Today is a sad day

[Archivist]

Sorry

about your luck, but Ive presented scripture that shows conclusively what is being condemned...men being with men sexually.

No, you have presented scripture that shows "conclusively what is being condemned according to your interpretation.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.

Its not my problem if you cannot accept the facts.

Not facts. Opinion.

 

[Archivist]

The result will be that soon gay 'marriage' will engulf this land. It's inevitable.

A similiar argument was once made regarding interracial marriage.

 

[Hentenza]

A similiar argument was once made regarding interracial marriage.

Is homosexuals a race?

 

[HuntingMan]

Sorry

No, you have presented scripture that shows "conclusively what is being condemned according to your interpretation.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.



Not facts. Opinion.

PUHlease.
Its completely naive to pretend like the wording in that passage doesnt condemn men having sex with men.

 

[theQuestionist]

Today is a happy day. The only thing that's sad is johnd's persistence to infringe on the rights, freedoms and happiness of others based on some ancient, irrelevant texts.

 

[onemessiah]

And we lack the moral high ground to begin to explain or legislate why homosexuals cannot be officially married.

Exactly. So get over it. I'm sure there are more important things for you to worry about than stripping others of their rights.

 

[Hentenza]

Exactly. So get over it. I'm sure there are more important things for you to worry about than stripping others of their rights.

LOL!!!! Post-modernist mentality just cracks me up.

 

[onemessiah]

Today is a happy day. The only thing that's sad is johnd's persistence to infringe on the rights, freedoms and happiness of others based on some ancient, irrelevant texts.

When society progresses, the ones who are left behind are the ones who we should feel sorry for, not sorry for ourselves.

I still don't understand why people feel the need to infringe on the rights of others, as you said...especially when they have absolutely no grounds to do so.

 

[onemessiah]

LOL!!!! Post-modernist mentality just cracks me up.

People who think they're righteous crack me up

 

[Hentenza]

People who think they're righteous crack me up

Yep!!! We can agree there.

 

[onemessiah]

So I take it you're against gay marriage too? Sorry, haven't had the chance to read through the thread yet.

 

[Hentenza]

So I take it you're against gay marriage too? Sorry, haven't had the chance to read through the thread yet.

No worries. I am indeed against homosexual marriages but that is because I believe that it is wrong biblically. My opinion along with my church.

 

[katautumn]

Okay, I think we can all agree that whether it's our opinion or not that there are many churches that are against same-sex marriages. Does this mean they should be illegal? Does this mean it is acceptable for people to protest at the courthouses where these ceremonies are taking place, spoiling the happy day for the couples? How would it make a Christian feel if a group of protesters showed up outside the church at their wedding because the bride has previously divorced and is getting remarried?

 

[anonymous1515]

Id like for you to reread your post here.
Read it again and again and again until it is etched into your mind so greatly that you can recite it without even glancing at it.

A few years from now, you'll know when the time comes, I want you to remember today, this hour, this second and precisely what you've said here.

Haha, sure thing boss. In a few years when my city is taken over by a giant parade of newlywed homosexuals I'll remember this conversation and say to myself, "Wow, HuntingMan's intolerance was right all along."

...although I won't be holding my breath for that day to come

 

[onemessiah]

Okay, I think we can all agree that whether it's our opinion or not that there are many churches that are against same-sex marriages. Does this mean they should be illegal? Does this mean it is acceptable for people to protest at the courthouses where these ceremonies are taking place, spoiling the happy day for the couples? How would it make a Christian feel if a group of protesters showed up outside the church at their wedding because the bride has previously divorced and is getting remarried?

Yeah, I think trying to deny gay marriage is taking things too far. I happen to approve of it...but even if I didn't like the idea, it's not something I would fight against. There are much bigger fish to fry than worrying about determining who should be allowed to marry who.

 

[HuntingMan]

Okay, I think we can all agree that whether it's our opinion or not that there are many churches that are against same-sex marriages. Does this mean they should be illegal? Does this mean it is acceptable for people to protest at the courthouses where these ceremonies are taking place, spoiling the happy day for the couples? How would it make a Christian feel if a group of protesters showed up outside the church at their wedding because the bride has previously divorced and is getting remarried?

Apples and oranges, Im afraid.
God Himself gave a writ of divorce.

=================================
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
By WmTipton

L: "Some say a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage, therefore it falls into a different category. I personally do not see a difference" (8/14/06)

Seeming this poster is showing that two men might be ‘married’ before the Lord, we haven’t yet determined if she actually believes that heresy or not.

