Gay Marriage

[MissMusic04]

...and for me common law is just as bad.  The bible also teaches against sex outside of marriage, so you gotta call a spade a spade on all fronts.  Legal whorehouses... the whole nine yards of stuff this country sanctions that is out and out defiance of the natural order of things set in motion by God himself.

Indeedy! Tell it!

[vtguy84]

Sodom and Gomorrah


What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It is abundantly clear that homosexuality was the primary evil. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the LORD and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The LORD reiterated His promise to Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah. The LORD also informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the LORD to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom ? both young and old ? surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah ? from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities ? and also the vegetation in the land."

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, thinking that the visiting angels were men, wanted to have sex with them. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. While the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable, that clearly was not all. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah desired to perform homosexual gang rape on the angels. Also, God never declared inhospitality to be an abomination to Him, while Leviticus 18:22 makes God?s view of homosexuality clear: ?Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.?

While Sodom and Gomorrah were surely guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.



nothing else to say>>>>>> peace

Wow look, your passage got published.  Congratulations!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

[malthumb]

I hate worms.  But a can of worms every now and then will do you good (plus; I've heard that they are an excellent source protien and have 0 cholesterol  ). 

What about carbs?

[Incognegro]

Sodom and Gomorrah


What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It is abundantly clear that homosexuality was the primary evil. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the LORD and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The LORD reiterated His promise to Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah. The LORD also informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the LORD to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities — and also the vegetation in the land."

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, thinking that the visiting angels were men, wanted to have sex with them. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. While the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable, that clearly was not all. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah desired to perform homosexual gang rape on the angels. Also, God never declared inhospitality to be an abomination to Him, while Leviticus 18:22 makes God’s view of homosexuality clear: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

While Sodom and Gomorrah were surely guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.



nothing else to say>>>>>> peace

Wow look, your passage got published.  Congratulations!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

[sjonathan02]

Wow look, your passage got published.  Congratulations!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

PPPPPWWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[sjonathan02]

Dang you, man...use photobucket!!!! 

[Fenix]

PPPPPWWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[joshuag]

Wow look, your passage got published.  Congratulations!

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html

i never said i wrote it >>>> i just posted it , i remember from my study so before you jump up trying to blast someone you should ask.. i dont take credit for something i didnt write or do....

[sjonathan02]

i never said i wrote it >>>> i just posted it , i remember from my study so before you jump up trying to blast someone you should ask.. i dont take credit for something i didnt write or do....

You didn't not take credit for it, either. Neither did you say to those who cosigned your post that it wasn't your thoughts giving the appearance that you were the original author.

Next time, simply cite the author when you're using a source or the place from where you got it. No harm, bruh.

[joshuag]

You didn't not take credit for it, either. Neither did you say to those who cosigned your post that it wasn't your thoughts giving the appearance that you were the original author.

Next time, simply cite the author when you're using a source or the place from where you got it. No harm, bruh.

just making sure, 

[themidiroom]

Another aspect of "gay marriage" that's overlooked is the effect on children."Gay couples " then want to adopt(or co-opt) children;imparting their lifestyle and furthering their views (forcing in a subtle way) their agenda on the next generation.

I often feel this way about parents that do drugs and drink.  They also impart their lifestyles on the next generation.

[malthumb]

It's not so much that gay marriage will or will not have an effect on YOUR marriage or my marriage. It's that gay marriage will have an effect on "marriage" according to what marriage is supposed to be.
Gay marriage is as wrong morally and Biblically as open/swinging marriages, abusive marriages, getting-drunk-and-going-to-Vegas marriages and so on.
None of them are entered into via the model that God laid out for us to follow. ......

The part in BLUE is EXACTLY why I say in my first post on this topic that I wish it could be called something other than marriage.  I mentioned in another post on this topic that we as Christians are subject to two sets of laws.  The laws of the Bible and the laws of the land.  The problem with the word marriage is that it is subject to one or both of these same sets of laws.  The DC situation (and New Hampshire, and every other state considering this)can only be decided on the basis of the law of the land.  Not everyone in DC is a Christian, so the laws governing DC should not (by Constitution)be drawn from solely Biblical law.  There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, and followers of other religions living in DC.  We Christians should not be subject to the laws of their faiths and they should not, through civil law, be subject to ours.  Look to the Middle East for examples of how that plays out.

All I'm saying is that we can and should hold on to the moral aspects of why we disagree with gay marriage, according to the convictions of our faith.  We should not, however, bind civil law by our theological beliefs.  That's all I'm saying.

The part in RED is an example of what I'm getting at.  Other than the aspect of abusive marriages, nothing you've cited there is illegal.  Stupid?  Yes.  Immoral? Certainly.  Illegal?  No.  Thing is, you can't successfully legislate against stupidity, even when it crosses the line into the realm of immorality.

