This is similar to this topic: http://politicsandprose.net/index.php?showtopic=865

But not quite.

My father being an adamant Christian has not failed to mention that the Bible supposedly states that homosexuality, as well as interracial/inter-religeon relationships are sins.

I personally think you love who you love, whether they are a man, woman, the same race/religeon as you or different. I don't believe people "choose" to be gay or "choose" to be straight (although being straight myself I wouldn't know, and I don't want to speak for anyone else). I also don't believe anyone has the power to "choose" who they love, and whoever it may be, they should not be put down or discriminated against by any laws, beliefs, or religeons.

Those are my views, and I'm interested to know what everyone else's beliefs are. The poll options are above. If you vote, please post here and explain your opinion.

-IMP ;) :)

BTW, the exact phrasing from the Bible on interracial relationships seems to be "Equally yolked," which (at least to my dad) is interpereted to mean "same race and religeon" from other Bible passages that describe "equally yolked".

Interracial relationships AND homosexuality are both fine with me.

I don’t think anybody with ‘mixed’ ancestry is bad but mixing races isn’t good if you want your race to survive, as far a homosexuality goes that is just nasty.

Didn't you say in another topic that your mother was Jewish?

As for the topic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with interracial relationships, and quite frankly I think it's incredibly prejudice and not at all in keeping with Christian teachings to oppose interracial marriage. I don't think that I even know any Christians personally who are against it. I proably know Christians who would be uncomfortable with it, but that would only be because of their lack of exposure to it--ideologically they would have nothing against it.

As for homosexuality, well, I don't know. I've grown up being taught that homosexual marriage is wrong, although I was certainly not brought up to be homophobic or hateful towards homosexuals, as sadly many Christians were and are, it seems. I do not believe that people choose their sexuality, and I certainly think that this issue has been blown out of proportion in Christendom--if homosexual marriage is sinful, it's certainly not as important a problem as, for instance, poverty and war. And shows like "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" do a hell of a lot more to damage the sanctity of marriage in our society than gay marriage does (I do consider myself "pro-family," just not necessarily "anti-homosexual"). I think that homosexual marriage should be legal, or that better yet that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. As for whether homosexual marriage is sinful or not, as I said, I don't know--I can see good arguments for both sides. On one hand, yes, it is clear (in my opinion) that God's original plan for marriage was for it to be between one man and one woman, and that in an ideal world this is what marriage would be. And yet, when Jesus condemns divorce (after reiterating God's original plan for marriage as being between a man and a woman), he does concede that it is not sinful in the case of marital unfaithfulness (which I think in our context we can legitimately extend to, for instance, spousal abuse). This suggests that we live in a fallen world and so that we have to make allowances in certain areas, and that although something might not exist in an ideal world, in the broken world that we live in it may not be necessarily sinful. Of course at the same time one hardly wants to call divorce "good." On the other hand, if one man, one woman is what marriage is supposed to be, then what do we make of polygamy in the Old Testament? On the other hand, I would not be one to endorse polygamy in our contemporary society (although I would be less apt than some to unequivocally condemn it in non-Western societies). So, in conclusion, I don't know. Hence, I voted Other.

Yes, my father is Christian and my mother is Jewish. They're divorced (and with my father's views, that's not surprising).

@Patrick R: Care to elaborate on your reasons for believing homosexuality is, as you called it, "nasty"? I started this topic to get a better feel on people's beliefs.

-IMP ;) :)

You cannot be serious. You do realize "race" is also a social construct?

Nevin: Did you read this post: http://politicsandprose.net/index.php?showtopic=865&st=18

I found it very interesting, if you get the chance I'd like to hear your side of it.

Homosexuality and interacial relationships are fine by me. and i beleive that both sets of people have rights

If you are referring to budman's first post on the second page, I found it interesting as well. He is certainly right that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. His interpretation of the Leviticus passage is one that I had not heard before, and I honestly don't know whether it is valid or not. My main issue is with the idea that the law would be condemning, specifically, homosexual prostitution for heterosexuals, as one would expect a blanket prohibition on all temple prostitution (as indeed one finds in other parts of the law, if I am not mistaken). And no other parts of the chapter seem to me to specifically be addressing a group as specific as heterosexual males. Leviticus 20:13 also comes to mind. Basically I am very skeptical of the claim that homosexuality was accepted in Israelite law. It seems to me plain that under the Old Covenant, it was not acceptable, as was the case with many things. Whether this means that I should not be acceptable to us today... that I don't know. If I were to play devil's advocate, I might say that the reason Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality was because he didn't need to--it was accepted in the (Jewish) culture of the time to be wrong. He no more needed to make a specific condemnation of that than a modern pastor has a need to preach a sermon condemning bestiality. It's not that it's not wrong, it's that it's not really an issue. Basically this all brings me back to where I am now.

