Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

**yas2010** · 02-18-2011

Aslaam O likum

Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

This has been running in the press for many days.

**GuestFellow** · 02-27-2011

Originally Posted by Nizam1

There is plenty evidence of a genetic basis.

Like what?

**Ramadhan** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by

There is plenty evidence of a genetic basis.

Please show us which genes that cause homosexuality.

Originally Posted by

You are an example of those who use unacceptable hatred towards others.

Excuse me?
Did you even read my posts?

**Ramadhan** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by

I am returning a little reluctantly to this thread, because I came across an article by the Christian Enquiry Agency. Rather than offering the view of a particular denomination, it tries to offer a broader picture of the Christian view on homosexuality - which should incorporate the view of most Christians across the world.

I didnt know that a UK-based christian website represent most christians across the world.

**Wyatt** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by Yanoorah

That doesnt make any sense to be honest. Considering the simple fact that all religions forbid Homosexuality I dont see how they truly can adhere to any religion.

I'm also not buying the claim some gay people make that 'they are born this way n cant help it'.

Me: "I have always been like this."
You: "No you haven't, you're a liar. I would know that it's obviously a choice. I'm straight and can't relate."
Me: "Uhh.."

If I could truly help it, I would have become straight long long ago. Life would have been so much easier. You don't realise that a lot of gay people try to make themselves straight growing up, so they don't disappoint people. After a while, we come to accept that it's not worth it to change for people who judge us like that.

I agree with Pygo, can you help your heterosexuality? No, you were born like that. Same case here.

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"?

Or do all religions to you consist of the few off the top of your head? =P

**Ramadhan** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"?

First, Tao is not religion, it's a philosophy, much shared and cross-pollinated with Confucianism and Chinese buddhism.

Second, Tao is centered on the balance of Yin-Yang, and NOT Yin-yin or yang-yang

According to tao, homosexuality is as a result of an unbalanced yin-yang, not so natural now eh?

**Woodrow** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by Wyatt

Me: "I have always been like this."
You: "No you haven't, you're a liar. I would know that it's obviously a choice. I'm straight and can't relate."
Me: "Uhh.."

If I could truly help it, I would have become straight long long ago. Life would have been so much easier. You don't realise that a lot of gay people try to make themselves straight growing up, so they don't disappoint people. After a while, we come to accept that it's not worth it to change for people who judge us like that.

I agree with Pygo, can you help your heterosexuality? No, you were born like that. Same case here.

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"?

Or do all religions to you consist of the few off the top of your head? =P

Peace Wyatt,

While I can not relate to your specific hardships and trials placed before you I can relate to the battle of fighting temptations and the pains of having to suppress desires that would lead me to sin. I can understand the unfairness I feel when I can not enjoy some things I think I would enjoy if I were allowed to do them. Suppressed perceived pleasures are usually the most attractive and become very much an obsession to obtain.

Yet in spite of the difficulty and giving up what we think is our right to have, comes relief and the strength of finding we can conquer ourselves and discover that often what we think are doors to happiness are just moments of idle, temporary pleasures with no lasting happiness.

Ambrose Bierce: "DEBAUCHEE- a Man who engaged in the pursuit of happiness so well, he had the misfortune of overtaking it"

**Wyatt** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

First, Tao is not religion, it's a philosophy, much shared and cross-pollinated with Confucianism and Chinese buddhism.

Second, Tao is centered on the balance of Yin-Yang, and NOT Yin-yin or yang-yang

According to tao, homosexuality is as a result of an unbalanced yin-yang, not so natural now eh?

I don't know if I should take you seriously or not?

Originally Posted by Woodrow

I can understand the unfairness I feel when I can not enjoy some things I think I would enjoy if I were allowed to do them.

السلام

It's just that the unfairness here is that any given reason to not be who we are usually comes from a religion we don't practice. Then, we can't do normal things because those religions say it's wrong.

We all see it in different lights. To some it's unnatural, while to us, it's pretty normal, I guess.

Say, a god said that dogs were better than cats. Someone out there thinks cats are better than dogs, what would they do? Change their view on the animal for a god that wouldn't like them otherwise?

I don't even know. My point is in there somewhere, I just can't quite seem to dig it out. It's late, I've worked too much this weekend.

Maybe I can compare it to some people in one's neighbourhood whose god doesn't like cats. There's a cat lady living down the road. They tell her she's immoral and sinning for feeding her cats. The cat lady says, "Why?"

I'm going to zonk out in my bed, now.

Btw, I prefer dogs.

**Ramadhan** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by

I don't know if I should take you seriously or not?

up to you.
I responded your statement fairly seriously.

Just a thought, depending on whom you ask, all religions may allow homosexuality. You know, there's even groups of muslims who say that homosexuality practices are allowed in Islam as long as it's faithful relationships. There's even a christian here in this forum who thinks homosexuality act is permissible in christianity.
It does not mean those people correct, though.

People pick and choose to delude themselves and satisfy their desire and to take them out of guilt.

