-
With DC poised to pass legislation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and thus move one step closer to legalizing gay marriage, there have been campaigns warning about the dangers that gay marriage poses to the institution of traditional marriage. But how could giving gays the legal right to marry have any impact on heterosexual marital rights?
-
I suppose it is the permissive aspect of allowing gay marriage that bugs people, me included. I myself do not see how letting some gay people marry affect heterosexual marriage.
I look at gay marriage as a mockery of God's laws and a direct slap to his face.
:)
-
Here we go. ::) :D
I dont think its about our rights, but about morals and having a standard, so that our children will know what is right and what is wrong.
-
With DC poised to pass legislation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and thus move one step closer to legalizing gay marriage, there have been campaigns warning about the dangers that gay marriage poses to the institution of traditional marriage. But how could giving gays the legal right to marry have any impact on heterosexual marital rights?
Replace the word "gay" with the word "interracial" and replace the word "heterosexual" with the word "my" and you have "Loving v State of Virginia".
I just wish it could be called something else. Tying the word "gay" to the word "marriage" tends to allow emotion to supplant reason on both sides of the issue. Personally, I have no problem with allowing two people to document their commitment to spending their lives together legally and spiritually. AS much as we'd like it to be different, EVERYBODY isn't a Christian and therefore not beholden to abide by our values. Just like we are not Muslims and therefore not beholden to live by their values.
I have a co-worker who is in a committed same-sex relationship. If more "married" couples treated each other with the same level of caring and respect that they extend to each other, divorce rates would drop dramatically. I'm sure there are also severely dysfunctional same-sex relationships. But that's kind of the point. Neither heterosexual or homosexual couples hold charter to the concept of healthy or dysfunctional relationships. You find healthy and dysfunctional relationships in both.
Whether my co-worker and his partner are married or not (I honestly don't know if they are) has NO bearing on the quality of my marriage. I've always said the same to some of my friends who have some really irrational issues with interracial couples / marriages. I always point out that they already have their life partner, so how does this one white person dating this one black person impact their lifestyle? The answer is almost always something to the affect of "I just don't like it. It ain't right". At the end of the day, nothing in their lives is ever different except for their blood pressure being temporarily elevated.
Peace,
James
-
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
-
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
:D :D :D See what I mean? :D :D :D
-
Replace the word "gay" with the word "interracial" and replace the word "heterosexual" with the word "my" and you have "Loving v State of Virginia".
I just wish it could be called something else. Tying the word "gay" to the word "marriage" tends to allow emotion to supplant reason on both sides of the issue. Personally, I have no problem with allowing two people to document their commitment to spending their lives together legally and spiritually. AS much as we'd like it to be different, EVERYBODY isn't a Christian and therefore not beholden to abide by our values. Just like we are not Muslims and therefore not beholden to live by their values.
I have a co-worker who is in a committed same-sex relationship. If more "married" couples treated each other with the same level of caring and respect that they extend to each other, divorce rates would drop dramatically. I'm sure there are also severely dysfunctional same-sex relationships. But that's kind of the point. Neither heterosexual or homosexual couples hold charter to the concept of healthy or dysfunctional relationships. You find healthy and dysfunctional relationships in both.
Whether my co-worker and his partner are married or not (I honestly don't know if they are) has NO bearing on the quality of my marriage. I've always said the same to some of my friends who have some really irrational issues with interracial couples / marriages. I always point out that they already have their life partner, so how does this one white person dating this one black person impact their lifestyle? The answer is almost always something to the affect of "I just don't like it. It ain't right". At the end of the day, nothing in their lives is ever different except for their blood pressure being temporarily elevated.
Peace,
James
Are you drawing a parralel between interracial marriage and Gay marriage?
-
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
Herman? :o Anyways, I think it's messed up for a state to be OK with common law marriage but turn their nose up at gay marriage.
-
Are you drawing a parralel between interracial marriage and Gay marriage?
Moreso people's irrational responses to both. People have very strong opinions on things that for the most part do not impact them.
It wouldn't be possible for me to draw a direct parallel. I could possibly have found myself in an interracial marriage. I could not have found myself in a gay marriage.
-
Moreso people's irrational responses to both. People have very strong opinions on things that for the most part do not impact them.
What would you say is an "irrational" response to the notion of gay marriage?
-
What would you say is an "irrational" response to the notion of gay marriage?
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
-
What would you say is an "irrational" response to the notion of gay marriage?
From my original post on this topic, appropriately modified.......
Whether my co-worker and his partner are married or not (I honestly don't know if they are) has NO bearing on the quality of my marriage. I've always said the same to some of my friends who have some really irrational issues with interracial couples / marriages. I always point out that they already have their life partner, so how does this one gay person dating this one gay person impact their lifestyle? The answer is almost always something to the affect of "I just don't like it. It ain't right". At the end of the day, nothing in their lives is ever different except for their blood pressure being temporarily elevated.
Basically, getting emotionally twisted up in an issue that has little or no impact on a person, their family, their lifestyle because they simply don't like it.
-
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
-
This is all about money. These states are going to fix it where they can make some money in many ways off of these gay couples. When all of these couples file for marriage licenses and pay these other fees it will raise huge amounts of revenue for the states. We already know that some folks will compromise many values when it comes down to the almighty dollar.
-
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
Herman? :o
Yes brother? I said it and meant it. Didn't stutter or have a slur in my speech on one word.
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
Be thou not shocked.
"I just don't like it. It ain't right".
Should I say it again? LOL!
-
Basically, getting emotionally twisted up in an issue that has little or no impact on a person, their family, their lifestyle because they simply don't like it.
I'll say this:
As Christians, we should declare what is right and what is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, and by extension Gay Marriage is also wrong.
This is not something that I "simply don't like". This is something God's Word clearly stands against.
-
...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.
-
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.
THANK YOU!!
-
**Snorts in disgust**
Common law marriage? Just say you want the benefits of marriage with the option of bailing out. Of course the most obvious argument that people who practice this will put forth is that so far as they are committed to themselves, there is no need for any legal binding.
-
I'll say this:
As Christians, we should declare what is right and what is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, and by extension Gay Marriage is also wrong.
This is not something that I "simply don't like". This is something God's Word clearly stands against.
I would call what you just laid out a rational position when it is a position held by a Christian in relation to a Christian.
When we are talking about the law of the land (as is the case with DC), it is intentionally focused on not making decisions based on one form of religion over another. For the sake of argument (argument as in debate, not argument as in confrontation) suppose that two people who do not proclaim to be Christians decide they want to "marry". My Christian values are irrelevant to them, but the law of the land where they intend to do this is not.
We all are subject to two sets of laws. The laws of morality as governed by the faith we CHOOSE to follow and the laws of the land where we CHOOSE to live. For those of us on this site, it is safe to assume we're talking Christian to Christian, so the laws of the Bible are relevant. Personally, I do not hold a non-Christian accountable to the tenets of the Bible I believe in if they do not, but I will hold them accountable to the laws of the land we have both chosen to live in. In return, I do not expect a follower of any other religion to hold me accountable to the tenets of their holy book.
-
THANKS Funkstrat!!!!
(http://www.trainfortopdollar.com/trainfortopdollar/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/canofworms1.jpg)
-
...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.
LEGAL WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? WHERE? I always thought (at least in Tennessee) that as long as "they" are on the street, the City's budget will have a revolving, free-flowing account. Now they have legal HOUSES for this stuff? Yikes!!!!
-
I would call what you just laid out a rational position when it is a position held by a Christian in relation to a Christian.
When we are talking about the law of the land (as is the case with DC), it is intentionally focused on not making decisions based on one form of religion over another. For the sake of argument (argument as in debate, not argument as in confrontation) suppose that two people who do not proclaim to be Christians decide they want to "marry". My Christian values are irrelevant to them, but the law of the land where they intend to do this is not.
We all are subject to two sets of laws. The laws of morality as governed by the faith we CHOOSE to follow and the laws of the land where we CHOOSE to live. For those of us on this site, it is safe to assume we're talking Christian to Christian, so the laws of the Bible are relevant. Personally, I do not hold a non-Christian accountable to the tenets of the Bible I believe in if they do not, but I will hold them accountable to the laws of the land we have both chosen to live in. In return, I do not expect a follower of any other religion to hold me accountable to the tenets of their holy book.
Great point.
-
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
Well said my man. While we might not completely 100% agree on the NBA finals i can say i'm 100% in agreement with what you just said. Preach on. :)
-
Well said my man. While we might not completely 100% agree on the NBA finals i can say i'm 100% in agreement with what you just said. Preach on. :)
Thats...it? ?/? :D :D
-
Well said my man. While we might not completely 100% agree on the NBA finals i can say i'm 100% in agreement with what you just said. Preach on. :)
In what other scriptures in the bible did God allow the heavens to open to destroy and entire city including men, women, children, and probably animals with FIRE.... and not only that tell them not to look upon it unless they be consumed and turned to a pillar of salt. I dont thinnk i found one. So my point is this, to criticize a person for singling out homosexuality is like criticizing God for singling out the homosexuality within Sodom and Gommorah. I guess God should have been more sympathetic huh... NO. God don't need no amens cause he's RIGHT all by him self. I will continue to make a strong stand against ALL sin however HOMOSEXUALITY and lesbianism will be a greater stand for me because of what God did against it. I dont want to have any sin in my life but i also want God to say that you stood up against that Homosexual spirit and agenda and didn't compromise. If you are lacksidasical or non caring about this topic then you might as well be in a greement. You can't be luke warm on this topic.
-
Well said my man. While we might not completely 100% agree on the NBA finals i can say i'm 100% in agreement with what you just said. Preach on. :)
Well thank you.....
-
In what other scriptures in the bible did God allow the heavens to open to destroy and entire city including men, women, children, and probably animals with FIRE.... and not only that tell them not to look upon it unless they be consumed and turned to a pillar of salt. I dont thinnk i found one. So my point is this, to criticize a person for singling out homosexuality is like criticizing God for singling out the homosexuality within Sodom and Gommorah. I guess God should have been more sympathetic huh... NO. God don't need no amens cause he's RIGHT all by him self. I will continue to make a strong stand against ALL sin however HOMOSEXUALITY and lesbianism will be a greater stand for me because of what God did against it. I dont want to have any sin in my life but i also want God to say that you stood up against that Homosexual spirit and agenda and didn't compromise. If you are lacksidasical or non caring about this topic then you might as well be in a greement. You can't be luke warm on this topic.
So, when were you in California and D.C. to "stand against this legislation"; how many letters have you written to your congressperson? :-\
-
Thats...it? ?/? :D :D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2715738251_ae115095f9.jpg)
-
I would call what you just laid out a rational position when it is a position held by a Christian in relation to a Christian.
When we are talking about the law of the land (as is the case with DC), it is intentionally focused on not making decisions based on one form of religion over another. For the sake of argument (argument as in debate, not argument as in confrontation)suppose that two people who do not proclaim to be Christians decide they want "marry". My Christian values are irrelevant to them, but the law of the land where they intend to do this is not.
We all are subject to two sets of laws. The laws of morality as governed by the faith we CHOOSE to follow and the laws of the land where we CHOOSE to live. For those of us on this site, it is safe to assume we're talking Christian to Christian, so the laws of the Bible are relevant. Personally, I do not hold a non-Christian accountable to the tenets of the Bible I believe in if they do not, but I will hold them accountable to the laws of the land we have both chosen to live in. In return, I do not expect a follower of any other religion to hold me accountable to the tenets of their holy book.
The Politically Correct thing to say is that our beliefs are our beliefs alone, and that homosexuals deserve social equality.
The Biblically Correct thing to say is that God's Word is right. Homosexuals do not have the "right" to marry seeing as homosexuality is wrong. Gay marriage is a step towards homosexuality becoming even MORE mainstream and more accepted. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT.
When the Law of the land is ammended to conflict with God's Word, as ambassador's of God's Kingdom we must speak up.
-
So, when were you in California and D.C. to "stand against this legislation"; how many letters have you written to your congressperson? :-\
Have you heard of email???? Technology is great. And i'm in Iowa i dont need to go to California, they passed that law here and we're fighting it now.
-
Have you heard of email???? Technology is great. And i'm in Iowa i dont need to go to California, they passed that law here and we're fighting it now.
Looks like there's been a victory gay marriage bill failed in new hampshire...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003662.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003662.html)
-
I would call what you just laid out a rational position when it is a position held by a Christian in relation to a Christian.
When we are talking about the law of the land (as is the case with DC), it is intentionally focused on not making decisions based on one form of religion over another. For the sake of argument (argument as in debate, not argument as in confrontation) suppose that two people who do not proclaim to be Christians decide they want to "marry". My Christian values are irrelevant to them, but the law of the land where they intend to do this is not.
We all are subject to two sets of laws. The laws of morality as governed by the faith we CHOOSE to follow and the laws of the land where we CHOOSE to live. For those of us on this site, it is safe to assume we're talking Christian to Christian, so the laws of the Bible are relevant. Personally, I do not hold a non-Christian accountable to the tenets of the Bible I believe in if they do not, but I will hold them accountable to the laws of the land we have both chosen to live in. In return, I do not expect a follower of any other religion to hold me accountable to the tenets of their holy book.
I understand and agree with wat u said
-
([url]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2715738251_ae115095f9.jpg[/url])
I see the other picture was edited out. I wasn't insulted though. It takes a lot to push my buttons.
-
I believe the scriptures talk about a time when good is evil and evil is good. You can't tell me we're not living in that time.