I have given this subject a great deal of thought because the groups that I have chosen to associate myself with are generally ones in which I am pressured to simply accept homosexuality. For instance, I am a left-winger and strongly believe in many "liberal" values. Likewise, I am an actor and have had a fair amount of exposure to the contemporary theatre community, and if you want a community in which homosexuality is almost totally accepted, that is it. But I don't want to simply accept homosexual acts because the groups I associate myself with do. The specific teachings of the Mennonite church on homosexuality aside, my religious heritage in general also seems to go against my pro-homosexuality arguments. You see, Anabaptism has always sort of had this idea of erring on the side of caution in terms of sin--if you're not sure whether something is right or wrong, it's probably better to assume that it's wrong. Although of course this maxim can lead to judgmentalness and condemnation, properly applied it is not meant to, and I think that it is in general a wise maxim. I think that violence (although not force, which is slightly different) is unequivocally wrong. I think that Christians in North America are generally too complacent and comfortable, and that we have a responsibility to help the needy around the world and in our own backyard. I think that we need to protect the environment. I think that as Christians we are called, nay, commanded, to be responsible consumers. I would probably even go so far as to say that it is sinful for Christians to shop at Wal-Mart, to buy from oil companies of ill repute, to greedily accumulate possessions while ignoring global poverty, to support aggressive American foreign policy. At times I lean towards advocating vegetarianism. With standards those high, where do I get off deciding that homosexuality is just fine? Don't get me wrong, nothing bothers me more than Christians condemning homosexuals to hell whilst finding themselves guilty of all of the sins I have just mentioned. But if I am to consistently advocate holy and godly living, I feel that perhaps I need to err on the side of caution in terms of sexual sin as well. Not that I would ever suggest that practicing homosexuals are all hell-bound, but perhaps I ought to suggest that practicing homosexuality is a sin. I'm already unpopular enough for suggesting that it is immoral for Christians to serve in the military (once again, not to say that all soldiers are hell-bound), why not get everyone else mad at me while I'm at it?

Uh, where does the Bible say interracial relationships are wrong? :blink:

Unequally yoked isn't talking about your race.

It's pretty obvious it's talking about your religion and not your skin color.

That's your opinion. These are all opinions, I hope no one gets pissed off, as you said they might.

I hope it's okay if I ask a question: Since you consider homosexuality a sin, do you believe that homosexuality is therefore a choice?

-IMP ;) :)

I have. Hell, I've heard damn near every interpretation of all verses concerning homosexuality.

This particular one comes from the hebrew word translated as 'abomination'. 'Toevah' I believe. The Jews used many different words for the different sins and offences. I'll explain it more later as I am kinda swamped right now.

I've always believed homosexuality to be a sin. I also think homosexuality is a disorder, but what do I know? I never really considered this issue to be related to interracial relationships.

Well, I gues it depends on individual translations. I've heard many people other than my father say the same thing about "unequally yolked". From that excerpt, my guess is a different translation of and what communion hath light with darkness? to mean something like and what communion hath white with black?

Or, perhaps there are other passages that cause this belief. However, I find that if passages in a book that can be translated in many ways ultimately cause people to think of something such as love as a "sin", then maybe things are going too far (no offence to people who disagree). After all, no one alive now knows exactly what God wants, even if the Bible really is His words, because the Bible is written in such a way that most of it can have very different meanings.

So if you have to choose between two possible meanings for Bible passages, supposedly written by an all-loving being, then why not choose the more tolerant definition?

-IMP ;) :)

It's because it's called "leaning into your own understanding." You shouldn't decide things like this by your own theories because an interpretation would be more acceptable to you.

What interpretation would be the "prefect" one then? The one thats more acceptable to you?

This is a touchy issue, I want to first state that I do not consider anyone less human because they are of mixed decent. However, I do thing preserving racial integrity is an honerable goal. If the whole world mixed, we would be left with no sense of heritage worlwide, we would lose all the of the created diversity (or if you believe evolution evolved diversity) in just a few generations and all end up pawns on a socialist wheel with no real sense of identity. People need something to rally around. People take pride in their heritage. And when you are mixed that must be difficult. And in addition, I believe while individuals very, that race is no sham or social construct. I oppose the relationship, but there's nothing I can do about it. I just agree to disagree, its not like I'm in a position to stop interracial relationships.

As far as homosexuality, I oppose it, I am generally anti-eros. I generally oppose sex outside marriage. I think the main point of sexuality should be pro-creation.

I do think the bible does support this (kind after kind, the city of sodom) but I have never been one to use the bible as a substitute for a conscience. So I voted for the other answer.

@Zairik: So how do you decide which interperetation seems more accurate as to what God want/wanted?

