• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Today is a sad day

dead2self

Christian Hedonist
Jun 3, 2008
1,451
232
46
Prince George, BC
✟17,594.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Apples and oranges, Im afraid.
God Himself gave a writ of divorce.

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



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...



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...

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’.




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

A great argument. Thanks for posting. I doubt, however, that sounds Biblical teaching will gain much on this issue. Makes me think of 2 Timothy 4:3-4

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (KJV)
 
Upvote 0

katautumn

Prodigal Daughter
May 14, 2015
7,498
157
44
Atlanta, GA
✟31,699.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A great argument. Thanks for posting. I doubt, however, that sounds Biblical teaching will gain much on this issue. Makes me think of 2 Timothy 4:3-4

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (KJV)

What does this have to do with the government?
 
Upvote 0

BreadAlone

Hylian Knight
Aug 11, 2006
8,207
702
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Visit site
✟29,272.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod Hat On

48b703ab-26df-498d-a7a4-ad5623c26331-0.jpg

Mod Hat Post:

Moving thread to the Debates on Homosexuality subforum.

Mod Hat Off
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

dead2self

Christian Hedonist
Jun 3, 2008
1,451
232
46
Prince George, BC
✟17,594.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What does this have to do with the government?

Nothing whatsoever. Might I inquire as to why it must? Words three and four in the OP are gay marriage and the entire first paragraph is about it. I would say this gives me mandate to commend another poster on a wonderful bit of teaching on the biblical facts about gay marriage.

After a reread of the thread, it seems to be you who is one of the main people trying to steer this thread into the issue of government. I see most debating the biblical view of homosexuality.

Oh, and for the record, a woman having sex with another woman is a digusting, vile abomination and an affront to God. I wonder if that makes you happy or if you thought perhaps we'd all just retract our views on homosexual males because lesbians are so hot.
 
Upvote 0

KCKID

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2008
1,867
228
Australia
✟4,479.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Apples and oranges, Im afraid.
God Himself gave a writ of divorce.

How hypocritical! Obviously you don't know your Bible as well as you think you do, HuntingMan. Or, you ignore what you choose to ignore. As long as a spouse remains alive one must not marry another. To do so is tantamount to adultery which, of course, is a no-no. Divorcing is ONE thing. REmarrying is another. If you didn't know this, then how much else don't you know?

Time to open up that book and catch up with the facts, HuntingMan. Then it's time to talk about what a sad day it is that the church has allowed divorce and remarriage for so long without a whimper from the likes of yourself.

Adultery is punishable by death. Just thought I'd throw that in for good measure!
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The first gay marriages in California commenced today.

The simple fact that so few can explain why "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron / contradiction in terms is telling of the fact that the Church has NOT been doing its job... and that marriage itself has NOT been held in high esteem in the Church (as is obvious by its divorce rates and infidelity rates both on par with and in some cases surpassing those of the unchurched)... giving the Church NO moral high ground to put down the endless assaults from those who would redefine if not exterminate the sanctity of marriage.

Christians don't have a monopoly on marriage though we think we do. But marriage has been defined for all time as a man and a woman in all cultures and religions that survived. Those where marriage is defined differently are in a cultural decline -- take the arab nations for example. They will remain primitive until they embrace God's design for marriage.

Today is a sad day.

Indeed, you have made a point to me. "Gay marriage" is really "sad marriage." You have given me a new buzzword, and I thank you for it. California opens the door to "sad marriage" Why is gay marriage sad? It's sad because it's the beginning of the end for the values that made marriage a bedrock foundation for civilization as we know it, and the new values really have no substance, where people just marry out of convenience for a slice of government perks that discriminated against them as single people. Yes, a sad, sad day indeed.
 
Upvote 0

HaloHope

Senior Member
May 25, 2007
506
165
✟17,438.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
No - this is the day the Lord has made.
Let us rejoice and be glad in it!

Its a FABULOUS day!!

It made my day seeing the footage of all the happy couples getting their marriage licenses.

Things like this briefly restore my faith in humanity :p
 
Upvote 0

Celticflower

charity crocheter
Feb 20, 2004
5,822
695
East Tenn.
✟9,279.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
the only part of this that truly makes me sad is when I see one of these marriage ceremonies on TV and it is being presided over by a member of the clergy. While the secular laws of the land may change with the wind, the church should stand firm in its beliefs. If a gay couple (male or female) wishes to be "legally" married, let them do it at the courthouse in front of a judge, let there be NO religious connotations in the ceremony and do not expect it to be accepted by most churches.

