San Francisco Officials Marry Same Sex Couple

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Without a God, there is no morality. This instance proves it.

Nothing was proved. Ethics and morality abound whether God exists or not.

a person willing to do right-only because wrong is condemned by God-is a coward and a sychopant. One who will do right for the sake of doing right is a true moral being.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

But how did mankind ever know what was right and wrong? Thats the point I am getting too.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Where did the ideas for those morals come from????

Like I said, without a God from the beginning telling what is right and wrong, there would be no morallity.

The only thing we can base morals on by knowing what makes us feel bad and feel good and knowing that if we do the same to other people, that will affect them the same way as well.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" hmm..... I wonder where that came from...

There's nothing wrong with traditions, but that's no reason to accuse others with different ethical systems of immorality without basis.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

What if the Mayor of San Fransisco was issuing concealed-carry pistol permits instaid of gender-neutral marriage licenses to anyone who asked for one?

Considering how in some jurisdictions minorities and poor people are discriminated against when it comes to self-defense, not a bad idea.

I'll say one thing. Activists for gay marriage are deathly afraid of the Federal Marriage Amendment becoming part of the Constitution. Then they couldn't pull stunts like this anymore. The courts would have no say in the matter.

Anyone who values justice is opposed to frivilously amending the Constitution to deny rights to one group. BTW, it is such a cumbersome process, it is unlikely to happen. Thankfully.

And Gay's say they are upstanding citizens of this country...Right!

Certainly more "upstanding" than those seeking to suppress them. certainly more moral than the anti-gay brigades who should be ashamed of their bullying.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

There's nothing wrong with traditions, but that's no reason to accuse others with different ethical systems of immorality without basis.

It's more than tradition, and there is plenty of basis. Whether you choose to not see it, or just plain don't see it all is not my problem.

 

[msjones21]

Seems like this post is nothing but a flame..why is calling someone a bigot over and over allowed? Believeing in the Word of God does not make a person a bigot...that is nothing more than an hysterical attempt to play on people's emotions You aren't trying to engage this person in a conversation you are only calling names.

Because too many Christians (instead of tending to their own problems and their own sinful nature) use the Bible as their scapegoat to treat others less than human. As far as using the term bigot, see the definition below:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If I stated that blacks are different and have no right to marry because it will be the downfall of moral society, would you not have every right to call me a racist?

 

[kdet]

Because too many Christians (instead of tending to their own problems and their own sinful nature) use the Bible as their scapegoat to treat others less than human. As far as using the term bigot, see the definition below:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If I stated that blacks are different and have no right to marry because it will be the downfall of moral society, would you not have every right to call me a racist?

Calling names and labeling people does nothing to further discussion whatever your reasoning behind it.

 

[Paula]

perhaps he was always heterosexual and just experimented? a man who has sex with a man isn't necessarily heterosexual or bisexual.

Men with effeminate mannerisms aren't always homosexual, but the fact that his friends teased so much caused him lots of problems. It was really cruel of them to that in the first place.

i know for me, i felt pressured to do the "man thing" as a teenager. i had sex with 3 girls. did this make me a heterosexual at the time? did i 'revert' back to homosexuality? absolutely not. it made me a homosexual trying to conform to 'societal norms' by having relations with women.

I guess only you would know if you were predisposed or not, and perhaps "reverted" wouldn't be the right word. But I know peer pressure at such a young age is a big factor, especially for guys.

 

[Polycarp1]

That's a really useful contribution, Paula, and it underscores a point. Sexuality is in fact a spectrum -- different people find different other people desirable. My wife is a beautiful woman -- to me. She would not appeal to the Playboy centerfold recruiting staff nor to that magazine's audience. But the inner person that she is, the goodness that radiates from her, makes her less-than-objectively-pretty 57-year-old body a thing of beauty for me.

When we speak of "gay people" we are simply referring to an arbitrarily drawn subset of those who are exclusively or predominantly attracted to certain persons of their own sex. (I suspect that few if any gay men would find Rush Limbaugh sexually attractive.)

