What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Of looking for knowledge waives Pride
The deception does not last long
Christian position on gay marriage and a clear position
I believe that the Jews as well as to have the same attitude--
Because the interpretation of the Torah and the Gospel not only rigid words but also in the meanings
Because gay marriage is exercised by the people who Jaoa to Lot and this novel in the Torah as I think
Is referring to the sexual relationship between a man and a man
Because Christianity take some rulings of the Torah also
The relationship between the man and the man is rejected
Permission from the Torah and the Bible did not know him that well to what Aanscher for Arafat or trying to mislead people here
This is the debt position of Judaism , Christianity, and I mean--
And there are also texts of the Bible refers to the rejection of this relationship
But to say that the marriage did not know the Gospel , this slur
Because Christianity
Says
What God Ivrgah collected human
These words indicate the existence of organizational Association
This Association has renamed
They marry
But to say that the Gospel was written in the Greek language only
This does not mean that the Greek language is a reference to the original Angel
Because the Gospel has copies of other languages
In the same time period nearby
If the Greek language did not know the word marriage
This is to discharge the relationship
To say that the marriage was known before the debt does not have to prove that he does not exist - texts prove this talk
The oldest known written texts that speak to the human
Torah is transferred through the year 5000
The texts of the Assyrian and Pharaonic
Then came other civilizations
This is history as we have studied

 

[Dr. Strange]

Yes, I've actually posted most of this material before.

Most Christians don't seem to understand that in these patriarchal cultures women were property - pretty much comparable to broodmares, to be exact. And the words being translated today as "WIFE" are actually "WOMAN/FEMALE! An owned object. Thus most of the laws are damages to the male's property rights.

*

*

I noticed that you said you lived in Alaska. So do I. Glad to see there are others with knowledge of truths.

 

[Dr. Strange]

And also another proof is proof that man has not been able to figure out the relationship in the name of marriage bond
The Americas
When he wenttoEuropeans
They found human beings and those people were eating and drinking
And have sex too
Because they multiply
So do they know this social organization and restricted in the name of marriage
The answer, asI knowit isnot
This is proof that the debt was organized by this sexual relationship under the cover of marriage

Without translating the original ancient Roman text I do not know that marriage was translated correctly from the ancient Roman text. If the Greek did not have a word for marriage I doubt that the Romans did either. Even the translation that says, "should be marrying" is an incorrect translation. The only thing such a translation is saying is that if you have intercourse with a woman you are responsible to that woman. Men could have many wives and concubines. Men could take any woman except a woman of another man. The proof is within the literal translations if understood according to the culture at that time.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Absolutely nothing at all. Legal marriage is secular, unless you get married in a church.

Church marriage is also legal, by law.

The Church did not sanctify marriage until the Council of Trent. Before that, marriage as we know it was only performed for the rich as they needed to legally establish property rights.

The Jewish religion began marriage as a legal contract.

Any marriage mentioned in the Bible was always the marriage reception as we have after marriages.

Song of Solomon did not refer to marriage. The Song referred to premarital sex and the commitment that was required after sex.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

dr strange wrote
Without translating the original ancient Roman text I do not know that marriage was translated correctly from the ancient Roman text. If the Greek did not have a word for marriage I doubt that the Romans did either.====
Yes it's true
Because if lacked the word marriage in Greek
Theshuttle's fiery disintegrationthat marriagewas knownat that timeorera
According to my information, the system of marriage was known to the Greeks and Romans also
Because marriage between a man and a woman
This is the word of Christ
When toldwhatGodhas joined together,nohumancollection
And the evolution of languages does not mean the heart of concepts with
Because when we use the word computer in this age
After 100 years there has been an evolution to this word and replaced in the word new
Don't cancelfunctioncomputer
Samesituation with thewordmarriage
If knownat that time
This does not override and does not deny that marriage was the legal bond debt advanced systems

 

[Ingledsva]

That doesn't interact with my post... which was 9 years ago.

I wasn't discussing "gay people", I was discussing "same-sex marriage". If you don't understand the distinction: please ask questions before you run off with a response.

The salient point of that preamble was "conceived by the members of the marriage during the course of the marriage."

The simple nature of any discussion on anything is to establish a framework of shared presuppositions.

LOL! Same sex marriage is about Gay people!

We could care less that you think people's children need to be conceived in a marriage, rather than adopted!

Gay couples are adopting a lot of so-called un-adoptable children!

This is wonderful for society as a whole!


