Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[Dogbean]

BBW, I want you to realize that being black and being homosexual are two entirely different things. Someone is either born black or born not black. It is not their choice, it is their race, through no fault of their own. Being homosexual is a sin, and a choice. It's a tough one, because people like to think it's their identity, that they are born that way. But I have seen people switch back and forth, being straight and being gay. And since God clearly defined it to be a sin, and being of a particular race to not be a sin, than this is a very poor analogy that you keep bringing up. Being black and being gay are not even close to the same thing. Homosexuality CAN be overcome by the power of God. As much as the gays want to cry and whine that it's not their choice, and it's their identity, that's hogwash! It's tough to give it up, but it's tough to give up any sin, isn't it, when you've been doing it all your life? When I got saved it took me 7 years to give up using obscene language! That's one of the toughest things I've ever done. At first, I thought I could be a Christian and curse, but studing the Scripture, and being confronted by believing friends taught me otherwise.

 

[Caylin]

:Rolleyes: Well good to know that being gay and swearing are almost the same thing.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I'd disagree. The Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. (i.e. humanity.) We have the mind of Christ..

Logic can serve the Christian as well as the atheist. It's a tool. But I do understand what you're saying and agree.

 

[BigBadWlf]

"Oppose civil rights
- blacks are not happy with separate but equal
- blacks want to invade all aspects of life
- blacks want to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is "normal""

Again you are using innerant tactics that will simply be replied with:

NAMBLA are not happy with separate but equal
NAMBLA want to invade all aspects of life
NAMBLA want it to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is normal

I presume this is how the argument will progress:
You will rebutt with 'but it is different'

This is a tactic long used by racists to help them justify their personal prejudices. Racists will attempt to associate people of color with criminals, usually sex based criminals. (better hide the white women) it is disgusting when racists use it to attack a minority and it is no different when you stoop to such tactics.

I will rebutt with "so is homosexuality compared to being black"

Actually the arguments and tactics used to justify racism are the same as the arguments used to justify anti-gay hate.

You will tell me how it is completely different to comparing to NAMBLA, and how homosexuality is ok.

As you may have noticed above I pointed out how racists us the same tactic you are employing here

We simply disagree. But point being, your argument doesn't work, because if you expect the ARGUMENT (not the morality of homosexuality) to be able to be applied to any situation, then you come up with serious complications. This is called a philosophical and logical innerancy, and is therefore not valid argument for your case. Homosexuality MAY still be ok, but if it is ok because it is justified by an argument that supports being black and should therefore work on homosexuality, then the argument is what justifies and the argument should be able to justify any case (alone and of itself). But it doesn't; so you need to find another come back.

What of the morality of discrimination?

I agree. Hate is not ok, and is not biblically sound. Hate of sin is acceptable, but this does not advocate hating anyone who is a sinner (and if it were then we would have to hate everyone ).
But let us look at your argument in detail.

So its wrong…unless you care to justify it…gotcha

Firstly, we both agree hating is out of the question. I cannot and will not hate a homosexual, I will love them. I will not hate those in that list either.

But you will happily discriminate.
Because denying a minority equal rights and equal protection under the law cannot be motivated by hate.

Again, however, I am backed into a corner into using a group or affiliation that is considered, by most of us, unanimously sin-filled. Not that I am saying homosexuality necessarily is,

yeah....you are

or this is my only basis of saying homosexuality is bad, but simply because your arguments prove nothing.
Add onto the list pedophiles, murderers and rapists. Now I am not comparing them with homosexuality.

yeah...you are

This is not about the morality of these groups. This is merely an illustration.
If I then use your argument that I should not hate and link this with that I cannot DISCRIMINATE or I must advocate or not impede in any way, then you cannot discriminate against:
Murderers
Rapists
Paedophiles.

You are comparing individual who break the law to an entire minority.
Again a common tactic employed by racists to justify their personal prejudices

I would agree that in certain ways, and in most ways you shouldn't discriminate against these people either, but in some ways, morally, I am obliged to. Otherwise, if your argument is applied, then I must condone these actions, I cannot speak out against it nor can I create a movement to stop it, or to impede on their growth, otherwise it is HATE.

You are confusing discernment with discrimination.
Discernment is the quality of being able to distinguishes qualities and recognizing the differences in similar things – Such as being able to discern between someone who has committed a murder and someone who has not
Discrimination the prejudicial treatment of a person or a group of people based on characteristics. - Such as denying a minoirty the right to sit anywhere on a bus based on the color of their skin.

