Miami Hospital Barred Lesbian From Seeing Dying Partner

[Lisa0315]

I do respect your views Lisa, and I do agree with you that no church or 'churchee' should have to take part in any ceremony, such as marriage, if it goes against their beliefs (with possible exception w/ government funding)

I am however puzzled by why you consider your views on anti-homosexual marriage to be any different than views on anti-mixed-race marriage. I honestly cannot find a difference between the two...

Because I feel the same way about adultery and pre-marital sex. It has nothing to do with orientation. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

Lisa

 

[yasic]

Because I feel the same way about adultery and pre-marital sex. It has nothing to do with orientation. Sexual sin is sexual sin.

Lisa

I mean I understand that you do not have any racist inclinations.

What I mean is, there are many other religious people who are against mixed race marriages because it is sin. Both you and them are against the respective ideas for the same reason. Is there any difference between your views?

 

[LittleNipper]

I do respect your views Lisa, and I do agree with you that no church or 'churchee' should have to take part in any ceremony, such as marriage, if it goes against their beliefs (with possible exception w/ government funding)

I am however puzzled by why you consider your views on anti-homosexual marriage to be any different than views on anti-mixed-race marriage. I honestly cannot find a difference between the two...

The difference is that a white man having sex with a black lady can produse a baby. No homosexual relationship is capable of producing the blessing of offspring. Anti-mixed race laws were mostly the product of class bias and evolutionary bigotry. There is no Biblical stance against "racial" marriage only religious those of concerns.

 

[yasic]

The difference is that a white man having sex with a black lady can produse a baby. No homosexual relationship is capable of producing the blessing of offspring. Anti-mixed race laws were mostly the product of class bias and evolutionary bigotry. There is no Biblical stance against "racial" marriage only religious those of concerns.

Some interpretations say that mixed marriage and homosexuality are both wrong, others say only homo is wrong, and others allow both. From my personal reading of the bible, the literal interpretation seems to say that both are wrong, but we all have our biases.

Your idea of offspring is just something you stuck in, and I am sure that the anti-mixed-marriage folks have plenty of similar justifications.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I mean I understand that you do not have any racist inclinations.

What I mean is, there are many other religious people who are against mixed race marriages because it is sin. Both you and them are against the respective ideas for the same reason. Is there any difference between your views?

I believe that she is saying, though of course I can't speak for her, that she is against gay marriage because she sees gay sex as a sexual sin. And she is against all sexual sins.

Whereas people who are against interracial marriage see people of two races marrying as "mixing the races" and believe that this is a sin in its own right. Thus, they are against interracial marriage specifically, while she is against an entire group of sins, which happens to contain gay sex as one of many sexual sins. So they are different in purpose, even if they seem similar in justification.

Or, at least, that is how I see it.

 

[yasic]

I believe that she is saying, though of course I can't speak for her, that she is against gay marriage because she sees gay sex as a sexual sin. And she is against all sexual sins.

Whereas people who are against interracial marriage see people of two races marrying as "mixing the races" and believe that this is a sin in its own right. Thus, they are against interracial marriage specifically, while she is against an entire group of sins, which happens to contain gay sex as one of many sexual sins. So they are different in purpose, even if they seem similar in justification.

Or, at least, that is how I see it.

But that assumes that people who are against mixed-marriage are not against it as they are against all sin...

For instance, person A is against ALL sin. Person A believes that homosexual marriage, divorce, and mixed-marriage are sin. Therefore person A is against all 3 of those.

How does this view differ from Lisa's?

 

[LittleNipper]

Some interpretations say that mixed marriage and homosexuality are both wrong, others say only homo is wrong, and others allow both. From my personal reading of the bible, the literal interpretation seems to say that both are wrong, but we all have our biases.

Your idea of offspring is just something you stuck in, and I am sure that the anti-mixed-marriage folks have plenty of similar justifications.

Not really, the baby is a gift from GOD that has NEVER be the reward of same sex relations. There are references in the Bible of this one or that one marrying an Ethiopian. The Ethiopian was very likely black. A "christian" should not marry a Moslem. The logical reasoning being that such would have issues concerning religion within their marriage.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not really, the baby is a gift from GOD that has NEVER be the reward of same sex relations.

Yes, because the only reason people ever had, or ever will have sex is to produce children.

 

[Lisa0315]

I believe that she is saying, though of course I can't speak for her, that she is against gay marriage because she sees gay sex as a sexual sin. And she is against all sexual sins.

Whereas people who are against interracial marriage see people of two races marrying as "mixing the races" and believe that this is a sin in its own right. Thus, they are against interracial marriage specifically, while she is against an entire group of sins, which happens to contain gay sex as one of many sexual sins. So they are different in purpose, even if they seem similar in justification.

Or, at least, that is how I see it.

Well, I think you said it very well, thank you.

It is true that people can justify just about anything with Scripture. The test is if there is hatred involved. I do not hate people and I sympathize with GLB's. The reason is that I struggled with my own sexuality when I was much younger. I accept that attraction to one's own sex can happen. I do know that for me it would have been a sin to have participated in such a union. My decision did not change the fact that I am sometimes attracted to women, but I do know that I would be out of the will of God if I were to have a sexual relationship with a woman. It would be sin on several different levels. For one, I am married, so that would make it adultery.

I do have one very close lesbian friend who has been with her partner almost as long as I have been married. They have two children together. When we talk about my faith vs her lifestyle, I tell her that it would be a sin for *me*, and I leave it up to God to convict anyone else about it.