*

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I'm not sure when it was determined that procreation is the purpose behind marriage. Why is procreation just for the sake of procreation good? If you had a horrible, inevitably terminal disease that was transmittable 100% of the time, would procreation be good then? Nature doesn't have any rhyme or reason to sex. Its something other animals do because its instinct and pleasurable.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Moral degeneration and avoids intellectual religious system
Why isthisanomalousrelationship

 

[JerryL]

I'm not sure when it was determined that procreation is the purpose behind marriage. Why is procreation just for the sake of procreation good? If you had a horrible, inevitably terminal disease that was transmittable 100% of the time, would procreation be good then? Nature doesn't have any rhyme or reason to sex. Its something other animals do because its instinct and pleasurable.

Marriage is a social construct. It has only whatever purpose people assign to it.

So to answer your first statement "whenever someone decided so". To answer your first question "that would depend on your personal definition of 'good'"

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Marriage is a social construct. It has only whatever purpose people assign to it.

Yes and that social construct need not preclude same sex unions.

 

[JerryL]

I wasn't discussing "gay people", I was discussing "same-sex marriage". If you don't understand the distinction: please ask questions before you run off with a response.

LOL! Same sex marriage is about Gay people!

You clearly did not understand the distinction; but proceeded forth regardless. It may be impossible to have a conversation with you as you are not listening.

We could care less that you think people's children need to be conceived in a marriage, rather than adopted!

This is another good example of you not listening. I do not think that people's children need to be conceived in marriage. You have continued to hack at a straw-man rather than interact with what I said.

Consider going back and re-reading from the beginning. I have not said what you think I've said.

 

[JerryL]

Yes and that social construct need not preclude same sex unions.

I agree. There is no requirement for construct. It does whatever its creator intends it to do. That has been my point from the beginning.

It could preclude or allow same-sex marriage. It could preclude or allow same-race marriages. It could preclude or allow same astrological-sign marriages. It could preclude or allow same species marriages. It's all dependent upon the purpose for which the construct is tasked.

In my example 9 years ago, I illustrated how a purpose could be assigned that would, in fact, proscribe same-gender marriages. If I recall correctly, it was in response to someone making absolute claims about what is necessarily a relative subject.

 

[Dr. Strange]

dr strange wrote
Without translating the original ancient Roman text I do not know that marriage was translated correctly from the ancient Roman text. If the Greek did not have a word for marriage I doubt that the Romans did either.====
Yes it's true
Because if lacked the word marriage in Greek
Theshuttle's fiery disintegrationthat marriagewas knownat that timeorera
According to my information, the system of marriage was known to the Greeks and Romans also
Because marriage between a man and a woman
This is the word of Christ
When toldwhatGodhas joined together,nohumancollection
And the evolution of languages does not mean the heart of concepts with
Because when we use the word computer in this age
After 100 years there has been an evolution to this word and replaced in the word new
Don't cancelfunctioncomputer
Samesituation with thewordmarriage
If knownat that time
This does not override and does not deny that marriage was the legal bond debt advanced systems

If you mean to say that what we call marriage today, in ancient times was, is referred to as "the legal bond debt advanced system[]" then I'd agree and further that definition with the negative, there is no precept of God that declares marriage is between a man and a woman. History has it that what we call marriage has always been about a legal contract.

 

[The Hammer]

What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

I believe marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. But that is my opinion.

 

[Norman]

SO! We don't care who he is.

Who are we? With all due respect can't you speak for yourself.

YOUR religion's ideas, should not dictate Love and marriage!

Look, I know you are agnostic, I know you practice polyandry, so I think this same sex attraction thing is just beating a dead horse over and over.

PS - There is NO Adam and Chav'vah!

Ok,

*

 

[Norman]

I like the quote you have below about tolerance.

Exactly right, tolerance does not requite abandoning standards or opinions. In the spirit of tolerance I can say the view expressed in your post is ignorant and bigoted. That is tolerance. I accept your right to express any ignorant or bigoted opinion you wish, no matter how ridiculously antiquated it is.

The proper way to react to this kind of ignorance and bigotry is to condemn it is the strongest possible terms. And the point is that we can must condemn bigotry while still tolerating the right of people to express such disgusting viewpoints.

Hello Fanta me profane, I try hard in my post's not to spread bigotry or to be ignorant, however, I have found that I can't please everyone, nor do I try to please everyone. What might be considered bigotry by yourself would not be considered bigotry by someone else. I am very tolerant of the many post's that I receive and respond in the most respectful way that I can. I appreciate your view and your comments and hope to have many dialogues with you. Thank you for responding to my post.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Judging from the nastiness in your post, I can comfortably say I want nothing to do with your god.

