• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm pretty sure it says that if a man has sex with another man they should be killed. Also in that passage IIRC is that having sex with a woman during her period is cause for banishment from society. Cursing your parents also calls for death.

I'm positive that each of these three things are equally as respected by anyone who stipulates that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you believe this, it is only logical that you should also believe they should be killed correct? Or am I misinterpreting the text?

ETA: I'm not trying to patronize anyone, I'm just curious as to how and what commonly gets cherry picked within modern society from an ancient text.
Click to expand...
Does viewing TV programs with two men kissing bother you?
 
RJKarl said:
Can gay people who engage in homosexual sex go to heaven?
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity I would like to hear your answer to this question, and secondarily what in general is the pre-requisite to 'get to heaven' in your opinion? #curious
 
Wrangor said:
Just out of curiosity I would like to hear your answer to this question, and secondarily what in general is the pre-requisite to 'get to heaven' in your opinion? #curious
Click to expand...

Having gay sex is no different than straight sex.

I'm not sure if there is a specific "pre-requisite". I actually think the Buddhist concept of reincarnation isn't that much different than dying and immediately going to heaven. That's a reincarnation.

I think at the heart of it is good deeds and a good life.
 
Regardless of what people think is a sin/immoral, from a Christian standpoint this would not preclude anyone going to Heaven. That's kind what the whole 'Jesus dying on the cross for us' thing was about.
 
GayKeeper.jpg
 
RJKarl said:
Having gay sex is no different than straight sex.

I'm not sure if there is a specific "pre-requisite". I actually think the Buddhist concept of reincarnation isn't that much different than dying and immediately going to heaven. That's a reincarnation.

I think at the heart of it is good deeds and a good life.
Click to expand...

no there's a fundamental difference. end result is the same though.
 
also, i don't vote in NC but good for y'all going out supporting what you believe in.
 
RJ - who determines what is good/evil? I am not trying to trap you really curious to comprehend how you formulate you religious view.
 
If you hurt people or the world you aren't being good. If help or try to help people and the world, it's good.

I don't believe in "serving God". Why would God need us to serve him/her? That sounds like an egomaniac rather than a benevolent loving parent.

It would be much more logical that we serve each other and the world around us.
 
RJKarl said:
If you hurt people or the world you aren't being good. If help or try to help people and the world, it's good.

I don't believe in "serving God". Why would God need us to serve him/her? That sounds like an egomaniac rather than a benevolent loving parent.

It would be much more logical that we serve each other and the world around us.
Click to expand...

but if God is in everything and everyone, in doing so we are serving God. just throwing that out there; depends on how you look at things.
 
Some think it's about directly serving God not man or the world.
 
Edit: I'm an idiot.

But I'm also curious about RChildress' response to lbe's question. You asked the board to convince you which way to vote, were they successful in influencing your choice?
 
Last edited:
I'm hesitant to go too far out on a limb defending RChildress here because I profoundly disagree with his assertion re: morality of homosexuality, but I honestly would have no problem if the majority of the religious right acted like he has (or at least has professed to act). Do I agree with his opinion? No. But I don't care on a personal level what he believes so long as he isn't trying to push it on others/legislate his own view of morality. What he has stated in this thread is he views homosexual acts as immoral, but that such immorality shouldn't preclude them from the right to marry. I don't agree with the former statement, but if more conservative Christians actually held that view, it would be a positive thing. This amendment is legislating morality. He can believe whatever he wants personally so long as he respects the rights of others to live their lives on equal footing. I could care less if I can convince him homosexuality is not immoral so long as he doesn't go out of his way to prevent equal rights for people who are living a lifestyle he disagrees with.
 
I agree with eagles. Although I disagree with him I just posrepped rchildress for being reasonable and respectful while defending an unpopular belief, it's easy to go along with the crowd but hard to defend an unpopular position while others pile on.
 
RJKarl said:
If you hurt people or the world you aren't being good. If help or try to help people and the world, it's good.

I don't believe in "serving God". Why would God need us to serve him/her? That sounds like an egomaniac rather than a benevolent loving parent.

It would be much more logical that we serve each other and the world around us.
Click to expand...

I find these to be very vague concepts to build a life around, but I appreciate your answer. Who determines what is helping someone and what is harming someone?

I will give you a very easy example. There are many people in this country that would make the claim that preventing homosexuals from marrying is helping them. Or that preventing people from having abortions is helping them. If those people do a great job at preventing gay marriage and preventing abortion then by your definition they are good to go. (I am not arguing these points, just showing that unless there is a standard bearer at some point your definition of 'help/good' is going to conflict with another person's definition of 'help/good'.