-IMP ;) :)

*EDIT*

What about homosexuality that doesn't involve sex? As in, a man who loves a man or a woman who loves a woman ("loves" as being attracted to the way a husband and wife are in any relationship), but no sex needs to take place?

Being "mixed" myself I can say that, no, its not difficult at all.

Then I suggest you educate yourself a little bit on the subject of sociology, because you're flat out wrong about that.

If you're not sure, I would say pray about it. But that's not the answer you wanted to hear. ^_^

People shouldn't just accept any religion just because it's convenient, it's more about finding the real truth. At least, that’s what I believe. Sometimes that’s not always what you want to hear either. That’s why I would advise against “leaning into your own understanding.” By which I mean always choosing the softer sounding words or more tolerant interpretation.

That's not as bad. It's walking on thin ice but it isn't as bad.

And of course, deltasix, its paradoxal how you claim to be mixed but then claim there is no reality to race...

I didn't say there was no reality to it, now did I? I said it was a social construct. Government is a social construct, I don't say that there is no reality to governement. Heritage is real, which is what we should probably use when we refer to "race." I do come from a mixed form of heritage. I do come from two different nationalities. And I will use "race" in its commen term for easy of understanding, but that doesn't mean its not a social construct.

Again, I recommend picking up an intro to sociology book and read it. You might learn somthing.

Furthermore, I suggest all further posts concerning race and NOT relgion go into the social sciences forum. Thanks ;).

My Belief

Black/White/Whatever Combination = OK
One Male and One Female = OK
Christian + Christian = OK

Two Males = NOT OK
Two Females = NOT OK
Non-Christian + Christian = NOT OK

Christians and Nonchristians eh? Just wondering, where does that come from? I hope its not next to the law about not eatting shellfish.

:lol:

I already posted this.

Well, there's no answer I "want to hear", really. This topic is just about opinions, as is most of this board. But I do have another question: If you pray on it, how do you get the answer? As in, you pray to find out which is the "truth", but when/how do you actually find out?

@Everyone else: It's interesting to see your opinions, but it seems this topic is getting a little...well, stressed. I didn't mean for this to be the cause of arguments, so let's stop arguing and just focus on listening to other people's opinions and asking questions if you're curious about an opinion.

For some people it’s an auditable voice, something they can hear. For others it’s a conviction, a knowing that something is or isn’t right. God could show you in his Word. Sometimes no answer and it can be your relationship with God that is the reason. You could ask your pastor about things you have difficulty understanding. God can answer prayers in various ways.

Does that answer your question, or did I get confused? ^_^

But overall, the way God answers the prayer is almost never direct, correct? So it's still up to one's own interpretation, no?

-IMP ;) :)

My Belief

Black/White/Whatever Combination = OK
One Male and One Female = OK
Hindu + Hindu = OK

Two Males = OK
Two Females = OK
Non-Hindu + Hindu = OK

All religions are all the same anyway, and to think any other way seems silly. Unification is what we need, and unless you are exposed to it, nothing changes. Ignorace breeds hatred, knowledge breeds respect (not tolerance, mind you). You'll still have idiots claiming that all other religions go to Hell (obviously, this will never change since we'll always have some).

Arya, do your beliefs mirror a majority of those who share you faith, or do you take a more liberal viewpoint than most?

I think we can agree on this:

Eight females + One male = OK

Whereby the one male is me.

...

Seriously though, all relationships, gender identities, etc. etc. are fine by me. Since I'm not particularly religious, there's nothing with that that conflicts with my belief that all people have the right to do whatever they want so long as it isn't hurting others. And frankly, even if gay marriage is going to bring about the downfall of Western civilization, I wouldn't mind that all. That would actually be helping others (PM me if you want to know the argument).

I'll respond to the more detailed arguments against queer relationships when I'm less lazy.

I was wondering where it said that too. I've never heard anyone interpret that verse to pertain to interracial relationships.

Because homosexuality is a sin, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, not something you are born with.

Question: If it could be proven to you (because its been proven to most everyone who is open about it already) that it isn't a choice, would you still be against it?

That's an interesting argument I've not heard before. "Because something a sin, it must be a choice." Although, something being a "sin" is only that based on belief, so the argument is moot to someone who does not believe it's a sin.

-IMP ;) :)

In that case, I wouldn't be against it.

I can't say everything God does is something I would do if I was in his shoes.

True, it's something that would be more effective against someone who believes in the Bible, God's laws, etc.

Well, its been shown many times that its not a choice, its how we're born. If you're intetersted in information about it, just ask and I'm sure some people can gather it for you (myself included.) In the meantime, I suggest you check out this topic, well, mainly this post, because I like it alot and think is pretty good:
http://politicsandprose.net/index.php?showtopic=865&st=18

Wow, that is a very good article. I never thought of it that way.

Aye, its very well done.

Me too.