Homosexuality and marriage (again)

[McBell]

Or divorce... Where's the cry for a ban on what is clearly the single biggest threat to the institution of marriage?

But what is the number one cause for divorce?



Marriage.

 

[England my lionheart]

Interesting.
Would you please be so kind as to present some links to articles/stories/news reports/etc that indicate that same sex couples are demanding to be allowed to marry, IN A CHURCH?

Sadly you completely missed the point of the adam and eve thing.
It was merely to show the desperate measures that anti-gay marriage crowd has had to resort to to argue their position.

Crap like: Belgium allowed same sex marriage and now the number of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed!

I find it interesting how people can go on and on about how same sex marriage is going to so undermine their heterosexual marriage.
My first thought is that if your marriage is so rocky, so fragile, and the commitment so shady that a same sex couple getting married will under mine your marriage, you should really get a divorce and try it again.
I mean the church has no problem with that.

The church does'nt have a problem with homosexuals it is the homosexual act that is the problem because of what is written in all of the abrhamic scriptures.

 

[McBell]

The church does'nt have a problem with homosexuals it is the homosexual act that is the problem because of what is written in all of the abrhamic scriptures.

Wow.
You dodge really really well.
Since you were not going to stick to the point of the post you replied to, why did you even reply to it?

 

[PatriotBob]

NIce, home from work and a bunch of relpies... where to start....

Sure it does, so long as you include everything, like vegetable gardens, polysester, shrimp, and all the other abominations in those OT books. This is what gets referred to as "Cherry Picking" choosing the passages you like that justify your own brand of hatred or intolerance, but ignoring things you don't.

sure let's include it all... there have been changes to some of the acceptable foods (let's here it for bacon!) but not so in my original point. And as for hatred, I have none. I have no problem with the people, but I do have an intolerance with the sin. And as for ignoring the things I don't, as for the Bible I take it as a whole no acceptions, I have failed in many aspects but I do not pretend that I haven't.

Also the levitical law is a second giving of the law to Isreal before entering what is now the country of Isreal. And as such I use it to prove that as a christian homosexuallity is wrong, I will tell you it is wrong. And the only context in which I can see opposing gay marriage is that America was founded one nation under God. (that was meaning Yhwh, God of Isreal) So to try to maintain a Biblical portrait of marriage I'd oppose it. But lets face it, as a country, we haven't been 'under God' for quite some time. So as my OP said. It's a sin. That's as far as I take it. But if your not a christian, that shouldn't really bother you.

 

[McBell]

So as my OP said. It's a sin. That's as far as I take it. But if your not a christian, that shouldn't really bother you.

Unfortunately it does not stop with being a merely a sin.
Now it is illegal. And a clear violation of seperation of church and state.
At this point it should bother non-Christians.

 

[Aasimar]

NIce, home from work and a bunch of relpies... where to start....



sure let's include it all... there have been changes to some of the acceptable foods (let's here it for bacon!) but not so in my original point. And as for hatred, I have none. I have no problem with the people, but I do have an intolerance with the sin. And as for ignoring the things I don't, as for the Bible I take it as a whole no acceptions, I have failed in many aspects but I do not pretend that I haven't.

Also the levitical law is a second giving of the law to Isreal before entering what is now the country of Isreal. And as such I use it to prove that as a christian homosexuallity is wrong, I will tell you it is wrong. And the only context in which I can see opposing gay marriage is that America was founded one nation under God. (that was meaning Yhwh, God of Isreal) So to try to maintain a Biblical portrait of marriage I'd oppose it. But lets face it, as a country, we haven't been 'under God' for quite some time. So as my OP said. It's a sin. That's as far as I take it. But if your not a christian, that shouldn't really bother you.

