Trying to equate a skin color with a sexual activity is nothing more than attempting to justify a behavior.
If you are unable to grasp the concept that being gay isn't a behavior or an activity, then frankly you really don't have anything to offer the conversation.
-CryptoLutheran
So you saying its Ok to devour your mate, or take food from others? Its natural, the animal kingdom does it. How about inter species sexual relations and killing the young of your rivals? Yes there are humans who do these things too, But I am not trying to argue its not SIN for us to do.
We don't have laws encouraging it either. You intentionally missed the point.
We're not saying all those things are necessarily moral, we're just arguing they're natural. Since you claim homosexuality is unnatural, you would in fact be wrong. Establishing that it is in fact natural, we could then argue morality.
You're trying to argue it's unnatural and therefore morally wrong. That's a logical fallacy.
Actually no, he directly contradicts that line of reasoning in Corinthians.He would probably tell them that they have the same ability and right to marry the member of the opposite sex as anyone else.
I disagree. I find your attitude towards gays far more hateful.It's your entire attitude which is displayed in the things you write.
Nope, you're telling me what your laymen interpretation of the English Bible says. That's not the same thing as what's in the Bible. I read the same Bible you do and come to a very different conclusion. I have no reason to accept your view as more valid.I'm telling you as it is described in the bible. So stop telling me what I think.
Homosexuality doesn't refer to sexuality activity, it refers to attractions. A homosexual virgin is still homosexual despite not engaging in any behavior.Trying to equate a skin color with a sexual activity is nothing more than attempting to justify a behavior.
Dude, read the topic title. It's about civil unions. It could also be about SSM. Is that an activity? Is it a choice? Uh, yes it is. Just as being angry with someone is something you may naturally feel in a given situation, acting out by punching that person is an activity that comes following a choice.
I notice in your profile you describe yourself as a Lutheran. I assume you are against sin as God is. Am I wrong? What does God say in His word about this subject? Here's a few verses:
[FONT="]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT="]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT="]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT="]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT="]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]
So you can quote an English text out of context without knowing what it actually meant in the original language. What's your point? You do realize every single person you're arguing with here has read those verses countless times right?[FONT="]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT="]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
Actually no, he directly contradicts that line of reasoning in Corinthians.
I disagree. I find your attitude towards gays far more hateful.
Nope, you're telling me what your laymen interpretation of the English Bible says. That's not the same thing as what's in the Bible. I read the same Bible you do and come to a very different conclusion. I have no reason to accept your view as more valid.
Homosexuality doesn't refer to sexuality activity, it refers to attractions. A homosexual virgin is still homosexual despite not engaging in any behavior.
So you saying its Ok to devour your mate, or take food from others? Its natural, the animal kingdom does it. How about inter species sexual relations and killing the young of your rivals? Yes there are humans who do these things too, But I am not trying to argue its not SIN for us to do.
So you can quote an English text out of context without knowing what it actually meant in the original language. What's your point? You do realize every single person you're arguing with here has read those verses countless times right?
Even Saint Augustine and Anastasios said Romans 1 refers to heterosexuals. Leviticus refers to pagan worship rituals and is only applicable to the ancient Israelites. Corinthians is a mistranslation of a word Paul invented. Homosexual was not added to that verse until the 1940s. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality. The Bible flat out tells you that in Ezekiel and Judges 19 disproves the argument that it's referring to what we'd call gay people.
Do you think you're being clever by beating us over the head with Bible passages that we clearly know more about then you do? I don't think that's an effective argument tool.
1 Corinthians 7:3Ok, show it to me.
To hate is not of God, because God is love. I don't see how you can argue it's not hate when you directly hate someone's innate qualities. If I say I hate black skin, you'd have a hard time arguing that I don't hate a black person.That's ok. You're entitled to your opinion. But being against something is not hatred of the person. There are many things God hates.
That would take a very long discussion and it's not permitted in this forum.So tell me what it says, and where it says it so we can have a discussion on common ground.
No necessarily. Again you're committing a logical fallacy. SSM doesn't automatically mean they're having sex. Is it likely? Yes, but you're making assumptions. I know 2 gay men who have been together for over 20 years and basically never have sex. Literally if they do, it's once a year.SSM and civil unions (the topic of the thread) for the purpose of making the fact that they have sex with each other something that the rest of society is forced to honor and recognize is an act.
I don't consider it infallible or inerrant, nor do I consider some random person's interpretation on the internet a valid argument. The Bible also says the sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is stationary. Should I take that part of God's word as accurate?Do you reject the accuracy of God's word then?
Again, you're ignoring context. Read further. Those same men end up raping a female concubine all night, which clearly means they're not gay.Judges 19:22-- While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
SSM and civil unions (the topic of the thread) for the purpose of making the fact that they have sex with each other something that the rest of society is forced to honor and recognize is an act.
I don't consider it infallible or inerrant, nor do I consider some random person's interpretation on the internet a valid argument.
Again, you're ignoring context. Read further. Those same men end up raping a female concubine all night, which clearly means they're not gay.
If you knew what rape was about and how it was used throughout history, you'd understand rape was committed against men as a means of humiliation and dominance. Not because the men are innately gay. The vast majority of the 10s of thousands of sexual assaults taking place in our military are committed by heterosexual men.
Let's see how that pans out for the other freedoms that we enjoy the US.
Freedom of religion. Does the fact that we allow other people to worship how they see fit mean that we approve of their religious beliefs? We allow people to worship idols here in the States. Does that mean that you, as a US citizen, approve of idol worship?
Dietary laws. We allow people to eat pork in this country. Does this mean that Jews and Muslims are being forced to accept the eating of pork as ordained by God?
Or could it be that a person is not bound by the rules of another man's religion?
1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
You're arguing a gay man should marry a woman. He, by definition cannot fulfill his duty to his wife and he will most certainly deprive his wife of intimacy/affection seeing as he's not physically/romantically/or sexually attracted to women. This will in turn lead to adultery and divorce which we see all too often among gay conservatives who marry out of obligation and get caught in gay scandals or admit they're gay after already have a wife/kids. They destroy their entire family.
To marry someone he has no feelings for is a direct contradiction of Paul's command on how marriage partners are to behave with one another.
To hate is not of God, because God is love. I don't see how you can argue it's not hate when you directly hate someone's innate qualities. If I say I hate black skin, you'd have a hard time arguing that I don't hate a black person.
That would take a very long discussion and it's not permitted in this forum.
No necessarily. Again you're committing a logical fallacy. SSM doesn't automatically mean they're having sex. Is it likely? Yes, but you're making assumptions. I know 2 gay men who have been together for over 20 years and basically never have sex. Literally if they do, it's once a year.
Whether sexual activity is occurring is not grounds for opposing SSM. They're going to have sex whether they're married or not, just like most heterosexuals.
So what's the point of a guy getting "married" to another guy if it has nothing to do with sex? If this is actually the case, then it's still another perversion of what the definition of marriage is. FAIL (again).
Why should non-christians be forced to abide by the christian definition of marriage? Why should non-christians be forced to live by the edicts of the Bible? Do we have religious freedom in the US or not? Are you put upon if you are not allowed to force christian rules onto non-christians?
Well, for one, not everyone feels the need to wait for marriage to have sex. Therefore, the desire to get married has little to nothing to do with a desire to have sex with that person. That pretty much holds true across the sexuality spectrum far as I can tell, since it doesn't seem like that many people are waiting (anecdotal judgment only).So what's the point of a guy getting "married" to another guy if it has nothing to do with sex? If this is actually the case, then it's still another perversion of what the definition of marriage is. FAIL (again).
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?