Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Is gay marriage more of a "sin" than divorce?

Asked by Dutchess_III (27107 points ) February 13th, 2014

Only one person has stepped to say the agree with the bill. She said something about the “sanctity” of marriage or…..it’s sacred or something.

Well you know what? I happen to know that this fine Christian woman divorced her first husband and left her kids to run off with the pastor of her church who divorced his wife too. They’re still together.

Say what???

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

79 Answers

Judi's avatar

Nope. Jesus talked about divorce. He didn’t say a word about homosexuality.
Here’s an article (really long) entitled Clobbering Biblical Gay Bashing written by a Christian Pastor that sets the record straight.

hominid's avatar

It would probably be wise to reference the bible if we are discussing “sin” (transgression against divine law). The bible is clear about homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Corinthians 6:9

Maybe someone else could cite more relevant passages in the bible concerning divorce. All I know is…

Corinthians 7:10–11

It would appear that homosexuality, and therefore gay marriage, is the greater “sin”.

KNOWITALL's avatar

It is debated by different religious groups that there are grades of sin. Adultery is worse than breaking the speed limit reasoning.

Personally, I do not think gay marriage is more of a sin than divorce and additionally, if a gay person is born gay as opposed to it being a choice, I posit that it is not a sin at all.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I don’t even have a clue as how to answer that, I am not gay and don’t know any gay people and still can’t figure out why the gay thing throws so many( straight)people into a freaking panic,real gay people are not going to bother straight people knowing they don’t swing that way, so if I had to guess I would say NO it is not a bigger sin.

Blackberry's avatar

Yes. Here we straight people are: getting married after 2 months, getting married for money or status, getting married only to divorce a year after, giving away our freedom and financial future to someone we think we know but hardly do…

And you’re telling me gay people want to take part in this?! It should be a sin to be that stupid!

:P

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Biblically –which most don’t agree with anyhow—, there is no difference in the sin as to how it will be dealt with by God. Though one is considered an abomination, the other is a direct affront against the institution God put together and ordained for mankind to live by. That is basically the main differences, and while you are at it, you can toss in fornication as well.

Secularly, anything goes just about.

Blondesjon's avatar

Gay marriage is the more fabulous sin . . .

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 ”...real gay people are not going to bother straight people knowing they don’t swing that way…”

I assure you this is not the case. I’ve had numerous gay men attempt to seduce me, even knowing that I was straight. They use all sorts of logic. My favorite is when they claim I’m probably gay and just don’t know it. So why not give it a try and find out. Some instances have been very aggressive, with dudes following me home or stalking me. That didn’t end well for them.

This should not be any surprise. It’s no different than a horny hetero male being attracted to a lesbian, and being too aggressive about it. It’s not a gay thing. It’s a horny human thing.

filmfann's avatar

Sin is sin, if you are speaking of the Bible. We all fall short.
Which do I think is worse? Divorce, but I don’t judge.

hominid's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “I assure you this is not the case. I’ve had numerous gay men attempt to seduce me, even knowing that I was straight. They use all sorts of logic. My favorite is when they claim I’m probably gay and just don’t know it. So why not give it a try and find out. Some instances have been very aggressive, with dudes following me home or stalking me. That didn’t end well for them.”

relevant

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

haha… boy I never had it that bad… lol

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Wait… what does the biby say about gay divorce?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ There can be no “gay divorce”, because God doesn’t recognize male to male, women to women unions. God never set up a marriage like that so Biblically they don’t exist.

filmfann's avatar

Well, there is a good movie with Norma Shearer called “The Gay Divorcee”.

Pachy's avatar

Serial killing, terrorism and child molestation are sins. Divorce and single-sex marriage are—in my opinion—a personal choice.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@hominid Damn it! I was taking a drink of beer when I opened that link! You owe me for a key-board cleaning!

I don’t think God “set up marriage.” Humans did. Humans have been getting “married” for thousands of years, probably due to female pressure, what with the kids living so damn long before they move out on their own.

livelaughlove21's avatar

@hominid It’s so funny that so many Christians are Biblical literalists when it comes to homosexuality, but not things like the “sin” of eating shellfish or the notion that children should be killed for straying from the faith. The Bible was pretty clear about those things too, but I bet Christians don’t think twice before chowing down on some shrimp.