That said, again, it is a difficult issue in which a Conservative Christian must weigh their duty to God and their duty to their neighbor. I love my friend. I also worry that she has placed a barrier between herself and God.

All I know is that I believe that hating people because they are gay is more of a sin than a gay relationship in of itself. But, then, none of us are damned because of sin, but for rejection of Jesus Christ. So, if a gay Christian is judged for their sexual activity, a hateful Christian will be judged for the hate they have shown.

Some say that one cannot be gay and a Christian. I say that one cannot be hate filled and a Christian. Of the two, the latter is the oxymoron

If I am biased, I am as biased against hatred as much as I am against sexual sin.

Lisa

 

[TheManeki]

Not really, the baby is a gift from GOD that has NEVER be the reward of same sex relations.

If the baby is the crucial part, then why isn't marriage denied to people who either choose not to have children or are unable to have children?

Where are the churches mobilizing to defend marriage from people who won't have children? Where are the activists saying that married couples with no children are worse adoptive parents than married couples that already have children?

As usual, Nip, your arguments fall apart faster than a rusty Yugo.

 

[LittleNipper]

If the baby is the crucial part, then why isn't marriage denied to people who either choose not to have children or are unable to have children?

Where are the churches mobilizing to defend marriage from people who won't have children? Where are the activists saying that married couples with no children are worse adoptive parents than married couples that already have children?

As usual, Nip, your arguments fall apart faster than a rusty Yugo.

There is a difference between a GODLY miracle possibility and an UNGODLY impossibility. Two ladies or two gentlemen do not a mother & father make.

 

[TheManeki]

There is a difference between a GODLY miracle possibility and an UNGODLY impossibility. Two ladies or two gentlemen do not a mother & father make.

And the goalposts get shifted once again...

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, because the only reason people ever had, or ever will have sex is to produce children.

The married biblical couple at least have a choice. The homosexual couple are not provided with any.

 

[LittleNipper]

And the goalposts get shifted once again...

Honestly, I cannot know if a married man and woman are going to or not going to have children or strive to engage for such reasons. And what that couple does is between them and GOD. But I know that no homosexual engagment has ever produced children, and GOD wants nothing to do with their sexual maneuvers That is an absolute! No goal!

 

[Lisa0315]

There is a difference between a GODLY miracle possibility and an UNGODLY impossibility. Two ladies or two gentlemen do not a mother & father make.

Well, that might be biologically true, but from my experience, what makes a parent is the ability to love, care, and nurture that child. Maybe a better ministry for you would be to round up all the biological mothers and fathers in this country and teach them how to parent unselfishly. Until that time, those kids who are adopted by GLB's are fortunate to have two people in their lives that will love and protect them.

Bottom line is that it is pointless to preach against homosexuality until the church holds its own congregation accountable for its own immorality.

See my signature...second part...

Lisa

 

[FlamingFemme]

Honestly, I cannot know if a married man and woman is going to or not going to have children.

Which means that you cannot use the 'Gays can't have babies!!' argument unless you are going to apply it equally among all relationships.

And what that couple does is between them and GOD.

That's right - So why don't you just leave us all alone to live our lives?

But I know that no homosexual engagment has ever produced children,

The same can be said for a lot of straight 'engagements'. My response to this is basically, "So what?"

and GOD wants nothing to do with their sexual maneuvers That is an absolute! No goal!

There you go AGAIN speaking for G-d. I haven't the foggiest idea why you think this is okay. No one, and I mean NO ONE, can speak for G-d. That whole "omnipotent being" thing precludes it. Making broad statements like these just shows how arrogant you are - I'm pretty sure that IS something that G-d doesn't like.

 

[selfinflikted]

There is a difference between a GODLY miracle possibility and an UNGODLY impossibility. Two ladies or two gentlemen do not a mother & father make.

So your all-powerful god isn't all-powerful after all? What you're saying is, he can work just enough magic to provide a barren heterosexual couple with a miracle child, but lacks the power to provide a miracle child to a homosexual couple? Wow.

 

[TheManeki]

Honestly, I cannot know if a married man and woman are going to or not going to have children or strive to engage for such reasons. And what that couple does is between them and GOD. But I know that no homosexual engagment has ever produced children, and GOD wants nothing to do with their sexual maneuvers That is an absolute! No goal!

You could make a pretty accurate guess that an old woman and old man who marry would not be having kids.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, that might be biologically true, but from my experience, what makes a parent is the ability to love, care, and nurture that child. Maybe a better ministry for you would be to round up all the biological mothers and fathers in this country and teach them how to parent unselfishly. Until that time, those kids who are adopted by GLB's are fortunate to have two people in their lives that will love and protect them.

Bottom line is that it is pointless to preach against homosexuality until the church holds its own congregation accountable for its own immorality.

See my signature...second part...

Lisa

Protect them from what exactly? Wrong moral judgments? Selfish values? The "CHURCH" is not just anyone who happens to attend Sunday services once a week or only holidays.

 

[Lisa0315]

Protect them from what exactly? Wrong moral judgments? Selfish values? The "CHURCH" is not just anyone who happens to attend Sunday services once a week or only holidays.

I understand that. Why are you even bringing up the unchurched? I am speaking of members. Adultery and divorce are rampant in our churches. Do you not think we need to take the mote out of our own eye before we point out the speck in someone elses? So, are you saying the church is not accountable for those members who go home and act like idiots instead of like Christians?

Lisa