-
Whether my co-worker and his partner are married or not (I honestly don't know if they are) has NO bearing on the quality of my marriage.
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. Worse yet, 50% of those who quite possibly did enter into marriage the "traditional" way have called it quits at some point prior to "til death do us part", thereby reducing the holy commitment between 2 people to little more than hollow untruthful words.
It's because of this that we can look at a supposedly committed homosexual couple and say things like "if only heterosexual couples would act like them..."
Yeah, you go on and use a homosexual couple as the basis for how things should be.
God wouldn't mind, right? Maybe He's looking for a new moral standard, seeing as how we can't live up to the one He previously gave us...
In some ways I welcome all of this mess. It simply means that we're getting that much closer to Jesus' return. And how surprising it will be for those "Christians" who will think nothing of taking a mark on their right hand or forehead, just because it will have no bearing on their quality of life...
-
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. Worse yet, 50% of those who quite possibly did enter into marriage the "traditional" way have called it quits at some point prior to "til death do us part", thereby reducing the holy commitment between 2 people to little more than hollow untruthful words.
It's because of this that we can look at a supposedly committed homosexual couple and say things like "if only heterosexual couples would act like them..."
Yeah, you go on and use a homosexual couple as the basis for how things should be.
God wouldn't mind, right? Maybe He's looking for a new moral standard, seeing as how we can't live up to the one He previously gave us...
In some ways I welcome all of this mess. It simply means that we're getting that much closer to Jesus' return. And how surprising it will be for those "Christians" who will think nothing of taking a mark on their right hand or forehead, just because it will have no bearing on their quality of life...
Where you been hiding yourself? Thanks for this post!
-
Looks like there's been a victory gay marriage bill failed in new hampshire...
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003662.html[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003662.html[/url])
Don't shout just yet. The bill got derailed because of language protecting religous organizations from legal actions if they decline to performing gay weddings etc. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. While I personally am opposed to gay marriage, my real problem with legalizing it is the impact that it could have on the church (and pretty much all other religious institutions) from a legal perspective. We may loose our tax-exempt status, not to mention to potential law suits against chrurches and ministers who deny gay couples their rights.
-
THANKS Funkstrat!!!!
([url]http://www.trainfortopdollar.com/trainfortopdollar/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/canofworms1.jpg[/url])
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 ;)).
-
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.Every other culture, Christian or not that embraced this-Rome,Greece,etc.FELL into disarry.Isreal embraced the pagan practices and was chastised by the LORD.The USA is BEGGING GOD's wrath upon itself!!!!!!! HE does NOT change.
-
...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!
-
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 (http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html)
-
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?
-
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! :)
[url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url] ([url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url])
(http://www.geocities.com/hereditarybitch/pwned.jpg)
-
Wow look, your passage got published. Congratulations! :)
[url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url] ([url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url])
PPPPPWWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D :D :D
-
([url]http://www.geocities.com/hereditarybitch/pwned.jpg[/url])
Dang you, man...use photobucket!!!! >:(
-
([url]http://www.geocities.com/hereditarybitch/pwned.jpg[/url])
PPPPPWWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D :D :D
-
Wow look, your passage got published. Congratulations! :)
[url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url] ([url]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html[/url])
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....
-
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. ;) 8)
-
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. ;) 8)
just making sure, ::)
-
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.
-
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
-
When a man and women join together before God, that's a marriage. What the state recognizes is a legaly binding contract between them.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html)
As long as they don't call it marriage, I'm cool.
-
...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.
-
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."
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html[/url] ([url]http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html[/url])
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
-
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. :(
-
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....
(http://www.bearskinrug.co.uk/_work/fray_busted/hero.jpg)
:D
-
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.
-
The goal is equality, and to call it anything other than marriage wouldn't be equal.
Which is exactly why Gay Marriage bills are still popping up all over the place.
-
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. Yeah, I know some will say that makes me a bad Christian, but... well... ok. It's no secret that I'm opposed to Christians infringing their beliefs (or truths) on those who don't believe. What Malthumb said in his first post is exactly what I've been saying all along on this subject. I don't believe non-Christians residing in a country that doesn't claim a national religion should be subject to laws based on a sacred text they don't believe in, just like I don't believe Christians should be subject to Muslim law... unless they are in an Islamic nation.
This is definitely one of those conversations I can't wait to have with Jesus himself, instead of his representatives.
-
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. Yeah, I know some will say that makes me a bad Christian, but... well... ok. It's no secret that I'm opposed to Christians infringing their beliefs (or truths) on those who don't believe. What Malthumb said in his first post is exactly what I've been saying all along on this subject. I don't believe non-Christians residing in a country that doesn't claim a national religion should be subject to laws based on a sacred text they don't believe in, just like I don't believe Christians should be subject to Muslim law... unless they are in an Islamic nation.
This is definitely one of those conversations I can't wait to have with Jesus himself, instead of his representatives.
Can't be luke warm on this one....this is a stance either ur for it or against it. And no stance means u support them.
-
Can't be luke warm on this one....this is a stance either ur for it or against it. And no stance means u support them.
No, it doesn't. ::)
-
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. Yeah, I know some will say that makes me a bad Christian, but... well... ok. It's no secret that I'm opposed to Christians infringing their beliefs (or truths) on those who don't believe. What Malthumb said in his first post is exactly what I've been saying all along on this subject. I don't believe non-Christians residing in a country that doesn't claim a national religion should be subject to laws based on a sacred text they don't believe in, just like I don't believe Christians should be subject to Muslim law... unless they are in an Islamic nation.
This is definitely one of those conversations I can't wait to have with Jesus himself, instead of his representatives.
Bad Christian; bad bad bad ya hear me! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
I'm sure that you wear pants, make up, and jewelry, listen to secular music, go to movies and have the ocasional glass of pinot noir after diner too! I dunno about this LaRue chick; she must be a bad apple.
;) ;D
-
Don't shout just yet. The bill got derailed because of language protecting religous organizations from legal actions if they decline to performing gay weddings etc. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. While I personally am opposed to gay marriage, my real problem with legalizing it is the impact that it could have on the church (and pretty much all other religious institutions) from a legal perspective. We may loose our tax-exempt status, not to mention to potential law suits against chrurches and ministers who deny gay couples their rights.
That bothers me.
1) As someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to marry you?
2) Doesn't fining church violate church and state? The state is, pretty much telling the Christian church to veer from what they believe in or else they will pay consequences. I wonder if Islamic churches have this same issue. (BTW: I know of this guy who was a Christian and gay, but then when he converted to Islam he said he wasn't gay anymore because it's not allowed in Islam. ?/? Alas, another thread for another day. :) )
-
I didn't picket an abortion clinic today so I must be in support of abortion. ::)
-
That bothers me.
1) As someone who doesn't believe in what your doing to marry you?
2) Doesn't fining church violate church and state? The state is, pretty much telling the Christian church to veer from what they believe in or else they will pay consequences. I wonder if Islamic churches have this same issue. (BTW: I know of this guy who was a Christian and gay, but then when he converted to Islam he said he wasn't gay anymore because it's not allowed in Islam. ?/? Alas, another thread for another day. :) )
But the thing is that marriage is just as much a matter of law as it is a matter of religion. So for a church to deny a wedding ceremony to a couple because the are gay could put us in a heap of legal trouble. Other church issues, such as holding leadership positions and participation in the ministry are not state issues.
-
2 things:
1. No, we should not be trying to tell the world how to live. They don't know about righteousness and holiness and "seek ye first the kingdom" and so on, so how are they going to understand it when we tell them that they're not living according to God's rules?
That's Holy Spirit work. Yes, we can plant seeds. Yes, we should witness. Yes, we should evangelize, but that's pretty much our gig.
2. No, the world should not be trying to redefine what it is that God called "holy". Marriage is not supposed to be entered into lightly, but it's supposed to be a covenant between a man and a woman, period. That was God's example and it has not nor should not be changed simply because the unsaved world wants to call the shots and be "equal", but far too long we Christians have done the following: we ourselves have not given proper respect and honor to holy marriage and recently we've begun to cave on the foundations of holy marriage. Christian divorce rate is 50% or more...just like the world...Christian opinion is that we shouldn't have a say in gay marriage...just like the world. On one hand we want to say "God says marriage is to be holy" and yet on the other hand we're getting divorced and having affairs and being abusive and so on...practically handing over our right to have a respectful voice in this debate. The world looks at us, sees the image of themselves instead of the image of Christ, and turns a deaf ear to anything we have to say.
btw: I'm not pointing a finger, but I am raising a hand as "guilty".
So, what do we do about it?
-
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
My POV exactly.
-
So for a church to deny a wedding ceremony to a couple because the are gay could put us in a heap of legal trouble.
As far as I know, churches deny weddings for other reasons as well. Does that mean a church HAS to perform a ceremony! I don't know about all that.
-
Bad Christian; bad bad bad ya hear me! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
I'm sure that you wear pants, make up, and jewelry, listen to secular music, go to movies and have the ocasional glass of pinot noir after diner too! I dunno about this LaRue chick; she must be a bad apple.
;) ;D
TIS A WITCH!!! >:(
;) :)
-
Can't be luke warm on this one....this is a stance either ur for it or against it. And no stance means u support them.
Logic Fail.
-
Logic Fail.
Buffer Overflow Error. Abort/Retry?
-
It's sad/disappointing to see people on a Christian website who are not opposed to homosexuals getting married.
:(
Buffer Overflow Error. Abort/Retry?
Yea, all dat too.
-
It's sad/disappointing to see people on a Christian website who are not opposed to homosexuals getting married.
:(
Yea, all dat too.
They are getting married, just not in the legal sense. Now that I think of it, there have been a few heterosexual marriages I was opposed to. ::)
-
What about carbs?
They're healthy carbs...like vermicelli (which literaly means "little worms" in Italian).
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
Thing is that there are a lot of unsaved heterosexual people who get married and could care less about the sprititual aspect of it (for that matter, there are quite a few uninformed Christians who enter into marriage lightly without any regard for the spiritual). In fact, proponents of gay marriage will argue that this isn't abut religion, but rather about having the rights and privilliges that they feel they deserve as American citizens. So my question to you is this; why not call it a marriage? If they are enjoying all the same legal and social benefits, then wouldn't it be a marriage by default? Simply modifying existing laws to appease them and maintain the traditional definition of marriage will not work. They want full equality and acceptance.
-
Can't be luke warm on this one....this is a stance either ur for it or against it. And no stance means u support them.
No, it doesn't. ::)
Logic Fail.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/9sfmrk.jpg)
-
It's sad/disappointing to see people on a Christian website who are not opposed to homosexuals getting married.
:(
Yea, all dat too.
I don't think it should still be disappointing. This subject has been discussed at least once every couple of months since I've been a member (and long before, according to the archives). The outcome is always the same: there are some who are opposed, some who are in support, and some who are neutral or have no opinion at all. Why would you expect this thread to show you anything different? :-\
And btw, we might actually make a DIFFERENCE in the success of marriages if we were this outspoken about common law marriages, divorce, remarriage, and healthy marriage.
-
I don't think it should still be disappointing. This subject has been discussed at least once every couple of months since I've been a member (and long before, according to the archives). The outcome is always the same: there are some who are opposed, some who are in support, and some who are neutral or have no opinion at all. Why would you expect this thread to show you anything different? :-\
And btw, we might actually make a DIFFERENCE in the success of marriages if we were this outspoken about common law marriages, divorce, remarriage, and healthy marriage.
Should we speak out for healthy gay marriages also?
Should we speak out against Gay marriages ending in divorce?
-
Bad Christian; bad bad bad ya hear me! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
I'm sure that you wear pants, make up, and jewelry, listen to secular music, go to movies and have the ocasional glass of pinot noir after diner too! I dunno about this LaRue chick; she must be a bad apple.
;) ;D
Pants - yep
Make-up - yep
Jewelry - yep
Secular music - rarely
Movies - rarely
Pinot Noir - NEVER... yuck! Hate that stuff... now offer me some White Merlot and you got yourself a bad apple, indeed! LOL
Should we speak out for healthy gay marriages also?
Should we speak out against Gay marriages ending in divorce?
That's not what I'm saying at all. To be honest, I think people should speak out against whatever they hold dear. As I've said before, I participate in breast cancer walks and I'm a part of MADD and Women Against Domestic Violence. That doesn't mean I don't care about diabetes, children with cleft palates or the homeless.
If a person feels passionately that they need to be outspoken against gay marriage, I support their right to speak out against it. Whatever floats your boat. I just don't agree with people telling me what I should speak out against. I just feel a little irked that we, as a body, pay so much attention to preventing one group of society from marrying, and so little attention to ministering to those who are struggling to keep their marriages together or those who are shacking or remarrying.
That's all I'm saying. But, I don't want my point to be lost, so I'll reiterate: whatever floats your boat.
-
Homosexuals and gay marriage are easy targets. There are a lot of other issues we should be just as vocal against but often aren't. Leading by example is also a novel concept.
-
That's not what I'm saying at all. To be honest, I think people should speak out against whatever they hold dear. As I've said before, I participate in breast cancer walks and I'm a part of MADD and Women Against Domestic Violence. That doesn't mean I don't care about diabetes, children with cleft palates or the homeless.
If a person feels passionately that they need to be outspoken against gay marriage, I support their right to speak out against it. Whatever floats your boat. I just don't agree with people telling me what I should speak out against. I just feel a little irked that we, as a body, pay so much attention to preventing one group of society from marrying, and so little attention to ministering to those who are struggling to keep their marriages together or those who are shacking or remarrying.