@KNOWITALL “Adultery is worse than breaking the speed limit reasoning.”

I’m pretty sure speeding isn’t a sin. ;)

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^ Um huh!

kritiper's avatar

Irrelevant since there is no such actual thing as “sin” except as a word. There is a concept of sin, but that is in the eye of the beholder and can therefore take different definitive forms.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, this is acting like it’s not going to post my comments, so if it posts ”^^^Um huh” 30 11 times it’s not my fault!

GloPro's avatar

Pffft. Not worth answering. Get in on, gay, if that’s you’re way! Live and let live.

GloPro's avatar

^^^Um huh!

Haleth's avatar

@hominid Leviticus also says that you can’t eat shellfish, and that women are unclean for several weeks after giving birth (how much time depends on if the child is a girl or a boy.) Yeahhh, Leviticus is really relevant in our lives today.

Leviticus 19:19 “Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”

Leviticus 12:4–5 “And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”

Leviticus 11:4 “Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”

Leviticus 11:10 “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.”

Leviticus 10:6 “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.”

GloPro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I would like concrete examples, please. I don’t know any extremely sexually aggressive people, to the point of pressuring me to consider what I find sexy. You’re either hanging out with the wrong crowd, not setting clear boundaries for appropriate conversations and advances, or exaggerating.

rojo's avatar

No, divorce is much more sinful than gay marriage because gay marriage should not exist in the real world whereas breaking the marriage vows with one who the lord has joined together is a direct violation of gods decree.

jk don’t really give a shit.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@hominid Sorry for the copy/paste, but here is part of a post I have previously made that addresses some of the passages you mentioned:

It is worth noting [...] that 1 Corinthians 6:9 is no smoking gun for either side of this debate. In the original Greek, the passage reads as follows.

η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται

The words most at issue here are ”μαλακοι” (malakoi) and ”αρσενοκοιται” (arsenokoitai). Neither of these words were believed by scholars or theologians to refer to homosexuality until the 20th century, but the proper meaning of each is problematic.

The literal meaning of ”μαλακοι” is “soft.” Martin Luther, meanwhile, translated the word as “weaklings.” Since the list of vices Paul is giving does not consist entirely in sexual sins, many argue that we are to take ”μαλακοι” as having its common Greek meaning: one who is lazy or weak-willed (especially in moral matters). If we are to take it as a sexual term, however, it looks like it would refer to boys who work as prostitutes. Regardless, the NASB translation of the word as “effeminate” fails to give any support for an anti-homosexual spin on the verse. Effeminacy and homosexuality were not associated with one another at the time, and scripture cannot mean anything now that it did not mean then.

The word ”αρσενοκοιται” is even more difficult, as it appears to have been invented by Paul. Martin Luther thought it referred to masturbation. Some who read ”μαλακοι” as “boy prostitute” read ”αρσενοκοιται” as the men who hire those boys. Others think that this term refers to the boy prostitutes and that ”μαλακοι” is unrelated. Those who wish to interpret this passage as a condemnation of homosexuality often try to pair ”αρσενοκοιται” with ”μαλακοι” and translate them together for the purposes of interpretation. Paul’s use of ουτε clauses, however, limits the extent to which we can reason in this way. There is no syntactical reason to think the two terms are linked, and the semantics are precisely what is in dispute (so we must be wary of begging any questions here). But this fact is equally problematic for some arguments on the other side.

I am most convinced by those who think that ”αρσενοκοιται” is a reference to the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, where the phrase ”αρσενο κοιται αρσενο” is in the place where “man lies with a male” is in the English. This still does not suffice for a condemnation of homosexuality, however, as the proper interpretation of that passage is itself subject to serious debate. The most obvious problems with reading Leviticus as a statement on homosexuality simpliciter are that (a) homosexuality is not only practiced by men, and (b) the ritual impurity of male/male sex in Leviticus apparently has to do with the Jewish identity laws and nothing to do with the sexual acts themselves.

Symbeline's avatar

Hating gays and and having to pay for divorce is some man made shit. Go figure then, that some blame it on some higher force. Lame.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@GloPro “You’re either hanging out with the wrong crowd, not setting clear boundaries for appropriate conversations and advances, or exaggerating.”

ok

livelaughlove21's avatar

What is “um huh!” anyway? Is it like “uh huh!” as in “yes” or “um, huh?” as in “say what?”

hominid's avatar

@livelaughlove21 and @Haleth – Yep. Not sure why people are still wearing clothing made of mixed fibers and eating shrimp.