People often cry "separation of church and state" when they feel religion is being "forced" on them. Now it is our turn to use that slogan to keep from having secular law force on the church (cuz you know that is the next logical step - now that they can get married they will want the "right" to have a church wedding).
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
Nothing whatsoever. Might I inquire as to why it must? Words three and four in the OP are gay marriage and the entire first paragraph is about it. I would say this gives me mandate to commend another poster on a wonderful bit of teaching on the biblical facts about gay marriage.

After a reread of the thread, it seems to be you who is one of the main people trying to steer this thread into the issue of government. I see most debating the biblical view of homosexuality.

Oh, and for the record, a woman having sex with another woman is a digusting, vile abomination and an affront to God. I wonder if that makes you happy or if you thought perhaps we'd all just retract our views on homosexual males because lesbians are so hot.

The thread is about the government, as I read it. The op decries the beginning of legal same-sex marriage in California. That's same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriage. Same-sex couples anywhere can have a religious marriage, or not, depending on the church or house of faith where the wish to marry. My church performs same-sex marriages and blesses same-sex marriages. Other churches do not. That has not changed with the beginning of same-sex civil marriage, meaning legal marriage, in California.

As for your views about lesbian expressions of intimate love, if you really find them so abominable, then don't think about them, and the subject won't bother you. It's really none of your business whether two women who love each other are sharing intimacy privately. The topic of this thread, as I read it, is marriage, not sex.
 
Upvote 0

dead2self

Christian Hedonist
Jun 3, 2008
1,451
232
46
Prince George, BC
✟17,594.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The thread is about the government, as I read it. The op decries the beginning of legal same-sex marriage in California. That's same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriage. Same-sex couples anywhere can have a religious marriage, or not, depending on the church or house of faith where the wish to marry. My church performs same-sex marriages and blesses same-sex marriages. Other churches do not. That has not changed with the beginning of same-sex civil marriage, meaning legal marriage, in California.

As for your views about lesbian expressions of intimate love, if you really find them so abominable, then don't think about them, and the subject won't bother you. It's really none of your business whether two women who love each other are sharing intimacy privately. The topic of this thread, as I read it, is marriage, not sex.


Yes it's about same-sex marriage. But that in relation to government is not specified in the OP as being the sole point of discussion as I read it. Anyway, you cannot in a Christian forum expect to have a discussion on gay marriage without looking at the biblical teachings on it. I can see you point, but the biblical foundations must precede any talk on the ethics of any law in a Christian forum. And note that I made that reply when the thread was still in the Philosophy and ethics forum.

As for my views on lesbian sex, they are identical to my views on man-man sex. I specify them only in respnose to a comment made by the poster I was replying to. The comment said she saw hypocrisy in how we bash gay men but never say a word about lesbain sex being an abomination and suggested this double standard is caused by our thinking that lesbians are hot. (please note that not a quote by my paraphrase on the comment). Anyway, I specified my views on lesbian sex to avoid the appearance of having a double standard on the issue and not to be offensive or try to steer the conversation towards sex rather than marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
Yes it's about same-sex marriage. But that in relation to government is not specified in the OP as being the sole point of discussion as I read it. Anyway, you cannot in a Christian forum expect to have a discussion on gay marriage without looking at the biblical teachings on it. I can see you point, but the biblical foundations must precede any talk on the ethics of any law in a Christian forum. And note that I made that reply when the thread was still in the Philosophy and ethics forum.

As for my views on lesbian sex, they are identical to my views on man-man sex. I specify them only in respnose to a comment made by the poster I was replying to. The comment said she saw hypocrisy in how we bash gay men but never say a word about lesbain sex being an abomination and suggested this double standard is caused by our thinking that lesbians are hot. (please note that not a quote by my paraphrase on the comment). Anyway, I specified my views on lesbian sex to avoid the appearance of having a double standard on the issue and not to be offensive or try to steer the conversation towards sex rather than marriage.

Thank you for explaining your reasons for writing about lesbian sex. Indeed, you don't appear to have a double standard. You appear to have equal dislike for sexuality between two men and two women....no double standard. And you have every right to dislike whatever you wish. I appreciate and honor relationships between two men and two women, if they are loving relationships between two consenting adults. So you and I differ in what we like, but difference is what makes the world go round.

