View Full Version : Gay Marriage: For or Against?
Charnock
08-30-2010, 05:00 PM
Gay marriage will eventually be legal in the United States.
As such, what should the church have to say about the issue?
How do you feel about the issue?
Do you believe a gay person should have a legal right to marry? If so, which do you think is most important, that person's individual liberty (rights as an American), or God's opposition to homosexuality?
Should the church remain silent on this issue, or should the church work the political system to preserve traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays.
Which should a Christian be most concerned with; protecting individual liberties or declaring Bible absolutes?
Cindy
08-30-2010, 05:07 PM
I am for happy marriages, I am not for marriage between the same sex.
Charnock
08-30-2010, 05:08 PM
I am for happy marriages, I am not for marriage between the same sex.
Why?
Cindy
08-30-2010, 05:12 PM
Why?
I believe God, He says it's an abomination. Can't get much plainer than that.
rgcraig
08-30-2010, 05:13 PM
I am for happy marriages, I am not for marriage between the same sex.
Why?
Because happy marriages are healthy!
Because the Good Book gives us direction.
TGBTG
08-30-2010, 05:45 PM
1 Cor 6 (NKJV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
coadie
08-30-2010, 06:59 PM
Now we have statistics that tell us gays don't want marriage. apparently they do want weddings. The average gay marriage breaks up in less than 2 years. That broken marriage has on the average, 8 sexual encounters for each person outside the marriage in those 2 years.
Liberal
08-30-2010, 07:20 PM
Now we have statistics that tell us gays don't want marriage. apparently they do want weddings. The average gay marriage breaks up in less than 2 years. That broken marriage has on the average, 8 sexual encounters for each person outside the marriage in those 2 years.
Where did you get this statistic? How is there even enough date to assemble this stat since gay marriage has only been legal a short time?
Cindy
08-30-2010, 08:24 PM
Where did you get this statistic? How is there even enough date to assemble this stat since gay marriage has only been legal a short time?
You can make up statistics for most anything. Doesn't mean it's true.
coadie
08-30-2010, 08:25 PM
Where did you get this statistic? How is there even enough date to assemble this stat since gay marriage has only been legal a short time?
Gays travel to where they can have a wedding.
Kennedy, D. James; Newcombe, Jerry. What’s Wrong with Same Sex Marriage? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004):
What does a homosexual marriage look like? Well, the longest term that we have available to look at is in the Netherlands. Researchers found that the average “marriage” between two men lasts one and a half years. Furthermore, during that time, men have eight other partners per year. — Dr. James Kennedy2
The Netherlands has this marriage since 1990.
People want happiness. It appears same sex marriage doesn't provide that.
Gays travel to where they can have a wedding.
Kennedy, D. James; Newcombe, Jerry. What’s Wrong with Same Sex Marriage? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004):
What does a homosexual marriage look like? Well, the longest term that we have available to look at is in the Netherlands. Researchers found that the average “marriage” between two men lasts one and a half years. Furthermore, during that time, men have eight other partners per year. — Dr. James Kennedy2
The Netherlands has this marriage since 1990.
People want happiness. It appears same sex marriage doesn't provide that.
How long does the average marriage last between a man and a woman in that country?
coadie
08-30-2010, 08:43 PM
How long does the average marriage last between a man and a woman in that country?
By now you know I am a straight forward guy. I have no idea.
Actually the question of duration of marriage is now a bad question. With high cohabitation rates, marriage is more common with church people. In the case of shacking up, they create no divorce stats. So when they say divorce rates are just as high in church folk, that doesn't comment on non church folks just don't get married.
pelathais
08-30-2010, 08:45 PM
I have just one question for "gays" who want to get married...
"What are you? NUTS?"
Two questions, I guess.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 08:59 PM
Gay marriage will eventually be legal in the United States.
As such, what should the church have to say about the issue?
How do you feel about the issue?
Do you believe a gay person should have a legal right to marry? If so, which do you think is most important, that person's individual liberty (rights as an American), or God's opposition to homosexuality?
Should the church remain silent on this issue, or should the church work the political system to preserve traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays.
Which should a Christian be most concerned with; protecting individual liberties or declaring Bible absolutes?
i don't have an issue with gay marriage being legal. Not all people believe homosexuality is wrong. They should not have lessor rights simply because they believe something different.
Jason B
08-30-2010, 09:05 PM
100% against
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:06 PM
i don't have an issue with gay marriage being legal. Not all people believe homosexuality is wrong. They should not have lessor rights simply because they believe something different.
They don't have lesser rights,. Every unmarried male of legal age has the right to marry an unmarried female of a legal age.
Today, homosexual males can't marry homosexual males. Heterosexual males can't marry heterosexual males. How equal can it be? Heterosexual males can't marry homosexual males. Same matrix for females.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:08 PM
They don't have lesser rights,. Every unmarried male of legal age has the right to marry an unmarried female of a legal age.
Today, homosexual males can't marry homosexual males. Heterosexual males can't marry heterosexual males. How equal can it be? Heterosexual males can't marry homosexual males. Same matrix for females.
They do not have the right to marry who they want to. Thus, they do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.
commonsense
08-30-2010, 09:09 PM
against gay marriage
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:16 PM
i don't have an issue with gay marriage being legal. Not all people believe homosexuality is wrong. They should not have lessor rights simply because they believe something different.
Having a group not believe it is wrong doesn't give us a reason to change the law. Muslims in Sudan don't see anything wrong with killing parents and taking kids for sex slaves.
Do any liberals vote against abortion?
I believe sex between two persons of the same gender is wrong. We call that homosexuality or the gay or lesbian lifestyle in today's terms. The Bible calls it a man lying with mankind in Leviticus 20:13
However, I don't see how we can legislate that in this country. If we deny marriage to persons of the same sex it is discriminating against certain people.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:19 PM
Having a group not believe it is wrong doesn't give us a reason to change the law. Muslims in Sudan don't see anything wrong with killing parents and taking kids for sex slaves.
Do any liberals vote against abortion?
Yes, there are plenty of liberals who vote against abortion.
Your argument is not valid for this discussion. We are talking about one group having the same legal rights as another group, not killing people.
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:22 PM
They do not have the right to marry who they want to. Thus, they do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.
So laws should be changed to help people satisfy desires? Do you want the right to drive your neighbors car? And do you want the right for the neighbor to say NO to be taken away?
We also have the constitutional right to create amendments to our state constitutions.
You have issues with a civil society.
Christians have a duty to speak against unrighteousness.
Mr. Smith
08-30-2010, 09:23 PM
I believe sex between two persons of the same gender is wrong. We call that homosexuality or the gay or lesbian lifestyle in today's terms. The Bible calls it a man lying with mankind in Leviticus 20:13
However, I don't see how we can legislate that in this country. If we deny marriage to persons of the same sex it is discriminating against certain people.
Now you sound like me arguing for the mosque.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:25 PM
So laws should be changed to help people satisfy desires? Do you want the right to drive your neighbors car? And do you want the right for the neighbor to say NO to be taken away?
We also have the constitutional right to create amendments to our state constitutions.
You have issues with a civil society.
Christians have a duty to speak against unrighteousness.
This is not about changing the law simply to satisfy one group's desire.
This is about changing the law to not discriminate against one group of people.
I have no issue with a civil society. Doing away with discrimination will make us more civil.
crakjak
08-30-2010, 09:25 PM
They do not have the right to marry who they want to. Thus, they do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.
Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.
Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.
Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:26 PM
Now you sound like me arguing for the mosque.
lol, it does sound vaguely similar, doesn't it?
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:28 PM
Yes, there are plenty of liberals who vote against abortion.
Your argument is not valid for this discussion. We are talking about one group having the same legal rights as another group, not killing people.