In addition, you are saying that it is more logical that we serve each other than God. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Lower beings (us) would serve higher beings (God). Now the beauty of the Bible in my opinion is that in serving God we are taught to serve each other (Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your mind and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself), but it seems pretty clear even outside the Bible, that if there is a God that means that his existence supersedes our own and is deserving of worship.

We worship sports starts because they have a 45" vertical. What would we actually do if we came face to a God that could think something into being. The idea that we would not worship and serve that being is pretty preposterous. Hard to believe that you can believe in a God figure and not understand that the God-figure (however you might coin it) is not worthy of worship and service. It doesn't mean that this God NEEDS our service, but instead that God is worthy and we are compelled out of God's magnitude and mere existence.

Just a thought...thanks for sharing your views, I am certainly challenging them, but trying to do so in a proper discourse.
 
Good points. God doesn't need our worship, but when we know Him and love Him, it is the natural reaction to that.

I think that people misunderstand "worship." it's not all bowing down with our faces on the ground. When I immerse myself in God's word in order to better know Him and understand His plan for me, I am worshipping Him. What he WANTS from us (doesn't need it, but wants it) is our love. He thinks of us the way we think of our children, only so much more. Even when we misbehave or act like we don't need Him, He still loves us. And His capacity for love is unending, unlike ours. Our human relationships are based on a lot of "mutual satisfaction," which is why you hear of people falling out of love and divorcing. God has no corresponding concept. He loves us without condition, and He wants desperately for us to love Him and trust Him with our lives so that He can use us for His purposes.
Of course this has nothing to do with this thread, but I was rolling. :)
 
Deacon923 said:
Southern whites in 1950 might have said that being attracted to the other race isn't immoral, but acting on that attraction is.
Click to expand...

Here is an excellent of example of what people two generations ago thought was "God's will" and the moral thing to do.

http://conciliaria.com/2012/04/a-kneeling-racist-and-an-upright-archbishop/

It will be interesting to see whether the Catholic church ever comes around to this position on the issue of homosexual equality. I think they have backed themselves way, way back into a corner on this issue and we won't see a change in their position for many decades.
 
Wrangor, I don't think God needs us to help Him/Her.

As to preventing gay marriage, if God is Love, how is preventing love "serving" God?

P.S. heading to SD for a meeting.....that's why I won't be responding.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Wrangor, I don't think God needs us to help Him/Her.

As to preventing gay marriage, if God is Love, how is preventing love "serving" God?

P.S. heading to SD for a meeting.....that's why I won't be responding.
Click to expand...

Because we 'love' to do lots of things that harm us, and our definitions of love are as varied as the sands on the seashore. You could use the same argument and say "if God is love, why would he prevent me from sleeping around before marriage? I mean I love her." When clearly sleeping around at the age of 13 is not love, and it is not in our best interest as humanity. Or "why shouldn't I sleep with that man's wife? We love each other". Clearly that is not moral, but in a lot of people's minds that is simply love.

God is love, and he never prevents true love. It is when we humans try to define love for God, instead of looking to his definition that we get ourselves into trouble. This probably makes it difficult for you, since the basis for your definition of love other is your own personal wisdom/paradigm. If we all rely on our own wisdom to define love, then anything goes, because there are millions of definitions of love on this planet. It goes back again to some sort of standard. Your standard begins and ends with you. You may say that you are using history and science, but in the end you are just using those nuggets to create your own wisdom. I don't mean that as a criticism, although you know that I heavily disagree...this is what most of our nation does with concern to wisdom (and most of the church). Instead of admitting that there is someone/some being with more knowledge, we try to fit everything inside the paradigm that makes us feel comfortable based on the wisdom we have acquired.

I probably won't be able to respond for a while either...interesting conversation. We have certainly sidetracked from the original, but I have enjoyed it. If it makes any difference I would be voting AGAINST as well based on what I have read. It is one thing to fight for the sanctity of marriage, it is another to try and destroy the lives of people who you disagree with. I still haven't figured out a great solution for this issue other than civil unions for everyone, and marriage is taken completely out of the hands of the government. If a church chooses to marry two gay couples then the sin (in my opinion) is on the church. That is probably the best. Don't allow government to promote gay marriage (because I could end up seeing a situation where a church is sued, or loses non-profit status for refusing to marry two dudes), but don't prevent churches from marrying them if that church denomination chooses to do so.

I think that my above comments are the way to go, but I will make the prediction that marriage will continue to get more convoluted and not less. Polygamy is right around the corner using this line of thinking, but to be honest I don't see a way around it. I mean what is so different about polygamy and gay marriage? Consenting adults who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. No genetic harm like you could argue against with incest. No more risk of sexual coercion than a marriage between 2 adults. I am not using this as an argument against gay marriage, I am just predicting that it will be next in line. If you use the logic that the government should not be able to get in the way of consenting adults wanting to be married, then there is really no argument against polygamy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top