# Not waiting for the Supreme Court to tell



## stef (Sep 14, 2002)

me the difference between right and wrong.

In this case whether it is right or wrong for men and women to engage in homosexual and lesbian activities.

It doesn't matter what they decide among themselves. They are only men. There have been less than a hundred and fifteen people in all of history with this awesome privilege to decide the laws of our nation, and whatever they decide will be the law of the land; but there is a greater Judge and His Word takes precedence over human reasoning. 

The human race has always been in rebellion against this word, and never more so than now. But it does not change the immutable fact that it is true and right and we dash ourselves against it to our own destruction. 

The near collapse of our culture is a stark, living example of the demise of a society when morals are thrown aside. Only the thinnest veneer of civilization is holding it all together. When people shoot each other over electronic gadgets, and babies are 'legally' dismembered wholesale without conscience the heart of a people is corrupt. And education, rank and privilege do not necessarily 'constitute' a wise man (or woman).

Psalm 1 reads: 
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

When I was a child there was an allegory that said, "Just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge doesn't mean that you should follow."

Even if the majority of the Supreme Court 'jumps off the bridge' ( and I hope they do not), does not mean that Christian believers must follow. We know what the Word says, and it may be our time to experience some of the opposition that many brothers and sisters around the world have undergone for their stand on the sumpremacy of the Word of God.


----------



## mooman (May 19, 2008)

Cool story bro.

Seriously though. Is someone forcing you to hang out with gay people? Go to church with them? Have a homosexual relationship? I didn't think so. If you believe they are going to burn in hell then that's your right. Just like its my right to believe they won't. I guess I'll see you on the front lines of the holy war you seem to be trying to insight.

BTW. The breakdown of the family (Black and White) has contributed a million fold more to the degradation of our society compared to Adam and Steve getting married.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Gays are not asking you (or anyone) to change your beliefs. They never did.

They are simply demanding that_ they_, be entitled to their beliefs, one of which is equality, under Constitutional law.

However, for some, that is too much to ask.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Long before Christianity came into the picture (and even after it came around) people were loving on who ever they wanted... 

Who am I or anyone else for that matter to tell anyone else how to live or who to love or fool around with? 

Not trying to pick a fight, but we all believe how ever we want... 

I prefer the live and let live method, but we just can't seem to all agree on that.. .


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I have no problem with gays having the legal right to marry.

What I am worried about for the future is the courts forcing Churches to marry them against the Churches beliefs.
Personally I think all marriages should be civil unions and then after being married civilly people could, if they desired, have their Church ceremony.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Thats your opinion, I may not agree with it but you're entitled to it here in America. Likewise, you may not agree with who gay people choose to be with, but they are entitled to make their own decisions. Thats the wonderful thing about freedom, you get to thump your bible, and they get to choose a same-sex partner. Everybody gets to pursue their own happiness.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It's funny really......the argument before the courts has to do with survivor benefits, etc. but the argument 'on the street' is that people should be allowed to love/marry whomever they choose.

I can't help but wonder, what happens when people start demanding the right to polygamist marriages or the right to marry minors?

Where is the line drawn in terms of marriage rights?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Marriage has always been a contract. Minors cannot enter into contracts therefor the laws prohibiting their marriage are valid and enforceable. Polygamy is a bit thornier but it ultimately comes down to how the benefits are divided. In my perfect world everyone is endowed with one set of benefits. How they divide them is between them and their spouse(s).


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Marriage has always been a contract. Minors cannot enter into contracts therefor the laws prohibiting their marriage are valid and enforceable.


Well, that's not entirely true. In some states, There are conditions to be met that would allow those under the age of 15 to enter into marriage. 

So, if a 13 year old gets pregnant and her parent/s consent, she could get married.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Well, that's not entirely true. In some states, There are conditions to be met that would allow those under the age of 15 to enter into marriage.
> 
> So, if a 13 year old gets pregnant and her parent/s consent, she could get married.


But the minor, by themself, cannot enter into the contract of marriage. Nothing changes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Stef said:


> me the difference between right and wrong.
> 
> In this case whether it is right or wrong for men and women to engage in homosexual and lesbian activities


This is not about what gays & lesbians do in private. They already have that right, so that ship has already sailed. Neither of the gay marriage cases being heard by the supreme court this week deal with what gays and lesbians do in private. If that's what you think is going on then you completely misunderstand what these court cases are about. I suggest you watch the news tonight.

Both of these cases are about marital benefits that the government bestows. Gays & lesbians contribute to Social Security & Medicare, so they should be able to inherit those benefits like other married people do. Likewise, they should be able to inherit estates tax-free, as other married people do.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Then let's talk about polygamist marriages. 

What I find humorous is that people who are defending the 'rights' of homosexuals to marry stumble and sputter at the thought of allowing polygamist marriages. Yet, the same exact argument that is being used to justify homosexual marriages could be applied to polygamist marriages. 

How about incestuous marriages? Using the same argument, why shouldn't brothers and sisters be allowed to marry?

There are groups who are proposing those very things. And before anyone hoots at the notion, the thought of homosexual marriage was unheard of 20 years ago.

So where do we, as civilized people, draw the line? And why should we even bother to draw a line?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Then let's talk about polygamist marriages.
> 
> What I find humorous is that people who are defending the 'rights' of homosexuals to marry stumble and sputter at the thought of allowing polygamist marriages. Yet, the same exact argument that is being used to justify homosexual marriages could be applied to polygamist marriages.
> 
> ...


I've brought those things up and been told I'm hateful and stupid. 

Marriage is marriage. It has always been through history marriage. If two men or two women wish to be together, come up with something for themselves - it is not marriage no matter what the government says. Why must they go to try to make gay marriage a right? Marriage is already a right for everyone - with restrictions even for heterosexuals. But once the government declares this a right, it is only a short matter of time before my husband will be forced to choose: marry a gay couple or go to jail. I guarantee it.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> But the minor, by themself, cannot enter into the contract of marriage. Nothing changes.


So, right now same sex folks cannot enter into a contract of marriage. What is the difference? Age? Minors love folks, too, or are you saying minors are incapable of loving.. should we discriminate against them, too???.... So do pets. Some folks have left their entire fortunes to their pets,.... I have heard of guys/gals who love many women/men, maybe we should let them marry them all. Imagine the relief on welfare if guys were allowed to marry multiple women, and women were allowed to marry multiple men. 

This whole thing is a bad, bad idea.

Changing the definition and institution of marriage being between a man and woman is going to lead nowhere positive nor beneficial, in the long run. It is simply tearing down the foundations of the country.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't care what 2 consenting adults do. 

My Constitution outweighs your Bible. 

They cannot force you to be in a homosexual relationship.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tgmr05 said:


> So, right now same sex folks cannot enter into a contract of marriage.


Marriage IS NOT a contract, it is the creation of a legal entity where two people operate as one. A contract could never provide for the benefits that marriage provides. A contract could not:



Allow someone to inherit SS & Medicare benefits.
File a joint tax return.
Inherit an estate tax-free.
Allow you to refuse to testify against your partner in court.
Many other benefits.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

tgmr05 said:


> It is simply tearing down the foundations of the country.


Based on the argument being used for justification, it is tearing down the foundations of civilized society.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Marriage IS NOT a contract, it is the creation of a legal entity where two people operate as one. A contract could never provide for the benefits that marriage provides.


LOL, smart move on your part for making that statement, because if it _were_ merely a contract, it would not be a 'right'. And the argument being put forth is that marriage is a civil right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Based on the argument being used for justification, it is tearing down the foundations of civilized society.


Oh, I don't think we are likely to see any civil unrest if DOMA is overturned.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I don't think we are likely to see any civil unrest if DOMA is overturned.


That's true. It's not those who are for traditional marriage who tend to be the loud unruly ones. Now if it does NOT get overturned? Expect civil unrest.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I don't think we are likely to see any civil unrest if DOMA is overturned.


I'm not talking about civil unrest. I'm talking about the very fabric of civilized society, having limits and boundaries on what is permitted and what is not permitted.

The problem w/ the issue is that pro-homosexual marriage folks are opening a keg of worms that they won't be able to stop, that have the potential to destroy society. Mark my words.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I'm not talking about civil unrest. I'm talking about the very fabric of civilized society, having limits and boundaries on what is permitted and what is not permitted.
> 
> The problem w/ the issue is that pro-homosexual marriage folks are opening a keg of worms that they won't be able to stop, that have the potential to destroy society. Mark my words.


I think society can survive allowing gays to inherit SS & Medicare benefits.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

There is a reason why, as mankind has advanced and become more civilized, that certain behavior was considered taboo and, thus, outlawed. 

Rather than advancing, as some would argue, we're actually going backwards, based on how this issue turns out.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think society can survive allowing gays to inherit SS & Medicare benefits.


 It won't stop there. 

It never stops with liberals.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

tgmr05 said:


> So, right now same sex folks cannot enter into a contract of marriage. What is the difference? Age? Minors love folks, too, or are you saying minors are incapable of loving.. should we discriminate against them, too???.... So do pets. Some folks have left their entire fortunes to their pets,.... I have heard of guys/gals who love many women/men, maybe we should let them marry them all. Imagine the relief on welfare if guys were allowed to marry multiple women, and women were allowed to marry multiple men.
> 
> This whole thing is a bad, bad idea.
> 
> Changing the definition and institution of marriage being between a man and woman is going to lead nowhere positive nor beneficial, in the long run. It is simply tearing down the foundations of the country.


We, as a society, put many restrictions on what minors may or may not do. We do not allow them to vote, purchase alcohol or cigarettes, enter into contracts, we restrict their work hours and job duties. These are not things denied anyone because of anything but age. They are denied equally.

Pets are also not deemed responsible to make decisions regarding their own well being. There are those who would like to change this but it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

I, for one, would have no problem with plural marriages. As I've said before it is the distribution of benefits that complicates the issue. My solution is to tie a fixed benefit package to each person. That person could choose to marry one other and those benefits would accrue solely to that person. If they wished to bring more people into the marriage, the division of that benefits package would have to be clearly defined in the marriage documents. Think of it as a poly-prenup.

I'll disagree on your last point as I feel that anything that treats people more equally is a positive thing, but your feelings are yours.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Stef said:


> It doesn't matter what they decide among themselves. They are only men.


Actually, some of them are women.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> I'm not talking about civil unrest. I'm talking about the very fabric of civilized society, having limits and boundaries on what is permitted and what is not permitted.
> 
> The problem w/ the issue is that pro-homosexual marriage folks are opening a keg of worms that they won't be able to stop, that have the potential to destroy society. Mark my words.


How long would you expect that to take? It's not happening in the places that have already legalized gay marriage.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

These threads are always good, for laugh, as if homosexuality, was discovered, or invented last week.

Gays have always lived in the shadows, shamed by religion, that is supposedly loving. Many committed suicide or lived a lie, just for the sake of everyone else.

Exactly where religion wanted them.

They have had enough, so now it's the end of the world.

Maybe it's just signaling the end of religion.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Then let's talk about polygamist marriages.
> 
> What I find humorous is that people who are defending the 'rights' of homosexuals to marry stumble and sputter at the thought of allowing polygamist marriages. Yet, the same exact argument that is being used to justify homosexual marriages could be applied to polygamist marriages.
> 
> ...



I support the right of consenting adults to marry whomever they choose. It's really none of my business...or yours. More importantly I support getting the government out of marriage altogether. I would like to see where, in the constitution, government is given the authority to preside over personal relationships.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> How long would you expect that to take? It's not happening in the places that have already legalized gay marriage.


Oh, it will take awhile. But it IS de-evolution. It is society going backwards because homosexuality has been considered taboo by the majority of civilized people, around the world, for hundreds of years.

As I said earlier, it won't stop w/ this issue. Nothing is ever good enough for a liberal.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, and parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States; none of them has imploded or burst into flames. Cultures change - get over it.

If you disapprove of gay marriage, don't get one, but don't expect others to abstain based on what _you_ believe.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, and parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States; none of them has imploded or burst into flames. Cultures change - get over it.


Yes, they do......and not always for the better.


> If you disapprove of gay marriage, don't get one, *but don't expect others to abstain based on what you believe.*


Does that apply to gun rights, too? Prayer in schools?


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> So where do we, as civilized people, draw the line? And why should we even bother to draw a line?


God has given us that answer in his word when he said that a man will leave his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

It is impossible for 2 same sex people to be married because through their union, they cannot become one flesh (as God intended).


----------



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

I heard of a guy who wants to marry his dog. He could use the extra tax deduction. He really does love that dog. Who has the right to tell him he can't marry the one he loves?
Would the dog be eligible for veterinary insurance? How about survivor benefits from Social Security or maybe 50% of the retirement income even if things don't work out?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Yes, they do......and not always for the better.
> 
> Does that apply to gun rights, too? Prayer in schools?


So you agree that change is not always bad.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I support the right to bear arms and children can pray in school whenever they want to.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

CocalicoSprings said:


> I heard of a guy who wants to marry his dog. He could use the extra tax deduction. He really does love that dog. Who has the right to tell him he can't marry the one he loves?
> Would the dog be eligible for veterinary insurance? How about survivor benefits from Social Security or maybe 50% of the retirement income even if things don't work out?


Wow - I think that's a record! It only took 34 posts to get to bestiality!!! :hammer:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CocalicoSprings said:


> I heard of a guy who wants to marry his dog. He could use the extra tax deduction. He really does love that dog. Who has the right to tell him he can't marry the one he loves?
> Would the dog be eligible for veterinary insurance? How about survivor benefits from Social Security or maybe 50% of the retirement income even if things don't work out?


This argument, never gets tiring.

There is a thing in marriage, called CONSENT.

Dogs can't give it. Neither can 10 year old girls ( or boys)


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Win07_351 said:


> God has given us that answer in his word when he said that a man will leave his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
> 
> It is impossible for 2 same sex people to be married because through their union, they cannot become one flesh (as God intended).


What your religion teaches about marriage is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the law and it's mighty arrogant to think your beliefs should prevail, considering the number of sincerely held religions in the world. How many Christian sects and denominations are there? Buddhist? Jewish? Muslim? Pagan?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> So you agree that change is not always bad.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean, but I support the right to bear arms and children can pray in school whenever they want to.


1. I said that change is not always for the better. 

2. It doesn't matter what YOU support. We're talking about FEDERAL policy.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

What bothers me is this.
Say a gay couple goes into a conservative church and hears the truth. God is against them. Because a real church can not teach otherwise, since the Bible is very very clear on this issue. 
They get upset and file a law suit because it is now considered hate speech to say such things. 
That is what happens if one is in a "protected" class.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> 1. I said that change is not always for the better.
> 
> 2. It doesn't matter what YOU support. We're talking about FEDERAL policy.


If change is not always for the better then it follows that it's not always for the worst. :indif: Perhaps you're a glass half empty person? 

As I said, I'm not sure what your point was about guns and school prayer. If you'd care to clarify, I'll attempt to answer. Thanks.


----------



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> This argument, never gets tiring.
> 
> There is a thing in marriage, called CONSENT.
> 
> Dogs can't give it. Neither can 10 year old girls ( or boys)


Let he who is without sin cast the first bone! Doggone it, I was just kidding


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> What bothers me is this.
> Say a gay couple goes into a conservative church and hears the truth. God is against them. Because a real church can not teach otherwise, since the Bible is very very clear on this issue.
> They get upset and file a law suit because it is now considered hate speech to say such things.
> That is what happens if one is in a "protected" class.


This is exactly what will be happening in the next few years. It is very sad that my husband just may be jailed because of our faith in Christ.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Ann, our whole site will have to come down.When it comes to the Bible I will not bend.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> Ann, our whole site will have to come down.When it comes to the Bible I will not bend.


Yep!! :soap:


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

bluesky said:


> What your religion teaches about marriage is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the law and it's mighty arrogant to think your beliefs should prevail, considering the number of sincerely held religions in the world. How many Christian sects and denominations are there? Buddhist? Jewish? Muslim? Pagan?



It's man's rebellion that makes him think he can legislate against what God has established and thus make it acceptable. In the end, they will reap the consequences of their own folly.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> As I said, I'm not sure what your point was about guns and school prayer. If you'd care to clarify, I'll attempt to answer. Thanks.


