We Are All God's Children
|
Posted By: milau Posted on: Mar. 25, 2006 at 12:41 PM  12 Comments
|
3.5 / 5
Based on 14 ratings.
|
Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Is homosexuality a sin? Homosexuality is an orientation, the word "homosexual" has been used since the early 1900's, so there is no mention of it in the bible. Trying to decode the bible is like those trying to fit the puzzling writings of Nostradamus into todays occurrences. 'I have looked out on everything I have made and behold it is very good.' (Genesis 1:31). It is not unnatural to love someone, it 's always better to find that one person in your life that will bring a peace and warmth to your soul. The word of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world." He who cast the first stone, has lost it's meaning because those who throw the stones pretend to be the epitome of God's teachings. The religious right are notorious for their intolerant behavior against those they disagree with. Ignoring the teachings they so like to refer to when forcing their beliefs onto others while exhibiting the ranting of hatred. The teachings to love thy neighbor, is to accept people for who they are as a person regardless of their sexual orientation.
Jesus did make it clear, however, that anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery. If US law were based on the teachings of Jesus, divorce would be against the law, not same-sex relationships. If religious views on sex were based on a strict interpretation of the Bible, masturbation could very easily be outlawed as well, along with some heterosexual practices. Personal views of sexual morality are therefore left up to the consenting adults involved, under most U.S. law. This is where the likes of Ashcroft, Bush and others on the right want to come into our bedrooms to dictate how we live our lives. My life is my own and not for the government to invade.
All should be afforded the SAME civil rights under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage. With that said, ALL should be allowed to marry. We don't need to refer to it as; civil union, same-sex marriage, etc... That's just parsing words because our Representatives are afraid to stand up for the rights of individuals that are frowned upon. It is marriage, and as it's been noted before, the heterosexual community hasn't done so well in staying in committed relationships. Glass Houses.
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Mar. 25, 2006 at 02:05:11 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Damn it's a good thing I'm not religious. If getting divorced is adultry and masterbation is a sin I would say all of you religious nuts will be roasting in hell. It's to bad people don't understand that love between two people doesn't have to be a man and a women. I wonder what the devorce rate would be if homo's were aloud to marry and what new problems would come of it? And if they were all aloud to adopt what kind of kids would they raise? (If the chinese would encourge homoism instead communism there pop cap would go down.) HEH |
||
|
Mar. 25, 2006 at 02:16:49 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Prometheus I think you are on the right path, true, it is said we either fear the unknown or what is in ourselves that others may see. It would be a better society and harmonious one at that if the anger stopped and our government governed in the best interest of all. Wishful thinking but probably not in our time. |
||
|
Mar. 25, 2006 at 04:36:44 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| "Not the there's anything wrong with that" -- That's my line! Milau is venturing into territory that the Democrats must confront before the 2006 election. I will not vote for one more democrat like John Kerry who is afraid to represent what I call the "progressive silent majority," of the 21st century and not the medieval population of Alabama. Democrats must understand that they are not winning any hearts and minds in the South, a land whose people continue to dwell under self-imposed moral stagnation thanks to schleps like Pat Robertson. These people are so utterly spellbound by the watered-down Republican talking points that all I can do now is laugh here in my padded prison cell in Morocco. Thanks to the 58 million misguided people who were driven by FEAR to vote for George W. Bush in 2004, the rest of us have suffered. Because we have to analyze our domestic crowd of BIGOTS and why they can't share their civil rights with black people (1865-1965), women (1920s) and homosexuals (2008?), national progress has stagnated. The environment, science and technology, and plain decency will have to take a back seat until the Democrats realize that there are literally MILLIONS of untapped voters out there who are waiting for the leader heralding the magic phrase: "Progressives of the world unite." |
||
|
Mar. 25, 2006 at 05:17:16 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Pat Robertson, now there's a dinosaur, crazy idiot self-rightous bigot who should be locked up. He must swap drugs with Rush, these guys have to be high. And of course let's not forget Ann Coulter, that bitch definately needs to be deprogrammed before her head explodes. I have never met a gay or lesbian that has offended me. The group I mentioned offends me and everyone else that has common sense. |
||
|
Apr. 21, 2006 at 08:37:27 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| I can see by the date on this article, I am a bit tardy in putting a comment out here - but I hope it is seen all the same. To accuse the government or any other body of intolerence when it comes to homosexuals, is proposterous !! You bring out a couple of bible verses to meet your needs here - but let's take the book for its totality here. "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13) And you stated that "the word "homosexual" has been used since the early 1900's, so there is no mention of it in the bible" - "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Love the sinner - hate the sin. I do not hate homosexuals in any way (unless they give me good reason - as any other human being could feasible do), but I do feel that it is a sin, and therefore, should not be necessarily allowed as far as an official, recognized union or marriage, nor should one of its unions have any recognized rights as a marrited union. Civil rights - O.K. - homosexuals should not be persecuted because of their orientation, nor should they be denied any of their standard rights as an American. BUT - their unions as "husband and husband / wife and wife - I am sorry - I can not and will not agree with giving the insurance / or other benefits afforded a normal (man and woman - as recognized by the bible)married couple. Call it Republican / Religious Right / Prejudice if you will. I call it Christian common sense. But I am only one worthless nut |
||
|
May. 1, 2006 at 01:54:13 AM
|
|
