Gay Marriage: Why the christians need to STFU about it

[Aiza]

First of all, appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

Secondly, as mentioned many times before, it's not about forcing churches to marry gay couples, it's about giving them the secular legal right to have equal status as partners, as hetero couples have. I say screw the gays that are believers and want to get married in church, some stupid faggots they be

"Appeal to tradition"? More like an appeal to Sacred Tradition, which is equal to Scripture according to most of Christianity.

I sympathize somewhat with your own position. I do think that "gay marriage" will be institutionalized within govt within my own lifetime. For now I am just discussing the OP and how bringing up Leviticus is kind of faulty.

That's not what your non-existent godboy is alleged to have said.

How come if it is a church tradition that so many priests are butt-fucking little boys? You'd think that would be wrong too, no?

Yes, child rape is wrong, Minimalist.

And yes, Jesus did fulfill the law, read the rest of Matthew 5, honestly. Or the rest of the Gospels. Or the NT for that matter.

Orrrr just keep on taking a single line out of context and pretend it means however you interpret it.

[Hovik]

"Appeal to tradition"? More like an appeal to Sacred Tradition, which is equal to Scripture according to most of Christianity.

That's all good and well, except for the rest of us who don't believe in your fairytale. "Homosexuality is bad because that's a sacred tradition in my religion, therefore gays can't marry!" Never mind the fact that we live in a secular nation where your fairytale book's laws and traditions don't apply.

[Minimalist]

Yes, child rape is wrong, Minimalist.

Then why do your priests do it and why did the bishops and archbishops cover up the crimes...and why did you make one of the worst offenders pope?

There is an Italian saying that the fish stinks from the head down. Certainly true of the church.

Matthew said until "heaven and earth pass away" not the smallest jot of the law is to be changed.

There is no heaven but earth is still here.

[Aiza]

That's all good and well, except for the rest of us who don't believe in your fairytale. "Homosexuality is bad because that's a sacred tradition in my religion, therefore gays can't marry!" Never mind the fact that we live in a secular nation where your fairytale book's laws and traditions don't apply.

This thread was explicitly geared toward "the Christians" (because all of 'the Christians' hold the same opinions on everything now, I suppose), and it hinged on a false premise: that rules against homosexual behavior come from Leviticus. These responses feel a bit like they are shifting the proverbial goalposts.

Then why do your priests do it and why did the bishops and archbishops cover up the crimes...and why did you make one of the worst offenders pope?

Some priests rape because they are rapists, and some bishops covered it up to save face. Pope Benedict XVI never did, let alone "the worst offender" as you say. That being said I don't choose the Pope, nor will I ever choose a Pope.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 already. It isn't long and its very good.

[NoMoreFaith]

This thread was explicitly geared toward "the Christians" (because all of 'the Christians' hold the same opinions on everything now, I suppose), and it hinged on a false premise: that rules against homosexual behavior come from Leviticus. These responses feel a bit like they are shifting the proverbial goalposts.

It is a fact that many Christians DO use Leviticus for their persecution and hatred.

You're different, you use tradition to justify hatred and persecution. You're all Christian.

It is intellectually disingenuous to claim the goalposts are being shifted, merely because opinions differ from sect to sect in Christianity. What is true for many of them, may not be true for you, does not equate to a shifted goalposts, more specifically, Christianity has lots of different goalposts already, but like to pick and choose which goalposts counts when they are being criticised.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 already. It isn't long and its very good.

Would it be this one;

"18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

I'll let you explain how this means Leviticus is no longer relevant, because to the uninitiated, Jesus seems to be saying ALL THE LAWS, not even one stroke of pen, tiny bit of deletion, not even the smallest command is bad juju.

[Erinome]

Actually beliefs against gay marriage come from Church tradition (the fact that for traditional Christianity marriage is about family and new life), and against [male] homosexuality come from the Pauline epistles.

