Homosexual Rights: What Should They Be?

[EL]

What rights do you think homosexual pairs should have?


Last years there's been a lot of debating about homosexuals' rights in the society here (as well as in many other countries). Recently the Swedish church decided that all their priests have to perform a kind of blessing act of homosexual pairs. Of course that made some conservative "what the Bible says is the ultimate truth"-priests go crazy. Here is an open letter to those which I found and attempted to translate (however I don't know how the chapters of the Bible should be translated):

Open letter to the priests who have signed the appeal against blessing of homosexuals.

I am going to sell my doughter as a slave (2nd Mos 21:7). What would be a reasonable prize?

3rd Mos 21:20 clearly states that I can own both male as well as female slaves from a neighbouring country. A friend of me claims that this only holds for people outside the European Union. Could he be right?

My neighbour who works at Wal-Mart insists of working Sundays too. According to 2nd Mos 35:2 he has to be slayed. Am I moral responsible to do this myself?

I do not visit church since I’m suffering from great short-sightedness and according to 3rd Mos 21:20 I cannot approach the altar of God if my vision is bad. Min son will be confirmed and it would be nice to see how he behaves in church. Is it okey if I sit in the entrance?

Could my children start training football in our local club when 3rd Mos 11:7-8 says they cannot touch the rests after a ded pig? Or do they just have to continue playing at home with a plastic ball?

A farmer here around persists with growing different crops on the same soil and hence commits a sin according to 3rd Mos 19:19. He has also a bad habit of swearing a lot. His wife isn’t much better either since she persists to dress herself in clothes made of more than one kind of fabric (usually cotton and polyester). Is it then necessary to gather the whole village together and stone them? (3rd Mos 24:10-16.) Why can’t we just burn them at the stake as we used to do with people who sleeps with their relatives (3rd Mos 20:14)?

I know you priests have gone to the bottom with these questions so I’m looking forward to clear and straight answers.

Huge thanks to you upright priests who clearly shows that the word of God is everlasting and unchangeable.

Also found I quite fashinating video from 1965 produced by The National Board of Health and Welfare, US. Check out clip (klipp) nr 43:
http://www.kanal5.se/templates/page.aspx?id=10169

 

[Azael]

I think it should be up to each priest if they want to bless a homosexual couple or not. From what I can tell it goes against the bible so I think it would be wrong to force the priest to do something that is clearly against there religion.

There is other ways to get married than in a church so I se no problem with that.

Just like forcing mosques to accept having women and men in the same room is kind of silly. I am not religious in any way. But what is the point in religion if we force them to abandon all traditions.

 

[Evo]

El, what you posted is an old joke that's been circulating the internet for years.

an open letter to dr. laura concerning homosexuality

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362
admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that
they need more supervision."

Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call into her radio show. Recently, she said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative...

Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possesses slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack

El, do you have a formal link to show where the church has made such a mandate to their priests and the priests are against it? Some churches are more lenient than others.

 

[Art]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That list is hilarious... Anyone know if the references given are real or not? I don't have a bible to hand just now

 

[Azael]

El, do you have a formal link to show where the church has made such a mandate to their priests and the priests are against it? Some churches are more lenient than others.

Here you go evo its a link to the swedish church about this(Im also from sweden).

http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/tcrot/Press/pressmeddelanden/Eng/2005/68_KMbeslutvalsignelse.htm


I think around 600 swedish priests has signed a list of opposition but I can't find any link on english about it.

 

[EL]

El, what you posted is an old joke that's been circulating the internet for years.

Oh, didn't know that. Just copied it from a letter to the editor in a newspaper, signed with full name and city by the author. However, it was nice reading the full letter!

El, do you have a formal link to show where the church has made such a mandate to their priests and the priests are against it? Some churches are more lenient than others.

Here is one from the homepage of the Swedish church:
http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/ArticlePages/200511/10/20051110144327_svkkhr352/20051110144327_svkkhr352.dbp.asp
Unfortunately it's in Swedish, but if I get some time over later I could try to translate it. Anyway it doesn't state clearly what will happen to the priest who refuses to bless homosexual pairs.
This link in english could maybe also be of some interest:
http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/tcrot/Press/pressmeddelanden/Eng/2005/062_Samlevnadsskrivelse.htm#TopOfPage

 

[Evo]

Here you go evo its a link to the swedish church about this(Im also from sweden).
http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/tcrot/Press/pressmeddelanden/Eng/2005/68_KMbeslutvalsignelse.htm
I think around 600 swedish priests has signed a list of opposition but I can't find any link on english about it.

