Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Unveiled Artist]

@shmogie

Im getting my alerts couple mins after your reply so some of my replies are repeats.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But you have stated you wont associate with homosexuals and they cannot be your best friend. That alone means you are judging, and you are taking up responsibility to judge. By saying you won't associate with someone for reason x, you are judging. Yes, we all have types we won't associate with. The last person I declared that I won't associate with was a violent criminal who had no remorse and no desire to change his ways. It wasn't over something trivial or petty like a sexual orientation, but that he has no qualms about admitting he is a felon who has a gun because he needs it because he runs with some pretty nasty groups. In that case, even my own safety can be compromised. With homosexuals, there is no threat, no danger, no reason to believe or assume their may be violence via mere association.

And I know some priests and pastors that would disagree with you. As a matter of fact, it was a homosexual-affirming priest and his wife who made me see the error of my former ways, which were a very deep mistrust and hatred of Christians and Christianity. When this priest invited me to dinner with his family, even though I am not a Christian, I am who I am, and even though I was just putting down "someone else's stick to poke them with," I sat with him and his family, broke bread, and learned a very crucial and very important lesson in life. I remember, very clearly, when at a neo-Pagan/metaphysical shop when the owner said she hired a Christian to be her assistant, like just about everyone else, I was essentially no different than a cat arching the back, hissing, and hair standing on end. But as I got to know her, my bitterness towards Christians became less hostile. I talked music with the children of the priest and his wife. I met the priest, and I thought he was a really cool and good guy. We had dinner together, and they paid. We were polar opposites on the spiritual scale, yet there we were, enjoying each others company, being friendly, and religion, sexuality, gender, nothing of such a sort was significant or important.
Basically, to cut a long story short, I would still have a vile hostility towards Christians had it not been for a Christian who not only showed me what Jesus taught, but also treated me in a manner that Jesus taught. I hated your religion because of people like you, until I met that Christian family who showed me Christianity isn't just hating homosexuals, burning witches, and playing a non-existent victim card. Of course I am not a Christian, but I am never-the-less invited and welcomed to this priest's church as a friend. No hostility, no challenges, no questions, but a fellowship with other humans as Christ intended. We don't all agree, but why does that mean we can't be civil towards each other?

If you had actually read them, it would show. But that you ask the same question, the same questions that imply ignorance in the face of enlightenment, we all have a very good reason to doubt you. You had the answer that it isn't 100% known why someone is hetero-or-homosexual, but the research clearly shows a very strong genetic link. We have shown you that clearly there is very much indeed a genetic link, yet you still ask why. We have shown you evidence that it is not a choice, yet you still condemn. The priest I previously mentioned lost a chunk of his congregation when he began to openly allow homosexuals into his congregation. But the way he saw it, that was just weeding out those who did not see us all as children of God, it was getting rid of the hypocrites, and cleansing his church of those who missed the point of what Jesus was teaching.
So I beseech you, whom should I believe? The one who says they won't even associate with homosexuals, or the one who does associate with them and who does suffer a witch to live? The one who says "you can't be my best friend," or the one who says "of course you are welcome."? The one who excludes, or the who includes? Who, honestly, is more Christlike?

Beautiful: "we broke bread". I think this will be my last post for the night.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Beautiful: "we broke bread". I think this will be my last post for the night.

