Gay Marriage

[Incognegro]

Um, what about pork and shellfish???

Also, here is a list of sins that are an "abomination":

idolatry or idols (Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13:14, (Isaiah 44:19)
illicit sex (Ezekiel 16:22,58, Ezekiel 22:11, Ezekiel 33:26)
illicit marriage (Deuteronomy 24:2-4)
male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 18:27-30, Leviticus 20:13
temple prostitution (1Kings 14:24)
offerings from the above (Deuteronomy 23:18)
child sacrifice (Jeremiah 32:35)
cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5)
cheating in the market by using rigged weights (Deuteronomy 25:13-19, Proverbs 11:1)
dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22)
dietary violations (Deuteronomy 14:3)
stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants, (Jeremiah 7:9,10
violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezekiel 18:10-13)

Homosexuality is NOT the only one.

Note: I didn't say Homosexuality is the ONLY sin that is an abomination.

Homosexuality is not given a name in the bible, as are the other sins you noted.

It is only called an abomination.

[Loopy]

Note: I didn't say Homosexuality is the ONLY sin that is an abomination.

Homosexuality is not given a name in the bible, as are the other sins you noted.

It is only called an abomination.

Fair point. You said:
 

It's also the sin noted to be an abomination.

Using the word "THE" implied that no other sins were referred to as abominations. Maybe you meant "A" sin, because clearly as I have posted, there are many and not just one. Some of the other sins are not specifically "named", but are indeed described in the Bible. Your point was that homosexuality is a worse sin than other sins (the example you used was fornication), and my point is, while that may be YOUR opinion (which you're entitled to), that is NOT scripturally correct.

[MissMusic04]

Um, what about pork and shellfish???

You don't eat pork and shellfish?

[funkStrat_97]

I'm glad that you brought this up.
There are those who approach homosexuality and the "cause" of it from 2 different directions:
Some believe, without conclusive evidence, that homosexuality is somehow inherent in one's DNA and that those folks do not choose to be gay; they just are and we should not deny them the chance to be who they are.
What gets ignored in this way of thinking is that there is also other similar inconclusive evidence that people who grow up to be serial rapists or habitual liars or have a fascination with the color mauve also have those traits inherent in their DNA, and, so, if you're going to allow the gays to be gay then you gotta allow the rapists to be rapists and the liars to be liars and the mauve lovers to go on loving mauve.
If it's how they're made, who are we to deny them that natural right?

Others believe that because homosexuality is somewhat "natural" in the animal kingdom and we, being nothing more than a smarter form of animal, should be allowed to practice that which is 'normal' for our furrier and less civilized planet dwellers.
Again, ignored in this line of thought is the fact that things like regurgitation, eating of young, eating feces, family and pack murder and other not-so-civilized behaviors are also somewhat 'normal' in the animal kingdom, and if you're going to allow one behavior, why not open the floodgates to the rest?

As far as the DNA argument goes, I can see God in that. Our DNA is our code and if it's found that in our code is the "natural" leaning to do bad things, that would line up perfectly with Scripture: "all have sinned..." and all science did was reveal what God already created, but we'll have to wait a while for this evidence as it's still very young.

As far as the animal argument goes, I got nothing.

I just wanted to toss these thoughts out there and add to the pile. 

I'm also glad that this was brought up.  I've never really been conviced either way that the cause of homosexuality is simply a matter of biology or choice, but if it is a choice it has to be influenced by something.  Science has shown that there is a distinct chemical reaction that occurs when straight men see a woman that appeals to them.  And I have always been attracted to women; nobody had to teach me anything.  I looked.  I saw.  I liked.  Well I don't know what it is to be gay, but I would conclude that something similar must be going on in most cases.  Now there are are situations where some individuals grew up in perverted, abusive environments which messed them up, but I'm not conviced that this is everybody's story.  So as of now, I'm convinced that there is a little of both biology and circumstance involved with regards to homosexualiy.  And being that human beings are incredibly complex creations and can not simply be put in a box, there are some people who simply choose to do whatever just because they can.

[themidiroom]

while that may be YOUR opinion (which you're entitled to), that is NOT scripturally correct.

Wow.  Them there's fightin words

[Loopy]

You don't eat pork and shellfish?

WHAT??!!! Man please! I got grilled shrimp and dungeness crabs in my spirit right now! Had cabbage with ham hock last night! 

[malthumb]

To answer the question, I do think it will impact it.  Partly because since legalizing gay marriage will mean ultimately in PLAIN view that its okay, it will become a more desensitized issue.  Along with that to me it would be more influence to those that arent strictly guided in the Word or with a spiritual base to lean towards being complacent with the ruling and more opposed to Christianity or any avenues that would still oppose it even if it is law........

Very interesting view point.  This makes a lot of sense to me, primarily from the aspect that the more people SEE something and are told that it's okay, the more likely they are to venture down that path.  On the other hand, by I don't think there will be a reduction in the number or visibility of same-sex couples simply because same-sex marriage is not legal. For better or worse, that ship has already sailed.  The onus is on those of us who are Christian to instill the right values into those over whom we have influence and win out in that fashion.  Unfortunately, morality is very difficult tl legislate.

Peace,

James

[funkStrat_97]

WHAT??!!! Man please! I got grilled shrimp and dungeness crabs in my spirit right now! Had cabbage with ham hock last night! 

Thank God for Jesus.  If he hadn't come, we all would have been Jewish and would be forced to live a life without shrimp, crab, and lobster....and bacon.