Sure. You're comment was "don't expect others to abstain based on what _you_ believe". I'm saying that people have had to abstain from classroom prayer based on what others believe. Same w/ gun rights; because some believe that guns are dangerous, nobody should have guns (yes, that legislation has been proposed) or that there should be restrictions on the amount of ammunition/type of gun that people can 'keep and bear'.

I hope that clarified my comment.

ETA: nobody was ever forced to say prayer in the classroom, yet those who want classroom prayer have been forced to abstain based on what others believe.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Sure. You're comment was "don't expect others to abstain based on what _you_ believe". I'm saying that people have had to abstain from classroom prayer based on what others believe. Same w/ gun rights; because some believe that guns are dangerous, nobody should have guns (yes, that legislation has been proposed) or that there should be restrictions on the amount of ammunition/type of gun that people can 'keep and bear'.
> 
> I hope that clarified my comment.


Thanks for the clarification. 

I'm old but I remember in my school class we had mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Pentecostals, a Mormon, and a Jehovah's Witness. My teacher prayed to Jesus. How insensitive. Children can pray whenever they want but a public classroom is not the proper venue for public prayer. It's not about denying anyone their rights - it's about respecting the beliefs of all like we are supposed do here in America. 

Guns are dangerous weapons whose primary purpose is the taking of life. I support the right to bear arms but - crazy people should not have guns, if you need an AK47 to go hunting you're a really bad hunter, if you need a large capacity magazine to protect your family you have problems a gun won't fix, and nobody needs a freaking flame thrower.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> What your religion teaches about marriage is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the law and it's mighty arrogant to think your beliefs should prevail, considering the number of sincerely held religions in the world. How many Christian sects and denominations are there? Buddhist? Jewish? Muslim? Pagan?


You're absolutely right. Coincidentally, it just so happens that homosexuals in certain Middle Eastern and African countries are still put to death, according to their laws (based on religion?) But you're right, we can....and should.....have this discussion based outside of the religious aspect.

I would argue that, aside from the religious aspect, homosexuality was mostly considered taboo and unnatural & had more to do with the advancement of man into civilized societies setting limits as to what was/was not acceptable behavior within those societies.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

It's actually becoming more rare that the death penalty is enforced in the middle east, they are a more religious society so it's taking longer to change the attitude.
Aboriginal cultures had language before Christianity came to them and as it turns out they had words for homosexuality and they were not all negative. They also lived peacefully alongside their gay brothers and sisters... until Christianity came and changed it all.




Txsteader said:


> You're absolutely right. Coincidentally, it just so happens that homosexuals in certain Middle Eastern and African countries are still put to death, according to their laws (based on religion?) But you're right, we can....and should.....have this discussion based outside of the religious aspect.
> 
> I would argue that, aside from the religious aspect, homosexuality was mostly considered taboo and unnatural & had more to do with the advancement of man into civilized societies setting limits as to what was/was not acceptable behavior within those societies.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> You're absolutely right. Coincidentally, it just so happens that homosexuals in certain Middle Eastern and African countries are still put to death, according to their laws (based on religion?) But you're right, we can....and should.....have this discussion based outside of the religious aspect.
> 
> I would argue that, aside from the religious aspect, homosexuality was mostly considered taboo and unnatural & had more to do with the advancement of man into civilized societies setting limits as to what was/was not acceptable behavior within those societies.


Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> Ann, our whole site will have to come down.When it comes to the Bible I will not bend.


Remember, the Bible also says, "Judge not lest you be judged."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

bluesky said:


> Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.


As well it should have.
And we are talking about the USA here, where around 75% of the population is Christian with around 20% not having any religion.
So it Should be the Christians here in the USA that have their say like it or not. We ARE a Christ like nation. Period.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

As I said earlier in the other thread, taking verses out of context makes it easy to support anything.

We are not judging anyone. We are simply adhering to the words the Lord gave us to live by in Romans, Corinthians and 1 Timothy. 

God declared this an abomination, not me.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> As well it should have.
> And we are talking about the USA here, where around 75% of the population is Christian with around 20% not having any religion.
> So it Should be the Christians here in the USA that have their say like it or not. We ARE a Christ like nation. Period.


Many Christians support marriage equality.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.


Right, ancient societies. Surely you're not saying that religion, in general, has been detrimental to mankind's advancement.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Right, ancient societies. Surely you're not saying that religion, in general, has been detrimental to mankind's advancement.


I've not thought of it in that way much but I guess, weighing the good and the bad, it's about even. Maybe. I'm not a fan of religion but my perspective is more personal than global.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Then let's talk about polygamist marriages.
> 
> What I find humorous is that people who are defending the 'rights' of homosexuals to marry stumble and sputter at the thought of allowing polygamist marriages. Yet, the same exact argument that is being used to justify homosexual marriages could be applied to polygamist marriages.
> 
> ...


God will draw that line for us.

He has already told us homosexuality is unnatural and an abomination in His eyes. We were warned.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Many Christians support marriage equality.


They need to actually study their Bibles.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

my3boys said:


> They need to actually study their Bibles.


I'm pretty sure I've never encountered a Christian who adheres to the Bible 100%


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

my3boys said:


> God will draw that line for us.
> 
> He has already told us homosexuality is unnatural and an abomination in His eyes. We were warned.


 The validity of a belief is not directly related to the sincerity of the believer - a lot of people think a lot of gods have said a lot of things, none of which should have any bearing on the law.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> As I said earlier in the other thread, taking verses out of context makes it easy to support anything.
> 
> We are not judging anyone. We are simply adhering to the words the Lord gave us to live by in Romans, Corinthians and 1 Timothy.
> 
> God declared this an abomination, not me.


I suspect that there will still be some room to kick this issue around after the ruling. I don't think the Supreme Court is ready to make too broad of a decision, since there are problems with doing so. I expect states to still have to right to decide if they want to allow same sex marriages. 

What I mean is, if the court makes a blanket determination that it is entirely unconstitutional to discriminate between hetero and same-sex marriages, then it would follow that the states can't do it either. States will see that as an encroachment on their power to regulate marriage.

Instead, I think it is more likely that DOMA will be struck-down as a states' rights issue; basically saying that the federal government has no role in regulating marriage, while still removing the DOMA restriction on federal benefits. That would allow states to decide if they want to sanction same-sex marriage, while allowing gay married people in states that allow same-sex marriage to qualify for federal benefits.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

> the federal government has no role in regulating marriage


On this we can agree.
However I believe marriage to be an issue of religious origin and therefore out of the realm of the law.


----------



## stef (Sep 14, 2002)

Elffriend said:


> Actually, some of them are women.


I stand corrected. **


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> On this we can agree.


However I believe marriage to be an issue of religious origin and therefore out of the realm of the law.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that I agree that the federal government has no role in regulating marriage, I just said that the court might rule that way. To be clear, I believe that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to prevent discrimination. Paying benefits to members of same-sex marriages is part of that obligation.



MJsLady said:


> However I believe marriage to be an issue of religious origin and therefore out of the realm of the law.


I hear a lot of religious people around HT say that, but they still get a marriage license to take advantage of government benefits. What's up with that?


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Marriage IS NOT a contract, it is the creation of a legal entity where two people operate as one. A contract could never provide for the benefits that marriage provides. A contract could not:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Historically, marriage IS a contract. The fact that the government attaches certain priviledges to that contract is part of the reason for the argument about the definition of marriage. 
Most of the items you mention weren't concerns until the government made them so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

StL.Ed said:


> Historically, marriage IS a contract.


Marriage is a legal state of being. There is no contract involved.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

*Definition*

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

lonelytree said:


> I don't care what 2 consenting adults do.
> 
> My Constitution outweighs your Bible.
> 
> They cannot force you to be in a homosexual relationship.


* * * * * * * * * * * '

guests within his house, in the city of Sodom. (Genesis 19:5)

That city (and that sick society) didn't last much longer after that. (Luke 17:29)


----------



## stef (Sep 14, 2002)

What this discussion reveals is how terribly the church, the schools, the universities, the governmental bodies (local, state and national), mothers, fathers, grandparents, et. al., have failed in holding to the foundational truths on which this nation was founded. I once heard, "what one generation permits, the next generation will take to excess." 

This was once a wholesome, vibrant, rational society that produced people of moral integrity and excellence. That's not to say that people did not sin...sin, however was recognized as such, and something to be repented of and turned away from.

In a matter of 50 years we've become a culture that revels in licenteousness, not understanding that rather than being more free...we have become enslaved. 
We have a mortal enemy who has never wavered from his goal of taking with him to eternal destruction as many as he could of the one creation prized by God above all others...human beings. 

He lied from the beginning and continues to lie to this day. All around us are the wreckages of men, women, and children who are reaping the consequences of swallowing the lie that God's ways infringe on our freedom instead of the truth, that His ways give freedom. 

This is about more than a single issue of sin and immorality...it is a fundamental rejection of who and what we are..."male and female made He them."

I wish it were possible for me to momentarily pull aside the veil in order that people could see the spiritual battle that is taking place all around us. The souls of individual people and the souls of nations are under relentless attack, the world is in chaos and people are being caught up in a maelstrom of violence and confusion and destruction. 


There is such a heartbreaking lack of Biblical knowledge. Some say the Bible is hard to understand. Not true. It's plain in what it says. It's hard to obey it. And then, God has such an annoying habit of interfering in our personal lives. (Forgive me, I'm being facetious...) Do not worship idols, don't covet your neighbor's wife or belongings, honor your father and mother, don't lie, don't steal, (don't commit fornication), don't murder, don't lust, love your neighbor as yourself....pretty much everything that goes against the grain of our rebellious human nature. 
We want to do these things, and so we justify, justify, justify...
"I can't help myself".
"God made me this way.
"If there really is a God why did He let this happen to me."
"It's their fault, I never would have done it if they hadn't made me."
"Look at all those hypocrites in the church!"
" We were in love".
"If God didn't mean for us to ( fill in the blank) He wouldn't have given us (fill in the blank)".

Why would Jesus say, "Guard your hearts with all diligence, for out of them come the issues of life"?
Why would he ask, "what will you give in exchange for your soul"? if there was not something invaluable and irretrievable to lose? 
What would be the point of Paul saying, "flee fornication. Every other sin is without the body, but he who fornicates sins against his own soul"?


It's late and I'm tired and I've said enough.


One last comment: I've been a Christian for a long time and have found that it is fruitless to argue religions or the Bible. The Bible is what it is, God's word, without exception, and that is the vantage point from which I reason. 

I truly thank everyone who takes the time to read what I write even if you totally disagree with what I say. Please believe that my heart is only to speak the truth of what Scriptures say, and you can always check to see if I quote it accurately. 

Good night, HT neighbors.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * * * * * * '
> 
> guests within his house, in the city of Sodom. (Genesis 19:5)
> 
> That city (and that sick society) didn't last much longer after that. (Luke 17:29)


I gave up attending church, studying religion and supporting religious institutions a long time ago. While I do support your choice to attend to your beliefs, I don't care to partake in this area.

I do take offense when people attempt to force their religious views upon a populace that have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness given to citizens under the same Constitution that allows them to practice their religion.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tiempo said:


> Many Christians support marriage equality.


And many churches within states where marriage equality is legal are performing weddings for same sex couples. :thumb:


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

primal1 said:


> It's actually becoming more rare that the death penalty is enforced in the middle east, they are a more religious society so it's taking longer to change the attitude.
> Aboriginal cultures had language before Christianity came to them and as it turns out they had words for homosexuality and they were not all negative. They also lived peacefully alongside their gay brothers and sisters... until Christianity came and changed it all.





bluesky said:


> Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.


* * * * * * * * * * * *
world civilizations all started out with a high moral fiber 

and then eventually collapsed and fell into moral decay.

ALL of them experienced 10 telling signs just before the end of their culture.



http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_change.html 


http://www.choicesforliving.com/spirit/part4/america7.htm 


http://www.choicesforliving.com/spirit/part4/america7.htm


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Remember, the Bible also says, "Judge not lest you be judged."


* * * * * * * * * * * * *
part of the bible, while deliberately ignoring that part which this 

thread is based on . . . that homosexuality is an abomination to God?

BTW do you know who was speaking that quote you mentioned 

and the context in which it was given? The same one who also said: 

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7: 24)


----------



## Gritty (Nov 26, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I think society can survive allowing gays to inherit SS & Medicare benefits.


I don't know if I will survive to see SS or Medicare benefits. It may be a moot point depending on the age of the folks getting married. 

Civilized. What does that really mean? Is it civilized to live a homesteader lifestyle---not to most city folks. We're the weirdo freaks that have to deal with uncivilized stuff like ...manure *gasp* and birthing animals (the horror). 

M-webster has this to say about the word: " characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint." 

As a verb: "1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state ; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development 2 a : educate, refine b : socialize "

Antiquated notions are probably not thought of as "civilized"...because civilization transitions as its societal mores shift. Have you looked up traditional circumsition? metzitzah b'peh 

To refine means to adapt. 
Um...nuf said.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> Marriage has always been a contract. Minors cannot enter into contracts therefor the laws prohibiting their marriage are valid and enforceable. Polygamy is a bit thornier but it ultimately comes down to how the benefits are divided. In my perfect world everyone is endowed with one set of benefits. How they divide them is between them and their spouse(s).


Historically this is a misrepresentation - the contract wasn't between the couple getting married, but between their respective families. The concept of minority is also relatively new, more often defined by biology than an arbitrary age.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This is madness and leading to more madness.

We fail to see what is all around us because it is all around us.

The definition of tolerance changes; laws change, all sometimes rapidly, but the definition of right and wrong do not change.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Seems they forgot to mention being wiped out by invaders.. like most Aboriginal cultures were.



copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> world civilizations all started out with a high moral fiber
> 
> and then eventually collapsed and fell into moral decay.
> ...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This was once a wholesome, vibrant, rational society that produced people of moral integrity and excellence. That's not to say that people did not sin...sin, however was recognized as such, and something to be repented of and turned away from.


You seriously need to study some history!

(I mean that in the nicest way possible.)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

NoClue said:


> Historically this is a misrepresentation - the contract wasn't between the couple getting married, but between their respective families. The concept of minority is also relatively new, more often defined by biology than an arbitrary age.


No arguement, but I was referring to present day circumstances. I do find it interesting that those who argue most vehemently for "traditional" marriage ignore the facts that it was used mainly to transfer property( including the wife) to the husband and that the notion of romantic love and marriage is a relatively recent development in human evolution.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

I dont know why people insist on bringing the bible into this discussion. It is completely irrelevant. Not everyone in America adheres to the christian bible, the government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

I dont know why this concept is so hard for people; You have the right to believe whatever you want. Others have the right to believe whatever they want. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs and opinions onto others.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> I support the right of consenting adults to marry whomever they choose. It's really none of my business...or yours. More importantly I support getting the government out of marriage altogether. I would like to see where, in the constitution, government is given the authority to preside over personal relationships.


I would like to see where in the Constitution the government has been given the authority to provide benefits to any individual other than as compensation for goods or service rendered. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> The definition of tolerance changes; laws change, all sometimes rapidly, but the definition of right and wrong do not change.


I think the definition of tolerance has always been about the same in practice.... not so much as the dictionary defines it. Tolerance has always been along the lines of being ok with and allowing the stuff I like and not being ok or allowing for the next fellers ideas.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would like to see where in the Constitution the government has been given the authority to provide benefits to any individual other than as compensation for goods or service rendered. :shrug:



Your right, it doesn't exist. That sounds like the real issue here. Why strike at a branch when you can strike at the root? This whole problem is nothing more than a symptom of a government that has over-stepped its role.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

By the mid 1990s, social conservatives increasingly relied on the dialectical argument against gay marriage: the claim that acceptance of it logically requires acceptance of polygamy as well. That argument, as far as I can tell, is sound, and it may be effective in the short run. (In the long run it is as likely to increase support for polygamy as it is to decrease support for gay marriage.)

Because of the sexual revolution among heterosexuals, social conservatives may have lost on gay marriage as soon as they started debating it. âthe religious right barnstormed the nation warning against âgay marriageâ â with an odd result. For both straight and gay folks, the phrase was transformed from an oxymoron into a real possibility.â

For social conservatives, it seems that the battle over gay rights is nearing an end before it has even fairly begun. It is true that a small majority of the American public continues to believe, as the poll question puts it, that âsexual relations between two adults of the same sexâ are âalways wrong.â It is true, as well, that a slightly larger majority believes that persons of the same sex should not be allowed to marry.