Your arguments backfired. You said gays should have rights to ordinary marriage if they don't think it is wrong. Using your lack of moral foundation in an argument, if a mom doesn't see anything wrong with an abortin, it should be legal or as in the case of Obama, toddlers are included. If a toddler is inconvenient, they are history. Bury them in a timeout box.
Your warped logic tells us the daddy also should have the right to abort his son or daughter. remember, males and females are equal for the libs.
The irrational libs can't tell us why a 13 year old girl can't be asked to stay overnight by a 30 year old male. They don't see it as wrong.
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:31 PM
Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.
Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.
Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.
The biggest sin for a lib is political incorrectness.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:31 PM
Your arguments backfired. You said gays should have rights to ordinary marriage if they don't think it is wrong. Using your lack of moral foundation in an argument, if a mom doesn't see anything wrong with an abortin, it should be legal or as in the case of Obama, toddlers are included. If a toddler is inconvenient, they are history. Bury them in a timeout box.
Your warped logic tells us the daddy also should have the right to abort his son or daughter. remember, males and females are equal for the libs.
The irrational libs can't tell us why a 13 year old girl can't be asked to stay overnight by a 30 year old male. They don't see it as wrong.
My argument is not to satisfy the individual need of one person.
My argument is not to discriminate towards one group that which is equally allowed to other groups.
I would say non-discrimination is a very moral foundation for this argument.
Mr. Smith
08-30-2010, 09:37 PM
Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.
Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.
Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Times, they are-a changin'.
Whether we like it or not, gay marriage is coming. We may as learn to deal with it because trying to stop it isn't going to work.
Jack Shephard
08-30-2010, 09:40 PM
I am not for it nor against it. I would be more for it than against it if I had a choice, but I don't
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:40 PM
Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.
Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.
Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Heterosexuals want to marry the opposite sex, and they have the ability to. Homosexuals want to marry those of the same sex, however they cannot. That is discrimination.
There are bad instances of family situations on both sides, both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just as capable of raising a family as heterosexuals are. They should not be discriminated against simply because of their beliefs.
crakjak
08-30-2010, 09:41 PM
I believe sex between two persons of the same gender is wrong. We call that homosexuality or the gay or lesbian lifestyle in today's terms. The Bible calls it a man lying with mankind in Leviticus 20:13
However, I don't see how we can legislate that in this country. If we deny marriage to persons of the same sex it is discriminating against certain people.
We discriminate against certain people all the time, and it is good for society.
We discriminate against bestiality, against pedophilia, against polygamy, against murderers, and rapists and many others that are unhealthy for society.
Homosexuality is generally very bad for society, Sodom was an example, the men ignored beautiful women for men with plumbing that had to be used in a dysfunctional manner, rather than becoming husbands and fathers that protect and provide.
If homosexuality is practiced it becomes human desire without bounds, when man removes these boundaries for personal satisfaction
he becomes more and more self-centered. Ultimately society breaks down, and is destroyed.
I make my case against!!
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:42 PM
Times, they are-a changin'.
Whether we like it or not, gay marriage is coming. We may as learn to deal with it because trying to stop it isn't going to work.
Did Sodom and Gomorroh get stopped?
When libs prophesy, I know it isn't true. It looks like the gay advocates are out tonight. The same gay advocates are Muslim advocates. If the Muslims take over, the gay deal will stop. Is that what you libs want?
crakjak
08-30-2010, 09:48 PM
Heterosexuals want to marry the opposite sex, and they have the ability to. Homosexuals want to marry those of the same sex, however they cannot. That is discrimination.
There are bad instances of family situations on both sides, both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just as capable of raising a family as heterosexuals are. They should not be discriminated against simply because of their beliefs.
I will not argue against your points, I will argue that it should not be "marriage", because marriage between a man and a woman is the best for children and for society. We should not change this very basic foundation of society.
Though a particular couple may be capable of raising children it is not the best.We have no history of a culture that totally accepted homosexuality as normal surviving.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:49 PM
Did Sodom and Gomorroh get stopped?
When libs prophesy, I know it isn't true. It looks like the gay advocates are out tonight. The same gay advocates are Muslim advocates. If the Muslims take over, the gay deal will stop. Is that what you libs want?
Sodom and Gomorrah is part of your belief system. It is not part of many others belief system. Why should your beliefs be forced onto them?
coadie
08-30-2010, 09:50 PM
We discriminate against certain people all the time, and it is good for society.
We discriminate against bestiality, against pedophilia, against polygamy, against murderers, and rapists and many others that are unhealthy for society.
Homosexuality is generally very bad for society, Sodom was an example, the men ignored beautiful women for men with plumbing that had to be used in a dysfunctional manner, rather than becoming husbands and fathers that protect and provide.
If homosexuality is practiced it becomes human desire without bounds, when man removes these boundaries for personal satisfaction
he becomes more and more self-centered. Ultimately society breaks down, and is destroyed.
I make my case against!!
http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html
2% of the population is gay. 423% of the seriel killers are known to have had gay relationsips. BTK was not know to have gay interests untill he was cuaght and interrogated.
Homosexuality is often connected with more than 1 mental illness.
Scott Hutchinson
08-30-2010, 09:51 PM
Against it.
Mr. Smith
08-30-2010, 09:52 PM
Did Sodom and Gomorroh get stopped?
When libs prophesy, I know it isn't true. It looks like the gay advocates are out tonight. The same gay advocates are Muslim advocates. If the Muslims take over, the gay deal will stop. Is that what you libs want?
Sodom and Gomorrah were not stopped because of their homosexuality.
crakjak
08-30-2010, 09:53 PM
Heterosexuals want to marry the opposite sex, and they have the ability to. Homosexuals want to marry those of the same sex, however they cannot. That is discrimination.
There are bad instances of family situations on both sides, both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just as capable of raising a family as heterosexuals are. They should not be discriminated against simply because of their beliefs.
Actually homosexuals can marry who they want, the just can't call something that is not marriage, marriage from a legal point of view. Society has provided for their dysfunction, but that is not enough they want complete acceptance by society at large. In the leftist world that already have it, but not in the mainstream, yet.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:54 PM
I will not argue against your points, I will argue that it should not be "marriage", because marriage between a man and a woman is the best for children and for society. We should not change this very basic foundation of society.
Though a particular couple may be capable of raising children it is not the best.We have no history of a culture that totally accepted homosexuality as normal surviving.
I would counter that, homosexuality, for a large part of history, has been prevalent, and yet society still exists.
As for the other points, I agree not to discuss them. It is hard to argue points from the perspective of an entire group. It is too easy to make blanket statements and/or generalizations.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:55 PM
Actually homosexuals can marry who they want, the just can't call something that is not marriage, marriage from a legal point of view. Society has provided for their dysfunction, but that is not enough they want complete acceptance by society at large. In the leftist world that already have it, but not in the mainstream, yet.
True, they can call anything a marriage if they want to, as can anyone. I believe the issue is the legality of the marriage and the rights that follow.
RevDWW
08-30-2010, 09:57 PM
If we deny marriage to persons of the same sex it is discriminating against certain people.
What if a man wants to marry a horse, or dog, or a horse and underaged dog, or three wives, or three husbands, or two wives and a salamander, or marry a 14 year old of the same sex, or marry a corpse........aren't we so bad for discriminating against these folks?????
Liberal
08-30-2010, 09:58 PM
Gays travel to where they can have a wedding.
Kennedy, D. James; Newcombe, Jerry. What’s Wrong with Same Sex Marriage? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004):
What does a homosexual marriage look like? Well, the longest term that we have available to look at is in the Netherlands. Researchers found that the average “marriage” between two men lasts one and a half years. Furthermore, during that time, men have eight other partners per year. — Dr. James Kennedy2
The Netherlands has this marriage since 1990.