Yep, I agree homosexuality is a sin. But it's not immoral. Sin means nothing to a person like me, only actual morality. What bothers me is the "America was founded in one nation under god" bit. I recall the declaration of independence mentioning "The Creator" Not a governing document of course, more a big "F you" to england, but the only time I recall "One Nation, Under God" being used as a national slogan is when it was used to replace "Indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy Scare (Might be off on time line, but it was the 1900's)

What does bother me is homosexuals getting all this "Hate the sin not the sinner" garbage, homosexuals do absolutely nothing wrong, nothing.

Here's my proposal for the "Marriage" Crisis

- Our laws cannot support or inhibit religion, so....

Marriage can either be religious in nature, subject to the whims of the church and have no governmental benefits (i.e. joint tax filing, etc.)

Or

Marriage can be secular in nature and anyone can get married to anyone else of consenting age. Otherwise it is governmental support of a religious doctrine, which is forbidden.


And the point of using the levitical laws was to point out all the other dumb things the bible says is wrong. Do you seriously think that mixed fabrics and shrimp are wrong? Come on, try this. Step outside what you personally think is wrong, read the book of leviticus, and write down everything in it that is "wrong." Then use your own moral compass to determine how many of them are absolutely ridiculous, especially in todays society, then determine whether not allowing homosexuals marriage is truly due to biblical support or is it really just dislike of the practice. Cause nobody is beating down my door demanding I surrender my polyester shirts.

 

[Autodidact]

The fact that divorce is so common among christains says nothing about the Bible. It's simple states that christains aren't too terribly concerned with what is stated in the Bible. It actually does say that homosexuallity is a sin, (Leviticus 20:13 is fairly straight forward..) and it does say that you shouldn't get divorced. (To be clear, after adulty is the only case in which divorce is acceptable but still frowned upon. Better to stay married and work it out than to seperate) It may not begin the sentence with "Thou shalt not" but it does say to do both is a sin, and so gay marriage is kinda a no-no.

Yes, Leviticus 20:13 is clear: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Not only is this action detestable, it is also subject to capital punishment. Have I mentioned what an absolutely sickening religion you have? And reading further in Leviticus 20: 'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you.

I assume that you do this? Don't eat unclean animals, such as pigs--it's a defilement. Good thing for you it's not subject to capital punishment.

What is clearly not prohibited, unlike divorce, is lesbianism. No Christians ever want to comment on this interesting fact.

To bring things into perspective, just because christains (or which ever group of people) are commonly practicing some act, doesn't mean that it's not sin to do so. Just means that we have come to accept the sin... and all sin is the same from lies to murder, bad is bad. There are plenty of things that started with "Thou shalt not... " that we just keep on doing. Divorce is the perfect example, the diviorce rate for christains is the same as non-christains. Not exactly keeping to "What therfore God has joined together, let no man separate" Mark 10:9

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

No it isn't. The Bible, both testaments, clearly and unequivocally permits polygamy. Just to be clear.

 

[Autodidact]

The church does'nt have a problem with homosexuals it is the homosexual act that is the problem because of what is written in all of the abrhamic scriptures.

Unless it's between women. *Getting tired of repeating herself*

 

[Autodidact]

sure let's include it all... there have been changes to some of the acceptable foods (let's here it for bacon!) but not so in my original point. And as for hatred, I have none. I have no problem with the people, but I do have an intolerance with the sin. And as for ignoring the things I don't, as for the Bible I take it as a whole no acceptions, I have failed in many aspects but I do not pretend that I haven't.

So you would never, for example, trim the corners of your beard, right? Or wear clothing of mixed fibers? Sin, sin, sin.

And the only context in which I can see opposing gay marriage is that America was founded one nation under God. (that was meaning Yhwh, God of Isreal) So to try to maintain a Biblical portrait of marriage I'd oppose it. But lets face it, as a country, we haven't been 'under God' for quite some time. So as my OP said. It's a sin. That's as far as I take it. But if your not a christian, that shouldn't really bother you.