Unfortunately we have to separate the Biblical ideal of marriage (loving bond until death do part) from the legal model of marriage (two of adult age and consenting).  That's why I've always been against the idea of gay marriage but accepting of the idea of civil unions.  Same thing, different name.  Legal standing, but no standing in the church.

Peace,

James

[themidiroom]

When a man and women join together before God, that's a marriage.  What the state recognizes is a legaly binding contract between them.

[malthumb]

When a man and women join together before God, that's a marriage.  What the state recognizes is a legaly binding contract between them.

That's all I'm sayin'.  What makes this all so emotional is what do you call this contract?

[Incognegro]

The part in BLUE is EXACTLY why I say in my first post on this topic that I wish it could be called something other than marriage.  I mentioned in another post on this topic that we as Christians are subject to two sets of laws.  The laws of the Bible and the laws of the land.  The problem with the word marriage is that it is subject to one or both of these same sets of laws.  The DC situation (and New Hampshire, and every other state considering this)can only be decided on the basis of the law of the land.  Not everyone in DC is a Christian, so the laws governing DC should not (by Constitution)be drawn from solely Biblical law.  There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, and followers of other religions living in DC.  We Christians should not be subject to the laws of their faiths and they should not, through civil law, be subject to ours.  Look to the Middle East for examples of how that plays out.

All I'm saying is that we can and should hold on to the moral aspects of why we disagree with gay marriage, according to the convictions of our faith.  We should not, however, bind civil law by our theological beliefs.  That's all I'm saying.

The part in RED is an example of what I'm getting at.  Other than the aspect of abusive marriages, nothing you've cited there is illegal.  Stupid?  Yes.  Immoral? Certainly.  Illegal?  No.  Thing is, you can't successfully legislate against stupidity, even when it crosses the line into the realm of immorality.

Unfortunately we have to separate the Biblical ideal of marriage (loving bond until death do part) from the legal model of marriage (two of adult age and consenting).  That's why I've always been against the idea of gay marriage but accepting of the idea of civil unions.  Same thing, different name.  Legal standing, but no standing in the church.

Peace,

James

NOT the same thing.

There are huge differences between Marriage and Civil Union.

"Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons.[/size] This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others.
One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.

Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits."

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

As long as they don't call it marriage, I'm cool.

[chevonee]

...and for me common law is just as bad.  The bible also teaches against sex outside of marriage, so you gotta call a spade a spade on all fronts.  Legal whorehouses... the whole nine yards of stuff this country sanctions that is out and out defiance of the natural order of things set in motion by God himself.

Amen anyhow!! I get so tired of folks using gay marriage and all that stuff to justify what they're doing. WRONG IZ WRONG....PERIOD!! Aint no good or bad sin.

[malthumb]

NOT the same thing.

There are huge differences between Marriage and Civil Union.

"Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons.[/size] This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others.
One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.

Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits."

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

As long as they don't call it marriage, I'm cool.

You make a very good point in defining the legal differences between marriage and civil unions.  It seems then that the proponents for gay marriage would be in a better position if they put their ENERGY into getting the legal aspects of civil union changed.  In other words, go after equalizing the legal benefits of a civil union and a marriage without focusing on the emotional issue of forcing everyone to recognize it as a marriage. 

With that approach, gay couples could make their own spiritual commitment to each other, enjoy the tax, inheritance, medical, and other legal benefits that come with a LEGAL coupling (marriage) without co-opting the religious understandings of the word marriage.  I'm with you on the big picture.  Feel free to commit to each other, just don't call it marriage.  Deal with the LEGAL aspects and don't try to force people to change their perceptions of what's moral.

Peace,

James

[Incognegro]

You make a very good point in defining the legal differences between marriage and civil unions.  It seems then that the proponents for gay marriage would be in a better position if they put their ENERGY into getting the legal aspects of civil union changed.  In other words, go after equalizing the legal benefits of a civil union and a marriage without focusing on the emotional issue of forcing everyone to recognize it as a marriage. 

With that approach, gay couples could make their own spiritual commitment to each other, enjoy the tax, inheritance, medical, and other legal benefits that come with a LEGAL coupling (marriage) without co-opting the religious understandings of the word marriage.  I'm with you on the big picture.  Feel free to commit to each other, just don't call it marriage.  Deal with the LEGAL aspects and don't try to force people to change their perceptions of what's moral.

Peace,

James

As long as they don't call it marriage, I care not.

Unfortunately they seem hell bent on being able to marry, and they're moving closer to that goal.   

[Incognegro]

i never said i wrote it >>>> i just posted it , i remember from my study so before you jump up trying to blast someone you should ask.. i dont take credit for something i didnt write or do....

 

[funkStrat_97]

As long as they don't call it marriage, I care not.

Unfortunately they seem hell bent on being able to marry, and they're moving closer to that goal.   

The goal is equality, and to call it anything other than marriage wouldn't be equal.