@SavoirFaire – Thanks. Interesting stuff. Admittedly, I have engaged in no research in the possible translation issues with the bible. I am not sure the average Christian is actively following these efforts or even cares, however. It’s interesting that the creator of the universe went through the effort to inspire a guide book(s) only to make it nearly impossible to be read by 2 people the same way.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@GloPro There are plenty of men who won’t take “No.” You don’t have to be hanging out with the “wrong crowd.” You can just be IN a crowd, or hell, walking down the street, and there are men who are going to hit on you relentlessly. I’ve had men grab me, I’ve had men kiss me, I’ve had men corner me, all after I’ve made it perfectly clear I was not interested. @RealEyesRealizeRealLies has obviously encountered these kinds of men.

I find it interesting that you don’t have the same sympathy for RealEyes that you would have for a woman, only the “It’s your own fault” mentality. So if he had been raped, would it have been his own fault? If a woman is raped, or is hit on against her will, is it her own fault? Is she hanging out with the “wrong crowd?” Is it because of the way she was dressed?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@hominid You’ll get no disagreement from me regarding the various epistemological and hermeneutical problems presented by the Bible. That said, I find it very interesting that scripture in fact provides no case whatsoever for homophobia. This proves as much as anything that it’s not Christianity that is homophobic, but various Christians (as well as various non-Christians, though not as vocally as far as the US is concerned).

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@hominid If you speak to people with the spiritual equivalent of Dick and Jane, you will get nowhere speaking to them on a spiritual level of Steven Hawking.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III I’ve had a few lesbian friends hit on me jokingly (maybe), like girl, when you turn you’re mine and that kind of thing, it doesn’t bother me at all. ;) I can’t really see guys being super aggressive but I don’t really hang out with many gay guys that aren’t in couples already.

livelaughlove21's avatar

That whole “gay guys trying to seduce straight guys” thing is complete bullshit. If anyone has experienced this, that gay man was certainly in the minority. Most gay guys don’t want to waste their time on some breeder boy when there are plenty of gorgeous gay men for the picking. My hairdresser is just about the most flamboyant gay person I know. He hits on every guy, gay or straight, that walks through his doors. He makes sexual comments to my husband, grabs his head and shakes him while cutting his hair, touches his arms and makes comments about his body. However, all of us know that he’s just being him; he definitely doesn’t want to have sex with my husband or any of the other guys. He’s about as “aggressive” as I’ve seen, and even he knows when to quit or if the guy he’s talking can’t take his playfulness. My husband has never had a problem with this attention. It gives him a confidence boost, in fact. He always tells me how much gay men like want him. It’s called being a good sport and not having a huge stick up your ass.

Get over yourselves. Even if they all did hit on you (because you’re so good-looking, they simply can’t resist!~), stop whining about it and take it as a compliment. They’re not raping you, so what’s the problem? If a woman hits on a man and he’s not interested, he doesn’t throw a fit about it. Why is it different if the person is a guy? It’s different only in the minds of homophobic straight men.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Come on @livelaughlove21. You’ve been hit on by men after you clearly said “Get lost.” There is no reason to think SOME gay men wouldn’t do the same to other men. He didn’t say “All gay men do this.”

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Dutchess_III Reread my last paragraph. Seems you missed it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This has been bugging me. What do you mean “Most gay guys don’t want to waste their time on some breeder boy when there are plenty of gorgeous gay men for the picking.” Is there some place where they line up gorgeous gay guys against a wall and any old gay guy can just go along the line until they see one they like and tap him on the shoulder and say “Follow me.”? I mean, really? Is that part of the allure of being gay, you don’t have to impress anyone with your personality and a thousand other things like you do with women you may be interested in? Just go take your pick?

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Dutchess_III What? Are you kidding me? I didn’t say either of those things. I was simply saying that straight guys need to get over themselves – why would most gay men waste their time with a guy that’s straight when going after gay men might actually lead somewhere? Gay men typically aren’t under the impression that they can “convert” straight guys if they are aggressive enough.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You said …“there are plenty of gorgeous gay men for the picking.” What does “they’re there for the picking” mean, exactly?

