Homosexuality

[eastcoast_bsc]

It is my understanding, that marriage is in fact, available to everyone.

I believe what is happening here, is that there is an agenda to redefine what the social contract is, rather than *allow* same sex couples to marry.

G

It is your understanding that marriage is available to everyone? mmm I think your playing semantics. But I will play along. Can Rob and Peter marrry each other? If your answer is no, than marriage is not for everyone. It is for everyone , only if your narrow construct is followed. But hey marrigae is allowed for everyone in massachusetts

 

[intricatic]

Well for most in the US and the Western world in fact, It is a social construct. It seems that for a majority, marriage is like a kleenex that they throw away when they are through.

I read some interesting statistics regarding divorce among religious groups. Catholics seemed to have the lowest percentage among mainline christian groups. The Northeast has lower divorce rates than the South. The Bible belt has some of the highest rates. I found those statistics to be of interest. But if marriage is a social construct and secular in nature, than gays who pay taxes should be allowed to marry.

Well, speaking from a Christian perspective, marriage is more than a simple social construct - we didn't just invent it so we could change it or find loopholes in it to provide grounds for divorce. What's happening in society is incredibly sad, but that's not the way it was meant to be.

 

[StTherese]

God feels right but does it mean he is?

God may not feel right to some people...does that mean He isn't? Like I said, truth is not dependent upon feelings.

 

[Mling]

But, how does it benefit them as Christians? How is this following the will of God? Just because something feels right doesn't mean it IS right.

I find this very interesting. I posted imediately after StarJewel, I believe, and said roughly the same thing that she did. But, perhaps having a bit more free time on my hands, I rambled on the subject a while and gave specific examples of how I have benefitted, far beyond simply "feeling good."

Given that I gave exactly what you were asking for--a detailed and specific answer, citing experience and undeniable benefit--why, pray tell, did you choose to respond to this answer and ignore mine?

 

[Gusoceros]

It is your understanding that marriage is available to everyone? mmm I think your playing semantics. But I will play along. Can Rob and Peter marrry each other? If your answer is no, than marriage is not for everyone. It is for everyone , only if your narrow construct is followed. But hey marrigae is allowed for everyone in massachusetts

I agree that semantics are being played here- however, we disagree on which argument contains them. Jim and John, can both get married- to other women- heck, they can even be LESBIAN women for that matter- but the point remains, that marriage is available to all- as the union of a man and a woman. I always find it interesting when I see this argument played out- because it begs the question by assuming a new definition of marriage, in its argument to redefine marriage for everyone.

The fact is- everyone can get married- some people just dont want to get married, they would rather redefine marriage for all- into something else.

G

 

[Mling]

I agree that semantics are being played here- however, we disagree on which argument contains them. Jim and John, can both get married- to other women- heck, they can even be LESBIAN women for that matter- but the point remains, that marriage is available to all- as the union of a man and a woman. I always find it interesting when I see this argument played out- because it begs the question by assuming a new definition of marriage, in its argument to redefine marriage for everyone.

The fact is- everyone can get married- some people just dont want to get married, they would rather redefine marriage for all- into something else.

G

Aaahhh...so the good and right form of marriage is available to all, so long as some people are willing to take their vows with their fingers crossed. The problem, then, is that those people prefer to be honest in their vows, and have meaningful, rather than dishonest and farcical, marriages.

 

[Gusoceros]

Aaahhh...so the good and right form of marriage is available to all, so long as some people are willing to take their vows with their fingers crossed. The problem, then, is that those people prefer to be honest in their vows, and have meaningful, rather than dishonest and farcical, marriages.

Hah- the false analogy.

People dont HAVE to get married if they dont want to- of course its a bad idea to live a lie. Neither of these things changes what is marriage. Not wanting what marriage is, doesnt mean it has to be changed to mean something else.

*shrug*

G

 

[DMagoh]

First of all, you are all throwing the word "sin" around all over the place. I do not recall Jesus ever saying homosexuality was a sin....

~Demosthenes

Gee, Jesus never mentioned beastialty or pedophilia either, I guess that means animals and children are fair game!

 

[davedjy]

Gee, Jesus never mentioned beastialty or pedophilia either, I guess that means animals and children are fair game!

Catamites were talked about Paul, actually. Bestiality is used as an actual moral violation in the Hebrew language of the Leviticus laws.

 

[intricatic]

Bestiality is used as an actual moral violation in the Hebrew language of the Leviticus laws.

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
(Leviticus 18)

Yep, you're right, it is.

 

[davedjy]

Yep, you're right, it is.

Those are separate verses, they all don't mean perverse, the sentence ends for each one.

Didn't you understand that? wow, no wonder why your debates are starting to confuse.
If I personally did that, I could add the menstrual cycle one from the 18th chapter, also.
What about the clothing of mixed fabrics, and plowing the field with mixed seed in the 20th chapter...perverse!!!

The Scholars say to try to do justice to Leviticus, is like cherry-picking verses that "apply" and "don't apply". The old Leviticus laws, just aren't moral reasoning anymore, unless repeated elsewhere.

 

[DMagoh]

The old Leviticus laws, just aren't moral reasoning anymore, unless repeated elsewhere.

How many places in the Bible does homosexuality have to be condemned before you are satisfied that it has been repeated? Does it bother you ANY that you have to take numerous verses from the Bible and change the way they read, make complicated explanations for them, and/or eliminate altogether for various reasons?

