Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think a lot of people seem to be missing the point about 'rights'. Legalising gay marriage is not a human rights issue......
These rules surrounding marriage do not discriminate against people, they discriminate against behaviour, which is what all laws do. The reason we have these rules surrounding marriage is because adult/child, incestual, polygamous and homosexual marriages do not benefit society. Only the natural marriage that God designed can be considered foundation of society.
yet this is the church we have in the world. be aware that when I say church here and in my previous post i do not mean an individual local church but the christian church as a whole.Then that wouldn't be a very good church would it?
the only limitation put on greed often is not doing anything illegal. you can do stuff that is morally quentionable but not illegal and that is fine according to society. there is no limit on greed in many areas. take the Sydney olympics for example. A number of businesses put the price up on products to take advantage of big crowds passing by who would buy stuff. or why do different shops charge different prices for things that cost the same? Greed. Yet we accept that. I have never heard a complaint about that.One can easily promote anti greed legislation. It is done all the time through limitations. Even my local grocery store puts a limit on items I can buy at a sale price.
and for that to happen one does not need to force religious beliefs on others.Light automatically makes darkness... retreat. Salt takes a food and makes it taste different. If your witness of Jesus does not make darkness retreat or food taste different... that isn't a witness of Jesus.
it is different because your original statement was not allowing a law to be passed is passive. The phrase not allowing implies action taken therefore is not passive.Correct. How is that different from what I said?
Voting for or against a law is active. Not doing anything is passive.
agreed. Of course one can only choose from the options presented.As for voting for laws...pick your reps wisely.
Sorry for not making it clearer or for misunderstandingwhat you wrote. You seemed to be taking that passage to mean only sexuality not all things.Huh?
This passage is not talking about sexuality.
This passage is talking about all things.
How is sexuality not a part of "all things".
So you agree that lusting is not sinful in and of itself. The bible tells us that Jesus lusted. In Luke 22:15 where Jesus earnestly desired to share passover with his disciples the word used there is the very same word translated as lust. So one can conclude lusting itself is not a sin but rather the subject of our lust that is the problem. if I lust (earnestly desire) God that is not a sin.And no Jesus did not sin. Because He was not from the world, but from the Father. His flesh was not fallen like ours. He didn't have lustful, self centered flesh. His desires were Godly.
disagree with you here. of course that may come down to you thinking lusting is wrong in and of itself which is not how I understand it as you can see from my point above.The whole point is, that no matter whatever you lust after, you will do it in an ungodly way. So one must live by God's word in order to make a slave of our bodies (1 Cor 9:27).
How would a incestual marriage not benefit society? unless you are advocating aborting any child born with a disability. Same with polgamy. It can benefit society as well. So can homosexual marriages. With the adult/child that is certainly different as consent is required. When can a child give consent? Varies and the laws (in some places) do allow for that to a degree.These rules surrounding marriage do not discriminate against people, they discriminate against behaviour, which is what all laws do. The reason we have these rules surrounding marriage is because adult/child, incestual, polygamous and homosexual marriages do not benefit society. Only the natural marriage that God designed can be considered foundation of society.
How would a incestual marriage not benefit society? unless you are advocating aborting any child born with a disability. Same with polgamy. It can benefit society as well. So can homosexual marriages. With the adult/child that is certainly different as consent is required. When can a child give consent? Varies and the laws (in some places) do allow for that to a degree.
If Julia Gillard was to legalise marriage for GBLTI people (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Intersexed for those who don't know) in Australia, what's the worst thing that could happen to our country?
Nothing! Let them marry, give them what they want. It's none of our business to judge or condemn them.
That's assuming everyone decided to marry someone of the same sex. That wouldn't happen.
No it wouldn't, but I am trying to make the point that homosexual marriage is not as beneficial as hetrosexual marriage, therefore it does not deserve equal status.
That's assuming everyone decided to marry someone of the same sex. That wouldn't happen.
This argument is weak.
Applying this logic of beneficial, then the mentally challenged should not marry, couples that can not have children should not marry, if you want to get technical, sinners should not get married. There would be no one who could get married then
Also if you apply revenue to the beneficial argument, the economy stands to benefit greatly from gay marriage, so it could be argued it is beneficial.