For me, it is an interesting story. I went from a hardcore Bible-thumping conservative, to someone who hated everything about Christianity due to the self-hatred it inflicted upon me and the bitterness I saw it showing the world (do keep in mind that I live in a very conservative place), to meeting a Christian lady who is a priet's wife, to meeting her kids, to meeting her husband, and then I learned that perhaps it isn't the religion, but the person. And the lesson went a very long way. I read a ton about how violent Christians have been in the past and how I knew how hostile they can be today, but yet here was an entire Christian family, a Christian family who leads a church, but yet I felt comfortable around them than I do most people.
Had I not learned that lesson in my later-teen years, I may have missed out on getting to know some people where I went for my undergrad degree who are not only Muslim, but also from the Middle East. After all, we hear so very much about violent and evil Muslims that we are bombarded with news about them, we can see places like Iran executing homosexuals and Saudi Arabia not even allowing women to drive, but despite that I got to know some Muslims from the Middle East, and to be blunt they were far more respectful, considerate, and polite than over 90% of my American peers (a made up statistic, but it's no exaggeration considering those Muslim travelers never left any trash behind and always pushed their chairs back in before leaving, but plenty of American students had me and others complaining about the liter, the noise, and leaving chairs out away from the desks they belong at. They even asked permission to use the stapler, each and every time, rather than just walking up to the desk and grabbing it. One of them, he was such a sweetie, he was so kind, so gentle, and so considerate and thoughtful that he wouldn't even enter the art gallery without first asking permission. We actually had to break him of that habit and ensure him that it is perfectly OK to just enter. People want to talk about how violent Muslims are, yet this guy wouldn't even harm a fly. They talk about how intolerant Muslims are, yet I accidentally interrupted their evening prayer once to give them a heads up the library would be closing soon, and my ignorance of thinking their prayer was finished when they stood up was easily brushed off and dismissed; I simply didn't know, they understood, accepted my apology, and that was the end of it.

 

[JoStories]

Scripture says marriage is between male and female (take out only and like words. I didnt say that in my further posts)

Scripture does not mention same-sex marriages

This is my point: There is no scripture that says it is okay but then does it say it is prohibited.

That sums up those two underline sentences you marked on my post. Scripture doesnt say it is okay. I personally assumed it is not because all scripture quotes regarding marriage and unions revolve male and female.

I know it doesnt say its prehibited. From a scriptural point of view, not mine and not yours, that doesnt make it right.

I think you are mixing my opinions vs my interpretations of scripture. My opinion is same-sex marriages is right. My interpretation in this case doesnt reflect my opinion. Its an objectie interpretation that states there is no mention of promotion of same-sex marriages in the bible, all the verses I posted said male/femnale unions, why would I think the Bible is for something it doesnt mention? Even more so, not only doesnt mention but emphasis the opposite?

Take the word Only out. I agree there is room for interpretation because it isnt in the bible. My point is one, because it isnt in the bible and two, because there are many verses that talk about male/female marriage and unions, three, why would I consider same-sex marriage right according to the bible when the bible doesnt mention it and emphasis the opposite?

Im basically repeating my questions cause I dont know if you actively read my posts or not.

--

Side note: I dont need to be christian to defend christian concepts that make sense according to their scripture not my opinion.

Carlita, we have beaten this horse to death and I don't see us getting anywhere. I do not agree and never will. That is the end of this for me.

 

[JoStories]

I'm straight.
I have a couple gay men friends. They are friends, period.
We don't broach the subject of sexual orientation. It's not an issue.
To me the idea of having sex with another man is beyond disgusting.
One wonders????? Does a gay man view sex with a female just as disgusting?
I don't know.
I don't loose sleep over this either.
It's a thought that just popped
into my head.

As a member of the gay community, I can answer your question of whether gay men find sex with women disgusting and the answer for most is no. Its just not what gives them pleasure or is appealing to them. Unlike straight men who see this as you put it, disgusting, gay men simply don't care enough to find it disgusting. They simply are not attracted to that. I hope this helps.

 

[shmogie]

But you have stated you wont associate with homosexuals and they cannot be your best friend. That alone means you are judging, and you are taking up responsibility to judge. By saying you won't associate with someone for reason x, you are judging. Yes, we all have types we won't associate with. The last person I declared that I won't associate with was a violent criminal who had no remorse and no desire to change his ways. It wasn't over something trivial or petty like a sexual orientation, but that he has no qualms about admitting he is a felon who has a gun because he needs it because he runs with some pretty nasty groups. In that case, even my own safety can be compromised. With homosexuals, there is no threat, no danger, no reason to believe or assume their may be violence via mere association.