• One verse is only condemning unhospitality
• One verse is only condemning homosexual rape
• One verse is only condemning uncleanliness
• One verse is only condemning male prostitutes
• One verse is only condemning engaging in homosexual acts during pagan worship
• One verse is only condemning heterosexual men engaging in homosexual acts
• One verse the word homosexual was translated wrong

We could go on and on. How many verses do you have to try to manipulate?

If you can read the Bible and justify homosexuality, then you have the ability to justify ANY sin you want to. Good luck explaining this to a Holy and Almighty God.

 

[Myriah]

How many places in the Bible does homosexuality have to be condemned before you are satisfied that it has been repeated? Does it bother you ANY that you have to take numerous verses from the Bible and change the way they read, make complicated explanations for them, and/or eliminate altogether for various reasons?

• One verse is only condemning unhospitality
• One verse is only condemning homosexual rape
• One verse is only condemning uncleanliness
• One verse is only condemning male prostitutes
• One verse is only condemning engaging in homosexual acts during pagan worship
• One verse is only condemning heterosexual men engaging in homosexual acts
• One verse the word homosexual was translated wrong

We could go on and on. How many verses do you have to try to manipulate?

If you can read the Bible and justify homosexuality, then you have the ability to justify ANY sin you want to. Good luck explaining this to a Holy and Almighty God.

How will you and others explain this broken commandment from God? (Or do you work six days and rest on the Sabbath?)

And if you aren't, are you not justifying breaking a commandment? And if you are breaking one of the 10 Commandments, on what grounds do you do so?

2Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

 

[MercuryAndy]

How will you and others explain this broken commandment from God? (Or do you work six days and rest on the Sabbath?)

And if you aren't, are you not justifying breaking a commandment? And if you are breaking one of the 10 Commandments, on what grounds do you do so?

2Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

its saying you cant make anyone work on the sabath. even though when the jews were slaves they were made to. they cant make their slaves do the same.

 

[Myriah]

its saying you cant make anyone work on the sabath. even though when the jews were slaves they were made to. they cant make their slaves do the same.

The commandment to observe the Sabbath Day and keep it holy does not only include slaves, and there is much more to the commandment than that. Or were you joking as your usual self MA?

 

[WalkingforHim]

The Sabbath was created for men, not the other way around.

Hah- the false analogy.

People dont HAVE to get married if they dont want to- of course its a bad idea to live a lie. Neither of these things changes what is marriage. Not wanting what marriage is, doesnt mean it has to be changed to mean something else.

Fair enough. Leave marriage alone an allow gays their own type of union that is equal to marriage. That is the decent, compassionate compromise that leaves marriage completely alone, and allows the gays the same legal protections heteros enjoy.

Anything less is an attempt to stigmatize and persecute homosexuality in some vain belief that if we make it hard enough on gays, they will simply "switch" back and be normal again. And it would strike me that attempting to override someone's God-given gift of freewill, and coerce them into your way of living is a far greater sin than 2 guys getting it on.

 

[intricatic]

Those are separate verses, they all don't mean perverse, the sentence ends for each one.

Didn't you understand that? wow, no wonder why your debates are starting to confuse.
If I personally did that, I could add the menstrual cycle one from the 18th chapter, also.
What about the clothing of mixed fabrics, and plowing the field with mixed seed in the 20th chapter...perverse!!!

The Scholars say to try to do justice to Leviticus, is like cherry-picking verses that "apply" and "don't apply". The old Leviticus laws, just aren't moral reasoning anymore, unless repeated elsewhere.

I do understand that. Did you not understand how the Levitical Law was compiled? Each section dealing with a specific topic is talking about something that has implication on each other subtopic - hence, the sentence begins with "Nor..."

21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
(Leviticus 18)

No wonder your posts are so confusing.

Read the book of Hebrews again. What I've been trying to hammer home in my posts is that every single facet of the Mosaic Law has something to do with the Covenant Christ sealed with His blood - they're images that reflect something bigger than the law itself. To treat it this way does violence to the meaning of the Law.

 

[DMagoh]

How will you and others explain this broken commandment from God? (Or do you work six days and rest on the Sabbath?)

Here comes the strawman again. Whenever you cant logically answer a question, you just create a whole subtopic to divert everyone.

I suppose you can use this technique on Judgement Day too....but God, this person behind me in line fixed his hot water heater on the Sabbath. So that negates my sin, right God? Right?

 

[MercuryAndy]

The commandment to observe the Sabbath Day and keep it holy does not only include slaves, and there is much more to the commandment than that. Or were you joking as your usual self MA?

Im trying to make the point you cant force anyone to work on the sabath.

 

[ReligiousTruth]

The Sabbath was created for men, not the other way around.



Fair enough. Leave marriage alone an allow gays their own type of union that is equal to marriage. That is the decent, compassionate compromise that leaves marriage completely alone, and allows the gays the same legal protections heteros enjoy.

Anything less is an attempt to stigmatize and persecute homosexuality in some vain belief that if we make it hard enough on gays, they will simply "switch" back and be normal again. And it would strike me that attempting to override someone's God-given gift of freewill, and coerce them into your way of living is a far greater sin than 2 guys getting it on.

I Agree.