But public opinion has been moving with stunning rapidity. In the 1970s and â80s, the percentage of Americans who believed gay sex was âalways wrongâ barely budged.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344075/coming-out-ahead-ramesh-ponnuru?pg=1

The most effective gay strategy was not a political strategy at all. It was the choice of individuals to identify themselves openly as homosexuals.

Scores of millions of Americans now have friends and relatives whom they know are gay. Perhaps as a strict matter of logic, that should not have affected their views on sexual morality. But logic and eros have never been easy bedfellows, have they?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> To be clear, I believe that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to prevent discrimination. Paying benefits to members of same-sex marriages is part of that obligation.


I will go along with you on this first part... 

Article 4, section 2 USC:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

and again in the 14th amendment: 

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, where exactly is the article and section granting the US government the authority to pay ANY citizen ANY "benefits"..... other than as compensation for goods or services provided to the government. :shrug:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> I dont know why people insist on bring the bible into this discussion. It is completely irrelevant. Not everyone in America adheres to the christian bible, the government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
> 
> I dont know why this concept is so hard for people; You have the right to believe whatever you want. Others have the right to believe whatever they want. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs and opinions onto others.


I agree. But the question comes down to one of morality and what is good for society/our nation as a whole. 

Should we do away w/ laws pertaining to stealing? Murder? The Bible says these things are wrong.......*and our laws reflect that*. 

Again, using the argument being put forth re: homosexual marriage, why wouldn't polygamy or beastiality now be considered civil rights according to the legal definition and 14th Amendment?

Where do we, as a society, draw the line on what is acceptable....considering that the idea of homosexual marriage was unheard of 30 years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> I agree. But the question comes down to one of morality and what is good for society/our nation as a whole.
> 
> Should we do away w/ laws pertaining to stealing? Murder? The Bible says these things are wrong.......*and our laws reflect that*.
> 
> ...


I like to draw the line at this point.... if your actions have a negative affect on me... quit it! Murder, theft, assault, things of that nature have a definite negative affect upon the victim. If there is no victim, there is no crime. A couple of gays want to get married..... where is the negative impact on me? If some fool thinks he can tolerate a dozen wives.... where is there any skin off my nose... or yours? :shrug:


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Remember, the Bible also says, "Judge not lest you be judged."


The Bible also says that we are to sell all we have and give it to the poor. Oh wait - there is a context to that. We cannot pull verses out of context to make it say something that it does not say.

The "judge not" verse is in Matthew 7. However, Jesus spoke more to it than just "don't judge" and actually when you read the verse in context, you will see that He finishes out the discussion with absolutely helping our brother get the speck out of his eye. You can read the passage in Matthew 7:1-5. Read especially verse 5.

Then go and read Matthew 18 and see what Jesus had to say about judging and how to treat someone who wrongs you and does not take care of it.

Then read 1 Corinthians 5 and see just how harshly a church is spoken to for not judging.

Yes, we can say that something is a sin. It is RIGHT to say that something is a sin according to the Bible and to even separate from one who is living in sin.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.


So was bestiality and human sacrifice. Does that make it right?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> I'm pretty sure I've never encountered a Christian who adheres to the Bible 100%


Hello. My name is Ann. It's nice to meet you.


----------



## JJohnson (Jun 7, 2012)

Stef said:


> What this discussion reveals is how terribly the church, the schools, the universities, the governmental bodies (local, state and national), mothers, fathers, grandparents, et. al., have failed in holding to the foundational truths on which this nation was founded. I once heard, "what one generation permits, the next generation will take to excess."
> 
> This was once a wholesome, vibrant, rational society that produced people of moral integrity and excellence. That's not to say that people did not sin...sin, however was recognized as such, and something to be repented of and turned away from.
> 
> ...


 
"parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs and that sometimes when the government intervenes to deprive young people of that religious element, it can produce terrible consequences, including âcases like Nazismâ whereby many students were indoctrinated with views alien to those espoused their parents." ----Cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio --->Pope Francis.


"âWhen a government deprives children of this formation, it can lead to cases like Nazism, whereby children were indoctrinated with values opposite to those of their parents. Totalitarianism tends to take over education so it can use the water for its own mill,â ----Cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio---->Pope Francis


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

True freedom is when two people commit their lives to each other without the shackles of government or religion, then no one can tell them they can or can't do what they are doing.

I have yet to have someone explain to me why being gay is some sort of detriment to society. It still takes a man and a woman to have a baby and continue mankind so being gay will never be the "norm". It seems very narrow minded to discriminate against a certain group in society just because someone a long time ago allegedly said so.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Why was sex created?
That is the root.
Sex was created for procreation.
It takes one male and one female to procreate. Ergo that is what is normal and natural. Yes some times even those couples can not procreate. However 2 females or 2 males NEVER can with out outside, scientific interference. (Which I am opposed to both on the abortion and creating ends. God is in charge of life not man)

As to meeting a perfect Christian, you never will. We are not sinless, just saved. The difference is we do not willfully decide to sin regardless of what God says. Churches who marry or allow gay couples, do. Therefore they are not true churches because God says we can not serve him and man. Just because what we believe is not the popular thing (which really I think the silent majority does agree, they just don't fill out the poll papers and calls, I never do which explains the over whelming support prop 8 got in CA. ) doesn't make us wrong. 

There are 3 big things which society now says are things a person can not help but do that God tells HIS people are not so. (There are more but these 3 I find most often argued about)
1) Homosexuality. Man says it is ok, God says it is not.
2) Gluttony (letting your desire for food take over) Man says it is an illness God says it is a choice.
3) Drunkenness (alcoholism) Man again says it is an illness God says it is a choice.

Love is also something man and God disagree on. God says love is an active growing thing that you learn to do. Man says it is like a hole and something you can fall into or out of. Hence the high rates of divorce. 

These are the rules God gave HIS people, not folks in general. They will only matter to those who study his word and truly work to follow him. 

As I said before, civil unions give them the protections they seek. That is not what they want. They want to be the same as normal couples and they are not. They want to be able to force Christians who follow God to accept their life style. We can not because that would be caving in on the principles God tells us to live by. 
In the end they will begin suing to shut us up, even in our own churches and homes and schools.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> Why was sex created?
> That is the root.
> Sex was created for procreation.
> It takes one male and one female to procreate. Ergo that is what is normal and natural. Yes some times even those couples can not procreate. However 2 females or 2 males NEVER can with out outside, scientific interference. (Which I am opposed to both on the abortion and creating ends. God is in charge of life not man)
> ...


I will agree with most of your post.... but that lil part I bolded concerns me somewhat. Where have you heard anything about gays wanting to FORCE anyone to do anything beyond having the government protect their basic rights.... just like it does for you and your God fearing associates?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Hello. My name is Ann. It's nice to meet you.


Hello Ann, nice to meet you... My name is Stanley, and I would like to take this opportunity to invite you over for dinner this Sunday after church.... we are having pork chops and shrimp.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Darntootin said:


> I dont know why people insist on bringing the bible into this discussion. It is completely irrelevant. Not everyone in America adheres to the christian bible, the government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
> 
> I dont know why this concept is so hard for people; You have the right to believe whatever you want. *Others have the right to believe whatever they want.* You do not have the right to impose your beliefs and opinions onto others.


Or..........to not believe at all.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

primal1 said:


> Seems they forgot to mention being wiped out by invaders.. like most Aboriginal cultures were.


* * * * * * * * * * *
When a 'culture' is finally wiped out by invaders, that "civilization" is over.

The decline is quite evident to those with eyes to see, long before the ending.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hello Ann, nice to meet you... My name is Stanley, and I would like to take this opportunity to invite you over for dinner this Sunday after church.... we are having pork chops and shrimp.


Hi Stanley, my name is Alison, will there be a good stoning after?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will agree with most of your post.... but that lil part I bolded concerns me somewhat. Where have you heard anything about gays wanting to FORCE anyone to do anything beyond having the government protect their basic rights.... just like it does for you and your God fearing associates?


Why do you take a person to court? To get what you want out of them. Thus forcing them to do as you wish. We have not taken them to court to push our agenda.

HMMM pork chops and shrimp.... sounds good though I prefer beef to pork! We will be having bbq, burgers and chicken.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like to draw the line at this point.... if your actions have a negative affect on me... quit it! Murder, theft, assault, things of that nature have a definite negative affect upon the victim. If there is no victim, there is no crime. A couple of gays want to get married..... where is the negative impact on me? If some fool thinks he can tolerate a dozen wives.... where is there any skin off my nose... or yours? :shrug:


What was the original purpose for the state to define & recognize marriages? What were the benefits to be gained by the state?

The main purpose was to _encourage_ procreation. Otherwise, the state would have no interest or benefit in personal relationships whatsoever.

Now, what are the benefits to the state in redefining the term 'marriage'? What benefit to society do homosexual couples provide? Or is it merely one-sided?

While we may each have rights as individuals, we do not live in individual bubbles. Collectively, actions do have an impact on our society.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> What was the original purpose for the state to define & recognize marriages? What were the benefits to be gained by the state?
> 
> The main purpose was to _encourage_ procreation. Otherwise, the state would have no interest or benefit in personal relationships whatsoever.
> 
> ...


The stabilizing effects of marriage on communities is well documented, whether there is procreation or not.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> The stabilizing effects of marriage on communities is well documented, whether there is procreation or not.


Indeed.

But if the majority of people were homosexuals, mankind would eventually cease to exist.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Indeed.
> 
> But if the majority of people were homosexuals, mankind would eventually cease to exist.


But they're not, nor ever have been and are likely never to be.

My hetero marriage has not and will not involve procreation fwiw


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> So was bestiality and human sacrifice. Does that make it right?


It rarely takes long for someone, usually a Christian, to run out of real arguments and resort to comparing the sexual practices of consenting adults to animal abuse or violence. You forgot pedophilia.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> Hi Stanley, my name is Alison, will there be a good stoning after?


Well, that all depends.... upon your definition of a "good stoning". I have been stoned several times, (back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth) and it was usually a good experience, but it could lead to adultery, and that would require a different type of stoning... which would not be all that good.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> Why do you take a person to court? To get what you want out of them. Thus forcing them to do as you wish. We have not taken them to court to push our agenda.
> 
> HMMM pork chops and shrimp.... sounds good though I prefer beef to pork! We will be having bbq, burgers and chicken.


I have never taken a person to court. However if I were to do so, it would not be to "get what I want", it would be to seek just compensation had the person robbed me, or refused to pay a just debt.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will agree with most of your post.... but that lil part I bolded concerns me somewhat. Where have you heard anything about gays wanting to FORCE anyone to do anything beyond having the government protect their basic rights.... just like it does for you and your God fearing associates?


Have you heard Bible believing Christians being labeled homophobic? Have your realized that a child stating that homosexuality is wrong has been bullied because of his beliefs? Yes, it absolutely happens that people are trying to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is acceptable.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hello Ann, nice to meet you... My name is Stanley, and I would like to take this opportunity to invite you over for dinner this Sunday after church.... we are having pork chops and shrimp.


Awesome!! I'll bring the wine!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> It rarely takes long for someone, usually a Christian, to run out of real arguments and resort to comparing the sexual practices of consenting adults to animal abuse or violence. You forgot pedophilia.


No - Let's not go back to former civilizations (that note are no longer in existence - wonder why) to say that something was right.  It matters not about their sexual practices - let's just go to child sacrifice. It's even spoken of (and condemned) in the Bible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Have you heard Bible believing Christians being labeled homophobic? Have your realized that a child stating that homosexuality is wrong has been bullied because of his beliefs? Yes, it absolutely happens that people are trying to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is acceptable.


Yep, I have heard of such things, and those things would be just a wrong as good Christian folks bullying, intimidating or otherwise trying to force their beliefs upon others. Have you ever heard the term "gay bashing"? Are you aware that gays have been beaten to death solely because of their sexual orientation? In the words of my dear departed granny.... "two wrongs dont make a right".


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> No - Let's not go back to former civilizations (that note are no longer in existence - wonder why) to say that something was right.  It matters not about their sexual practices - let's just go to child sacrifice. It's even spoken of (and condemned) in the Bible.


Child sacrific is certaily a step beyond pediphilia but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that those who support marriage equality are fans of child sacrifice? 

And just to be absolutely clear, I'll state again that I do not care what you think your god says or what your holy book says about anything - and again that your beliefs have no place in our government.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I have heard of such things, and those things would be just a wrong as good Christian folks bullying, intimidating or otherwise trying to force their beliefs upon others. Have you ever heard the term "gay bashing"? Are you aware that gays have been beaten to death solely because of their sexual orientation? In the words of my dear departed granny.... "two wrongs dont make a right".


And I will stand with you against anyone bullying anyone for what they believe. It is wrong. Either side. But to say that Christians are not having attempts made to force them to believe something that is sadly mistaken.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Awesome!! I'll bring the wine!


That works for my Yvonne really well, she likes wine, I have my own bourbon though.  

I am sure you are aware that my invitation included your participation in several violations of scripture.... right?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Homosexuality was widely practiced and accepted in many ancient societies. The spread of Christianity and Islam put an end to that.





Annsni said:


> So was bestiality and human sacrifice. Does that make it right?





bluesky said:


> It rarely takes long for someone, usually a Christian, to run out of real arguments and resort to comparing the sexual practices of consenting adults to animal abuse or violence. You forgot pedophilia.





bluesky said:


> Child sacrific is certaily a step beyond pediphilia but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that those who support marriage equality are fans of child sacrifice?
> 
> And just to be absolutely clear, I'll state again that I do not care what you think your god says or what your holy book says about anything - and again that your beliefs have no place in our government.


Here you go. I played the discussion out post by post. Does the point seem clear? One posted that homosexuality was widely accepted by ancient societies. I pointed out that so was human and child sacrifice and since we see one as being wrong, could it possibly be that the other just might be also?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That works for my Yvonne really well, she likes wine, I have my own bourbon though.
> 
> I am sure you are aware that my invitation included your participation in several violations of scripture.... right?


Actually, it hasn't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> And I will stand with you against anyone bullying anyone for what they believe. It is wrong. Either side. But to say that Christians are not having attempts made to force them to believe something that is sadly mistaken.


Ok, it sounds like you are at least making an effort to do the right thing, but remember this.... denying anyone their right of pursuing their happiness, when that course of action isnt bothering any one else, is wrong. and its pretty much unconstitutional as well.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> But they're not, nor ever have been and are likely never to be.
> 
> *My hetero marriage has not and will not involve procreation fwiw*


But, generally speaking, it is _more likely_ to involve procreation and produce greater numbers of little tax exemptions.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, it sounds like you are at least making an effort to do the right thing, but remember this.... denying anyone their right of pursuing their happiness, when that course of action isnt bothering any one else, is wrong. and its pretty much unconstitutional as well.


But "happiness" is not always socially beneficial, is it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Actually, it hasn't.


Ok, I read the KJV normally. Seems like I recall some provisions there that prohibits the eating of swine, and shell fish both. Since Yvonne nor I either one would be offended in the least if you opted out of eating those particular delights.... please direct me to the book, chapter and verses that allow you to eat such offensive foods.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> And I will stand with you against anyone bullying anyone for what they believe. It is wrong. Either side. But to say that Christians are not having attempts made to force them to believe something that is sadly mistaken.


You won't get an argument from me about bullying being wrong. I would never suggest that you change what you believe but I would suggest that your beliefs are irrelevant to the law. 

I will say - *and this is from my personal experience and is not intended to point a finger at anyone here in particular so you don't need to delete this as a personal attack, Angie - *Christians I know love to feel oppressed and attacked. They often view it at some sort of validation of their scriptures. (In case you're wondering how well a heathen like me could know what Christians think...sometime I'll share my journey).


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I read the KJV normally. Seems like I recall some provisions there that prohibits the eating of swine, and shell fish both. Since Yvonne nor I either one would be offended in the least if you opted out of eating those particular delights.... please direct me to the book, chapter and verses that allow you to eat such offensive foods.


Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:15. If you'd like, I can explain it more but you just asked for the verses.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> But "happiness" is not always socially beneficial, is it?


Maybe not, but it is one of the three "biggies" in this country.... "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and like that.


