Obama and marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
What is important here is the idea that gay marriage shouldnt take place in church!
I believe that individual churches should be able to make that decision, as long as they surrender their charity status.

If gays want to marry in a church... let them establish their own church... with their own 'version' of God and of Christ... or better another god... or they could take one of the more prominent gays and declare them their savior or object of worship.

You can almost feel the hatred you have for these people. I don't think that is healthy. I feel sorry for you carrying around that much hatred.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
God didn't create marriage:

"The concept of marriage predates Christianity and the other two forms of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam which share a common origin and common values. Marriage is very ancient dating back beyond recorded history and was practiced by all people of many cultures, ethnicities and belief systems on all continents.

The prevalace of the concept of marriage came to the forefront of culture when humankind evolved from hunter gatherer to agriculture and pastoralism which occured during the neolithic/agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago.

Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community.

The origins of marriage is NOT religious, nor does it have anything to do with the God of the Abrahamic religions. It was around way before organized religion which by Christian standards means it is PAGAN. Christians "borrowed" many pagan rites and rituals so Pagans would convert more readily and easily to Christianity. "

I would like to address this but if someone else already has then I'll pass.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But sex isn't just for procreation - it's for pleasure, too. Besides, not all people want to get married. Some people are happy to simply live together, and others don't even want to settle down.

Sex is indeed pleasurable, and it is a pleasure reserved for marriage. It has been taken out of its proper place, and has been abused because of the pleasure it brings. Either way it goes, many a problem would not be in existence if sex were left between a Husband and his Wife.

But wouldn't it be kinder and more charitable to share what you earned with those who can't go out and earn?

Those who can't or those who won't? I have no problem with supporting people who aren't able to support themselves, so long as I'm able to support my family as well.

Ohh, I've heard of him, yes. He's an illusionist, though, like David Blane or Derren Brown. He even says himself that he doesn't believe anyone has supernatural powers: "no one has the ability, that I'm aware of, to do anything supernatural, psychic, talk to the dead."

Again, people say "illusionist" and that makes it all better. I don't go there. You can't explain away walking on water as simply an illusion. But of course I don't foresee the man just coming forward like "Oh yeah, I'm in league with the devil".

But editing it would benefit people; it would benefit those who were pushing the idea of religion, and trying to convince people it was true. That statement isn't meant to be offensive, by the way. I can't really word it in another way, that's all.

The flaw in that logic however is that there are many other prophecies in Isaiah which came to pass.

War is unnecessary, though. It's just a 'legal' way of saying "We're going to invade your country, and if you stand in the way then we're going to kill you." That's not right, is it? Why would God be an advocate for that?

War is completely unnecessary. I agree with you on this 100% And God, for a time, chose Israel to not only be a light to the world, but also a sword against His enemies. How God opts to execute Judgment is His prerogative.

Adultery doesn't make someone a criminal, though; it just makes them unfaithful. What about working on a Sunday? That just doesn't make sense! If we stuck by that, then half of the world would be wiped out!

Like I said, sin is like a cancer. Adultery does make you a criminal, for the law commands you to not be one. Thus if you violate the law, you are a criminal. And a whole hosts of issues can be introduced through unfaithfulness. Our world is in part, the way it is, because we advocate unfaithfulness on one hand, and honor in the other. And working on Sunday is just fine. "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work...". Sunday is day 1 of 7. A regular working day. And the reason why the world still continues on is because God is still working to save people. The thing is that people try to make it so cut in dry when it comes to God's dealing with Israel in the desert. "You sinned, you died". But that's not the way it was at all. God is merciful and loving and desires the sinner to repent so that they won't be lost.

Microevolution: "Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases. Such a change might come about because natural selection favored the gene, because the population received new immigrants carrying the gene, because some nonresistant genes mutated to the resistant version, or because of random genetic drift from one generation to the next."

Now, this is evolution that CAN be observed. If this is possible, then you can see how evolution itself can't be a lie?

I do believe that people can adapt to their environments, and changes can take place from generation to generation. I don't believe that has anything to do with "evolution". The quote you used spoke of "natural selection", which I believe is their substitute for "God". In other words, God designed our DNA, so anything that happens in regards to that, is by design.

But why don't you want to find out? You live on this planet, so surely discovering these things are important to you?

I've discovered the one true thing that matters. God :) He is the Creator of all there is and has promised me an eternity with Him so long as I'm faithful till the end. Men lie. They deceive to forward their own agendas. God however is not man that He should lie. I'm quite comfortable with waiting to hear from the Master Teacher personally.

Alright - but if God created light on the first day, then how could the sun and moon have been invented on the fourth day?

The same way there was a "mass of something" here before creation. Genesis says "the earth was void and without form, and the Spirit of the Lord moved upon the face of the waters". There's a pattern here actually if you look close. Something is there, and the God gives it form. The sun has a distinct form which it received on the 4th day. It's substance was what was created on day one.
 
Upvote 0

JohnMarsten

Newbie
Jul 18, 2011
1,371
10
✟9,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe that individual churches should be able to make that decision, as long as they surrender their charity status.



You can almost feel the hatred you have for these people. I don't think that is healthy. I feel sorry for you carrying around that much hatred.

Its not hatred at all! ;) if I hated those people I wouldnt meet with them at all, I love the individual. Yet I abide by certain standards!

Imagine somebody was a complete drug addict (by choice) and wanted to meet with your daughter, would you be happy about it? would you accept it as is, and not think about a possible unhappy marriage for your daughter? If not, would that be because you were carrying around hatred for such people?

Or a prostitute was the fiance of your son! And would like to carry on with her job... would you accept that?

Look, personally I would at least want that both stop what they were doing...

It is a similar situation here, I dont want the gays to remain gay, as much as I dont want to abide in sin anymore...

Would you legalize sin?
Imagine I would be in the position of becoming a pimp, having lots of prostitutes around and making a whole lot money... would you say I was the perfect candidate for the job of a youth pastor? I mean I would have the monetary means to do a lot for the youth, much more than those might have who cannot make ends meet...

Now, if people would oppose my candidacy, would that mean that they have a lot of hatred carrying in their hearts towards pimps? you know pimps are definitely a minority and should be treated better then the majority of non-pimps... they should be thus awarded with the best seats in the church, like most honorary members... otherwise people would commit a hate crime...

no seriously. there is a difference between sinning, and making it legal...
 
Upvote 0

JohnMarsten

Newbie
Jul 18, 2011
1,371
10
✟9,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe that individual churches should be able to make that decision, as long as they surrender their charity status.



You can almost feel the hatred you have for these people. I don't think that is healthy. I feel sorry for you carrying around that much hatred.

Ah, and just btw since you are accusing me of hatred...

As a matter of fact, I dont care about gays... in the sense that it doesnt personally hurt me if people are gay or not, as long as I dont have to be involved in their buggeration process.... ;)

I have my own problems and gays are certainly not one of them...

so why then are we all talking about this?

the word of the Lord says

Isaiah 5:20 >>

parallel7.gif
New International Version (©1984)
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


So according to the word of the Lord we should call a sin for what it is, a sin...

So if the word of God speaks against homosexuality... then how can I come and say the opposite...

Am I supposed to come up with outrageous "Jesus sanctioned homosexuality' theories? Am I supposed to twist God's word and make gay relationship acceptable in God's eyes? you know I am not God and I cannot change God... if God's is against it, and I am in favor of it, who am I making friends with? the world? the gays? the Lord?

Give me a break!
 
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Sex is indeed pleasurable, and it is a pleasure reserved for marriage. It has been taken out of its proper place, and has been abused because of the pleasure it brings. Either way it goes, many a problem would not be in existence if sex were left between a Husband and his Wife.

Like I said, sin is like a cancer. Adultery does make you a criminal, for the law commands you to not be one. Thus if you violate the law, you are a criminal. And a whole hosts of issues can be introduced through unfaithfulness. Our world is in part, the way it is, because we advocate unfaithfulness on one hand,

Yet God had no problem with Abraham's infidelities:

GEN 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Is God inconsistent in his morality? Are some things sins for some people and not for others? I'm confused.
 
Upvote 0

StoicGnostic

Lesser
Jun 11, 2012
107
2
Lincoln, England
✟7,747.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Yet God had no problem with Abraham's infidelities:

GEN 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Is God inconsistent in his morality? Are some things sins for some people and not for others? I'm confused.

I've been trying to argue this a while now but the discussion seems to have been dropped.

I can cite multiple instances where Christ said something loving and timeless in direct contradiction to the violent geo-politically biased nonsense that the 'god' of the Old Testament said.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yet God had no problem with Abraham's infidelities:

GEN 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Is God inconsistent in his morality? Are some things sins for some people and not for others? I'm confused.

You're not confused. Please stop it. God is merciful and gracious to all. He works with people where they are according to the light they have. Abraham wasn't the only man with multiple wives, or concubines, or issues with fidelity.

Like any good parent, God deals with His children as individuals. Just because we don't read about it doesn't mean that God was pleased with it. The bible gives us what we need to know.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
You're not confused. Please stop it. God is merciful and gracious to all. He works with people where they are according to the light they have. Abraham wasn't the only man with multiple wives, or concubines, or issues with fidelity.

Like any good parent, God deals with His children as individuals. Just because we don't read about it doesn't mean that God was pleased with it. The bible gives us what we need to know.

I am confused (I don't know why that makes you angry). I am told that God is inerrant and unchanging and then I am told that he deals with sin on a case-by-case basis. Your own signature talks of an everlasting convenant. Does that apply to all? Do a chosen few get to sin without repercussions?

Paul says that Abraham is a fine example of righteousnous, yet he kept concubines. The punishment in the OT (Leviticus) for adultery was death, yet Abraham lived to 120.

Asiryeh posted a video by William Lane Craig who argued that God was the best, or only, foundation for 'Objective Moral Values', yet here you are saying that those values are subjective. Do you blame me for being confused?
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I am confused (I don't know why that makes you angry).

I'm not angry. I'm just trying to figure you out. Your questions say - Non-believer and yet your sign says "Seeker". So on second thought, perhaps you are a bit confused.

I am told that God is inerrant and unchanging and then I am told that he deals with sin on a case-by-case basis. Your own signature talks of an everlasting convenant. Does that apply to all? Do a chosen few get to sin without repercussions?

First, God is unchanging. Second, He is inerrant. Third, God always deals with sin on a case-by-case basis. If He didn't, there wouldn't have been a Savior. He simply would have wiped humanity out. Third, the everlasting covenant being broken is the reason for the destruction that the world will suffer. Those who repent will be saved. Those who remain in rebellion will find themselves standing toe-to-toe with God.

Paul says that Abraham is a fine example of righteousnous, yet he kept concubines. The punishment in the OT (Leviticus) for adultery was death, yet Abraham lived to 120.

David had concubines and additional wives as well. So did Solomon, and I'd wager other kings too. David was a murder but God says He kept His law, and was the apple of His eye. In both David and Abraham's cases, God looked at their hearts and saw men who longed after Him, and who desired to do what was right.

Asiryeh posted a video by William Lane Craig who argued that God was the best, or only, foundation for 'Objective Moral Values', yet here you are saying that those values are subjective. Do you blame me for being confused?

You ask questions about God the way I ask questions about Evolution. I've had my questions about why it seemed like it was ok for men to have multiple wives for a time, but not now. Doesn't mean that God isn't who He says He is. It just means that I've got to wait a bit longer to get my answers. I'm ok with that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'm not angry. I'm just trying to figure you out. Your questions say - Non-believer and yet your sign says "Seeker". So on second thought, perhaps you are a bit confused.

As a seeker I ask questions. What else would a seeker do? Why do you object? I don't see that asking questions means I am confused.

First, God is unchanging. Second, He is inerrant. Third, God always deals with sin on a case-by-case basis.

David had concubines and additional wives as well. So did Solomon, and I'd wager other kings too. David was a murder but God says He kept His law, and was the apple of His eye. In both David and Abraham's cases, God looked at their hearts and saw men who longed after Him, and who desired to do what was right.

How can a murderer keep God's law? I am questioning the consistency of this inerrant god and I see none, according to you his morality is subjective. If you are the King of the Jews or the father of monotheism one set of rules applies and if you are a humble citizen another. These men consistently break the ten commandments and yet are called righteous and are favoured by God. That is at odds with the claims of a fair and just God.

You ask questions about God the way I ask questions about Evolution. I've had my questions about why it seemed like it was ok for men to have multiple wives for a time, but not now. Doesn't mean that God isn't who He says He is. It just means that I've got to wait a bit longer to get my answers. I'm ok with that.

Well, one thing is for sure we can dismiss William Lane Craig's claim of God being a good foundation for 'Objective Moral Values.' If we are looking for objectivity, we need to look elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
As a seeker I ask questions. What else would a seeker do? Why do you object? I don't see that asking questions means I am confused.

This is a Christian forum. It would be assumed that a "seeker" is seeking Christ. Is that what you're doing?

How can a murderer keep God's law? I am questioning the consistency of this inerrant god and I see none, according to you his morality is subjective. If you are the King of the Jews or the father of monotheism one set of rules applies and if you are a humble citizen another. These men consistently break the ten commandments and yet are called righteous and are favoured by God. That is at odds with the claims of a fair and just God.

Your understanding of what it means to keep the law seems to fall in line with mainline protestantism. Keeping God's law involves repentance. And God states that He deals with people according to what they know. Those who know much are accountable for much. Those who know little are accountable for little.

Well, one thing is for sure we can dismiss William Lane Craig's claim of God being a good foundation for 'Objective Moral Values.' If we are looking for objectivity, we need to look elsewhere.

All you need is found in God. The question is are you looking for Him? If you are then you'll be satisfied. If you're not then you won't be. It's that simple.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Any data asserted by anti-gay activists is invalid.

Data is data Sara - you may have a beef with the interpretation of the data...
...However your beef with the data does not make the data invalid.
...In any event the data was produced by non-religious secular authorities.


Sara said:
It is the same kind of mindset that says "all Jews are greedy"; incorrect and bigoted. People with this kind of mindset take a few cases of a scandal of some sort, over-exaggerate them to extremes, and immediately attempt to pin the 'dangerous' badge on an entire community that they dislike, fear, resent, or simply cannot understand. It's the same badge that was pinned on Native Americans when Europeans arrived in America. They pinned them as dangerous, savage barbarians, who would harm 'innocent' Christian families. These anti-gay activists have exactly the same mindsets, only these days they can't get away with mass execution. Fear-mongering is a sickening thing, and those who participate in such should really take some time to think about the way the world has been affected by such behaviour in the past. It's a crying shame that after all the atrocities caused by such, some people still find it within themselves to engage in such operations.

You simply have no answer to the data ( evidence ) therefore you reject the data....
...In this way you don't even have to argue over the interpretation of the data.
...It would be like refusing to accept the moon exists.
...LOL!
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, we can talk about Natural Selection if you want to; especially since you have conceded that you have no basis for justifying your opposition to gay marriage.

I have no problem with "extending the benefits" of marriage to sodomites...
...Which is exactly what the Justice you cited said.

In any event you can't appeal to Natural Selection as a mechanism to procreate sodomites...
...Because a same sex orientated sodomite is unable to pass on his/her detrimental mutation.
...This is how "Nature" weeds out DETRIMENTAL mutations.
...According to the Theory of Evolution.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
In any event you can't appeal to Natural Selection as a mechanism to procreate sodomites...
...Because a same sex orientated sodomite is unable to pass on his/her detrimental mutation.
...This is how "Nature" weeds out DETRIMENTAL mutations.
...According to the Theory of Evolution.

Well by your logic allowing them to marry might be the best thing for homophobes like you, because they feel so persecuted by society that they force themselves into heterosexual marriages and procreate. Like George Rekers and Marcus Bachmann.

So let them marry one another and let nature 'weed' them out as you so charitably put it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnMarsten

Newbie
Jul 18, 2011
1,371
10
✟9,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
just btw

matthew 19

Jesus talking about marriage - a man will be united with his wife...

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


of course one might argue that one of them gays simply assumes the role of the wife, but I am most certain this is not what Jesus had in mind citing the Creator!!!
 
Upvote 0

JohnMarsten

Newbie
Jul 18, 2011
1,371
10
✟9,120.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well by your logic allowing them to marry might be the best thing for homophobes like you, because they feel so persecuted by society that they force themselves into heterosexual marriages and procreate. Like George Rekers and Marcus Bachmann.

So let them marry one another and let nature 'weed' them out as you so charitably put it.

just to be on the safe side, what are we talking about?

marriage in general (sanctioned by the state) or in church (sanctioned by God)??
 
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Data is data Sara - you may have a beef with the interpretation of the data...
...However your beef with the data does not make the data invalid.
...In any event the data was produced by non-religious secular authorities.




You simply have no answer to the data ( evidence ) therefore you reject the data....
...In this way you don't even have to argue over the interpretation of the data.
...It would be like refusing to accept the moon exists.
...LOL!

Well, I did have a look at the document and anybody with an objective viewpoint will see that there is no real evidence there that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles.

Most of the evidence they quote from genuine experts simply states that most paedophiles are men. That is a well known fact that is not in dispute.

It also misquotes John Bradford who has publicly stated that there is no connection between adult homosexuality and paedophilia. In fact he was called as an expert witness for the trial of a Catholic Bishop accused of having sex with teenage boys and stated that:

"Bradford said Lahey has a homosexual interest in adolescent males — aged 14 to 17 — and young men, as well as sadomasochistic interests.
But, he said, a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children under age 13.
"I evaluated him for pedophilia and I don't think he has it," said Bradford about the psychiatric disorder."

The document later intentionally conflates homesexuality and male preference paedophilia without giving evidence as to the link. Most experts don't agree with the link.

They use the statistic - around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys - to calculate that homosexuals are 6 times more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. If you have a look at the document, on page 7, you will notice that they make this statement in italics after crediting the reports (Gerhard, Blanchard and Mohr et al). This is to avoid being guilty of misrepresenting the reports, none of which actually link homosexuality and paedophilia. This trick of adding your own propaganda after crediting an expert is an old one, but it often works.

In fact Gerhard found in a study from 1965 that most paedophiles were married.

This document is a scurrilous piece of nonsense with barely a relevant fact in it. It falls apart on even a cursory reading. Trying to defend this piece of trashy hate-mongering as 'evidence' of anything is like trying to defend the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - that is it puts you on a par with half-witted racist skinheads who will believe anything that backs up their vile prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SaraJarvis

Newbie
Apr 2, 2012
293
8
England
✟15,475.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Data is data Sara - you may have a beef with the interpretation of the data...
...However your beef with the data does not make the data invalid.
...In any event the data was produced by non-religious secular authorities.




You simply have no answer to the data ( evidence ) therefore you reject the data....
...In this way you don't even have to argue over the interpretation of the data.
...It would be like refusing to accept the moon exists.
...LOL!
I believe that ThinkFreeDom has answered your comment perfectly. I dismissed your 'data' briefly, because I have argued with you before and you cherry-pick almost every comment that I write simply to suit your own argument.

I do indeed have 'beef' with an article that offers nothing but intolerance and misinterpreted quotes. It's actually reminiscent of a fascist article that I came across, recently, completely denying the Holocaust as a Jewish lie intended to gain charity; that also offered false quotes and statistics, that any rational person knows is a load of rubbish.

The thing is; I don't just have 'beef' with these articles - I simply have no time for homophobic, fear-mongering tactics. Look back on history - whenever someone has a problem with a group of people, for whatever reason, they go out of their way to spread ridiculous untruths about them, inducing fear and hatred amongst easily-swayed individuals.

So excuse me for not buying into your 'evidence'.

----

Stryder, I'll reply to your comment in the morning - I don't have much computer time this evening; I'm snowed under with work. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.