Fact is, Religions do teach that homosexuality acts are outside the prescribed way to live.

Originally Posted by

It's just that the unfairness here is that any given reason to not be who we are usually comes from a religion we don't practice. Then, we can't do normal things because those religions say it's wrong.

You dont have to follow those religions, right? No compulsion. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own choices and no one else takes the fall (unless you are a christian, where you have Jesus to take the fall, I guess).
But it's an act of hypocrisy when the very same people try to force that their choice be accepted by religions, which takes us back to the essence of the thread: why do gays want to have blessings in the places of worship when clearly those faiths say it is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by

Say, a god said that dogs were better than cats. Someone out there thinks cats are better than dogs, what would they do? Change their view on the animal for a god that wouldn't like them otherwise?

I am confused with this analogue.
It seems you are bitter with God for telling that homosexuality acts are wrong. For an atheist, that's umm... unusual.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-28-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

You dont have to follow those religions, right? No compulsion.

It would be nice if there really was "No compulsion". But the debate rages over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married, in churches that are open to it. People want to outlaw it, including a few in this very thread (a few pages back).

"No Compulsion" is another way of saying "separation of church and state". The former gets smiled on by religion, but the latter more often gets assaulted.

As Wyatt said, homosexuals have no more choice in being homosexual than we have in being heterosexual. You have far more choice in being religious (and thereby anti-gay) than you have choice in being gay.

So if you suspect it is a choice, just look at yourself. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? And if you say it is not about the attraction but acting on it, truly consider what you are asking people to give up. Could you give up your spouse? Could you give up all sexual relations (if you are single)? Could you give up your children (the result of sex with your spouse)? And could you give up your right to adopt children (which many anti-gay people want homosexuals to do)?

Perhaps if you were truly devout like a monk or nun you could. But you must see how extreme that is; Its far more extreme than wearing a niqab everywhere you go or praying not just 5 but even 50 times per day. And all for a religion that you may not even completely believe in (ie, children being raised by religious parents who have not themselves decided yet).

**Ramadhan** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by

So if you suspect it is a choice, just look at yourself. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? And if you say it is not about the attraction but acting on it, truly consider what you are asking people to give up. Could you give up your spouse? Could you give up all sexual relations (if you are single)? Could you give up your children (the result of sex with your spouse)? And could you give up your right to adopt children (which many anti-gay people want homosexuals to do)?

Can you explain why the sudden explosion of the number of homosexuals in the past 20-30 years in the west?
when being gay is now socially acceptable in the west?

You may say that yes there were also many homosexuals in the past but they all got married.

That proves my point isn't it, that it is a choice.

True, giving up what your most desires for God is very hard, but the reward is very big. But since you are an atheists, I did not expect you to believe this.
But I'm sure you know the concept of "sacrificing for your loved ones".

**Wyatt** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

Can you explain why the sudden explosion of the number of homosexuals in the past 20-30 years in the west?
when being gay is now socially acceptable in the west?

You may say that yes there were also many homosexuals in the past but they all got married.

That proves my point isn't it, that it is a choice.

True, giving up what your most desires for God is very hard, but the reward is very big. But since you are an atheists, I did not expect you to believe this.
But I'm sure you know the concept of "sacrificing for your loved ones".

There are plenty of gay people in the East, they just don't want to be killed for coming out with it. It's socially accepted because people recognise the freedom from religion. Why should they be affected by a religion they don't practice when there's a separation between church and state (in the West)? Can't say I've seen the East progress to even the concept of that right yet.

Hate on the West as if there's nothing wrong with the East.

I know the concept of sacrificing for my loved ones, but my most loved one is a male, and I'm not giving him up for people who wouldn't love me otherwise—and that includes any god in the books.

**Ramadhan** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by

There are plenty of gay people in the East,

I did not say there no gay people in the east.

Actually you just proved my point:

Many of those "gay" people get married.

So how come those gay people get married? I thought they absolutely have no choice?

Again, how come all the "gays" in the old days got married (if you think there were as many gays in the old days as they are now)?

Originally Posted by

It's socially accepted because people recognise the freedom from religion.

Sadly, this is true.

Originally Posted by

Why should they be affected by a religion they don't practice when there's a separation between church and state (in the West)?

\

I agree, that's why it is very hypocritical for those who don't practice religion to demand to get married in the places of worship when they know religions clearly forbid it.

Originally Posted by

Hate on the West as if there's nothing wrong with the East.

uh. this is nonsensical.
I mentioned the west because for the fact that homosexuality is not socially acceptable in the east. You are arguing against non-existant point.

Originally Posted by

I know the concept of sacrificing for my loved ones, but my most loved one is a male, and I'm not giving him up for people who wouldn't love me otherwise—and that includes any god in the books.

Did you read my post?
I gave the analogy because I know that you don't believe in God.
Now you know that it is possible for "gays" who are religious and sacrifice their desires for the one they love, God.

**سيف الله** · 03-01-2011

Salaam

slightly off topic

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a court battle over their right to become foster carers.