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Dutchess_III Meaning they’re out there. It’s an expression; don’t read into it because nothing more was meant by it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s an expression that, if used the wrong way, can be insulting. If a man wants women for “the picking” he goes to a whore house and makes a choice from a line up.

Anyway, in my experience there are some men who do think you can be changed, you’ll go out with them/ sleep with them/ dance with them, whatever, if they’re persistent or aggressive enough especially if they’ve been drinking. Why would things be any different for a gay man with that dick-head mentality?

livelaughlove21's avatar

@Dutchess_III Yeah, well some people take offense too easily. Do you find the term “slim pickings” equally insulting?

Once again, you might want to read my original response. I said that any gay guy that does that is certainly in the minority. I didn’t say none existed.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“Slim pickings” would be far more realistic when you’re discussing finding a human being with whom you have something in common with AND want to have a sexual relationship with. If all gay people were out there for was sex, period, then I imagine they would be there simply for the picking, and simply being physically gorgeous to boot would keep everyone very busy.

Yes, men who act that way are in the minority. But if it happens, it happens and you can’t blame anyone except the man who acted that way. You certainly can’t blame the straight man who didn’t ask for the attention.

Dutchess_III's avatar

LOL! OK, my Christian bashing friend just posted a picture of Jesus hugging a guy and the caption reads, “Ummmmm…..sorry for making you gay. Gimme one last hug before you go to hell.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III That’s the hypocrisy that is turning people from God. If we’re all made in God’s perfect image, then we’re all perfect as we are. So how is being gay against God’s will?

You know that subject bothers me a lot as a Christian and a person who loves my LGBT friends. :(

Dutchess_III's avatar

Not all of us are perfect, though @KNOWITALL….

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ That’s the hypocrisy that is turning people from God. If we’re all made in God’s perfect image, then we’re all perfect as we are. So how is being gay against God’s will?
We are made in the image of God, but for the sake of some shinny fruit, and self-pleasure Eve believe the lies of a serpent instead of her husband and ate, and because he was too wimpy to take the position God gave him and ate the fruit she gave him, they tossed perfection in the cesspool. I can have a cake mold but if I drop a heavy pot on it putting a dent in it that can’t be straighten out, every cake after that no matter how tasty the ingredients will have that flaw. The cartoon was incorrect, crated by some scoffer who wants people to accept the dent as part of the original mold.

Symbeline's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

I can have a cake mold but if I drop a heavy pot on it putting a dent in it that can’t be straighten out, every cake after that no matter how tasty the ingredients will have that flaw.

Aw man…this is the exact same thing that some Jehovah’s Witnesses explained to me last year when they wouldn’t stop hounding me for a couple of months. They used the dented pot example. My response to this is, as would be many people’s I assume; why do we have to pay for centuries of misery and sin because some bitch ate an apple? It makes no sense to me at all.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And a SNAKE told her to do it.

hominid's avatar

What’s the difference between creating a dented cake mold and creating one that he knows will be dented before its first use? Hint – there is no difference.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Let me clarify, I’m not perfect AT ALL! I cuss sometimes, I drink sometimes, I have bad thoughts sometimes, I lose my temper, etc… I’m a sinner, no better or worse than any other sinner.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I was thinking of that monster from last night.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Symbeline My response to this is, as would be many people’s I assume; why do we have to pay for centuries of misery and sin because some bitch ate an apple? It makes no sense to me at all.
That is the mystery of it, you don’t, Christ paid the debt for you, all that is asked is that you recognize He did. Then do not mock the payment by continually using the busted cake mold you had and use the one He gives you how He say use it. People have to suffer under the debt because they don’t want to use the better way offered to them.

livelaughlove21's avatar

“why do we have to pay for centuries of misery and sin because some bitch ate an apple?”