----------



## gryndlgoat (May 27, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> I'm not talking about civil unrest. I'm talking about the very fabric of civilized society, having limits and boundaries on what is permitted and what is not permitted.
> 
> The problem w/ the issue is that pro-homosexual marriage folks are opening a keg of worms that they won't be able to stop, that have the potential to destroy society. Mark my words.


Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for almost a decade now. We are still VERY civilized and our society's fabric is quite intact, thank you very much. Heterosexual marriage continues as it always has, and churches perform the marriages they have always condoned. 

Look outside at the whole world once in a while before you prophesy "gloom and doom" and deny rights to others "just in case". How selfish and self-serving. Your place at the table is beside your fellow Americans, not at the head. That spot is reserved for your Constitution.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe not, but it is one of the three "biggies" in this country.... "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and like that.


Oh, see, I've always read it as the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of it being "guaranteed happiness". My bad!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Oh, see, I've always read it as the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of it being "guaranteed happiness". My bad!


 
That's what it says, but some want their happiness given to them or guaranteed. A lot of what's the problems today.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> I would never suggest that you change what you believe but I would suggest that your beliefs are irrelevant to the law.


And this is what it boils down to. All discussion of God and the Bible in regards to this issue is only relevant to those who hold those beliefs, it is completely irrelevant to anyone but each believer, hence has no business whatsoever influencing decisions about the laws that affect those who believe otherwise, or don't believe at all.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> And this is what it boils down to. All discussion of God and the Bible in regards to this issue is only relevant to those who hold those beliefs, it is completely irrelevant to anyone but each believer, hence has no business whatsoever influencing decisions about the laws that affect those who believe otherwise, or don't believe at all.


It's a two way street. Those beliefs of the unbeliever is completely irrelevant for the believer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:15. If you'd like, I can explain it more but you just asked for the verses.


Well now, I like that one in Mark... and if you back up just one verse to 7:18 it might just sorta squelch the arguments about homosexual acts being so very wrong too. 

Now just to show you why I dislike "verse quoting out of context" lets have a look see at acts... a few verses on down which puts a whole different light on acts 10 15... lets jump on down to verse 27-29

"27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: âYou are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?â


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Oh, see, I've always read it as the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of it being "guaranteed happiness". My bad!


You are exactly right.... it is the pursuit of happiness... no guarantees.... but when you deny others their right to be a happily married couple from the outset.... thats sorta wrong dont ya think? Shouldnt they have the same right to take a stab at marriage just like everyone else?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> It's a two way street. Those beliefs of the unbeliever is completely irrelevant for the believer.


And if you found yourself having laws imposed upon you based on a religion other than you own?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> It's a two way street. Those beliefs of the unbeliever is completely irrelevant for the believer.


That may also be true... but our country was founded on several sets of beliefs, and one of them is that everyones basic right to believe as they choose is to be protected. Your beliefs can not trump the next fellers. We all must learn to share our space, and when dealing with laws they must reflect equality for everyone. One set (even if they have a majority) cannot over rule the minorities basic rights. At least thats the theory.... of course its not always worked that way. Thousands upon thousands of slaves were denied their rights for a great many years... thousands of other minority groups have been denied their rights as well, women were not allowed a vote for a long time, native americans were not allowed the simple pleasure of buying a drink in a bar! Today another large group is slowly losing their rights, once enjoyed by millions of good citizens.... lighting up a smoke while enjoying a beer in a bar. This is what happens when two wolves and a sheep are allowed to vote on the dinner menu.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well now, I like that one in Mark... and if you back up just one verse to 7:18 it might just sorta squelch the arguments about homosexual acts being so very wrong too.


Can you explain what you mean by that? 



> Now just to show you why I dislike "verse quoting out of context" lets have a look see at acts... a few verses on down which puts a whole different light on acts 10 15... lets jump on down to verse 27-29
> 
> "27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: âYou are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?â


And what is out of context by what I posted? God showed that all of the food that He put in front of Peter was clean - and told him to eat it. Then he showed him that even the Gentiles could be children of God. How is that a whole different light?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I've been thinking about this as I read all the issues.

for me:
I don't think gay marriage is Marriage - but more of a civil union, if that gets the legal status for committed pairs, as that of married people (current definition).

So, I think having everyone have a civil union to get the legal aspects covered; then having a church wedding at a church that finds in in their beliefs to do so, would be decent. For all weddings. (similar to what I saw way back in the 50's for Grace Kelly and Prince Ranier, civil cermony in business suits one day, the big religious wedding the next. I think other places do this also).

I wish there was a different word for marriage that is not opposite sexes involved, but I don't see that really happening.

Then there are the new Covent Weddings that are to be more binding if a divorce happens, then a current run of the mill marriages.

And if you go to the court house, get a license, to parties and the JP signs it with witness, and no words are said - are you married? I think you would be.


I have friends that are gay - and are just people. I see some that I count friends, but have to stay off some subjects as they are fantical about pushing it on other.

Even here, A Christian cannot say what they believe without non Christians and questionable christians jumping on them. (each can decide where they are in this, I have to decide me for myself).

But, this is just mean - the Be Nice, is lost, that's worse of all this.

Even outside of HT, and the Be Nice rule - society, is not nice over all any longer. And if you bring up racial reforms and such - this is on the surface more seen and meaner than was covered back then. Probably because of the internet and all of us hiding behind a keyboard, and no one really knows another.

I know several of you on FB and consider you friends, but what you post here is so baiting and mean and just looking for a fight as if you're bored and need the weather to break so you can go out and plant something.


So, on the gay marriage thing - I have mixed emotions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Your beliefs can not trump the next fellers. We all must learn to share our space, and when dealing with laws they must reflect equality for everyone.


This is exactly the point of the same-sex marriage debate. Many people don't believe it's a sin, but some do. Considering what you said above, is it reasonable for the people who think homosexuality is a sin to force their beliefs on those who don't? Why should your belief that it's a sin carry any more weight?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Can you explain what you mean by that?


sure, but if you read it you may "get it" just as well. 

Mark 7:18 "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, *that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him*" 
(bolding mine)




Annsni said:


> And what is out of context by what I posted? God showed that all of the food that He put in front of Peter was clean - and told him to eat it. Then he showed him that even the Gentiles could be children of God. How is that a whole different light?


Maybe... but if you look at that chapter as a whole, it appears almost as though Simon himself was rather confused about the meaning of his vision.... until the Spirit later guided him to understand that God had made the Gentiles clean. Another note... in my KJV God never told him to eat.... He may have implied... but the command to eat is missing. He admonished him not to call anything God declared to be clean as unclean. 

Now let me ask you outright since you havent as yet volunteered.... What day do you observe as the Lords day? Saturday as the scriptures demand, or sunday, as is practiced by a great many Christians?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> sure, but if you read it you may "get it" just as well.
> 
> Mark 7:18 "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, *that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him*"
> (bolding mine)


Then that means that any sexual sin is not a sin - not just homosexuality. However, there are other passages that address sexual sin and it's clear - sex is a sin and it defiles. It has nothing to do with body secretions.




> Maybe... but if you look at that chapter as a whole, it appears almost as though Simon himself was rather confused about the meaning of his vision.... until the Spirit later guided him to understand that God had made the Gentiles clean. Another note... in my KJV God never told him to eat.... He may have implied... but the command to eat is missing. He admonished him not to call anything God declared to be clean as unclean.


Does your KJV of the Bible have Acts 10:13? Because mine does and it says "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat". 




> Now let me ask you outright since you havent as yet volunteered.... What day do you observe as the Lords day? Saturday as the scriptures demand, or sunday, as is practiced by a great many Christians?


Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord's Day. You are confusing the two.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> And if you go to the court house, get a license, to parties and the JP signs it with witness, and no words are said - are you married? I think you would be.


I dunno... My second wife and I went to the courthouse, got the license and appeared in front of the JP.... who did require us to repeat vows, then pronounced us as officially married, signed the paperwork and that was that. But it didnt seem to help, we still wound up divorced 15 years later. :shrug:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

gryndlgoat said:


> Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for almost a decade now. We are still VERY civilized and our society's fabric is quite intact, thank you very much. Heterosexual marriage continues as it always has, and churches perform the marriages they have always condoned.
> 
> Look outside at the whole world once in a while before you prophesy "gloom and doom" and deny rights to others "just in case". How selfish and self-serving. Your place at the table is beside your fellow Americans, not at the head. That spot is reserved for your Constitution.




I'm not saying that homosexual marriage, in and of itself, is going to decay the fabric of civil society.

I am saying that *the argument being used to justify the issue* is opening a keg of worms that CAN be used to destroy civil society.

Based on the CIVIL RIGHTS and CONSTITUTIONAL arguement, it's hypocritical and self-serving for people to pronounce their support for homosexual marriage but not polygamist marriages. 

And with all due respect, I certainly don't need someone from another country lecturing me about my "place" in the debate.

Thank you very much.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Does your KJV of the Bible have Acts 10:13? Because mine does and it says "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat".


Yes, thats what mine says too, but again, this is why I dont like picking a verse out of context. If you read the chapter, you will see that Simons vision was referring to bringing the Gentiles into the fold.... not changing dietary laws. 

"10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,

31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.

33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Then that means that any sexual sin is not a sin - not just homosexuality. However, there are other passages that address sexual sin and it's clear - sex is a sin and it defiles. It has nothing to do with body secretions.


Ahhh, but if that verse sets homosexuality aside as not being a sin unto itself, would it not follow that if gay couples were married, then that particular sexual act is no longer a sin? Just like with heterosexuals? Sex between married couples is not a sin last time I looked.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, thats what mine says too, but again, this is why I dont like picking a verse out of context. If you read the chapter, you will see that Simons vision was referring to bringing the Gentiles into the fold.... not changing dietary laws.
> 
> "10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
> 
> ...


It absolutely IS speaking of the dietary laws and showing Peter clearly that all food is now for our consumption. Would God have told Peter to eat food that was unclean - and a sin - if He hadn't now declared it all clean?

But fortunately, that passage stands within the whole of Scripture and we and see other verses that speak to this issue as well. Jesus had already declared all foods clean as we saw in Mark 10. Romans 14 speaks to the issue as well and in verse 20 says that all food is indeed pure - the word meaning clean.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Saturday is the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord's Day. You are confusing the two.


MMMMKAY.... I am indeed somewhat confused now.... by all means please enlighten me.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhh, but if that verse sets homosexuality aside as not being a sin unto itself, would it not follow that if gay couples were married, then that particular sexual act is no longer a sin? Just like with heterosexuals? Sex between married couples is not a sin last time I looked.


But the verse on what goes into the body has nothing to do with sex and body fluids but instead food. You cannot use a verse that is speaking of one thing to speak to another. The topic at hand in that verse is not sex.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> MMMMKAY.... I am indeed somewhat confused now.... by all means please enlighten me.


Simple. The Sabbath is the day set aside for rest. It is Saturday. However, it is not spoken of again in the New Testament as a law and actually, we see in Colossians 2:16-17, God says "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Besides, tell me the verse in the Word of God that says "You must go to church on the Sabbath". It's not there. My friends live in an Islamic country. They are right now allowed to go to church and they attend on Friday, which is the Muslim holy day. It doesn't matter what day we go on - but that we spend time gathered together, learn the Word of God, worship and fellowship. The day is of no importance.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I think you are stretching it a bit thin to assume these culture were destined to fail anyway.. whatever, fortunately most tolerant Aboriginal cultures are making a come back.



copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * * * * * *
> When a 'culture' is finally wiped out by invaders, that "civilization" is over.
> 
> The decline is quite evident to those with eyes to see, long before the ending.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I read the KJV normally. Seems like I recall some provisions there that prohibits the eating of swine, and shell fish both. Since Yvonne nor I either one would be offended in the least if you opted out of eating those particular delights.... please direct me to the book, chapter and verses that allow you to eat such offensive foods.


YH, for the Jews you are correct. Christians have no such prohibitions. We are told to thank God for all things and not to judge one another in regards to food or drink or holidays. The verses are very specific on this point. 

Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 
Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 
Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 
Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 
Rom 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 


Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 
Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 
Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 
Col 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. 
Col 2:16 *Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath*. 


Because Christ finished the old law it no longer applies to us. Aside from which my people were gentiles so were never under the Jewish laws.

Also for the one who commented on bring non sexual things into this discussion, bestiality IS a sexual aberration as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> But fortunately, that passage stands within the whole of Scripture and we and see other verses that speak to this issue as well. Jesus had already declared all foods clean as we saw in Mark 10. Romans 14 speaks to the issue as well and in verse 20 says that all food is indeed pure - the word meaning clean.


As much as I like Romans 14, (its speaks to me in a bit different voice than it does to you, and thats ok too) I really think these verses from chapter 13 speaks to the issue of gay marriage a bit more. 

"8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As much as I like Romans 14, (its speaks to me in a bit different voice than it does to you, and thats ok too) I really think these verses from chapter 13 speaks to the issue of gay marriage a bit more.
> 
> "8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
> 
> ...


I don't see gay marriage included in there. Can you highlight it for me?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> I don't see gay marriage included in there. Can you highlight it for me?


So if it's not specifically mentioned it's not pertinent? Can you show me where these verses exclude a loving and committed same sex marriage? Or, for that matter, my straight marriage that is not at all based on religious beliefs?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Simple. The Sabbath is the day set aside for rest. It is Saturday. However, it is not spoken of again in the New Testament as a law and actually, we see in Colossians 2:16-17, God says "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
> 
> Besides, tell me the verse in the Word of God that says "You must go to church on the Sabbath". It's not there. My friends live in an Islamic country. They are right now allowed to go to church and they attend on Friday, which is the Muslim holy day. It doesn't matter what day we go on - but that we spend time gathered together, learn the Word of God, worship and fellowship. The day is of no importance.


Interesting... The day is of no importance? And yet in my book it says to remember the sabbath day and keep it Holy..... for ever!  

But, since we now know, that none of the laws are any longer important, the important thing of course is our faith in Christ which fulfills all of the law.... I would think a Christian would embrace his/her neighbor with love, and not condemn nor judge them for any of their "sins", since sin is no longer an issue.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> So if it's not specifically mentioned it's not pertinent? Can you show me where these verses exclude a loving and committed same sex marriage? Or, for that matter, my straight marriage that is not at all based on religious beliefs?


The issue is that he said that Romans 14 speaks to gay marriage. I do not see it. Additionally, Romans is a book that starts out very clearly speaking against homosexuality so I don't think Paul was suddenly bipolar and saying something to contradict what he already said.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

As I recall the only thing Jesus himself spoke about marriage directly was to say that anybody who got divorced for any reason and then remarried or slept with anybody else was committing a sin.

I find it interesting that religious people who object to gay marriage being legal never seem to care about banning divorce or making it extremely hard to get like they want to with abortion.

Also surely part of the degradation of the family has to do with the fact that they don't spend any time together anymore, but I don't see the religious right pushing for Blue Laws prohibiting mandatory work on Sunday or repeal of mandatory overtime both of which would probably help the modern family.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhh, but if that verse sets homosexuality aside as not being a sin unto itself, would it not follow that if gay couples were married, then that particular sexual act is no longer a sin? Just like with heterosexuals? Sex between married couples is not a sin last time I looked.


IN context, God's opinion on homosexuality.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 
*Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. *
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. 

1Co 6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 
1Co 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 
*1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! *
1Co 6:4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 
1Co 6:5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 
1Co 6:6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 
1Co 6:7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 
1Co 6:8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud

Hollowdweller, no Jesus did not say that.
He said 
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

Adultery is his only out for divorce and remarriage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> I don't see gay marriage included in there. Can you highlight it for me?


sure, no problem

8 *Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.*

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely,* Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.*

10 *Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.*

I cant make it much clearer than this. You may want to read over that last one a couple times.... its really good.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Hollowdweller said:


> As I recall the only thing Jesus himself spoke about marriage directly was to say that anybody who got divorced for any reason and then remarried or slept with anybody else was committing a sin..


I guess you didn't bother to read the whole thing because Jesus clearly spoke about marriage being between a man and a woman. To help you, look specifically at Matthew 19:5 or Mark 10:7-8.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> sure, no problem
> 
> 8 *Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.*
> 
> ...


Yes, we are to love one another. That has nothing to do with marriage. I love my daughters but it doesn't mean I have to marry them.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Yes, we are to love one another. That has nothing to do with marriage. I love my daughters but it doesn't mean I have to marry them.