That's all I'm saying. But, I don't want my point to be lost, so I'll reiterate: whatever floats your boat.
You could've simply said you don't want to answer the question. :P
Homosexuals and gay marriage are easy targets. There are a lot of other issues we should be just as vocal against but often aren't. Leading by example is also a novel concept.
True. But this thread is about Gay marriage.
-
Should we speak out for healthy gay marriages also?
Should we speak out against Gay marriages ending in divorce?
No. There are plenty of other people out there to do that. But it is rather disturbing at the very least that the divorce rate among Christian is equal to the divorce rate of the world. My original question was how does gay marriage pose a threat to heterosexual marriage and I don't see that it does. There are other issues that seem to pose a much more imediate threat to the traditonal family structure including pornography, and the growing trend of young women (not teenagers) desiring to become mothers but have no intention of marrying the father or delay marriage until much later (and of course, the men are all too willing to go along for the ride...dogs we are I tell you).
-
Should we speak out for healthy gay marriages also?
Should we speak out against Gay marriages ending in divorce?
No. There are plenty of other people out there to do that. But it is rather disturbing at the very least that the divorce rate among Christian is equal to the divorce rate of the world. My original question was how does gay marriage pose a threat to heterosexual marriage and I don't see that it does. There are other issues that seem to pose a much more imediate threat to the traditonal family structure including pornography, and the growing trend of young women (not teenagers) desiring to become mothers but have no intention of marrying the father or delay marriage until much later (and of course, the men are all too willing to go along for the ride...dogs we are I tell you).
Right answer, wrong reason.
-
Question:
Do you think God is for or opposed to Gay Marriages?
Please be honest.
-
You could've simply said you don't want to answer the question. :P
Yeah she could have, but that wouldn't be any fun :).
-
You could've simply said you don't want to answer the question. :P
Oh, I don't mind answering the question. I assumed it was rhetorical. :-\
Should we speak out for healthy gay marriages also?
Ummm... my guess is that if a person doesn't support gay marriage, they probably wouldn't want to support healthy gay marriage. So, that would be a no.
Should we speak out against Gay marriages ending in divorce?
Same answer applies.
No. There are plenty of other people out there to do that. But it is rather disturbing at the very least that the divorce rate among Christian is equal to the divorce rate of the world. My original question was how does gay marriage pose a threat to heterosexual marriage and I don't see that it does. There are other issues that seem to pose a much more imediate threat to the traditonal family structure including pornography, and the growing trend of young women (not teenagers) desiring to become mothers but have no intention of marrying the father or delay marriage until much later (and of course, the men are all too willing to go along for the ride...dogs we are I tell you).
I totally agree.
-
Question:
Do you think God is for or opposed to Gay Marriages?
Please be honest.
Are you seriously asking this?
-
Are you seriously asking this?
Yes. Will you answer?
-
True. But this thread is about Gay marriage.
So we can only stay on topic? Hmmmmm That would be a first. We spend way more time talking about gay marriage than talking about what it takes to have healthy marriages.
-
So we can only stay on topic? Hmmmmm That would be a first. We spend way more time talking about gay marriage than talking about what it takes to have healthy marriages.
Nooooo, that's not what I meant.
I just didn't want us to use "there are other important things" as a excuse/backdoor to escape the topic at hand.
-
So we can only stay on topic? Hmmmmm That would be a first. We spend way more time talking about gay marriage than talking about what it takes to have healthy marriages.
Well, when yall decide to start talking about healthy marriages, I've got a few leftover tidbits from Psychology class that I can drop on yall. ;D
-
Yes. Will you answer?
What is the point of asking? ?/?
-
I know where I stand, but I don't. I was taught anything not for God is against God and no sin is bigger or smaller than any other sin.
With this I hate being as undecided as I am because of my teaching, but it's perpelxing. I don't usually get into things like this but I just thought I'd share my conflicted point of view.
Even though we can't force God's word on to people, God is still real whether any body believes it or not. It's like gravity, I could say gravity is a bunch of balogna all I want, but the proof of it's existance is the fact that I'm still on the ground whether I want to believe in it or not.
I thought that giving gay people the same rights a married people but under a different name would be fine, but then I though about my gravity example. I can say, "gravity isn't holding me down, Avengty's Law of Weight and People (made up) is holding me down." Whatever, it's still gravity.
What I do know is if we go after gay marriage there's a crap load of other thing that we should go after as well. This point was already made in this thread. The thing is here that now the finger will be pointed back at the heterosexuals who commit these sins. Maybe God allowed this to happen so that people could see just that.
This just seems like one of those situations where you can apply biblical principles, but you can't come swinging a Bible in your hand, you know? :-\
-
Well, when yall decide to start talking about healthy marriages, I've got a few leftover tidbits from Psychology class that I can drop on yall. ;D
Don't hold your breath TJ. We kinda like having you around. :D
-
What is the point of asking? ?/?
Because I've seen comments to the effect of
"I don't care either way",
or
"Our laws don't govern others"
But if we know that God is opposed to it, how do we carry these views?
-
Question:
Do you think God is for or opposed to Gay Marriages?
Please be honest.
:)
-
Well, when yall decide to start talking about healthy marriages, I've got a few leftover tidbits from Psychology class that I can drop on yall. ;D
Start a thread on healthy marriages and drop some knowledge on us Tj Freud.
:D
-
Homosexuals and gay marriage are easy targets. There are a lot of other issues we should be just as vocal against but often aren't. Leading by example is also a novel concept.
I totally agree.
**Setting up anti-themidiroom campaign**
-
I totally agree.
**Setting up anti-themidiroom campaign**
ROLMBO :D
-
Because I've seen comments to the effect of
"I don't care either way",
or
"Our laws don't govern others"
But if we know that God is opposed to it, how do we carry these views?
You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it. I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).
-
...
2) Doesn't fining church violate church and state? The state is, pretty much telling the Christian church to veer from what they believe in or else they will pay consequences. I wonder if Islamic churches have this same issue. (BTW: I know of this guy who was a Christian and gay, but then when he converted to Islam he said he wasn't gay anymore because it's not allowed in Islam. ?/? Alas, another thread for another day. :) )
I don't think that part can happen. If a church chooses not to perform your wedding ceremony, it does not mean they are not allowing you to get married. They're just not letting you do it there. You can always go somewhere else. A friend of mine was a member of Perfecting Church (Marvin Winans' church) in Detroit. When she asked to have her wedding there at the church, they said "NO" because she and her fiance' had...errrr.."jumped the gun" shall we say :-X . They did not say you can't still be members here.....they did not say we won't recognize your marriage....They just said, "y'all go on downtown to the sheriff's office and get married LEGALLY then y'all come on back here and we'll love you.
Peace,
James
-
They're healthy carbs...like vermicelli (which literaly means "little worms" in Italian).
Thing is that there are a lot of unsaved heterosexual people who get married and could care less about the sprititual aspect of it (for that matter, there are quite a few uninformed Christians who enter into marriage lightly without any regard for the spiritual). In fact, proponents of gay marriage will argue that this isn't abut religion, but rather about having the rights and privilliges that they feel they deserve as American citizens. So my question to you is this; why not call it a marriage? If they are enjoying all the same legal and social benefits, then wouldn't it be a marriage by default? Simply modifying existing laws to appease them and maintain the traditional definition of marriage will not work. They want full equality and acceptance.
In my first post on this topic I mentioned a co-worker who is in a committed gay relationship. I've known him for years and often heard him discussing with others the things he and his spouse were going to do, places they were going to go, hangin' out with family, sharing the cooking duties, I could go on and on. I was very impressed that he spoke so lovingly of his wife and the things they were going to do together and how they made family decisions. Because his Sig-Other has a name that could be male or female, it was at least a couple years before I realized the person he was talking about was another man. At the same time, I know hetero couples where one or the other chooses not to come home on occasion, or where one makes all the financial decisions, or is totally uninvolved in raising the kids. I step back and ask myself, who presents the better model? Even though I do not care for or choose to participate in the gay life-style, seeing a positive example of it made it very difficult for me to condemn this co-worker based on a fact it took me a couple years to learn.
So I have no problem with gays entering into committed relationships. I would PREFER not to see it called MARRIAGE because there needs to be some way to discern between unions made and documented within the legal system and unions made and blessed by the church. I recognize that leaves a HUGE loophole for weddings of hetero couples who don't even wonder whether or not there is a God, but heck, I can't solve e'erthing ;D ;D ;D
Peace,
James
-
... I just don't agree with people telling me what I should speak out against. I just feel a little irked that we, as a body, pay so much attention to preventing one group of society from marrying, and so little attention to ministering to those who are struggling to keep their marriages together or those who are shacking or remarrying.
That's all I'm saying. But, I don't want my point to be lost, so I'll reiterate: whatever floats your boat.
WELLLLLLL!!!
-
Pants - yep
Pinot Noir - NEVER... yuck! Hate that stuff... now offer me some White Merlot and you got yourself a bad apple, indeed! LOL
White merlot?!? It's against nature; it actually does not exist. How about a nice sauvignon blanc or a pinot grigio instead.
-
At the same time, I know hetero couples where one or the other chooses not to come home on occasion, or where one makes all the financial decisions, or is totally uninvolved in raising the kids. I step back and ask myself, who presents the better model?
Why is it that you choose to see the broken hetero relationships and compare them to a single homo relationship in order to ask the question? All you're doing is comparing the world to the world. What do you expect the result to be?
Why not, instead, look at the Biblical role model for marriage according to the Scriptures and then compare that to all the relationships in the world? I'd bet you that you'd fine both homo and hetero marriages in the "fail" column.
-
You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it. I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).
This county was built from religion. The reason for the pilgrams coming here was because they wanted freedom to worship God in there own way without death.
If we are going to talk about gay marriages and if you aggree or not, this really isnt a choice concedering that the bible speaks on this topic, so there is really nothing to think about. There is no intrepetating, it is very clear.
With that said this is why we have so many different religions popping up. Everyone doesnt want to live by the whole bible not half or pick and choose what they want to agree with and the rest they forget about. We can debate about these issues all day but if the body of Christ would come together in one voice it will make a difference, But the promblem if someone did half there members will leave there church or no church would back them. Sad but true, we sit in here talking but the bible says NO, secondly it is not natural, nor morally correct and if you disagree you should pray and really read your bible. These are the end times and instead of becoming stronger we sound like we are divided about things clearly in the bible.
(side note: I know someone is going to grammer check me) ::)
-
Why is it that you choose to see the broken hetero relationships and compare them to a single homo relationship in order to ask the question?
Because in this specific instance I was relating to you MY THOUGHT PROCESS in figuring out if and how my perception of my co-worker's relationship should change at the point that I learned it was not a hetero relationship. So at that point I weight the quality of that relationship to the quality of other relationships that I am familiar with. No need for me to focus on the whole universe in defining my own view of this one relationship. Just my own little sphere of exposure and influence. That's how I came upon my position to the original poster's question.....Does legalizing gay marriage affect MY marriage. The answer is NO.
All you're doing is comparing the world to the world. What do you expect the result to be?
True. And there you will find the CONSISTENT thread in my comments. There are elements of marriage that are holy and there are elements of marriage that are legal. I can support gay couples enjoying the benefits of marriage that are of the world (or of the law as I describe in my earlier posts). The aspects of marriage that are sacred and holy need to remain such. Again, the primary reason I would LIKE for non-religious unions to be called something else.
Why not, instead, look at the Biblical role model for marriage according to the Scriptures and then compare that to all the relationships in the world? I'd bet you that you'd fine both homo and hetero marriages in the "fail" column.
Hopefully you read in the post from which you clipped my comments that I said exactly that. That there are good and bad examples of relationships in both gay and hetero couples. Because everyone who gets "married" be they gay or hetero is not necessarily a believer of what's in the Bible. Unless we are proponents of restricting marriage to only those who profess belief in the Bible, we simply have to except that.
Peace,
James
-
Here's the bottom line for me...and understand that I'm still learning as I go and have failed in the past, but experienced grace and mercy and forgiveness and more and my marriage was restored to better than before...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.
Just like everything else, if people can work the Bible out of the equation, the floodgates will open and alternatives to the "standard" will be offered up as normal. Have that alternative happen over and over and all of the sudden you get people who are supposed to believe in the Bible saying "I don't see the big deal in the alternative".
God didn't change the standard; we did.
-
Here's the bottom line for me...and understand that I'm still learning as I go and have failed in the past, but experienced grace and mercy and forgiveness and more and my marriage was restored to better than before...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.
Just like everything else, if people can work the Bible out of the equation, the floodgates will open and alternatives to the "standard" will be offered up as normal. Have that alternative happen over and over and all of the sudden you get people who are supposed to believe in the Bible saying "I don't see the big deal in the alternative".
God didn't change the standard; we did.
Excellently stated.
-
(clears throat just a bit)
I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .
Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?
The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?
What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . . ;))
BBoy
-
(clears throat just a bit)
I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .
Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?
The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?
What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . . ;))
BBoy
i agree with you, we are supoose to preach the word the whole word of God but we are in fear or un-willingness to stand on God's word. ::)
-
(clears throat just a bit)
I'm gonna take a bit of a different tone this time, instead of the preacher stance . . .
Doesn't the Bible say that we are the salt of the world? (Of course it does, I'm just trying to provoke thought). If we allow certain things to just go by without speaking up against them, what good are we as Christians?
The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. How could it not be a reproach to us if we let this go by without speaking up against it?
