Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, what she's doing now is adultery, technically. If she married him, it would be polygamy, which has a very strong Biblical foundation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians, why do you hate Gays?
- Thread starter R34L1TY
- Start date
Lady B
noob
No it is definitely not enough, You are misusing scripture slanted towards your biasness. You made bold statements and used verses that failed to support them at all. Christ did not say Christians are free to sin, much less non-Christians, give me a break. The Bible does not say homosexuality is an abomination and then show support for the abomination by a passiveness and understanding and Love.the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and be "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Why is your own cherry picking, which happens to directly undermine Christ's own teachings, superior to Penguin's?
As for Christians being free to sin, you're quite right, Christ never said anything of the sort. You have, though.
And you still haven't addressed any of Penguin's examples of how your vote directly causes harm to same sex couples and their children.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
+ 50 shekels! If anybody rapes my daughter they can marry her and pay me the modern equivalent of 50 shekels. Cor..... will that get me and Mrs B a cruise somewhere?
Lady B
noob
Polygamy yes but she is still an adulteress, She is breaching the covenant of His marriage by her marriage. God did not advocate polygamy or give laws to organize it. It indeed was a practice in early Bible times, but saying it was God ordained is a clear misinterpretation.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
And your own bias has nothing to do with that interpretation?
Lady B
noob
Not at all.
I disagree. And if you're going to want me to take your dismissal of what I've said seriously, you'll have to get into the specifics of why you think my points are invalid instead of just giving a blanket rejection.
It's more Paul than Christ, but it's in the Bible.
Passages that suggest the opposite are also in the Bible, but I pointed that out earlier.
The Bible most definitely says that Christ triumphed over sin and that to cling to the notion of sin demeans Christ's sacrifice. And it also says that worrying over the state of the world and trying to "fix" things shows a lack of faith in the God who will meet all the needs of the world.
It's not a matter of any behaviour being permitted; it's a matter of being guided by the higher principles like love, faith, hope, justice and mercy instead of the old written code.... and these principles are better served by allowing same-sex marriage than prohibiting it.
I'm not making this up. This is the rationale that countless Christians use to support same-sex marriage as an expression of their faith. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.
So back to my original question: there are sincere, devout believers on theory sides of the issue who have come to their positions through reflection and prayer. The Bible has passages that support both views. How would someone go about deciding which position is the one actually supported by God?
And as a bonus question, if you can't conclusively demonstrate that God really is against same-sex marriage, should you be imposing this view on people who disagree with it?
There's an expression that's common in several Christian denominations:
In essentials, unity
In non-essentials, liberty
In all things, charity
You're arguing against liberty on this issue. Does this mean that you consider it an "essential"? If so, why?
And exactly where is the charity in your position? Because frankly, I see none at all.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I've just been looking up which (United) States support same-sex marriages, and which recognise such marriages from other States. Oh dear......you are in the dark-ages.
I also just read that marriage confers more than 1,138 rights and protections to U.S. citizens! These denied to homosexual couples who are in love with each other, and fervently wishing to be 1st relatives. This needs sorting........
Jesus did not directly mention homosexuals, but I have no doubt that his 'love and understanding' stance would automatically provide for their wishes.
I also just read that marriage confers more than 1,138 rights and protections to U.S. citizens! These denied to homosexual couples who are in love with each other, and fervently wishing to be 1st relatives. This needs sorting........
Jesus did not directly mention homosexuals, but I have no doubt that his 'love and understanding' stance would automatically provide for their wishes.
Lady B
noob
Really?
And you still haven't addressed any of Penguin's examples of how your vote directly causes harm to same sex couples and their children.[/quote]
As far as me causing harm to others by voicing my view according to my beliefs, no I don't agree it harms them any more then their proposal harms me. I am not asking gays to conform to my religious views any more then they are asking me to support them. It is a vote, anyone can be in the majority, In many many countries Christians are a minority, Christians are underground and being persecuted,and fighting for freedoms too.And In the U.S. The majority could easily become the minority, I think this is where we are headed soon. Will I be sad? yes But will I scream unfair? No, it is a system I believe in, we all have the right to vote and change, make or break laws.
