Comments on: Video: Newsweek’s religious case for gay marriage http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Carvel http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-5/#comment-44113 Carvel Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:42:46 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-44113 The problem is that this article does not go far enough. If you research it, mankind according to the Bible is about 6,000 years old. Possible, if that is what you believe. Forget fossel history, we have recorded history of about 6,000 years or so. The first religions were pagan by definition. the people worshiped many gods. the first monothestic religion was Judaism. It also taught sex was only to be in a marriage. Moses received the laws from God around 1313 BC and this was when he wrote Leviticus which is mostly about diatary laws and other practices to be a good or moral Jew. Jesus came approximately around the year 1, give or take a few years. He did not preach until he was in his 30's. We had same sex marriages, called marriages in Rome since before the birth of Jesus and it was not until the Christian church put pressure on the Roman emperors to outlaw it in 342 AD that it was banned. Mostly as a political tool to use against his emenies despite the fact that he had a male lover. Leviticus and the Bible proscribes death for divorce, adultery, a woman not being a virgin on her marriage night, cursing God's name, cursing your parents and lots of other things. When religious leaders advocate marriage according to traditional religious values they know not from whence they speak. Ptostetants are less than 500 years old. Roman Catholics are just less than 2,000 years old, Judaism is the oldest allpowerful one God religion and Paganism is at least 2,000 years older, perhaps more. If they want traditional religious values, they mean their idea of traditional. Tradidional marriage included same sex marriages and before Judaism included worshiping fertility and all fertility Gods. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in 1517 (October 31,)that the state even got involved in certifying marriages. It was later before the Roman Catholic church even required married men and women to live together. these religious people just don't have the slighest idea what they are speaking about. They are hypocrites, plain and simple and no one has called them into tow for their hypocratracy or their lies. The problem is that this article does not go far enough. If you research it, mankind according to the Bible is about 6,000 years old. Possible, if that is what you believe. Forget fossel history, we have recorded history of about 6,000 years or so. The first religions were pagan by definition. the people worshiped many gods. the first monothestic religion was Judaism. It also taught sex was only to be in a marriage. Moses received the laws from God around 1313 BC and this was when he wrote Leviticus which is mostly about diatary laws and other practices to be a good or moral Jew. Jesus came approximately around the year 1, give or take a few years. He did not preach until he was in his 30′s. We had same sex marriages, called marriages in Rome since before the birth of Jesus and it was not until the Christian church put pressure on the Roman emperors to outlaw it in 342 AD that it was banned. Mostly as a political tool to use against his emenies despite the fact that he had a male lover. Leviticus and the Bible proscribes death for divorce, adultery, a woman not being a virgin on her marriage night, cursing God’s name, cursing your parents and lots of other things. When religious leaders advocate marriage according to traditional religious values they know not from whence they speak. Ptostetants are less than 500 years old. Roman Catholics are just less than 2,000 years old, Judaism is the oldest allpowerful one God religion and Paganism is at least 2,000 years older, perhaps more. If they want traditional religious values, they mean their idea of traditional. Tradidional marriage included same sex marriages and before Judaism included worshiping fertility and all fertility Gods. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in 1517 (October 31,)that the state even got involved in certifying marriages. It was later before the Roman Catholic church even required married men and women to live together. these religious people just don’t have the slighest idea what they are speaking about. They are hypocrites, plain and simple and no one has called them into tow for their hypocratracy or their lies.