Thanks Azael.

"The Church of Sweden General synod has today decided that a special order of service for the blessing of a registered partnership should be introduced. The Church of Sweden Governing Body has been commissioned to produce such an order of service which, it is estimated, could be authorised for use during the year 2006. The decision implies that a couple who has a registered partnership will have the opportunity to have their relationship officially blessed in the parishes of the Church of Sweden. "

That sounds nice, actually. This just says that any registered partnership can ask for a blessing, if the special order is approved.

Churches can't afford to stay rooted in the past. Most churches no longer openly approve of stoning people to death for adultery or burning people at the stake for consorting with the devil.

This is an issue between the priests and their superiors. I personally think it is a good thing.

 

[Azael]

The only thing I consider wrong is if a priest are forced to do it even if he doesn't want to. Faith is what made them become priest, so why piss on that faith if they believe it is against there faith and belife?

They should however be resposible to arange for another priest that doesn't mind to come and do the ceremony.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks Azael.
"The Church of Sweden General synod has today decided that a special order of service for the blessing of a registered partnership should be introduced. The Church of Sweden Governing Body has been commissioned to produce such an order of service which, it is estimated, could be authorised for use during the year 2006. The decision implies that a couple who has a registered partnership will have the opportunity to have their relationship officially blessed in the parishes of the Church of Sweden. "
That sounds nice, actually. This just says that any registered partnership can ask for a blessing, if the special order is approved.

I agree, it sounds like a good move on the part of the Church of Sweden. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Moonbear]

The only thing I consider wrong is if a priest are forced to do it even if he doesn't want to. Faith is what made them become priest, so why piss on that faith if they believe it is against there faith and belife?
They should however be resposible to arange for another priest that doesn't mind to come and do the ceremony.

If it's a decree by the church, then I don't see the problem. If they disagree with the church, then they should leave that faith. Priests act on behalf of the church. It would be different if it were the government meddling in church business, but since it comes from within the church itself, the priests really have to support whatever their superiors say is the correct practicing of their faith.

 

[Evo]

The only thing I consider wrong is if a priest are forced to do it even if he doesn't want to. Faith is what made them become priest, so why piss on that faith if they believe it is against there faith and belife?
They should however be resposible to arange for another priest that doesn't mind to come and do the ceremony.

I'm sure that is going to come up. They will have to decide if they want to abide by the direction taken by their church or leave. That is why we have so many religions today, people that decided they no longer agreed with their current religion, or opposed changes.

I was raised Roman Catholic and I hated when they stopped saying mass in Latin and turned the priest around and dropped all of the traditions in order to draw a wider audience. I no longer belong to a religion.

 

[Evo]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That list is hilarious... Anyone know if the references given are real or not? I don't have a bible to hand just now

I personally don't get why we can't own Canadians. :grumpy:

 

[Azael]

If it's a decree by the church, then I don't see the problem. If they disagree with the church, then they should leave that faith. Priests act on behalf of the church. It would be different if it were the government meddling in church business, but since it comes from within the church itself, the priests really have to support whatever their superiors say is the correct practicing of their faith.

It just seems like it would be more "right" if each separate church minister would have some more freedom. I guess sort of like it was a couple of hundrar years ago.

I'm sure that is going to come up. They will have to decide if they want to abide by the direction taken by their church or leave. That is why we have so many religions today, people that decided they no longer agreed with their current religion, or opposed changes.

I was raised Roman Catholic and I hated when they stopped saying mass in Latin and turned the priest around and dropped all of the traditions in order to draw a wider audience. I no longer belong to a religion.

I have never belonged to any religion so I often have a hard time figuring out what all the fuzz is about:rofl: to me it just seems like a bunch of superstition pushed down peoples throaths for so many hundrad years that they started to believe in it(no offense meant to anyone religious, that's just my view).

But traditions are nice and a church that gets further and further away from the bible seems kind of pointless to me. But your right. Thats why we have all these different religions even within the religions

God must have sent down scetchy messangers when his message can be interpreted in so many different ways

 

[Azael]

But would someone else agree that if a priest followes the bible to the extent possible in todays society(i.e not endorsing slavery and stoning)he would be anti homosexuall? He would also offcourse be anti adultery and other things modern people likes :)

 

[Hurkyl]

That sounds nice, actually. This just says that any registered partnership can ask for a blessing, if the special order is approved.