As for the children in these same sex unions, well I feel sad that they are victims in any discrimination but The facts are these same issues of custody occur when hetero couples have children outside of marriage too.I feel a parent regardless of his or her sexual or non sexual unions have the right to delegate who is to care for his or her child. And once established should not be overturned. Again, I would support this and I feel it is apart from the same sex marriage proposal and is only a basic human right.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Sorry, but sticking your fingers in your ears and humming is not addressing the facts, either.
It is factually incorrect, for instance, to say that married spouses can successfully have custody stripped away in the event that their partner passes, not counting instances of abuse in the home where the state intervene's for the child's safety.
You can't be serious.
Do you really think that if same-sex marriage were legal, you'd run the risk of having your children taken away, being evicted from your home, being forced to live separately from your husband, or any of the other things that same-sex couples have to deal with because they can't legally marry? If so, please explain.
And just to reassure you: same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for quite a while now, but opposite-sex couples have not had to endure the injustices and outrages that same-sex couples used to.
I question how genuine your sympathy for these children is, since you've said over and over that you would reject the best and easiest way to help them.
And the situation with opposite-sex couples is a bit different:
- they have the right to marry, so if they do get into a situation that disadvantages their children, it's by their own choice.
- many places have "common-law" marriage rules that call for the rights and responsibilities marriage even without an actual ceremony or marriage licence. I know the law here is that if you live with your partner "in a relationship of some permanence" where a child is being raised, then you're deemed married in the eyes of the law, and the child gets all the protections of marriage.
If you support this, then why do you vote against it? That's what voting against same-sex marriage means.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Lady B,
What you think or what your religion thinks about gays and gay marriage is completely irrelevant.
We have separation of church and state in this country for this precise reason, just as Muslims or Jews cant impose a law that says that men and women cannot sit together on a bus. Other people should not be able to tell people who they can marry under civil law.
As been pointed out to you before, it is the state that issues marriage licenses. Where you have the ceremony is your choice. This is a legal right that should be legal for all weather or not they want to get married in a church, a temple, in the forest or hanging upside down in lamps at their S/M club.
Courts protect peoples rights and rights are not subject to public opinion or mob rule.
If it was, Ruby Bridges would not have been able to go to school at a non-segregated school.
People where so against it that she had to have a military escort to go to school and she and the teacher were the only ones in the classroom.
Had they voted on it, the majority would have prevented her going to school with kids who didn´t have the same amount of melanin in their skin as her.
Marriage is a civil right. Whom you marry should be between you and another consenting adult. If you are against gay marriage, don´t marry a person of the same sex. It´s as simple as that.
Maya
What you think or what your religion thinks about gays and gay marriage is completely irrelevant.
We have separation of church and state in this country for this precise reason, just as Muslims or Jews cant impose a law that says that men and women cannot sit together on a bus. Other people should not be able to tell people who they can marry under civil law.
As been pointed out to you before, it is the state that issues marriage licenses. Where you have the ceremony is your choice. This is a legal right that should be legal for all weather or not they want to get married in a church, a temple, in the forest or hanging upside down in lamps at their S/M club.
Courts protect peoples rights and rights are not subject to public opinion or mob rule.
If it was, Ruby Bridges would not have been able to go to school at a non-segregated school.
People where so against it that she had to have a military escort to go to school and she and the teacher were the only ones in the classroom.
Had they voted on it, the majority would have prevented her going to school with kids who didn´t have the same amount of melanin in their skin as her.
Marriage is a civil right. Whom you marry should be between you and another consenting adult. If you are against gay marriage, don´t marry a person of the same sex. It´s as simple as that.
Maya
Last edited:
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Lady B
noob
This passage actually means we are no longer in bondage to sin, so we are given grace to overcome sin. It does not say we are to be given over to sin using Christs atonement as our free pass to sin.
Come on...You can't really believe That the bible says we are to do nothing but sit back on our haunches and wait for God to intervene.
Just because some Christians become humanistic ear ticklers doesn't make their use of scripture valid either.Let me ask you something, do you really feel Christians make up or distort verses in our Bibles to destroy our fellow man? What would be the motive? Do you accuse me of this also? Do you think it is fun or even easy to go against an entire forum (it seems) to stand alone and be berated for my beliefs? To be accused of hate and unfairness? To have the Bible reduced to Goat herder philosophy? Do you really? Heck I didn't even get one fruble for the 9 hours I have put into this debate thus far. No one likes me here and I am OK with that because I am so sure that God stands behind me and my fellow Christians who speak up and aren't lukewarm though it may be the easiest way to be in this society.