No it wasn't. That's not patriotism; it's treason. Read some history, and learn something about the country you claim to love. It was founded on the concept of religious freedom. It was explicitly NOT meaning Yahweh, which is why He does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, except to forbid Congress from establishing religion. And the God of the Declaration of Independence was the Deist God of Thomas Jefferson, explictly NOT Yahweh. That's why the words "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear in it.

 

[England my lionheart]

For even their women exchanged the natural etc, romans 1:26 ,although this does'nt say lesbianism is forbidden it does imply it is'nt natural.

 

[namguy]

No, it's not. That's the same section of the Bible that uses the term abomination (actually meaning ritually unclean) for actions such as eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fiber. That section is ritual taboos that Jews were supposed to observe, and almost no Christians consider them to apply to Christians.

As I have now said 20 or more times, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. It would be nice if someone would acknowledge this relevant fact in some way.

Ma'am, I'm assuming your a lady. The 'Bible' is very clear on this subjective topic, however too me it's not subjective at all, in societies eyes it's subjective however homosexuality is indeed condeemed by The Lord Jesus Christ. Now I do realize the Bible is open to interption as the countless religions prove that. If what you say is true(I don't agree at all with you) how do explain Sodom and Gaymora? For what reason would an all Loving Lord destroy those cities? From a societies point of view and being in this society but of todays society as such, I have no choice but too go a long with the laws of the land, so in that light I have to obey the laws, and I do, I don't have to agree with them but I'm subject to them. Therefore form that mode of thought, the best I can say is too each their own (right?).
In the beginning of the earth, when God created it,created man and woman it was Woman who ate the forbidden fruit 'first.' She then enticed Adam too take part in the fruit, men being weaker than women went a long with Eve. So where does all this bring us too this point; The Lord Jesus Christ 'tends' too hold sins of the flesh a little more accountable for women than He does men. That's why there's pain in child birth and the 'thing' once every month that women go through, and believe me I do feel sorry for the 'thing' you ladies go through, that's a tough one...The end too all this is sin, period.
I certainly hope I didn't offend you or anyone else, I didn't intend that at all. I would also like to say I'm not a 'religious fanatic,' just a man, a soul Saved through Faith.

 

[Aasimar]

If what you say is true(I don't agree at all with you) how do explain Sodom and Gaymora? For what reason would an all Loving Lord destroy those cities?

I seriously hope Gaymora was a typo.

Uh, I see two options.

It didn't actually happen, some magical being never destroyed a few cities cause he hats homosexuality.

Or

God is not all loving.





There ya go, crisis averted

 

[MoonWater]

I seriously hope Gaymora was a typo.

Uh, I see two options.

It didn't actually happen, some magical being never destroyed a few cities cause he hats homosexuality.

Or

God is not all loving.





There ya go, crisis averted

Or option three you read about later in th bible when (I think it was Jesus) said that the sin of soddam and gamorah was inhospitality. The people of soddom and gamorah wanted to rape the visiting angels. To say that the sin of soddam an gahmora was homosexuality is to say that homosexuality is no different from rape. And that could not be further from the truth. Homosexuality isn't just about men ahving sex with eachother or women having sex with eachother, forced or otherwise. It's about men and women who fall in love with someone who just happens to be of the same gender. How can that be wrong? The love they have is the same as in a heterosexual couple the only difference is that they are both the same gender. Why does that small difference sudenly make it such a big deal?

 

[MoonWater]

Those who are opposed to gay marriage, do you have any reason to oppose it other than religious(i.e. the bible/qu'ran/God says it's wrong). This isn't to say your views are invalid it's just to see if anyone has a legitimate legal argument for why homosexuals shouldn't be married. Since America is a secular nation one cannot make laws that are based on, in favor of or against a particular religion. Saying "God says it's wrong" might be enough for someone to personally not partake in something but it does not give reason for the government to make any laws regarding such an issue.