There is nothing comfortable about having nothing to with my God. Do we really think that a person can reject God because he or she doesn’t like this or that aspect about God? That idea is silly. This is the God with whom we have to do business. Do you really think that we can go into a spiritual supermarket and choose a god for ourselves? There is only One God whom we have to get to know. There is no other choice. This God is perfect, His ways are just. If you don’t like Him, then the problem is with you, not Him.
People who refuse Christ, send themselves to Hell, because Christ cannot use them. People who habitually covert and protect and promote their sin, hold Jesus Christ up to contempt. Why should He allow such stubborn, rebellious people into His Kingdom? Should I not tell you the truth? Should I not warn you of any danger? Is that not loving? Would you prefer I have told you what you wanted to hear to tickle your ears? God is love and is not willing that any should perish.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But at the same time that God is love, He is also a perfect and Holy God of Justice. He demands that sin which is abhorrent to Him, be punished and dealt with. God cannot change His character. That is why Jesus Christ my Lord lovingly died on the cross, to deal with that, to reconcile us to Himself. There are millions of people now and over the millenniums who arrogantly and foolishly thumb their noses at Christ, and live the lives they want to live. They virtually tell Christ to get lost. That is why there is a Day of Judgment coming, on such we must all give an account. Christ died on the cross to facilitate the forgiveness of sins. This is so that people who repent from their sins, can come to Him, have the penalty of their sins dealt with, call Him Lord, and have eternal life. The only nastiness there is where people have rejected Christ and therefore Christ, in His divine Justice, has rejected them, and they will take their place in the location where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth forever. This place is real and to be avoided at all costs. It is my duty as a Christian to warn people of their danger. People need to run to Christ, not away from Christ.
Christ’s Prophet
Certainty for Eternity

 

[Norman]

We don't have to talk to people who view us as lower than them due to innate traits. There's a few white supremacists on this board and I don't give them the time of day.

Ok, I respect that, I did not know about the "white supremacists" on this board. I like to have conversations with everyone, however, I to would not respond to the "white supremacist's" which are down right hate groups. Thank you for responding to my post, I hope to have many conversations with you in the future.

 

[Ingledsva]

ING - SO! We don't care who he is.

Norman - Who are we? With all due respect can't you speak for yourself.

ING - People whom don't belong to the Christian religion.

*

ING - YOUR religion's ideas, should not dictate Love and marriage

Norman - Look, I know you are agnostic, I know you practice polyandry, so I think this same sex attraction thing is just beating a dead horse over and over.

ING - True - however I will fight for people's gay rights as long as it takes.

*

ING - PS - There is NO Adam and Chav'vah!

Norman - Ok,

ING - It is just a teaching story.

PS. GO Alaska! We just passed gay marriage, and legalized personal marijuana use.

*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is nothing comfortable about having nothing to with my God. Do we really think that a person can reject God because he or she doesn’t like this or that aspect about God? That idea is silly. This is the God with whom we have to do business. Do you really think that we can go into a spiritual supermarket and choose a god for ourselves? There is only One God whom we have to get to know. There is no other choice. This God is perfect, His ways are just. If you don’t like Him, then the problem is with you, not Him.
People who refuse Christ, send themselves to Hell, because Christ cannot use them. People who habitually covert and protect and promote their sin, hold Jesus Christ up to contempt. Why should He allow such stubborn, rebellious people into His Kingdom? Should I not tell you the truth? Should I not warn you of any danger? Is that not loving? Would you prefer I have told you what you wanted to hear to tickle your ears? God is love and is not willing that any should perish.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But at the same time that God is love, He is also a perfect and Holy God of Justice. He demands that sin which is abhorrent to Him, be punished and dealt with. God cannot change His character. That is why Jesus Christ my Lord lovingly died on the cross, to deal with that, to reconcile us to Himself. There are millions of people now and over the millenniums who arrogantly and foolishly thumb their noses at Christ, and live the lives they want to live. They virtually tell Christ to get lost. That is why there is a Day of Judgment coming, on such we must all give an account. Christ died on the cross to facilitate the forgiveness of sins. This is so that people who repent from their sins, can come to Him, have the penalty of their sins dealt with, call Him Lord, and have eternal life. The only nastiness there is where people have rejected Christ and therefore Christ, in His divine Justice, has rejected them, and they will take their place in the location where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth forever. This place is real and to be avoided at all costs. It is my duty as a Christian to warn people of their danger. People need to run to Christ, not away from Christ.
Christ’s Prophet
Certainty for Eternity

I'm not interested in following your nasty idea of deity. Yeah, I'm going to be tortured forever just because I reject your repugnant way of "witnessing". Do you think I was born yesterday? "Christ's Prophet", my ***! How arrogant. Go peddle your garbage elsewhere.