People want happiness. It appears same sex marriage doesn't provide that.
The first state to make gay marriage legal was Massachusetts in 2004. How could D. James Kennedy, or anyone else have stats on how long gay marriage lasts in a book they wrote in 2004???
Do you just make this stuff up?
Twisp
08-30-2010, 09:59 PM
What if a man wants to marry a horse, or dog, or a horse and underaged dog, or three wives, or three husbands, or two wives and a salamander, or marry a 14 year old of the same sex, or marry a corpse........aren't we so bad for discriminating against these folks?????
That is a different situation. Animals, children and corpses cannot consent, therefore they cannot legally enter into marriage.
As for polygamy, and polyandry, I feel that if it is between consenting adults, let them go at it.
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:00 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah is part of your belief system. It is not part of many others belief system. Why should your beliefs be forced onto them?
Why should your beliefs be forced on us?
You quote is both dishonest and innacurate. Sodom and Gomorroh is a part of history. Not part of my belief system. Sodomy as a sin is part of my belief system.
11And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
12And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
The libs and God are in opposition on what is good.
The libs are pro abortion and endorse the homosexual agenda.
King James Bible
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Even King Saul got fired for disobedience and then has the nerve to justify disobedeince by saying he pleased the people.
OnTheFritz
08-30-2010, 10:01 PM
The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:02 PM
Why should your beliefs be forced on us?
You quote is both dishonest and innacurate. Sodom and Gomorroh is a part of history. Not part of my belief system. Sodomy as a sin is part of my belief system.
11And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
12And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
The libs and God are in opposition on what is good.
The libs are pro abortion and endorse the homosexual agenda.
King James Bible
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Even King Saul got fired for disobedience and then has the nerve to justify disobedeince by saying he pleased the people.
Their beliefs are not being forced on anyone. They are merely wanting the same legal rights as other groups have. Why do you want to discriminate against them?
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:03 PM
The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.
Agree with you there.
crakjak
08-30-2010, 10:03 PM
I would counter that, homosexuality, for a large part of history, has been prevalent, and yet society still exists.
As for the other points, I agree not to discuss them. It is hard to argue points from the perspective of an entire group. It is too easy to make blanket statements and/or generalizations.
Yes, many lesser conditions have existed in society thru out history, it is only when they reach critical mass that society breaks down.
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:04 PM
That is a different situation. Animals, children and corpses cannot consent, therefore they cannot legally enter into marriage.
As for polygamy, and polyandry, I feel that if it is between consenting adults, let them go at it.
Every one of your arguments are pathetic. Drug dealers and users don't get a free pass by reason of mutual consent.
My children can consent. Wrong on that claim also. Animals also disregard consent. Every night there is date rape amongst cats and dogs in the 'hood.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:07 PM
Every one of your arguments are pathetic. Drug dealers and users don't get a free pass by reason of mutual consent.
My children can consent. Wrong on that claim also. Animals also disregard consent. Every night there is date rape amongst cats and dogs in the 'hood.
No, legally, your children cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with an adult. An animal cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with a human, since they have no way of expressing their consent.
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:20 PM
No, legally, your children cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with an adult. An animal cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with a human, since they have no way of expressing their consent.
Oh now you added "legally". Libs even allow schools to take these girls to abortions without parental notification. Libs teach fornication in sex ed. Obama opposes abstinence education.
You are ready for a teaching moment. Watch rabbits. They don't give verbal consent. They don't get married. Do you know where the little bunnies came from?
A civil society does make laws for the benefit of the culture and this current lib culture wants to destroy civilkity.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:26 PM
Oh now you added "legally". Libs even allow schools to take these girls to abortions without parental notification. Libs teach fornication in sex ed. Obama opposes abstinence education.
Well, yeah, since we were talking about legal issues, I assumed you understood that.
You are ready for a teaching moment. Watch rabbits. They don't give verbal consent. They don't get married. Do you know where the little bunnies came from?
So you have taught me that rabbits have sex with each other? lol
The example given was not one animal mating with another animal, but a human wanting relations with an animal. That would not be possible, since the animal could not give consent to the human.
A civil society does make laws for the benefit of the culture and this current lib culture wants to destroy civilkity.
A civil society does not discriminate against any one group.
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:31 PM
We discriminate against certain people all the time, and it is good for society.
We discriminate against bestiality, against pedophilia, against polygamy, against murderers, and rapists and many others that are unhealthy for society.
Homosexuality is generally very bad for society, Sodom was an example, the men ignored beautiful women for men with plumbing that had to be used in a dysfunctional manner, rather than becoming husbands and fathers that protect and provide.
If homosexuality is practiced it becomes human desire without bounds, when man removes these boundaries for personal satisfaction
he becomes more and more self-centered. Ultimately society breaks down, and is destroyed.
I make my case against!!
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100
different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15%
claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York
1978).
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:34 PM
Well, yeah, since we were talking about legal issues, I assumed you understood that.
So you have taught me that rabbits have sex with each other? lol
The example given was not one animal mating with another animal, but a human wanting relations with an animal. That would not be possible, since the animal could not give consent to the human.
A civil society does not discriminate against any one group.
Jails are full of perps that society caught and their behavior is illegal. Society set the rules. Many are repeat offenders. They are discriminated agains. locked up even. Lose freedom.
Libs are dragging society down hill. Liberation is creating the std epidemics.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:36 PM
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100
different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15%
claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York
1978).
Please provide a link for those statistics.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:37 PM
Jails are full of perps that society caught and their behavior is illegal. Society set the rules. Many are repeat offenders. They are discriminated agains. locked up even. Lose freedom.
Libs are dragging society down hill. Liberation is creating the std epidemics.
Being a homosexual is not illegal. That analogy does not work.
coadie
08-30-2010, 10:44 PM
Please provide a link for those statistics.
(Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York
1978).
You are not educated in research. Not all abstracts and documents are on links.
Your gay agenda is about denying facts and research. Gays have 7 years shorter life expectancy than do smokers. They need a warning label.
"This is tough news. It's not pleasant to hear," said former Education Secretary William Bennett on ABC's This Week Nov. 9. "But it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth." The occasion for tough-but-needed truth telling: Bill Clinton's first-ever presidential speech to an organized gay-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign. Clinton had conferred respectability--wrongly--on the gay quest for approval when in fact, said Bennett, he "should tell the truth on this one": Homosexuality "takes 30 years off your life." The average life expectancy for gay men, Bennett declared, was just 43.
Twisp
08-30-2010, 10:46 PM
(Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York
1978).
You are not educated in research. Not all abstracts and documents are on links.
Your gay agenda is about denying facts and research. Gays have 7 years shorter life expectancy than do smokers. They need a warning label.
i know what research you are referring to. I just wanted you to post it so we could show its context.
The study you are referring to also says that homosexuality is not a choice, but has a biological basis. Do you believe that also?
As far as the number of sexual partners, I am sure if you took a poll of both heterosexuals and homosexuals in 1968, the number of partners would be high on both sides.
Liberal
08-30-2010, 11:21 PM
(Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York
1978).
You are not educated in research. Not all abstracts and documents are on links.
Your gay agenda is about denying facts and research. Gays have 7 years shorter life expectancy than do smokers. They need a warning label.
Mr. Coadie, you have zero credibility with these "statistics" you're citing. You quoted a book that was written in 2004 as saying that gay marriages last an average of two years, when gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere in America until 2004. Then you said homosexuality was stopped when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed when the bible clearly says it was destroyed for other reasons. It's honestly difficult to read your senseless ramblings without getting just a touch upset. Your anti-gay propaganda is ridiculous. Maybe homo-phobia has gotten the better of you.
