Gay Marriage: Why the christians need to STFU about it

[Abishalom]

Jesus said all food is clean? Interesting. I actually hadn't heard that. Can you cite a source?

Romans 14:20 (This is from Paul reiterating what Jesus said twice, during His ministry and after)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

Acts 10
"9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Jesus was not making all things clean. Actually those verses are referring to a dream Peter had. It was about the self righteous attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles of that day. It was proclaiming us all equal.

---

Most Christians use whole tracts of the Old Testament to qualify their arguments about why gay marriage is immoral, mostly from the book of Leviticus. The problem is that when Jesus came around he formed something called the "New Covenant," which means that all that stuff about sacrificing goats and shit no longer apply. So, when you follow Old Testament laws, you're not being a good Christian, you're being a dirty, ultra-orthodox Jew.
If you followed Leviticus to a T, you're also expected to:

1: Not wear fabrics made with blended fibers (so no underwear with elastic waists)
2: Not shave your beard (I don't see a lot of Christians walking around with unshaven beards)
3: Two types of seed may not be planted in the same field. Too bad crop rotation is an essential part of modern farming.
4: Shellfish are right out too. Goodbye, lobster dinner.
5: No crossbreeding anything. Goodbye mules, as well as practically any seedless fruit.
6: Tattoos are not allowed.
7: Ditto is eating blood and fat. Goodbye rare steaks. Or, hell, any kind of burger or steak that isn't ridiculously, meticulously cut.
8: You can't has cheeseburger, either, because Leviticus also forbids mixing meat and dairy.

There actually is no command of "don't mix meat with dairy". That's just a Jewish tradition that stems from taking Exodus 23:19 out of context (which is speaking about a pagan ritual as opposed to telling us "do not eat a cheeseburger").

The New Testament argument against homosexuality is gleaned mostly from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Paul's disclaimer at the beginning of this letter is that as long as you are a good Christian, the liturgy of laws he states from the Torah do not apply to you.
Jesus himself denied the ethical code laid down by Moses because they were written a couple thousand years before Jesus started his ministry and were thus totally out of date almost FOUR THOUSAND FUCKING YEARS AGO!
God might "hate fags" but Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality once in the Bible. If God was so pissed at the faggots then why the hell didn't he tell his son to tell his chosen people to keep their cocks away from each others bungholes?
When a Centurion asked Jesus to heal his gay lover, Jesus called him the most faithful man in Jerusalem...OK, well the term used for "gay lover" may be interpreted different ways, but-
We could dive into the actual language of the bible to prove him wrong, but this shit is already way waaaaay too fucking boring.

So, to all Christians, please, kindly, do us all a favor on the issue of gay marriage...and shut the fuck up. K? K. Your hypocrisy is difficult enough to deal with. You don't need to give me any more reasons to want to smack you in the face with a hot cast iron frying pan, much less a dozen or so of them all rolled into one.

You should be the poster child for homosexuals. I'm sure they'd be elated.

[Aiza]

Read it and weep.

The old Hullermann allegation? You mean the one where Archbishop Ratzinger agreed to allow the priest to stay in his diocese to undergo "counseling", was never informed of any child abuse allegations, and the priest wasn't even given a parish assignment til after Archbishop Ratzinger had left Munich? (Really stretching the definition of "reassignment" btw) (Archbishop Ratzinger having since gone on to the CDF and instituted tons of reforms for the better on the handling of child abuse cases). I thought that one was discredited years ago but looks like some people think this is legitimately a really terrible thing, "the worst" even! And yet Germany seems to be only blaming the bishop who was aware of the abuse and not the bishop who approved a priest to stay in a rectory within his diocese for "counseling". What do they know anyway?

I'm ticking the boxes of Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Age, Argumentum ad populum and burning through my logical fallacy bingo.

Sigh, I don't think you know what those phrases mean. I'm not saying that the fact that Catholicism is the oldest/largest Christian tradition makes it correct; but if you just use the term "Christianity" then well--those are going to be the most representative. I am sure you can find some isolated Christian or two citing Leviticus, but unless you are more specific it just looks like a strawman.

And no, Catholics don't hate and/or persecute homosexuality, as a matter of fact the CCC bans homosexual persecution (and gay men are overrepresented within Catholic priesthood). They don't believe in gay marriage, but neither did, say, the ancient Greeks. And I don't think they "persecuted homosexuality".

If you ever bothered to read the question posed, you'd instantly know why I dismiss your equivocation here.

Don't "allude", or prevaricate. It was a simple question, and equivocated answers do not wash. You're supposed to be the christian here, it is not up to me to interpret your ancient gibberish for you.

