Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Homosexual pair´s rights

  1. Voting

  2. Showing their love in privacy

  3. Showing their love in public

  4. Getting married

  5. Adopting children

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jan 14, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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):

    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 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 14, 2006 #2
    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. Im not religious in any way. But what is the point in religion if we force them to abandon all traditions.
  4. Jan 14, 2006 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 in to 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

    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 possess 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

    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,

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2006
  5. Jan 14, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    :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 :blushing:
  6. Jan 14, 2006 #5
    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 [Broken]

    I think around 600 swedish priests has signed a list of opposition but I cant find any link on english about it.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Jan 14, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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!

    Here is one from the homepage of the Swedish church:
    http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/ArticlePages/200511/10/20051110144327_svkkhr352/20051110144327_svkkhr352.dbp.asp [Broken]
    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 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Jan 14, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Jan 14, 2006 #8
    The only thing I consider wrong is if a priest are forced to do it even if he doesnt want to. Faith is what made them become priest, so why piss on that faith if they belive it is against there faith and belife?

    They should however be resposible to arange for another priest that doesnt mind to come and do the ceremony.
  10. Jan 14, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  11. Jan 14, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  12. Jan 14, 2006 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  13. Jan 14, 2006 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I personally don't get why we can't own Canadians. :grumpy:
  14. Jan 14, 2006 #13
    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 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 belive in it(no offense meant to anyone religious, thats 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:bugeye:

    God must have sent down scetchy messangers when his message can be interpreted in so many different ways:confused:
  15. Jan 14, 2006 #14
    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 :)
  16. Jan 14, 2006 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  17. Jan 14, 2006 #16
    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 dont 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.
  18. Jan 14, 2006 #17
    I dont understand how a kid could get hurt by watching affection betwen 2 people no matter sex???
  19. Jan 14, 2006 #18
    I dont want my small child to see two men making out. They dont have any understanding of what is unacceptable behavior or how to show affection at that age.
  20. Jan 14, 2006 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  21. Jan 14, 2006 #20
    yes but I cant possibly imagine what negative impact that can have on a child??
    Offcourse Im the kind of guy that doesnt 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...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Homosexual pair´s rights Date
Name your favourite movie(s) Friday at 3:22 PM
Alan Turing and his homosexuality Dec 2, 2010
Holding therapy for homosexuality Jul 18, 2010
News Anti-Homosexuality in Africa May 27, 2010
Is homosexuality less moral than heterosexuality outside of marriage? Jun 10, 2006