This nation is governed by the constitution, not the Bible. Every one is guaranteed equal rights under the laws. Marriage is simply a legal issue. Churches do not have to marry gays or recognize it as right or moral, not required to at all, they are protected under the right to practice their own religion.
I disagree that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Also remember what God said. he said it is not good for man to be alone so he created Eve. Nothing there about creating Eve and children. It is just reading far too much into the bible to say that is what marriage is about.Well, looking at marriage as the foundation of society, its purpose is to be procreating partnership where the next generation is raised in the best environment to be able to repeat the process and so on and so on. This is why it is legally endorsed, because happy and functioning marriages equal a happy and functioning - not to mention continuing - society.
Well you can make all kinds of claims based on if all marriages were that way. However lets actually be realistic. it would not be all marriages. So once again the question is how would a incestuos marriage not be beneficial. What ifthey never had kids? That removes the whole birth defects argument. in any case birth defects are not a legitimate argument as there is a chance of birth defects with every single birth.If all marriages were incestual, there would be a huge increase in genetic disorders, birth defects, etc. I suppose it is quite possible man kind would cease to exist. This is not beneficial.
We have huge numbers of unattached males now so does that mean we should scrap the marriage system as it stands. Obviously it is not beneficial. or perhaps we should force people into marriage. With a little bit of thought sorry this argument does not stand up. Another thing to consider is if being single is such a bad thing why is there a spiritual gift of celibacy? Doesn't really make sense if none of us are supposed to be single.The population of the world is roughly 50/50 male-female. If all marriages were polygamous (say each man had three wives) obviously there would be a huge number of unattached males. This is not beneficial.
Adult/child relationship does not automatically mean pedophillia. Are you really arguingthat a 19 year old who marries a 17 year old is a pedophile? Really?? Sorry gotta disagree with you there. Consent must be given by various other people for this including a court order allowing it. As I said earlier it can be just as beneficial as other marriages but the more important concern is when are they capable of giving consent. In biblical times people married as teenagers generally when they hit puberty. So generally around 14 years of age.An adult/child marriage... well, obviously it is not beneficial to have half the population pedophiles and the rest sufferers of childhood sexual abuse.
once again this is if all marriages were gay marriages. Once again lets be realistic and acknowledge that if gay marriages were allowed not all marriages would be gay marriages. or are you suggesting that if gay marriages were legalised you would instantly and uncontrolably turn gay? Somehow i don't think so.And homosexual marriages? Before long there would be no society at all.
Care to explain this. With benefits given to couples then surely any marriage is a strain on the economy. What health care costs would there be that they aren't already entitled to?How so? I would argue that homosexual marriage would strain the economy due to increased healthcare costs.
Christians point back towards truth in order to point forward.Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and religion moves slower regarding such matters but eventually catches up. Take for example inter-racial marriage which was condemned for centuries.
This issue will be buried in the history books eventually and I can even see a day when most religions understand that this is a civil rights issue regardless of what your personal feelings are. Laws are based in civil rights, so this is a losing battle. Fear not, your country will survive
This argument is weak.
Applying this logic of beneficial, then the mentally challenged should not marry, couples that can not have children should not marry, if you want to get technical, sinners should not get married. There would be no one who could get married then
Also if you apply revenue to the beneficial argument, the economy stands to benefit greatly from gay marriage, so it could be argued it is beneficial.
This nation is governed by the constitution, not the Bible. Every one is guaranteed equal rights under the laws. Marriage is simply a legal issue. Churches do not have to marry gays or recognize it as right or moral, not required to at all, they are protected under the right to practice their own religion.
This really is a losing battle. It's all about equal rights nothing more.
First, nice. Some things are getting whittled away.yet this is the church we have in the world. be aware that when I say church here and in my previous post i do not mean an individual local church but the christian church as a whole.
the only limitation put on greed often is not doing anything illegal. you can do stuff that is morally quentionable but not illegal and that is fine according to society. there is no limit on greed in many areas. take the Sydney olympics for example. A number of businesses put the price up on products to take advantage of big crowds passing by who would buy stuff. or why do different shops charge different prices for things that cost the same? Greed. Yet we accept that. I have never heard a complaint about that.