You are attempting to justify discrimination agaisnt distinct a group of people by the use of examples of actions that some people may partake in

 

[BigBadWlf]

yeah! keep those gays out of normal life! No homes or jobs for them!

But remember discrimination like this is an act of love…not hate

 

[Dogbean]

Christians opposing interracial marriage was a mistake. Some Christians make errors, as there is no scriptural support for interracial marriage being a sin. But there is clear scriptural support condemning homosexuality. It's different.

 

[BreadAlone]

Christians opposing interracial marriage was a mistake. Some Christians make errors, as there is no scriptural support for interracial marriage being a sin. But there is clear scriptural support condemning homosexuality. It's different.

Last year for AmLit, at the end of year my Reseach Paper was on Slavery and in it I made a point about how some homosexual advocates propigate the idea that just as Slavery was once "biblically supported," so is homosexuality.

(I want BBW to know he was my inspiration in that point. no joke.)

At any rate, I easily made clear how it WASN'T, and I got an A+

 

[BigBadWlf]

Not really. The bible never contradicts itself so it must be the reader.

And the earth is flat and there are birds with four legs…cause the bible says so

I am going to venture to guess that you are reading those passages out of context. But that's just a guess.

Sorry. The bible condones rape multiple times
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

Yep so in order to stay away from the oven ALL you have to do is bring Christ into your heart. Easy as pie.

So hell is full of people who had the bad taste to be born before the message of Jesus could reach them or in geographically remote locations. And all the children who died in infancy must be in hell to. Along with the developmentally disabled.

If only human beings were decent then............

You might want to read John 1.

So why don’t the Christians advocating discrimination here cite John?

No, we don't kill homosexuals and yes, it is in the bible.

Why don’t you?
If it is in the bible it must be good because the bible cannot contradict itself…at least according to you

Have you not read the NT?

Matt 5:18

Are we not slaves to our own sins? What's the difference.

Try asking slaves

Nope, I kind of like shellfish.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)

 

[BigBadWlf]

*Much Sighing*

And yet no easily dismissed example has EVER been produced. *yawn*

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
a) My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?
b) Father into thy hands I commend my spirit
c) It is finished
d) Time to blow this popsicle stand

Please provide evidence of this OUTRAGEOUS accusation.

already done

You've failed to substantiate how he does..

And that is why it is still a sin to eat shellfish…because God never changes

No, we don't kill homosexuals, because that was a civil law of the Israelites. God wishes for us to help the practicing homosexual out of their unbelief..

You have tried to claim that there is some sort of division in the law of the old testament. Every time you made that claim (and you made it a lot) you were asked to cite chapter and verse detailing this division. You have never done so.
so once again...Please cite the biblical verses to support your claim

And OF COURSE homosexual is not in the Scriptures..as a matter of fact, no WORD in this POST is in the Scripture seeing how they were written in Greek, Hebrew, and bits of Aramaic..and these words are English..

Ignoring the fact that no word in Greek, Hebrew, or “bits” of Aramaic translates into homosexual

Not if it isn't socially acceptable; if it's against the law, this is disobeying the CIVIL Law..

You have tried to claim that there is some sort of division in the law of the old testament. Every time you made that claim (and you made it a lot) you were asked to cite chapter and verse detailing this division. You have never done so. Please cite the biblical verses to support your claim

Well, to keep the Law, the following would suffice:

Matthew 22:38-40

38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[a] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Can you explain how prejudice and discrimination follow this commandment form Jesus?

Sorry.. human logic and Christianity just don't mesh..may I suggest an atheist forum?

 

[BreadAlone]

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
a) My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?
b) Father into thy hands I commend my spirit
c) It is finished
d) Time to blow this popsicle stand
[/color][/color]

Umm..so Christ said more than one thing on the Cross..and you find this hard to believe?

already done

Sorry, I stopped after the third one, because none of them had condoned RAPE up to that point.

And that is why it is still a sin to eat shellfish…because God never changes

You clearly are NOT a Theologian, so I will try to make this simple. No, God has not changed. We are REQUIRED to not eatt shellfish, to honor every Sabbath day, to burn Sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, etc. etc. etc. But, knowing that we WOULD NOT be able to do all of this, God HIMSELF came down and did all of these things FOR us. Now when the Father looks at us, he sees a person who HAS not eaten shellfish, who HAS kept the Sabbath, and who HAS burnt offerings at the Temple, because He sees Christ.

