The LOGIC as to why gay marriage should be ILLEGAL

[katholikos]

To KCKID,
Christian perfection presumably is Jesus Christ. What has been posted looks in accordance with scripture.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,

So, basically, you're supposed to treat homosexuals with Christ's love and not condemn them for their sexual orientation, welcoming them into your flock and not trying to "deprogram" them? That sounds good as a start! Now, when can we start talking about equal rights?

I am sure katholikos wont mind me also responding. The Christian is merely to share the gospel and make disciples of any who believe (ie Matt 28) There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8.1)

Obviously as fellow citizens you may think same sex relationships are ok for society and we as Christians do not think it’s the best for society.

Paul is not Jesus

Neither are any of the NT writers so I don’t see your point.

Leviticus is the "old law" that was rendered moot by Christ's sacrifice (otherwise, you'd still be stoning disrespectful children to death). The question stands:

Well have you considered that if it was rendered moot by Christ’s sacrifice then why did Jesus Christ teach to continue with what some of it said to love your neighbour as yourself…
Leviticus 19:18 “" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
Matthew 19:19 “Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Also 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27,Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8?

Where did Jesus ever condemn same-sex relationships?

Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, 1 Tim1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The point is did Jesus ever say to love ones neighbour, the answer is yes if one can acknowledge the Biblical testimony and no if one cant. Its the same with same sex relations, yes they are error if one believes and no they arent if one disbelieves.
But Jesus says (John 14) anyone who loves Him will do what He teaches.

 

[CoderHead]

What I care about is when people claim that homosexual relationships are condoned by God.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any post in here that expresses that sentiment. A lot of people fighting for equal rights don't really care whether God likes it or not...or even whether there is a God. The debate really comes down to human beings wanting other human beings to be afforded the same opportunities. Period.

 

[Sojourner1]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any post in here that expresses that sentiment. A lot of people fighting for equal rights don't really care whether God likes it or not...or even whether there is a God. The debate really comes down to human beings wanting other human beings to be afforded the same opportunities. Period.

I've read lots of posts by Christians that claim that homosexuality is not a sin and that if they love each other then God honors that relationship. The problem is that the majority of Christians believe that God ordained marriage and that it isn't just a legal or civil right. The majority of Christians believe that marriage is a covenant between the man, the woman, and God. For those who do not believe that marriage was ordained by God, or that God even exists, then I completely understand why they see this as denying other people their rights. I'm all for giving same-sex couples equal rights under the law. I just believe that spiritually a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a "marriage" between two members of the same sex.

 

[CoderHead]

Matthew 19:19 “Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

Good advice. Now where does it say, "don't fall in love with a person of the same sex?" I'm waiting.

Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, 1 Tim1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc.

Matthew 19: Jesus is talking about divorce and the bond of marriage. He is NOT talking about same-sex relationships.

Mark 10: Same passage, same context. Your argument is invalid.

1 Cor, 1Tim, Romans: Paul, not Jesus. These are his letters written to specific churches in specific regions - are they really addressed to the whole of Christianity for all time? If so, then why do you allow women to speak in church? 1 Cor 14:34

Peter, Jude, etc.: Not Jesus. Next argument?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any post in here that expresses that sentiment. A lot of people fighting for equal rights don't really care whether God likes it or not...or even whether there is a God. The debate really comes down to human beings wanting other human beings to be afforded the same opportunities. Period.

Hopefully a previous post to you shows I understand that and your position. Yet all men and women have equal rights to marriage, its just that all people who have same sex attraction are still men and women and part of the species which has men and women to united sexualy and sexually reproduce.

 

[KCKID]

Question to bms from several sources: Where did Jesus ever condemn same-sex relationships?

Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, 1 Tim1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc.

Well, let's see.

Matt 19. Strike out.
Mark 10. Strike out.
Eph 5. Strike out
1 Cor 6-7. Strike out.
1 Tim 1. Strike out
Romans 1. Strike out.
2 Peter 2. Strike out.
Jude 1. Strike out.
etc. Strike out.