And I know some priests and pastors that would disagree with you. As a matter of fact, it was a homosexual-affirming priest and his wife who made me see the error of my former ways, which were a very deep mistrust and hatred of Christians and Christianity. When this priest invited me to dinner with his family, even though I am not a Christian, I am who I am, and even though I was just putting down "someone else's stick to poke them with," I sat with him and his family, broke bread, and learned a very crucial and very important lesson in life. I remember, very clearly, when at a neo-Pagan/metaphysical shop when the owner said she hired a Christian to be her assistant, like just about everyone else, I was essentially no different than a cat arching the back, hissing, and hair standing on end. But as I got to know her, my bitterness towards Christians became less hostile. I talked music with the children of the priest and his wife. I met the priest, and I thought he was a really cool and good guy. We had dinner together, and they paid. We were polar opposites on the spiritual scale, yet there we were, enjoying each others company, being friendly, and religion, sexuality, gender, nothing of such a sort was significant or important.
Basically, to cut a long story short, I would still have a vile hostility towards Christians had it not been for a Christian who not only showed me what Jesus taught, but also treated me in a manner that Jesus taught. I hated your religion because of people like you, until I met that Christian family who showed me Christianity isn't just hating homosexuals, burning witches, and playing a non-existent victim card. Of course I am not a Christian, but I am never-the-less invited and welcomed to this priest's church as a friend. No hostility, no challenges, no questions, but a fellowship with other humans as Christ intended. We don't all agree, but why does that mean we can't be civil towards each other?

If you had actually read them, it would show. But that you ask the same question, the same questions that imply ignorance in the face of enlightenment, we all have a very good reason to doubt you. You had the answer that it isn't 100% known why someone is hetero-or-homosexual, but the research clearly shows a very strong genetic link. We have shown you that clearly there is very much indeed a genetic link, yet you still ask why. We have shown you evidence that it is not a choice, yet you still condemn. The priest I previously mentioned lost a chunk of his congregation when he began to openly allow homosexuals into his congregation. But the way he saw it, that was just weeding out those who did not see us all as children of God, it was getting rid of the hypocrites, and cleansing his church of those who missed the point of what Jesus was teaching.
So I beseech you, whom should I believe? The one who says they won't even associate with homosexuals, or the one who does associate with them and who does suffer a witch to live? The one who says "you can't be my best friend," or the one who says "of course you are welcome."? The one who excludes, or the who includes? Who, honestly, is more Christlike?

 

[shmogie]

To be clear, I said I did not seek out homosexuals to associate with them and that I never knew one that I could consider my best friend. To clarify, again,My church is open to any and all, and all are welcome. Following Biblical principles, full membership will not be offered to self declared homosexuals. I don't know if the issue has ever arisen. I know their are denominations that view the issue differently, which certainly is their right, they can do as they choose. You are frustrated that I will not give your evidence the value you do. You believe that I should read it and be convinced as you are. I am not, but I have given a simple standard of proof, that you and others do not respond to. I can only conclude that that standard cannot be met. I am sorry that the stance on Biblical principles is upsetting to some. However, I can't change the principles, they are what they are. One of my hero's is Martin Luther, who used Biblical principles to eviscerate the corrupt Catholic church. When he was hauled before the Diet of Worms, and threatened with death unless he compromised his principles, he said " here I stand, I can do no other "

 

[shmogie]