Mr. Coadie, you have zero credibility with these "statistics" you're citing. You quoted a book that was written in 2004 as saying that gay marriages last an average of two years, when gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere in America until 2004. Then you said homosexuality was stopped when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed when the bible clearly says it was destroyed for other reasons. It's honestly difficult to read your senseless ramblings without getting just a touch upset. Your anti-gay propaganda is ridiculous. Maybe homo-phobia has gotten the better of you.
He doesn't want to get into the biblical reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction because he'd have to acquiesce to a "social gospel" and would have to shell out to widows and orphans or experience God's wrath.... perhaps a campaign against self-absorption, materialism and consumerism guised as self-determination would have to become his life's calling...
This is way more convenient, the color coding of sin ... he can lambaste one pet sin and ignore all of the works of the flesh that have contributed to man's fall and this view of a theocratic America,which he believes is a re-incarnation of Israel from the OT.
It's always easy to have a scapegoat to deflect from our own heart issues.
i know what research you are referring to. I just wanted you to post it so we could show its context.
The study you are referring to also says that homosexuality is not a choice, but has a biological basis. Do you believe that also?
As far as the number of sexual partners, I am sure if you took a poll of both heterosexuals and homosexuals in 1968, the number of partners would be high on both sides.
This is buffet research .... engorge oneself by picking and choosing whatever I fancy.
coadie
08-31-2010, 06:46 AM
Mr. Coadie, you have zero credibility with these "statistics" you're citing. You quoted a book that was written in 2004 as saying that gay marriages last an average of two years, when gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere in America until 2004. Then you said homosexuality was stopped when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed when the bible clearly says it was destroyed for other reasons. It's honestly difficult to read your senseless ramblings without getting just a touch upset. Your anti-gay propaganda is ridiculous. Maybe homo-phobia has gotten the better of you.
Good point. You didn't read the study. The data came from the Netherlands which had 13 years of gay marriage. Pro Gay libs don't do well with studies that don't support the deeds.
Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Looks like Lot knows that knowing them was doing wickedly. sex with males.
Always toss out the Homophobia accusation.
People seem to make stuff up and accuse of phobias.
corvet786c
08-31-2010, 06:47 AM
Its Disgusting and from the Pits of Hell Period.
coadie
08-31-2010, 06:48 AM
He doesn't want to get into the biblical reasons for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction because he'd have to acquiesce to a "social gospel" and would have to shell out to widows and orphans or experience God's wrath.... perhaps a campaign against self-absorption, materialism and consumerism guised as self-determination would have to become his life's calling...
This is way more convenient, the color coding of sin ... he can lambaste one pet sin and ignore all of the works of the flesh that have contributed to man's fall and this view of a theocratic America,which he believes is a re-incarnation of Israel from the OT.
It's always easy to have a scapegoat to deflect from our own heart issues.
Where do you come up with your claims?
Aquila
08-31-2010, 06:57 AM
Let's say this first... ABOMINATION.
One issue I see is that the more we try to codify our religious morality into our civil law the more likely in two or three generations we're going to see Islam trying to codify Shariah into our civil laws (we are already seeing the beginnings of this). I say we go for a perfectly Constitutional and Libertarian approach that protects individual freedoms and liberties. Perhaps we shouldn't make an issue of gay marriage on the civil side. However, conservative churches can refuse to recognize such marriages.
This allows EVERYONE to have their rights, both private individuals and churches.
Those are my initial thoughts. Since I'm not a fan of gay marriage... my opinion is open to be changed if someone can present to me why we should codify our religious position on this matter into civil law.
P.S.
I think the luster around "gay marriage" will wear off once we see a spike in "gay divorce". Given their lifestyle, many, if not most, will choose not to marry. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
coadie
08-31-2010, 07:01 AM
No, legally, your children cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with an adult. An animal cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with a human, since they have no way of expressing their consent.
That is why we eat fried chicken. Your animal consent doctrine is a worthless change of subject.
Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person.
Fetishism: the use of non-sexual or nonliving objects or part of a person's body to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
Frotteurism: the recurrent urges or behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.
Pedophilia: the sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of the victim is sexually exciting.
Transvestic fetishism: a sexual attraction towards the clothing of the opposite gender.
Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities.
Other paraphilias are grouped together under "Other paraphilias not otherwise specified."
Homosexuality was previously listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II, but this was declassified from both DSM-III and DSM-IV, consistent with the change of attitude among and lobbying by gay Psychiatrists. Gay psychologists have no cure for homosexual behavior.
The DSM IV TR will become even more liberal.
. Paraphilias without DSM codes listed come under DSM 302.9, "Paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified)".
A 2009 list contains a total of 547 paraphilias, but leads with the statement that "Not all these paraphilias have necessarily been seen in clinical setups.
A good reason to take homosexuality off the mental illness list means a gay can't get counseling for gay issues and have it covered by insurance.
coadie
08-31-2010, 07:04 AM
Let's say this first... ABOMINATION.
One issue I see is that the more we try to codify our religious morality into our civil law the more likely in two or three generations we're going to see Islam trying to codify Shariah into our civil laws (we are already seeing the beginnings of this). I say we go for a perfectly Constitutional and Libertarian approach that protects individual freedoms and liberties. Perhaps we shouldn't make an issue of gay marriage on the civil side. However, conservative churches can refuse to recognize such marriages.
This allows EVERYONE to have their rights, both private individuals and churches.
Those are my initial thoughts. Since I'm not a fan of gay marriage... my opinion is open to be changed if someone can present to me why we should codify our religious position on this matter into civil law.
P.S.
I think the luster around "gay marriage" will wear off once we see a spike in "gay divorce". Given their lifestyle, many, if not most, will choose not to marry. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
It is an abomination
It is sin.
The Judeo Christian legal system goes back to a transcendent moral code for a foundation.
2 parts that intrude on free religion is the endeaver by gays to force pastors to marry them in churches that oppose it and also punish preechers that preach the bible on sodomy.
Other sins the Word expresses disgust with:
What other abominations does the Bible specify? Of course, adultery (Lev 18:20), sex with animals (Lev 18:23), remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4), or approaching any woman and humming "Strangers in the Night" during the time of her "uncleanness" (Lev 18:19). Cross-dressing is out (Deut 22:5), and that includes Halloween costumes, slacks on women, bib overalls on little girls, or a wife wearing her husband's favorite Oxford buttondown. And more on buttondowns in a moment.
Other abominations include tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, and getting a tattoo, even if it says, "Mom" (Lev 19:26-28). Haughty eyes (Prov 6:17) and telling lies (Prov 6:17, 12:22) are big abominations. Being untruthful also includes false weights and measures (Prov 11:1), or any other dishonesty in business. "Everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Prov 11:16).
What do abominators have for dinner? Rare steaks off the grill (Lev 17:10), Lobster Newburg at the Krebs and crab cakes in Baltimore (Lev 11:10), a rack of ribs at the Dinosaur Bar-B-Que (Lev 11:7).
But abominations are not just about bodily functions. Charging or paying interest are abominations. Bankers and anyone with a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt will be unavailable to throw the first stone, regardless of the interest rate (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10).
Graven images of other gods are an abomination (Deut 7:25). Thus the Happy Buddha on my dresser and my postcards of the Great Buddha at Kamakura would excuse me from taking the lead in rock throwing, if I hadn't already fallen by the wayside.
My personal favorite abomination is wearing blended fabrics. Deuteronomy 22:11 forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but Leviticus 19:19 says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Hence a woman in a man's buttondown can be doubly abominable if it's a no-iron, easy care blend of cotton and polyester.
"Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
Twisp
08-31-2010, 07:22 AM
That is why we eat fried chicken. Your animal consent doctrine is a worthless change of subject.
Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person.