What good are we preachers if we don't say anything? (Whoops, there goes my preacher stance again . . . ;))
BBoy
I don't see where anyone in this thread is saying it's ok, condoning it, etc.
I think the level of passion given towards speaking to this particular issue is varied, that's it.
-
I don't see where anyone in this thread is saying it's ok, condoning it, etc.
I think the level of passion given towards speaking to this particular issue is varied, that's it.
...greatly.
-
...greatly.
Absolutely.
-
...the bottom line is that if we're to believe the Bible, then it trumps all other examples of marriage as it has the earliest form of marriage on record; Adam and Eve.
So, it would seem "normal" that anyone entering into marriage would follow the standard set near the beginning of time, yes? Instead, we've allowed the world to redefine what is to be a holy commitment.
Great points. There are two things that God made holy in Eden before the fall (Marriage and..........). Both of which have been/are being redefined and trampled on.
-
Great points. There are two things that God made holy in Eden before the fall (Marriage and..........). Both of which have been/are being redefined and trampled on.
I still think there's a difference between the holy union before God and a legal agreement recognized by the state.
-
I still think there's a difference between the holy union before God and a legal agreement recognized by the state.
I agree.
-
You can disagree with something, but still not believe there should be a law against it. I believe in taxpaying citizens' freedom to choose their own religion, which means that they should not be bound by laws based on religions they don't believe in (IMO).
I guess all the ten commandments should be nullified to huh... and while ur at it i guess the biggest law itself the bible might as well be trashed too.... mmmm.. naw that's what laws are for the lawless which are folks like us.. humans. Even angels have laws.
-
I guess all the ten commandments should be nullified to huh... and while ur at it i guess the biggest law itself the bible might as well be trashed too.... mmmm.. naw that's what laws are for the lawless which are folks like us.. humans. Even angels have laws.
I thought the ten commandments had been nullified. At least, that was my understanding.
-
I thought the ten commandments had been nullified. At least, that was my understanding.
They've been fulfilled by Christ himself to my knowledge. :-\
-
They've been fulfilled by Christ, himself to my knowledge. :-\
fulfilled = nullified?
-
I guess all the ten commandments should be nullified to huh...
Only nullify 8 of them bruh. 80/20 rule. ;D
-
fulfilled = nullified?
You know what, actually, that's a good question.
Sabbath observers would say, 'No' I'm pretty sure.
-
They've been fulfilled by Christ himself to my knowledge. :-\
do you know what the definition of nullified is?????? No all of the scriptures have not been fulfilled. Some of them have been fulfilled but not all. I was making a clear distinction between why God made laws in the bible to the laws we have today. And a law is not a fulfillment it is a requirement for all. You have not fulfilled that law unless you have obeyed or acknowleged it and not have broken. The context you reference with fulfillment and nullification is an erronious logic. I guess you all say my logic is screwed up because i believe all the bible and not just portions i want to pick and choose that i am comfortable with. Another thing i seem to have noticed no one has answered the question Incognegro brought up about Whether you believe God opposes same sex marriage...
So i will... YES God opposes it and if God does so must I .
I Oppose it.
-
Only nullify 8 of them bruh. 80/20 rule. ;D
Now you're speakin my language! :D
-
They've been fulfilled by Christ himself to my knowledge. :-\
I guess those commandments and the laws in the bible where only meant for Jesus Christ to adhere to and since he did that they are fulfilled.... ?/?
-
I guess those commandments and the laws in the bible where only meant for Jesus Christ to adhere to and since he did that they are fulfilled.... ?/?
Meaning one of two things...
1. We have a license to live however we chose AND still go to heaven.
2. We have...well...I won't hijack the thread :D
-
Well - California's Supreme Court has upheld Prop. 8, banning same-sex marriage - but has also refused to nullify the same-sex marriages made before it passed...
?/?
-
Well - California's Supreme Court has upheld Prop. 8, banning same-sex marriage - but has also refused to nullify the same-sex marriages made before it passed...
?/?
Well that is a victory.....u win some u loose some... overall a HUGE WIN.
-
I thought the ten commandments had been nullified. At least, that was my understanding.
The Law has been fulfilled in Christ; therefore we are free from the law. Under the law we were condemed, but under Christ we have grace. We are not free to live lawlessly, but we are free to live in righteousness through Christ Jesus our Lord. So it is not the law that has been nullified, but rather the judgement that we would have endured if not for the Jesus' blood.
-
The Law has been fulfilled in Christ; therefore we are free from the law. Under the law we were condemed, but under Christ we have grace. We are not free to live lawlessly, but we are free to live in righteousness through Christ Jesus our Lord. So it is not the law that has been nullified, but rather the judgement that we would have endured if not for the Jesus' blood.
Indeed.
I was going to post this website...know what, I'll post it anyway:
What does it mean to fulfill the Law (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/76_What_Does_It_Mean_to_Fulfill_the_Law_in_Romans_834/)
-
The Law has been fulfilled in Christ; therefore we are free from the law. Under the law we were condemed, but under Christ we have grace. We are not free to live lawlessly, but we are free to live in righteousness through Christ Jesus our Lord. So it is not the law that has been nullified, but rather the judgement that we would have endured if not for the Jesus' blood.
i'm talking about the ten commandments. Do u know what nullified means? judgement has not been nullified. The penalty has been changed. We wont be punished eternally for them. So the laws remain its just the punishment from disobedience to these laws have been altered but neither changed nor nullified.
-
overall a HUGE WIN.
Well I'm happy. :D
-
Indeed.
I was going to post this website...know what, I'll post it anyway:
What does it mean to fulfill the Law ([url]http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/76_What_Does_It_Mean_to_Fulfill_the_Law_in_Romans_834/[/url])
Lemme help u by posting Scripture...
1 John 2:4 (King James Version)
2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
-
Indeed.
I was going to post this website...know what, I'll post it anyway:
What does it mean to fulfill the Law ([url]http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/76_What_Does_It_Mean_to_Fulfill_the_Law_in_Romans_834/[/url])
Those references are good. but let me add. in order to Fullfill one must first DO or have an action and that action must be in accordance to the law. So in accordance to the law regarding homosexuality and marriage if one does not take any action towards the law of the Lord he is not in fulfillment towards that law but in disobedience. Fullfillment = ACTION
-
Y'all know this is now officially my type of discussion. But I'll refrain :D
-
Also INACTION = ACTION as well.
-
Y'all know this is now officially my type of discussion. But I'll refrain :D
Feel free.. i'm interested on peoples fews and perspectives.
-
Y'all know this is now officially my type of discussion. But I'll refrain :D
I'm surprised it's still going. Must be a slow news day. :D
-
i'm talking about the ten commandments. Do u know what nullified means? judgement has not been nullified. The penalty has been changed. We wont be punished eternally for them. So the laws remain its just the punishment from disobedience to these laws have been altered but neither changed nor nullified.
The Law includes the Ten Commandments plus a host of ordinances. It is impossible for us to satisfy God's requirement of righteousness by trying (and always failing) to keep the law. To say that the whole law - including the Ten Commandments - was fulfilled in Christ does not mean that we can just go ahead and live our lives any way we please with impunity. For starters, if we are truly born of the Spirit we are dead to sin. And if we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? We were condemned under the law; but through Christ's obedience and fulfillment, we are found to be righteous in the eyes of God. The punishment has been nullified because there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ and walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.
-
The Law includes the Ten Commandments plus a host of ordinances. It is impossible for us to satisfy God's requirement of righteousness by trying (and always failing) to keep the law. To say that the whole law - including the Ten Commandments - was fulfilled in Christ does not mean that we can just go ahead and live our lives any way we please with impunity. For starters, if we are truly born of the Spirit we are dead to sin. And if we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? We were condemned under the law; but through Christ's obedience and fulfillment, we are found to be righteous in the eyes of God. The punishment has been nullified because there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ and walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.
You can't use scripture to condone sin. They must stop sinning inoder to before given. Jesus Christ died to make it available for us to CHOOSE whether or not we want to acknowlege that he died on the Cross for our sins and then turn away from sin and not do it anymore.
-
You can't use scripture to condone sin. They must stop sinning inoder to before given. Jesus Christ died to make it available for us to CHOOSE whether or not we want to acknowlege that he died on the Cross for our sins and then turn away from sin and not do it anymore.
Who's using Scripture to condone sin ?/?
-
Who's using Scripture to condone sin ?/?
Exactly. No one has. No one believes homosexuality to be right. No one has said any of that. :-\
-
It's wrong as two left shoes (and I have been there, go figure).
Seems like a very informative discussion, guys.
However, I have to wonder....for the straight musicians who KNOW that your homeboy who plays bass has groupies on every tour and has 'banged' at least four girls in each section of the choir....are you just as hard on your homeboy? Or is it okay because he messes with girls instead of dudes (that you know of)?
I am shocked these days to discover that a lot of my musician friends who give 'thumbs down' to a homosexual give 'thumbs up' to the homeboy with the biggest scorecard in the choirstand. Seriously.
Just wondering.
-
NOW let the discussion begin LOLOL. Wow....
-
....However, I have to wonder....for the straight musicians who KNOW that your homeboy who plays bass has groupies on every tour and has 'banged' at least four girls in each section of the choir....are you just as hard on your homeboy? Or is it okay because he messes with girls instead of dudes (that you know of)?
I am shocked these days to discover that a lot of my musician friends who give 'thumbs down' to a homosexual give 'thumbs up' to the homeboy with the biggest scorecard in the choirstand. Seriously.
Just wondering.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5EjU4729CNqEzM:http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/PHD/PHD593/200122842-001.jpg)
This oughta be good
-
([url]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5EjU4729CNqEzM:http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/PHD/PHD593/200122842-001.jpg[/url])
This oughta be good
Yo, man!! Grab, grab pass, bruh; grab, grab, pass! >:(
:D :D :D :D
-
Y'all are really funny tonight, I see. LOL!!
I am not trying to start World War Four, geesh.
I have a friend who Pastors a church. He wants me to work with his choir in the absence of a Director/someone to teach parts.
He says rehearsals fluctuate because his organist doesn't drive. He said he'd be responsible for getting him there whenever I chose to have a rehearsal because the musician 'stays with his gal' a few blocks away.
That is what provoked my question. Put the popcorn down, please. It was a provoked question/issue that I seriously wondered where musicians stand on?
-
They must stop sinning inoder to before given.
At this rate, sad to say, I will never be forgiven. Even if I have written off sex, sometimes I curse when people make me mad. Sometimes I get mad and SEVERAL suns go down before I seek to make amends. Sometimes I haven't made amends at all. Sometimes I was in a hurry and drove above the speed limit. Sometimes I lie, etc.
So, if I read this correctly, this comment alludes to the fact that "until I'm able to cast the first stone, forgiveness will never be an option for me".
Why am I constantly praying for forgiveness knowing that I might be running late for work tomorrow and drive 70 instead of 65? And when I get there, Samantha might have on a tight skirt with her feet out....AND I WILL LOOK!!!!
You truly DO learn something new every day.
-
This topic has gone off on several tangents over the cours of time. Since my original question was how legalizing gay marriage would impact traditonal good old fashined man-and-woman gettin' it on marriage, I have to say that it probably wont have any impact. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I still don't see how allowing gays to marry would impact heterosexual marriage. Although we may not be on the same page with regards to weather they should have the legal right to marry, we all pretty much agree - per the Word of God - that homosexuality is wrong.
-
This topic has gone off on several tangents over the cours of time. Since my original question was how legalizing gay marriage would impact traditonal good old fashined man-and-woman gettin' it on marriage, I have to say that it probably wont have any impact. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I still don't see how allowing gays to marry would impact heterosexual marriage. Although we may not be on the same page with regards to weather they should have the legal right to marry, we all pretty much agree - per the Word of God - that homosexuality is wrong.
It will impact it adversely because our kids will see a man/man or woman/woman marriage as 'normal' and legal long before they're old enough to read where God says it's not right.
To a young, impressionable child, LEGAL means RIGHT. It may not affect us much now, but in the future the legalization of such foolishness will only corrupt and corrode the corridors of impressionable minds.
In other words.....
I don't like it. It ain't right. LOL!!!!!
-
The Devil is a Lier
-
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. I think when you have anything that is pure, the more ways you have to defile it, the harder it is to maintain the authentic purity. With alot of these issues, I am just continually reminded of the scripture where Jesus says let the tare and wheat grow together and at due time, they shall be separated.
-
I think when you have anything that is pure, the more ways you have to defile it, the harder it is to maintain the authentic purity.
Please don't sue me if I use that.....
*dropping $5,000 LGM dollars in BassbyGrace's offering basket*
-
It's wrong as two left shoes (and I have been there, go figure).
Seems like a very informative discussion, guys.
However, I have to wonder....for the straight musicians who KNOW that your homeboy who plays bass has groupies on every tour and has 'banged' at least four girls in each section of the choir....are you just as hard on your homeboy? Or is it okay because he messes with girls instead of dudes (that you know of)?
I am shocked these days to discover that a lot of my musician friends who give 'thumbs down' to a homosexual give 'thumbs up' to the homeboy with the biggest scorecard in the choirstand. Seriously.
Just wondering.
I think that over the years, heterosexual sin has been more "acceptable" than homosexual sin. If you're a guy who has been found out to be sleeping around with women, yes your actions are frowned upon and in many (but not all) cases, there are disciplinary actions that follow...some may be quite severe. But often times, you will be forgiven and restored to fellowship. Now if, OTOH, you are found out to be gay then not only are you punished, but you will be stigmatized as a pervert because most people in church see homosexualilty as just plain wierd. They'll keep their kids away from you and treat you a little differently from then on.