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To dispute the slanderous, anti-Christ and ungodly comparison of Gods marital covenant to homosexual unions

Supporting Evidence

In some of the more devious/deceptive circles these days we see this nonsense of comparing the abominable union of two men to a covenant made before God between a man and woman where one or both have been remarried.
This will be a pretty short document as all we need to prove here is that remarriage WAS permitted after a divorce somewhere in scripture and that men lying with men is nothing in Gods eyes at any point in time short of abomination and fornication.

Firstly let us see Gods unchanging view of homosexuality...

You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.
(Lev 18:22 MKJV)

If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.
(Lev 20:13 MKJV)

Notice there are no ‘exceptions’, no concessions, no leniency...simply death if this act is committed.
No male/male ‘marriage’ has ever existed in scripture, no homosexual union ever exonerated, no tolerance given in the matter at any point anywhere in scripture.

There can be no “marriage” before God between two men and without a marriage covenant in place a sexual relatioship is ALWAYS ‘fornication’ (porneia).
If for no other reason this union between two men would be sin by default simply because God created marriage to be between a man and a woman and there isnt a single precedent in scripture anywhere to show otherwise...and there is clear scripture to show that man being with men as one is with a woman is ALWAYS abomination.


Now, on the topic of a marriage covenant made between a man and a woman where one or both have been married previously, let us see what the scripture shows in these matters.

Let us go to Mosiac law and see if there is even a single piece of evidence that once lawfully divorced that either party could remarry without it being considered ‘abomination’ as we see with two men above...

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
(Deu 24:1-4 KJV)

We absolutely see that after this divorce and subsequent remarriage there is no ‘abomination’ even remotely mentioned. Moses seems to either be encouraging this remarriage, or at the very least showing that the permission is assumed once she has been put away.
We see no ‘abomination’ here whatsoever where a remarriage has taken place.


Now, let us move up to our Lords words in Matt 19 where the Deut passage above is being discussed with Him by the pharisees who distorted the sufferance of divorce into a ‘commandment’.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 19:3-9 KJV)

Firstly take notice that the text shows that they were ‘tempting’ or testing him (the Greek means ‘to test’). We can immediately see their hearts that were simply trying to trap or trick Jesus, rather than to know the truth.
These men bring up ‘for every cause’ from what Moses had been permitting as far as divorce goes. They knew Moses had ‘suffered’ them to put away their wives for every frivolous reason they could think up (“some uncleaness” found in her) and had twisted this sufferance for these frivolous divorces into a commandment, as it plainly shown.

Notice that Jesus corrects their false interpretation of this being a commandment and shows them clearly that it had not been a command, but a sufferance to allow them to divorce ‘for every cause’ (some uncleaness).
Our Lord then shows them in the last verse that He will no longer tolerate these frivolous divorces when He says ‘except’ in such a case as I define, you commit adultery when you ‘marry another’.

In His exception we see quite clearly that to ‘marry another’ is lawful in the case for which He describes (porneia/fornication/sexual immorality) and thus NOT ‘abomination’ as homosexual unions are regardless of the situation.

Those who use this nonsense that gay unions are comparable to remarriages clearly have not studied scripture on the matter in the least and are grasping at straws to push their faltering error on our brethren.
These slanderous comparisons of homosexual unions to remarriages are given simply for shock value. As we’ve clearly shown they have no foundation in scripture whatsoever.

Wm tipton

 

[HuntingMan]

Haha, sure thing boss. In a few years when my city is taken over by a giant parade of newlywed homosexuals I'll remember this conversation and say to myself, "Wow, HuntingMan's intolerance was right all along."

...although I won't be holding my breath for that day to come

You are mistaken.
Im hardly worried about gays overrunning the country, let them come, for all I care.

 

[HuntingMan]

Yeah, I think trying to deny gay marriage is taking things too far. I happen to approve of it...but even if I didn't like the idea, it's not something I would fight against. There are much bigger fish to fry than worrying about determining who should be allowed to marry who.

When a person has no regard for Gods order of things and His law, it is no real surprise that they wont fight for that order.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Yeah, well the problem is that we see men even under the old covenant who took wives not of their own nationality.
There is enough evidence in Gods word to show that marrying outside ones 'people group' is not abomination. That some twisted racist types perverted Gods word to say something it doesnt is not relevant to the fact that God word DOES condemn men having sex with men.

If there were even one SINGLE exception to this rule, then you folks would have some sort of case.

When did you last read Ezra?

 

[katautumn]

My point, Huntingman, is that there are many churches in America that expressly condemn remarriage after divorce. The Independent Fundamental Baptist churches are opposed to it and most IFB pastors will not perform a wedding ceremony for the previously divorced or allow divorced and remarried people to be members of the clergy.

Since there is much division even among Christian circles about marriage "laws" according to the Bible, whose interpretation should be used to implement state laws?