Fetishism: the use of non-sexual or nonliving objects or part of a person's body to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
Frotteurism: the recurrent urges or behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.
Pedophilia: the sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of the victim is sexually exciting.
Transvestic fetishism: a sexual attraction towards the clothing of the opposite gender.
Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities.
Other paraphilias are grouped together under "Other paraphilias not otherwise specified."
Homosexuality was previously listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II, but this was declassified from both DSM-III and DSM-IV, consistent with the change of attitude among and lobbying by gay Psychiatrists. Gay psychologists have no cure for homosexual behavior.
The DSM IV TR will become even more liberal.
. Paraphilias without DSM codes listed come under DSM 302.9, "Paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified)".
A 2009 list contains a total of 547 paraphilias, but leads with the statement that "Not all these paraphilias have necessarily been seen in clinical setups.
A good reason to take homosexuality off the mental illness list means a gay can't get counseling for gay issues and have it covered by insurance.
But the study you referenced gathered that homosexuality had a biological basis. I assume you agree, since you are arguing based on that study?
iceniez
08-31-2010, 07:25 AM
But the study you referenced gathered that homosexuality had a biological basis. I assume you agree, since you are arguing based on that study?
I agree that homosexuality has a biological basis , We all are born in sinful flesh. Born to sin and in sin. SIN IS SIN ,and it is a SIN.
Good point. You didn't read the study. The data came from the Netherlands which had 13 years of gay marriage. Pro Gay libs don't do well with studies that don't support the deeds.
Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Looks like Lot knows that knowing them was doing wickedly. sex with males.
Always toss out the Homophobia accusation.
People seem to make stuff up and accuse of phobias.
More poor hermeneutic ... from the theocrat.
Genesis 19:1-4:
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Who came to see the messengers of God? The men, the young men, the old men, "all the people from every quarter." What does this say about this town? Were ALL of the males in the city homosexual? They ALL were here at Lot's front door, weren't they.
Genesis 19:5:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
There's that word again, "know." There is no Old Testament text where "yadah" refers to homosexual sex! The only passage ever quoted is THIS one. The less ambiguous word "shakhabh" is used for heterosexual intercourse as well as homosexual intercourse and beastial intercourse. "Shakhabh" appears fifty times in the Old Testament. If it had been used in this passage, the real meaning would have been clear. As it is, there are NO grounds for assuming that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. If the story is taken in context and in light of the other passages, it is easier to understand. Because "yadah" is a word of aquaintance, some have suggested that a serious breach of hospitality was implied. That is certainly to be taken into consideration.
Back to the story: Lot offered his two daughters instead. Women were looked upon as far inferior to men. Lot was trying to pacify the group and considered the two visitors more important than his own beautiful daughters.
Genesis 19:6-13:
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
The men only wanted to get to the strangers. But, the angels blinded them and they were lost. The angels got Lot and his family out and the city was destroyed.
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.htm
Our major question in this study is why was Sodom destroyed? If the Bible interprets itself, what does the Bible say about Sodom and Gomorrah? Let's look first at Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
What reasons does this passage give about Sodom? They were proud and arrogant. They had fulness of bread, in other words they were self-indulgent. Abundance of idleness - they were lazy. They assumed NO responsibility for poor people, they had no social conscience. They were haughty - "stuck-up" with an attitude of superiority, arrogant. They committed "abomination" before God ("to'ebah," something disgusting, especially idolatry.) Abomination included such things as eating shrimp or catfish, and having sex while the wife was having her period. A disobedient child was an abomination to God and was supposed to be stoned to death! The list goes on forever.
What was God's attitude?
Isaiah 1:9-10:
Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
God does not want "things"
Isaiah 1:11:
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
God does not want you to bring special things to him...
Isaiah 1:13a:
Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
(Incense is an abomination??? Somebody better tell the Catholics!)
Isaiah 1:13b:
...the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Isaiah 1:14:
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Keeping special days or going to church makes God "weary." Actions alone, in place of loving God, are what are displeasing to God.
Jeremiah 23:10:
For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right.
How do the Samaritans resemble the people of Sodom and Gomarrah? They are adulterers (specific sexuality immorality.) They have so little integrity that the country is falling apart. They have NO interest in following God, or trying to do His will.
Jeremiah 23:11:
For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the LORD.
The preachers and prophets have contempt towards God. Their speech and actions are Godless, secular.
Jeremiah 23:13:
And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.
The Samariatan preachers not only are spreading FALSE, misleading doctrine but, they are teaching this to OTHERS and leading people astray.
Jeremiah 23:14:
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
They committed adultry, again specific sexuality immorality, and were liars and decievers. They supported and gave legitimacy to the godless ones, those who had no place in their heart for God. God says that THIS is how they remind them of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jeremiah 23:16:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
They developed their own self-serving religion and spoke as if THEY were the Lord God.
You will notice that the above passages make a strong statement about these cities, comparing them with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Where was homosexuality mentioned? Where? How many times was adultry specifically mentioned?
In the cultures of the Old Testament the laws of hospitality were something not to be taken lightly. Cities were usually enclosed and strangers who wandered in were not always welcomed. The story in Judges 19 describes an incident very similar to the Sodom and Gomorrah story. The Benjamites had grown cold and hard-hearted over the years and were not open to entertain a stranger in distress. They were called the "sons of Belial," children of the devil, ungovenable, untamable.
A wandering Levite, with his wife and servant, found himself stranded in the city, having to sleep in the dangerous street all night. However, there was one old man who had not lost all of his compassion and whom invited them in. The men of the city made a rude, disrespectful assult on the house of this man and demanded to see the people inside.
Judges 19:16-22:
And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites. And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou? And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house. Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing. And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street. So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink. Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
The old man offered his virgin daughter and his wife to the mob.
Judges 19:23-24:
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Judges 19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
They took his wife and they "knew" her. The Hebrew word is "yadah," to acknowledge, to become aquainted with, to comprehend, to learn, to know. "Yadah" appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation. The word is used ten places in the old testament to denote heterosexual intercourse. It is used five times inconjunction with "mishkabh" to mean the same thing. I repeat, "Yadah" appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation.
Judges 19:25-28:
But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
The men assulted her, violently raped her (heterosexual rape) and left her for dead. Are we to conclude from this passage that heterosexual sex is a sin, an abomination to God? What a ludicrous thought. Of course not!
The issue isn't sex...the issue is violence with the phallus as the weapon of choice.
With these things in mind, let's look at Genesis 19. God sent two messengers to visit Lot, who welcomed them at the gate of the city. They went to Lot's house where they were treated as guests. Then the word got out that unwanted strangers were in town.
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.html
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
From God's MOUTH .... not Coadie's
God is disgusted by a nation and a Church that has abundance but is self-absorbed and often disregards the needy.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 07:33 AM
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
From God's MOUTH .... not Coadie's
God is disgusted by a nation that has but is self-absorbed and often disregards the needy.
Not just a nation, but His church. A church that is happy with their four and no more should shudder when reading these passages.
Coadie, choose to harp on your pet sin ... and continue to lead the Church on this rabid rabbit trail against this one sin with your pitchforks and torches after the Monster ... while God's disgust continues even after your roast.
You do it well, arrogantly and pridefully.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 07:43 AM
It is an abomination
It is sin.
The Judeo Christian legal system goes back to a transcendent moral code for a foundation.
2 parts that intrude on free religion is the endeaver by gays to force pastors to marry them in churches that oppose it and also punish preechers that preach the bible on sodomy.
My friend Tom was denied marriage by the Catholic Church because he was previously divorced. No law in the land can "force" a church to marry anyone. So that's a myth.
