Gay Marriage for presentation

[Psycho Lee]

One of my classes required to graduate is one of those "multicultural studies" programs, probably forced upon students to bring love and understanding to people different than them, and stuff. The whole class we have talked about different groups of people and prejudices towards them. I have a presentation to do and I figured for my last one I'd go with a bang. I want to do gay marriage.

So, I'm asking for a little assistance and answers to questions that may help me. If you want to answer these, feel free.

(I may add more or expand on different ideas)

1) How do you think "traditional" marriage has changed over hundreds of years?

2) Do you know of any societies or cultures, past or present, that had gay pairings or gay marriage that I can use as an example.

3) Some people say they support civil unions but not full gay marriage. Gays seem to be against this. Why?

4) How do you personally feel about gay marriage? If you could marry (and you're gay), would you?

5) Do you really think the bible is against gays or gay marriage? I can't think of any verses forbidding gay marriage, but as for the verses against gays, do you think they're mistranslated or not valid in today's society?

6) I am thinking of suggesting a plan: Since marriage is legally a legal contract between people, allow gays a federal law allowing civil marriage with full rights granted to straight marriage. As for religious ceremonies, it is up to the church to decide to marry gays or to have a gay marriage ceremony. No church will be penalized if they do not want to marry gays (separation of church and state goes both ways). Why any gays would want to marry in a church that hates them is beyond me, and there are churches that WILL have gay marriage ceremonies. What do you think of this idea?  

[FenrisHellhound]

1A: the traditional marriage has change from being a simple:" I want to be with you" into more of a "YES BIG RECPETION, BIG CAKE, I WANT THIS TO BE THE BEST THING EVER"

2A: No, I don't.

3A: I don't think I'm the one to be answering that.

4A: Mmm I think that everyone is entitled to their right to marry. Gay or not.
4A2: If I was and It was legal in my state. Sure, I don't see the problem.

5A:No I don't and I don't beleive there are any verses forbidding it. I beleive that it's just that the bible only talks about the marriage between a man and a woman, and not between two of the same gender. The verses that are against gays are invallid in modern society. yea maybe around 1 AD to 1700AD it was a Vaild read. Taking something written thousands of years ago and applying it to todays society is like me applying a band-aid with no adhesive.


6A: I think it's a great Idea that can be improved upon.


I answered to the full extent of my knowledge. Which isn't much apparently XD  

[MR HIGH COMMAND]

2) the spartans allowed gay marriage and believed that gay soldiers fought then a soldier who fought for a woman away from the battle

3) no idea

4) i think marriage is between a man and a woman but i still think gays should have some sort of union

5) id say 90% of the bible is mistranslated

6) whatever  

[Kage-Taisen Twilight]

1) Traditional implies unchanging and being constant. So well it hasn't changed, it has been removed. The feelings behind most weddings have also changed from. "I don't know what life would be like without you to, you are the best thing to be in my life to, I can't get any better than you to, hey let's have a party... you're paying by the way."

2) The Romans the Greeks the Celts the Sumerians the Spartans the internet XD

3) Because people understand the american creed is "all available possibilities" since we were founded by people coming in the name of tolerance though religious tolerance... a religion that clearly states homosexuality as sin so the derived feeling is that they should not get full extent of ability as the rest of people.

4) I understand people being in love in all but marriage is a no since by standards in practices marriage, when fully comprehended and understood is an agreement witnessed and approved in both heaven and earth. I however do not see it that God would approve of that.

5) I just got to question five so please spare me criticism for my earlier comments. The bible is not against any one person, 'cept the devil. It is against sin, and blasphemy. The bible does not say anything specifically about gay marriage because only the pure and clean are to be married and it does say however that sin is dirt and gay is sin so yes technically it does say indirectly that it is not allowed. Mistranslation... of course or else we would not have multiple religions.

6) It's already in motion. I recommend you spend some time on Hulu.com and look up the simpson episode and find what Lisa says about it, she completely answers this question.

side note: I know it may have sounded preachy, my answers, but oh well pm me for any concerns or comments.  

[Coyote Master Brutus]

The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians all had same sex pairings. Basically any ancient society had some evidence of bi or gay tendencies.

NEVER quote the bible for a school project. Trust me, its nothing but a drama-generating technique. Someone will always be better read than you on it or someone will be so violently against it that any point you made would be lost. Just trust me on this one. Alright? Other than that, everything else looks sold PLEASE just leave religion out of it. But your question asks for specific verses:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
Claim mistranslation all you want, but it is written. Like I said, just leave the Bible aside for this one.  

[Micarst]

First of all, since this is an issue that has plagued me for half of my life. Be aware that I am biased, and I make no claim otherwise.

Let me first say that in discussing marriage at all, you will be dealing with religion so directly that avoiding it, or being seen to avoid it, will only detract from whatever argument you choose to make. Marriage IS a traditionally religious union, and I feel that it has no place in today's society except in memory. Let me explain why I feel that way.

The Bible as we know it today, the King James version, was translated by the English church in the early 1600s- completed 1611, according to Wikipedia. There was no separation of church and state in those days; the church held the power, as much because they were the commonly accepted proxy between Man and God as because they enforced law. So let's examine what was going on in the 16th century to influence the translation of the Bible to the King James version.

A quote directly from Wikipedia: "In Europe, the Protestant Reformation gave a major blow to the authority of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. European politics became dominated by religious conflicts, with the groundwork for the epochal Thirty Years' War being laid towards the end of the century."

