<p>I support gay rights and I am bisexual myself, but I think it's stupid that some people who advocate gay rights try to convince the church that homosexuality is acceptable. If they see that religion is biased, why can't they just renounce their faith and seek moral support elsewhere? I also saw this movie, where some Canadian guy who attended a Catholic High School was fighting for the right to have a gay guy as his date for the prom. The movie made it look as if the church is evil and wrong, but I don't understand the point of fighting for somethin like that. Isn't that forcing your lifestyle on others?</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that the gays are winning in many parts of Christendom. Some pretty big mainline Protestant Churches -- the United Church, for instance -- are revising their theologies concerning homosexuality and sodomy to appease the Rainbow Gestapo. </p>
<p>It's pretty silly. Like the United Church is suddenly flooded with gays attending Sunday services now that they've caved. Puh-leeze.</p>
<p>It's the churches' fault that they gave in. Should gay people try to convince the church that homosexuality is acceptable? If they can find something in the religious text to suggest that homosexuality can be interpreted as such, then yes. Religion is, by nature, malleable. It adjusts to the times (i.e. adopting the thought that the sun is at the center of the universe) and affords its leaders the opportunity to espouse a certain dogma based on new interpretations. Yeah, basically, religious texts can be interpreted in a million ways and can be used to the religious leaders' advantage. For example, a nearly bankrupt church that I went to asked its patrons for money by telling the story of the beggar who gave away all his possessions to the church and (allegedly) got everything back in return, plus more. This is not so wise. I sat there thinking why can't the church just give everything away, if it expects to get everything in return (plus more) anyway? What about the Pope advising people not to read Harry Potter because it allegedly promotes witchcraft or something like that? So basically, if you can find something in the religious text to support your argument (this is what religious leaders do), then why not? I, personally, do not affiliate myself with any religion, but I can say that the Bible can be interpreted to mean that God is a woman and that the world should be ruled by gay people.</p>
<p>It's not that simple, 'tis. Religions are more than personal interpretations of their Scriptures.</p>
<p>I can read the Qur'an and get from it that I should murder all who refuse to believe that Allah is the One God and Muhammed is His Prophet. But am I interpreting things correctly? Is this true Islam? I don't believe so.</p>
<p>they obviously dont care about the church when they decided to come out</p>
<p>David and Jonathan were gay, you know. </p>
<p>Unrelated, but I love the story of David and Jonathan.</p>
<p>wow, the OP is what, 13?? how could you see the world in such simplistic terms? do words like rights, equality, tolerance, acceptance, and celebration of diversity ring a bell at all?</p>
<p>I am a big supporter of gay rights, but I agree that there should be a separation of church and...homosexuals? Wow that sounds really bad and I don't mean that gays shouldn't respect the church. But tehy just shouldn't expect the church's values to change after thousands of years. </p>
<p>But I would like to note that I don't agree with the church's beliefs.</p>
<p>Simple solution for gay marriage: allow gays to marry secularly.</p>
<p>Churches are private organizations and government has no right to force them to recognize gay marriages; however, it is discrimination to deny somebody the social and financial benefits of marriage based on sexual orientation.</p>
<p>As I've said before, my beef with gay marriage largely has to do with religious freedom. Because the average gay person isn't religious (or is anti-religious), he/she doesn't seem to be too concerned with protecting the full rights of churches to refuse performing gay weddings. It's like they wouldn't give a damn if the state forced churches to perform them -- they would actually love it. As someone who believes in the separation of church and state, I find this attitude extremely disturbing. So should you.</p>
<p>Many of these responses sound like they carry with them the assumption that religion is static. That assumption is incorrect. Religions change as a result of internal movements and external pressures.</p>
<p>In 1850 in the US, some religions held that slavery was a fine institution. After all, it's in the Bible. But that doesn't seem to be the view now, no?</p>
<p>Gay marriage really has nothing to do with religious freedom. No advocate of equal marriage rights wants to refuse any religion their right to choose who to marry - that's just a red herring.</p>
<p>The fact that religion changes so much is one of the main reasons I can't stand organized religion. How can someone seriously preach about "God's word" if they (and many before them) have molded it around convenience?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like they wouldn't give a damn if the state forced churches to perform them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Something tells me that a lot of people would be happy with just having state-sanctioned marriages, let alone church-sanctioned ones. I don't know that the problem is that the "rainbow gestapo" (as you so flatteringly refer to them) want churches to bend their ways as they just want the right to marry in the first place.</p>
<p>And if the United Church feels the need to cater to gays, what's the big deal? It's their choice to change their theology.</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with gay people. The problem is religious people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's nothing wrong with gay people. The problem is religious people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that this is the case, either. The problem, ultimately, is the people who would rather that either the tyranny of the majority or minority be more important than libertarian freedoms.</p>
<p>I'm fairly sure they weren't- David had wives and I don't think it says anywhere that Jonathan had sexual relations or anything with him...</p>
<p>While I am not a Christian and I support the rights of gay people, the Bible condemns homosexuality clearly and never changes its stance on that.</p>
<p>The Bible also states that women should be silent in church and cannot be preachers....</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Bible also states that women should be silent in church and cannot be preachers....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It may make me a bad person, but I loved to throw that in the faces of some of my overbearing religious girl friends when they tried to preach at me. It did get the point across that I wasn't interested in what they had to say pretty quickly, though :)</p>
<p>Lol...you and I are quite similar then.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.</p>