Yes, we might face some issues with regards to them trying to punish preachers who preach against their lifestyle. However, we have two choices here. We can spend resources and time fighting their freedom to live as they choose in a free country... or we can spend our resources and time fighting for our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You see... if a local court were to ban or bring a preacher up on charges for preaching against homesexuality, it would be big news. Civil rights leaders across the country would clash. The issue of freedom of speech and freedom of religion would be the issue... not gay marriage. I don't see the SCOTUS ruling against freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the United States any time soon. And then you know what??? Even if they banned preaching against this lifestyle.... we PREACH ANYWAY. The fervor this would create across the country would be estounding. What are they going to do? Close every conservative church in America??? We seem to be so frightened to take a stand for our rights. So frightened... we'll fight to deprive others of their rights. We are not of this world. Let the world decide what it chooses to do to ensure liberty for all. We preach the truth of the Bible... NO MATTER WHAT. Bring it on!
I would like to see a nation where freedom prevails. Freedom is HOLY even if men choose to use that freedom to commit sin.
We have very large Islamic associations meeting to consolidate an Islamic voting block in the United States. Their goal is to "Islamicize" the United States by using our own democracy against us. These individuals want to codify Islamic Law here in the West by establishing Shariah courts. It's already been suggested by top Islamic political hacks in the US. If we continue to push religious political agendas, soon we are going to see a massive Islamic political agenda. When we cry, "Hey, you can't make Islamic teachings law!" The answer will be, "Well, you've made Christian teaching law. Beat us at the voting booth." So right now is a very important time. We need to take a stand for LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL. That includes sinners of every stripe. We protect our rights and freedoms by protecting the rights and freedoms of all... including sinners.
We have to protect everyone... not just our own self serving convictions, no matter how biblical. This is a spiritual war that I don't think many realize we're even beginning to fight. But it's very real and it's already on our doorsteps.
crakjak
08-31-2010, 08:10 AM
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
From God's MOUTH .... not Coadie's
God is disgusted by a nation and a Church that has abundance but is self-absorbed and often disregards the needy.
While you rag on the US, we provide by far the MOST aid to the needy in the world, no matter the crisis, no matter where in the world you will find the USA and Christians to be the very first on the scene with manpower and open wallets to rescue the needy. Your ragging sounds like the mayor of New Orleans screaming at Washington while he had 2000 buses setting idle at his disposal!!!! Fools in city hall and in the state house is the most pressing danger to this country and the world.
coadie
08-31-2010, 08:52 AM
While you rag on the US, we provide by far the MOST aid to the needy in the world, no matter the crisis, no matter where in the world you will find the USA and Christians to be the very first on the scene with manpower and open wallets to rescue the needy. Your ragging sounds like the mayor of New Orleans screaming at Washington while he had 2000 buses setting idle at his disposal!!!! Fools in city hall and in the state house is the most pressing danger to this country and the world.
The pro gay movemnt changes the subject and tries to call out inhospitality. DAII can't refer to Jude for some reason.
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
I say defiling the flesh is clear here and the hospitality issues are secondary.
Liberal
08-31-2010, 09:16 AM
Good point. You didn't read the study. The data came from the Netherlands which had 13 years of gay marriage. Pro Gay libs don't do well with studies that don't support the deeds.
Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Looks like Lot knows that knowing them was doing wickedly. sex with males.
Always toss out the Homophobia accusation.
People seem to make stuff up and accuse of phobias.
These verses do not give the reason the two cities were destroyed. It lists things that were doing but it is not the reason. The reason is very clearly given in scripture.
The Netherlands statistic is meaningless. Thirteen years is nothing and cannot, at all, establish any kind of a trend. It excludes the consideration of the rush of couples who jumped in immediately to get married on a whim just because it was legal. This number will radically change.
I used the term, "Homophobia" because it seems, so far, to apply. Maybe you're not. But you're exhibiting all the signs, expressing very biased opinions and quoting extremely slanted research. You're not doing much to convince anyone otherwise.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 09:19 AM
No doubt there was pride and inhospitality present in Sodom and Gomorrha. However, the text also mentions their "abominations". I think it's important to define those abominations. Most agree that it was fornication and general sodomy. But the way we define this may not be the way it was defined in ancient cultures.
Some claim that "fornication" was essentially connected to idolatrous practices among temple prostitutes. They also claim that the "homosexuality" mentioned in the text isn't your typical example as seen privately among law abiding citizens, but rather it was more of a homosexual "rape". We see this twice in Scripture. Lot was almost raped by the people of Sodom. They didn't invite him out for dinner. They attempted to rape him. Also, we see this in Judges when the Sons of Baal attempt to rape a traveling Levite and instead take his concubine. This was an act of violence... not so much "perversion". It's more akin to the KKK taking an African American traveler and attempting to rape him, just because they feel they need to "teach him a lesson". Beyond this we don't see anyone executed anywhere in the OT for the sin of homosexuality itself. We do see Sodomites (male temple prostitutes) vanquished from the land. But we never read of a homosexual being executed for simply homosexual behavior.
I'd say that we have to approach the issue with Christian grace. These are human beings who need Jesus just as much as any other sinner. Yes, they have different struggles than you and me... but Jesus died for them just as he died for us. I'm not convinced there isn't a "genetic" or "biological" component. For that reason I advocate grace, forgiveness, counsel, and healing for those who struggle in this area. I don't believe we should throw them to the enemy as trash. They are people desperately in need of the same grace and mercy we call upon every day.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
coadie
08-31-2010, 09:59 AM
These verses do not give the reason the two cities were destroyed. It lists things that were doing but it is not the reason. The reason is very clearly given in scripture.
The Netherlands statistic is meaningless. Thirteen years is nothing and cannot, at all, establish any kind of a trend. It excludes the consideration of the rush of couples who jumped in immediately to get married on a whim just because it was legal. This number will radically change.
I used the term, "Homophobia" because it seems, so far, to apply. Maybe you're not. But you're exhibiting all the signs, expressing very biased opinions and quoting extremely slanted research. You're not doing much to convince anyone otherwise.
Go ahead and give us your statistics. I take it you have some. I am sure you don't have research in your education.
Slanted research is research with findings people don't want to see.
The surgeon general said life expectancy was in the 40's .. must be slanted.
Fortunately the term homophbia is a street term for name calling purposess. It isn't a genuine phobia.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 10:22 AM
The issue as I see it is a necessity to balance personal liberties with the freedom of both speech and religion. If we find this balance... we'll have stablized society and the church can get back to doing what it does best... tell others about Jesus.
The pro gay movemnt changes the subject and tries to call out inhospitality. DAII can't refer to Jude for some reason.
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
I say defiling the flesh is clear here and the hospitality issues are secondary.
Sir, the issue of sexual immorality was addressed and was clearly part of the the equation but your argument remains with God. God showed wrath on the city for its sin ... pride, arrogance, adultery, homosexuality, greed ... WICKEDNESS.
The problem is sin ... period. And if you've missed that ... that's a problem.
Not your pet agenda to pinpoint and focus on one. You do violence to the Word and its WHOLE COUNSEL.
Balance.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 10:26 AM
Go ahead and give us your statistics. I take it you have some. I am sure you don't have research in your education.
Slanted research is research with findings people don't want to see.
The surgeon general said life expectancy was in the 40's .. must be slanted.
Fortunately the term homophbia is a street term for name calling purposess. It isn't a genuine phobia.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia
—Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
And sorry - - it's made the phobia list:
http://phobialist.com/#H-
Aquila
08-31-2010, 10:28 AM
I think that if we reflect on our own sin.... we'll all be thankful that God doesn't deal with cities as he did in the OT. We'll be thankful that he approaches us individually to offer his grace and mercy. And he will deal with us individually based on our receptiveness to his offer.
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
From God's MOUTH .... not Coadie's
God is disgusted by a nation and a Church that has abundance but is self-absorbed and often disregards the needy.
