Obama support for gays (please read if you oppose homosexuality and marriage)

[Birthew]

But if an argument can be made for the objective morality of it, then that is binding on everyone, whether or not everyone agrees. Also, do you cede the point that all legislation is legislating morality?

Have you heard of the theory, idealistic ontology? Its a theory about what is knowledge, so in this case, what is objective morality? From this perspective, reality is not objective and we can never be objective (even through science). Instead there we only have subjective realities (objective morality for you may be completely different to me).

A good scientific example is when somebody hears voices. In our country we think its right to pump them with pills, but in other parts of the word, these people are embraced as being connected to the world (there was a tribe I heard about where these people become witch doctors, i'll try and find it).

So nobody will ever agree on an objective morality.

I also disagree with legislation legislating morality. Before the 60s or 70s black people were taught in separate schools, had limited rights etc.. Or in regards to the bible a man could have multiple wives. I think morality is never objective, but it changes with time.

 

[Ronald]

So nobody will ever agree on an objective morality.

Right, because of sin. Sin distorts what is true and only God dictates what absolute truth is! We get our morality from God. If there was no God, then we'd be stuck in moral relativism, which is common today among those who aren't believers and some liberal Christians who want to receive from the Bible what works for their life-styles and discard the rest. This is what homo-sexual supporters are doing.
People who approve of homo-sexuality discard this verse:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Romans 1:26, 27
God clearly made male and female to join and procreate, any other variations from this obvious order (including the entire eco-system) is a distortion and perversion of His purpose. Squabble all you want about it but I do think He did an awesome job with women and I fit very well with my wife and that is the way it should be.

 

[Jase]

Here comes Jase to hijack the thread... You know this isn't the place for debate.

Who is debating? Birth is asking questions, I'm answering them.

I'm sorry, to Explore Christianity, only the conservative opinion is valid?

 

[Jase]

Also, while every instance of same-sex intercourse in the Bible that is shown in a negative light is gang rape or something of the sort, there is no exception clause in the Bible for two same-sex people who genuinely love one another and want to have a family. As Vines said, it may not have even occurred to people like Paul that such a thing was possible, but the writers of the Bible condemned the forms of same-sex relations that they were aware of.

Why would you assume there would be? The Bible makes no mention of Intersex either. Who can people with genitalia and chromosomes from both sexes marry? By your argument, since the Bible makes no exception, they are out of luck too.

The Bible is quite clearly directed at the majority audience, not minority cases that were completely foreign to the authors.



.

However, what the Bible does give on the subject is a clear and consistent definition for marriage as being between a man and a woman, and there is no exception given for same-sex couples.

Again why would there be if it wasn't prevalent in the society in question? Paul's audience wasn't gay people, so why would he be inclined to add exception clauses for people he didn't even know existed?

Again, it makes no exception for intersex individuals either, and yet they exist.

 

[Jase]

Except they are inaccurate in their interpretation of Scripture, and the message they present. Just because someone made a big graphic doesn't mean it's right.

No they aren't, but I find it amusing when I post verses pointing out issues with the Conservative view, they say my interpretation is wrong, but when I point the error of conservative interpretation, they still say my interpretation is wrong, thereby ensuring they are incapable of EVER being wrong.

I know those original meanings. You have to do some silly mental gymnastics to bring you to the conclusion that homosexual behavior isn't sinful.

No, it doesn't require mental gymnastics at all.
Trying to claim the Bible doesn't support slavery, rape, incest, genocide, or a geocentric flat Earth certainly does though.

And I'm sorry, but I don't believe you know the original meanings.

 

[Sketcher]

No they aren't, but I find it amusing when I post verses pointing out issues with the Conservative view, they say my interpretation is wrong, but when I point the error of conservative interpretation, they still say my interpretation is wrong, thereby ensuring they are incapable of EVER being wrong.

Or you could just be wrong on both counts. Since you're a liberal, this doesn't surprise me.

That image does not present an accurate view of Biblical marriage, flat-out. Orthodox Jews would disagree with it, and on their points of disagreement, they would be right. Most importantly, the conservative Christian definition of marriage is how Jesus defined it.

No, it doesn't require mental gymnastics at all.
Trying to claim the Bible doesn't support slavery, rape, incest, genocide, or a geocentric flat Earth certainly does though.

LOL. The Bible expressly condemns homosexual behavior, rape, incest, murder, and enslaving, and it does not make scientific claims about the Earth. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Jase]

Or you could just be wrong on both counts. Since you're a liberal, this doesn't surprise me.

That image does not present an accurate view of Biblical marriage, flat-out. Orthodox Jews would disagree with it, and on their points of disagreement, they would be right. Most importantly, the conservative Christian definition of marriage is how Jesus defined it.


LOL. The Bible expressly condemns homosexual behavior, rape, incest, murder, and enslaving, and it does not make scientific claims about the Earth. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

Yawn, no point in talking to you. I'd rather smash my head into a wall thanks. Take care!