By the end of the century, Spain had declared bankruptcy twice! Legally, girls could marry when they were 12 years old. Women were seen as 'the weaker vessel' even though most of them had to do hard manual work, right alongside the men, in between caring for the children to boot. Furthermore, a married woman could not own property. Legally everything she had belonged to her husband. A dowry originally started as a means to provide for one's daughter in the case of ill treatment by her husband. But, since women could not own property during that time, it was more of a payment to a man to take on the responsibility of a wife.

What do people say about what they would do if they won the lottery? Many times, donating a portion is brought up. With such a lump sum settlement coming to men who married in those days, and no cars or computers to spend it on, it was likely to get wasted in taverns or on prostitutes.

Population was a solemn concern in those days. Life wasn't easy, the mortality rate was higher, and if the people didn't successfully breed the next generation, there would be fewer individuals to carry Christianity to other countries (or line the church's pockets). A man laying with a man produces no children, so in the interests of society, it could not be tolerated.

So obviously, there was a huge incentive for the English Church to put a spin on the Bible, to influence men to the behavior they wanted to see. Donating money to the church was not only pious and good, it was law. Laws could be fought, but the Bible was put forward as a holy document, inspired directly by God, and who would challenge Him?

Also, since the vast majority of people could not read, they would never get to discover for themselves what words were put down anyway. People were encouraged by this new Bible to look not to physical wealth, but to spiritual wealth. Jesus himself told a rich man that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to enter heaven. (I'll leave the interpretation of that statement to you, though there are some interesting thoughts presented Here.)

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Perhaps, because women were seen as property, and to lay with a man in that way was degrading?

So, let's get something straight before I go any further. The King James version was pretty much just another piece of propaganda. The fact that it is so widely accepted in this day and age, as though the social situation it was written to address is still in place, annoys me endlessly. In America, women are supposed to have equal rights to men, yet there is still a lot of lingering preference for men in the workplace (and elsewhere).

What does marriage nowadays do for a couple? It gives them a legal contract which is as often dissolved by divorce (which leads to hefty attourney fees, anger between the individuals, and all that), and a tax break, among a few other perks. "Till death do us part" is now a meaningless phrase, because people DO change. They DO grow apart. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Therefore, I propose that we do away with the tradition of MARRIAGE completely.

I would rather use a form of handfasting, where two individuals pledge to be together for a specific amount of time, after which they may renew their vows or go their separate ways without penalty. Prenuptial agreements would be necessary, to ensure that neither party felt slighted if and when things gained during the union had to be split. It could even be possible to set up the same sort of benefits as a typical marriage entails- tax breaks and all that.

I think it's the terminology more than the actual union that many people are so strongly against. So change the terminology by removing the debated issue from the equation.

Love should be something to celebrate. If a man loves a man, it is just as precious and beautiful as a man loving a woman, or a woman loving a woman. There is so much hate and negativity in the world. I don't understand why anyone would seek to deny others a way to certify their love for each other. Sexual preference should be just as strongly defended in the minds of men as the right of religious preference. If your lifestyle does no harm to anyone, whose business is it but your own?

To the original poster- I agree that no unwilling church should be required to unite two individuals. But, they should be able to go somewhere to have a ceremony to unite them publicly. Even if it is just the damn courthouse.  

[Psycho Lee]

Well guys the school semester is over, but continue debating if you wish.  

[Dark-Velvet-Revolver]

I love issues like these because of the heated debates. I did a class in school and debated upon whether Christian schools should allow Abstinence plus programs or not. I got to be on the side for it, I had a lot of fun with it.  

[The Final Kira]

The government doesn't want homosexuals to get married, cause they're afraid that 'it will show the children that you have an equal chance in happiness.' They want the children to think that being gay is wrong, when in reality, with my experiments, some don't have a choice. Gay, straight, bi, pan, it doesn't matter. These things can't be changed just cause you want it to, it's how we were made. Animals have homosexuals and they treat them equally.  

[Dark-Velvet-Revolver]

yeah I agree with you ^^ also its America we have the right to chose what we are going to do for jobs, and things so why not be able to pick who you want to marry girl man or Transvestite. ^^  

[Kashinami-chan]

1) To be honost...it has changed as well with everything else in the world.

2) Ancients had many gay pairings...dante and virgil.

3) Tilt?

4) I would, but getting married is a death warrent.

5) I think the bible is one stupid a** book(s) that make no damn sense. Seriously noone one is going to follow a damn book that has been remaid a billion time....make up your ******** mind.

6)*Stares* Im'a puzzled!!!  

[Dark-Velvet-Revolver]

Coyote Master Brutus

The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians all had same sex pairings. Basically any ancient society had some evidence of bi or gay tendencies.

NEVER quote the bible for a school project. Trust me, its nothing but a drama-generating technique. Someone will always be better read than you on it or someone will be so violently against it that any point you made would be lost. Just trust me on this one. Alright? Other than that, everything else looks sold PLEASE just leave religion out of it. But your question asks for specific verses:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"
Claim mistranslation all you want, but it is written. Like I said, just leave the Bible aside for this one.

Yeah also the bible most of those were rules that were social they were social boundaries... Leviticus was where they made the rules for the people because they pissed off God in the wilderness and didn't want a fate worse than spending 40 years in the wilderness... they wanted to play it safe with God.

As for Corinthians look at the other people mentioned drunkards swindlers prostitutes sexually immoral slanderers... its giving a list of people...

AKA People who have sex with random people drunks car dealers (or people who sell you something for much more than its worth) slanderers or people who talk badly about God or other people... This is just saying anyone who sins... and I hate how christians use this verse so much... its a list including everyone... I'm sorry but if anyone told me they hadn't done any of these I would call them a liar... because we all have lied at some point and that is a sin... Christians need to back off the Homosexuals

Hehe... i'm a christian and this is a big pet peeve of mine with them