[Incognegro]

Fair point. You said:
 
Using the word "THE" implied that no other sins were referred to as abominations. Maybe you meant "A" sin, because clearly as I have posted, there are many and not just one. Some of the other sins are not specifically "named", but are indeed described in the Bible. Your point was that homosexuality is a worse sin than other sins (the example you used was fornication), and my point is, while that may be YOUR opinion (which you're entitled to), that is NOT scripturally correct.

I did not mean "A" sin.

The "THE" was not meant to say that it's the only sin that is an abomination.

Rather that it is only referred to as abomination.  The other sins have names, but homosexuality is simply referred to as an abomination.


My point was that sins vary in degree. 

Has God destroyed an entire city for lying, or stealing?

This PARTICULAR sin was such that He destroyed the city.

What kind of parent would God be if he dealt the same punishment to the person who covets to the person who is a rapist?

You know what?  He didn't!

For some sins God gave a mild punishment (For Sarah's lack of faith she was temporarily mute), and others where God gave the ultimate punishment of Death.

Clearly the reason for this is that some sins are greater than others.

That is scripturally correct, regardless of what well-worded arguments you present to the contrary.   

[themidiroom]

So as of now, I'm convinced that there is a little of both biology and circumstance involved with regards to homosexualiy. 

There's a lot of evidence that this applies to heterosexuality as well.

[MissMusic04]

WHAT??!!! Man please! I got grilled shrimp and dungeness crabs in my spirit right now! Had cabbage with ham hock last night! 

Whoa...I was about to say!! LOL!

It's also the sin noted to be an abomination.

So yes, some sins are greater than others. 

You can try to put fornicators and homosexuals in the same category all you want, but scripturaly, they aren't.

I can't go with that. I have to disagree. A lot of us believe different and I will stick with that.

[themidiroom]

That is scripturally correct, regardless of what well-worded arguments you present to the contrary.   

That's funny

[Incognegro]

I can't go with that. I have to disagree. Alot of us believe different and I will stick with that.

Sounds like a plan.   

[kodacolor]

Idk.  I guess I have to study Sodom and Gamorah more but to me it seems like it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[themidiroom]

Idk.  I guess I have to study Sodom and Gamorah more but to me it seems like it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The straw or A straw?     There's difference you know.

[Incognegro]

The straw or A straw?     There's difference you know.

Nice!

 

[Loopy]

I did not mean "A" sin.

The "THE" was not meant to say that it's the only sin that is an abomination.

Rather that it is only referred to as abomination.  The other sins have names, but homosexuality is simply referred to as an abomination.


My point was that sins vary in degree. 

Has God destroyed an entire city for lying, or stealing?

This PARTICULAR sin was such that He destroyed the city.

What kind of parent would God be if he dealt the same punishment to the person who covets to the person who is a rapist?

You know what?  He didn't!

For some sins God gave a mild punishment (For Sarah's lack of faith she was temporarily mute), and others where God gave the ultimate punishment of Death.

Clearly the reason for this is that some sins are greater than others.

That is scripturally correct, regardless of what well-worded arguments you present to the contrary.   

I respect your viewpoints, but if you'll notice one major difference between my posts and yours is that my posts actually cite SCRIPTURE. Maybe that's why they're so "well-worded". 

I can site plenty of instances where sins are given varying degrees of punishment, including God KILLING Onan for disobedience (he spilled the semen in Genesis 38), bears mauling the kids who laughed at the bald-headed Elisha in II Kings 2:23, and even the provision in the LAW to stone disobedient children to death in Deuteronomy 21:18. I could even go ahead and address your unscriptural assertion that homosexuality was THE reason God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah, when clearly according to scripture there were SEVERAL reasons: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

I guess the conclusion of the matter really is that at the end of the day, whatever punishment for whatever sin, whatever degree of the sin may or may not be, JESUS CHRIST paid for it on the cross. This is why we are all saved by grace, with no room for boasting that someone else's sin was greater than our's. We were ALL on the way to the same hell. Now THAT is scriptural. 

[themidiroom]

I guess the conclusion of the matter really is that at the end of the day, whatever punishment for whatever sin, whatever degree of the sin may or may not be, JESUS CHRIST paid for it on the cross. This is why we are all saved by grace, with no room for boasting that someone else's sin was greater than our's. We were ALL on the way to the same hell. Now THAT is scriptural. 

Ummm Well Alright.   

[Big T.]

Ummm Well Alright.   

Seconded!!!

[brutha28]

Ok so answer this question straight up.  If sin is sin and homosexuality is just as worse as anyother sin then why is it the ONLY scripture in the bible that references God's destruction of it by FIRE and BRIMSTONE?  Not only that but he told the folks that was leavin from that place not even to look back upon it unless they were consumed by it and turned to a pillar of salt????  You got any ideas.  God should have been a loving God and just turned his head and let them run there course and eventually things would turn around.  NOPE.  God knew the spirit of that demon was strong and there was NO HOPE.  He didn't find the equivalent number of people needed to prevent it from is destruction.  So it lets me know that yes there may have been other sins going on but for some reason the author chose to focus on the homosexuality sins.  That is the ultimate reference we can have for dealing with this demon.  The demon of homosexuality is strong.  Some sins are not as strong as others in terms of demonic presence.  Have you ever seen a preacher struggle with casting out the spirit of a homosexual individual.  You seen anybody just come through the altar and be completely changed?  I haven't.  Usually they still have battles but if they continue to walk in Godliness they are able to defeat it.