Brewology

My opinion: I'm not sure if gay is religiously ethical or morale, so I try to ignore it when I see it. I don't hate people for it but I really don't support it.
I understand what you guys mean by marriage is only between a man and a woman and it should be called something else, but if it's called something else then it's not the same thing and that's what people are wanting: Equal rights.
I personally don't think the government should allow gay marriage but I also don't think the government should be allowed to tell you what gender you are allowed to marry, either. Conclusion: I believe government should stay completely out of marriage because marriage is completely religious whether you are atheist or not and I do not support the government controlling religion.

amen brother. i was gonna say that. marriage is defined as MAN and WOMAN not MAN and MAN

i remember someone saying once---- Its "Adam and Eve", not "Adam and Steve"

Here is a long and thoughtful post from your friendly neighborhood DarkPacMan77. I hope those interested in this topic take the time to read this fully This post is also tied in with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, since I find myself quite agnostic, so hopefully people will read my input and have ideas of their own to share.





That is one of the most rude things I've seen posted in a long time, and for people to not understand that it is rude is quite disturbing. I'm not coming down on you as an Administrator though. I respect your opinion and allow your comments freely, but in order to understand just how f**ked up your statement is, let me break it down.

"I voted no because, I just dont believe in the lifestyle."

Just because you don't believe in the lifestyle doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that people passionately care about people of the same sex in ways that you can't imagine. The fact that you are of straight orientation should never even be considered before deciding that someone else isn't worthy of the same rights as you.

"I have nothing against them at all."

You have "nothing against them" but you are fully prepared to deny them the right to marriage?

Just pointing out here, I'm not picking on Tyler at all. I'm just pointing out where I highly disagree with, and since most people have this same thought process, I would like to retort with a question regarding the word, "marriage" itself as it changed through history.

In Ancient Greece, and most of the "ancient" world as we refer to today, most relationships involving homosexuality occurred between older men and younger men, to the extent that you'd refer to them as adolescents by today's standards (most notably different today because of increased life expectancy). Back then, people were also "uncomfortable" with homosexual relationships but they allowed them, and legally so in most nations, but they were treated usually as pederasty. That is, a relationship between two males but with one being a minor. The term "boy lover", translated into Greek, was commonly referred to as not necessarily being an insult used as slander even. This is because in Ancient Greece, you were not identified and ranked socially according to your sexual orientation. In fact, homosexual relationships were even accepted in divisions of the military for men and their younger lovers in order to boost morale and were even noted by other civilizations as being extremely brave and heroic in battle to the point of being honored with monuments even. These relationships were treated as a social institution just as marriage is today. It was considered beautiful, voluptuous, and intriguing for women to act homosexually, just as it was also considered taboo and scorned by certain groups, but the vast majority of Greece accepted homosexuality socially without religion or government getting in the way.

In Ancient Rome, the people were a little more conservative and didn't quite accept homosexuality as easy as the Greeks, but they still did accept homosexuality in many aspects of their culture. Many relationships between homosexuals involved a "master and slave" type of relationship. This practice was accepted widely throughout the middle of the Roman timeline. These relationships were usually determined acceptable because the master would be able to penetrate the slave, sexually, but the slave could not penetrate the master. These laws, of course, were impossible to govern over, just as sexuality is today, because the government can't (shouldn't) be able to monitor your sex life in this nature. Roman emperors even engaged in homosexual acts. Nero and Trajan are two of the best examples. Nero actually married... yes... married two men legally - one of which had full rights as a typical "wife" would and the other which may have had full rights but has been lost in history. Trajan was loved, absolutely loved by Rome for his works with infrastructure and preserving the Roman Empire, but he was also one of the most flamboyantly gay emperors to begin with. This was accepted well in Rome. There is, in fact, public record that states that the King of Abgarus, whom angered Trajan, offered his son for sexual desires as a token of his wholesome apology for forgiveness, which Trajan accepted, later giving pardon to the king. Homosexual relations involving women and the Roman Empire vary according to which date you're observing. Sometimes punished by death from the husband or other times accepted openly - even between neighboring countries and city-states by letters sent via ground courier which have been found which clearly depict female homosexuality.

