Do gays pushing for gay marriage realize what they are asking Christians to accept?

[clarksided]

Blacks already have civil rights.

Skin color is immutable.

You choosing to fornicate with someone of the same sex isn't.

Even if this post were true in spirit, it wouldn't matter or be relevant to the idea of "rights for every group might make another group uncomfortable"

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Why is this thread still going on? It was smacked within the first two pages.

 

[Zaac]

Are you saying that gay marriage is no longer an issue in the U.S.?

Is that what you read?

You said skin color is immutable, but fornication with a person of the same sex is a choice. Although I agree with you that sleeping with someone of the same-sex is a choice, I'm pointing out that feeling attracted to a member of the same-sex is not.

Nobody has legislated that you can't be attracted to a member of the same-sex.

What was my point? To respond to your point (see my explanation, above). But I don't know why you think the immutability of skin color means one should be entitled to civil rights, and choosing a same-sex partner means one should not be.

Cause moral wrong ain't the same as a civil right.

 

[Zaac]

Even if this post were true in spirit, it wouldn't matter or be relevant to the idea of "rights for every group might make another group uncomfortable"

 

[Andreusz]

I'm not demanding anything. Yall gotta follow the law just like everybody else. I can't marry someone of the same sex either so gay folks have the same prohibition on marriage that I have.

.

So I take it you're happy to recognise the legal homosexual marriages of Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and South Africa?

 

[Andreusz]

Let me explain it to you. "Marriage" needs a man and woman or there is no "marriage" possible.

This is not the case in my country.

Living with someone isn't 'marriage" and having sex isn't "marriage," but having the remotest possibility of begetting siblings

Ah, you're from "Deliverance" country?

and becoming parents (biologically), and therefore be either a mother or father --- TOGETHER --- that is "marriage."

So women who've passed the menopause, or who've had hysterectomies, and men who've had vasectomies or have extremely low sperm counts, cannot marry in LittleNipper land?

 

[HighwayMan]

It was fine the way it was.



Christ gave me the authority to teach His word.

That's strange, as Moses just called and said you were wrong.

 

[brightmorningstar]

This is sort of a vice versa of a previous post.
Do gays don't know what they are asking Christians to accept? Yes and no. Yes they can hear what the issue is, whether they can grasp it is another matter.
As far as Christians are concerned we should remember that everyone has a choice and especially in a democracy same sex partnership may get recognised as marriage.
I detect that large parts of western society once they same sex partnership are then intolerant of any criticism of it and thus not prepared to accept other views, name the word of God.
We also have to remember that as Christians our world view is only transformed and different because of faith in Christ. With gay friends in same sex relationships they know what our views are and we know what theirs are, we try and witness Christ to them, only then could they really come to terms with God's purposes.

 

[Psudopod]

Do gays don't know what they are asking Christians to accept? Yes and no. Yes they can hear what the issue is, whether they can grasp it is another matter.

Can I ask what is so terrible about having to accept it? Is it any worse than having to accept other people worship different gods, or women having authority over men?

As far as Christians are concerned we should remember that everyone has a choice and especially in a democracy same sex partnership may get recognised as marriage.

Will, I think, and thankyou for acknowledging that.

I detect that large parts of western society once they same sex partnership are then intolerant of any criticism of it and thus not prepared to accept other views, name the word of God.

The word of God is only valid for the people who worship that God. It is not something that can be used to direct society. There have not been any other valid criticisms of homosexuality, and even the bible is not as clear cut as some might like to believe.

We also have to remember that as Christians our world view is only transformed and different because of faith in Christ. With gay friends in same sex relationships they know what our views are and we know what theirs are, we try and witness Christ to them, only then could they really come to terms with God's purposes.

What about the many gay Christians?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

Can I ask what is so terrible about having to accept it? Is it any worse than having to accept other people worship different gods, or women having authority over men?

As Christians we can’t accept it if we love God because it is against God’s purposes. We also believe God’s ways are better for a number of reasons which gays don’t agree with either.

Will, I think, and thankyou for acknowledging that.

I am not sure, perhaps for a while, but I detect as mood swing back to reality.

The word of God is only valid for the people who worship that God.

That’s true for those who don’t, but not true for those who worship the Father Son and Holy Spirit as Jesus Christ died for all.

It is not something that can be used to direct society.

That depends on whether society accepts it, comes to believe or contains a majority of believers.

There have not been any other valid criticisms of homosexuality,

According to the debate there obviously have, some don’t believe other criticisms are valid and others do. You seem to be biased there in acknowledging just one side of the debate.

and even the bible is not as clear cut as some might like to believe.

The Bible however is clear cut as has been demonstrated. If one could suggest the scriptural evidence for the exculsion and condemnation of same sex relationships is not clear one could dispute anything and everything in the Bible, and indeed that’s pretty much what happened within the Anglican Communion and GAFCON where the majority of Anglicans were represented, the ‘straw that broke the camels back’ was the same sex issue in the TEC, but indicative of pluralism, marcionism and other falsehoods that are being promoted by those who promote same sex relationships.

What about the many gay Christians?

What about them? What about ex-gay Christians? Can one be a ‘gay christian’ I don’t think so according to the Biblical testimony of God.

 

[Andreusz]

To Psudopod,
As Christians we can’t accept it if we love God because it is against God’s purposes. We also believe God’s ways are better for a number of reasons which gays don’t agree with either.

Yet you accept the presence of people of other faiths in your allegedly Christian country. Isn't this hypocritical?

According to the debate there obviously have, some don’t believe other criticisms are valid and others do.