Analysis

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

Significantly, the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence.

This was the most decisive ruling against the idea of Christian values underpinning English law since judges ruled last year that to protect views simply because they were religious would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.

Today the message was that courts would interpret the law in cases like the Johns' according to secular and not religious values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12598896

**Pygoscelis** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

So how come those gay people get married? I thought they absolutely have no choice?

It is ironic that you would tell Wyatt he is arguing agaisnt a point you didn't make when you have done the exact same thing right here. Nobody has said that homosexuals are incapable of hiding who they are and denying themselves from being with the one they love.

They do have that choice, just as you have a choice to denounce Islam and hide your belief in God. Both homosexuality and Islam can be seen as "wrong" and "sinful", depending on one's perspective. A number of times in this thread you have equated homosexuality to dishonesty (adultery and theft - and then ironically you want homosexuals to be hisohonest and deny who they are and what they feel). Islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism. And from what I have seen both muslims and homosexuals react in similar ways - disgust and dismay at the bigoted attitudes directed at them.

Again, how come all the "gays" in the old days got married (if you think there were as many gays in the old days as they are now)?

For the same reason that there were so few open atheists, and for the same reason that mysteriously just about everyone in England during the time of Crusades was Christian, and that just about everyone in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be as well. They did it for self preservation and to escape the hate and bigotry they would otherwise face. They were lucky to be able to fake it, unlike a racial minority. That doesn't mean they should have to.

I agree, that's why it is very hypocritical for those who don't practice religion to demand to get married in the places of worship when they know religions clearly forbid it.

Only that isn't what is happening. When churches are forced against their will to marry homosexuals together, then you will have a point I'd consider. But even then I would have to consider if they are receiving government funding in the form of tax free status.

Now you know that it is possible for "gays" who are religious and sacrifice their desires for the one they love, God.

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Demands that they be ashamed of who they are have been leveled at them for ages. Backlash to this Gay Shame is exactly what sparks the Gay Pride that is so often complained about here.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-01-2011

Junon, thank you for linking to that article. It reminds me of the couple in the US south who had their children taken away for being "racist against black folks" and naming their children anti-black racist names. I disagree with the court on both counts though I can see how sensitive an issue it would be from both sides.

I do note the very thick irony that we are now about to have an outcry agaisnt this persecution, from the very same lobby that fough hard to deny homosexuals the right to adopt children themselves. It seems that what goes around comes around lol! Separation of church and state may actually work in favour of the Christian couple here, but I'll bet they oppose the concept.

**Ramadhan** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by

A number of times in this thread you have equated homosexuality to dishonesty (adultery and theft - and then ironically you want homosexuals to be hisohonest and deny who they are and what they feel).

Read my posts again.
I made a difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexuality acts". And i thought it was clear from the start.
a "homosexual" is not the same as "homosexual who practice homosexual acts and then publish them for the whole world to know".
I equate homosexuality acts with adultery and theft not because they are all dishonest, but because they are all sinful actions.
I understand that you don't believe in the concept of sin, but for this argument that is my position.

Originally Posted by

Islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism

on what basis?

Originally Posted by

And from what I have seen both muslims and homosexuals react in similar ways - disgust and dismay at the bigoted attitudes directed at them.

I could care less what practicing homosexuals feel disgusted towards religious folks.

Originally Posted by

For the same reason that there were so few open atheists, and for the same reason that mysteriously just about everyone in England during the time of Crusades was Christian, and that just about everyone in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be as well. They did it for self preservation and to escape the hate and bigotry they would otherwise face. They were lucky to be able to fake it, unlike a racial minority. That doesn't mean they should have to.

Really? So there were many atheists during the crusades and spanish inquisition?
Care to share the study?

Originally Posted by

Only that isn't what is happening. When churches are forced against their will to marry homosexuals together, then you will have a point I'd consider. But even then I would have to consider if they are receiving government funding in the form of tax free status.

The anglican churches have openly voiced their opposition as well as as other religious groups.

Originally Posted by

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Huh? so you don't actually believe there are people who actually are willingly sacrifice their desires to please God?
Does this mean you also believe that all priests and nuns are also living a lie?

**GuestFellow** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Gay people that do not engage in homosexual acts acknowledge that they have homosexual feelings. They simply do not want to have sex with the same gender. If they are Muslim, it is because to please God and not to commit sin.

There could be men that completely deny that they have homosexual feelings. This is different and does not necessarily relate to religion. It could be about masculinity.

**Wyatt** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

on what basis?

On what basis do islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism? Are you completely unaware of current day issues?

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way? That's what it feels like to gay people that can't help their homosexuality, and that's what deters them from religion. I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

**GuestFellow** · 03-01-2011

Originally Posted by Wyatt

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way?

Muslims do not believe God made them homosexual. I suppose paedophiles are living a life of lies?

I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

There must be an element of attraction involved. Like I said before, I think all human have homosexual and heterosexual feelings, but one is more stronger than the other.