Australia to ban gay marriages

Bob Moore · May 28, 2004

Existential1 said:
No Bob, you can't pull that fast one.

Nothing 'fast' about it. I've got you pegged.

What you see is, recognition of what is plainly stated, by your account.

My account? Lev 18:22, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 1 Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Ti 1:8-10 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

You are quite free to ignore what the Bible plainly says if it suits you. But how about a little intellectual honesty in acknowledging that it says what it says?

What I see, involves me in manipulating, by your account.

Just so. You deny the content of scripture because it suits you to do so. That probably flies quite well in your social circle, but it doesn't get off the ground with me.

Your whole position is permeated by "your account". Any manipulating you do, which is of the world and witness of those you come to oppose, you just shut your eyes to.

The yammering of one who has no cogent argument.

If someone gives you chapter and verse of what you do in this, you just give this expression, or its author, some pejorative name, which effectively and reducatively dismisses it.

I have employed no perjoratives. But I have not, and will not, hesitate to call a spade a spade.

You have shut down the possibility of relation and interaction with those you have come to oppose, and have done so unilaterally, and within personal perspective which remains self consistent only because it is a closed loop of conviction.

Copy that out of a freshman text, did you? You couldn't be more wrong.

You say that you have the authority of the Bible behind you: and other's who might have alternate recourse to the Bible, do not have that authority; but all this is just a solipsistic declamation on your part.

There is no possible way to justify your position apart from the plaintive cry "I want to". You might as well claim that theft, murder, and deciet are also not condemned.

Philosoft · May 28, 2004

timusic76 said:
One removes God and the Bible from things and anything can seem right. Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."
Right and wrong become a huge debate. Absolutes no longer exist.

What you're missing is that Christianity doesn't have absolutes either, only claims of absolutes. You still have to decide on your own whether Biblical morality is the way to go.

If that's all it takes to be absolute, then any moral system that claims moral absolutes is absolute by definition. Clearly that can't be correct.

Clearly this is what pagans are wishing for as seen in the removal of the Ten Commandments from public places.

See, here you're defining the 10Cs as the only possible moral absolutes. You're denying outright that the "pagans" have their own moral absolutes by fallaciously linking them with relativism.

clayrichard · May 28, 2004

veggie said:
Nice verses but just because they don't say anything about homosexual relationships, doesn't mean they're wrong.

No but Romans 1:27 clearly does.
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:27 NAS

2001MustangGT · May 28, 2004

Bob Moore said:
Can you say "RED HERRING"?

From dictionary.com:

RED HERRING:

A smoked herring having a reddish color.
Something that draws attention away from the central issue

Your post dont seem to mean #1. So it must mean #2.

If 1 in 20,000 live births have Pseudohermaphriditism, and if XX male and XY female births occur at a 1 in 20,000 rate each, I am not quite sure that it is "drawing attention away from the central issue". I think, instead, that it is a "consequence of the central issue".

And you didnt reply to my post where I put 14 quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, that supported my assertion that there is no developed country whose government and laws are founded upon the laws of the Bible.

And I also asked you earlier, in response to this

Bob Moore said:
Have you ever heard of a quaint little place called The United States of America? Evidently not.

Do you know how a person comes to believe that the USA is founded on Biblical law when the only time the Constitution mentions religion is when it calls for "freedom of religion", and the only time it mentions church is when it calls for "seperation of church and state" ?

Adam Kadamon · May 28, 2004

aeroz19 said:
The argument is almost the same as gay marriage.

I'd be perfectly fine with gays doing whatever the heck they wanted to, so long as they did not want benefits the way married people have benefits.

Gay maggiage (g's are intentional) is actually a way that homos want to enforce their will upon the majority--by taking money from our pockets for their maggiage benefits.

I sincerly pity you and your ilk :sigh:

I suspect you've met more gay people than you think-at stores, school, etc...-that you had no idea were gay (or 'homos', as you so eloquently put it) because you're stuck in this stereotypical idea of what gays are and what they want and what they do.

Allowing gays to marry does not infringe upon your rights. Not allowing gays to marry infringes upon gays rights. We do not live an a theocracy. If you would rather live in a theocracy you are welcome to move.

Gays may not be able to reproduce naturally together, but they can adopt and/or contribute to society in other ways. Just like infertile couples or couples over 60 or people who do not want to have children can contribute to society in other ways. There is more to survival than popping out children, you know.

You have no right to judge people. That's God's territory alone-you let God tend to it.

And if you can't tell the difference between a consenting adult homosexual couple and a raptist or murderer than you are in no condition to try and get any laws enforced.

There is no logical/rational agruement to not allow gays to get married. From a legal POV, that is. Religious organizations should not be 'forced' to marry gay couples if they don't want to.

Adam Kadamon · May 28, 2004

Ampmonster said:
and how many 14 year old call people dear?

I give up, sugar plum, how many 14 year olds call people dear? :scratch:

Western Deity · May 28, 2004

"Gay maggiage (g's are intentional)"

Lmao!!! That's classic.

clayrichard · May 28, 2004

Existential1 said:
Christianity deserves better Bob: don't undersell it; loving your neighbour, and that means veggie, involves a lot more than you're giving it.