For me, it is an interesting story. I went from a hardcore Bible-thumping conservative, to someone who hated everything about Christianity due to the self-hatred it inflicted upon me and the bitterness I saw it showing the world (do keep in mind that I live in a very conservative place), to meeting a Christian lady who is a priet's wife, to meeting her kids, to meeting her husband, and then I learned that perhaps it isn't the religion, but the person. And the lesson went a very long way. I read a ton about how violent Christians have been in the past and how I knew how hostile they can be today, but yet here was an entire Christian family, a Christian family who leads a church, but yet I felt comfortable around them than I do most people.
Had I not learned that lesson in my later-teen years, I may have missed out on getting to know some people where I went for my undergrad degree who are not only Muslim, but also from the Middle East. After all, we hear so very much about violent and evil Muslims that we are bombarded with news about them, we can see places like Iran executing homosexuals and Saudi Arabia not even allowing women to drive, but despite that I got to know some Muslims from the Middle East, and to be blunt they were far more respectful, considerate, and polite than over 90% of my American peers (a made up statistic, but it's no exaggeration considering those Muslim travelers never left any trash behind and always pushed their chairs back in before leaving, but plenty of American students had me and others complaining about the liter, the noise, and leaving chairs out away from the desks they belong at. They even asked permission to use the stapler, each and every time, rather than just walking up to the desk and grabbing it. One of them, he was such a sweetie, he was so kind, so gentle, and so considerate and thoughtful that he wouldn't even enter the art gallery without first asking permission. We actually had to break him of that habit and ensure him that it is perfectly OK to just enter. People want to talk about how violent Muslims are, yet this guy wouldn't even harm a fly. They talk about how intolerant Muslims are, yet I accidentally interrupted their evening prayer once to give them a heads up the library would be closing soon, and my ignorance of thinking their prayer was finished when they stood up was easily brushed off and dismissed; I simply didn't know, they understood, accepted my apology, and that was the end of it.

Read the Koran and Hadith to learn what every muslim believes. Death to homosexuals is prescribed with no compromise. Be aware of the muslim principle of " taqiyya". The right of a muslim to lie to an infidel (non believer) in word and deed. This is used primarily when muslims are in the minority and must SEEM reasonable and accomodating

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, we have beaten this horse to death and I don't see us getting anywhere. I do not agree and never will. That is the end of this for me.

( @Ingledsva if you have the time (week, month, whenever) and patience to read this, please do with an active eye. I am just asking for understanding not your agreement on the subject.)

Please actively read this post. I would greatly appreciate it. It is not a debate, I am clarifying my position so I know what you disagree with. I have communication issues offline because of medical issues and online it takes awhile to form a point. I'm constantly editing and trying to remember what I said.

I am not looking for an immediate answer. Just want you to understand my point of view without jumping to conclusions based on previous conversations. My purpose of RF is to look for understanding not changing anyone's views on whatever they believe in. ​

I honestly don't know what we disagree with. It's like reading something so many times that you miss the articles and adverbs that change the meaning/context even though the content looks the same. That's why I ask people to actively read my posts or come back with a fresh eye... even if its a hundred days later. Its better than reading my posts one right after another and passively reading with judging what I mean before analyzing.

I rather you read and reply with a good week or so to process the information than jumping to conclusions of what I mean because of previous discussions.

You said (4221): There is only one reference, that being man and woman, no where does it say that is the one and only type of relationship.

I agree. I never said there was only one type of relationship. I agree.

What are you disagreeing with?



You said (4221): There is no scripture that says it is okay but then does it say it is prohibited.

I agree. There is no scripture that says it (same-sex marriage?) and it does not say it is prohibited.

What are you disagreeing with?



You said: (4221): And considering I am not Christian, my view may be biased.

I agree: My view may be bias too. That doesn't mean we cant share opinions it just means we have to actively read what each other posts and discriminate to reply on the context of the post not the content. Saves headaches.



You said (4161): But no where does it say that marriage cannot be between people of the same sex. You are inferring that they mean only heterosexual but you have no evidence to back that up.

I agree: It does not say that marriage cannot be between people of the same sex.

There is no physical evidence (as we agreed) there is no scripture on the issue. That lack of evidence/physical content makes me assume based on context that same-sex marriage is wrong.

Not because it does not say it in scripture but because it says the opposite (verses I posted to another person.

I am using a negative to prove my point. Please read this actively.

You said (4162): Can you provide a source for this assumption?

No I cannot. That is why it's an assumption based on lack of evidence to prove otherwise. I asked if anyone has evidence that same-sex marriage is alright in the Bible? If so, by what source?

I know it is not there. I do know male/female marriage is there. The assumption is grounded on lack of evidence and strong emphasis on the opposite.