Conclusion. Jesus never condemned same-sex relationships.

 

[katholikos]

Originally Posted by katholikos

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
​

So, basically, you're supposed to treat homosexuals with Christ's love and not condemn them for their sexual orientation, welcoming them into your flock and not trying to "deprogram" them? That sounds good as a start!......

Hold up: Thats only half the story, and you only quoted a third of my post. Yes, we should love all people and welcome them. But authentic love does not mean indulging people in sinful activities: It means being truthful and honest with them. Any person who is in a state of mortal sin is not to receive communion. Homosexual sex is a mortal sin. The problem with most homosexuals is that they don't recognize it as a sin and therefore are unrepentant. So let's not get it twitsed.

......Now, when can we start talking about equal rights?

They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have. What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".

And that is what is bogus about this whole conversation. In California, we already have same-sex unions and they enjoy rights that married couples have. Prop 8 did not change that. The problem is that they want to call their unions "marriage" - in other words, they want to change the definition of the word "marriage".

So once again, the truth of this issue is not being told.

 

[CoderHead]

The problem is that the majority of Christians believe that God ordained marriage and that it isn't just a legal or civil right.

But the argument is whether same-sex marriage should be legal, not whether it should be ordained by God. If you want to believe that God doesn't recognize the same-sex marriage, that's fine. But at least let the government recognize it.

You guys (maybe not you, but those Christians against) are voting it down because you think God disapproves. How do you expect people to see the love of Christ in you when you're denying them these secular, human, legal rights? Jesus Christ never, ever claimed he wanted a seat in the government. He concerned himself with spiritual matters and left the laws of the land up to us.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,

Good advice.

Well as Christians we believe all Jesus teaching is good advice because it is the truth.

Now where does it say, "don't fall in love with a person of the same sex?" I'm waiting.

It doesn’t say what you have made up which is contrary to what it does say. How could it?
It does say to love even ones enemies and to love ones neighbour but it doesn’t mean to have sex with everyone.

Matthew 19: Jesus is talking about divorce and the bond of marriage. He is NOT talking about same-sex relationships.

Well as He is stating God’s purpose in creation as man and woman He most certainly is ruling out same sex unions. That’s why the passage is cited. If you read Matthew 19 you will see that the answer is even more precise than the doubting Pharisees realised, that it was a man and a woman, hence no divorce.

Mark 10: Same passage, same context. Your argument is invalid.

You are trying to tell millions of believing Christians that what they believe isnt what they believe, take it from me and millions of Christians it is.

 

[Sojourner1]

Matthew 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he 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."

How is the above passage not clear? Jesus doesn't need to talk about same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships. Everyone he was speaking to was aware of the Law given by God in Leviticus. They already knew what was and wasn't allowed. Same-sex relationships were not something that Jesus needed to address to the crowd he was speaking to. It would be like asking Jesus if it was alright to commit adultery with your neighbor's wife if you "loved" her.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,
conclusion: you dont believe the Bible on the subject. QED.
This is what the Bible says I have shown you, you havent come up with any scripture to countenance what the Bible calls the perverison and error you are proposing, and until you can your argument is merely disbelief.

 

[katholikos]

But the argument is whether same-sex marriage should be legal, not whether it should be ordained by God. If you want to believe that God doesn't recognize the same-sex marriage, that's fine. But at least let the government recognize it.......

I'm going to repeat what I said a moment ago, which apparently got overlooked:

They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have. What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".

And that is what is bogus about this whole conversation. In California, we already have same-sex unions and they enjoy rights that married couples have. Prop 8 did not change that. The problem is that they want to call their unions "marriage" - in other words, they want to change the definition of the word "marriage".

So once again, the truth of this issue is not being told.

 

[Sojourner1]

But the argument is whether same-sex marriage should be legal, not whether it should be ordained by God. If you want to believe that God doesn't recognize the same-sex marriage, that's fine. But at least let the government recognize it.