Let's pretend I quoted the whole of Matthew 5 if you like, fuck it, pretend I quoted the entire bible if it pleases you, but that would be retarded. I quoted a part of Matthew, which, is in context of Matthew. Point out the parts of Matthew 5 which contradicts this quote.

They don't "contradict" that quote, they illuminate that quote; and make it easier to understand what the fulfillment of the law is. The entire rest of Matthew 5 is about illuminating the moral principles behind the Mosaic law and bringing them out into their fullness, and this includes abolishing some aspects of Jewish culture, like divorce; which was allowed in the OT, but is not allowed in the NT, and eye-for-an-eye which is permissible (and required) in the OT but required in the NT. Capital punishment is also more explicitly abolished in 8. Elsewhere in Acts, the epistles, and the gospels (Matthew 15:11 to give an example), cultural aspects of the Mosaic law, most explicitly circumcision and dietary law, are abolished. And through the Gospels we have many times when Jesus illuminates the deeper spiritual significance of the Sabbath--that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice-versa, which is in contrast to Jewish tradition.

Don't you ever find it strange that no Christian community, ever, has followed Jewish law? I honestly have no idea how atheists can look at Matthew 5 and try to say "yep that totally means that Christians should be keeping kosher" unless they deliberately ignore everything else in Matthew 5.

I think you'll find that most people on here have read the entire bible. I did, and I didn't find one bit of it to be "good".

---

.....
So the scriptures advocate something. . .and then ban it. Ah, yes. Truly infallible.

What part of Matthew 5 do you find to be "bad"? When I say "good" I don't mean you have to agree with everything in it, mind.

Now "the Scriptures" consist of a whole variety of books written over a vast amount of time by many different authors. No single verse can be taken out of context from the rest, nor can they be taken from the even greater context of Christian tradition and Magisterium.

[Aiza]

I missed this post earlier apparently, sorry:

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."

I see, and I apologize for the confusion there.

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.

Papal infallibility is similar to Scriptural Infallibility, in that he is infallible when speaking on issues of Faith or Morals. And only when speaking ex cathedra, within his office as Pope. He wasn't infallible when he was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child. And while individual priests, bishops and even Popes have done evil and hateful things in the past; I do think that "the Church" is a lot bigger than that. I can understand if you feel that way though.

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?

I quite love Catholicism. I don't think Catholicism or Islam see women as inferior to men. Islam sees women as different and to be protected by men, though I can see where it has definitely been problematic in its implementation, so I won't really argue too much. Catholicism scarcely recognizes a gender difference at all, particularly nowadays. Women are not capable of receiving Holy Orders (nor will they ever be), and the requirements for a woman's cloister are stricter than those of a men's cloister. (For nuns/monks respectively). If you dig into the past, you will find that women were once required to veil their heads in church (til the 80s, though some people would argue veils are still required since the old laws were never formally revoked), there were no "altar girls" til the 90s (and some churches do keep boys-only), and there were no female Apostolic ministries until the 16th century or so.

The current CCC mentions them only that they are equal in dignity. Outside of that, I can't think of anything. And yes, Catholicism is demanding and sometimes it does feel as if I am always doing something wrong (I am sure if I flip around the CCC even this sentence may be wrong!). But I enjoy being called to that state of perfection. Islam also puts very high demands on individuals and so maybe you are right in terms of that mentality, though I don't think of it as abusive, nor am I a DV victim.

There is room in Catholic dogma which allows for religious plurality, and legalized homosexual marriage on the state level--its why we have for example, legal divorce even if there is no legal divorce in the Catholic Church (though Catholics still resisted legalized divorce in Malta); or why we allow legalized artificial contraception. On the other hand I am bound to what my bishop says.

[Creed of Heresy]

You are bound to servitude, you mean. You willingly accept the yoke. Don't take this as scathing, what I say next, please. My words can come off as a bit harsh, but realize it's only my own perceived indignities bubbling up to the surface a bit as I type.

You essentially asy that catholicism and islam do not see women as inferior but then you state that there are stricter requirements on women [implying that women NEED to be policed more tightly, implying weaker wills, implying inferiority], and that women are incapable of receiving holy orders but that men are...implying a superiority of men over women in that realm, as well [being allowed to do something is, has, ever has been and ever will be the mark of superiority], and that women were, until only recently, forced to veil their heads in church, were not allowed on the altar, and no ministries until the age of Enlightenment.