Validity is not a matter of belief. No valid secular criticisms have been directed against homosexuality.

Can one be a ‘gay christian’ I don’t think so according to the Biblical testimony of God.

You may be right, here.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Yet you accept the presence of people of other faiths in your allegedly Christian country. Isn't this hypocritical?

We do accept there are other religions, but we don’t see the country as Christian, we see it as largely secular and post-Christian still retaining a legacy of Christian laws and organisation and a large Christian minority.

Validity is not a matter of belief. No valid secular criticisms have been directed against homosexuality.

The evidence that men and woman sexually reproduce is a rather convincing piece of evidence to the debate as far as we are concerned.

Can one be a ‘gay christian’ I don’t think so according to the Biblical testimony of God.

You may be right, here.

Indeed, that lends credibility to your argument as you demonstrate you recognise the reality of what is written.

 

[Andreusz]

We do accept there are other religions, but we don’t see the country as Christian, we see it as largely secular and post-Christian still retaining a legacy of Christian laws and organisation and a large Christian minority.

If you see homosexual marriage as threatening to your religious beliefs, howcome you don't see the practice of other religions (presumably, equally sinful) in the same light?

The evidence that men and woman sexually reproduce is a rather convincing piece of evidence to the debate as far as we are concerned.

Sex is not only for reproduction.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The evidence that men and woman sexually reproduce is a rather convincing piece of evidence to the debate as far as we are concerned.

Yet personal conjecture and/or opinion have zero bearing on what is or is not correct. Science states that homosexuality is normal and even beneficial to society so that will always take precedent over personal conjecture.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

If you see homosexual marriage as threatening to your religious beliefs,

We don’t see same sex relationships as marriage in the first place soit doesn’t threaten our beliefs, it is just contrary to them.

howcome you don't see the practice of other religions (presumably, equally sinful) in the same light?

As we believe Jesus Christ is the truth the way and the life you will probably find we do, have you an example?

Sex is not only for reproduction.

But that’s just your view, not ours or the view of many other including some of those from other religions you mentioned.
As there are two sexes in the species which are required for reproduction I would suggest sex is for reproduction and your contention is just for pleasurable gratification.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Ohpidiaphile,

Yet personal conjecture and/or opinion have zero bearing on what is or is not correct.

I dont think what all can observe is personal conjecture. To say the sky is pink and assume to suggest it is blue is merely personal conjecture sounds like a step outside reality to me. What is correct morally is another subjective matter. The fact that the species requires both its two sexes to reproduce the sexes suggests reproductive fucntion is the sexual function.

Science states that homosexuality is normal and even beneficial to society so that will always take precedent over personal conjecture.

On the contrary that is conjecture and subjective, science does not state that men and men can reproduce in sexual intercourse with each other. You are losing touch with reality.

 

[Andreusz]

To Andreusz,
We don’t see same sex relationships as marriage in the first place soit doesn’t threaten our beliefs, it is just contrary to them.
As we believe Jesus Christ is the truth the way and the life you will probably find we do, have you an example?

Islam denies that Jesus is the saviour. Why do you allow Muslims to practice their religion in your country, but not allow homosexuals to marry? My point is that if you disallow the one, you should disallow the other, if you are going to be consistent.

But that’s just your view, not ours or the view of many other including some of those from other religions you mentioned.

I suspect it's the view of most people.

As there are two sexes in the species which are required for reproduction I would suggest sex is for reproduction and your contention is just for pleasurable gratification.

Why "just"?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

To Ohpidiaphile,
I dont think what all can observe is personal conjecture. To say the sky is pink and assume to suggest it is blue is merely personal conjecture sounds like a step outside reality to me. What is correct morally is another subjective matter. The fact that the species requires both its two sexes to reproduce the sexes suggests reproductive fucntion is the sexual function.

On the contrary that is conjecture and subjective, science does not state that men and men can reproduce in sexual intercourse with each other. You are losing touch with reality.

And I have previously posted valid research that shows that there are benefits that do not include reproduction, in fact reproduction of a species is often a negative, not a positive. You are the one that fails to see beyond what you want to.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Islam denies that Jesus is the saviour. Why do you allow Muslims to practice their religion in your country, but not allow homosexuals to marry?

If Christians were in a majority in the country and government, yes probably, as long as it didn’t contravene the overall laws and practice of society. We would also not imprison homosexuals for same sex activity but we wouldn’t accept same sex unions as marriage.
Why would you accept Christians be allowed to believe and say same sex partnerships are error? Would you allow Muslims to do the same?

Why "just"?

For two reasons. Firstly because the design of the two sexes for reproduction applies to all humans whereas same sex desire only applies to some. Secondly pleasure can be gained by all kinds of people from all kinds of things, its totally dysfunctional to attribute pleasure as a function to anything. Eating can give pleasure but the function of the mouth stomach, intestines, anus etc is not to give pleasure but to intake food for energy and expel the waste. Otherwise I could say the function of the nose is to smell and give pleasure, the function of the ear is to hear and give pleasure etc. This is patently not true as some sounds and smells do not give pleasure and some sounds and smells only give pleasure to some and discomfort to others.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Ohidiaphile,

And I have previously posted valid research that shows that there are benefits that do not include reproduction, [/quote[ Ah but thats just your tangent to the point again. I would say any research that claims it takes only one sex in intercourse to reproduce is not valid but invalid as it cnat demonstrate it. As to benefits well thats subjective but whether that is valid is subjective. As we have seen there is research that shows it isnt. I would claim the research that shows it isnt is more valid.
You seem to think that what you consider valid is going to be valid because you think it is, your view is just your view.