You have tried to claim that there is some sort of division in the law of the old testament. Every time you made that claim (and you made it a lot) you were asked to cite chapter and verse detailing this division. You have never done so.
so once again...Please cite the biblical verses to support your claim

It takes some wisdom and discernment. Not everything is layed out with pictures and one word answers in the Scriptures. See above though, it's an even better approach.

Ignoring the fact that no word in Greek, Hebrew, or “bits” of Aramaic translates into homosexual

So saith you, O font of all linguistic wisdom!!

Can you explain how prejudice and discrimination follow this commandment form Jesus?

Can you explain how NOT following the commands of Christ follows the Commands of Christ?

 

[BigBadWlf]

BBW, I want you to realize that being black and being homosexual are two entirely different things.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is directed at. And Discrimination is discrimination no matter what bible verses are used to justify it.

The arguments and tactics used to justify anti-gay discrimination are the same as those used to justify racism.

Someone is either born black or born not black. It is not their choice, it is their race, through no fault of their own. Being homosexual is a sin, and a choice.

And can you provide any real evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?

Hmmm…however religion is a choice….so by your logic anti-Semitism must be a perfectly acceptable thing.

It's a tough one, because people like to think it's their identity, that they are born that way. But I have seen people switch back and forth, being straight and being gay.

and I’ve seen blacks use a lot of make up to look white
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/84/84iwhitelikeeddie.phtml

Gee I guess being black is a choice after all

And since God clearly defined it to be a sin, and being of a particular race to not be a sin, than this is a very poor analogy that you keep bringing up.

first – it has been shown time and time again that the bible shows nothing of the sort.

Second racists happily use the bible to justify their prejudices

So it is a good analogy…just not an analogy you like

Being black and being gay are not even close to the same thing.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is directed at. And Discrimination is discrimination no matter what bible verses are used to justify it.

The arguments and tactics used to justify anti-gay discrimination are the same as those used to justify racism.

Homosexuality CAN be overcome by the power of God.

evidence?

Ex-gay ministries have been making that claim for nearly 40 years. Yet in all that time they have yet to actually provide proof that anyone can change their sexual orientation and they have never produced a single person, that they were not employing, who claimed to have changed sexual orientation form homosexual to heterosexual.

As much as the gays want to cry and whine that it's not their choice, and it's their identity, that's hogwash! It's tough to give it up, but it's tough to give up any sin, isn't it, when you've been doing it all your life?

do you still want to pretend you aren’t prejudiced?

When I got saved it took me 7 years to give up using obscene language! That's one of the toughest things I've ever done. At first, I thought I could be a Christian and curse, but studing the Scripture, and being confronted by believing friends taught me otherwise.

and how is that applicable to the topic here?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Christians opposing interracial marriage was a mistake.

And no different form Christians opposed to legal recognition of same gendered marriage

 

[David Brider]

Umm..so Christ said more than one thing on the Cross..and you find this hard to believe?

The question was, what were Jesus' last words on the cross.

And the answer is...that your answer would depend on which account you used.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Christians opposing interracial marriage was a mistake. Some Christians make errors, as there is no scriptural support for interracial marriage being a sin. But there is clear scriptural support condemning homosexuality. It's different.

As has already been pointed out to you, there is no "clear scriptural support condemning homosexuality." Unless you're working from a seriously flawed understanding of what homosexuality is.

 

[BreadAlone]

The question was, what were Jesus' last words on the cross.

And the answer is...that your answer would depend on which account you used.

David.

The question was loaded with the intent to prove a contradiction, where none exists. NONE of the accounts say "this is the last thing Christ said."

 

[David Brider]

The question was loaded with the intent to prove a contradiction, where none exists. NONE of the accounts say "this is the last thing Christ said."

It's true that Luke doesn't necessarily contradict Matthew/Mark, since the latter accounts simply state that "With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last" (Mark 15:37) and "when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit" (Matthew 27:50), and it's possible that the loud cry in both cases could have been ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" as recorded in Luke 23:46.

However, John's account ("When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit," John 19:30) is impossible to reconcile with Luke's ("It is finished" and "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" are clearly not the same thing, and are both given as Jesus' last words prior to his death), and difficult to reconcile with Matthew/Mark (it's certainly not explicitly stated that "It is finished" is said as a loud cry, and it doesn't come across as such).

David.