I don't want what we all DESERVE, since that's hell. Only reason we don't get it is because Jesus was our rath-bearer!

One thing God gave us, though we DON'T deserve it is a infalable word so we don't have to grope around in the dark on matters as this.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

If he left us to figure it out on our own, we would be in trouble!

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Therfore he answers our question in His Perfect word
Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Thats quite clear, on groping around here!

2001MustangGT · May 28, 2004

Bob Moore said:
Nothing 'fast' about it. I've got you pegged.
My account? Lev 18:22, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

If we are going to quote Leviticus as source for definition of morality, then we should fight for Leviticus 19:19 as well: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

And dont forget Leviticus 21:17-23: Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

If you follow Leviticus verses, then why not follow them all? How bout a little intellectual honesty in acknowledging that the Bible says what it says?

You are quite free to ignore what the Bible plainly says if it suits you. But how about a little intellectual honesty in acknowledging that it says what it says?

Again, the Bible is not a foundation of the government or laws of Australia, nor is it for any other developed nation on Earth. How about a little intellectual honesty in acknowledging Australia's (and many other nations) secular government?

praying · May 28, 2004

sweetkitty said:
I think you need some new research

http://fbctoulon.com/foundingfathers

I don't need research I only need to research my slave ancestry to know they weren't Christians.

the_cheat · May 28, 2004

Bob Moore, and any other anti-gay-marriage activists, I'm curious: who should Guevodoces be allowed to marry? Only each other? No one?

zoe_uu · May 30, 2004

And what about the intersexed? Those persons born with both male and female reproductive organs? Should the child's parents choose the sex of their child at birth and get rid of one set of reproductive organs? What if they choose wrong and physically make a "girl" in a person who is physiologically a "boy"? It happens more than you think. A baby is born with both male and female reproductive organs and the parents choose to whack off the "boy parts" because that seems easier, and children grow up confused because physically they are female, but they "feel" male. Or they sew up/remove the female parts and allow the male parts to remain. But what if that "boy" grows up feeling more female than male even though "he" has a penis? That brings the question of does "male" and "female" depend completely on a person's reproductive organs?

And who should these people marry if they do not have surgery to eliminate one set of reproductive organs and remain physically both male and female? I mean all the anti-gay marriage people have made it clear that it's not how you "feel" but what you got between your legs that counts, so what is it you tell these intersexed people to do since you feel like you can tell me who I can marry or not?

truthsayer · May 30, 2004

Male and female created He them..

What is equal about an orange and an apple?

If we mean equal pay for equal work, or equally fair treatment in all areas for all, or equal employment benefits, I'm more in favor of that than anybody.

Even theology aside, this reminds me of a science fiction story I read once in which the whole world was going crazy, and there was a town that had repealed the law of gravity. Now four Massachussets judges have repealed the laws of biology!

zoe_uu · May 30, 2004

*pssst* Truthsayer, this is a thread about Australia, dude.

Philosoft · May 30, 2004

truthsayer said:
Even theology aside, this reminds me of a science fiction story I read once in which the whole world was going crazy, and there was a town that had repealed the law of gravity. Now four Massachussets judges have repealed the laws of biology!

What the...?!

You know, when you're writing, often the things that sound the cleverest to you sound the stupidest to everyone else. I like your style, though.

Bob Moore · May 31, 2004

2001MustangGT,

The Law is in three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The first two apply only to Israel, but the moral law applies to all men everywhere forever.

scud · May 31, 2004

here is motre about the secret bible codes talking about Hitler Saddam etc.
and the magnetic rings that increase vitality.

http://www.alexchiu.com/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=scallchad

well i hope that all countried ban gay marriage, and ban gay priests, etc.

kdet · May 31, 2004

mhatten said:
I don't need research I only need to research my slave ancestry to know they weren't Christians.

Mhatten this is off topic but was Moses a Christian in your eyes? Was David a Christian? The Old Testament is full of Godly men that had slaves.

zoe_uu · May 31, 2004

kdet said:
Mhatten this is off topic but was Moses a Christian in your eyes? Was David a Christian? The Old Testament is full of Godly men that had slaves.

Are you saying it's OK to have slaves and be a Christian? How is degrading and denying another person's civil rights alright by God, but loving and caring for a person of your same gender is somehow evil? That doesn't make much sense... :scratch:

kdet · May 31, 2004

veggie said:
Are you saying it's OK to have slaves and be a Christian? How is degrading and denying another person's civil rights alright by God, but loving and caring for a person of your same gender is somehow evil? That doesn't make much sense...

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that because a man owned slaves in a time when that was socially acceptable, it doesn't make him not a Christian.

Australia to ban gay marriages

Reformed Apologist

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Acts 17:11

FORD lover

Adam Kadamon

Guest

Adam Kadamon

Guest

you know how it is

Acts 17:11

FORD lover

Snazzy Title Goes Here

the_cheat

Guest

Promoting Religious Tolerance

Member

Promoting Religious Tolerance

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Reformed Apologist

Member

God lives in us

Promoting Religious Tolerance

God lives in us

Similar threads