-
I think that over the years, heterosexual sin has been more "acceptable" than homosexual sin. If you're a guy who has been found out to be sleeping around with women, yes your actions are frowned upon and in many (but not all) cases, there are disciplinary actions that follow...some may be quite severe. But often times, you will be forgiven and restored to fellowship. Now if, OTOH, you are found out to be gay then not only are you punished, but you will be stigmatized as a pervert because most people in church see homosexualilty as just plain wierd. They'll keep their kids away from you and treat you a little differently from then on.
We've all be told that "There are no big sin or little sin. Sin is sin."
But that isn't true. It's not scriptural.
There are some sins for which God would mete out mild discipline, and others for which the penalty would be death.
Homosexuality is the sin that caused God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.
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.
-
We've all be told that "There are no big sin or little sin. Sin is sin."
But that isn't true. It's not scriptural.
There are some sins for which God would mete out mild discipline, and others for which the penalty would be death.
Homosexuality is the sin that caused God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.
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.
funkstrat 97,
The comment in bold was directed to the board. Not you.
-
I'll be back....LOL :D
-
Does it really matter which sin is supposedly "worse" than others?
Honestly, does it matter?
1 Corinthians 6:9 makes it clear that neither homosexuals nor adulterers nor thieves, etc...will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In that regard, sin IS sin. You ain't getting into Heaven. Does it matter the level that you don't get in?
No.
-
You can't use scripture to condone sin. They must stop sinning inoder to before given. Jesus Christ died to make it available for us to CHOOSE whether or not we want to acknowlege that he died on the Cross for our sins and then turn away from sin and not do it anymore.
OK, I'm assuming that for the part in bold, what you meant to say was: "They must stop sinning in order to be forgiven"[/size]. Either way, that is VERY unbiblical. The Bible does not say that "if we stop sinning He is faithful and just to forgive us". Just thought I'd throw that $0.02 in.
-
OK, I'm assuming that for the part in bold, what you meant to say was: "They must stop sinning in order to be forgiven"[/size]. Either way, that is VERY unbiblical. The Bible does not say that "if we stop sinning He is faithful and just to forgive us". Just thought I'd throw that $0.02 in.
*adding $0.23 to it to make a full quarter*
-
*adding $0.23 to it to make a full quarter*
Thank ya, suh!! Now I can go buy a pack of Now & Later's! :)
-
It will impact it adversely because our kids will see a man/man or woman/woman marriage as 'normal' and legal long before they're old enough to read where God says it's not right.
To a young, impressionable child, LEGAL means RIGHT. It may not affect us much now, but in the future the legalization of such foolishness will only corrupt and corrode the corridors of impressionable minds.
In other words.....
I don't like it. It ain't right. LOL!!!!!
It's not illegal to tell a lie but children learn at an early age that it's wrong. That's what parents are for. We all see some sort of gay or seemingly gay activities out there. You teach your kids what's right and wrong and move on with your lives.
-
It's not illegal to tell a lie but children learn at an early age that it's wrong. That's what parents are for. We all see some sort of gay or seemingly gay activities out there. You teach your kids what's right and wrong and move on with your lives.
I don't like it. It ain't right! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
It's not illegal to tell a lie but children learn at an early age that it's wrong. That's what parents are for. We all see some sort of gay or seemingly gay activities out there. You teach your kids what's right and wrong and move on with your lives.
Yes and no. You don't stop praying for your kids to do right consistently.
You continue to teach your children to make the best choice possible in all situations.
God simply takes that to another level with His word.
-
I don't like it. It ain't right! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's it time for your organ lesson? LOL
-
It's it time for your organ lesson? LOL
One hour and thirty minutes to go. On pins!!! Got my keys wrapped around my finger as I type. GEEKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(btw....my lesson is only 45 minutes, so I hope you're available to answer questions when I get home....LOL!!!!)
-
One hour and thirty minutes to go. On pins!!! Got my keys wrapped around my finger as I type. GEEKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(btw....my lesson is only 45 minutes, so I hope you're available to answer questions when I get home....LOL!!!!)
I'm not an organist. I just play one on TV.
-
Homosexuality is the sin that caused God to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah.
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.
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.
-
Does it really matter which sin is supposedly "worse" than others?Honestly, does it matter?
1 Corinthians 6:9 makes it clear that neither homosexuals nor adulterers nor thieves, etc...will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In that regard, sin IS sin. You ain't getting into Heaven. Does it matter the level that you don't get in?
No.
The scripture you cite notes that regardless of what sin you commit, if you don't repent, you're going to hell.
My point was that all sin are not equal. Yes, all sin is wrong. That's not disputed.
But God Himself judged on the severity of the sin, so clearly they are not all equal. That's scripture.
-
*white cheddar please*
-
I have always thought that homosexuals were born homosexuals, and would always be. To ask an homosexual to stop seeing men is the same as asking a straight man to stop seeing women. It is not going to happen. I think you get into an excercise in futility when you try to make homosexuals straight as you often get other people hurt.(wives, children etc.). I don't put people in heaven or hell. I can't see what is in their heads or their hearts. I leave that to God. If your son or daughter, grandaughter etc. were homosexual, would you turn your back on them? Would you shun or isolate them?
It is hard for me to see gay marriage, though. Gays can't have children together and that is an assumed part of the institution of marriage. I also feel that it sends too many messages to too many segments even to the extent of encourgaging gay behavior in those who are not gay.(hero worship, role model influence)
I have enough on my plate to ask God for forgiveness for. I just ain't looking at anybody else. My thoughts, though, lead me to believe that legalized gay marriage is not a good thing.
To those who pray to God in their weaknesses, gay or straight, and ask for strength to endure the things that in all their efforts they can't overcome,
I believe that God will answer.
berbie
-
cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5)
\
I knew it.
Tyler Perry is goin ta hell.
-
I have always thought that homosexuals were born homosexuals, and would always be. To ask an homosexual to stop seeing men is the same as asking a straight man to stop seeing women. It is not going to happen. I think you get into an excercise in futility when you try to make homosexuals straight as you often get other people hurt.(wives, children etc.). I don't put people in heaven or hell. I can't see what is in their heads or their hearts. I leave that to God. If your son or daughter, grandaughter etc. were homosexual, would you turn your back on them? Would you shun or isolate them?
It is hard for me to see gay marriage, though. Gays can't have children together and that is an assumed part of the institution of marriage. I also feel that it sends too many messages to too many segments even to the extent of encourgaging gay behavior in those who are not gay.(hero worship, role model influence)
I have enough on my plate to ask God for forgiveness for. I just ain't looking at anybody else. My thoughts, though, lead me to believe that legalized gay marriage is not a good thing.
To those who pray to God in their weaknesses, gay or straight, and ask for strength to endure the things that in all their efforts they can't overcome,
I believe that God will answer.
berbie
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. ;D
-
I knew it.
Tyler Perry is goin ta hell.
:D :D :D
-
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. ;D
:D :D :D
-
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?
I get your point here, Dave, as this argument has been made before on both sides, but from a purely common sense standpoint, you can't surely believe that choosing to rape someone (non-consensual, illegal forced sex/violence/assault) is the same as consentual relations between adults? It can be viewed as apples and oranges. (I know the BIBLICAL standpoint, but as LaRue pointed out earlier, everyone does not believe in the Bible, nor are they required to by law, and even those who believe in it can't agree on certain interpretations).
Also, if someone LOVES the color mauve, but the majority of people in the world hate it, should the color mauve and the use thereof be outlawed, or should the mauve-lovers be allowed to live in peace, as long as they aren't going around a spray-painting everybody's houses?
-
Also, if someone LOVES the color mauve, but the majority of people in the world hate it, should the color mauve and the use thereof be outlawed, or should the mauve-lovers be allowed to live in peace, as long as they aren't going around a spray-painting everybody's houses?
Hmmm good point. Funny thing about free will. Some folks will just have to agree to disagree.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Um, what about pork and shellfish???
You don't eat pork and shellfish?
-
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. ;D
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.
-
while that may be YOUR opinion (which you're entitled to), that is NOT scripturally correct.
Wow. Them there's fightin words
-
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! :D
-
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
-
WHAT??!!! Man please! I got grilled shrimp and dungeness crabs in my spirit right now! Had cabbage with ham hock last night! :D
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.
-
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. :P
-
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.
-
WHAT??!!! Man please! I got grilled shrimp and dungeness crabs in my spirit right now! Had cabbage with ham hock last night! :D
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.
-
That is scripturally correct, regardless of what well-worded arguments you present to the contrary. :P
That's funny
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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? ;D There's difference you know.
-
The straw or A straw? ;D There's difference you know.
Nice!
:D :D :D
-
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. :P
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. :)
-
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. ;D
-
Ummm Well Alright. ;D
Seconded!!!
-
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.
-
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". ;)
Citing 20 scriptures to refute a point I WASN'T MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE doesn't count. :D
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. :)
Silly Rabbit. ::)
I'll agree to the rest though. ;)
-
Seconded!!!
Wusssup Big T? Haven't seen you in a minute.
-
Wusssup Big T? Haven't seen you in a minute.
Been working like a Hebrew. Finally have some free time to check in now and then.
-
Been working like a Hebrew. Finally have some free time to check in now and then.
:D :D :D
-
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????
Um..yeah you're not supposed to want for what God brought your from in any circumstance. There's probably some other place in the Bible where people got in trouble for going back to where God delivered them from.
God should have been a loving God and just turned his head and let them run there course and eventually things would turn around.
God not doing something right away or even at all doesn't mean he's loving where as God punishing someone means that he's not loving towards them.
God knew the spirit of that demon was strong and there was NO HOPE.
A strong demon is still no match for God. God gives us chance after chance after chance to get it right. He's not going to force obedience on us. However, he's only going to wait but so long before he shuts that door. Either ask God to help you out of something, to rid the demons in your life from you and you keep at it or you just give in to your flesh and ignore God. If you choose to ignore God you choose His wrath as well.
Have you ever seen a preacher struggle with casting out the spirit of a homosexual individual.
I've yet to see a casting and I'm not really looking forward to it. I heard it's a gruesome thing to see.
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.
True.
-
The straw or A straw? ;D There's difference you know.
You clowning doc!
-
Citing 20 scriptures to refute a point I WASN'T MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE doesn't count. :D
I'm sorry. You lost me here. What point weren't you making? ?/?
Silly Rabbit. ::)
I'll agree to the rest though. ;)
I'm sorry again, maybe you thought that the part you're not agreeing to (the part about not boasting) was a point that I came up with myself, since I didn't post a scripture reference along with it. My apologies. Please see Ephesians 2:8-9. :)
-
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.
You sure have very STRONG feelings about the sin of homosexuality. Are you a counselor or something? ?/?
Or perhaps are you just speaking from personal experience?
-
I'm sorry again, maybe you thought that the part you're not agreeing to (the part about not boasting) was a point that I came up with myself, since I didn't post a scripture reference along with it. My apologies. Please see Ephesians 2:8-9. :)
Yes bro, you can use biblegateway.com. ::)
...and yes, you did take a potshot at me with the boasting comment. But it's cool. ;)
-
Yes bro, you can use biblegateway.com. ::)
...and yes, you did take a potshot at me with the boasting comment. But it's cool. ;)
OK let me clear the record. First of all, I didn't use biblegateway.com to come up with that scripture. Some of us actually KNOW some scriptures! (Note: there is nothing, however, wrong with using bible gateway. Talk about "potshots"! Geez). :-\
I was NOT, I repeat NOT taking a potshot at you with the "boasting" comment. That's the God's honest truth. The whole reason for me to reference "boasting" was with that scripture in mind. If you reread my comments, you will clearly see that I was referring to that scripture because I was talking about salvation through Christ, and if you READ the scripture, the word "boast" is the actual terminology that the bible uses. You TOTALLY misread me on that one, bro. :-\
I have been known to take some potshots at folks at times (I will admit it), but I was not trying to take a potshot at you with that one. I apologize if it came across that way, but that was NOT my intention. Now I understand why you said "silly rabbit", because honestly I didn't at first.
-
OK let me clear the record. First of all, I didn't use biblegateway.com to come up with that scripture. Some of us actually KNOW some scriptures! (Note: there is nothing, however, wrong with using bible gateway. Talk about "potshots"! Geez). :-\
I was NOT, I repeat NOT taking a potshot at you with the "boasting" comment. That's the God's honest truth. The whole reason for me to reference "boasting" was with that scripture in mind. If you reread my comments, you will clearly see that I was referring to that scripture because I was talking about salvation through Christ, and if you READ the scripture, the word "boast" is the actual terminology that the bible uses. You TOTALLY misread me on that one, bro. :-\
I have been known to take some potshots at folks at times (I will admit it), but I was not trying to take a potshot at you with that one. I apologize if it came across that way, but that was NOT my intention. Now I understand why you said "silly rabbit", because honestly I didn't at first.
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::) :) :D
-
::) :) :D
It's all good. We're cool. ;)
-
It's all good. We're cool. ;)
Fo sho, bro! ;D
<----Gives Incognegro the "Obama fist-bump".
-
The color mauve isn't a sin.
The Bible doesn't speak of the color mauve as "working that which is unseemly" or "forsaking the natural use." (Romans Ch 1)
Impressionable young people who see the color mauve may very well walk around and say, "Hey, evidently there is nothing wrong with mauve, because they have painted their house mauve and my parents and society say it is okay, so it must be okay. Or they don't speak out against it, and if it were wrong they would speak out against it."
