Floatingaxe
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2007
- 14,757
- 877
- 73
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
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.
Why do you keep focusing on sex? Sex is a private matter between a couple, and it's really none of your business how and with whom consenting adults have sex. If you don't want to have sex with another man, then don't. But it's not your business or anyone else's business if two consenting adults choose to share sexual intimacy. Most of the time this happens behind closed doors, and we are not even aware of it.
The real issue, the public issue, is same-sex marriage, it seems to me. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a pledge to commit to and support a spouse and to be a family with a spouse and in many cases children. Marriage includes sexual intimacy, usually, but it's far more than sexual intimacy. It's a family bond.
There is no rational reason why same-sex couples should be barred from forming a family bond with each other. Some have argued that same-sex couples cannot produce children, but several of us have pointed out that infertile couples cannot produce children either, and we don't bar such couples from marrying. States do not require that a married couple produce children or be able to produce children in order to issue them a marriage license. And several of us have pointed out that many gay people are parents and do raise children together as same-sex couples. Marriage serves to protect children, and when same-sex couples who are parents are barred from marrying each other, their children are denied those protections. The laws barring same-sex marriage thus discriminate directly against children: the children of same-sex couples.
No he doesn't.
You had the right when you were single to marry any unmarried woman who would have you, but you did not have the right to marry any unmarried man who would have you. If you were gay, you would want to marry a man, not a woman. But you would be barred in most states from doing that legally.
As for morals, that's a private matter. The state has no business imposing a set of religious morals on everyone. That is contrary to religious liberty. If we want to uphold religious liberty, we need to leave morals up to the churches and synagogues and people's private relationships. The state should be protecting the people and protecting the rights of the people, not imposing morals on them, especially morals that derive from any particular religious faith.
Leviticus 18:22 (New King James Version)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination
This scripture is crystal clear.
Lying with a male as with a woman =/= homosexuality.
Even if you assume that the verse is referring to consensual sex and not to rape, it has nothing at all to say to celibate male homosexualse, nor to female homosexuals.
David.
There is condemnation on all homosexuality in Scripture. You are nit-picking.
Nope; just reading what it actually says rather than what the anti-homosexual folks want us to think it says
Absolutely nowhere in Scripture is there any condemnation of homosexuality (i.e. same-gender attraction)*. A few, a very few, verses appear to speak of homosexual sex (almost exclusively in the context of male-male sex), but on further reading and analysis, they seem to be not blanket bans on male-male sex, but rather speaking of rape or non-consensual sex.
David.
.Actually you aren't understanding what you are reading.
Only the Holy Spirit can give you that.
You are totally blind about this and hardly able to speak about the subject, denying what is plainly written.
The problem with using Leviticus to prop up personal prejudice is three fold.Leviticus 18:22 (New King James Version)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination
This scripture is crystal clear.
Ah if you are saying homosexuality doesn’t include same-sex sex then ok. Are you saying that, I hope so I would wnt to think you were trying to deceive your fellow posters, that’s dishonest.Lying with a male as with a woman =/= homosexuality.
No there is no assumption this verse is referring to consensual sex or rape.Even if you assume that the verse is referring to consensual sex and not to rape, it has nothing at all to say to celibate male homosexuals, nor to female homosexuals.
No, unsupported remarks like this are unhelpful. No, to ignore Jesus Christ's NT teaching is to recognise same-sex sex as sin and error and sex outside marriage as sin.. see Matt 19, 15 Mark 10, 7, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, Ephesians 5, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.to use Leviticus to condemn gay men is to ignore Jesus.
Do you for example cut your hair? (I bet you do) if so you are sinning by breaking Lev.
No the question does not apply to licolngreen or mysefl as we are not judged by the OT law, we follow Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of the law. Some of the OT law such as diet is no longer applicable, Jesus has fullfiled this law.19:27
Ah if you are saying homosexuality doesnt include same-sex sex then ok.
Are you saying that, I hope so I would wnt to think you were trying to deceive your fellow posters, thats dishonest.
No there is no assumption this verse is referring to consensual sex or rape.
I suppose if one were to think of this in terms of sexual desires ie homosexual or heterosexual, yes it is condemning homosexuality, but thats an assumption.
Actually your comment is a statement of outright disbelief as homosexuals can be male or female...
sexuality is the sexual desire .so it doesnt matter what sexuality either of the man woman are.