Churches can't afford to stay rooted in the past. Most churches no longer openly approve of stoning people to death for adultery or burning people at the stake for consorting with the devil.

I feel it necessary to point out a clear fundamental difference between these:

Stoning or burning people was a punishment for a sin.
Homosexuality is, itself, a sin. (as I understand it)

The main tenant of Christianity, as I understand it, is that the law of the New Testament has supplanted that of the Old -- we are no longer obligated to stone people for their sins, nor to sacrifice animals to atone for our own.

To restate: while we're not supposed to stone people for adultery anymore, it is still a sin.

I know of nothing that has suggested that things that were once a sin had become non-sins.

 

[Cyrus]

I have seen homosexuals making out in public, its sick and disturbing. I don't like to see straight people making out in public, so I REALLY don't want to see homosexuals doing it. I could just walk away, but a little kid will say 'mommy what are those two men doing!' Thats not something a small child should see. I could never trust them with kids. My future kids sure as hell aren't hanging out at a homosexuals house.

 

[Azael]

I don't understand how a kid could get hurt by watching affection betwen 2 people no matter sex?

 

[Cyrus]

I don't want my small child to see two men making out. They don't have any understanding of what is unacceptable behavior or how to show affection at that age.

 

[Evo]

I feel it necessary to point out a clear fundamental difference between these:
Stoning or burning people was a punishment for a sin.
Homosexuality is, itself, a sin. (as I understand it)
The main tenant of Christianity, as I understand it, is that the law of the New Testament has supplanted that of the Old -- we are no longer obligated to stone people for their sins, nor to sacrifice animals to atone for our own.
To restate: while we're not supposed to stone people for adultery anymore, it is still a sin.
I know of nothing that has suggested that things that were once a sin had become non-sins.

The issue here isn't what is considered a "sin" according to the bible, it is how a church decides to treat those "sinners'. You have to admit that the treatment and attitude towards "sinners' has defintely been changing as the "sins" become more accepted.

 

[Azael]

I don't want my small child to see two men making out. They don't have any understanding of what is unacceptable behavior or how to show affection at that age.

yes but I can't possibly imagine what negative impact that can have on a child??
Offcourse I am the kind of guy that doesn't pay attention to what goes on around me. You could have a cabarete of naked pygmies dancing on the streets and I would hardly notice. :rofl: Neither do I have kids...

 

[Cyrus]

A child does not have a full sense of right and wrong. Its the parents job to teach them right from wrong. And not everyone thinks homosexuality is right. Even if two straight people were making out, that's nothing a child should see.

 

[Hurkyl]

The issue here isn't what is considered a "sin" according to the bible, it is how a church decides to treat those "sinners'. You have to admit that the treatment and attitude towards "sinners' has defintely been changing as the "sins" become more accepted.

Tolerance and acceptance is one thing -- not only is that supposed to be a virtue of Christianity, it has practical merit too. (How are you going to help someone get over his gambling problem if you don't let him come near?)

Asking the church to actually bless a sinful activity is something entirely different.

 

[Evo]

yes but I can't possibly imagine what negative impact that can have on a child??
Offcourse I am the kind of guy that doesn't pay attention to what goes on around me. You could have a cabarete of naked pygmies dancing on the streets and I would hardly notice. :rofl: Neither do I have kids...

It's how you perceive things. I remember being shocked when I went to Italy by what I thought was the overwhelming display of homosexual displays of affection everywhere I looked. I mentioned that I was amazed at how progressive they were in their attitudes. I'm not used to seeing such public displays of affection. Then it was explained to me that it wasn't homosexual, that these displays of affection between men and between women was normal and had no sexual connotations.

 

[Evo]

Tolerance and acceptance is one thing -- not only is that supposed to be a virtue of Christianity, it has practical merit too. (How are you going to help someone get over his gambling problem if you don't let him come near?)
Asking the church to actually bless a sinful activity is something entirely different.

I admit, I don't know how they're going to explain that one away. :tongue:

 

[Azael]

A child does not have a full sense of right and wrong. Its the parents job to teach them right from wrong. And not everyone thinks homosexuality is right. Even if two straight people were making out, that's nothing a child should see.

I guess I should rephrase the question into(hope I am not sounding like a dick here, just curious).