While you rag on the US, we provide by far the MOST aid to the needy in the world, no matter the crisis, no matter where in the world you will find the USA and Christians to be the very first on the scene with manpower and open wallets to rescue the needy. Your ragging sounds like the mayor of New Orleans screaming at Washington while he had 2000 buses setting idle at his disposal!!!! Fools in city hall and in the state house is the most pressing danger to this country and the world.
Didn't name a nation but if America, Madagascar or Honduras fit the bill as God was warning OT Israel of ... then so be it.
Quick on the trigger, old chap.
Appreciate the textbook talkshow tactics of quoting the good former mayor of New Orleans ...
Gets old.
Move on, Crakjak.
I think that if we reflect on our own sin.... we'll all be thankful that God doesn't deal with cities as he did in the OT. We'll be thankful that he approaches us individually to offer his grace and mercy. And he will deal with us individually based on our receptiveness to his offer.
Great post.
coadie
08-31-2010, 11:10 AM
ho·mo·pho·bi·a /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia
—Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
And sorry - - it's made the phobia list:
http://phobialist.com/#H-
Thanks for the help.
I use the DSM for medical definitions. DSM IV TR is now out.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders. There is a lot of new stuff and detail on phobias. The street talk for "homophobia" doesn't line up with the real medical viewpoint.
the next edition is DSM V for 2012.
If homophobia becomes a real diagnosis, the insurance coverage will pay for counseling. They cover mental illnesses.
ManOfWord
08-31-2010, 11:10 AM
If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it. :D
coadie
08-31-2010, 11:26 AM
I think that if we reflect on our own sin.... we'll all be thankful that God doesn't deal with cities as he did in the OT. We'll be thankful that he approaches us individually to offer his grace and mercy. And he will deal with us individually based on our receptiveness to his offer.
There is an extremely high rate of pedophilia amongst gay males. When God destroyed sodom, a large percentage of the young may have been molested.
From mayo clinic.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full
Fifty percent to 70% of pedophiles can be diagnosed as having another paraphilia, such as frotteurism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, or sadism.7,12,25 Pedophiles are approximately 2.5 times more likely to engage in physical contact with a child than simply voyeuristic or exhibitionistic activities.7 Typically, pedophiles engage in fondling and genital manipulation more than intercourse, with the exceptions occurring in cases of incest, of pedophiles with a preference for older children or adolescents, and when children are physically coerced.5-7
Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.15
Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts
Pedophilia and Bestiality
Rumours of pedophilia and child molestation by gays have also long persisted. In the study, 23% of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15 (p. 275), while 19% felt positive about sexual activity within this age group (p. 276).
http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html
Also noteworthy is that 13.5% of respondents admitted to being guilty of bestiality (p. 555). Gay publication Fag Rag ran an article entitled "Bestiality as an Act of Revolution" (p. 567). (At this point I should say that there are a number of quotes on the matter by respondents on pages 567-568, but I will not tarnish these pages by citing them, surely in St. Paul's words "too shameful to mention in secret.")
The above, of course, raises immediate questions concerning the present gay adoption debate, not to mention the question of gay priests, i.e., should such gay priests be allowed access to Sunday Schools or youth groups?
coadie
08-31-2010, 11:28 AM
If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it. :D
I agree. Studies done by gay activists show us they want a wedding but do not want marriage.
a report by 2 gay activists.
(In the following essay, numbers in brackets indicate page numbers, which refer to The Gay Report by Karla Jay and Allen Young, Summit Books, New York, 1979).
Accusations of promiscuity had long been levelled at the gay community. As Jay and Young's research indicates, these fears were justified. According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives (p.249); 18% admitted to having had between seven and 60 such partners in the previous month alone (p. 248), and 18% to having had three or more in the previous week (p. 248). 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had did not last longer than a year (p. 340). For lesbians the average relationship lasted 38 months (p. 302).
tstew
08-31-2010, 11:30 AM
The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.
I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...
berkeley
08-31-2010, 11:30 AM
If homo's and lesies want to shack up and recite "vows" to one another, that is their choice and freedom to do so. However, don't call it marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Period! At least that's my take on it. If they want to make wills regarding their estate and stuff that's fine, but marriage privileges should not be part of it. :D
Which marriage privileges should not be a part of it? Defining it as a "marriage," or other legal jargon?
I can't argue for the sanctity of marriage. Wot, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Yeah, real holy!! Most people I know are divorced. A few of them divorced 2 and 3 times. Good Catholics. Lol.
I'm not for acceptance, etc. for the "community." I just think part of the argument against homo marriage is hypocrytical.
coadie
08-31-2010, 11:36 AM
Which marriage privileges should not be a part of it? Defining it as a "marriage," or other legal jargon?
I can't argue for the sanctity of marriage. Wot, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Yeah, real holy!! Most people I know are divorced. A few of them divorced 2 and 3 times. Good Catholics. Lol.
I'm not for acceptance, etc. for the "community." I just think part of the argument against homo marriage is hypocrytical.
Much of the folks doing the arguments shack up and don't marry. The Netherlands and liberal northern Euro countries have very high rate of un-married and co habitation. That creates a low potential for divorce.
First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.
With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.
So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.
If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?
Is there one?
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 11:41 AM
The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.
I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...
I agree. Marriage is primarily a religious institution/union, therefore the government shouldn't even be determining who can enter into the covenant.
To that end, anyone wanting to enter into a civil union for tax benefits should be able to do so...IMO. That should be distinct from church-sanctioned marriages.
I don't feel threatened by two gay men wanting to share a checkbook and household expenses. That's the least of my worries, actually, in reference to homosexuality.
This is another case where Christians becoming political activists is contradictory and detrimental to sharing the Gospel.
We would be better off campaigning for the government to release control of marriage altogether, and create civil unions for tax purposes only. Those who want to play house and share expenses can do so. The sanctity of marriage then remains intact because the only ones entering into such a covenant will be those who (presumably) respect the tradition and sober nature of the commitment.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 11:44 AM
First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.
With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.
So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.
If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?
Is there one?
I don't think there is, and I agree with the libertarian view as well. The church needs to be in charge of who can enter into a marriage covenant, and the government needs to grant licenses to those who want to share homes, incomes, expenses and tax obligations, separate from any religious covenant.
Technically, it would also allow couples to defy government involvement altogether, and be married without the consent of the government, unless they decide they want or need the financial benefits.
coadie
08-31-2010, 11:47 AM
I agree. Marriage is primarily a religious institution/union, therefore the government shouldn't even be determining who can enter into the covenant.
To that end, anyone wanting to enter into a civil union for tax benefits should be able to do so...IMO. That should be distinct from church-sanctioned marriages.
I don't feel threatened by two gay men wanting to share a checkbook and household expenses. That's the least of my worries, actually, in reference to homosexuality.
This is another case where Christians becoming political activists is contradictory and detrimental to sharing the Gospel.
We would be better off campaigning for the government to release control of marriage altogether, and create civil unions for tax purposes only. Those who want to play house and share expenses can do so. The sanctity of marriage then remains intact because the only ones entering into such a covenant will be those who (presumably) respect the tradition and sober nature of the commitment.
Progressives. Here are two problems we see today. If gay marrige laws pass, that means DOMA will be wiped out. If gay marriage becomes a law, they can enter a church and the pastor can't refuse to do the wedding. The other one with court cases is the pastor can be punished for hate speech if he says the bible calls it sin. Both cases the Government is crossing the line and damaging religious freedom.
The government sanctioned legal agreement should never have been titled "marriage" to begin with. Marriage is a sacred covenant recognized by God between a man and a woman. But that's what happens when you mix church and state.
I think this post deserves a second look and quite a bit of thought...
I agree 100%. In fact I am more in favor of marriage being removed from the secular lexicon than anything.