I recall reading some years ago a study that purported to prove that only between 10-20% of the U.S. male population is exclusively heterosexual, in the sense that, supposing they held still for it, another male could not stimulate them and bring them to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Obviously the proportion of people who identify as heterosexual and eschew any idea of gay sex is orders of magnitude greater -- the maximum figure I've ever seen for "being gay" -- including all those who have had more than a single gay contact -- is 13%, and those who openly self-identify as gay is on the order of 3%.

But people can react in unusual ways in various situations. A young man of my acquaintance is 100% straight in both behavior and self-perceived orientation when sober -- but when he gets drunk, he desires to receive homosexual oral stimulation, and sometimes to give it. (I found this out when he confided in me, being stressed out about what it said about him, and I was able to reassure him and calm his inner fears.) I'm fairly sure that the number of those who have flirted with the idea of a gay relationship and then adjusted to a healthy heterosexual life is substantially larger than one would assume from typical published accounts -- it's something that one is nearly always very reticent about.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by :

sweetkitty

Believeing in the Word of God does not make a person a bigot...

True.

But using religion as a justification for the promotion of discrimination is bigotry.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Exactly-and your opinion or interpretation of what it means and what various passages signifigance is-and so does everyone else. Thank you!

Theres no interpitation to it. It's direct wording.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I don't think anyone denies that it can "work." The argument is that it's a sin, and an abomination against God.

Yes, I agree. That's why we should burn the Constitution and install a Christian theocracy. We'll uproot all of the gay people from their homes and force them on a mass exodus to Utah, where we will allow them to set up a little democracy called Gayland or whatever. Then, a few months later, we can make up some excuse to blow them all up. The really great thing is, we get the homos AND the Mormons at the same time. Oh, yes! Jesus will be so pleased with us when he comes back to rule us!





Note: The above post is entirely meant to be humorous and no one should take any offense to it in any way whatsoever. It is not the fault of the author in any way, shape, or form, if any one misinterprets his message to be against gay people, mormons, or whoever. Go cry a river. Thanks.

 

[Polycarp1]

Theres no interpitation to it. It's direct wording.

Oh, really?

I grant that the English translations seem to be pretty straightforward -- but God didn't dictate any of the English translations (unless you happen to be one of the extremists among the KJV-only crowd, who apparently think He did, based on what I've read of their comments).

Now: The Leviticus 18 passage, I don't happen to offhand have the Hebrew memorized, but it translates roughly to "You shall not lie the lyings as with a woman with a man." (Lie here having the meaning recline as opposed to prevaricate.) "No gay sex" is a reasonable interpretation of what that means, but it's hardly "direct wording."

Then we get to the word Paul used twice that is customarily translated "homosexual": arsenokaitis (pl. -ites). It appears to mean something like "man-bedder" or "man-coucher" and again the translation may be a reasonable one -- but the fact of the matter is that from the time of Homer until I Corinthians was written, the enormous quantity of Greek literature: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Philo, Ptolemy -- that word never occurs, even in contexts like Aristophanes poking ridicule at old men seeking out boys for love, where you'd expect it to show up. And in Greek from Paul's time on, nearly every occasion in which it's used is someone either quoting Paul or commenting on his writings. In short, "homosexual" is a "best-guess" rendering of what the word was supposed to mean, taken almost entirely from its derivation and context. To be sure, Greek-English dictionaries will list it as meaning that -- but that's because they're basing the definition on the same educated guesswork.

And in any case, the contexts in which Paul makes reference to homosexuality are, I believe, always in the context of denunciations of various self-serving vices and behaviors. Certainly that's the case in Romans and I Corinthians. It's a quite reasonable reading of the denunciations to make them parallel fornication and promiscuity -- slaking one's lust. Paul was a bit of an ascetic, personally, but understood human nature enough to discuss at length what a Christian marriage ought to be. And not once does he condemn healthy marital sex -- the purpose for which our sexuality was created by a gracious God. Is it an unreasonable reading to believe that arsenokaites refers to those who gratify their lust through homosexual acts?

