Should christians oppose civil unions?

ViaCrucis · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
Trying to equate a skin color with a sexual activity is nothing more than attempting to justify a behavior.

If you are unable to grasp the concept that being gay isn't a behavior or an activity, then frankly you really don't have anything to offer the conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
If you are unable to grasp the concept that being gay isn't a behavior or an activity, then frankly you really don't have anything to offer the conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

Dude, read the topic title. It's about civil unions. It could also be about SSM. Is that an activity? Is it a choice? Uh, yes it is. Just as being angry with someone is something you may naturally feel in a given situation, acting out by punching that person is an activity that comes following a choice.

I notice in your profile you describe yourself as a Lutheran. I assume you are against sin as God is. Am I wrong? What does God say in His word about this subject? Here's a few verses:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

sickntired771 · Dec 22, 2014

We live in a free society and have free will, so the Church should not interfere with government marrying same-sex couples. The churches as has been the case are deciding on an individual basis whether to perform same-sex marriage or commitment ceremonies. I don't see how civil marriage affects this process in any way and many churches do take a liberal and accepting line while the ones who don't continue to not marry gay couples.

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Philip Lord said:
So you saying its Ok to devour your mate, or take food from others? Its natural, the animal kingdom does it. How about inter species sexual relations and killing the young of your rivals? Yes there are humans who do these things too, But I am not trying to argue its not SIN for us to do.

We're not saying all those things are necessarily moral, we're just arguing they're natural. Since you claim homosexuality is unnatural, you would in fact be wrong. Establishing that it is in fact natural, we could then argue morality.

You're trying to argue it's unnatural and therefore morally wrong. That's a logical fallacy.

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Philip Lord said:
We don't have laws encouraging it either. You intentionally missed the point.

Technically we do, seeing as the 1st Amendment gives us free reign to blasphemy and worship other gods if we want to.

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Marius27 said:
We're not saying all those things are necessarily moral, we're just arguing they're natural. Since you claim homosexuality is unnatural, you would in fact be wrong. Establishing that it is in fact natural, we could then argue morality.

You're trying to argue it's unnatural and therefore morally wrong. That's a logical fallacy.

[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
He would probably tell them that they have the same ability and right to marry the member of the opposite sex as anyone else.

Actually no, he directly contradicts that line of reasoning in Corinthians.

It's your entire attitude which is displayed in the things you write.

I disagree. I find your attitude towards gays far more hateful.

I'm telling you as it is described in the bible. So stop telling me what I think.

Nope, you're telling me what your laymen interpretation of the English Bible says. That's not the same thing as what's in the Bible. I read the same Bible you do and come to a very different conclusion. I have no reason to accept your view as more valid.

Trying to equate a skin color with a sexual activity is nothing more than attempting to justify a behavior.

Homosexuality doesn't refer to sexuality activity, it refers to attractions. A homosexual virgin is still homosexual despite not engaging in any behavior.

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
Dude, read the topic title. It's about civil unions. It could also be about SSM. Is that an activity? Is it a choice? Uh, yes it is. Just as being angry with someone is something you may naturally feel in a given situation, acting out by punching that person is an activity that comes following a choice.

I notice in your profile you describe yourself as a Lutheran. I assume you are against sin as God is. Am I wrong? What does God say in His word about this subject? Here's a few verses:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

Aldebaran said:
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]

So you can quote an English text out of context without knowing what it actually meant in the original language. What's your point? You do realize every single person you're arguing with here has read those verses countless times right?

Even Saint Augustine and Anastasios said Romans 1 refers to heterosexuals. Leviticus refers to pagan worship rituals and is only applicable to the ancient Israelites. Corinthians is a mistranslation of a word Paul invented. Homosexual was not added to that verse until the 1940s. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality. The Bible flat out tells you that in Ezekiel and Judges 19 disproves the argument that it's referring to what we'd call gay people.

Do you think you're being clever by beating us over the head with Bible passages that we clearly know more about then you do? I don't think that's an effective argument tool.

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Marius27 said:
Actually no, he directly contradicts that line of reasoning in Corinthians.

Ok, show it to me.

Marius27 said:
I disagree. I find your attitude towards gays far more hateful.

That's ok. You're entitled to your opinion. But being against something is not hatred of the person. There are many things God hates.

Marius27 said:
Nope, you're telling me what your laymen interpretation of the English Bible says. That's not the same thing as what's in the Bible. I read the same Bible you do and come to a very different conclusion. I have no reason to accept your view as more valid.

So tell me what it says, and where it says it so we can have a discussion on common ground.

Marius27 said:
Homosexuality doesn't refer to sexuality activity, it refers to attractions. A homosexual virgin is still homosexual despite not engaging in any behavior.