| Yet another reason to keep church out of government, and government out of the business of legislating what is or isn't a sin. Ohio Nut Case, you can sit there and quote the Bible all day long, but our laws are derived from the Constitution, not the Bible. The authors of the Constitution were Deists, and they believed in a supreme diety who created the universe to operate solely by natural law. They rejected many doctrines of the Christian faith, and they did not believe the Bible was the word of God or even divinely inspired. So whether the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin or not, it is irrelevant to any discussion of gay rights under the law of this land. Too many of our "enlightened" politicians forget this. Why are there any laws at all? The simple answer is: To protect us. In the case of homosexuality, there is no threat to protect against, other than one's own sexual insecurities. A gay man poses no risk to my marriage or my sexual identity. I never heard of one heterosexual man that suddenly up and became gay without having suppressed those latent tendencies since puberty. The story for heterosexual women becoming bisexual may be different; but funny enough, I don't hear too many men complaining about this. I have also listened to the argument that we can't have gay teachers in school, influencing our impressionable children and teaching them their gay ways (even if by mere association with a gay person in a position of authority). Of course, there is not a shred of evidence that homosexuality is a learned behavior. But it sure sounds scary when evangelical nutcases (no offense to your handle) raise the specter of your children enrolled in "Gay Love 101 - Advanced Placement." So if homosexuality is not a threat to anybody, then it follows that there should be no laws biased against them. But that is precisely what anti-gay marriage laws are, and nothing in the Constitution condones such laws. Maybe you are onboard with this conclusion, as your comment suggests. But you then go on to apply this limitation of "standard rights" for homosexuals, and no more. This implies that there is a "business class" or "first class" reserved only for heterosexuals, and this is as much discrimination as Rosa Parks riding in the back of the bus. In keeping with the principle of seperation of church and state (which is the implied principle in the first clause of the First Amendment), I question why goverment is in the marriage business in the first place. Isn't marriage a theological concern - not a political? If we need to get a marriage license from the probate court for record keeping and census taking - fine. But beyond that, government should have no say in which consenting pair of adults can or cannot get married (aside from family members and first cousins for genetic public health concerns). That is the business of your church, your temple, your mosque, or your whatever. |
||
|
May. 1, 2006 at 08:27:18 AM
|
|
| Good show Mickey! You ever so succinctly captured my reaction to ONC's bible thumping but I'd like to add a couple of less lofty points. Ohio, there's nothing to prevent our lawmakers from passing legislation that's, de facto, discriminatory. Nor is there any prohibition against establishment of a law, based solely on the Scripture, which promotes the narrow interests of the faithful at the expense of nonbelievers. However, such laws must eventually pass the test of constitutionality, not Biblicality. The test, do such laws promote the general welfare of society by providing equal protection and privileges to all, has nothing to do with Leviticus, Corinthians, Peter, Paul or Mary. Now, NutCase, you say "gay civil rights - OK", but you limit those to “standard rights as an American... as recognized by the Bible". C’mon - you must be aware that civil rights are granted to a person by virtue of citizenship. These "standard rights" consist of the fundamental freedoms and the privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments as well as acts of Congress, including the right to legal and social and economic equality. You must be aware that the marriage train runs on two sets of tracks - the Civil line and the Religious line? Both create husbands and wives. Why in the world do you want to restrict civil marriage - because the Bible tells you so? No one is suggesting that any church has to perform or even acknowledge the legitimacy of these secular unions, except in the legal sense. And, hey - your Bible is only a roadmap to the glorious Hereafter. Why do you want to deny gays the right to choose a different destination? |
||
|
May. 6, 2006 at 01:09:52 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| WELL SAID! LEGALIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE NOW! (They already did in England, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, & soon Australia.) Why can't America, dammit! |
||
|
May. 13, 2006 at 11:56:19 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| There are a couple mindsets going on here that you can't escape. One is the totalitarian, nut case rigidity of religious doctrine that, contrary to what they preach, is hardly any kind of tolerance and acceptance. We are not talking about acceptance of pedophiles and sexual predators here whose only goal is their own sexual pleasure by perversion no matter what. They are sick and are out of control. We are talking about people who haven't a clue why they were born gay(any more than I do as to why I was born straight), and are only interested in sharing a lifelong pursuit of happiness and commitment with one of their own. If you talk about compassion and tolerance it is not either. Imagine yourself being victimized for being straight. You don't want to do that? Ain't necessary? Well, if you would try you would find the horrible anguish that has been wrought for them to bear. They have the mindset, other than maybe a few twisted ones in their community, that they value morals within their guidelines as much as straights. Did I say straights value morals? Laughable ain't it? Because when you are straight you allow yourself all kinds of infractions and moral doings that you don't allow someone "different" than you. Straights do not set the example for anything. There are more violations of morals and conduct of human behavior, numbers wise among straights, than any gay group could ever inflict upon society. I find the comments here sensitive and above all, realistic about the whole issue except for Ohio Nut case. To him I say: I lived South of Medina, close to Akron for a long time and people got away from that rigid of an attitude about gays. It was a "stay in the closet" type attitude that existed for a while(don't ask don't tell), but people there have prevailed with a more favorable outlook and now realize like Moron in Charge that gays are absolutely without a doubt no threat whatsoever to anything, any kind of teachings, any societal downfall. It just isn't there. |
||
Report Abuse