Now, I know that was a lot to read through, and I didn't even cover the Egyptians, but as you can see, homosexuality by nature and inevitably by design was accepted on differing levels throughout the ancient periods of advanced civilization. It isn't until Christianity is developed, yes, developed by the Roman Catholic Churches as a means to gain political power, until gays are "chastised" so severely. These churches often handed out food in a "food bank" type fashion, typical of most Western European churches today, but at the time, this was a new concept. Usually, any church or building dedicated to worship of any kind never had given out hardly any charitable donations, but by looking after people in Rome in an organized fashion, religious leaders and governmental leaders began working together to push the campaign to spread modern Christianity as we know it. When the government "accepted" Christianity as their nation's religion, that is when Christianity itself began to spread. This was done as a political move to gain more power over the general public, or "mob" as viewed by the higher-ups in power. The governments of ancient days typically did little to ensure a quality life for their citizens aside from creating massive armies to defend/ invade other countries, but by joining the church with the government, Roman political leaders didn't need to spend as much money on art, infrastructure, or other public works to keep people happy. Instead, people who had adopted Christianity were happy to be who they were, where they were, and even payed money to the church for this comfort - something that vastly helped calm down the "mob" mentality of the Roman citizens and thus made running the politics end much easier.

Marriage, the word itself and its whole meaning as we know it today, is NOT a "Christian" term developed or derived from the "Bible". It is a SOCIAL CONCEPT predating even the birth of the entire religion of Christianity as a whole and was never a matter of governmental influence or religious intent until the creation of the concept of Christianity, a tool used by modern governments to control peoples' lives subliminally in order to make them conform, socially, to what the people in power deem acceptable for their jurisdiction of rule.

Now, for anyone who is mentioning how "I don't agree with it so it shouldn't be legal" or anyone uttering selfish lines like, "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" etc. - it's ok to have those feelings. People in ancient societies had those feelings too, but as free men in an elected society, the principals of marriage between gay couples was completely acceptable REGARDLESS of what other people thought because it wasn't a matter of what other people thought, it was a matter of love, control, or obedience. In any form, people were allowed to live their lives how they wanted to live and openly gay couples were accepted as such.

So what's the point of this whole post? You ask?

My point is that if you're aligning yourself with the teachings in the Bible for your input as to how you feel about gay marriage, that's fine by me. But before the Bible spoke of gay marriage being against Christianity, there were countless masses of people who were gay and were married BEFORE the word of God, as taught through Christianity, was ever adopted by masses of people. So when you say something like, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", in my opinion, it only shows how much of a dumbf**k you are when it comes to recognizing where your religion came from in the first place, and I mean that with all due respect, truthfully, but before the concept of Christianity ever was even conceived by man or brought forth by events depicted in the Bible, whichever you align your beliefs with most closely, you can't deny that people had adopted gay marriage as something that religion(s) or government(s) didn't even have the right to deny. In fact, there's over 50 mythological Gods that had gay relationships at some point, thus stressing the inevitability and the naturally defining persona of the human race because "man made up those Gods to tell stories about things he couldn't answer with math and science", just as I would say, in my opinion, happened with Christianity.

Gay marriage should be allowed. Not a "union" or a "partnership" or as anything else, but as marriage, just as was acceptable socially and politically before Christianity was ever even thought of. Governments shouldn't have to vote for it to be legal, but since we've developed a society in the way we have, such a means of changing human rights comes down to a vote by wealthy men in power who are corrupted by the corporate agenda-seeking influences of large industries and media outlets the people of our modern age are subjected to.

And that, folks, is how I feel about gay marriage. I vote yes.

-DarkPacMan77-

Hmmmmm. That's the kind of sh*t that shows how much of an donkey people. Your for sure wrong about one thing. Tylers wasn't the rudest post in a long time. YOURS was. This wasn't designed for someone to bring all hell down on one persons opinion. Marriage was defined as man and woman. Notice he said call it something else. Because it marraige, but it can be something else. Now, I have gay friends and family members, but that doesn't change how I feel about it. Not only is it biblically wrong (not that you give a rats donkey) but its naturally wrong. Notice the aperatus between the males legs and the hole between the females. Now there's a reason for those. You don't stick a usby port and another usb port together and hope it to work, or two ends of a power cord together. THATS NOT HOW THAT WAS DESIGNED. Usually, being gay or lesbian means something in the childhood was wrong. Lack of a father figure for boys sometimes or being around a VAST majority of the opposite sex for the early years of ones life can do that.

