, it becomes a new religion. People who do believe in God but don't follow a set religion tend to be called agnostic.

It seems to be one of those 'but' statements. "I'm a Christian but..."

I support Gay Marriage all the way. In my experience, gay couples are just as deserving of all the rights and privileges associated with marriage (and, some would say, torture and drawbacks) as any straight person. That being said, I wonder what people have to say when it comes to post-op transsexuals getting married? Do you consider that gay marriage, even if the MTF/FTM has completed all surgeries, or do you consider it to be protected under the "man and woman" deal of marriage?
I don't think that it really matters, man, woman, whatever, marriage should be allowed, but I feel that on the issue of TS individuals, the edge gets blurred a bit more. While we have the right to get married, many of the bills dealing with gay marriage affect us as well, meaning we could potentially lose the right to marriage should the issue of gay marriage be taken to an extreme.
Just wanted to know other people's thoughts on this aspect of the Gay Marriage question.

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Keep religion out of government... Please.

I don't see anyhting wrong with gay marriage, while I can't imagine marrying another man myself, I'm not going to do anything about it. If some politician is narrow - minded enough to not allow marriage among the same sexes, how will he/she ever be able to cope with war, trade, or anything else important? Stubborness among politicians will one day lead to the end of the world, I assume. Let the gays do what they do..

Hm on the transgendered subject.

As a transgendered/transexual individual, is one able to basically eradicate all traces of his/her pre-op identity? Somehow I think that would make a difference. If a post-op MtF was still connected to her former male identity, and it was known, I imagine there would be difficulty if she tried to marry a male. Maybe the gender as stated on the birth certificate would come into play?

Do you need birth certificates to get a marriage license? I don't know anything about that.

Even with the best of surgeries, post-op transsexuals will always carry some remnants of their former sex with them. For instance, MtF individuals will always have a prostate, despite the fact that women don't have one. As well, the surgeries are- in all cases- considered cosmetic rather than one necessary for the individual.
Even with the best of modern procedures, TS individuals are still currently incapable of mothering/fathering children once they have gone through with the surgery, which is also an issue with many people as they try to pull the old "If'n yew cain't gets pregnants, yews ain'ts no women" argument. While yes, our birth certificates do bear our "proper" sexes once all is said and done, it hasn't always been that way, and many people don't agree with changing it and identifying us as our "new" sex. Many still want to consider us "sexual deviants" and not allow us to marry or have the full rights of our appropriate sex. Not only that, but many MtF transsexuals identify as lesbians, and many FtM transsexuals identify as gay, meaning the basic "gay marriage" issue still applies.

I just thought this would put an interesting new spin on the topic without deviating from the point of the thread.

I'm not sure if that's the case on this side of the pond. There has been a story in the news about this today, here, so it looks like gender-changing surgeries are available on the NHS over here. I guess the theory is that gender dysfunction (is that the right name?) can cause depression, which is potentially life-threatening. So to treat the depression, you fund the operations.

On the marriage issue, I have no problem with anybody marrying anybody else. Marriage is about the commitment of two people to each other: it's nobody else's damn business. Provided that both parties are up front about their history (which in a honest loving relationship they surely would be) then nothing should stand in their way. If the other person knows that their husband/wife-to-be was born in another gender (and I would certainly want to know), and they're ok with that, what's the problem?

Americans are still ignorant, though. If a lot of the people here had their way, demons would still be blamed for sickness and anyone with any medical knowlege would be burned as a witch.

Sorry, that's a bit extreme. The first gender reassignment surgery took place in Great Britain, so Europe has had a (slightly) longer time to get to "know" transsexuals. America's always been behind when it came to things like this anyways, so obviously they have no plans of changing their ways now.

When I get married, I have no intention of lying to my husband about what I used to be (and currently still am). It IS their right to know, after all, and if they truly love you then it won't matter to them anyways.

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/ar ... icleId=435

what the NHS says about gender dysphoria.

especially relevant bits from the article:



If gay marriage wasn't legal (which it is) then you could marry as your new gender. The ops and hair removal and hormone injections and all else is available on the NHS for free! YAY NHS! <3

On the subject of gay marriage, I have not heard a single argument against it that is not based on religion (except the whole unable to concieve thing - easily disputed). I may have been a soppy git, but I cried my eyes out when the law passed to let gay people marry. About time.

In California, that had a campaign of "The Sanctity of Marriage" and that in order to keep the institution of marriage, it must remain between a man and a women. I'm not making this up.

Yeah, marriage is real sanctitified here. Especially with the 60% divorce rate. Yeah, real sanctity. [/rant]

And by that logic, the anti- camp would have to deny marriage to infertile couples.

Hence the 'easily disputed'. My arms are too tired from the gym to type much. Hence the lack of explanation.

i fully suppoort gay marrigre nothing "made you gay" its just the way you are.

Speaking as a member of the homosexual community, I think that the article about gender dysphoria was really quite great. Thanks so much for posting that, I like to know as much about human sexuality and gender identity as I can.

Oh yeah, and I want to be able to get married when I'm older. To a woman. And call it "marriage," not a civil union. Seperate but equal isn't equal, has my beloved country learned nothing?

And my school doesn't teach about homosexual couples and what they can do to have safer sex. The health class is strictly hetero. The rest of the Gay-Straight Alliance and I are going to try to fix that, even if it means homosexual kissing in front of the health teacher until she changes her mind.

i don't care about Homosexual matrimony
the only important thing is that they love each other.
we can't intervene people's sexuality

plus homos don't have babies and adopt little girls, right cash?