It is alright to have an opinion about the issue. I am lesbian and if I were Christian I would disagree with god that marriage is only between man and woman (get the word only from your head please)

My point: Can you prove that same-sex marriage is okay because it is not in the Bible? If so, from what source?

You said: (4162): And before you come back at me asking for reasons for my stance that it is not excluded, I would say that there is one, but then, neither can you.

If there is no reasons why same-sex marriage is not okay, does that make it right?

Again, I do not agree with the Bible that marriage is between male and female. I am just sharing what I learned from it.

My question: Why would I assume that there is a reason that same-sex marriage is approved when everything says (context) the opposite?

The opposite: Meaning, there are many many verses that focus on heterosexual marriage and the sanctity of that type of marriage. I can provide you with that.

That is not my point.

My point is you haven't proven your point (that same-sex marriage is right ?) since there is no evidence to back it up.

My point is supported by context. Because scripture focuses on the sanctity of marriage between male and female, why would I assume otherwise?

No, I don't agree with scripture. That is not my point and I am not telling you, you are wrong. I am asking for what you base your statement on.​

My overall point

Scripture says marriage is (there is no only in this sentence) between male and female (verses already provided). There are no scriptures that says otherwise.

My question to you again: why would I assume otherwise?

Thank you for actively reading this. If you cannot see where we agree at, I honestly don't know what to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Read the Koran and Hadith to learn what every muslim believes.

Saying what "every Muslim believes" is like saying read the Bible to learn what "every Christian believes." It has some pretty wicked, cruel, and blood-thirsty moments. Reading the Bible is a reason I left Christianity, and a reason I hated it.

Be aware of the muslim principle of " taqiyya". The right of a muslim to lie to an infidel (non believer) in word and deed. This is used primarily when muslims are in the minority and must SEEM reasonable and accomodating

Taqiyya is invoked, not as a "right" to lie to an infedel, but as a method of self-preservation if their faith would place them at risk, such as if they are a minority facing legal repercussions.

 

[shmogie]

Saying what "every Muslim believes" is like saying read the Bible to learn what "every Christian believes." It has some pretty wicked, cruel, and blood-thirsty moments. Reading the Bible is a reason I left Christianity, and a reason I hated it.

Taqiyya is invoked, not as a "right" to lie to an infedel, but as a method of self-preservation if their faith would place them at risk, such as if they are a minority facing legal repercussions.

Have you read the Koran ? Both shia and sunni accept and promote it as the foundation of their faith. There is no ambiguity in the 130 surahs that actively demand violence to infidels, and death to homosexuals. Saying that they do not accept it is like saying a Christian doesn't accept the Bible. A true muslim must support what the koran declares, and be an agent of it. Taqiyya is a right, given to muslims in their interactions with infidels, to lie whenever it is advantageous for them to do so. This could be in virtually any setting. Since they consider themselves superior in all ways to infidels lying to an infidel is not a "sin". Read both the koran and hadith to learn what a true muslim truly believes, it is bone chilling.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Read both the koran and hadith to learn what a true muslim truly believes, it is bone chilling.

It's bone chilling that your god ordered the slaughter of entire villages, men, women, and children, the unborn ripped from the womb, and not even livestock were to survive. It's horrifying that your god destroyed two cities and flooded the entire Earth because he was displeased. It's harrowing that he is so violent that he even sent his son to die a gruesome death.
And just so you know, I've not met a single Christian who does follow the entirety of Biblical commands, either OT or NT. I've met a ton of Christians who haven't read the entire Bible, and some that have not read it at all.

Taqiyya is a right, given to muslims in their interactions with infidels, to lie whenever it is advantageous for them to do so. This could be in virtually any setting.

Taqiyya does not give Muslims permission to lie whenever it is convenient. If that is what you think it is, you are very mistaken.

Have you read the Koran ? Both shia and sunni accept and promote it as the foundation of their faith.