 

[MoonWater]

For your viewing pleasure, a video with some of the common arguments against homosexuality and rebuttles. it's comprised of snipets from a presentation but still quite informative.

YouTube - What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?

 

[namguy]

:yes:

I seriously hope Gaymora was a typo.

Uh, I see two options.

It didn't actually happen, some magical being never destroyed a few cities cause he hats homosexuality.

Or

God is not all loving.


Jhon Claude Van-Dam, now there's a scholor, a philospher, a sage, an actor, and freken jerk:yes: Nothing majacial about it, God destroyed the cities, that short and simple. I suspect your young, well I was young once, thank goodness it only happens once. If I were you I wouldn't look for acceptence of your gay life style any too soon, like in your lifetime, it's just not an accepted way of life. Oh, people don't say anything too much about it...out in the open, but ya know there's those darn closed doors, and, well you know your life style as a gay, how can I say this...give me a word here, I'm stuck. Another thing this being gay thing seems to be the 'in thing' today, a fade.


There ya go, crisis averted

 

[Autodidact]

For even their women exchanged the natural etc, romans 1:26 ,although this does'nt say lesbianism is forbidden it does imply it is'nt natural.

Assuming that's what it's talking about. So, as I was saying, it's not forbidden. Yet hypocritical Christians, including unrepentant sinners like Newt Gignrich, a known fornicator, condemn it as a sin. Huh.

 

[Autodidact]

Ma'am, I'm assuming your a lady. The 'Bible' is very clear on this subjective topic, however too me it's not subjective at all, in societies eyes it's subjective however homosexuality is indeed condeemed by The Lord Jesus Christ.

Really? Cite a single verse where the Lord Jesus Christ even mentioned the subject. Now divorce, that really bothered Him. But homosexuality--not a peep.

Now I do realize the Bible is open to interption as the countless religions prove that. If what you say is true(I don't agree at all with you) how do explain Sodom and Gaymora? For what reason would an all Loving Lord destroy those cities?

As I've said several times in this thread, the sin of Sodom was unkindness and inhospitality.

In the beginning of the earth, when God created it,created man and woman it was Woman who ate the forbidden fruit 'first.' She then enticed Adam too take part in the fruit, men being weaker than women went a long with Eve. So where does all this bring us too this point; The Lord Jesus Christ 'tends' too hold sins of the flesh a little more accountable for women than He does men. That's why there's pain in child birth and the 'thing' once every month that women go through, and believe me I do feel sorry for the 'thing' you ladies go through, that's a tough one...The end too all this is sin, period.
I certainly hope I didn't offend you or anyone else, I didn't intend that at all. I would also like to say I'm not a 'religious fanatic,' just a man, a soul Saved through Faith.

Please don't relay your pet myths as if they were accepted truths; it's n insult to our intelligence. The rest of this is not so much offensive as irrelevant and humorous.

 

[namguy]

Assuming that's what it's talking about. So, as I was saying, it's not forbidden. Yet hypocritical Christians, including unrepentant sinners like Newt Gignrich, a known fornicator, condemn it as a sin. Huh.

Let's start off with Newt, I don't care for him at all...no way shape or form. There's hypocritical Christians, but you can't use unrepentant sinners in the same sentense with that for the simple reason that a Christian, a 'true Christian,' is saved by the Blood, there in lies the difference. Of course Newt is sinning and I doubt it very, very much if he's a Saved man. It's very hard to explain all this over email, you really have to be face to face talking. I can understand your thoughts though.

 

[McBell]

Let's start off with Newt, I don't care for him at all...no way shape or form. There's hypocritical Christians, but you can't use unrepentant sinners in the same sentense with that for the simple reason that a Christian, a 'true Christian,' is saved by the Blood, there in lies the difference. Of course Newt is sinning and I doubt it very, very much if he's a Saved man. It's very hard to explain all this over email, you really have to be face to face talking. I can understand your thoughts though.

A "true Christian"?