I simply asked why the church was not making as much noise about greed as it does about homosexuality. your response seemed to dismiss greed as a problem. hence my saying you seem o think greed is not a bad thing.
and for that to happen one does not need to force religious beliefs on others.
So in your example of pedophiles and thieves it is not forcing religious views on people as society in general agrees with those laws. Thats the difference.
Heh, no...it is different because your original statement was not allowing a law to be passed is passive. The phrase not allowing implies action taken therefore is not passive.
To which the first part of my response applies to:I personally think it is too much of a stretch to interpret Mat 18:7 the way you have. I think it is talking more about actively encouraging a person to sin. Simply allowing a law to be passed is not doing that in my opinion.
Well your not allowing a law to be passed, that would be passive.
Sorry for not making it clearer or for misunderstandingwhat you wrote. You seemed to be taking that passage to mean only sexuality not all things.
So you agree that lusting is not sinful in and of itself. The bible tells us that Jesus lusted. In Luke 22:15 where Jesus earnestly desired to share passover with his disciples the word used there is the very same word translated as lust. So one can conclude lusting itself is not a sin but rather the subject of our lust that is the problem. if I lust (earnestly desire) God that is not a sin.
See above, plus see these verses (John 3:6 6:63 Rom 7:18-22 8:10,13 1 Cor 9:27 Gal 5:17,18 6:8 1 John 2:15,16). It is literally impossible for the flesh descended from the world to do good.disagree with you here. of course that may come down to you thinking lusting is wrong in and of itself which is not how I understand it as you can see from my point above.
i have no problem with the teaching at my church. it was not my church I was talking about. point is the church spends most of its effort and time making public statements against homosexuality. how often do we hear public statements against greed? I don't remember one christian group making public statements against John Howard when he told the lie about the children overboard. Considering so many christians actively promoted voting for howard because he was putting forth ideas that were closer to christian teachings than others were for the most part I beleive they have a responsibility to call him on it when he told lies. however next election christians were happy to vote for him despite proof being there that he had lied. So why such a big focus on one sin rather than other sins that are much more prevalent and frankly cause bigger problems?First, nice. Some things are getting whittled away.
There are churches who do teach about all sins. Therefore you can't be speaking about the whole. I would suggest finding a different church. Not all who claim to be a Christian church are a Christian church (Matt 7:21-23).
Except you were arguing that we do have laws against greed. i was just trying to point out there are plenty of situations where greed is perfectly acceptable as far as the law goes.Nope. All sin comes from self centeredness, a type of greed. All sin is also a lie as something is good or evil in relation to God.
Speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against greed (following selfish desires of the flesh instead of God's creation). And speaking out against homosexuality is speaking out against lies (homosexuality embraces the corruption of creation, instead of God's creation).
But all types of greed are a problem and are sin. You won't find me arguing against that.
i have no problem with people standing for truth. That is different to forcing a belief on a person.In the case of a democracy I stand for truth. Whether or not anyone else stands for that is irrelevant.
The standard for truth is not if society agrees with it or not. If society accepted pedophiles would you stop speaking out against it? Your methodology for what to stand for seems flawed. It should be scripture, no matter what political institution you live in.
Well if we don't agree then you must believe that Jesus sinned. The bible made it very clear that Jesus lusted. So if you disagree with me then you believe lusting is a sin and since Jesus lusted he sinned and could not therefore be a suitable sacrifice. There is no way around that if you do not agree.Heh, no. We don't agree.
ok just answer this one thing though if you don't mind. Define beneficial and why you have that definition. See I think your definition is flawed. i have already provided good evidence that it should not be measured by the possibility of having children.TheDag,
I am not going to quote and reply to every comment you have made because I'm sure we could go round and round in circles.
What we are seeing now with gay marriage is a lot like what we seen with the civil rights movement for blacks.
Gays do not have the same equal rights as we do if they can not marry who they want!
Gays do not have the same equal rights as we do if they can not marry who they want! This is a civil rights issue as agreed by most people no matter what position they may personally hold.
time to move on!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?