The very fact that there are Shia, Sunni, and many other denominations of Islam prove the Quran and Hadiths are not as clear as you think, and these ambiguities, much as with what we see with the evolution of Christianity, lead to multiple denominations that have their own beliefs and interpretations. Some Muslims don't even give much thought to the Hadiths.

 

[Shad]

Wrong, as an example Look at his writings re qumran.

Which are not part of the theories he proposed about the Bible being correct as a historical account. You seems to have missed this key parameter, "archaeology validates the Bible as per tradition states" This set of ideas has been dismissed. His work on DSS only established traditions to a point, not if these traditions were based on history itself. His views on Jericho are wrong, his views on the Canaanites are wrong.

His major accomplishments were the methods he developed but each ended up refuting his overall goal to verify the bible as accurate. You seem obvious to the stance Albright maintained and his goals.

 

[shmogie]

It's bone chilling that your god ordered the slaughter of entire villages, men, women, and children, the unborn ripped from the womb, and not even livestock were to survive. It's horrifying that your god destroyed two cities and flooded the entire Earth because he was displeased. It's harrowing that he is so violent that he even sent his son to die a gruesome death.
And just so you know, I've not met a single Christian who does follow the entirety of Biblical commands, either OT or NT. I've met a ton of Christians who haven't read the entire Bible, and some that have not read it at all.

Taqiyya does not give Muslims permission to lie whenever it is convenient. If that is what you think it is, you are very mistaken.

The very fact that there are Shia, Sunni, and many other denominations of Islam prove the Quran and Hadiths are not as clear as you think, and these ambiguities, much as with what we see with the evolution of Christianity, lead to multiple denominations that have their own beliefs and interpretations. Some Muslims don't even give much thought to the Hadiths.

I take it you haven,t read the books ? Many millions of muslims have not either. The usual rule is that it must be read in arabic. The imams responsibility is to expound on the writings. sunni's and shia are not denominations. Every muslim is either one or the other. There are sects within, like the sufi's or kurds, but these are subsets,of sunni or shia. You don't understand the full range of taqiyya, the colonials who were in muslim country's attest very clearly that it was the excuse for muslims to lie in virtually any interaction with the infidels they chose. Your view of the Bible is totally irrelevant to me. There will come a time when we both will know if it is true or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I take it you haven,t read the books ?

Yes, I have. I know enough about them to know, immediately, when someone is getting their information from an anti-Islam cite, because they quote a bit of a passage, but not what comes after or before - the full context often just does not match what these anti-Islam cites are trying to say.

sunni's and shia are not denominations

They are denominations in the way protestants and catholics are.

Every muslim is either one or the other

This is fractally wrong, as there are factually numerous sects of Islam.

Sunni and Shia are the most common, but not the only two.

There are sects within, like the sufi's or kurds,

Sufi is a demonination, the Kurds are an ethnicity.

Your view of the Bible is totally irrelevant to me. There will come a time when we both will know if it is true or not.

It should be. You criticize the Quran, but the Bible itself tends to be misanthropic at times.
And, I already know that at least most of it is not true.

 

[Ingledsva]

My point is absense of scripture doesnt make same-sex marriage right especially when scripture emphasis marriage is between male and female.

A christian can proove same-sex marriage is wrong based on two things

1. Its not in scripture
2. Scripture emphasis otherwise.

They use context to proove their points. If you look at context, maybe you understand why they believe what they do even though you disagree.

Everything else in my opinion is their personal interpretation.

How exactly does something not being discussed in scripture make it sin/wrong?

And there is no scripture emphasizing otherwise.

Talking about what they are interested in, - linage, - thus discussing male and female marriages, - does not in any why, - through omission, - mean same-sex marriage is sin.

My belief is, - If the Bible doesn't actually say it, - they should quit trying to use it against people.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Nope. Can't turn the word Qadesh into homosexual, no matter how hard you try. Can't turn the word arsenokoites into homosexual, no matter how hard you try.

I don't have to try, thousands of the most learned ancient Greek translators and linguists, as well as ditto for Hebrew, have made the issue so very clear.