And yes, we need to speak out against heterosexual fornication as well. Not speaking out against it has resulted in the shape of families (or lack of families) today; young people seem to believe that fornication is no big thing anymore. They don't realize that it impacts their entire life, many times in ways they don't know.
For instance, many times a person who has been in this sin, when married, struggles to attain a level of intimacy because they have learned to hold back part of themselves. It was the only way to protect themselves when they were sinning. Now they have a stronghold in that area, and it is a problem for them and their spouse.
Not only that, but the Bible clearly says that we are not to be deceived, and then lists those who will not inherit the Kingdom of GOD. Fornicators are among that list.
However, heterosexual desire is not against nature, the Bible clearly says that homosexual desire is. God will bless heterosexual desire as long as it is within marriage; saved couples can and should ask GOD to anoint them to meet the other person's needs so they can be a blessing to their spouse.
BBoy
-
Fo sho, bro! ;D
<----Gives Incognegro the "Obama fist-bump".
(http://content1.catalog.photos.msn.com/ft/share0/8ed3/0/4595535.jpg)
"I don't wanna shoot him no more...so...I think that's a step in the right direction."
-
The color mauve isn't a sin.
Yeah it is ;)!
So: who among us has been speaking out agianst homsexuality in a context other than LGM? How many of you have actually taken your message to the steet and what kind of reaction did you get?
-
The color mauve isn't a sin.
The Bible doesn't speak of the color mauve as "working that which is unseemly" or "forsaking the natural use." (Romans Ch 1)
Impressionable young people who see the color mauve may very well walk around and say, "Hey, evidently there is nothing wrong with mauve, because they have painted their house mauve and my parents and society say it is okay, so it must be okay. Or they don't speak out against it, and if it were wrong they would speak out against it."
Ok, BBoy, all LATE to the discussion. :D
The bible doesn't mention the color mauve at all. The "color mauve" example was in reference to the secular, legal viewpoint. I don't recall anyone here suggesting that homosexuality was not a sin. But there are many, MANY other sins that are not ILLEGAL, and the point is that there are times when you are not going to be able to apply your religious views to the rule of law. This is one of them. There are people who believe with ALL THEIR HEATRS that the mixing of the races is SINFUL, and they teach and preach against it in their homes and churches. It is their RIGHT to hold those views, and to teach their children likewise, but they cannot force those views upon the rest of society.
I also seriously doubt that anyone who is homosexual is that way because their parents and churches didn't "speak out against it enough". Why do you think that the churches that are the most "anti-gay" have the MOST homosexuals?
-
([url]http://content1.catalog.photos.msn.com/ft/share0/8ed3/0/4595535.jpg[/url])
"I don't wanna shoot him no more...so...I think that's a step in the right direction."
PWAAHAHAHAHHAA! :D :D
-
Homosexuals getting married will lead to homosexuality becoming even more mainstream than it is now.
That is a valid reason why we, as christians, should oppose homosexuals shouldn't get married.
There are zero reasons why we, as christians, would be better served to keep our mouths shut.
-
Oh, I understand the discussion.
My point is that as a Christian, I know that the Bible is right. It's not just right for us Christians, it is right for everyone. It says that homosexuality is wrong, so how can I as a Christian condone the passing of a bill that allows it to be recognize these arrangements as legal?
Again, I have to go to the Scripture that says righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
And this is a point we don't talk about much, but the Bible does say that the law (meaning the law of the Scripture) indeed has a purpose. It is given to people to stop every mouth and to bring us to Christ. It doesn't save us because it can't, we are unable to keep the law. When GOD saved us, HE made us completely new, and we who are saved have the law written on our hearts by The Holy Spirit. But when we try to offer grace to a sinner without him or her understanding that they are in need of a Savior because they stand condemned by the law, we help to confuse them.
BBoy
-
Oh, I understand the discussion.
My point is that as a Christian, I know that the Bible is right. It's not just right for us Christians, it is right for everyone. It says that homosexuality is wrong, so how can I as a Christian condone the passing of a bill that allows it to be recognize these arrangements as legal?
Again, I have to go to the Scripture that says righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
And this is a point we don't talk about much, but the Bible does say that the law (meaning the law of the Scripture) indeed has a purpose. It is given to people to stop every mouth and to bring us to Christ. It doesn't save us because it can't, we are unable to keep the law. When GOD saved us, HE made us completely new, and we who are saved have the law written on our hearts by The Holy Spirit. But when we try to offer grace to a sinner without him or her understanding that they are in need of a Savior because they stand condemned by the law, we help to confuse them.
BBoy
Finally, the reinforcements have arrived.
Where you been!?!?
-
Oh, I understand the discussion.
My point is that as a Christian, I know that the Bible is right. It's not just right for us Christians, it is right for everyone. It says that homosexuality is wrong, so how can I as a Christian condone the passing of a bill that allows it to be recognize these arrangements as legal?
I understand what you're saying, but since the Bible is right for EVERYONE and the way to "keep people in line" or "lead them to Christ" is through legislation, should we arrest people who don't go to church, are not Christian, or attend Mosques, are Bhuddists, or "new age", since they are "worshipping other Gods?? Should we reinstate prohibition? Should we make pre-marital sex of any kind a felony? I'm not saying we should support gay marriage, but some seem to suggest that homosexuality should be made illegal in all circumstances, and that's just not practical. Oh and BTW abortion is legal also, and that's not likely to change either.
-
Homosexuals getting married will lead to homosexuality becoming even more mainstream than it is now.
That is a valid reason why we, as christians, should oppose homosexuals shouldn't get married.
There are zero reasons why we, as christians, would be better served to keep our mouths shut.
But even witin Christianity (and even other religins), there is a minority faction that has embraced homosexuality and even have congregations that are predominantly gay! As far as legalizing gay marriage making it more "acceptable"; I don't know. It may encourage gays who are still in the closet to come out - perhaps breaking up some sham marriages inthe process - but I doubt that we'll see an epidemic of gays suddenly popping up.
-
....I don't recall anyone here suggesting that homosexuality was not a sin. But there are many, MANY other sins that are not ILLEGAL, and the point is that there are times when you are not going to be able to apply your religious views to the rule of law. This is one of them. There are people who believe with ALL THEIR HEATRS that the mixing of the races is SINFUL, and they teach and preach against it in their homes and churches. It is their RIGHT to hold those views, and to teach their children likewise, but they cannot force those views upon the rest of society.
I also seriously doubt that anyone who is homosexual is that way because their parents and churches didn't "speak out against it enough". Why do you think that the churches that are the most "anti-gay" have the MOST homosexuals?
Loopy,
You are straight up making the point I've been tryin' to make for the length of this thread.
The issue that funkStrat posted aboutis an L-A-W being considered and whether that would have an impact on anyone's marriage. It wasn't a question about whether or not homosexuality is a sin or why Sodom and Gomorrah were vaporized. Those are all issues of faith. The original question was a question of law.
But it's all good. The whole discussion has been educational and at times entertaining.
-
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.
the destruction of s/g went deeper then homosexual acts. it was also about a city where no one was obedient to God. this isn't the only time in the bible where God destroyed nations for disobeying him. lot's wife disobeyed and suffered for it.
to say there is no hope is to say there is no God! the bible says the only sin that won't be judged is lying. and the only sin that want be forgiven is the blaspheming of the holy ghost.
and yes, i have seen people get delivered from strongholds right away and live saved. lastly, i don't know your heart, but your post read with what seems like hatred for those who are gay. you will never reach one if you can't touch them.
-
Yall are sooo entertaining
(http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii314/Jlaws318/Popcorn.gif)
-
The color mauve isn't a sin.
Mebbe, but knowing what 'mauve' is and using it in a sentence is a ManLaw violation......
-
We all know Christians can't discuss anything with gay in it without going back to
is it right or wrong how wrong is it.
-
Homosexuals getting married will lead to homosexuality becoming even more mainstream than it is now.
I don't buy that.
Gay guy or girl: Well I thought about being gay but naaaah because I can't get married. Oh shucks guess I'll just stay str8 until the laws change.
-
Homosexuals getting married will lead to homosexuality becoming even more mainstream than it is now.
Naw.....I disagree. Hollywood, talk shows, and pop music will do that regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal.
There are zero reasons why we, as christians, would be better served to keep our mouths shut.
No argument there. Those Christians who want to speak out against it, should. Those who choose not to, that's their choice.
-
I don't buy that.
Gay guy or girl: Well I thought about being gay but naaaah because I can't get married. Oh shucks guess I'll just stay str8 until the laws change.
Uh...thanks for making me bust a gut and hurt myself, laughing to the point of TEARS at the visual of this.
Some brother you are! LOL!!!
-
Homosexuals getting married will lead to homosexuality becoming even more mainstream than it is now.
Naw.....I disagree. Hollywood, talk shows, and pop music will do that regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal.
I didn't say it would make homosexuality mainstream...it's already mainstream (as you pointed out). It would make it MORE mainstream. It would erase one more difference between straight and gay couples.
I don't buy that.
Gay guy or girl: Well I thought about being gay but naaaah because I can't get married. Oh shucks guess I'll just stay str8 until the laws change.
?/?
I didn't say it would make more people gay. ::) I said homosexuality would become more mainstream. Two different things.
-
I didn't say it would make more people gay. ::) I said homosexuality would become more mainstream. Two different things.
Cool. You win! Herman, hope you didn't hurt yourself with all that laughter.
-
Cool. You win! Herman, hope you didn't hurt yourself with all that laughter.
Darn right I win.
-
I told myself that I would stay out of conversations where the topic includes words like "gay...abortion...tonex..."
...so I'll just watch and sit close to the emergency exit...
-
I don't buy that.
Gay guy or girl: Well I thought about being gay but naaaah because I can't get married. Oh shucks guess I'll just stay str8 until the laws change.
HILL-LARRY-US!!
:D :D :D
Darn right I win.
HERCULES! HERCULES! HERCULES! :D :D
-
Darn right I win.
You want a cookie bruh? :)
-
I told myself that I would stay out of conversations where the topic includes words like "gay...abortion...tonex..."
\
and transpose.
-
You want a cookie bruh? :)
(http://szeryf.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/cookiemonster_1.jpg)
"No, you keep it...trying to quit."
-
and transpose.
oh yea...that too! lol (I have no idea why I forgot that one!) :D :D :D
-
"No, you keep it...trying to quit."
Yes, you really should quit. We agree on something :D
-
Yes, you really should quit. We agree on something :D
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
I didn't say it would make homosexuality mainstream...it's already mainstream (as you pointed out). It would make it MORE mainstream. It would erase one more difference between straight and gay couples.
?/?
I didn't say it would make more people gay. ::) I said homosexuality would become more mainstream. Two different things.
I doubt anyone could ever measure the difference.
-
I doubt anyone could ever measure the difference.
It hasn't happened yet (nationwide), so all I or anyone can do is speculate I guess. :-\
-
I doubt anyone could ever measure the difference.
We're wasting time debating this. I just want you to respond to how the Cimmaron saved Cadillac. ;D
-
We're wasting time debating this. I just want you to respond to how the Cimmaron saved Cadillac. ;D
::)
-
We're wasting time debating this. I just want you to respond to how the Cimmaron saved Cadillac. ;D
Dude,
That's easy......It made it VERY clear that American car buyers aren't easily fooled, so we'd better get SERIOUS about building quality cars ;). How 'bout THAT for a press release!
But of course, that's for that OTHER thread. Now.....back on topic!
-
Dude,
That's easy......It made it VERY clear that American car buyers aren't easily fooled, so we'd better get SERIOUS about building quality cars ;). How 'bout THAT for a press release!
But of course, that's for that OTHER thread. Now.....back on topic!
Well; the opinions expressed on this topic have run the gamut from humerous to semi-hostile (because nobody gets fully hostile here on LGM...we're saved and sanctified :).......right?) and have branched off into a meaningful theological discussion about grace and seems to be about to turn into a car thread (Cadillac Cimarron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Cimarron)...BTW, there's a book out called "Cars We Love to Hate" - looks like it's an entertaining read and will bring back some memories). It would seem that we pretty much have agreed to disagree, but are yet united...somehow :-\. Well for the record, I did post this same topic on Christian Guitar Resurces (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=176961) (my other favorite web-community :-*) and it actually ended up getting closed because it degenerated into pointless arguing. At least we know how to argue with a point ;).
-
How in the world did this discussion turn into a dispute between cars. ?/? ?/? ?/? ?/? ?/?
-
How in the world did this discussion turn into a dispute between cars. ?/? ?/? ?/? ?/? ?/?
There was no dispute about cars. We all agreed that the Cimarron saved Cadillac. :D
-
We're wasting time debating this. I just want you to respond to how the Cimmaron saved Cadillac. ;D
::)
-
::)
Brutha is on a mission from God y'all :D. BTW, while not directly related to the original (yeah whatever) topic, I found this story:
Gay Teen Voted Prom Queen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_us/us_male_prom_queen)
What's next? The Ms. America Pagent :-\?
-
Brutha is on a mission from God y'all :D. BTW, while not directly related to the original (yeah whatever) topic, I found this story:
Gay Teen Voted Prom Queen ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_us/us_male_prom_queen[/url])
What's next? The Ms. America Pagent :-\?
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
-
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
Tell 'em why you mad, son! :D
-
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
:D :D :D :D
-
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
sums it up for me too....