You surely must notice a trend, here; the catholic church has changed, yes...but it does so kicking and screaming, being dragged by the ideas of humanist secularists, practically being forced to adapt by the morality being improved upon by the world surrounding it. I'm not denying there have been bishops and cardinals who have done good deeds but surely you recognize that the entire story of the catholic church is one of oppression of females, yes?? The bible itself states so. The "greatest" [and I use that word with extreme levels of sarcasm, believe me] of the catholic church are NOT ambiguous in this sentiment:

“It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater . . . This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.” (Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153.

That doesn't leave much room open to interpretation; women were, if you follow church doctrine, meant to virtually be SLAVES to men. As a man who did not experience this gender-based disparity I STILL feel appalled at this suggestion. Now, if you're a woman and you get off on serving your lover/husband/whathaveyou, well...more power to you, I suppose, but the DEMAND that women EVER be servile and submissive and inferior? I bring forth more quotes as proof...

“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, "The head of the woman is the man;" and, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." So also the Apostle Peter writes: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord." Augustine, On Concupiscence, Book I, chap. 10.
“The Apostle wants women who are manifestly inferior, to be without fault, in order that the Church of God be pure” Ambrosiaster, On 1 Timothy 3,11.
“Who are there that teach such things apart from women? In very truth, women are a feeble race, untrustworthy and of mediocre intelligence. Once again we see that the Devil knows how to make women spew forth ridiculous teachings, as he has just succeeded in doing in the case of Quintilla, Maxima and Priscilla” Epiphanius, Panarion 79, §1.

Now, see, taken in context of the church, I can understand how you can believe this all to be true, but the thing is this: These ARE sentiments provided with either no proof or extremely dubious evidence; if you need proof of the dubiousness of said evidence, you need only witness the existence of this site and how many discussions are laid out to debate said evidence. If such evidence were credible, far fewer arguments could be made from non-believing freethinkers such as I.

I hold no hope of truly convincing you on my own...I am sure that if you truly believe this stuff then I really hold no hope of ever thinking otherwise but I would ask you to at TRY to think on this. Really, deeply think about it. Not just give it a few moments and then shrug it off as something like the devil trying to trick you or some bladdity blah kind of thing but...take it away, think about it overnight. Skim the history books [or plow right into them]. Notice how the catholic church only changed after the world around it did. And notice it only actually started truly changing when it lost its ability to exert by force its influence upon others, too. Notice the reluctance to join in the cause for womens' suffrage. Notice the reluctance to denounce slavery. Notice the gleeful support of the Nazis and its refusal to ever denounce its support for decades after the fact. Notice its association with militant groups in Africa. Notice its attacks on abortion, contraception, sexual conduct of a woman...the only way it can, in the modern developed secular world, exert any kind of control over women anymore. This is not coincidence. An organization, ruled solely by men, with rules favoring men, with a very clear history of oppression of women, with a doctrine that is kicking and screaming in its refusal to let women join its ranks. It adapts to the world around it decades too late all the time.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Do you NEED to be a catholic? Does it make you a better person? And if it does, can you imagine yourself being as good an individual WITHOUT such a doctrine to follow?

[jupitor]

The problem with brainwashed religious people is just that..brainwashed from birth and taught NOT to question the scriptures/bible. I too was brought up a Christian then as an adult I read the scriptures over and over and came to my own conclusion that they are a load of fairy stories/Greek mythology, made up to control the peasants, so that the rich ones could get richer. The same happens today.
I would wager that all the Christians that come on here, have, never, ever questioned the scriptures nor looked deeply into the writings. There are so many contradictions its laughable and how any sane grown up can believe it is beyond belief.
Jesus [if he ever existed] only spoke in parables...or philosophy.......i.e. Greek philosophy but seeing that he was a Greek and came from a large community of Greeks in Judea, that figures.

[LarissaAnn]

overrepresented within Catholic priesthood). They don't believe in gay marriage, but neither did, say, the ancient Greeks. And I don't think they "persecuted homosexuality".

LMAO!! You're using the Ancient Greeks as an example against same sex marriage??

Marriage was a side dish or only a necessity for procreation in their flamboyant homosexual society. The Ancient Greeks were VERY VERY in tune with homosexuality, it was not only legal, it was quite the norm. Homosexuality was rampant, practiced, accepted, encouraged etc. even after the man was married.

Achilles and Patrocles were thought to be lovers
Apollo was bisexual (the story of Hyacinth for example)
Zeus was bisexual
and I'm sure there are countless other stories to cite as well

In Sparta, women had thier heads shaved on their wedding nights so that their husbands could transition more easily from male sex to female sex.

Sure they might not have had same sex marriage in their society, but it was not for reasons of "preserving the sanctity of marriage" like you're trying to claim. Same sex marriage didn't exist in their society because marriage to Greek men was simply a necessary institution to where they had the convenience of their wives to run their home, bear and raise their children while they, the men, ran the society and oftentimes continued getting male booty (pun intended) on the side.