Aside from which there are at least 3 different words for love in the Hebrew and not all are passionate romantic love.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> The issue is that he said that Romans 14 speaks to gay marriage. I do not see it. Additionally, Romans is a book that starts out very clearly speaking against homosexuality so I don't think Paul was suddenly bipolar and saying something to contradict what he already said.


Romans 1:26-27. Yours is a common view of those verses but not all scholars agree that Paul's condemnation is directed at homosexuality itself but rather at former Christians who abandoned their natural inclinations and engaged in promiscuous orgiastic sex.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Yes, we are to love one another. That has nothing to do with marriage. I love my daughters but it doesn't mean I have to marry them.


Thats true, and you dont have to marry your neighbor either. I am pretty sure though that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves... even the gay ones.  It is no more a "sin" for them to marry the mate of their choice as it is for you to eat pork chops, or shrimp, or to forget to observe the Lords day... which is quite clearly synonymous with the sabbath. Yes, words and verses can be cleverly selected to support most any preconceived notion we would like to. As has been well demonstrated here today. But the fact remains that Jesus was crucified as part of Gods great plan (wow, just occurred to me the God is into human sacrifice!) to grant all of us redemption if.... IF.... we believe in God, the Holy Spirit, and His son, Jesus. Seems like I remember something in the book somewhere about God being light, and truth, and love. Lets all be truthful here, light the light of love, and let others do the same.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> Aside from which there are at least 3 different words for love in the Hebrew and not all are passionate romantic love.


Very true M! Let me see which "love" words are used in these verses:

They are all versions of agape which is defined as "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"

I don't see sexual love in here at all.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats true, and you dont have to marry your neighbor either. I am pretty sure though that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves... even the gay ones.  It is no more a "sin" for them to marry the mate of their choice as it is for you to eat pork chops, or shrimp, or to forget to observe the Lords day... which is quite clearly synonymous with the sabbath. Yes, words and verses can be cleverly selected to support most any preconceived notion we would like to. As has been well demonstrated here today. But the fact remains that Jesus was crucified as part of Gods great plan (wow, just occurred to me the God is into human sacrifice!) to grant all of us redemption if.... IF.... we believe in God, the Holy Spirit, and His son, Jesus. Seems like I remember something in the book somewhere about God being light, and truth, and love. Lets all be truthful here, light the light of love, and let others do the same.


Well, since we have already shown that eating pork chops, shrimp or observing the Lord's Day or not is not a sin, then your argument begins to fall apart. Yes, I love friends who are gay. No I do not accept their lifestyle as good, or pleasing to God because of what He has said in His Word. Sin is sin and to embrace sin as "normal" is going to cause many problems. Sin caused Christ to die on the cross. Are you really going to go to Him and say "Thanks! Now I can do whatever I want."? I don't think so. 

Bottom line - I stand on the Word of God, you stand on the ways of the world. We will never see eye to eye.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Romans 1:26-27. Yours is a common view of those verses but not all scholars agree that Paul's condemnation is directed at homosexuality itself but rather at former Christians who abandoned their natural inclinations and engaged in promiscuous orgiastic sex.


Oh, just recent scholars who do not value the Word of God.  It is clear - men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is wrong. I could show a child that passage and it's that clear.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Very true M! Let me see which "love" words are used in these verses:
> 
> They are all versions of agape which is defined as "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly"
> 
> I don't see sexual love in here at all.


LOL!!!! Thats coz sex normally aint about love....in spite of the fact that wimmins often try to connect the two.... look for lust instead!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> Romans 1:26-27. Yours is a common view of those verses but not all scholars agree that Paul's condemnation is directed at homosexuality itself but rather at former Christians who abandoned their natural inclinations and engaged in promiscuous orgiastic sex.


Perhaps, but 'contrary to nature' seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> LOL!!!! Thats coz sex normally aint about love....in spite of the fact that wimmins often try to connect the two.... look for lust instead!


Well then, you can't use Romans 13 in support of gay marriage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Oh, just recent scholars who do not value the Word of God.  It is clear - men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is wrong. I could show a child that passage and it's that clear.


and its just as clear that eating pork is wrong.... plenty of scripture says so... and its wrong to put up a Christmas tree too... that was also an old pagan custom denounced as being wrong in Gods eyes. Why cant we all just agree to let everyone make their own minds up about right and wrong until something actually harms someone else?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Well then, you can't use Romans 13 in support of gay marriage.


Why not? Love is love... or are you saying its impossible for two men or two women to love one another? Next thing you will be trying to say its impossible for a man to love 2 wimmins!


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> Oh, just recent scholars who do not value the Word of God.  It is clear - men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is wrong. I could show a child that passage and it's that clear.


Wow - if they disagree with you they do not value what you_ and_ they consider the Word of your God? How incredibly arrogant.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> LOL!!!! Thats coz sex normally aint about love....in spite of the fact that wimmins often try to connect the two.... look for lust instead!


Actually, eros is the word for sexual love, from which we get erotic.
However, that word is not found in the nt at all. 

Anly agape (which is a love to the depths of giving ones life for as Christ did) and philia, or sometimes philio (sp no matter how I type it is doesn't look right!) , which means I will help you out and be your friend but I will not die for you.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> What bothers me is this.
> Say a gay couple goes into a conservative church and hears the truth. God is against them. Because a real church can not teach otherwise, since the Bible is very very clear on this issue.
> *They get upset and file a law suit* because it is now considered hate speech to say such things.
> That is what happens if one is in a "protected" class.


So who are they going to file a law suit against? Are they going to sue God or are they going to sue the bible?

Well I know they can't sue God since that's just not possible. So I guess they'd have to sue the bible. I'd sure like to know how they're going to do that successfully, I'd take a page out of their book and do the same thing. I'd like to sue the bible for some things that are written in and preached from there and have corrupted the minds of certain gullible people and turned them into sanctimonious, closed-minded people who want to be the only "protected" class in the eyes of God.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> Actually, eros is the word for sexual love, from which we get erotic.
> However, that word is not found in the nt at all.
> 
> Anly agape (which is a love to the depths of giving ones life for as Christ did) and philia, or sometimes philio (sp no matter how I type it is doesn't look right!) , which means I will help you out and be your friend but I will not die for you.


Ok, so I dont think anyone is asking anyone to die for them here.... maybe helping them out by not condemning, criticizing, and accusing is too much to ask?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and its just as clear that eating pork is wrong.... plenty of scripture says so... and its wrong to put up a Christmas tree too... that was also an old pagan custom denounced as being wrong in Gods eyes. Why cant we all just agree to let everyone make their own minds up about right and wrong until something actually harms someone else?


Eating pork is wrong - if you are an Israelite. Context is king.  

I still haven't seen anything to say that homosexual marriage is right in God's eyes.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why not? Love is love... or are you saying its impossible for two men or two women to love one another? Next thing you will be trying to say its impossible for a man to love 2 wimmins!


Oh - They can love each other in the same kind of love we are to have for our neighbor, our boss, others around us, etc.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Wow - if they disagree with you they do not value what you_ and_ they consider the Word of your God? How incredibly arrogant.


No, if they disagree with the historical stance and understanding of Scripture from the early church on.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, so I dont think anyone is asking anyone to die for them here.... maybe helping them out by not condemning, criticizing, and accusing is too much to ask?


So you are saying to ignore Christ and accept sin, correct?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here. 

In my opinion laws should never based on mythology.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Annsni said:


> Eating pork is wrong - if you are an Israelite. Context is king.
> 
> I still haven't seen anything to say that homosexual marriage is right in God's eyes.


Well there ya go, there's the solution to everything.

Eating pork is wrong only if you're an Israelite. Then homosexual marriage must be wrong only if you're an Israelite. So that must mean that all Christians who are not Israelites don't have to conform to anything in the bible because the bible was written for Israelites only. If you're not an Israelite then whatever's in the bible doesn't apply to you. Right?

There's nothing that says homosexual marriage is not right in God's eyes either.

I think some people are just making up stories and new rules to suit their own purposes.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> So you are saying to ignore Christ and accept sin, correct?


Nope, I am saying we should love our neighbors.... even those who are sinners.... just like ourselves. Somewhere in your book you should be able to find these words.... "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone". As I recall no one in the crowd bothered to throw a rock, coz they all knew in their own hearts that they too were sinners just like the accused. If Jesus can forgive me of my sins, do you think He cant forgive two people who happen to love each other? (which is NOT a sin btw) Is there some reason you believe that two people of the same sex cannot love one another enough to die for their partner, and to live for their partner? If its the sex thing that bothers you, lettem get married! If its anything like hetero couples they will stop having sex shortly thereafter!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Eating pork is wrong - if you are an Israelite. Context is king.
> 
> I still haven't seen anything to say that homosexual marriage is right in God's eyes.


I havent seen anything that says its wrong either. Nothing in the book about two folks not being able to love each other. You are aware that many marriages do not involve sex.... right?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

> Why was sex created?
> That is the root.
> Sex was created for procreation





> What was the original purpose for the state to define & recognize marriages? What were the benefits to be gained by the state?
> 
> The main purpose was to _encourage_ procreation. Otherwise, the state would have no interest or benefit in personal relationships whatsoever.
> 
> Now, what are the benefits to the state in redefining the term 'marriage'? What benefit to society do homosexual couples provide? Or is it merely one-sided?


So, if marriage is only between a man and a woman does that mean you should ban every sexual position except the missionary position and only for the purpose of procreating? Heterosexual couples participate in any and all sex acts that you can imagine and probably some you can't. Of course, you say, we can't do that, how can you ban what goes on in people's bedrooms? Well, how can you judge what goes on in gay people's bedrooms?

If marriage is only for procreation, what do you tell the person who can't have children? Do they not have a benefit to society either? Does a person actually have to have a benefit to society or is it ok if they at least do no harm to society? Aside from people who say "Because God said so" there is no harm in two people who are committed to each other and in love being recognized as a couple, regardless if they can have children or not. Should childless heterosexual couples be required to adopt children to be married and be beneficial to society? If a heterosexual couple does not plan to have children, should they be banned from marrying?

Gay people can't have children but they can adopt and love children that irresponsible heterosexual couples have brought into this world and can't or won't take care of.

My sister is gay and I know many people from her social circle and I cansider many of them my friends. They are some of the kindest, genuine and most generous people I know. I don't agree or disagree with their lifestyle any more then I agree or disagree with any of my family or friends lifestyle. It's none of my business.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Well there ya go, there's the solution to everything.
> 
> Eating pork is wrong only if you're an Israelite. Then homosexual marriage must be wrong only if you're an Israelite. So that must mean that all Christians who are not Israelites don't have to conform to anything in the bible because the bible was written for Israelites only. If you're not an Israelite then whatever's in the bible doesn't apply to you. Right?
> 
> ...


"my dogs bettern yer dog", "my sins aint as bad as yours"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Truckinguy said:


> So, if marriage is only between a man and a woman does that mean you should ban every sexual position except the missionary position and only for the purpose of procreating? Heterosexual couples participate in any and all sex acts that you can imagine and probably some you can't. Of course, you say, we can't do that, how can you ban what goes on in people's bedrooms? Well, how can you judge what goes on in gay people's bedrooms?
> 
> If marriage is only for procreation, what do you tell the person who can't have children? Do they not have a benefit to society either? Does a person actually have to have a benefit to society or is it ok if they at least do no harm to society? Aside from people who say "Because God said so" there is no harm in two people who are committed to each other and in love being recognized as a couple, regardless if they can have children or not. Should childless heterosexual couples be required to adopt children to be married and be beneficial to society? If a heterosexual couple does not plan to have children, should they be banned from marrying?
> 
> ...


:buds: I'll drink to that! 

Or would that be a sin?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Well there ya go, there's the solution to everything.
> 
> Eating pork is wrong only if you're an Israelite.


Yes, and we see in the New Testament that there are no longer unclean foods. So even an Israelite today can eat portk.



> Then homosexual marriage must be wrong only if you're an Israelite.


Untrue because the New Testament confirms that homosexuality is a sin.




> So that must mean that all Christians who are not Israelites don't have to conform to anything in the bible because the bible was written for Israelites only.


Incorrect. That which was given as law to the Israelites is no longer in effect for them OR us because Christ fulfilled the law. However, there are some things that were outside the law - and reconfirmed in the New Testament. One of those thins is homosexuality being a sin.



> If you're not an Israelite then whatever's in the bible doesn't apply to you. Right?


Incorrect because the whole of the Bible was not just given to Israelites. Read Exodus and you will see the context.



> There's nothing that says homosexual marriage is not right in God's eyes either.


Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes according to Scripture. Marriage in Scripture is between a man and a woman. 



> I think some people are just making up stories and new rules to suit their own purposes.
> 
> .


I agree - and it's not the historical Christian standing people.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, I am saying we should love our neighbors.... even those who are sinners.... just like ourselves. Somewhere in your book you should be able to find these words.... "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone". As I recall no one in the crowd bothered to throw a rock, coz they all knew in their own hearts that they too were sinners just like the accused. If Jesus can forgive me of my sins, do you think He cant forgive two people who happen to love each other? (which is NOT a sin btw) Is there some reason you believe that two people of the same sex cannot love one another enough to die for their partner, and to live for their partner? If its the sex thing that bothers you, lettem get married! If its anything like hetero couples they will stop having sex shortly thereafter!


You mention the "without sin cast the first stone" thing but you ignore the "go and sin no more". Why is that?

Jesus will not forgive unless we ask with a sincere heart. He doesn't just automatically forgive everyone no matter what. There are consequences to sin. You say He will forgive you of your sins. Have you believed on Him? Have you confessed your sins and are no longer a slave to sin? Have you overcome sin in your life? THAT is what Jesus forgives. A contrite heart. I do not see these homosexuals coming to Christ with a contrite heart and a willingness to forsake their sin. Instead, I see them wanting others to accept it and embrace it and they celebrate it. THAT is what God will condemn.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I havent seen anything that says its wrong either. Nothing in the book about two folks not being able to love each other. You are aware that many marriages do not involve sex.... right?


Then you have not read Romans 1.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :buds: I'll drink to that!
> 
> Or would that be a sin?


I'll forgive you if you're buyin'...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :buds: I'll drink to that!
> 
> Or would that be a sin?


Just make it sacrmental wine.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Then you have not read Romans 1.


Yep, I have read the book cover to cover several times over the years... I have also read a lot of Robert Heinlein's work over the years, and as a wee lad I read all about Paul Bunyon and Mike Fink. Anyways, back to Romans one.... again I think you have maybe taken one or three verses out of context there in order to bolster your campaign against the gay folks. If I were to take just a few verses in order to "sum up" the overall point of Romans 1 it would have to be verse 29-32

"29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Godâs righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> No, if they disagree with the historical stance and understanding of Scripture from the early church on.


The evolution of Christian scripture, both in translation, contents of the canon, and understanding has been an ongoing process since the early church. It's disingenous at best to suggest that "the historical stance and understanding of Scripture" has been the same all along.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluesky said:


> The evolution of Christian scripture, both in translation, contents of the canon, and understanding has been an ongoing process since the early church. It's disingenous at best to suggest that "the historical stance and understanding of Scripture" has been the same all along.


Yeppers, the church has gone through a lot of slow evolution getting to where it is today... golly it took over three hundred years just to switch over from Saturday worship to sundays.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> The evolution of Christian scripture, both in translation, contents of the canon, and understanding has been an ongoing process since the early church. It's disingenous at best to suggest that "the historical stance and understanding of Scripture" has been the same all along.


Actually, it has not. The canon was closed in the first century and we have documentation from the second century of the accepted books of the Scriptures - and they are the same as what we have today.

Translation has been the same - the originals were written into manuscripts and the manuscript evidence we have to support the Scriptures being accurate from the first century is better than the manuscript evidence we have from the Odyssey.

The historical stance of Scripture HAS been the same. I stand with the early church and it's understanding of the Scriptures.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, the church has gone through a lot of slow evolution getting to where it is today... golly it took over three hundred years just to switch over from Saturday worship to sundays.