SSM and civil unions (the topic of the thread) for the purpose of making the fact that they have sex with each other something that the rest of society is forced to honor and recognize is an act.

bhsmte · Dec 22, 2014

Philip Lord said:
So you saying its Ok to devour your mate, or take food from others? Its natural, the animal kingdom does it. How about inter species sexual relations and killing the young of your rivals? Yes there are humans who do these things too, But I am not trying to argue its not SIN for us to do.

You have a very creative way of interpreting what people actually write and interpret meanings which are not even close to what they said.

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Marius27 said:
So you can quote an English text out of context without knowing what it actually meant in the original language. What's your point? You do realize every single person you're arguing with here has read those verses countless times right?

Even Saint Augustine and Anastasios said Romans 1 refers to heterosexuals. Leviticus refers to pagan worship rituals and is only applicable to the ancient Israelites. Corinthians is a mistranslation of a word Paul invented. Homosexual was not added to that verse until the 1940s. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality. The Bible flat out tells you that in Ezekiel and Judges 19 disproves the argument that it's referring to what we'd call gay people.

Do you think you're being clever by beating us over the head with Bible passages that we clearly know more about then you do? I don't think that's an effective argument tool.

Do you reject the accuracy of God's word then? What evidence do you have to back up these claims? Telling me what Saint Augustine and Anastasios said does not invalidate God's word, unless in your mind, these people's opinions override God's word. As for Judges 19, what do you see it referring to then?

Judges 19:22-- While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
Ok, show it to me.

1 Corinthians 7:3

The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

You're arguing a gay man should marry a woman. He, by definition cannot fulfill his duty to his wife and he will most certainly deprive his wife of intimacy/affection seeing as he's not physically/romantically/or sexually attracted to women. This will in turn lead to adultery and divorce which we see all too often among gay conservatives who marry out of obligation and get caught in gay scandals or admit they're gay after already have a wife/kids. They destroy their entire family.

To marry someone he has no feelings for is a direct contradiction of Paul's command on how marriage partners are to behave with one another.

That's ok. You're entitled to your opinion. But being against something is not hatred of the person. There are many things God hates.

Click to expand...

To hate is not of God, because God is love. I don't see how you can argue it's not hate when you directly hate someone's innate qualities. If I say I hate black skin, you'd have a hard time arguing that I don't hate a black person.

So tell me what it says, and where it says it so we can have a discussion on common ground.

Click to expand...

That would take a very long discussion and it's not permitted in this forum.

SSM and civil unions (the topic of the thread) for the purpose of making the fact that they have sex with each other something that the rest of society is forced to honor and recognize is an act.

Click to expand...

No necessarily. Again you're committing a logical fallacy. SSM doesn't automatically mean they're having sex. Is it likely? Yes, but you're making assumptions. I know 2 gay men who have been together for over 20 years and basically never have sex. Literally if they do, it's once a year.

Whether sexual activity is occurring is not grounds for opposing SSM. They're going to have sex whether they're married or not, just like most heterosexuals.

Marius27 · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
Do you reject the accuracy of God's word then?

I don't consider it infallible or inerrant, nor do I consider some random person's interpretation on the internet a valid argument. The Bible also says the sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is stationary. Should I take that part of God's word as accurate?

Judges 19:22-- While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

Again, you're ignoring context. Read further. Those same men end up raping a female concubine all night, which clearly means they're not gay.

If you knew what rape was about and how it was used throughout history, you'd understand rape was committed against men as a means of humiliation and dominance. Not because the men are innately gay. The vast majority of the 10s of thousands of sexual assaults taking place in our military are committed by heterosexual men.

Loudmouth · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
SSM and civil unions (the topic of the thread) for the purpose of making the fact that they have sex with each other something that the rest of society is forced to honor and recognize is an act.

Let's see how that pans out for the other freedoms that we enjoy the US.

Freedom of religion. Does the fact that we allow other people to worship how they see fit mean that we approve of their religious beliefs? We allow people to worship idols here in the States. Does that mean that you, as a US citizen, approve of idol worship?

Dietary laws. We allow people to eat pork in this country. Does this mean that Jews and Muslims are being forced to accept the eating of pork as ordained by God?

Or could it be that a person is not bound by the rules of another man's religion?

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Marius27 said:
I don't consider it infallible or inerrant, nor do I consider some random person's interpretation on the internet a valid argument.

So there's really no point in your being here and discussing any of this with any of us random people on this site, is there? So why do it?

Marius27 said:
Again, you're ignoring context. Read further. Those same men end up raping a female concubine all night, which clearly means they're not gay.

Now you're splitting hairs about definitions. So as long as they rape a woman, then it's not immoral in God's eyes to have sex with men, right? And if these same guys also have sex with a sheep, they aren't committing inappropriate behavior with animals either, by your logic.