That reminds me of a Daniel Tosh joke. “If you look at the Bible and you look at Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we all know who sinned first. Ladies, do you have to eat everything?” ... “What was women’s punishment? Do you even know? Painful childbirth, menstrual cycles. Man’s punishment? We have to deal with women…”

Dutchess_III's avatar

If the debt is paid, why do people still have to pay the price for their sins?
And I seriously doubt many people prefer the lives they have. If all they had to do to have a better life was change their ways, and everything would be OK, then they’d change, happily.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ If the debt is paid, why do people still have to pay the price for their sins?
Basically, it is because they want to pay for them, and their imperfect life and blood cannot atone for them. Christ is not going to force anyone to accept the payment He made for them. People are free to reject it. If you were at the checkout with an expensive bill with the IRS and I agreed to pay for it, but you did not like the conditions I had for handling the bill, you can reject it. If the only currency you had was equal to Monopoly money, the bill would not be paid because you told me to take my money and go, and you’d handle it yourself. The debt is paid, people just reject the currency because they don’t like the conditions in the bold print.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t reject it, not for a long time. It didn’t make any difference in my life.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ then maybe you never really had it.

Symbeline's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central That is the mystery of it, you don’t, Christ paid the debt for you, all that is asked is that you recognize He did. Then do not mock the payment by continually using the busted cake mold you had and use the one He gives you how He say use it. People have to suffer under the debt because they don’t want to use the better way offered to them.

You say this now, but that’s not really what you were implying in the post before; that we’re basically all fucked and have no choice but to use the busted pot formula, for that’s all we have, because of Eve. Am I not understanding this right?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Symbeline “Jesus died to open the gates of heaven, closed since the sin of Adam and Eve, which gave us the chance of attaining salvation and eternal life. There are no “get-out-of-hell-free” cards. We sin all our lives, repent, and keep on trying.”
Yahooanswers

I just like this answer, layman’s terms.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well….so all the people who came before Jesus, including Abraham and Noah etc., went to hell?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Not really.

By his death and Resurrection, Jesus opened heaven (CCC 1026). Prior to that time all who died went to “hell”; however, the just went to a place in hell referred to as “the Bosom of Abraham,” where they would be comforted. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) seems to indicate that there were two parts of hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man died and went to hell, but Lazarus was comforted in the bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in a place of torment. A great chasm separated the two parts.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-all-the-people-who-died-prior-to-jesus-go-to-hell

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, how did they know where they went? They couldn’t come back to tell anyone. And why did God wait 5000 / 5 billion years to send Jesus? Why would he deny heaven to so many millions of people, including children and babies?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III I don’t know, maybe you should talk to a preacher or priest who make a lifetmie studies of those details.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Been there. Tried that @KNOWITALL. They gave the same answer you did. They didn’t really appreciate the questions, either. :(

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Really, that’s odd?! I’d look them up for you, but I’m busy at work…sorry babe. ET may know, he’s studied religion quite a bit.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, there really IS no answer so it’s not odd. They have no way of knowing who went where after they died, and no one has a clue why God waited so long to send Jesus instead of creating him along with Adam and Eve. There is no answer.

rojo's avatar

What about that most heinous of sins “Gay Divorce”?

No, but seriously your initial premise is wrong. You start out by calling both a sin without proof that either is and then try to determine which is the “worse” one.. The first question should be is either actually a sin.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I will try to phrase future questions in a way that you feel is appropriate @rojo.

I don’t feel either one is a sin. It was just a point I was trying to make. People out there rant that homosexuality is a “sin” and most of the people who are ranting also divorced and remarried. So, in THEIR eyes, which is “worse”?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III ‘Let the first one of you without sin cast the first stone’ That was Jesus’ whole point about not judging each other.

If I were giving you the answer based on people I’ve talked to who are theists, homosexuality would be a bigger sin than divorce.

From what I gather, the rationale behind that is that divorce is not a ‘planned sin’ while homosexuality is. The whole ‘go forth and sin no more’ thing.

rojo's avatar

@KNOWITALL I can understand that logic; not agree with it re: the planned part but understand it from their POV.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@rojo Same here.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

I don’t feel either one is a sin. It was just a point I was trying to make. People out there rant that homosexuality is a “sin” and most of the people who are ranting also divorced and remarried. So, in THEIR eyes, which is “worse”?
A point I have tried to make several times only to have people duck, dodge and hide. If it is just up to man, no union be there sex in or not is wrong, man vs man, woman with man, man and man simultaneously, man with his mother’s sister, it is all the same; only different in man’s eyes.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central . . . Actually, it is how it is viewed in the fucker and the fuckee’s eyes.

herculies's avatar

Let gay people marry!

But forbid them from getting a divorce.

See how they like that

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther