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 do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live, all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.You have yet to show me where He condones homosexuality at all, so I will assume that He does not because I have never seen anything like that in the Bible and you fail to show me where.
Then why do you care what the legal definition of marry is?No.Do you plan on getting married, and if so, for what reason?
You were asked if you EVER plan on getting married and why.I may get married later on, but not right now.
So you don't even know the context of those passages, much less anything else about what the Bible says. That's like me reading one sentence of a survey and then making claims about the findings of it.I do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live, all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.
The benefits are based on the fact that heterosexual couples can, in general, procreate without outside assistance. Homosexuals can NEVER procreate on their own. Then why not ban marriages where they don't have kids, you ask. Because that would be too hard to weed out all those marriages. The fact remains that homosexual couples can't reproduce. That's the foundation of the family, marriage, the benefits for a family.
You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.So you don't even know the context of those passages, much less anything else about what the Bible says. That's like me reading one sentence of a survey and then making claims about the findings of it.
And yet He does speak of heterosexual relationships, giving guidelines and such. Why does He not speak of homosexual relationships except when He condemns that behaviour?
The onus is on whoever said I was in error when I said the Bible does not condone homosexuality. No one has yet shown me anywhere that the Bible condones such behaviour.You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.
You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.
Romans 1:24-28He does not condemn the behavior. Are you not comprehending?
This.Any stance based on scripture is invalid in terms of U.S. legislation.
And when we read the verse above that it explains:Romans 1:24-28
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."
Romans 1:24-28
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."
Come back when you've read it and understand the types of laws mentioned and which ones were specific to certain tribes or were ceremonial for a particular group of people. Your opinion about the book is invalid when you haven't read it and don't understand the context or history behind it.This.
And I could care less about a book that also says shellfish is naughty.
I do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live,
all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.
Matthew 19
"Haven't you read," Jesus replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 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'?
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
If it was okay to be homosexual with ONE person, it would say so. It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible that being gay is okay if you're only gay with one person. And I am not your darlin' so don't talk down to me with terms like that. I find it patronizing.This passage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with faithful, monogamous gay relationships.
Context, darlin'. Context!
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?