OT law consists of both moral and cultural laws. If you actually read the OT you will note that all of it only applies to Jewish people. When Jesus fulfills the law, he expands it onto Gentiles, abolishing the culture-specific laws as well. This is why if you actually read the rest of Matthew 5, you can see him specifically picking at problems within said OT law.

I grew up as an intellectual slave to idol worshiping Catholicism.

You obviously believed whatever historical bullshit they fed you. Sad, but now, be educated about the real story. Here, I'll help you...

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

Ever heard of the "Office of the Same Sex Union" or "Order of Uniting Two Men"?

They were Catholic practices, so tell me again about how Church tradition is so mighty and absolute.

As far as Jesus picking out problems with the OT... well, that's why they crucified him, right? They considered him to be a false prophet, and still do.

[jupitor]

The scriptures also say this.

1...stone troublesome teenagers to death.
2...stone adulterers to death
4..stone to death anyone that works on the holy day
5...those that don't work, don't eat
6...those with deficient eyesight must not be allowed near the altar.
7..judge not lest yee be judged.

Now if the 'authorities' are arguing about gays marrying and the scriptures say no, then the same authorities must bring back, also, all the rules above. Otherwise they are just picking and choosing what they want and not following their beliefs.
Furthermore, marriage has nothing to do with religion, it was introduced by the cavemen. Till death us do part was ok then as 'we' only lived to be about 36.

[Kayenneh]

Actually beliefs against gay marriage come from Church tradition (the fact that for traditional Christianity marriage is about family and new life)

[...]

"Appeal to tradition"? More like an appeal to Sacred Tradition, which is equal to Scripture according to most of Christianity.

(Bolding mine.)

Yeah, tradition. It might be sacred to you, but it is a tradition nevertheless and doesn't make it any more right to judge people on basis of what you thought you read in your outdated clay tablets and papyrus scrolls. Maybe it's time for an update and a reality check?

[Creed of Heresy]

Y'actually, Aiza, I did indeed say "the Christians," but note that if Christians are not speaking out against homosexuality, then they are not being addressed since the prefix to the thread is "Gay Marriage." Note that if you are NOT quoting Leviticus as many Christians DO tend to do when basing their premise that homosexuality is a sin, then therefore you do not need to STFU; quite the opposite, you need to speak up. I resent the implication that I am somehow generalizing when I made my post rather specifically targeted. I did not write anywhere in it "ALL christians think Leviticus = gay marriage is wrong!" I specifically targeted those that do, and why they need to STFU. I would have put in the title "Gay Marriage: Why the Leviticus-following Christians need to STFU about it" but that'd make the title even more unwieldy than it already is...and I'm not sure that I can even MAKE a title that long, truth be told...

As far as catholicism and its whole thing with pedarasty goes...well...supposedly the pope is infallible because he is the pope...to simplify it to an extreme extent. But, see, I take issue with any institution that claims an individual is infallible "just because." No man is infallible, and especially not when he was a Hitler Youth. The catholic church very often does wrong and then rather than coming clean...or, as they put it, "confess their sins," they instead try to scramble to cover them up, thinking that the public will not notice. ...Clearly many do NOT because people still convert to catholicism every day, but to others a bit more perceptive, when we notice such things, we feel revulsion. The same institution that demands all sinners repent hiding its crimes and refusing to, well, repent, as it were, unless they're brow-beaten into it is another element of hypocrisy that I find utterly pathetic.

Sorry, Aiza. I know you're proud of your faith and all but the organization you've chosen to align with is the one I consider to be the absolute worst example of religion. The fact it was that or Islam, as you mentioned in your intro post, makes me cringe and wonder why exactly you seem to be hungry to join religions that espouse women as inferior to men. I sure hope you weren't the victim of domestic violence, because it will not signal a good, healthy mental recovery if you are... If you're wondering where that comes from, well, there's an old saying: Kick a dog enough and soon it begins to believe it genuinely did something wrong, even if it did nothing of the sort. And catholicism and islam are two of the biggest examples of people on high telling the rest that they're all doing something vile and wrong at every moment of their lives. Which is what happens in spousal abuse situations, too...interesting, that, the correlation between spousal abuse and catholicism and islam, yes?