Which would make them idiots, - or people with a homophobic agendas. - as Qadesh means a Sacred Prostitute.

And the sin as shown by the Strong's definition - is IDOLATRY!

It is quite interesting that these words keep getting translated wrong - even though they OBVIOUSLY know the true meaning, - such as Your Christian Strong's which tells us the true meaning.

H6945 qâdêsh kaw-dashe'

From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: - sodomite, unclean.

As you can see a Qadesh is a Sacred Prostitute - as I said, and showed, and does NOT mean a homosexual.

*

And for arsenokoites I provided a source that actually studies Greek words

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.”

This makes it very plain that arsenokoites does NOT mean homosexual sex.

*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How exactly does something not being discussed in scripture make it sin/wrong?

This is my conclusion below and sin meaning against what god planned not wrong morally.

And there is no scripture emphasizing otherwise.

Those verses I posted posts ago emphasis by content and context that marriage is between male and female. It either says something about the sanctity of marriage between male and female. In other cases it mentions about women leaving their homes to be with their husbands (not their wives). If you look in many cultures around the world, women are usually coupled with men the parents aproved to marry their daughters. Usually that male (not female) asks the parents for their blessings in marriage.

Marriage, in scripture is specifically between male and female. No scripture says otherwise. As a result, those who married in scripture were all male and female (Abram and his wife Sarah) for example of many.

Context is a Huge indicator that regardless of how you and I feel about same-sex marriage, in according to scripture it is between male and female. No scripture says otherwise.

So, my question again is: Why would you expect same-sex marriage to be right when one it isnt in scripture and two scripture says otherwise?

Also: What would you base your source on? If no source, then there is no basis of that being right just an opinion not based on fact or evidence.

Talking about what they are interested in, - linage, - thus discussing male and female marriages, - does not in any why, - through omission, - mean same-sex marriage is sin.

Why would it not be a sin in context and how?
What are you basing this on? (from the Bible)

My belief is, - If the Bible doesn't actually say it, - they should quit trying to use it against people.

True.

Though my point is Im specifically talking about what scripture says and does not say as well as the context verse content rather than people trying to use it against people,

I agree, they shouldnt. That doesnt make it right according to scripture just in my opinion morally wrong teaching context or not.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is my conclusion below and sin meaning against what god planned not wrong morally.


Those verses I posted posts ago emphasis by content and context that marriage is between male and female. It either says something about the sanctity of marriage between male and female. In other cases it mentions about women leaving their homes to be with their husbands (not their wives). If you look in many cultures around the world, women are usually coupled with men the parents aproved to marry their daughters. Usually that male (not female) asks the parents for their blessings in marriage.

Marriage, in scripture is specifically between male and female. No scripture says otherwise. As a result, those who married in scripture were all male and female (Abram and his wife Sarah) for example of many.

Context is a Huge indicator that regardless of how you and I feel about same-sex marriage, in according to scripture it is between male and female. No scripture says otherwise.

So, my question again is: Why would you expect same-sex marriage to be right when one it isnt in scripture and two scripture says otherwise?

Also: What would you base your source on? If no source, then there is no basis of that being right just an opinion not based on fact or evidence.

Why would it not be a sin in context and how?
What are you basing this on? (from the Bible)



True.

Though my point is Im specifically talking about what scripture says and does not say as well as the context verse content rather than people trying to use it against people,

I agree, they shouldnt. That doesnt make it right according to scripture just in my opinion morally wrong teaching context or not.

We just go round and round.

We have a patriarchal people interested in Lineage, - thus writing about male-female relationships, without writing anything against same-sex marriage.

Their interest is Seth to Messiah lineage.

They cannot claim the Bible says something, and use it against people, when the Bible says no such thing.

*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They cannot claim the Bible says something, and use it against people, when the Bible says no such thing.

** True. I agree **

My point: That does not make it right according to scripture

My Question to you again (please answer): Why do you feel same-sex marriage is right according to scripture and if you do, by what do you base your answer on?

I gave my reason. What about yours?

(Dancing around my question here)