]]> By: Carvel http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-5/#comment-37643 Carvel Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:25:02 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-37643 Two people have been joining together as a couple since time immemorial. Usually same sex couples did not have marriages, they just lived together, but since before the birth of Christ the Romans recognized same sex marriages. It was not until 342 AD that the Roman emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriages to be illegal. This was because Rome was now Christian. So same sex marriages have been here longer than Christians. Early marriages were private affairs between parties and not subject to church or state approval. The church recorded marriages as part of their record keeping, but it wasn't until 1545 and the Council of Trent that the church required their marriages to be officiated by clergy. England broke with Rome in 1534 before Trent. It was not until the 1600's that Protestant Europe had state involvement with marriages. Before that marriage was a private affair between the parties. Today we have state recognition of marriage under the edicts of the Roman Catholic Christian Church and most of the church rules. However, the reason i say that it would be simple for all state sanctions unions to be called civil unions and not marriage is to defuse the Christian conservatives who argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman which is a lie. but if any two people want to be joined by the state, then it is a civil union. the churches are given the term marriage. However, if a church, any church recognizes same sex marriages, then, they can perform a same sex marriage and the same sex couple is married. People who elope and only have a civil ceremony are "married" but it is called a civil union. this makes civil unions equal to marriage without having to fight the semantics battle of "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" that George Orwell wrote about. They want same sex couples to only have civil unions and then thay don't want civil unions of same sex couples and heterosexual couples to be the same. Why fight an unnecessary battle over a word that does not matter. If your church sanctions your union, then you are married. They can not challange a church's right to marry within their faith. If they do, then they challange their own church's right to set limitations and standards on their members. You can defeat their arguments by their own logic. Don't debate what they believe GOD said. Just let the state only sanction civil unions and then give marriage to the churches. Same sex couples would be married if their church sanctioned their marriage. Two people have been joining together as a couple since time immemorial. Usually same sex couples did not have marriages, they just lived together, but since before the birth of Christ the Romans recognized same sex marriages. It was not until 342 AD that the Roman emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriages to be illegal. This was because Rome was now Christian. So same sex marriages have been here longer than Christians. Early marriages were private affairs between parties and not subject to church or state approval. The church recorded marriages as part of their record keeping, but it wasn’t until 1545 and the Council of Trent that the church required their marriages to be officiated by clergy. England broke with Rome in 1534 before Trent. It was not until the 1600′s that Protestant Europe had state involvement with marriages. Before that marriage was a private affair between the parties. Today we have state recognition of marriage under the edicts of the Roman Catholic Christian Church and most of the church rules. However, the reason i say that it would be simple for all state sanctions unions to be called civil unions and not marriage is to defuse the Christian conservatives who argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman which is a lie. but if any two people want to be joined by the state, then it is a civil union. the churches are given the term marriage. However, if a church, any church recognizes same sex marriages, then, they can perform a same sex marriage and the same sex couple is married. People who elope and only have a civil ceremony are “married” but it is called a civil union. this makes civil unions equal to marriage without having to fight the semantics battle of “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” that George Orwell wrote about. They want same sex couples to only have civil unions and then thay don’t want civil unions of same sex couples and heterosexual couples to be the same. Why fight an unnecessary battle over a word that does not matter. If your church sanctions your union, then you are married. They can not challange a church’s right to marry within their faith. If they do, then they challange their own church’s right to set limitations and standards on their members. You can defeat their arguments by their own logic. Don’t debate what they believe GOD said. Just let the state only sanction civil unions and then give marriage to the churches. Same sex couples would be married if their church sanctioned their marriage.

]]> By: andres http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-36357 andres Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:47:07 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-36357 check it out .....help is on the way....! check it out …..help is on the way….!

]]> By: david john http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35575 david john Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:34:42 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35575 Here's another interesting intepretation on the sex between men being an abomination as quoted in Leviticus. I was dating a gay man who was a minister who said he thought the verse meant it was an abomination for two heterosexual men to have sex with each other. In other words there are men who have sex with each but whose orientation is not gay, or dont identify as gay. Psychologists who work with gay men talk about this phenonmena. In Jesus'es time there was little awareness of gay identity or sexual orientation of course. Could it be that the quote really doesnt refer to gay at all but only to individuals who are not primarily gay? I found this slant to the popular and so tiring(and boring) prejudicial interpretion to be a breath of fresh air! Here’s another interesting intepretation on the sex between men being an abomination as quoted in Leviticus. I was dating a gay man who was a minister who said he thought the verse meant it was an abomination for two heterosexual men to have sex with each other. In other words there are men who have sex with each but whose orientation is not gay, or dont identify as gay. Psychologists who work with gay men talk about this phenonmena. In Jesus’es time there was little awareness of gay identity or sexual orientation of course. Could it be that the quote really doesnt refer to gay at all but only to individuals who are not primarily gay? I found this slant to the popular and so tiring(and boring) prejudicial interpretion to be a breath of fresh air!

]]> By: April http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35515 April Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:22:55 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35515 BRAVO, I couldn't have said it better myself. so ya how about football theirs a single liner that the fundies like to overlook Bigotry and hypocrisy as usual. BRAVO, I couldn’t have said it better myself. so ya how about football theirs a single liner that the fundies like to overlook Bigotry and hypocrisy as usual.