-
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
So now all of my kids just turned around to see why Mr. Mason was WEAK at his desk while they're taking a test. :D
-
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
Nice.
-
Allow me to have a Brooklyn moment.....(sjon, rj, im sure you can attest..)
"NOW SEE, DAT'S DAT OLE B********"
?/? This would probably be really funny if I knew what the last word was. :-\
-
?/? This would probably be really funny if I knew what the last word was. :-\
You're so sanctimified!!!!!
-
?/? This would probably be really funny if I knew what the last word was. :-\
When I count the "***" and buy a vowel ("Alex, I'd like to buy a "U"") I come up with something related to bovine scatology. Meadow muffins. Cow chips.
-
When I count the "***" and buy a vowel ("Alex, I'd like to buy a "U"") I come up with something related to bovine scatology. Meadow muffins. Cow chips.
....I'm still confused. ?/?
-
C'mon, Every black person has a relative who uses that phrase :D
-
C'mon, Every black person has a relative who uses that phrase :D
Yea...my uncle said that when he was watching the game a couple of days ago...no lie :D :D :D
-
Well, after googling "Bovine Scatology", I finally got it. ROFL!!!! :D :D :D
-
Yea...my uncle said that when he was watching the game a couple of days ago...no lie :D :D :D
I had this black professor who you always talk about white people and use that phase, as well as MFs etc, he had the whole class rollin.
-
When I count the "***" and buy a vowel ("Alex, I'd like to buy a "U"") I come up with something related to bovine scatology. Meadow muffins. Cow chips.
If the last letter is an "s" then I get it. Lol!
-
When I count the "***" and buy a vowel ("Alex, I'd like to buy a "U"") I come up with something related to bovine scatology. Meadow muffins. Cow chips.
THIS is TOO funny. :D :D :D :D
-
When I count the "***" and buy a vowel ("Alex, I'd like to buy a "U"") I come up with something related to bovine scatology. Meadow muffins. Cow chips.
Alex doesn't sell vowels; that would Pat and Vanna's job ;).
But it looks like former Veep, Dick Cheney, is now in favor of gay marriage. This will further errode the supposed conservative (psuedo Christian) base of the Republican party and add momentum to the fight for gay rights. Doesn't Cheney have a lesbian daughter?
Cheney Supports Gay Marriage (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06012009/news/nationalnews/former_veep_cheney_says_he_backs_gay_mar_172034.htm).
-
Dick Cheney, is now in favor of gay marriage.
Whats in a name? smh
-
Alex doesn't sell vowels; that would Pat and Vanna's job ;).
PPPPWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D :D :D
To be fair, it's only Pat's job. Vanna's job is to turn them. ;) :D
-
To be fair, it's only Pat's job. Vanna's job is to turn them. ;) :D
Vanna hasnt had to turn em since like 1987. she just touches the screen :D
-
Vanna hasnt had to turn em since like 1987. she just touches the screen :D
Troof.
You'd think she'd be out of a job by now. ::) :D :D :D :D
-
Vanna: Hey guys, I've been on this show for a while and I think it's time for me to get a raise.
WOF Producers: That's funny because we were just thinking about replacing you with a remote control.
-
Vanna: Hey guys, I've been on this show for a while and I think it's time for me to get a raise.
WOF Producers: That's funny because we were just thinking about replacing you with a remote control.
:D :D :D :D
-
Speaking of Vannah, I wish y'all could've seen Joy Behar reading an excerpt from Vannah's book. It was so hilarious!!! Apparently, Vannah wrote an autobiography and included an extensive chapter on the challenges of her career as a letter-turner... LOL! She was dead serious, too!
And as for Dick Cheney, I saw that on CNN this morning. Not sure why they're reporting it as though it's breaking news. Dick has been in favor of gay marriage for a minute, now. That's not new. :-\
Vanna: Hey guys, I've been on this show for a while and I think it's time for me to get a raise.
WOF Producers: That's funny because we were just thinking about replacing you with a remote control.
OMG. I laughed out loud. :D :D :D
-
Speaking of Vannah, I wish y'all could've seen Joy Behar reading an excerpt from Vannah's book. It was so hilarious!!! Apparently, Vannah wrote an autobiography and included an extensive chapter on the challenges of her career as a letter-turner... LOL! She was dead serious, too!
HAHAHA! NO WAY!!! :D :D :D
-
HAHAHA! NO WAY!!! :D :D :D
Oh yes, ma'am. She talked about how she is often praised for making it look so easy, when in reality, it's quite complicated! LOL! I just couldn't take it. I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.
-
HAHAHA! NO WAY!!! :D :D :D
Oh yes, ma'am. She talked about how she is often praised for making it look so easy, when in reality, it's quite complicated! LOL! I just couldn't take it. I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.
LOL!! I gotta go look that up.
-
LOL!! I gotta go look that up.
Please let me know if you find it. I just searched all over the place and came up empty handed. I'd love to see it again, though. It aired on The View in the last 4-6 weeks, I think. I know it was fairly recently.
-
Alex doesn't sell vowels; that would Pat and Vanna's job ;). ...
I just KNEW U13 or TJ would be the one to catch that.
-
oh the difference a few years make since 2009
the POTUS now openly supports it
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/)
Presbyterians debated for more than three hours Friday whether to change their definition of marriage. In the end, they preserved the traditional meaning, upheld a ban on officiating gay weddings, and sustained related tensions that have roiled their denomination for years.
With a 52-percent majority, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shot down a bid at its Pittsburgh meeting to redefine marriage in the church constitution as “a covenant between two people.” As a result, marriage is still defined there as “a civil contract between a woman and a man.”
The Presbyterians are struggling with it also :(
-
This thread is old as dirt....
-
This thread is old as dirt....
Even by PHB standards?
But it is interesting, since I are (int) Presbyterian.
-
Speaking of Vannah, I wish y'all could've seen Joy Behar reading an excerpt from Vannah's book. It was so hilarious!!! Apparently, Vannah wrote an autobiography and included an extensive chapter on the challenges of her career as a letter-turner... LOL! She was dead serious, too!
And as for Dick Cheney, I saw that on CNN this morning. Not sure why they're reporting it as though it's breaking news. Dick has been in favor of gay marriage for a minute, now. That's not new. :-\
HAHAHA! NO WAY!!! :D :D :D
Oh yes, ma'am. She talked about how she is often praised for making it look so easy, when in reality, it's quite complicated! LOL! I just couldn't take it. I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.
LOL!! I gotta go look that up.
Please let me know if you find it. I just searched all over the place and came up empty handed. I'd love to see it again, though. It aired on The View in the last 4-6 weeks, I think. I know it was fairly recently.
It's not clear, but...... I FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the first part of this clip:
Celebrity Autobiography on THE VIEW! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Iir9Zo2eG8#)
-
with the supreme court hearing about Prop 8 in Cali looks like it will be an open and shut case since it is so narrow .... at least to my inexperience eyes
-
oh wait or is this about DOMA ... i'm confused
-
Both DOMA and Prop 8 are before the Supreme Court.
How they handle each case will be very interesting to see, for sure.
-
I posted my prediction on blyempowered.blogspot.com.
-
reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.
-
reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.
Sadly, this is truth.
-
Sadly, this is truth.
There is a shift in our society where gay marriage and homosexuality in general are viewed as being a new normal and no longer have the stigma of immorality attached to them. With the installation of a new Pope, there is even hope (among proponents) that the Catholic church will change its stance on homosexuality and indeed the church as a whole is not as strong in its opposition; it has already been accepted b the Episcopal church. Additionally, 56% of US protestants say that homosexuality should be accepted.
Pew Research Center: Episcopalians Accept Homosexuality (2010). (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/episcopalians-accept-homosexuality/)
-
reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.
I was in a room where Rush Limbaugh (don't ask why I was listening it was not by choice) he just said hey we should legalize it every where so that the Democrats can not use it as a divisive issue which causes the GOP to lose votes and that the focus can return to the economy.
-
And I read an article that was talking about how in this debate the argument from those who support gay marriage/marriage equality (for the record, not the same people. Some support gay marriage and some support marriage equality but not gay marriage the lifestyle) that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose is winning and beyond the Bible there's no counterargument working. I think I agree with that article. And yes, it's never been a matter of if, it's a matter of when in light of the direction of the world and in the context of what America is (land of the free).
-
Justice Sotomayor asked a very powerful question the other day regarding the gay marriage debate:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" And then she referenced "polygamy and incest among adults," as other forms of relationships that could constitute marriage if the traditional form were found unconstitutional.
This is very serious stuff that I have brought up for years regarding this debate, but I always get shut down as some sort of extremist.
So, here's a Supreme Court justice saying the same thing and did it make the evening or morning news?
Homosexuals and their advocates don't want to welcome that part of the marriage equality conversation. They speak of "love" and "equality" and "rights" but only in terms that apply exclusively to themselves.
But whatever. We have become a nation run by emotions and feelings and money and we have a president who is the perfect leader for such a nation.
-
I was in a room where Rush Limbaugh (don't ask why I was listening it was not by choice) he just said hey we should legalize it every where so that the Democrats can not use it as a divisive issue which causes the GOP to lose votes and that the focus can return to the economy.
Arguably the smartest thing I've heard attributed to the man.
-
Since I've already chimed in, I guess I should offer my opinion on the larger subject.....
I can support marriage equality and same sex marriage. I understand the various biblical positions, but let's face it....everyone doesn't live according to the Bible and this country was founded on the premise that you don't have to. The law of the land does not have to be rooted in Scripture. So, for those who don't claim the Bible as their life's direction and are living a life that includes being in love with someone I certainly would not be in love with, that's their business.
I think I mentioned a lonnng time ago in a thread far far away that one of the most enduring and committed relationships I've witnessed is one of my colleagues and his life-partner of over 20 years. If they were allowed to get married, my life would not be detrimentally impacted at all and their lives would improve (health care and survivor benefits laws). So why should I get to say what they can do? If same sex marriage is not supported, they're not going to separate and find heterosexual relationships. They don't need to and quite frankly, it would be disastrous if they tried. Remember folks, we are not dealing with the ECUMENICAL definition of marriage here....only the LEGAL definition. Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW of a country that purports to have no favored religion.
As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage. Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here] [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]
I don't think it is an issue of the "traditional form" of marriage being "found unconstitutional". That is not and never was the question. Marriage as we know it today IS CONSTITUTIONAL and WITHOUT CHALLENGE. What is being challenged is the exclusion of same sex marriage. I have no problem with same sex marriage.
-
And I read an article that was talking about how in this debate the argument from those who support gay marriage/marriage equality (for the record, not the same people. Some support gay marriage and some support marriage equality but not gay marriage the lifestyle) that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose is winning and beyond the Bible there's no counterargument working. I think I agree with that article. And yes, it's never been a matter of if, it's a matter of when in light of the direction of the world and in the context of what America is (land of the free).
I agree with the part in bold. You can't prove how same-sex marriage is detrimental to society. We can only show a spiritual consequence to those who follow and if they don't follow the same bible or have interpreted the scripture in a different light, the argument is null and void.
As far as incest, there are medical defects which have been proven to be the outcome. Because of that reason alone, incest will most likely never be legal or socially acceptable. As far as polygamy, it may be a matter of time before this issue is in the fight to become legalized.
-
some body will fight that fight.
and win.
If I'm a dude that's gainfully employed, and two able minded women want to 'share' me, each knowing about the other fully, and i'm able to financially support them both, why and how does that affect you?
(and the chess pieces continue to move....)
-
some body will fight that fight.
and win.
If I'm a dude that's gainfully employed, and two able minded women want to 'share' me, each knowing about the other fully, and i'm able to financially support them both, why and how does that affect you?
(and the chess pieces continue to move....)
Agreed. And there are already modern societies that accept this. Thing is, it is a question of law for whatever country is dealing with it, not a question of Biblical interpretation. In fact, the Old Testament could be a supporting document! But NOT allowing it would not necessarily be seen as an infringement of rights. It could be argued that it denies "pursuit of happiness" [<----joke] but nobody's rights are being denied.
-
Since I've already chimed in, I guess I should offer my opinion on the larger subject.....
I can support marriage equality and same sex marriage. I understand the various biblical positions, but let's face it....everyone doesn't live according to the Bible and this country was founded on the premise that you don't have to. The law of the land does not have to be rooted in Scripture. So, for those who don't claim the Bible as their life's direction and are living a life that includes being in love with someone I certainly would not be in love with, that's their business.
I think I mentioned a lonnng time ago in a thread far far away that one of the most enduring and committed relationships I've witnessed is one of my colleagues and his life-partner of over 20 years. If they were allowed to get married, my life would not be detrimentally impacted at all and their lives would improve (health care and survivor benefits laws). So why should I get to say what they can do? If same sex marriage is not supported, they're not going to separate and find heterosexual relationships. They don't need to and quite frankly, it would be disastrous if they tried. Remember folks, we are not dealing with the ECUMENICAL definition of marriage here....only the LEGAL definition. Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW of a country that purports to have no favored religion.
As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage. Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here] [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]
I don't think it is an issue of the "traditional form" of marriage being "found unconstitutional". That is not and never was the question. Marriage as we know it today IS CONSTITUTIONAL and WITHOUT CHALLENGE. What is being challenged is the exclusion of same sex marriage. I have no problem with same sex marriage.
It's so funny that you chime in with this because I was having the same conversation with a pastor on Twitter last night, and we made the same points.
-
It's so funny that you chime in with this because I was having the same conversation with a pastor on Twitter last night, and we made the same points.
Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....