We then must revert to What God has said and not what God has not said.
The Bible does not show support to both sides, I am sorry It does not. In order for you to claim this, you must show an actual definative verse as support for it, as was done by me in opposing it, fair enough? show me where God now says it is ok for us to sin, or even it is ok for man now to lay with man and woman with woman, can you?
Using Paul's passages about us Christians not being under the law so therfore we have a free pass to sin and all is exceptable is quite frankly heresy [Antinomianism is the heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law]
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest, Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not applicable now.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws, but we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin, but not with the associated death penalty
romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
I have conclusively demonstrated God is against homosexual living, therfore a marriage consisting of this lifestyle would be wrong according to God.and to condone and or support with my vote is openly accepting it and essentially being a part of it and outside of God's will.
I consider my vote essential, and my vote must reflect God and what he has revealed to me as his ways, not humanitarian ways if they conflict.
The charity is I am not out in the streets committing hate crimes and spouting evilness and degrading my fellow human being. The Charity is I see it as a sin, but I acknowledge we all sin and fall short of the glory Of God, and I am no better than anyone else.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Refraining from hate crimes is not a virtue in its own right. Opposing hate crimes and defending their victims would be. However, you've made it quite clear that it's too much to ask of you to defend the downtrodden, even when all that's asked of you is to not actively support their oppression.
Please don't call that "charity," as it's more than a bit insulting to people who actually do defend the oppressed, regardless of the excuses made by the oppressors.
Lady B
noob
I agree married spouses do not have this issue in any significance,
however my point was,hetero couples that are not married struggle the same as homosexual couples who are not married, yet they still choose to have children knowing these struggles will take or could take place. And when either side chooses to have children, they put their children at risk of discrimination, not me as a voter.Is it preposterous to wait till your married to have children? And if they as a gay couple can't marry for legal reasons, then is it preposterous to wait until it is legal before bringing children into the mix at all? Really why is it my fault these children suffer? I would blame the parents for subjecting them to a legal system which is not conducive to their lifestyle.
It means that "sin" is an obsolete concept. In Romans, Paul explains that if you commit an act thinking that it is a sin, then for you, it is a sin. But if you commit an act out of faith - as many of the same-sex couples who have been married in Christian churches did - then it is not a sin and is for the glory of God.
Yes, I do, but I think it warrants some explanation:
I think it was taken as given by the authors of the Gospels that Christianity would always remain on the fringes of society. I think they never envisioned that Christians or Christianity would hold political power.
But what do you think that Jesus meant when he told his disciples not to even worry about what they would eat or what they would wear? Do you take this seriously? If God's going to see to these basic needs of yours, why do you think you need to worry about things like secular laws?
But this still leaves us with the question of how we figure out what God wants people to do.
Is it scripture? The scripture supports both views.
Is it prayer? Prayer supports both views.
What's left?
IMO, if you're going to impose your beliefs on others and deny their freedom in the process, then it's not enough for you to just hold the opinion that you're right; you have to have some sort of valid justification that says that the other side is actually wrong or unreasonable by taking their position. So far, you haven't given this. Until you do, you're on the same sort of shaky moral ground as someone who would outlaw chocolate ice cream because they only like vanilla.
I don't think that's your intent, but I think that's the effect of your actions.
And I don't think that you're distorting verses in the Bible as you are cherry-picking the ones you'll follow and the ones you won't. However, you're not alone in this: anyone who tries to infer a single, coherent position from the Bible has to reconcile the fact that the book is full of contradictory things.
As for motivation, I think it's a matter of tradition and saving face. There are plenty of denominations that adopted anti-homosexuality views when these views were common and largely uncontroversial. Since then, though, the spotlight has been shone on just how cruel and harmful these views can be. Some denominations have responded to this by saying, effectively, "yes, you're right - we follow God, and God is a god of love. We are commanded to justice and mercy. We have come to realize that some of our past practices were not in accord with justice and mercy, so now we set them aside."