 

[Cuddles333]

Or you could just be wrong on both counts. Since you're a liberal, this doesn't surprise me.

That image does not present an accurate view of Biblical marriage, flat-out. Orthodox Jews would disagree with it, and on their points of disagreement, they would be right. Most importantly, the conservative Christian definition of marriage is how Jesus defined it.


LOL. The Bible expressly condemns homosexual behavior, rape, incest, murder, and enslaving, and it does not make scientific claims about the Earth. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

In the middle paragraph it is stated; "Biblical marraige" in the first sentence. Then; "..conservative Christian definition of marriage.." is stated in the last sentence. I think this may be an unconscious admission that marriage can exist in both the religious and secular world. In the secular world, marriage is free to be defined however a society wishes. In the religious or Biblical world, we are locked in to the Bible's definition.

In other posts with threads of this subject I always try to show how there must exist the secular and Biblical marriage. The first thing is to show that if divorce is the low moral ground, and the Israelites were granted this from God through Moses, then this would mean that the Gentiles were expected to take the high moral ground and not get divorced! The Gentiles (non-Jews) were not given any command from God in regards to divorce like the Israelites did (Deut.24:1-4), so, if any Gentile couple divorced then this was unacceptable to God. Likewise, in the New Testament, God gave Christians 2 reasons for divorce. In the 1st century one was fornication which was a spouse going to the pagan temple and having sex with either a female/male cult prostitute in honor to the pagan god/goddess (spiritual adultery) Mt.19:9, and another reason for Christian remarriage is the desertion of the spouse by his/her non-Christian spouse (1Cor. 7:15). If a Christian's spouse should die, then they can only remarry another Christian (1Cor.7:39). Therefore, it is very obvious that there exists the Biblical marriage and the secular marriage. If the secular world wishes to include same-sex into their definition of marriage then they are free to do so.

 

[Sketcher]

Therefore, it is very obvious that there exists the Biblical marriage and the secular marriage. If the secular world wishes to include same-sex into their definition of marriage then they are free to do so.

But they won't be getting help from me. One man, one woman, for life. I'm not going to vote any other way. And yes, I am well aware that people like John McCain fall short of this.

 

[aiki]

I don't, being Canadian, have any idea what Santorum's views on homosexuality are, but as a Christian I oppose it because it is an obvious perversion of a person's sexual function, because it is ultimately a choice people make, not a genetically mandated "orientation" over which they have no control, and, most of all, because God in His Word declares it an abomination. I'm sorry but it is absolutely ridiculous how wrong this post is in every conceivable way. Sexual orientation is not a choice. That's scientifically proven. It's also found universally among nearly all animal species and is a required evolutionary mechanism for the survival of the species.

Gender is not a choice but sexual behaviour most certainly is. So far research into homosexuality has failed to produce any hard evidence proving the idea that homosexuality is congenital. WHat seems to be the case is that homosexuality is a psycho-social effect rather than some hard-wired, genetic-level biological mandate. In spite of the falsehoods the popular media has tried to foist upon the public regarding this matter, the truth remains that homosexuality is a chosen, aberrant behaviour. Whether it is twin studies, or brain studies, or hormonal research, none of it offers anything like conclusive proof that homosexuality is pre-determined like height, or eye color, or race.

I fail to see what value the assertion that homosexuality occurs among nearly all animal species (if it actually does, which I doubt) has in justifying homosexual behaviour. As an evolutionary mechanism it makes little sense. Such a genetic mutation would, for obvious reasons, rapidly remove itself from the gene pool. But it hasn't. Human homosexual behaviour appears to go as far back as written human history extends. This strongly suggests that homosexuality is not genetic in origin. Homosexual behaviour among dolphins, or monkeys, or dogs does not prove that it is anything but a widespread behaviour. Certainly it does not establish concretely why the behaviour occurs, only that it does.

Selah.

 

[Jase]

So far research into homosexuality has failed to produce any hard evidence proving the idea that homosexuality is congenital.

Actually, brain scans show it's biologically fixed.


Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.

Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/rollofhono...bmissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

I fail to see what value the assertion that homosexuality occurs among nearly all animal species (if it actually does, which I doubt) has in justifying homosexual behaviour.

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study - Telegraph

Homosexual behaviour is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, according to a new study.

In the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

 

[newbeliever02072005]

Mod Hat ON



Thread Closed for review



Mod Hat Off

 

[SplendidTree]

Mod Hat On

This thread will remain permanently closed due to the violation of CF rules.

Topics Requiring Special Consideration:
Abortion; Adultery or Premarital Sex; Homosexuality; Illegal Activity; Other Religions; On-Line Deliverance; Professional Counseling; Prophecy

●Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.




Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts

●Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.




A full set of the rules for Christian Forums can be located here.



Please remember to stick to the rules. Happy posting!

Mod Hat Off​