Yes I know some believing Christians who have same sex desires are believers for that very reason. But I didn’t say homosexual, I said homosexuality and asked you the question, does homosexuality include same-sex sex? Yes or no? Because I suspect you are being dishonest in trying to deceive us.Someone can be a homosexual without taking part in same-gender sex (i.e., celibate)
No there are not. As has been shown. One could assume ‘love ones neighbour as oneself’ might only apply to people we love and not to our enemies, but read on in the Bible and see Jesus teaches to love even our enemies… similarly read on in the Bible and see that sex is condemned outside man/woman marriage which is in fact God’s creation purpose.Actually, as BigBadWlf just explained, there are very good reasons to believe that the verse is referring to rape (i.e. non-consensual sex).
No that’s my point your are affirming,No, it's referring to some kind of sexual practice.
No that’s incorrect, we have nakedness `ervah, we have shkobeth from shakab, and we have shakab itself. A man shall not shakab with a man as with a woman. Shakeb is sexual relations"do not have sexual relations with...", and then this one out of the blue is translated as "do not lie with."
no that’s incorrect as this is not the Hebrew word.The fact that the Hebrew word may refer to rape helps to explain it somewhat.
Ok so then you know sexuality has nothing to do withitYes, I'm well aware of this.
I just have done sufficiently for a 12 year old to understand… you need to answer the first question… are you saying homosexuality doesn’t include same-sex sex?I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. Could you explain it a bit more clearly?
Dear BigBadwlf,
Firstly dont try and change the subject, the issue is what the Bible says, namely the KJV.
Secondly we are happy to be prejudiced in favour of God's purposes, we trust in God not man. If you think this is prejudced then thats your problem.
As to the new command, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35 you need to know what that love is and how one loves as Jesus has loved. You therefore need to also see that Jesus says those who obey His teaching remain in Him and are loved.
No, unsupported remarks like this are unhelpful. No, to ignore Jesus Christ's NT teaching is to recognise same-sex sex as sin and error and sex outside marriage as sin.. see Matt 19, 15 Mark 10, 7, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, Ephesians 5, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.
No the question does not apply to licolngreen or mysefl as we are not judged by the OT law, we follow Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of the law. Some of the OT law such as diet is no longer applicable, Jesus has fullfiled this law.
You however as part of a whole community here who insist on repeating this question to us to whom it doesnt apply, never answer it yourselves. Thats trolling.
Let me ask you, do you believe the OT should be all kept such as love your neighbour, dont eat shellfish, dont have same-sex sex or incest or bestaility etc? or not?
shakhabh and mishkabh are quite clear in their meanings as I have previously shown, the Bible translations throughout the ages and languages are not wrong on this despite the gay and lesbian and pansexual claims.
God speaks of many that will not be in the Kingdom of God. Homosexuals: along with any who practice adultery or any type of sexual acts outside of the God ordained marriage of one man and one woman. These are some but not all of those who will not be in the Kingdom of God.
Gen. 19:4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back! Then they said, This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them. So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.
Lev. 18:22You 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.... 30 Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.
Lev. 20:13If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Deut. 22: 5 A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a womans garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.
Deut. 23:17There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.
Isa. 3:9The look on their countenance witnesses against them, And they declare their sin as Sodom; They do not hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves.
Ro. 1:26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due
1Cor. 6:9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God
1Tim. 1:9But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
Jude 7Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie
You got any... you know... EVIDENCE to back up this claim that homosexuals all die early, and as a direct result of being homosexuals?They hurt themselves as they die very early, so they hurt others who they do this evil with as they will die early.
They can and do bring the rath of God down on nations that put up with this evil.
So again, history shows this sin kills and can be and is very hurtful to others.
Um, well except that the original text isn't nearly as clear as the above translation would have you believe. But hey, why let bothersome little things like context and history stand in the way of your simplistic, first read understanding?The Bible is very clear about this.Scripture tells us the Truth.
Oh okay, so you now have a doctorate in the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages? Great. We'll have to get together sometime and discuss the true meaning of the scriptures.Um, well except that the original text isn't nearly as clear as the above translation would have you believe. But hey, why let bothersome little things like context and history stand in the way of your simplistic, first read understanding?
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?