Quote:
|
Originally Posted by frogza
The reason why Christians are so vehemently opposed to the homosexual movement is because we see it as identifying oneself by ones temptations. Or in other words, I would be a cheating husband, even though I have never cheated. Gay rights are viewed as a slippery slope. Christians find themselves asking “Where will it stop? Which vice will become the next movement?”
|
Note: Bold emphasis Sultana's.
Which vice will become the next movement? Perhaps women's rights. Or minority rights. Both groups of which in the past have been considered divinely ordained as "below" the rank of the male majority. I'd like to imagine that in today's world, only the most rabidly fundamental "christians" would have a problem with women's or minority rights. Heck, in the not too distant past interacial marriage was prohibited (legally? not sure. Socially, certainly). I doubt that any reasonable person would make an issue of that today. Why is gay marriage any different?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by frogza
Christians also view procreation as a divine gift, to be respected and held sacred. Homosexual acts are seen as a desecration of something divine. Marriage between a man and a woman is seen as ordained of God, to allow men and women to contribute their strengths and become stronger than their sum and to provide a place for children to be conceived and reared. Gay marriage is seen as an attack on what we hold sacred, the reaction we see to destroying a mosque, temple, or synagogue would be almost identical.
|
You know, only the most fundamental of "christians" have a problem with birth control, which accomplishes the same thing in today's society.
Could you please cite the scriptures used to support the idea that procreation is respected and held sacred? It was certainly important, especially to the Old Testament family--hence the multiple wives, concubines, maidservants for that purpose and the like for the man able to afford them--but respected and sacred? The only thing I can think of to support this is where the scriptures talk about g*d "quickening the womb" of some lucky contestant, but that's more props to g*d rather than the woman. The woman was (as Smeth pointed out), little more than property for the most part. A vessel for the all-important "Man-seed". Women, especially in the Old Testament, are rarely referred to outside of the state of their vagina--Virgin, Wife, or Whore, if you please. A woman's worth was based solely on their untouched state, their families wealth, and perhaps how many sons they had pushed out. Not a pressing arguement for respect for their role in childbearing, in my opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by frogza
I hope that I have explained things clearly and without offending anyone. I realize this is a hot topic and as such can illicit a knee jerk to many, if I have offended anyone with this please forgive me.
|
I think you did a grand job, really! Thanks for being brave and able.
It's much easier to preach to the choir, I know.