Pardon the coarseness (and mods feel free to get rid of it if I've crossed a line) but see Aiza:

and trust me there are worse ancient Greek homosexual art than that if you don't believe me.

[Tempus]

and trust me there are worse ancient Greek homosexual art than that if you don't believe me.

Or better, depending on your view point

[LarissaAnn]

Lol, this be true Tempus, all about preference hehe

[Aiza]

Sure they might not have had same sex marriage in their society, but it was not for reasons of "preserving the sanctity of marriage" like you're trying to claim. Same sex marriage didn't exist in their society because marriage to Greek men was simply a necessary institution to where they had the convenience of their wives to run their home, bear and raise their children while they, the men, ran the society and oftentimes continued getting male booty (pun intended) on the side.

That was my point, LarissaAnn. If "doesn't believe in gay marriage" means you are persecuting gay people, than the Greeks persecuted homosexuals in spite of having, by any measure, a very gay friendly society. Get it?

The problem with brainwashed religious people is just that..brainwashed from birth and taught NOT to question the scriptures/bible. I too was brought up a Christian then as an adult I read the scriptures over and over and came to my own conclusion that they are a load of fairy stories/Greek mythology, made up to control the peasants, so that the rich ones could get richer. The same happens today.
I would wager that all the Christians that come on here, have, never, ever questioned the scriptures nor looked deeply into the writings. There are so many contradictions its laughable and how any sane grown up can believe it is beyond belief.

Tell me, what in Christian Scripture allows for rich people to "get richer"?

And yes, I have looked very deeply into the writings of Scripture, and have questioned them, as have many many Christians dating all the way back to the Church Fathers. The vast majority of the "contradictions" aren't when you put them into context (either historical, literary or within context of Christian Tradition), and those that do contradict don't contradict in matters of faith or morals which is what Christians use Scripture for.

You essentially asy that catholicism and islam do not see women as inferior but then you state that there are stricter requirements on women [implying that women NEED to be policed more tightly, implying weaker wills, implying inferiority], and that women are incapable of receiving holy orders but that men are...implying a superiority of men over women in that realm, as well [being allowed to do something is, has, ever has been and ever will be the mark of superiority], and that women were, until only recently, forced to veil their heads in church, were not allowed on the altar, and no ministries until the age of Enlightenment.

You don't come off as harsh at all Creed.

No the stricter requirements were in terms of their cloister, and I think its to prevent rape and such. Men's cloisters have "neutral territory" where women can enter, but women's cloisters don't have said neutral territory. And honestly I have no idea if this rule is still in effect. And the fact that women cannot receive Holy Orders (not even that they are disallowed, but that it is considered impossible) is because it allows one to act in persona Christi. Is beer or grape juice "inferior" to wine since wine can be used in the Eucharist? While it is not sacramental, women can become consecrated virgins and men cannot.

And you describe the Church as "kicking and screaming" and "being dragged by the ideas of humanist secularists" but I don't see that at all. All the changes I described came from within. Apostolic women religious first came about with Pope Leo X a hundred years before the Enlightenment (?), though I suppose indirectly Enlightenment values may have increased their number as many women in Catholic dominated nations were forced out of their cloister and needed to find some work to support themselves. Women veiling their heads only was first allowed in 1917, it was removed in 1983 with a new Code of Canon law, though I have toyed with the idea of buying myself a veil to wear voluntarily. Altar girls came about specifically from an letter from Pope John Paul II, which permits them but expressly states that they do not have the "right" to serve the altar (no one does). While the changes probably are made with the times, I don't get "secular" out of any of it, nor do I get "kicking and screaming". If anything post-Vatican II parishes were too eager to institute changes: tearing out the altar rails (or kneelers altogether), turning the altar around, moving the tabernacle (ugh). If it were "kicking and screaming" altar girls would be an exception, not the rule in most parishes. My own parish is one of the very few which still has male-only servers.

Also while St. Augustine of Hippo is a great man, he is not infallible, nor are his words equivalent to Church doctrine. If you go back far enough, any person is quite misogynist. We could look even at some "anti-theist" contemporaries and find plenty of distaste for women. Women and men have always been under a single law within the Catholic church, and always been considered spiritually equal: "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus" as it were.

Also the Catholic Church never "supported the Nazis", let alone gleefully.

I do need to be a Catholic. I am a Catholic.

[Minimalist]

Discredited? Hardly. The documents are there and herr von popenfuhrer is up to his smelly nazi armpits in it. It says far more about you that you will dismiss any evidence that your godboy on earth is a fucking pedophile.