 

[darkshadow]

No no. That was not an answer. The Bible tells me many things that finish up contradicting itself. Among other things, God's word condones rape and pilage and all manner of strange commands and rituals that we are told God NEVER changes. God's word also (supposedly) tells us that whoever does not believe on Him (???) will be tormented in a fiery hell for ever and ever and ever. What???

God's word seems to be a mix of, at times, 'questionable' love that includes attrocities that would fly in the face of every decent human being. So, what IS God's word that Christians are to adhere to? Do we still kill 'homosexuals' ...incidently, a word not found in the Bible? Do we still honor the 7th-day Sabbath as commanded by God? Do we still take slaves as condoned by God? Do we dishonor God by eating shellfish? Do we love our neighbor by killing him as condoned by God ...as above? What DO we do to supposedly keep God's word?

I want logic and reasoning ...not Christian rhetoric.

Not sure what Bible your reading, because you are so off base it is not even funny. The Bible does not condone rapre, it does speak of the act of homosexuality, aka those participating would be homosexual, slaves mentioned were not as those of the black slavery, and unclean food was removed, along with the Sabbath in the New Covenant, or New Testament. Try reading the entire Bible, and putting it all in context together and not the pieces you want.

 

[darkshadow]

It's true that Luke doesn't necessarily contradict Matthew/Mark, since the latter accounts simply state that "With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last" (Mark 15:37) and "when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit" (Matthew 27:50), and it's possible that the loud cry in both cases could have been ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" as recorded in Luke 23:46.

However, John's account ("When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit," John 19:30) is impossible to reconcile with Luke's ("It is finished" and "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" are clearly not the same thing, and are both given as Jesus' last words prior to his death), and difficult to reconcile with Matthew/Mark (it's certainly not explicitly stated that "It is finished" is said as a loud cry, and it doesn't come across as such).

David.

Umm yes it is. In Matthew it say that Jesus bowed and gave up his spirit, Luke says he said, "Father into your hands I commit my spirit." That is the same. Just because Matthew does not enter the quote, does not mean it was not said, and because Luke quotes it does not mean Matthew was wrong. There is no contradiction between the two. You have to look at a few things before jumping to your conclusions. One amount of space left on the scroll they were wrinting on. Maybe Matthew didn't have enough room to write it in. Second, you have to look at the contextual reason for each book. The authors all wrote there gospels, in different views, and to different peoples yet all saying the same thing. Mark to a Roman audience, and showing his awe. Matthew to a Jewish audience and showing his Messiahood. Luke to the Gentiles and possible to help in Paul's trial. John to show Jesus' salvation, love, Godlines, and other attributes. The Bible does not say, "and the last thing Jesus said on the cross was...", because it was not what he said, it was what he did there. In this case actions most deffintatly was louder the words!

 

[Inviolable]

I DO refer to myself as Christian; however, my understanding of what being a 'follower of Christ' is (a Christian) possibly differs from what YOU would consider a 'Christian' to be, Inviolable. Does that make me a nonChristian in your eyes? This is the way I see it. Consistently using the Bible as a weapon to condemn others is NOT the way to use the Bible or to spread the Gospel. Misusing the Bible in this manner - and it IS misusing the Bible - does NOT a Christian make. Not at all. In fact, 'perceived scriptural knowledge' alone does not a Christian make. I don't think a lot of professed Christians realize this.

Blue why blue?
It appears as if you may think the bible is suppose to be chocked full of good intentions toward everyone. Why would you make that assumption?
Why would you assume everyone described in the bible isn't being described just so so we as Christians would know what to do and what not to do?
Why would you assume God isn't going to punish those he will punish.
Just as he rewards those he rewards.

And, to Hentenza, the word 'homosexual' is NOT found anywhere in the KJV Bible ...only in modern translations.

Whats your point? That the bible didn't say it, exactly the way you wanted it to be said?

Back to my question. What IS God's word?

The bible.

 

[KCKID]

Not sure what Bible your reading, because you are so off base it is not even funny.

I know my Bible, darkshadow.

The Bible does not condone rape,

No? Well, let's see. God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered."

Murder, rape, and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18)

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

it does speak of the act of homosexuality, aka those participating would be homosexual, slaves mentioned were not as those of the black slavery, and unclean food was removed, along with the Sabbath in the New Covenant, or New Testament.

Selective and fanciful reading, darkshadow. And if you say it enough times you'll believe it.

Try reading the entire Bible, and putting it all in context together and not the pieces you want. I believe you have rhetoric confussed with the truth, its okay that happens alot with those who call themselves "christian" by label.

Sure.