But this can be hard to do, because it can't be done without admitting that in the past, what they did was wrong and cruel. The human desire to save face can be very powerful, so many people are reluctant to do this.
I don't see this as any different than the issues of slavery or women's rights, two other issues where some churches and believers rejected the harmful, unjust positions of their past, while others clung to them long after they were recognized by society for what they are.
Standing up for justice is not "lukewarm". Why are you so deadset against acknowledging that there are many people who are motivated to support same-sex marriage because of faith that is just as strong as yours?
Edit: and if you expect praise for all the effort you put into explaining how you think it's a good idea to hurt people, then you'll be waiting quite a while before you get it, I think.
I gave you many.
So you disagree with Paul when he wrote "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself"?
Lol. Show me the verse in the Bible that says that. :sarcastic
Arrgh. I told you before: I agree that there are passages that are on both sides of the issue. I think your mistake is in trying to divine a single coherent message from dozens of books written by many different authors over centuries.
All of that is rather irrelevant until you provide a few verses that show God is okay with injustice and lack of mercy.
You're deflecting.
Is the issue of same-sex marriage an issue where it is essential that all believers oppose it?
Actually, just to back up so that I can understand your position better: do you think there are any non-essential issues at all?
"Hate crime" is a matter of definition in law that varies from place to place, but you are degrading your fellow human beings with your position. You advocate a position that harms vulnerable and innocent people; while I wouldn't call it evil because I don't think that's your intent, I think what you're doing is pretty darn close to the line.
Last edited:
So... it's their fault for not taking into account the fact that there are people like you who will vote to undermine their rights and hurt their families?
:sarcastic
Lady B
noob
I would like to share with you my true motives, since I have refuted the motives some attribute to me, or my fellow Brothers and sisters in Christ. My motives in voting in a Godly manner are three-fold, One being selfish really, in that I myself do not want to suffer the guilt of my condoning anything contrary to God's word. I feel If I vote in support, it is the same guilt as I would bear had I succumbed to the lifestyle myself.perhaps I am wrong and I would be open to rethink this part.
Secondly, my motives are of concern for these couples which God has said will be given over to theirselves and the destruction there of. Why would anyone support something that will bring destruction and wrath upon another? Is that really hate? Just because the person or persons doesn't believe in the wrath of My god, doesn't give him immunity from it, and so condoning a behavior or lifestyle contrary to God's word in which I believe is for all men, not only those who believe it, is hate in my opinion. Shouldn't we all want what is best for everyone? Shouldn't my love for you be shown to you by truth in what I believe in my own heart? If you had knowledge that a bridge was out ahead of my car, would you not try to stop me from falling to my death? This is love, not hate.
Thirdly, I want God's blessing on our nation. I fear God and know what he has done in the past and what he is capable of in the future for those who turn from him and go each to his own ways. Look at how conservative countries view America. A free style, Godless society filled with promiscuous perverts and an anything goes mentality. I am not saying they are correct in all, and sure their are far worse societies. But I do feel we are given over to what feels good, rather then what is good for us and I do fear the wrath of God on us a a whole and I vote to combat the things I Believe, and that are ungodly and will bring God's wrath on us all.
Secondly, my motives are of concern for these couples which God has said will be given over to theirselves and the destruction there of. Why would anyone support something that will bring destruction and wrath upon another? Is that really hate? Just because the person or persons doesn't believe in the wrath of My god, doesn't give him immunity from it, and so condoning a behavior or lifestyle contrary to God's word in which I believe is for all men, not only those who believe it, is hate in my opinion. Shouldn't we all want what is best for everyone? Shouldn't my love for you be shown to you by truth in what I believe in my own heart? If you had knowledge that a bridge was out ahead of my car, would you not try to stop me from falling to my death? This is love, not hate.
Thirdly, I want God's blessing on our nation. I fear God and know what he has done in the past and what he is capable of in the future for those who turn from him and go each to his own ways. Look at how conservative countries view America. A free style, Godless society filled with promiscuous perverts and an anything goes mentality. I am not saying they are correct in all, and sure their are far worse societies. But I do feel we are given over to what feels good, rather then what is good for us and I do fear the wrath of God on us a a whole and I vote to combat the things I Believe, and that are ungodly and will bring God's wrath on us all.