Marius27 said:
If you knew what rape was about and how it was used throughout history, you'd understand rape was committed against men as a means of humiliation and dominance. Not because the men are innately gay. The vast majority of the 10s of thousands of sexual assaults taking place in our military are committed by heterosexual men.

I guess that makes it ok then. Instead of using God's word to justify an act, you use the acts of 10s of thousands of rapists in our military to try discrediting God's word. :doh:

selfinflikted · Dec 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Let's see how that pans out for the other freedoms that we enjoy the US.

Freedom of religion. Does the fact that we allow other people to worship how they see fit mean that we approve of their religious beliefs? We allow people to worship idols here in the States. Does that mean that you, as a US citizen, approve of idol worship?

Dietary laws. We allow people to eat pork in this country. Does this mean that Jews and Muslims are being forced to accept the eating of pork as ordained by God?

Or could it be that a person is not bound by the rules of another man's religion?

This. All day long.

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Marius27 said:
1 Corinthians 7:3

The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

This doesn't back up a single assertion you've made. FAIL!

Marius27 said:

You're arguing a gay man should marry a woman. He, by definition cannot fulfill his duty to his wife and he will most certainly deprive his wife of intimacy/affection seeing as he's not physically/romantically/or sexually attracted to women. This will in turn lead to adultery and divorce which we see all too often among gay conservatives who marry out of obligation and get caught in gay scandals or admit they're gay after already have a wife/kids. They destroy their entire family.

Click to expand...

He can get counciling before getting married.

Marius27 said:

To marry someone he has no feelings for is a direct contradiction of Paul's command on how marriage partners are to behave with one another.

Click to expand...

It's actually no contradiction at all as to how marriage partners are to behave with one another. That's because marriage, up until a few years ago, has always been defined as being between a man and woman. Trying to change the definition of marriage does not cause a statement made in the past to become a contradiction.

Marius27 said:

To hate is not of God, because God is love. I don't see how you can argue it's not hate when you directly hate someone's innate qualities. If I say I hate black skin, you'd have a hard time arguing that I don't hate a black person.

Click to expand...

These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Marius27 said:

That would take a very long discussion and it's not permitted in this forum.

Click to expand...

I asked you to tell me where a statement was written, and you think that would take a very long discussion? How many pages has this thread gone on for? Sure, long discussions aren't permitted. Right. FAIL!

Marius27 said:

No necessarily. Again you're committing a logical fallacy. SSM doesn't automatically mean they're having sex. Is it likely? Yes, but you're making assumptions. I know 2 gay men who have been together for over 20 years and basically never have sex. Literally if they do, it's once a year.

Whether sexual activity is occurring is not grounds for opposing SSM. They're going to have sex whether they're married or not, just like most heterosexuals.

Click to expand...

So what's the point of a guy getting "married" to another guy if it has nothing to do with sex? If this is actually the case, then it's still another perversion of what the definition of marriage is. FAIL (again).

Loudmouth · Dec 22, 2014

Aldebaran said:
So what's the point of a guy getting "married" to another guy if it has nothing to do with sex? If this is actually the case, then it's still another perversion of what the definition of marriage is. FAIL (again).

Why should non-christians be forced to abide by the christian definition of marriage? Why should non-christians be forced to live by the edicts of the Bible? Do we have religious freedom in the US or not? Are you put upon if you are not allowed to force christian rules onto non-christians?

Aldebaran · Dec 22, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why should non-christians be forced to abide by the christian definition of marriage? Why should non-christians be forced to live by the edicts of the Bible? Do we have religious freedom in the US or not? Are you put upon if you are not allowed to force christian rules onto non-christians?

You aren't being forced by Christians to do anything. But Should christians oppose civil unions? My answer is yes. Same goes for SSM.

Cute Tink · Dec 22, 2014

So what's the point of a guy getting "married" to another guy if it has nothing to do with sex? If this is actually the case, then it's still another perversion of what the definition of marriage is. FAIL (again).

Well, for one, not everyone feels the need to wait for marriage to have sex. Therefore, the desire to get married has little to nothing to do with a desire to have sex with that person. That pretty much holds true across the sexuality spectrum far as I can tell, since it doesn't seem like that many people are waiting (anecdotal judgment only).

Therefore, while it may be a "perversion" of your definition of marriage, it has no bearing on the legal definition and this topic was about whether Christians should be against legalization, which you just clarified you think Christians should oppose. Great for you.

Personally, I think people should worry less about what other people do with their lives, but okay.

Should christians oppose civil unions?

Confessional Lutheran

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

NCC-1701-A

Under Deck

NCC-1701-A

Contributor

NCC-1701-A

Blah

Similar threads