That's interesting because meeting on the first day of the week is spoken of in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthains 16:1-2. John speaks in Revelation of being "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and in the Greek format, the adjectival construction suggests that it was a practiced observation in the early church. We see the same terminology early in the 2nd century in a letter from Ignatius.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I have read the book cover to cover several times over the years... I have also read a lot of Robert Heinlein's work over the years, and as a wee lad I read all about Paul Bunyon and Mike Fink. Anyways, back to Romans one.... again I think you have maybe taken one or three verses out of context there in order to bolster your campaign against the gay folks. If I were to take just a few verses in order to "sum up" the overall point of Romans 1 it would have to be verse 29-32
> 
> "29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Godâs righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."


Why did you change from "your" KJV in this passage? It's interesting that you did because you missed the word that the KJV translators used in there. It is the Greek word "porneia" from which we get our term pornography from. It is a word that covers all sorts of improper sexual conduct including bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc. So was the KJV too uncomfortable for you that it translated the word as "fornication"?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> Actually, it has not. The canon was closed in the first century and we have documentation from the second century of the accepted books of the Scriptures - and they are the same as what we have today.


 Not so. Not only are there different scriptural canons - "Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[39] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon



> Translation has been the same - the originals written into manuscripts and the manuscript evidence we have to support the Scriptures being accurate from the first century is better than the manuscript evidence we have from the Odyssey.


 There are approximately 450 English translations of the Bible. 


> The historical stance of Scripture HAS been the same. I stand with the early church and it's understanding of the Scriptures.


If the historical stance of scripture remains unchanged, how do you explain 40,000 Christian denominations, all claiming to follow the Bible and having varied and distinctive doctrines?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

bluesky said:


> If the historical stance of scripture remains unchanged, how do you explain 40,000 Christian denominations, all claiming to follow the Bible and having varied and distinctive doctrines?


Man's interpretations of scriptures, IMO. Paul talks about division in the early church although he does not specify that it was about doctrinal issues. 

But, again IMO, that's why it's imperative to rely on the Holy Spirit for clarification. If all believers did so, there would be no divisions/denominations.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Not so. Not only are there different scriptural canons - "Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[39] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. "
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


I'm sorry that you find wiki a good source of facts but it is not. The full list of the books of our New Testament were accepted as Scripture as evidenced by historical manuscripts that we have today from as early as the mid second century. Additionally, we even see within Scripture acceptance of some of the books as Scripture as well - especially Paul's writings.



> There are approximately 450 English translations of the Bible.


And other than differences in phrasing, the majority of them agree.



> If the historical stance of scripture remains unchanged, how do you explain 40,000 Christian denominations, all claiming to follow the Bible and having varied and distinctive doctrines?


Because people sin and choose to disregard God's Word and do what they want. Besides, MANY of those "40,000 Christian denominations" are actually very similar in beliefs and are not so different as you might think.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Annsni said:


> I'm sorry that you find wiki a good source of facts but it is not. The full list of the books of our New Testament were accepted as Scripture as evidenced by historical manuscripts that we have today from as early as the mid second century. Additionally, we even see within Scripture acceptance of some of the books as Scripture as well - especially Paul's writings.


Wiki is not necessarily inaccurate - it depends on the source material, which, in this case, is accurate (and easily accessible from a mobile device - sue me). The refuge of those with no actual defense is to attack the source as inadequate. Nice try. 


> And other than differences in phrasing, the majority of them agree.






> Because people sin and choose to disregard God's Word and do what they want. Besides, MANY of those "40,000 Christian denominations" are actually very similar in beliefs and are not so different as you might think.


 I'm far from naive about the various Christian sects and denominations. "Similar" doesn't cut it. They either all believe the Bible, which, according to you is only different in "phrasing", or they don't - and they do not.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

bluesky said:


> Wiki is not necessarily inaccurate - it depends on the source material, which, in this case, is accurate (and easily accessible from a mobile device - sue me). The refuge of those with no actual defense is to attack the source as inadequate. Nice try.


Oh - I have plenty of sources. Which would you like? 

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-earliest-evidence.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/barker1.html
http://www.credomag.com/2013/03/15/resources-on-the-canon-of-scripture/
http://www.bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html
http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php

That is just a few. 






> I'm far from naive about the various Christian sects and denominations. "Similar" doesn't cut it. They either all believe the Bible, which, according to you is only different in "phrasing", or they don't - and they do not.


There are those that I would not consider Christian at all in that list I'm sure because they don't even believe that Jesus is who He said He is. But for example, we came from a PCUSA church and moved to a Baptist church. The only difference between the two churches was that the PCUSA church had an elder board when we have a deacon board. These boards do the same things. Additionally, they did infant baptism based on covenant theology but they also did believer's baptism whereas we do not follow the idea of infant baptism although I see support for the covenant theology. But you know what? My husband is a Baptist pastor and has spoken at similarly minded churches - that same PCUSA church, different Baptist churches, many independent churches, and a Christian Missionary Alliance church. Yes, similar cuts it for Evangelical churches. They might be different denominations - but those would have pretty much only differences in government and some practices (some have communion weekly, some monthly, some yearly, some use modern music, some only use hymns on the organ - that kind of stuff).


----------



## Gritty (Nov 26, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :buds: I'll drink to that!
> 
> Or would that be a sin?


Nope...I'm pretty sure Jesus turned the water into wine---not the other way around!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Why did you change from "your" KJV in this passage? It's interesting that you did because you missed the word that the KJV translators used in there. It is the Greek word "porneia" from which we get our term pornography from. It is a word that covers all sorts of improper sexual conduct including bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc. So was the KJV too uncomfortable for you that it translated the word as "fornication"?


Nothing quite so complicated as that.... when I opened the new window and did a quick search for the verse..... I just happened to hit the top most link offered instead of scrolling on down to the KJV. Sorry for the confusion. Heres the KJV. 

"29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> That's interesting because meeting on the first day of the week is spoken of in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthains 16:1-2. John speaks in Revelation of being "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and in the Greek format, the adjectival construction suggests that it was a practiced observation in the early church. We see the same terminology early in the 2nd century in a letter from Ignatius.


Acts 20:7 does mention of the disciples breaking bread on the first day of the week, but I am pretty sure that bunch got together quite often, not necessarily to alter their day of worship. You have to remember that these ol boys "job" was to spread the gospel and to minister not only to the masses, but to one another as well... the first day of the week being sunday, would be a close cousin to gathering the crew together on monday, getting ready for a new work week. I can find nothing in this text to indicate any change in the need to "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy". 

"7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

The same thing pretty much applies to your 1st Corinthians scripture. 

"16 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 

It again sounds like instructions for the first day of a work week, My very loose translation would be something like... "now boys, we got a new week coming up, lotta stuff to get done, get yer poop in a group come first light sunday, I want yall to get these collections done, have it ready to go, I dont want to have to contend with this business when I get here later in the week.... gitterdone!"


Again... its all about overall context.... not the few words uttered in a singe verse.


----------



## Gritty (Nov 26, 2012)

...and to answer your question: no, I never "took English in school". However, I did study Language Arts and AP English. I would also be happy to share my SAT scores.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Gritty said:


> "I'm not an Israelite but you bet your bippy no one touches me then!! Wanna get this????"
> 
> Um...an example of proper grammar?


I wasn't speaking of grammar.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Acts 20:7 does mention of the disciples breaking bread on the first day of the week, but I am pretty sure that bunch got together quite often, not necessarily to alter their day of worship. You have to remember that these ol boys "job" was to spread the gospel and to minister not only to the masses, but to one another as well... the first day of the week being sunday, would be a close cousin to gathering the crew together on monday, getting ready for a new work week. I can find nothing in this text to indicate any change in the need to "remember the sabbath day and keep it holy".
> 
> "7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
> 
> ...


That would work if we then didn't see John using a form of speech that says that at least by the end of the first century, the Christians were in the habit of getting together on the Lord's Day. 

But none of that really matters does it? Paul tells us to not judge each other on special days but instead that every day should be to the Lord, does he not?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Do not insult another member.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

I would like to apologize to any member here who might have been insulted or hurt by anything I might have said. There was no intention to do so and I am sincerely sorry if I hurt anyone.


----------



## Gritty (Nov 26, 2012)

Likewise, I apologize for any hurtful comments. That was absolutely not my intention.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Gritty said:


> ...and to answer your question: no, I never "took English in school". However, I did study Language Arts and AP English. I would also be happy to share my SAT scores.


So if you did well on your SATs, you understand the various forms of speech. Some of Scripture is figurative ("I am the door."), some is poetry (like Song of Solomon), some are parables (the Good Samaritan), etc. So we need to understand the context and the language of what is said. But I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you. 

So the plucking the eye? Yes, it is better to lose an eye than to burn in hell but we also know that God has given us the ability to overcome sin. If I am an alcoholic, it is better for me to never set foot in a bar or other situation where I will be tempted greatly to have a drink. I must "cut" that part of me in order to avoid the temptation to sin. Make sense?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> Do not insult another member.


Sorry bout that, didnt mean no harm. I will try my best to be more careful in the future. I do enjoy the forum, and appreciate all you mods efforts to keep it running smoothly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> So if you did well on your SATs, you understand the various forms of speech. Some of Scripture is figurative ("I am the door."), some is poetry (like Song of Solomon), some are parables (the Good Samaritan), etc. So we need to understand the context and the language of what is said. But I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you.
> 
> So the plucking the eye? Yes, it is better to lose an eye than to burn in hell but we also know that God has given us the ability to overcome sin. If I am an alcoholic, it is better for me to never set foot in a bar or other situation where I will be tempted greatly to have a drink. I must "cut" that part of me in order to avoid the temptation to sin. Make sense?


That makes sense.... Sort of, but it can be somewhat more difficult to cut some portions out of our lives in order to prevent temptation than just staying out of bars. I think we should work on the base problem, learn to overcome those temptations, and be a living example of God's word. Jesus did not avoid sinners, He forgave us.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> That would work if we then didn't see John using a form of speech that says that at least by the end of the first century, the Christians were in the habit of getting together on the Lord's Day.
> 
> But none of that really matters does it? Paul tells us to not judge each other on special days but instead that every day should be to the Lord, does he not?


I would be interested in reading those texts if you happen to know where they are found.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

> And other than differences in phrasing, the majority of them agree.


Unfortunately the differences in phrasing cause many of them to disagree, which is why there are so many different divisions of Christianity. The differences in phrasing can cause many issues as evidenced by this thread and many others on this forum where people are slinging bible verses back and forth to prove one point or another, sometimes pieces of verses and even discussing the meaning of one word or phrase and then judging others based on one particular shade of interpretation.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Someone can't be "more" saved than the next person just because they have studied the scriptures to death. The simple person living a quiet life, maybe even illiterate and can't read the bible, but who is a believer is going to the same heaven as the bible scholar who dedicated their life to studying the scriptures and all their interpretations to get some deeper understanding of it.

Jesus was a simple man with a simple message,"believe in me and thou shalt be saved". That, along with "love thy neighbor" and "don't judge others" are all that is needed to get oneself into heaven.

I think Christians get so bogged down in the quest for some deeper meaning that they lose sight of the original simple message of love, compassion and forgiveness.

Getting back to the OP, gays wanting a lifetime commitment to each other and wanting the same benefits afforded any other couple does no harm to anyone. Let them have at it.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Weird to see this topic veer off into the irrelevant domain of religion. Your religion cannot and should not have any bearing upon the law. This is the USA, 'government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'. This is not some third world sharia nation where religious zealots impose their beliefs on society.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Traditional morality and this new morality are irreconcilable.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Traditional morality is a myth.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I don't think it is easy but I know it's not impossible. Biblical scholars, common people, and even a Pope have said it is up to each age to interpret scripture. Anybody who says it's meanings are clear are just seeing exactly what they want out of it. There are currently many biblical scholars who have made the argument for and against this issue, both seem to have validity and both seem to want an answer for the benefit of society in general, so neither are wrong as i see it.. it just comes down to a choice.
Just like how the current Pope is considering allowing contraception.. just 30+ years behind the times.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The new morality rushes America's run toward its descent and demise. 

Caligula rules.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

It's ironic how the government is quite happy to accept taxes from gay people but don't see fit to extend them the same benefits as straight people who pay the exact same taxes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If Americans cannot agree on its morals how can it thrive or even survive??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> If Americans cannot agree on its morals how can it thrive or even survive??


If Americans all agreed on its morals, there would be no need in attempting to legislate them. (which is rarely successful) Morals are best left to being taught, not legislated.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

America since the 1960s has entered a period of relativism. The lack of moral anchor and absolutes leads us further toward an even more self-indulgent society only wanting personal gain and pleasure with a greater attitude of entitlement. 

We become ripe for more rigid leadership or social upheaval and dictatorial leadership.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> America since the 1960s has entered a period of relativism. The lack of moral anchor and absolutes leads us further toward a even more self-indulgent society only wanting personal gain and pleasure with a greater attitude of entitlement. Ripe for more rigid leadership or social upheaval and dictatorial leadership.


I think a lot of the loss of our moral anchor in the 60s was brought about by the introduction of "the pill". This led to the "sexual revolution" breeding more self indulgence, less need for the old morals. 

aint technology grand!?!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That makes sense.... Sort of, but it can be somewhat more difficult to cut some portions out of our lives in order to prevent temptation than just staying out of bars. I think we should work on the base problem, learn to overcome those temptations, and be a living example of God's word. Jesus did not avoid sinners, He forgave us.


Very true but for some people, they DO have to go to extremes to avoid sin. I know one family who eliminated internet at their home because of his addiction to pornography. Yes, he could still get it elsewhere but home was where he accessed it, usually at night when his wife was asleep. It was his decision to get rid of the computer all together and eventually WAS able to get internet back on but with big restrictions put on the computer so that he knew that even if he was tempted, it would not be easy. 

Not everyone needs to go to those extremes but some people do!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would be interested in reading those texts if you happen to know where they are found.


Don't have a lot of time today because I'm working at church setting up the Good Friday and Easter Sunday services but here you go:

John speaking of the Lord's Day - Revelation 1:10 (but you need to realize that it's the Greek tenses, not the English that reflects this)

Colossians 2:16-17 " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Unfortunately the differences in phrasing cause many of them to disagree, which is why there are so many different divisions of Christianity. The differences in phrasing can cause many issues as evidenced by this thread and many others on this forum where people are slinging bible verses back and forth to prove one point or another, sometimes pieces of verses and even discussing the meaning of one word or phrase and then judging others based on one particular shade of interpretation.
> 
> It's all smoke and mirrors. Someone can't be "more" saved than the next person just because they have studied the scriptures to death. The simple person living a quiet life, maybe even illiterate and can't read the bible, but who is a believer is going to the same heaven as the bible scholar who dedicated their life to studying the scriptures and all their interpretations to get some deeper understanding of it.


What percentage of the whole of the Bible is involved in these differences in phrasing?



> Jesus was a simple man with a simple message,"believe in me and thou shalt be saved". That, along with "love thy neighbor" and "don't judge others" are all that is needed to get oneself into heaven.


The "love thy neighbor" and "don't judge others" (which is actually not a concept in Scripture) do not get you into heaven. We only get into heaven by being washed in the blood of the Lamb.



> I think Christians get so bogged down in the quest for some deeper meaning that they lose sight of the original simple message of love, compassion and forgiveness.


I think that the simple message of love, compassion and forgiveness is the absolute base of Christianity but it doesn't mean to accept sin. Christians get bogged down in becoming more like Christ - it's a good thing!



> Getting back to the OP, gays wanting a lifetime commitment to each other and wanting the same benefits afforded any other couple does no harm to anyone. Let them have at it.


But that doesn't have to be "marriage". What about civil partnerships? Why is that not good enough?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Annsni said:


> What percentage of the whole of the Bible is involved in these differences in phrasing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would a civil partnership be good enough for heterosexual couples? If so, then that's the solution. If a church then decides to have a marriage ceremony to consecrate the union would you also accept that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Don't have a lot of time today because I'm working at church setting up the Good Friday and Easter Sunday services but here you go:
> 
> John speaking of the Lord's Day - Revelation 1:10 (but you need to realize that it's the Greek tenses, not the English that reflects this)
> 
> Colossians 2:16-17 " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."