Is your right to foster your child in the way you se fit(to the extent of preventing others actions) any more "basic" than peoples right to show affection towards each other in public.

 

[Azael]

It's how you perceive things. I remember being shocked when I went to Italy by what I thought was the overwhelming display of homosexual displays of affection everywhere I looked. I mentioned that I was amazed at how progressive they were in their attitudes. I'm not used to seeing such public displays of affection. Then it was explained to me that it wasn't homosexual, that these displays of affection between men and between women was normal and had no sexual connotations.

I guess that is something sweden and the states have in comon. A population stiffer than a bunch of corpses:rofl:

Italy sounds like a good place. Sweden would really need some of that.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I think making out is something people should not do in public. Its gross to watch. Its like eh, get a damn room. A peck is fine, but slobering all over someone so everyone else can watch, is disgusting. There is a limit on what you can do in public. You can't have sex in public, and I don't think you should be allowed to suck face ( I mean really going at it) in a crowded public area.

 

[Cyrus]

It's how you perceive things. I remember being shocked when I went to Italy by what I thought was the overwhelming display of homosexual displays of affection everywhere I looked. I mentioned that I was amazed at how progressive they were in their attitudes. I'm not used to seeing such public displays of affection. Then it was explained to me that it wasn't homosexual, that these displays of affection between men and between women was normal and had no sexual connotations.

Were they kissing each cheek or were they kissing on the lips? Kissing each cheeck is done in many countries. (The guys)

 

[ukmicky]

I would like to know why in today's society its deemed so wrong for me to be anti homosexual. i am anti homosexual because i find it repulsive and disgusting and i find it impossible to separate the disgusting part from the person. But I don't persecute or discriminate against them, but today's society and the media find my ideals as wrong. But what’s wrong with me not liking homosexuals if my opinions don't harm anybody.

 

[Cyrus]

Whats the deal with the way they talk. Why can't they talk like a normal human being.

 

[Azael]

I would like to know why in today's society its deemed so wrong for me to be anti homosexual. i am anti homosexual because i find it repulsive and disgusting and i find it impossible to separate the disgusting part from the person. But I don't persecute or discriminate against them, but today's society and the media find my ideals as wrong. But what’s wrong with me not liking homosexuals if my opinions don't harm anybody.

Well you can pretty much hold any oppinion you want aslong as you don't act on it in a way that hurts others. Freedom of religion, freedom of speach ect allows that. But it works both ways. They are protected from your oppinions by the same rights that entitles you to have those oppinions.

 

[Evo]

Were they kissing each cheek or were they kissing on the lips? Kissing each cheeck is done in many countries. (The guys)

No, women walking holding hands. Men walking or sitting with an arm around the other man's shoulders.

I would like to know why in today's society its deemed so wrong for me to be anti homosexual. i am anti homosexual because i find it repulsive and disgusting and i find it impossible to separate the disgusting part from the person. But I don't persecute or discriminate against them, but today's society and the media find my ideals as wrong. But what’s wrong with me not liking homosexuals if my opinions don't harm anybody.

It's because it is being realized that homosexual behavior isn't deviant, learned behavior.

If your religion or personal beliefs oppose it, as long as you don't do anything against others (verbally or physically) you are certainly entitled to your thoughts. Same goes for gay people, they should not be verbally or physically invasive of you either.

I don't think people should be deep throating or sexually groping each other in public either. To me, it's a sign of immaturity and insensitivity toward others.

Cyrus, I know many gay people from work that you would never guess were gay. My ex boss was married and had three kids when he "came out". He won full legal custody of his kids and they adore him. You can't stereotype people.

 

[Evo]

Well you can pretty much hold any oppinion you want aslong as you don't act on it in a way that hurts others. Freedom of religion, freedom of speach ect allows that. But it works both ways. They are protected from your oppinions by the same rights that entitles you to have those oppinions.

I should just let you answer for me, you said it better than I did.

 

[Cyrus]

No, women walking holding hands. Men walking or sitting with an arm around the other man's shoulders.

This is common in a lot of countries, especially the middle east.

Cyrus, I know many gay people from work that you would never guess were gay.

Thats better IMO. If he's gay he keeps it to himself. I don't go around saying I am hetero. You should come down to DC EVO, they way the gays talk around here, you can sniff them out by their 'dialect'

 

[Evo]

This is common in a lot of countries, especially the middle east.

I lived a sheltered life. Down in Texas, a guy could get shot for putting his arm around another in public.