On the subject of legal marriage versus religious marriage, I think it's important that we never try impose our religious beliefs on the whole nation through the law. Civil law must always be based on civil principles. This can, of course, get tricky, because many civil principles are consistent with religious principles embraced by most faiths. For example, the laws against murder are based in civil principles, but they also reflect religious beliefs. That's not a problem.

The potential problem arises when civil principles, or we might say constitutional principles, conflict with a particular group's religious beliefs. In the case of same-sex civil marriage, some religious groups oppose same-sex marriage and regard it as contrary to their faith principles, while other religious groups support same-sex marriage and regard it consistent with their faith principles. In this kind of case, when we seek to determine civil law, we need to look to civil principles, or to constitutional principles, rather than to religious beliefs. Why? Because we are not a theocracy, and our U.S. constitution guarantees no establishment of religion and religious liberty for all. The civil or constitutional principle we should look to in deciding on whether to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages is the principle of equal protection of the laws for all persons. Same-sex civil marriage reflects this principle. To offer legal recognition to same-sex couples extends equal rights to all, serves to benefit families and the children of same-sex couples, and does not abridge the freedom of religion of those who oppose same-sex marriages. People of faith who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong retain the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages within their churches. They do not have the right to dictate whether other people can marry legally in the public square, in the civil arena.

This is why it's critical to make a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage recognized by law. I personally have no problem with people whose religious beliefs differ from mine choosing to exclude gay people from their churches or choosing not to recognize or honor same-sex marriages in their churches. They have the religious freedom to do that, just as my church has the religious freedom to honor and recognize same-sex marriages in our church.

But in the civil arena, under civil law, all people should be treated as equals, and no one group's religious doctrine should determine what rights people have or do not have under the law.
 
Upvote 0

dead2self

Christian Hedonist
Jun 3, 2008
1,451
232
46
Prince George, BC
✟17,594.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Point taken on religious versus civil marriage, but I must respectfully disagree. Rather than reasoning it out it let me just say it is a conviction based on the origins of marriage and what is right. I will not be dissuaded from my view and I cannot see that a long working out of this view will persuade you to it so I'll save us some time.
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
Point taken on religious versus civil marriage, but I must respectfully disagree. Rather than reasoning it out it let me just say it is a conviction based on the origins of marriage and what is right. I will not be dissuaded from my view and I cannot see that a long working out of this view will persuade you to it so I'll save us some time.

That's an honest and direct reply. We can just agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
from article posted by Huntingman said:
Notice there are no ‘exceptions’, no concessions, no leniency...simply death if this act is committed.

Ahhh! Then I assume you don't pick up sticks on Saturday? :scratch:
Numbers 15: 32-36 said:
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Because this also seemed pretty swift and sure and worthy of death. :sorry:
tulc(and was one of the 10 Commandments) :eek:
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
59
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ahhh! Then I assume you don't pick up sticks on Saturday? :scratch:

Because this also seemed pretty swift and sure and worthy of death. :sorry:
tulc(and was one of the 10 Commandments) :eek:
Thats a really nice try there tulc.
Too bad the NT shows that men abusing themselves with men will not inherit the kingdom of God. ;)
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,804
69
✟279,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christians don't have a monopoly on marriage though we think we do. But marriage has been defined for all time as a man and a woman in all cultures and religions that survived. Those where marriage is defined differently are in a cultural decline -- take the arab nations for example. They will remain primitive until they embrace God's design for marriage.
Hmmm this part is almost (but not quite) something out of a 19th century propaganda piece, throw in something about "the white mans burden" and "bringing civilization to those poor brown savages" and it would be complete. I'm not looking to offend or call you a racist (because I don't think that is at all what's in your heart) but seriously, this is pretty bad. :sigh:


Indeed, you have made a point to me. "Gay marriage" is really "sad marriage." You have given me a new buzzword, and I thank you for it. California opens the door to "sad marriage" Why is gay marriage sad? It's sad because it's the beginning of the end for the values that made marriage a bedrock foundation for civilization as we know it, and the new values really have no substance, where people just marry out of convenience for a slice of government perks that discriminated against them as single people. Yes, a sad, sad day indeed.
Well it's also sad you think the only reason someone gets married is for the benefits so I guess there's enough sadness to go around. :(
tulc(is very happy, I'm going to see Mrs.tulc tomorrow!) :clap:
 
Upvote 0