-
Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....
(http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/animations/n/now_thats_funny-1967.gif)
-
Hopefully not the same pastor who chose to call you in the wee hours.....
PPPPPPWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D
([url]http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/animations/n/now_thats_funny-1967.gif[/url])
Indeed.
-
ROFL!!!
-
As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage. Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here] [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]
Well, incestuous marriage could have no risk of any sort of biological inbreeding and disease IF the two parties never engage in sexual intercourse. And let's be honest, there are marriages that occur where the two parties never consummate and never even have the intent to. The marriage is strictly for business/legal/financial purposes. This happens in Hollyweird and in the corporate world and among some 'royalty'.
The challenge to "traditional marriage" is being waged in the name of equality and fueled by love. So, just as Justice Sotomayor stated, if what exists now are limitations on marriage which lead to inequality, allowing gays to marry will only remove 1 of those existing limitations, but marriage will hardly be equal for all interested parties.
The polygamists will have one heck of an easy time being validated if our Supreme Court sticks their hands into readjusting the terms of an institution which has existed for thousands of years longer than any of those old fools have been alive...for better or worse.
-
Well, incestuous marriage could have no risk of any sort of biological inbreeding and disease IF the two parties never engage in sexual intercourse. And let's be honest, there are marriages that occur where the two parties never consummate and never even have the intent to. The marriage is strictly for business/legal/financial purposes. This happens in Hollyweird and in the corporate world and among some 'royalty'.
The challenge to "traditional marriage" is being waged in the name of equality and fueled by love. So, just as Justice Sotomayor stated, if what exists now are limitations on marriage which lead to inequality, allowing gays to marry will only remove 1 of those existing limitations, but marriage will hardly be equal for all interested parties.
The polygamists will have one heck of an easy time being validated if our Supreme Court sticks their hands into readjusting the terms of an institution which has existed for thousands of years longer than any of those old fools have been alive...for better or worse.
The scenario you paint for the incest arrangement is an if on top of an if....IF there is no sex in the marriage and IF it is a business/legal/financial arrangement. Laws need not be designed to accommodate the fringe exception.
As for the polygamy scenario....I agree with you and Justice Sotomayor that a compelling argument could be made ESPECIALLY since there are numerous accounts in the Bible and other religious foundational writings AND there are numerous functioning societies that allow. The only points there being that objections against won't come from those two perspectives, whether they are valid for consideration or not. The difference will still be that instead of telling people they are NOT allowed to do what others can freely and openly do (marry another currently unmarried person) states would be saying that everyone is on equal footing in not being able to marry more than one person under the eyes of the law.
In other words, legislating against same sex marriage is saying that a specific group of people are denied the right to do what other groups of people are allowed to do. Legislating against polygamy is saying NOBODY can do this, doesn't matter who you are. The second is a lot more palatable.
-
The scenario you paint for the incest arrangement is an if on top of an if....IF there is no sex in the marriage and IF it is a business/legal/financial arrangement. Laws need not be designed to accommodate the fringe exception.
As for the polygamy scenario....I agree with you and Justice Sotomayor that a compelling argument could be made ESPECIALLY since there are numerous accounts in the Bible and other religious foundational writings AND there are numerous functioning societies that allow. The only points there being that objections against won't come from those two perspectives, whether they are valid for consideration or not. The difference will still be that instead of telling people they are NOT allowed to do what others can freely and openly do (marry another currently unmarried person) states would be saying that everyone is on equal footing in not being able to marry more than one person under the eyes of the law.
In other words, legislating against same sex marriage is saying that a specific group of people are denied the right to do what other groups of people are allowed to do. Legislating against polygamy is saying NOBODY can do this, doesn't matter who you are. The second is a lot more palatable.
Not really. The fact is that any gay person can go out today and get married in all 50 states, but they will have to get married to a person of the opposite sex. The "group" is not excluded from marrying, but there are conditions to the marriage, just as there are many other conditions that are in place regarding the contract or covenant of marriage. So the argument goes back to the theme of "equality" and legal status and benefits and so on...and love. Can't forget love.
Why is marriage as it stands now limited to being between a man and a woman? Is it just tradition? Religious grounds? As has been mentioned in this thread, it can't be because of religious grounds because our government is supposed to be out of the religion business AND, if that's the case, then they can't stand in the way of gay marriage nor polygamist marriage nor any other form of marriage that could easily be supported by some crackpot religious belief. All forms of marriage must be allowed if the battle is in the name of equality.
Again, our Supreme Court has no business being involved in the business of something that has existed...and existed quite well, all things considered...for thousands of years and they're only doing so because our current leader and just about every elected and/or appointed official below him governs more based on emotions and feelings and money than on the rule of law.
-
Won't clip your whole post, especially since it is directly above, but come on.....really? Telling people they are free to marry anybody EXCEPT the person they REALLY want to marry? Who benefits from that? Telling me I can only marry people who look like Telly Savalas would only irritate me and people who look like Telly Savalas.
I agree that the issue is definitely one of equality and love. I hope I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise. I do not, however, equate the concept of same sex marriage with the concepts of polygamy and incest. How'd we get here? Well, even though this is a nation with no favored religion, it has and continues to be influenced largely by religious principles. Not a bad thing.
-
Won't clip your whole post, especially since it is directly above, but come on.....really? Telling people they are free to marry anybody EXCEPT the person they REALLY want to marry?
Let's say a person, an adult, really wants to marry a minor. Should they be able to?
Another person, an adult, wants to marry their adult sibling and do so for financial/inheritance reasons. Should they be able to?
Another adult male wants to marry 2 or more adult females. Should they be able to?
In all of the above situations I'm sure that both parties may "really want to" get married, yet there are restrictions on those marriages.
So, if the current restriction on gay marriage is lifted I would expect a fight for other restrictions to be lifted, too. Maybe not tomorrow, but someday.
Yet I digress. The Bible clearly says that right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right, so I'm not surprised at the rapid pace at which gay marriage is gaining in popularity.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
-
Let's say a person, an adult, really wants to marry a minor. Should they be able to?
No. And there are adequate laws defining what a minor is and is not allowed to do as well as how unrelated adults may or may not interact with a minor. Not an issue. It is addressed.
Another person, an adult, wants to marry their adult sibling and do so for financial/inheritance reasons. Should they be able to?
No. And there are myriad (though differing) laws addressing incest and marriage of relatives at the state level. Again, not an issue because it has been addressed.
Another adult male wants to marry 2 or more adult females. Should they be able to?
In this country no. And there are laws against it. In other countries this would not be a problem because it is allowed.
In all of the above situations I'm sure that both parties may "really want to" get married, yet there are restrictions on those marriages.
So, if the current restriction on gay marriage is lifted I would expect a fight for other restrictions to be lifted, too. Maybe not tomorrow, but someday.
. You are probably right. There would be challenges. Those challenges are (IMHO) much easier to deal with than the same sex issue. As I've stated before, there are laws that don't allow anybody to engage in the behaviors you point out. The whole point of the same sex issue is that by simply disallowing adult same sex couples to enjoy the legal benefits of legal marriage, they are discriminated against with respect to tax laws, inheritance laws, and other employment benefit / health care laws. That condition does not exist in any of the other situations you've described.
Yet I digress. The Bible clearly says that right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right, so I'm not surprised at the rapid pace at which gay marriage is gaining in popularity.
Again, no argument on that point. Thing is, the case is not being argued at the Vatican or the National Baptist Convention. It's being argued at the Supreme Court of the United States of America and needs to be argued on points of law, not relevance to Biblical position or impact on other laws (against sexual involvement with minors or incestual behavior/marriage) that are not being challenged. Those challenges need to be handled if / when they occur. You can't base a legal decision on Issue A on the potential that it might cause someone to challenge Issue B.
-
We seem to be going around and around.
Here's my last comment on the subject: anyone is allowed to get married, but there are restrictions to said marriage. Always have been, always will be. Lift one restriction and expect other restrictions to be challenged and changed or lifted in the future.
If people are upset with how legal issues are handled between various forms of unions then they should work to change the laws pertaining to those issues rather than redefine something which has existed for far longer than any of the said issues and laws.
In other words, don't mess with marriage, but change the tax laws and inheritance laws and so on and allow two people of any gender to enter into legal agreements regarding those things.
Frankly, the government is already far too involved in marriage as it is. Having the government get their hands in even further to the point of some kind of still-exclusionary redefinition of what marriage is just wreaks of trouble to me.
-
IMO, the word "marriage" should be taken out of the legal lexicon and be replaced with "civil union". Civil unions, no matter who you marry, should include the same rights for all. From there "marriage" can become a strictly social term that people can choose to or not to apply to their situation. The Bible never said that marriages should have the benefits this country attaches to it. At the end of the day when you cut through the fluff of "you're not letting us love" and all that jazz, the legal benefits that America attaches to marriage is what this is all about.
-
We seem to be going around and around.
Here's my last comment on the subject: anyone is allowed to get married, but there are restrictions to said marriage. Always have been, always will be. Lift one restriction and expect other restrictions to be challenged and changed or lifted in the future.
If people are upset with how legal issues are handled between various forms of unions then they should work to change the laws pertaining to those issues rather than redefine something which has existed for far longer than any of the said issues and laws.
In other words, don't mess with marriage, but change the tax laws and inheritance laws and so on and allow two people of any gender to enter into legal agreements regarding those things.
Frankly, the government is already far too involved in marriage as it is. Having the government get their hands in even further to the point of some kind of still-exclusionary redefinition of what marriage is just wreaks of trouble to me.
Round and round.....maybe. Definitely. You might, however, be surprised that I agree with everything you said in your last post except for the last line. I would make a lot more sense to change the tax and inheritance laws. I think the reason why this path isn't being followed is the idea that each would have to be pursued on both federal and state level. That would be 104 distinct efforts ((50 states + DC + Fed)*2) as opposed to one issue x 52.
Even though I agree with you in principle, I am also very much a pragmatist. As such I have trouble seeing how the legalities of the same sex issue and the issues you raise on what I describe as a slippery slope have equal footing.
-
IMO, the word "marriage" should be taken out of the legal lexicon and be replaced with "civil union". Civil unions, no matter who you marry, should include the same rights for all. From there "marriage" can become a strictly social term that people can choose to or not to apply to their situation. The Bible never said that marriages should have the benefits this county attaches to it. At the end of the day when you cut through the fluff of "you're not letting us love" and all that jazz, the legal benefits that America attaches to marriage is what this is all about.
Bullseye!
-
oh the difference a few years make since 2009
the POTUS now openly supports it
and
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/[/url] ([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/[/url])
The Presbyterians are struggling with it also :(
well it finally happen
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html)
-
well it finally happen
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html[/url])
I'd bet that Rob Bell and Oprah are excited by this news.
-
I absolutely believe that gay people should be able to live freely in society, answerable only to God as to the right or wrong of their lifestyle. I believe that there is something physical and/or psychologically different between gays and straights. I think we will one day know what it is. We're all just good and bad people based on the things we do other than our legal/moral(consenting adult)sex lives. I also somewhat believe that they should be able to reap the benefits of being married on a legal basis. It is hard for me to completely get ahold of that, though, even if it is on a civil/legal basis only. I don't believe that churches should be forced to marry people against their doctrine/beliefs and against what they consider to be a marriage. If two men or women choose to live together, that's their business. I don't see why two men living together get a tax break, and I can't because I am not gay, so I have reservations. We all have to realize though, that even today, before anything concrete has been made law, marriage as we once knew it to be has ceased to exist.
-
well it finally happened
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/presbyterians-give-final-approval-for-same-sex-marriage.html[/url])
I'd bet that Rob Bell and Oprah are excited by this news.
.....just waiting for the Roman Catholic church to follow suit. It seems that religions groups and organizations that oppose gay marriage will become the minority.
-
.....just waiting for the Roman Catholic church to follow suit. It seems that religions groups and organizations that oppose gay marriage will become the minority.
yep
-
34,000 Black Churches have Cut Ties with the Presbyterian Church USA After it changed the Definition of Marriage. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/34000-black-churches-leave-pcusa-over-same-sex-marriage-136530/)
-
And from my great state of Delaware...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-church-ordains-first-married-lesbian-couple-as-ministers-days-after-denominations-marriage-amendment-136111/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-church-ordains-first-married-lesbian-couple-as-ministers-days-after-denominations-marriage-amendment-136111/)
Both ladies were actually previously married to men, then got divorced and "came out". ::)
-
That which was abnormal is becoming the norm. Who will be able to recognize the world that is to come?
-
That which was abnormal is becoming the norm. Who will be able to recognize the world that is to come?
More like what was considered unacceptable is becoming accepted. Remember way back when, some TV shows wouldn't show a married couple in the same bed together? Sure, people knew that married couples (usually) slept in the same bed, but it wasn't acceptable for TV at the time. For better or worse, it's yet another aspect of the evolution of society.
-
That which was abnormal is becoming the norm. Who will be able to recognize the world that is to come?
Anyone who has been reading their bible.
-
The question is simple but very complicated. It is very easy to under stand but hard to resolve. How do you put gay marriage in a Christian Church, whose doctrine expressly(based on scripture)speaks against it, and religious freedom in the same bucket. Is it possible? Can you endorse something that is against your religious belief and then live with it? Is one to be forced to say that the Bible is wrong? They're arguing that very same thing in the Arkansas Legislature right now, with no clear solution in hand. Gay rights is a no brainer. Gay Christian marriage forced upon the church. I guess I can't get ready for that. But I think that I'd better learn how to.