]]> By: Thom of NorCal http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35512 Thom of NorCal Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:46:59 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35512 Just to add something overlooked: the neocon fascists usually quote the Old Testiment which is NOT the foundation of Christianity. Paul is the one exception but he did, above all else, promote love and compassion. Within the Catholic Church the Paulists have been the liberals, while the fascists are Augustinians. Just to add something overlooked: the neocon fascists usually quote the Old Testiment which is NOT the foundation of Christianity. Paul is the one exception but he did, above all else, promote love and compassion. Within the Catholic Church the Paulists have been the liberals, while the fascists are Augustinians.

]]> By: karl http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35472 karl Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:35:04 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35472 I come from New York. I live in Sydney. I have lived downtown in both. I grew up in DC and two short periods in Norway the Denmark. My parents are professors. Where in the world, cause they are not in mine, are these people who just hate the gays? And on interpretations from the bible? And as it said, what about all the other things that the bible says that is ignored by the preachers and churchgoers? Look, Ill stay in my cities and I will allow the "righteous" in middle America and beyond to practice what they believe, but I draw the line, when they litigate their hate at me. I have not really been confronted my entire life religious folks on these issues. All the heterosexuals I have known are totally on my side and the side of my community. Can't they just leave us be? www.gayvolt.com I come from New York. I live in Sydney. I have lived downtown in both. I grew up in DC and two short periods in Norway the Denmark. My parents are professors. Where in the world, cause they are not in mine, are these people who just hate the gays? And on interpretations from the bible? And as it said, what about all the other things that the bible says that is ignored by the preachers and churchgoers?

Look, Ill stay in my cities and I will allow the “righteous” in middle America and beyond to practice what they believe, but I draw the line, when they litigate their hate at me. I have not really been confronted my entire life religious folks on these issues. All the heterosexuals I have known are totally on my side and the side of my community. Can’t they just leave us be?

http://www.gayvolt.com

]]> By: Brian http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35418 Brian Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:32:33 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35418 Wanna' know something I, along with countless undoubtable others, have noticed over the years about the religious right. The so-called "God" they idolize is extremely angry and vengeful. Sorta' goes against everything I was raised to believe God was all about. Still, it does make sense when you consider that many bible-thumpers(i.e. Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of their ilk)are altogether angry and vengeful people themselves. They seem to believe that "Freedom of Religion" automatically awards them the right to impose their morals on everyone else, thereby giving them license to dictate who ALL people should or should not live. They wield their religion as a weapon to oppress and discriminate against others. And they do this without the slightest remorse or hesitation because, deep inside, they actually believe they're living by God's word; never mind the fact that God did NOT write the bible, men did. This is precisely why we so desperately need a seperation of chuirch and state in this country. The United States of America, last time I checked, is supposed to be a free country. My homosexuality does not make me any less of an American citizen. I hold a full time job, I pay taxes and strive to better myself each and every day just like my heterosexual counterpoints. So why, then, am I not entitled to the same legal protections? Anybody who dares to defy the notion that this is a civil rights issue needs to screw their head on properly. This IS a civil rights matter. Discrimination is discrimination. Religion has hijacked this this nation. The fundies would gladly abolish the freedoms we currently have as a nation if it meant we'd all be forced to live under their theocratical standards. You look at everything their brainwashed followers have ever done to maim and murder us over the years, and dare to tell me I'm wrong. I plain and simply do NOT care what the bible says is or isn't wrong, because all those laws were written for a culture that is thousands of years dead in its grave. You have fools, running around in modern-day society, telling other people they're going to hell simply because they're gay and because the bible says so. Uh, yeah, okay. That's bogus, especially when you consider that same book also outlaws touching the skin of a pig and the eating of shellfish. Just try and imagine how many millions of football fans would react if they knew they were all comitting a sin by playing and watching a worldwide popular form of entertainment! And what about Red Lobster, Joe's Crab Shack and all those many other seafood establishments? These characters want us all to abide by the bible's teachings in a literal sense, so shouldn't they be organizing picket lines outside these restaurants? See the point I'm trying to make here? And to think there's STILL folks out there who seriously don't believe religion is destroying this country! Don't get me wrong, religion is a good thing IF it is kept within the church where it belongs. Imposing it on government practice and private citizens who--for whatever reason--do not endorse that religion is simply unacceptable. Marriage is only a religious institution if the two partners involved want it to be. My parents, who have been together for 50 years, certainly didn't have religion on their minds when they tied the knot. They married, first and foremost, because they were in love and wanted to build a life together. Why is that barebones concept so completely difficult for these bible fanatics to grasp when it comes to gay men and women? I have yet to hear any of them provide me with a rational answer to that question. And, judging from how poorly they still choose to conduct themselves within the public spotlight, I highly doubt I ever will. Wanna’ know something I, along with countless undoubtable others, have noticed over the years about the religious right. The so-called “God” they idolize is extremely angry and vengeful. Sorta’ goes against everything I was raised to believe God was all about. Still, it does make sense when you consider that many bible-thumpers(i.e. Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of their ilk)are altogether angry and vengeful people themselves. They seem to believe that “Freedom of Religion” automatically awards them the right to impose their morals on everyone else, thereby giving them license to dictate who ALL people should or should not live. They wield their religion as a weapon to oppress and discriminate against others. And they do this without the slightest remorse or hesitation because, deep inside, they actually believe they’re living by God’s word; never mind the fact that God did NOT write the bible, men did. This is precisely why we so desperately need a seperation of chuirch and state in this country.