And if that is the case, then in what way does it apply to moral gay people who seek to share their lives together in covenanted union with the person they love? Certainly "fornication" and "whoredoms" and the other vivid Scriptural condemnations of sexual license do not apply to a married couple's sex life!

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

What is the Bible's definition of marriage? For this cause a man (male) shall leave his mother and father and shall cling to his wife (female) and the two shall become one flesh. As stated above, sexual relations are only moral within marriage. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin, including homosexuality but not limited to.

Let's see, I've been called a bigot because, as people claim, I'm too busy worrying about other's sin to concern myself with my own. Not true, I sin daily. Everyone sins on a daily basis. We pray for forgiveness and move on with our life. The sin I am standing up against is a sin which these people are openly commiting in spite of knowledge to the contrary. No matter what liberal arguments I may hear, I will still believe that homosexual relationships are sinful. My stance against this sin would be the same as against adultery. It is clearly taught in the Bible that this is a sin and therefore a Bible Believing Bigot such as myself must take a stand on this issue.

To hold this position does not mean that I do not love the sinner, I merely abhor the sin. I pray for everyone on this board to come to the knowledge of Jessus the Christ and of the truth .

 

[praying]

Let's see, I've been called a bigot because, as people claim, I'm too busy worrying about other's sin to concern myself with my own. Not true, I sin daily. Everyone sins on a daily basis. We pray for forgiveness and move on with our life. The sin I am standing up against is a sin which these people are openly commiting in spite of knowledge to the contrary.

So the things you do daily that are sin, are they repetitive, are you commititng the same sins on a regular basis.

Are you "openly commiting in spite of knowledge to the contrary or are you just that terrible of a person that you are so full of sin that you can commit different sins on a daily basis.

I read in your profile that you have been a Christian for 14 years so you must have some fore knowledge that at least some of the things you are doing on a daily basis that are sin are wrong.

See here is what I am thinking, that would make you an openly unrepentant sinner, would you not agree? I am just trying to understand and hold you to the same standard you are holding the supposed homosexual sinner to.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Oh, really?

I grant that the English translations seem to be pretty straightforward -- but God didn't dictate any of the English translations (unless you happen to be one of the extremists among the KJV-only crowd, who apparently think He did, based on what I've read of their comments).

Now: The Leviticus 18 passage, I don't happen to offhand have the Hebrew memorized, but it translates roughly to "You shall not lie the lyings as with a woman with a man." (Lie here having the meaning recline as opposed to prevaricate.) "No gay sex" is a reasonable interpretation of what that means, but it's hardly "direct wording."

Then we get to the word Paul used twice that is customarily translated "homosexual": arsenokaitis (pl. -ites). It appears to mean something like "man-bedder" or "man-coucher" and again the translation may be a reasonable one -- but the fact of the matter is that from the time of Homer until I Corinthians was written, the enormous quantity of Greek literature: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Philo, Ptolemy -- that word never occurs, even in contexts like Aristophanes poking ridicule at old men seeking out boys for love, where you'd expect it to show up. And in Greek from Paul's time on, nearly every occasion in which it's used is someone either quoting Paul or commenting on his writings. In short, "homosexual" is a "best-guess" rendering of what the word was supposed to mean, taken almost entirely from its derivation and context. To be sure, Greek-English dictionaries will list it as meaning that -- but that's because they're basing the definition on the same educated guesswork.

And in any case, the contexts in which Paul makes reference to homosexuality are, I believe, always in the context of denunciations of various self-serving vices and behaviors. Certainly that's the case in Romans and I Corinthians. It's a quite reasonable reading of the denunciations to make them parallel fornication and promiscuity -- slaking one's lust. Paul was a bit of an ascetic, personally, but understood human nature enough to discuss at length what a Christian marriage ought to be. And not once does he condemn healthy marital sex -- the purpose for which our sexuality was created by a gracious God. Is it an unreasonable reading to believe that arsenokaites refers to those who gratify their lust through homosexual acts?