But you know that right? So, I know u aren't trying to be mean, but that made me say "what a douche!" My 2 cents.

And I'm sure you got more to yell at me.

I stressed that I wasn't coming down on Tyler's point because that is his opinion and I respect that. I could have quoted anybody in this entire thread almost since most of you agreed with one another for the most part, I just happened to quote him.

Also, I do care greatly about Biblical significance in our modern world - vastly so. I just also happen to care about events predating modern Christian Biblical literature as well. I can remember being in 2nd grade and reading, "The Golden Sun", a book about mythology, while everyone else was reading Cat In The Hat. I certainly do give a "rats donkey" and much more. Perhaps more than most.

I will not deny that a male penis and a female vagina are naturally co-existing as a means for human reproduction. I, however, also believe that if you took 10,000 humans with completely blank minds and dropped them into a container to watch how they interact, that there won't be 50% couples of male and female by the end of it all. Most will probably be straight, many gay, few single, and even a few completely celebate who never have sex or possibly even align themselves with a sexual orientation... and that's not mentioning those considering themselves as bisexual or those who experimented with it at least.

My post is to show that the word marriage itself always included gays until Christianity singled them out. And if you do your research, you will see that I believe it was Constantine... maybe not... but I think Constantine who repeatedly mentioned gays as the people responsible for floods, earthquakes etc. - so by scaring people into believing such a thing, this politically helped distinguish gays as a minority to be killed off one by one lawfully... which sounds a whole hell of a lot like genocide... which sounds a whole hell of a lot like modern "Nazism"...

... because it was.

-DarkPacMan77-

And you say christianity singled them out. If you noticed, it isn't all christians against gays. It diversities. Lots of people.

And I the only reason I figured you wouldn't care about historical christianity is because you seem to fight against it and singal it out.

That's what I noticed, anyways. If they want to be together fine. Gay people are typically the nicest I know. But marraige is one thing, and Gay (conjoinment?) Is another. Different.

I don't fight against historical Christianity at all. In fact, I encourage modern Christians to research historical Christianity as much as possible. I myself used to be a very devout Christian until the age of about 12. It wasn't until I researched it until I really realized how much of a monstrosity it was... not Christianity, but religion itself. The basic fundamental characteristics of Christianity are actually quite beautiful, but so very, very few people actually practice the religion they align themselves with.

And my post wasn't against Christians either. It was outlining how Christianity changed how gays were treated. It started by Christians killing gays so of course the subsequent generations of offspring are going to have a predefined notion of how to treat gay people, but if you will allow yourself to think about things critically, you'll realize that everyone is "gay" and everyone is "not gay".

In ancient times, religion and government did not play a part in sensuality between humans. It was even accepted by Spartans (yes, like the movie 300) to be pederast. Meaning, older men, hardened soldiers, made love to boys, but trained them as well, creating some of the most noble, valiant, and brave fighters to ever exist.

Of course God didn't make "Adam and Steve". Adam and Steve were already boning each other before "God", as depicted in Christian literature, was ever even a part of human civilization. God "killed" Adam and Steve in cold blood though.

-DarkPacMan77-

Very, very nice post, DPM!
+3 reps for you!



There are many, many things wrong with that post.
First, where is marriage defined as a Man and Woman. I researched it, and this is the most conclusive thing I've found to what marriage is.

Second, I do care what is in the Bible because I am Christian. Please tell me where it says that you cannot love someone of the same sex.
Third, marriage isn't about sex- it is about love. Are you saying that because you can't have sex 'the correct way,' then you shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about those poor fellows that have had their penises cut off or born without them? Should they not be allowed to marry? What about men that are sterile?
Fourth, you talk about how it's not natural... Are you against birth control, too? What about computers? What about glasses? Those aren't natural.

Airplanes, please respond to each of the four points.


Okay, I understand where you're coming from and the metaphor that you're trying to create but that was a bit harsh. Borderline insulting. What people need to realize is that most Christians try to be good people. I'm not saying people who just say that they are Christian, but I mean actual Christians. There are a few people who practice is and go a little overboard but most aren't. There are a lot of people who try to use Christianity, and religion in general, as a tool to hurt others and I don't see the need. It's like the crazy people who hate people of other religions yet in the Bible it states, "If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

OH YEA? explain:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26 (King James Version)

David referring to his lover Jonathan after his death. David's father was Jesse and Jonathan's father was Saul so they weren't blood brothers. If you think God did not approve then think about why Solomon and eventually Jesus came from the line of David.

