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.
The bible defines marriage as polygamous more often than not.
That point aside why should the laws of a country that specifically does not have a state religion bow to the whims of the opinion of some of that religion?
Should non-Christians be denied the right to marry as well?
Who married multiple women to a single man? The priests of GodIt does not. It shows disobedient men doing what they want like a lot of folks on here want to do. He NEVER affirms anything as His ideal of marriage except the unioning of one husband with one wife.
He ALLOWED for people to do whatever they want just as He does with divorce but still calls it sin.
He ALLOWED for people to do whatever they want just as He does with divorce but still calls it sin.
Krus said:You think promiscuous sex is not bad?
Who married multiple women to a single man? The priests of God
What does Gods word call the multiple women married to a single man? He calls them wives.
Where does God condemn polygamy? No where
Where does God forbid polygamy to the average man? No where.
Does Gods word contain rules about dividing a mans inheritance among the children of his multiple wives? Yes it does
Does Gods word contain rules about how a man should treat his multiple wives? It sure does
What does God command a man should do to his childless and widowed sister in law? He commands he marry her and forcibly impregnate her regardless of whether or not he is already married
Except of all the points above of courseYou still haven't shown him affirming His idea of marriage as anything other than what He states in Genesis 2.
You still haven't shown him affirming His idea of marriage as anything other than what He states in Genesis 2.
It does not. It shows disobedient men doing what they want like a lot of folks on here want to do. He NEVER affirms anything as His ideal of marriage except the unioning of one husband with one wife.
He ALLOWED for people to do whatever they want just as He does with divorce but still calls it sin.
But gays and lesbians dont choose their sexual orientation.
They do choose to refuse to lie and pretend to be something they are not however.
The only people I know that this describes are heterosexual college students at spring break
All the evidence shows that sexual orientation is inborn
Again, I would say that no one has to have sex in order to live. There are guys who have been born with an orientation to be hot tempered and controlling. That does not make it right and many work at keeping their temper in check.
There are guys who cannot drink without drinking to excess. They join AA and never drink again.
Sin in inborn ---- the Bible says so. That doesn't make it okay simply because it makes some people feel good...
Society gets no lasting benefit when it encourages sinful behavior.
Not to be a wise-alec, but would you make the case for its being stated in Genesis 2, or in the Gospels for that matter. I've seen it repeatedly asserted, but to the best of my knowledge the custom of man-woman monogamy is simply commented on favorably by Christ (and the putting away of wives condemned), and the Genesis passage simply tells what I believe is called an idiolectic story -- the origin, in the hallowed past, of a custom.
This is in no way to denigrate the importance and blessedness of a traditional covenanted marriage -- it's just to ask you to make the case for why that particular form of marriage, among several in which the Hebrew people indulged with evident divine blessing, or at least not overt condemnation, is considered as being defined as the only proper form of marraige in those passages by conservative Bible-believing Christians. I think sorting that out would help to end the "talking past each other" that has been going on far too long.
Funny you should mention alcoholism... drinking is considered a sinful behavior. Remember what happened when society tried to outlaw that?
Here's a hint:
From what I understand the incidents of cirrhosis of the liver took a major nose dive with Prohabition and began to inch back up after its appeal.
In Mount Holly, NJ back in the 1970's there was a serious problem with drugs; however, the citizens pulled together and the use of drugs has greatly dropped. Making drugs legal isn't the key.
From what I understand the incidents of cirrhosis of the liver took a major nose dive with Prohabition and began to inch back up after its appeal. In Mount Holly, NJ back in the 1970's there was a serious problem with drugs; however, the citizens pulled together and the use of drugs has greatly dropped. Making drugs legal isn't the key.
Yes, but those aren't water pistols those gentlemen are holding... during prohibition, cases of, shall we say "lead poisoning" skyrocketed, more than making up for the drop in lover disease.
But by all means, continue in your belief that prohibition was/is a good idea... I eagerly await your campaign to restore it.
As much as I enjoy your vague references, I would appreciate some sort of link that might go into detail as to what the citizens actually did besides "pulling together."
If they got liver cirrhosis, thats their fault. What do you suggest? Banning everything that is bad for us? Sure, everyone will live alot longer, but with a lot less to live for.
Portugal disagrees with you.From what I understand the incidents of cirrhosis of the liver took a major nose dive with Prohabition and began to inch back up after its appeal. In Mount Holly, NJ back in the 1970's there was a serious problem with drugs; however, the citizens pulled together and the use of drugs has greatly dropped. Making drugs legal isn't the key.
None of which is relevent when discussing what should or should not be US law. Unless there is a secular purpose for denying homosexual marriage, arguments are going to be ignored as baseless.
LittleNipper's OP musings about how Teh gheys "serve no value to society," is as close as anyone's come, and that sounds more like an argument for eugenics than outlawing gay marriage.
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?