And if that is the case, then in what way does it apply to moral gay people who seek to share their lives together in covenanted union with the person they love? Certainly "fornication" and "whoredoms" and the other vivid Scriptural condemnations of sexual license do not apply to a married couple's sex life!

Thanks so much, Polycarp! You've shown completely the selective interpretations used by people convinced of their own rightness but little else on this issue.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Because too many Christians (instead of tending to their own problems and their own sinful nature) use the Bible as their scapegoat to treat others less than human. As far as using the term bigot, see the definition below:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If I stated that blacks are different and have no right to marry because it will be the downfall of moral society, would you not have every right to call me a racist?

Very well said, Ms. Jones-thank you!

 

[Blemonds]

Because too many Christians (instead of tending to their own problems and their own sinful nature) use the Bible as their scapegoat to treat others less than human. As far as using the term bigot, see the definition below:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If I stated that blacks are different and have no right to marry because it will be the downfall of moral society, would you not have every right to call me a racist?

Can you honestly say that you are not obstinately devoted to your own opinions?

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Wilfred of Ivanhoe

What is the Bible's definition of marriage? For this cause a man (male) shall leave his mother and father and shall cling to his wife (female) and the two shall become one flesh. As stated above, sexual relations are only moral within marriage. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin, including homosexuality but not limited to.

Implying that for other causes there are other definitions.



What of the seven other biblical definitions of marriage? Why leave them out?

Why not include marriage meaning a victim of rape and her attacker? why leave out polygamy? Why leave out levirate marriage?



I think it is very fortunate that I am married to Alex so therefore I commit mo “sin” in your eyes. (not that I really care what you think)

Let's see, I've been called a bigot because, as people claim, I'm too busy worrying about other's sin to concern myself with my own.

Not true. People are called bigots when they attempt to promote discrimination of another group basing their desire to discriminate solely on their personal beliefs.

It is accurate to call people obsessed with the sex lives of others, perverts.

Not true, I sin daily. Everyone sins on a daily basis. We pray for forgiveness and move on with our life. The sin I am standing up against is a sin which these people are openly commiting in spite of knowledge to the contrary. No matter what liberal arguments I may hear, I will still believe that homosexual relationships are sinful. My stance against this sin would be the same as against adultery. It is clearly taught in the Bible that this is a sin and therefore a Bible Believing Bigot such as myself must take a stand on this issue.

Imagine what you could accomplish if your motivation were love and not hate.

To hold this position does not mean that I do not love the sinner, I merely abhor the sin. I pray for everyone on this board to come to the knowledge of Jessus the Christ and of the truth .

You say you abhor the sin of others but you work to restrict the civil rights of those you hate.



Truth meaning to come to believe exactly what you demand people believe.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Blemonds

Originally Posted by: msjones21

Because too many Christians (instead of tending to their own problems and their own sinful nature) use the Bible as their scapegoat to treat others less than human. As far as using the term bigot, see the definition below:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If I stated that blacks are different and have no right to marry because it will be the downfall of moral society, would you not have every right to call me a racist?

Can you honestly say that you are not obstinately devoted to your own opinions?

I think the pivotal idea in that limited definition is intolerance. No one (not even msjones) is saying you must stop hating homosexuals. You are completely free to hate despise and rail against anyone or any group you like.



Popular conception of the word bigot includes hatred and attempts of one group or individual to restrict the freedoms of others often through intimidation, or dishonest means. It is not you position that prompts anyone to apply the label of “bigot” rather it is your goal and tactics. You repeated dishonest assertion that gays and lesbians are not being denied civil rights for example, your repeated attempts to use a disease to justify discrimination and your (implied) assertion that homosexuality is the equivalent of “pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy, and even cannibalism.” Are prime examples of intolerance and thus prompting the use of the word bigotry.