Your ignorance(lack of knowledge) shut down the religious thread and now you want to use scripture to back up your own personal beliefs? Have you even looked at scripture? Do you believe what you yourself has studied or what others have told you?

I don't want this thread turning into the Religion Debate Thread but religion does pay a big part of it. I found your last line of your post a little risky so that's why I say this. I'm not the thread Nazi or anything.
Que, thank you for this information, but he may have an actual section that he could interpret as saying 'gays are immoral.'
I don't think he does, but give him time to explain further.

OH yea, it's in there, but it came before David.
I sed "came".

My remark about "God killing Adam and Steve" is a bit harsh, I'll admit, but it's hard to convey the point that human nature and human civilization treated gay culture in a vastly different nature than mankind has since the adoption of Christian principles. The Christian belief system did, however, literally bring death to gays. They were sought out and killed or used as slaves. That was one of the first major instances which allowed Christianity to even become so widespread in the first place - the open and willing nature to do harm to gays and non-believers. If you ask me, I'd say that the religion is still doing much of the same work it was originally doing so many thousands of years ago.

-DarkPacMan77-

I know you werent coming down on me, and that u ust used my statment to prove a point. to me get married what ever. it doesnt make me "want to try" i am happy with who i am and nothing will change that. and I work at american eagle where 75% of total staff is Homosexual and i am friends with them all they are very nice ppl. i just dont agree with the lifestyle.

lol and DPM i could give a crap if you believe my religious views or not. you dont make my decisions lol. i dont hate you cuz you dont believe. its your opinion and i have mine. =) everyone in this world is DIFFERENT get used to it.

<3

I think people are getting the wrong idea about my post though. My post wasn't to portray how people of different faith view this topic, although it can be taken that way. I figured that much was already assumed. The point was to make it known that humankind before the existence of Christianity accepted gay lifestyle but that we can't in this day and age, something I find sad, personally.

To be frank, I can't stand most gay people for longer than three and a half minutes. Most gay people I've met are flamboyantly gay - something I find TERRIBLY ANNOYING!!! - but... NOT offensive. I've been hit on and it's STILL not offensive and it NEVER should be. That's human nature. Most gays annoy me for the simple fact that they are flamboyantly loud and obnoxious about their sexual preference and practically rub their lifestyle in your face and all the while I think to myself... "ok, I'm not just going around grabbing tits because I'm straight so why is this gay guy/ girl running around smacking [same sex] asses?". That s**t doesn't make sense to me and it might not ever make sense to me, but I think it's so terribly wrong of humans, as a species, as a people, as a world, a nation... to deny gay people the right to marry one another.

So no, I'm not parading for gay rights here. I have gay friends, some gay family, and I'm not offended by gays. I'm annoyed by many of their personalities but you know what else? I'm also annoyed by Mexicans that act hard and can't spell simple English words or African Americans that try making people feel sorry about them because their great, great, great grandfather was a slave. People piss people off and most of the different "types of people" you're going to come across that you don't get along well with are going to be along racial lines or along certain beliefs that they have that you just don't agree with. That doesn't mean you should be offended by them though, which is how I look at the gay marriage situation. I'm not going to ever look down on even the most grungy, stereotypical have-nothing Mexican immigrant that can't spell or the African American sympathy-seeker whose bloodline descends from slavery. Those are traits about other people that you have to overcome to realize how truly indifferent everybody is and that everyone is equal.

I realize some content of this post has the potential to offend others, but it's not intended to at all.

-DarkPacMan77-

You know dpm your obnoxious posts in reply to any religiously sensitive topic that seems to come around is starting to get real old. It seems like every time someone has their own opinion that isn't the same as yours automatically makes them ignorant, and you write a book on why you are right. My question is if it is ok for say, crait to support gay people because he supports the lifestyle or what not, why is it considered rude if someone else disagrees with that lifestyle? I don't understand why I'm considered a dumb donkey if I choice to believe something different then you, or trust the teachings of the bible.

And if it is ok to be gay then why is there males and females on this earth? Isn't the whole point of life to just reproduce and populate the world? If not then why are we here?