And I agree with Kayenneh: If two guys or two girls wanna get married under religious ordainment, well...that's a different story and I don't really care how the churches handle their own business there, and it ceases to be a public issue anyway.

---

Actually beliefs against gay marriage come from Church tradition (the fact that for traditional Christianity marriage is about family and new life), and against [male] homosexuality come from the Pauline epistles.

OT law consists of both moral and cultural laws. If you actually read the OT you will note that all of it only applies to Jewish people. When Jesus fulfills the law, he expands it onto Gentiles, abolishing the culture-specific laws as well. This is why if you actually read the rest of Matthew 5, you can see him specifically picking at problems within said OT law.

I grew up as an intellectual slave to idol worshiping Catholicism.

You obviously believed whatever historical bullshit they fed you. Sad, but now, be educated about the real story. Here, I'll help you...

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

Ever heard of the "Office of the Same Sex Union" or "Order of Uniting Two Men"?

They were Catholic practices, so tell me again about how Church tradition is so mighty and absolute.

As far as Jesus picking out problems with the OT... well, that's why they crucified him, right? They considered him to be a false prophet, and still do.

Funny you should mention false prophets, Alei, because it reminds me that there's been tens of thousands of supposed prophets before and after Jesus supposedly existed.

"Christianity denies 9,999 [gods and prophets]. When you ponder why they deny those, you'll understand why I deny just one more."

[Aiza]

The scriptures also say this.

1...stone troublesome teenagers to death.
2...stone adulterers to death
4..stone to death anyone that works on the holy day
5...those that don't work, don't eat
6...those with deficient eyesight must not be allowed near the altar.
7..judge not lest yee be judged.

The Scriptures when taken in their entirety actually ban 1, 2, and 3 (which is why stoning is unknown as a punishment within Christianity or Christian cultures); and 6 is no longer even relevant to the Jews or to the Christians, along with any other laws about the running of the temple, as said temple has been destroyed and sacrifices no longer made since the year 70. In the case that Israel does rebuild the temple, I suppose this question can be reopened.

At best they can bring back 5 and 7.

It is a fact that many Christians DO use Leviticus for their persecution and hatred.

You're different, you use tradition to justify hatred and persecution. You're all Christian.

I don't hate anyone and I certainly never persecuted anyone. Now, the majority of Christians are Catholic; and the CCC itself cites Genesis, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and the Persona humana. I think when discussing Christianity its best to use the largest/oldest traditions first, especially if you are addressing a post to "the Christians"

Would it be this one;

It would be the entire thing, NoMore. Not just 1 line out of context, and not just 1-2 lines out of context. Read the entirety of Matthew 5. If you ever bothered to read the entirety of it, I think you'd instantly know why no Christians have ever followed Levitical law. This very question is also explicitly spelled out and answered in the NT for those who have trouble understanding, but I won't ask you to go that far.

Even if we did ignore the vast majority of the NT and took the internet atheists' interpretation of a single line of Matthew 5, it still would have no bearing since OT law never applied to Gentiles even within the OT. This holds true similarly for Jewish folk today iirc, with Moses' law being cultural laws given to Jewish folk; and Noahide laws being spiritual/moral laws binding on all people.

I grew up as an intellectual slave to idol worshiping Catholicism.

You obviously believed whatever historical bullshit they fed you. Sad, but now, be educated about the real story. Here, I'll help you...

Ever heard of the "Office of the Same Sex Union" or "Order of Uniting Two Men"?

They were Catholic practices, so tell me again about how Church tradition is so mighty and absolute.

Sacred Tradition dates to the Apostolic Era, not to the 10th century,as you already know, having been well instructed in Catholicism. Also Adelphopoiesis isn't at all a same-sex marriage as we understand it, so Boswell is taking a lot of liberties there. It actually translates to "Brother-making" and was made to supplant the practice of being "blood brothers".