Thanks... I have now looked them up.... and yer right... the Lords day is mentioned in Revelation 1:10... not exactly sure that I would be convinced to change my day of worship over it though. It appears to me to be a very minor detail that happens to be included in a much larger story. Its a bit more definitive than beginning a story with "once upon a time" but basically serves the same purpose, that of giving a reference point as to the timing of the events. (just my humble opinion)

Now to the text found in Colossians... yep, those words are indeed there... and appear to mean pretty much what they say but in my reading of them, they are a part of a much larger picture. Its the bigger picture that captures my attention. Or, as in the case above I think one needs to read more than just a verse or two.... in order to see the bigger picture. Again however this is all just my own opinions, and you are certainly entitled to your own, and again, thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to help me out on this.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Would a civil partnership be good enough for heterosexual couples? If so, then that's the solution. If a church then decides to have a marriage ceremony to consecrate the union would you also accept that?


Yes I would. I would hope that it would not be illegal for a church to deny a homosexual couple from consecrating their union in church, though.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Would a civil partnership be good enough for heterosexual couples? If so, then that's the solution. If a church then decides to have a marriage ceremony to consecrate the union would you also accept that?


I have a problem with that. Marriage never was the property of the church. I am married and it would not be in the church. Married means something important to me and it has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Yes I would. I would hope that it would not be illegal for a church to deny a homosexual couple from consecrating their union in church, though.


I dont see that as being a problem. Churches... so far anyway.... are pretty much able to determine their own rules on such matters.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I have a problem with that. Marriage never was the property of the church. I am married and it would not be in the church. Married means something important to me and it has nothing to do with religion.


I think marriage means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some view it as a religious/spiritual bond, others believe it to be no more than a business contract between two people, complete with prenups, and all sorts of other things in between. This is one of the main reasons I believe the only fair way to deal with the legal issues is to allow everyone the same right to be married to the partner/s of their own choosing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Marriage does not mean much even to man/women couples.
If it did there would not be so many divorces.
Wonder what the % of religious people that are so against same sex marriage
are divorced themselves? What about the members of their own church?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think marriage means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some view it as a religious/spiritual bond, others believe it to be no more than a business contract between two people, complete with prenups, and all sorts of other things in between. This is one of the main reasons I believe the only fair way to deal with the legal issues is to allow everyone the same right to be married to the partner/s of their own choosing.


Which is why I've advocated for the German and northern European solution of having the official ceremony( the one that's state recognized) be done by a govt official. After that, do what you will, call it what you want. Stand before a pastor, priest, rabbi, or shaman, howl at the moon, jump a broom. I don't care. Many of you should look into why we have civil marriage ceremonies in this country. It might just have something to do with govt being tied to a religous ceremony.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Which is why I've advocated for the German and northern European solution of having the official ceremony( the one that's state recognized) be done by a govt official. After that, do what you will, call it what you want. Stand before a pastor, priest, rabbi, or shaman, howl at the moon, jump a broom. I don't care. Many of you should look into why we have civil marriage ceremonies in this country. It might just have something to do with govt being tied to a religous ceremony.


I have been married in this country three times.... once by a preacher... who was duly authorized by the state of Kentucky to perform weddings, one by a Justice of the peace in Tennessee and one by some clown at a 24 hour wedding chapel in Nevada... who was also authorized by the state to perform weddings. This sounds an awful lot like what you describe in those other countries.... as far as I know all marriages in this country are required to be performed by someone authorized by the state... be they a religious entity or not. That really isnt the issue here... the issue is whether or not Jane has the same rights as Joe when it comes to who they want to marry. If Joe can marry Louise, with the official blessings of the state, why shouldnt Jane be able to? As long as Louise is ok with it of course!


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Annsni said:


> What percentage of the whole of the Bible is involved in these differences in phrasing?
> 
> *I"m not overly familiar with all translations of the Bible but it has been pointed out to me many times that certain phrasing is different in many verses, from whole phrases to just certain words. I am a former Christian raised in a strict Christian cult and our Bible was translated in the mid 1800's by a guy named John Nelson Darby who broke away from the catholic church, if I am correct. I have read that Bible a few times in the past and have seen many verses compared to the King James Bible that were worded slightly different.*
> 
> ...


You can call it whatever you want as long as you apply it equally to everybody. The bottom line is that two people care enough for each other to want to join their lives together.

As I said before, what abut a heterosexual couple who can't or never plan on having children? Would you deny them marriage because they will not be involved in procreation?

If a gay couple decide to adopt a child would that put them on even ground with heterosexuals because they are now involved in the care and raising of the next generation? It doesn't matter where children come from, they all deserve to be loved and cared for.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been married in this country three times.... once by a preacher... who was duly authorized by the state of Kentucky to perform weddings, one by a Justice of the peace in Tennessee and one by some clown at a 24 hour wedding chapel in Nevada... who was also authorized by the state to perform weddings. This sounds an awful lot like what you describe in those other countries.... as far as I know all marriages in this country are required to be performed by someone authorized by the state... be they a religious entity or not. That really isnt the issue here... the issue is whether or not Jane has the same rights as Joe when it comes to who they want to marry. If Joe can marry Louise, with the official blessings of the state, why shouldnt Jane be able to? As long as Louise is ok with it of course!


The official ceremony in Gemany must be done by a govt official, not just someone liscensed by the govt. Maybe a fine distinction. I'd be happy if you just had to file the proper paperwork and the union would be recognized. Whatever happens after that is between you and yours.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I can see that marriage came from a faith based culture. 

A lack of marriage does not prevent persons from having sex, or children or living together.

Marriage did not come from goverment and government can not provide a marriage.

Government can document and record legal commitments and then control and support them.

Marriage is not for the children as if it was then a marriage could only be after children entered into the grouping.

Marriage is for the man and the woman and their faith.

The reduction of faith and the strenth of the government has altered the marriage.

My fear --and I am not alone is that governments in the future will force faith based groups into performing a faith based ritual in a manner not in keeping with the faith based group simply because some one wants an event that a certain faith based group does.

It would be better in my view to provide --as many nations do Civil Unions --reg at and with with government and soley for the sake of validateing the commitment that the parties have agreed too.

Marriages would return to be a union centerned on faith and a Civic Union would be a legal Union. Marriages would have to be validated via a Civic union agreement for the government to be involed both in recording and allowing any benifts to.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Some want to debate the colors in the palette. I want agreement on the picture we are painting.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I can see that marriage came from a faith based culture.
> 
> A lack of marriage does not prevent persons from having sex, or children or living together.
> 
> ...


My marriage is for my spouse and I and has nothing what so ever to do with faith unless it is our faith in each other.

Marriage existed before faith and had to do with ownership of property. In other words legalities not faith or religion.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> My marriage is for my spouse and I and has nothing what so ever to do with faith unless it is our faith in each other.


Same here.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paint

See you have grown up with the distortion of mariage. Mariage was done in faith based cultures and when non faith based culture learned of the ceramony people wanted the ceramony and since they also wanted a union with someone the word was miss used . In many of the European countries first people get a lic and then a civic event is held those wanting a faith base wedding have to use the faith rule-- People of faith do get turned down for weddings by the faith based leaders and it is the leader who approve if they will and how they will conduct the event.


Persons of the faith know this and accept it--how soon will a person sue if they are turned down by a faith based group for a wedding.

Since your union is not based in faith your union could have been a Civic Union --weddings could still happen and a union is the same as a mariage but lack a faith part. 

Sorta like catholic have conformations and not bar mitzas we can be different and not distort people with beliefs in faith.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Paint
> 
> See you have grown up with the distortion of mariage. Mariage was done in faith based cultures and when non faith based culture learned of the ceramony people wanted the ceramony and since they also wanted a union with someone the word was miss used . In many of the European countries first people get a lic and then a civic event is held those wanting a faith base wedding have to use the faith rule-- People of faith do get turned down for weddings by the faith based leaders and it is the leader who approve if they will and how they will conduct the event.
> 
> ...


You are the one who is trying to fit marriage to what you want it to be based on your faith. History proves you wrong over and over again.

You are talking about the marriage sacrament not a marriage ceremony. They are two very different things. One is religion based and one is not. You may wish marriage is only faith based but it is not.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

The origin of marriage was to consolidate power and money and establish inheritances of power and money.

Yes, it was largely about procreation but not out of a desire to populate the community with cute babies, but to keep power and monies in the family.

The concept of marriage based on romantic love is a relatively modern concept, and for most of history in most cultures, up until quite recently was considered foolish.

It's already been redefined, and more than once, and Christians, as much as many wish it were true, don't own it either as an institution or etymologically.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ah but it was the ceremony that was want by non faith people and the faith want the sacrament. 

History shows that both types of joining people together the parties were labled wife and husband in the tongue of the people but those in a faith had a sacrament and ceremony those with out faith simple had a ceremony. 

the joining of people historicaly was not of romance and love but for the the most part peace or economical reasons. Historical in mariages it took faith in something to learn who you were paired with. It was not even in non faith groups a free will event. But why bother with facts when people should have what they want, when they want, how they want. There are fewer standards or boundries.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Ah but it was the ceremony that was want by non faith people and the faith want the sacrament.
> 
> History shows that both types of joining people together the parties were labled wife and husband in the tongue of the people but those in a faith had a sacrament and ceremony those with out faith simple had a ceremony.
> 
> the joining of people historicaly was not of romance and love but for the the most part peace or economical reasons. Historical in mariages it took faith in something to learn who you were paired with. It was not even in non faith groups a free will event. But why bother with facts when people should have what they want, when they want, how they want. There are fewer standards or boundries.


Huh? Did you just say I was right? I think you did.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, but since you wish to interpert and redefine words you might think that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> No, but since you wish to interpert and redefine words you might think that.


I am not into misinterpreting and redefining words..... but the two posts sure seem to come across as fundamentally the same to me. Two basic kinds of marriage... one faith based with a bit more flavor than the other type, which included only the ceremony. Both posts reflect the "newness" historically speaking of romance being involved while the old version was a matter of property and power. :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We were posting at the same time. The diffence is that in the faith base was and should be is the following of the faith based structure of the union-- both are unions one mariage had and name and it was mariage in the tongue of the culture. In Societies where faith base were the minority they were view as doing it differnt.

The non faith bases society mirroed much of the faith base but the mind set is diffent in that beyond a vow between two the vow included a higher power.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> We were posting at the same time. The diffence is that in the faith base was and should be is the following of the faith based structure of the union-- both are unions one mariage had and name and it was mariage in the tongue of the culture. In Societies where faith base were the minority they were view as doing it differnt.
> 
> The non faith bases society mirroed much of the faith base but the mind set is diffent in that beyond a vow between two the vow included a higher power.


I still see no difference. They are both marriages. Some want their marriage sanctioned by their religion. Some do not have religion and need no such sanction. 

For your information marriage, weddings, hand fasting what ever word was used then or now took place before religion and therefore marriage does not have to have anything to do with faith. It was a cultural and legal joining of two( or more ) people. It is still that and often more but still not the domain of religion or God.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I understand you can't grasp faith --and there for can not understand the differenct and that is ok. 

Please note I have used faith because there are many different ways in which a culture has express a faith --some like use the word religion and then fight over if it is a real religion.

In your understanding you seem to not have and Adam and Eve paired by God and united by God. with out that belief you can't accept that faith came before doing what ever feels good. 

You are where you are in your understanding and I am where I am in my understanding ---how accepting that those who have a faith base center do not feel the need to conform thier belief structer for the acceptence by others. I am not forceing you to change but since even studies of evolution points to the human population as having a common ancetior I do see the Bible as having a great deal of information on a lifestyle that encourages reponcablity and growth.


(show me a time or culture that has ever deviated from the following-- I am open to learning) 

Marriage is between one man and one woman

My understanding is that there has always been that way and that there were other types of relationships
mistress
ladies of the court
harems 
'close male friends of the roman times
spinsters who lived together as a unit 

yet never was there a confusion as to what was a marriage till recent times. None of the relationship listed above attempted to claim to be "married" they did claim that they were a family unit----and society accepted such groupings as a unique relationship on to themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I understand you can't grasp faith --and there for can not understand the differenct and that is ok.
> 
> Please note I have used faith because there are many different ways in which a culture has express a faith --some like use the word religion and then fight over if it is a real religion.
> 
> ...


I do not have to believe in Adam and Eve to have faith or even understand it. Your assumption that, that precludes me from understanding faith is myopic.

The simple fact that marriage existed before and separate from faith is history. That means that you get to have your faith based marriage and I get to have my non faith based marriage. You are free to dislike or not accept mine. You are however not free to decide I can't have one.

That is the crux of the whole situation. People with faith and religion are trying to hijack what others believe marriage is and impose their own rules. That would be forcing.

Go ahead live your convictions and choices stay out of other's.

By the way. Cultures have and still do have marriages of one man and many wives. Not your definition of one man and one women. Some research on your own would be easy and enlightening.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> By the way. Cultures have and still do have marriages of one man and many wives.


Which is exactly what this ruling could open the door for. 

Why doesn't it stand to reason that, based on the 'civil rights' and 'people should be able to love/marry whomever they choose' arguments, the same justification could be used for polygamy? 

That's why I've asked......if you (generic) support the argument for homosexual marriage, would you support the same for polygamist marriages? Incestuous? Mentally disabled? Do civil rights apply to those individuals, too?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Which is exactly what this ruling could open the door for.
> 
> Why doesn't it stand to reason that, based on the 'civil rights' and 'people should be able to love/marry whomever they choose' arguments, the same justification could be used for polygamy?
> 
> That's why I've asked......if you (generic) support the argument for homosexual marriage, would you support the same for polygamist marriages? Incestuous? Mentally disabled? Do civil rights apply to those individuals, too?


I see no reason to not allow consenting polygamist marriages. I don't like the idea of incestuous marriages but they were at one time a fact of life in certain cultures. Mentally disabled can and do get married.

The reason you seem to think the above marriages are bad is because of intimate body connections and producing of offspring. You do know that they could be doing that without the legal sanction of marriage. Marriage only legitimizes the legal connection.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Which is exactly what this ruling could open the door for.
> 
> Why doesn't it stand to reason that, based on the 'civil rights' and 'people should be able to love/marry whomever they choose' arguments, the same justification could be used for polygamy?
> 
> That's why I've asked......if you (generic) support the argument for homosexual marriage, would you support the same for polygamist marriages? Incestuous? Mentally disabled? Do civil rights apply to those individuals, too?


Yes, I support anyones right to marry any other adult they happen to love, or even just want to enjoy their money.... as long as that other adult is ok with it. Its none of my business what the next feller (or gal) does as long as they are capable of giving their consent and are aware of the deal they are engaging in. Civil rights apply to everyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Which is exactly what this ruling could open the door for.


And wouldnt that just be awful! not sure why, but I am sure someone will be along to explain the horrific dangers of a woman having two husbands.... one to cook, the other to clean!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> (show me a time or culture that has ever deviated from the following-- I am open to learning)
> 
> Marriage is between one man and one woman


Hoo boy, another Christian who doesn't read his Bible!

Remember Jacob, who labored 7 years in order to marry Rachel, but was tricked into marrying Leah instead, and thus had to work another span to obtain the wife he desired? Then he went out and married a couple more, IIRC. 

Polygamy was the norm in Biblical times. :shrug:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Hoo boy, another Christian who doesn't read his Bible!
> 
> Remember Jacob, who labored 7 years in order to marry Rachel, but was tricked into marrying Leah instead, and thus had to work another span to obtain the wife he desired? Then he went out and married a couple more, IIRC.
> 
> Polygamy was the norm in Biblical times. :shrug:


History even in the Bible is no proof to anyone that wants to have everyone else live their version of what should be. It is really sad in my opinion.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Marriage is between one man and one woman
> 
> My understanding is that there has always been that way and that there were other types of relationships
> mistress
> ...


 
It wasn't until recent times that people were rewarded for being married.
Now there are all kinds of rewards given to married couples. These same rewards are not given to other couples no matter how long they are together.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

WG--Love those verses in the bible. What you seem to be expressing to me is that that he worked and instead of Rachel he got the other sister --and he raised goat --spotted ones too 

So you might be bringing into play that the dude and society and that I did not cover the issues with multi wifes. Well you seem to over look two aspect of my post

One where I posted the harems whis is my peace with that and that peace is due to that being in the old testiment ( if one wants to push insects one only has to read Job and his girls and overlook the result or cheating and turn to David murder and turn to David ) --there are different extras type of relations ship in cultures and you also can't understand the Old testiment vs the new testmeent and the implications Jesus had and the faith --(faith is not just knowledge from a source but it is the belief in something unseen--as in not logical in the terms or understanding of the world).

