Sooo....

[Blackguard_]

Actually, I don't think anyone ever does that. If they "chop", they also "fashion". It's called Sex Reassignment Surgery.

Hence "if". Although there might some cases of that from war wounds and various accidents.

Now there's a just god for ya. Whose fault was it that they were born that way? I assume they can't ever get married other, due to the one man one woman rhetoric.

yes.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Hence "if". Although there might some cases of that from war wounds and various accidents.

No genitalia of any kind? Sounds like Michael Jackson. So since they aren't "men" any more, they aren't allowed to get married either. More examples of a just god. And they can't have sex with anybody, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[seebs]

uhhh, Lesbians are homosexuals.

Yes, but there's never a word in the Bible which accurately translates to "homosexuals", precisely because lesbians are homosexuals. The word in Timothy and 1 Corinthians is absolutely unambiguously male. It cannot be used to refer to non-males, and if it did, it would mean "a woman who sleeps with men".

It gets translated as "homosexuals" for two reasons:

1. Political agenda.
2. Tendency of many people to forget that there are gay people who are not men.

 

[seebs]

And does this passage end at v 15?

No, but nothing changes. Paul is a sinner, present-tense, as of that writing, but he has already become Christian and found the path to salvation, even before he started writing.

The nice thing about Paul's story is that it has a nice clear cutoff, a "road to Damascus" moment if you will, in which we clearly see the transition into the faith.

After which... He is still a sinner.

 

[Blackguard_]

No genitalia of any kind? Sounds like Michael Jackson.

That would explain the voice...

So since they aren't "men" any more, they aren't allowed to get married either. More examples of a just god. And they can't have sex with anybody, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Then amputees, the blind and the deaf aren't human since humans have 4 limbs and can see and hear.

But you're right, they couldn't consumate a marriage regardless of allowing them to marry legally/morally.

Maybe that's why homosexuals can't get married? they can't consumate a marriage.

Yes, but there's never a word in the Bible which accurately translates to "homosexuals", precisely because lesbians are homosexuals. The word in Timothy and 1 Corinthians is absolutely unambiguously male. It cannot be used to refer to non-males, and if it did, it would mean "a woman who sleeps with men".

I'm aware of that, thanks. It means "male-intercourse" right?

 

[Caylin]

Transexuals are the sex they are born with. Its purely cosmetic surgery. If a male got his "package" chopped off but made no attempt to fashion a vagina out of the mess, what sex would he be?

Do you know anything about transsexuality? Anything other than Springer and how you feel about it? Maybe something that a trained medical professional has to say on the matter?

 

[Blackguard_]

Do you know anything about transsexuality? Anything other than Springer and how you feel about it? Maybe something that a trained medical professional has to say on the matter?

If it was the "cosmetic surgery' thing, I did not mean it was something taken lightly like a facelift or something, I meant it turned someone into the likeness of a man/woman but actually a man/woman. My undersstanding of it is no doubt much less than yours. Are they able to actally turn men into into women and vice versa now?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Are they able to actally turn men into into women and vice versa now?

How do you define it? By the appearance of the resultant sexual organs? Some people are born deformed and theirs may look as bad. Also, if it is like boob jobs, there is a wide range in the skill of the surgeon.

By the ability to bear children? Some natural born women can't.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Then amputees, the blind and the deaf aren't human since humans have 4 limbs and can see and hear.

Hey, you are the one making definitions based on genitalia, not me. I am just continuing that line of reasoning.

But you're right, they couldn't consumate a marriage regardless of allowing them to marry legally/morally.

Maybe that's why homosexuals can't get married? they can't consumate a marriage.

con·sum·mate
tr.v. con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, con·sum·mates

1.
1. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.
2. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.
2.
1. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.
2. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.


in·ter·course

Function: noun
1 : connection or dealings between persons or groups
2 : physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person

Actually, I think a homosexual couple can do this.

Of course god apparently thinks that intercourse without procreation doesn't count. So therefore man/woman couples who cannot conceive apparently should get an annulment.

 

[Blackguard_]

nevermind

 

[steen]

Maybe that's why homosexuals can't get married? they can't consumate a marriage.

Really? there is a law against impotent men marrying? Or is it just that any justification against homosexual marriage is contrived nonsense with very little relevance in reality?

 

[KarateCowboy]

But God DIDN'T say that we should take it on ourselves to judge or discriminate against those what God considers to be sinners.

Well, to discriminate means to discern, so I would think that we should discriminate a lot.

 

[steen]

Well, to discriminate means to discern, so I would think that we should discriminate a lot.

And laughing about it, when discrimination historically is tied with things like racism? Ok, to each their own, I guess.

 

[seebs]

Well, to discriminate means to discern, so I would think that we should discriminate a lot.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. We have been talking about discrimination in the legal sense; giving preferential treatment to some people over others.

Here is what James said about discrimination:

The General Epistle of James, Chapter 2, Verses 1-9

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.​

We are not talking about discernment, but about discrimination in its other sense, the "respect of persons" (in KJV-ese), and it is a sin.

 

[Blackguard_]

Really? there is a law against impotent men marrying?

Doesn't really matter if they are physically incapable of consumating it. (note; I consider marriage before God and marriage before the State to not be necessarily identical)

Or is it just that any justification against homosexual marriage is contrived nonsense with very little relevance in reality?

I am not a Utilitarian. I am hazarding a guess you are, at least as far as gay marriage is concerned, so quoting Bible verses you've no doubt heard many times before would be pointless.

I also do not care if homosexuals legally marry, in a Classically Liberal society I have no right to stop them from doing what they will with their own if they hurt no one, but you or they also do not have the right to force me to recognize their marriage. Gays should be allowed to get married. If the pro-gay marriage people turn out to be right it will be bad if we forbade them, if the anti-gay marriage people are right, it won't matter since the State can't force God to recognize a marriage.

 

[PastorJim]

bump

 

[Joykins]

But Romans 1:20-something does talk about female homosexual acts.

Technically, it says that they exchanged natural sex for unnatural sex. This could mean any number of things, only one of which are lesbian acts.

[BIBLE]Romans 1:26[/BIBLE]

 

[rambot]

You'll also note that homosexuality isn't a reason for punishment..it is considered A punishment.

The punishment is that they went away from God.

 

[tocis]

Are there any denominations that accept homosexuals/bisexuals?

Do you literally mean christian denominations, or is it OK to include other religions?