You guys (maybe not you, but those Christians against) are voting it down because you think God disapproves. How do you expect people to see the love of Christ in you when you're denying them these secular, human, legal rights? Jesus Christ never, ever claimed he wanted a seat in the government. He concerned himself with spiritual matters and left the laws of the land up to us.

Will they be getting married in a court of law or in a church? Will same-sex marriages be conducted by clergy? Same-sex marriages will not just be secular contracts. Claiming that we aren't showing the love of Christ because we don't accept same-sex marriages is pulling the emotional card. If you follow that logic then we aren't showing the love of Christ if we don't just accept everything that men do. It wouldn't be loving, therefore, to share the gospel of Christ because in doing so we would offend someone by having to bring up the minor detail of sin and separation from God.

 

[CoderHead]

The passage you're quoting is specific to divorce. Jesus is quoting Old Testament scripture, just as you're quoting New Testament scripture. He's not condemning same-sex marriage, he's condemning divorce. Who are you accusing of reading into it? You're injecting more meaning than this passage, at face value, contains.

Question: Can a man divorce his wife?
Answer: No, because of [this] Old Testament scripture.

He's not even doing any interpretation at this point, he's simply quoting Moses.

 

[ziggy29]

But the argument is whether same-sex marriage should be legal, not whether it should be ordained by God. If you want to believe that God doesn't recognize the same-sex marriage, that's fine. But at least let the government recognize it.

Precisely. When it comes to theological issues and how I choose to live my life, I use Scripture as "the law." It is my guide. It is how I choose to live my life to be closer to Jesus.

When it comes to secular affairs of the state, I look at what I think are the natural rights of Man according to folks like John Locke and David Hume among others -- many of whom were the folks who influenced many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. This to me forms the small-l libertarian basis of "man's law" -- consenting adults should be free (under man's law) to do as they will as long as they do not infringe on the life, limb, liberty or property of others.

I see no valid reason why Man's Law should withhold equal rights under the law for homosexuals; Man's law is free to change and evolve corresponding to an increasing awareness of secular human rights.

Accepting it in a church of God is another matter entirely. God's law in Scripture is eternal and unchanging regardless of changes in cultural attitudes. And God's law doesn't accept it even as I believe Man's law should. I look to Scripture for what I believe is morally upright and Christ-like in setting how I strive to live my own life. I do not look to Scripture for secular legal matters, and even though it's not conclusive I think there is some Scriptural basis for keeping matters of the church and matters of the state separate.

Having said that, I think claiming that denying homosexual sacred weddings is withholding "Christian love" is a red herring and false conclusion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To CoderHead,
This is the problem part of which Katholikos points out. The arguments in favour of same sex unions that you and others put, are form your standpoint the very foundation of which we dont accept. You then seem to get fristrated we cant see your point of view, yet as far as we can see if you addressed what we offer you couldnt hold your viewpoint as it would become obviously incorrect.
The idea of marriage is a union between the man and the woman because the man and the woman are the two sexes of the species that reproduce. There is no alternative, there would be no need for two sexes if one sex could reproduce. Now consider that, in what way is a woman needed that couldnt be done just by a man? How many sexes are there in the species?

 

[CoderHead]

They have equal rights.

And that is what is bogus about this whole conversation. In California, we already have same-sex unions and they enjoy rights that married couples have.

In California. How about Missouri? How about Louisiana? The entire population of the U.S. doesn't reside in California and Iowa.

Actually, if they're given the same rights I'm fine with that. I don't really care what it's called, although some do resent the "separate-but-equal" differentiation.

Will they be getting married in a court of law or in a church? Will same-sex marriages be conducted by clergy?

It's a legal contract, why would clergy or churches need to be involved? When I got married, I never stepped foot into a church.

Same-sex marriages will not just be secular contracts.

Why not? My heterosexual marriage was.

 

[Psudopod]

They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have. What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".

They don’t have the right to select the partner they choose and say I’m marrying this person. And what is meant by marriage has changed through time and culture. It wasn’t that long ago that marriage was between two people of differing gender but same race.