Using just a source for a faith does not instill faith in the person studing a faith. 

With out faith a person can not understand the impact that it has in anothers life and views. You if I remember right do not have a faith in a christian way or Judao so I accept that you are impeaded from understanding faith in action. You have what you have and you have ther right to freewill and so do those of faith. I believe that in a world with so many views that it will be the way of the government of a society that will mold the various views as in who they will be expressed in that society and in the history of that society.

Right now in America things are shifting but people of faith still must lead their lives by their faith. It is not my place to pound it in and force you or anyone to agree to my faith but to hide it would be wroung --it you can see it does not mean that it does not exist it is where you are at just as it is were I am at. For me to bow to anything that goes against my faith would me I lack the faith so I can be vocal and lose the debate yet thur my faith if I stand by it will in the end be worth it. So, maybe I look like a fool to some trying to explain a poilitcal position impacted by faith to those who lack the faith. I tried. That matters.

My understanding of mariage via my faith is that when one freely goes out side of one man and one woman that hardship and challeges are faces--Look to the Bible and the hardships Jacob, David, Hoses, Lots daughters, faced. It is kinda a leason for me. You do what you want support politcally what you believe --I just know that God wins in the end--not you or me but God.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yes Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah. Not their brother Leon. 
God did not give Jacob 2 wives though. Nor did he give Abraham 2, or Isaac.
Jesus said because of the people's hard heart God allowed such things. He didn't set them up. 
He NEVER okayed same sex couples though. 
God set up one woman one man.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

This was posted on another forum that I participate on:


> "When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
> 
> When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
> 
> ...


For those of you who say homosexuality is wrong because of what you have read in the bible, do you plant more than one crop in a field, or do you wear clothes made of two different kinds of threads? Even if you don't, are you willing to stone those who do?

How about eating pork? I believe many here raise and eat their own pigs; if homosexuality is an "abomination," then how is it ok for you to eat your homegrown bacon?

For the males, do you cut your hair, even though it is forbidden in Lev. 19:27?

What about working on the sabbath? Exodus 35:2 says that anybody who works on the sabbath should be put to death. If you are going to claim that homosexuality is an abomination, then what about all those people who work on the sabbath in the grocery store you stop at after church, or the restaurant you and your family sometimes have Sunday brunch at? Shouldn't they all be put to death?

How do you feel about selling your daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7)? For those who have several daughters, perhaps you could pay off your mortgage early by doing so (unfortunately, all I had were sons).

So, for those of you who claim to follow the bible, how do you justify trying to deny people the right to marry the person they're attracted to, and who they love and want to make a commitment to and to create a home with and to possibly raise children with, but not stone your neighbor for working on the sabbath?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I don't like the idea of incestuous marriages but they were at one time a fact of life in certain cultures.


The fact that they were a fact of life in other cultures doesn't mean they should be a fact of life here, now.

But I'd be interested to know _why_ you don't like the idea of incestuous marriages being legalized. Wouldn't they, too, fall under the 'civil rights' heading?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Zilli said:


> This was posted on another forum that I participate on:For those of you who say homosexuality is wrong because of what you have read in the bible, do you plant more than one crop in a field, or do you wear clothes made of two different kinds of threads? Even if you don't, are you willing to stone those who do?
> 
> How about eating pork? I believe many here raise and eat their own pigs; if homosexuality is an "abomination," then how is it ok for you to eat your homegrown bacon?
> 
> ...


How do I justify it based on Scripture? Easy. What you have posted is called "The Law". It was given to the Israelites for a few reasons: to protect them, to set them apart and to show them that they cannot possibly live perfectly and earn their way to heaven. In Christ coming to the earth to live and then to die (as we celebrate this holy weekend), He fulfilled the law completely. No longer is there a sacrifice for sin. No longer do we need to follow the law. 

HOWEVER, we now have the New Covenant as is shown in the New Testament. 9 of the 10 Commandments have been restated by Jesus. The one that hasn't is the Sabbath - and Christ told us that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Additionally, God's heart is shown to us through the New Testament and we can see clearly what is right and wrong. Jesus Himself defined marriage for us and Paul spoke regarding homosexuality. So while the law has been fulfilled and we are no longer under the law, we don't point to that for proof that homosexuality is not God's desire or best for us but instead point to the New Testament.

Does that answer the question?

Oh and I just want to say that those who work on Sunday are not working on the Sabbath. Sabbath is from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. Working on Sunday is fine.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Zilli said:


> So, in other words, you cherry pick what you consider "law." Gotcha.'


Nope - not at all. Just framing it in the blood of Jesus Christ. 





> So, then, you kill those who work anytime from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday?


Only the Israelites.



> How do you do that? Do you stone them?


No - I cannot stone them since I have sin as well.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> The fact that they were a fact of life in other cultures doesn't mean they should be a fact of life here, now.
> 
> But I'd be interested to know _why_ you don't like the idea of incestuous marriages being legalized. Wouldn't they, too, fall under the 'civil rights' heading?


My not liking it and my prohibiting someone else from doing it is not the same thing.


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> But the minor, by themself, cannot enter into the contract of marriage. Nothing changes.


Actually, a minor can petition a court for emancipation. McAuley Calkin (sp?) is an example of that. Once emancipated they are allowed to enter into contracts and manage their affairs in their own name. IANAL


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> My not liking it and my prohibiting someone else from doing it is not the same thing.


Would you object to it on moral grounds?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> No - I cannot stone them since I have sin as well.


 I was always under the impression that He would forgive all our sins, everything from back yard gate gossip to murder. Is fornication in a special unforgivable group of sins? Just curious here. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Only the Israelites.


Interesting... and how do we know if a feller is an Israelite in todays world? Researching family trees is rarely conclusive. Throughout history we find that not everyones parents are necessarily who they are thought to be. That old "mama's baby.... papa's maybe" thing. Then theres that whole lost tribe thing... where did they vanish off to? What nationalities did they mingle with? My point is that any of us could be "Israelites".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Would you object to it on moral grounds?


I do not object to it. I do not like it. Just as I don't like older people having a relationship with a teenager even if they are consenting and of a legal age. 

There are lots of things I do not like or approve of in this world. I however will not want to impose my approval or disapproval on someone else's life unless it is forced or hurts them, I will feel free to let them know of my disapproval if I feel strongly enough in a way that I hope makes them thoughtful.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Kind of moot until the act of incest is made legal in America no?



Txsteader said:


> Would you object to it on moral grounds?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

primal1 said:


> Kind of moot until the act of incest is made legal in America no?


Interesting.... is it even illegal? if all parties are over the age of consent, and willing participants? I honestly have never heard of any law against it. :shrug:


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I wasn't sure either..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
Canada

Under Canadian law, incest is defined as having a sexual relationship with a sibling (including half-sibling), child/parent or grandchild/grandparent while knowing the existence of the blood relationship. It is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. A person who commits incest with someone under the age of 16 is liable to a minimum imprisonment of 5 years.[30] A conviction for incest also places the offenders on the Sex Offenders Registry for the rest of their life.[citation needed]
[edit]
United States

In the United States the District of Columbia and every state, except Rhode Island, have some form of codified incest prohibition.[31] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[31] Ohio only targets parental figures,[31] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[31] A conviction for incest attracts the following penalties by state:
5 years imprisonment in Hawaii
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Three convictions or more of incest also require the offenders to register as "Sex Offenders"


In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:
Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew
First cousins (in some states)

Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations, including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[32]

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has questioned the rationale behind laws prohibiting incest, at least as they apply to sex between adults.[33]


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

primal1 said:


> Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations, including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[32]


Yep, I just did a quick search.... Kentucky is one of those states that include step siblings, step parents. I find that interesting because I met an interesting family once while working the real estate biz. We had a step brother and sister that were married to each other.... the thing looked a bit better after we learned that the kids had gotten married before the two parents... a widow and widower who had met one another thanks to the kids relationship. Wonder reckon how that would play out in court if a fuss was made?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... is it even illegal? if all parties are over the age of consent, and willing participants? I honestly have never heard of any law against it. :shrug:


You have GOT to be kidding me!

Please! PLEASE tell me you know _why_ there are laws regarding incest.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> You have GOT to be kidding me!
> 
> Please! PLEASE tell me you know _why_ there are laws regarding incest.


The only reason for laws against incest that I can think of would be the once popular theory that it produces genetic related birth defects.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I was always under the impression that He would forgive all our sins, everything from back yard gate gossip to murder. Is fornication in a special unforgivable group of sins? Just curious here. :shrug:


He doesn't ignore our sins. "If we CONFESS our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Additionally, He says "No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Confession and repentance. Repentance is to change your mind and make an about-face. You can't just keep repeating your sin over and over again and think "Well, God forgives everything so I'm good." Sorry, that doesn't work that way.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting... and how do we know if a feller is an Israelite in todays world? Researching family trees is rarely conclusive. Throughout history we find that not everyones parents are necessarily who they are thought to be. That old "mama's baby.... papa's maybe" thing. Then theres that whole lost tribe thing... where did they vanish off to? What nationalities did they mingle with? My point is that any of us could be "Israelites".


And when we are in Christ, there is no Jew nor Greek.  So as Christians - one who is "in Christ" - there is no longer the law.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The only reason for laws against incest that I can think of would be the once popular theory that it produces genetic related birth defects.


What do you mean "once popular theory"? It no longer is understood that inbreeding causes birth defects? I'd better tell my horse breeding friends that they were wrong!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The only reason for laws against incest that I can think of would be the once popular theory that it produces genetic related birth defects.


Once popular theory???? 

*Inbreeding* might produce 'unique' dogs and cats, but do we really want to play w/ human life in that manner?

Remember the character in the Dueling Banjos scene in Deliverance? :indif:

God, help us!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Once popular theory????
> 
> *Inbreeding* might produce 'unique' dogs and cats, but do we really want to play w/ human life in that manner?
> 
> ...


If you use inbreeding as a reason to have a law against it, then you should be able to be able to have forced sterilization for other inherited medical problems. How about genetic testing in fetuses and abortion because of that.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If you use inbreeding as a reason to have a law against it, then you should be able to be able to have forced sterilization for other inherited medical problems. How about genetic testing in fetuses and abortion because of that.


Once a life is created, it's too late, IMO.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Once popular theory????
> 
> *Inbreeding* might produce 'unique' dogs and cats, but do we really want to play w/ human life in that manner?
> 
> ...


 yes, I remember the Dueling Banjos scene in Deliverance.... are you suggesting that Hoyt Pollard's condition is a result of incest?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yes, I remember the Dueling Banjos scene in Deliverance.... are you trying to say that boys condition is a result of incest?


As I understand it, that was the intended idea by the filmmakers.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Here is a recent article that explains that incest causing birth defects - especially in first degree relatives - is NOT a "theory".

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> As I understand it, that was the intended *idea by the filmmakers.*


Yeppers, and hollywood filmakers ALWAYS present everything as accurately as possible, and everything posted on the internet has to be true.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and hollywood filmakers ALWAYS present everything as accurately as possible, and everything posted on the internet has to be true.


See my post above. It's ..... SCIENCE!!!!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> Here is a recent article that explains that incest causing birth defects - especially in first degree relatives - is NOT a "theory".
> 
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest


right


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and hollywood filmakers ALWAYS present everything as accurately as possible, and everything posted on the internet has to be true.


Well, you do the research. Studies have proven an increase in morbidity and mortality among populations that practice incest/inbreeding. 

But hey, who are we to tell people what not to do, right?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? The answer is simple. The problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect. Take the results of a study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first degree relatives. Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent were mildly mentally impaired. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group &#8212; the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers&#8217; relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect (Figure 1).

A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) (here). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent.

*that's from the link I posted a couple of posts back**


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> See my post above. It's ..... SCIENCE!!!!!!!


I just finished reading the article... very impressive. Here is the downside to it.... it was written by an obviously biased individual who "cited" a study supposedly done by some group in a foreign land.... which group doesnt show up on a quick search. It could be legit.... but I have read other articles with easier to locate citations that make different claims, basically "all over the board" results that seems to indicate that there is more problem in closed gene pools than with "line breeding". These studies have been done with various animals as well as a fair amount of research with humans. I you wish to research it further, a good place to begin would be with the "blue people" that were the inspiration for those ever so lovable "smurfs" of cartoon fame. (thats where I began)


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I just finished reading the article... very impressive. Here is the downside to it.... it was written by an obviously biased individual who "cited" a study supposedly done by some group in a foreign land.... which group doesnt show up on a quick search. It could be legit.... but I have read other articles with easier to locate citations that make different claims, basically "all over the board" results that seems to indicate that there is more problem in closed gene pools than with "line breeding". These studies have been done with various animals as well as a fair amount of research with humans. I you wish to research it further, a good place to begin would be with the "blue people" that were the inspiration for those ever so lovable "smurfs" of cartoon fame. (thats where I began)


Can you show a study with first order relatives that shows no affect on offspring?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

How in the heck did incest get mixed into the conversation about gay marriage? Look, you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to a homosexual.
And now some folks are bringing up 'science'?? Aren't these some of the same folks that tell us the earth is 6000 years old? And Moses rode a dinosaur? Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> How in the heck did incest get mixed into the conversation about gay marriage? Look, you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to a homosexual.
> And now some folks are bringing up 'science'?? Aren't these some of the same folks that tell us the earth is 6000 years old? And Moses rode a dinosaur? Thanks, but no thanks.


If the argument is "anyone should marry anyone they want", then why can't a mother marry her son? THAT is the question. And the "science" is from a secular source (Psychology Today) that I most likely would not think is very "young earth Christian".


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Annsni said:


> If the argument is "anyone should marry anyone they want", then why can't a mother marry her son? THAT is the question. And the "science" is from a secular source (Psychology Today) that I most likely would not think is very "young earth Christian".


 Again, incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. We're not talking about 'mothers marrying sons' or 'men marrying donkeys', we're talking about two people who want to be committed to each other. How does it affect you personally if two women want to be in a committed relationship?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Again, incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. We're not talking about 'mothers marrying sons' or 'men marrying donkeys', we're talking about two people who want to be committed to each other. How does it affect you personally if two women want to be in a committed relationship?


No, but if the argument is that two consenting adults who love each other should not be disallowed to marry. I say that marriage is open to all living people - within guidelines. You can't keep saying "Well, it's not about that, it's about this!" when it's about both. If someone can say "A mother cannot marry a father," then there are limits to marriage.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Actually i am totally perplexed by the laws against step siblings/parents, just no logic to me, they are not blood and it's only in legal paper work that they are even related.. so not sure how that even came about.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I just did a quick search.... Kentucky is one of those states that include step siblings, step parents. I find that interesting because I met an interesting family once while working the real estate biz. We had a step brother and sister that were married to each other.... the thing looked a bit better after we learned that the kids had gotten married before the two parents... a widow and widower who had met one another thanks to the kids relationship. Wonder reckon how that would play out in court if a fuss was made?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> How does it affect you personally if two women want to be in a committed relationship?


Or if a brother wants to be in a committed relationship w/ his sister. It's all good, right? It's their civil right, right? Just two people who want to be in a committed relationship. :thumb:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Or if a brother wants to be in a committed relationship w/ his sister. It's all good, right? It's their civil right, right? Just two people who want to be in a committed relationship. :thumb:


 Again, the subject of incest has ZERO relevance to the topic of gay marriage. What is so hard to understand about that??


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Again, the subject of incest has ZERO relevance to the topic of gay marriage. What is so hard to understand about that??


If the argument is that people should have the right to marry anyone they want, then it has plenty of relevance to the topic.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

If homosexuality was still illegal I might agree with you... BUT IT'S NOT!



Annsni said:


> If the argument is that people should have the right to marry anyone they want, then it has plenty of relevance to the topic.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

primal1 said:


> If homosexuality was still illegal I might agree with you... BUT IT'S NOT!


No, but in many states, it is illegal for homosexuals to marry because homosexual marriage does not fit into the definition of marriage. So, again, the argument is that people should be allowed to marry anyone they want - but the vast majority of people actually don't believe that because they DO have some restrictions on what marriage would be (polygamy) or who people can marry (immediate family).


----------