The United States of America, last time I checked, is supposed to be a free country. My homosexuality does not make me any less of an American citizen. I hold a full time job, I pay taxes and strive to better myself each and every day just like my heterosexual counterpoints. So why, then, am I not entitled to the same legal protections? Anybody who dares to defy the notion that this is a civil rights issue needs to screw their head on properly. This IS a civil rights matter. Discrimination is discrimination. Religion has hijacked this this nation. The fundies would gladly abolish the freedoms we currently have as a nation if it meant we’d all be forced to live under their theocratical standards. You look at everything their brainwashed followers have ever done to maim and murder us over the years, and dare to tell me I’m wrong.

I plain and simply do NOT care what the bible says is or isn’t wrong, because all those laws were written for a culture that is thousands of years dead in its grave. You have fools, running around in modern-day society, telling other people they’re going to hell simply because they’re gay and because the bible says so. Uh, yeah, okay. That’s bogus, especially when you consider that same book also outlaws touching the skin of a pig and the eating of shellfish. Just try and imagine how many millions of football fans would react if they knew they were all comitting a sin by playing and watching a worldwide popular form of entertainment! And what about Red Lobster, Joe’s Crab Shack and all those many other seafood establishments? These characters want us all to abide by the bible’s teachings in a literal sense, so shouldn’t they be organizing picket lines outside these restaurants?

See the point I’m trying to make here?

And to think there’s STILL folks out there who seriously don’t believe religion is destroying this country! Don’t get me wrong, religion is a good thing IF it is kept within the church where it belongs. Imposing it on government practice and private citizens who–for whatever reason–do not endorse that religion is simply unacceptable. Marriage is only a religious institution if the two partners involved want it to be. My parents, who have been together for 50 years, certainly didn’t have religion on their minds when they tied the knot. They married, first and foremost, because they were in love and wanted to build a life together. Why is that barebones concept so completely difficult for these bible fanatics to grasp when it comes to gay men and women? I have yet to hear any of them provide me with a rational answer to that question. And, judging from how poorly they still choose to conduct themselves within the public spotlight, I highly doubt I ever will.

]]> By: Chris Sullivan http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35375 Chris Sullivan Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:11:04 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35375 Sorry, meant "Aesop's Fables"... :) Sorry, meant “Aesop’s Fables”… :)

]]> By: Chris Sullivan http://www.365gay.com/living/video-newsweeks-religious-case-for-gay-marriage/comment-page-4/#comment-35371 Chris Sullivan Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:47:59 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=4533#comment-35371 The "Bible" is a mythology book (and quite the master propaganda piece as well). A series of stories to help guide people in their lives - to be given no more weight than "Espos Fables". The vast majority of the brainwashed people in this world have apparently lost all ability to think objectively (such is the pervasive power of brainwshing)and the rest of us are stuck paying the price for their ignorance. The “Bible” is a mythology book (and quite the master propaganda piece as well). A series of stories to help guide people in their lives – to be given no more weight than “Espos Fables”. The vast majority of the brainwashed people in this world have apparently lost all ability to think objectively (such is the pervasive power of brainwshing)and the rest of us are stuck paying the price for their ignorance.

]]>