Marriage is a religious institution. However the government has some investment in stable families and thus has a reason to sanction (from a secular perspective) contractual relationships: i.e. Civil Unions
While the two things are in some ways the same thing, what is at the heart of them is quite different. They should be treated as such.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 11:48 AM
The nation has no authority to define marriage. I'd say that many marriages in America today aren't really "marriages".
The church should define marriage for the Christian.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 11:52 AM
Progressives. Here are two problems we see today. If gay marrige laws pass, that means DOMA will be wiped out. If gay marriage becomes a law, they can enter a church and the pastor can't refuse to do the wedding. The other one with court cases is the pastor can be punished for hate speech if he says the bible calls it sin. Both cases the Government is crossing the line and damaging religious freedom.
Not so. If the church is allowed to have full jurisdiction over a religious matter, e.g., the marriage covenant, and the government then issues civil unions to any adult couple regardless of sex, the church gains MORE control, not less. The government no longer has a vested interest in who can have a religious ceremony, because they only care about the civil unions for financial reasons.
Churches already have the right to refuse a marriage ceremony based on a multitude of criteria, including the right of the minister to simply have the opinion that it isn't a good match. Removing government jurisdiction would only enhance that power. I know of ministers who won't marry interracial couples--it could be argued that this violates civil rights--but I haven't heard of any cases where pastors have been sued for this--have you?
Liberal
08-31-2010, 11:53 AM
Go ahead and give us your statistics. I take it you have some. I am sure you don't have research in your education.
Slanted research is research with findings people don't want to see.
The surgeon general said life expectancy was in the 40's .. must be slanted.
Fortunately the term homophbia is a street term for name calling purposess. It isn't a genuine phobia.
Life expectancy for a gay person is in the 40's????? See what I mean? You're using complete malarkey for this. The research you cite is a small sample from the obituaries from a gay newspaper from gay men who died of Aids.
Using garbage like this is exactly what I'm talking about when I use the word, "Homophobia."
I've tried to talk civilly to you but you're a blithering foghorn of bias noise.
First of all anyone who has sex outside of the biblical covenant of marriage of one man and one woman is sinning. Anyone who sins and remains unrepentant and continues in that sinful lifestyle will go to hell. The statistic is 100% will go to hell for living a lifestyle of sin…whatever form that sinful lifestyle takes… homosexuality is one such.
With that settled (at least in my mind), I cannot find a secular argument that prevents non-saved people from living sinful lifestyles. I am a conservative with some libertarian crossover. In other words I have extreme prejudice against government. When government moves beyond the role of protecting the innocent from predation, I think things get dicey.
So then we get to the issue of homosexual marriage. First and foremost, when you are talking about the biblical covenant relationship, regardless of the laws of a nation, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to enter into the covenant relationship. (see above about sin). God does not sanction or approve of any kind of sin regardless of a nations codification.
If we eliminate the covenant aspect of marriage (God is part of that covenant), we are left with the actions of a secular nation. What secular argument can be made to defend the position that marriage is the exclusive property of heterosexual people?
Is there one?
Home run.
As a Libertarian myself ... I refuse to bow at the altar of man made theocracy.
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:02 PM
Not so. If the church is allowed to have full jurisdiction over a religious matter, e.g., the marriage covenant, and the government then issues civil unions to any adult couple regardless of sex, the church gains MORE control, not less. The government no longer has a vested interest in who can have a religious ceremony, because they only care about the civil unions for financial reasons.
Churches already have the right to refuse a marriage ceremony based on a multitude of criteria, including the right of the minister to simply have the opinion that it isn't a good match. Removing government jurisdiction would only enhance that power. I know of ministers who won't marry interracial couples--it could be argued that this violates civil rights--but I haven't heard of any cases where pastors have been sued for this--have you?
3 cases to mention.
Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis
In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
This case under employment discrimination laws.
In January 2008 Elane, a freelance photographer who owns Elane Photography, refused to shoot a gay wedding between two woman and was later sued by Vanessa Willock for discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation. Elane has now lost the lawsuit and is appealing the ruling by the New Mexico State Human Rights Commission.
There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 12:04 PM
3 cases to mention.
Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis
In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
This case under employment discrimination laws.
There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.
You didn't find the cases I asked for, coadie. I asked if you had heard of any cases where a pastor was sued for refusing to marry an interracial couple, which, IMO, IS a violation of civil rights. (But it's within the rights of a pastor in the United States to be a bigot without the government stepping in.)
Additionally, we're talking about the United States here--not Canada or Sweden.
3 cases to mention.
Canada Orders Pastor to Renounce His Faith
June 9th, 2008 by Pete Vere, JCL Print This Article ·ShareThis
In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
This case under employment discrimination laws.
There was a case on the east coast where a pair of lesbians wanted a church camp for site for wedding and were turned down. They asked the state to punish the methodist Church.
These should be two very separate issues. and if we are marching toward them becoming one issue then we Christians have a very good reason to stand up and scream.
There is never a time when the government should be challenging what a church does in relation to preaching/teaching what is sin.
The government should never step in and tell a church they have to allow a wedding to avoid punishment for discrimination! Churches discriminate. We say being a drunkard is a sin. Churches have every right to say something is a sin and refuse to allow their property to be used to sanction certain activity.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 12:11 PM
These should be two very separate issues. and if we are marching toward them becoming one issue then we Christians have a very good reason to stand up and scream.
There is never a time when the government should be challenging what a church does in relation to preaching/teaching what is sin.
The government should never step in and tell a church they have to allow a wedding to avoid punishment for discrimination! Churches discriminate. We say being a drunkard is a sin. Churches have every right to say something is a sin and refuse to allow their property to be used to sanction certain activity.
Correct--and IF the U.S. government tries to force churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies, there will be something to yell about.
In my opinion, we would all be better served to "keep our friends close and our enemies closer", and in this case we would actually benefit from supporting the United States moving to secular civil unions and getting their big, fat fingers out of the marriage ceremony entirely.
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:13 PM
Life expectancy for a gay person is in the 40's????? See what I mean? You're using complete malarkey for this. The research you cite is a small sample from the obituaries from a gay newspaper from gay men who died of Aids.
Using garbage like this is exactly what I'm talking about when I use the word, "Homophobia."
I've tried to talk civilly to you but you're a blithering foghorn of bias noise.
Name calling instead of facts.
This is tough news. It's not pleasant to hear," said former Education Secretary William Bennett on ABC's This Week Nov. 9. "But it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth." The occasion for tough-but-needed truth telling: Bill Clinton's first-ever presidential speech to an organized gay-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign. Clinton had conferred respectability--wrongly--on the gay quest for approval when in fact, said Bennett, he "should tell the truth on this one": Homosexuality "takes 30 years off your life." The average life expectancy for gay men, Bennett declared, was just 43.
Can you set aside name calling and labeling and give us your stats?
I am sure high death rates for gays will cause gay activists to attack the messenger. Do it with data.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 12:16 PM
Name calling instead of facts.
This is tough news. It's not pleasant to hear," said former Education Secretary William Bennett on ABC's This Week Nov. 9. "But it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth." The occasion for tough-but-needed truth telling: Bill Clinton's first-ever presidential speech to an organized gay-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign. Clinton had conferred respectability--wrongly--on the gay quest for approval when in fact, said Bennett, he "should tell the truth on this one": Homosexuality "takes 30 years off your life." The average life expectancy for gay men, Bennett declared, was just 43.
Can you set aside name calling and labeling and give us your stats?
I am sure high death rates for gays will cause gay activists to attack the messenger. Do it with data.
LOL so Bennett's opinion on ABC's This Week is stats?
And to beat that - you Google it!
http://www.hypersync.net/mt/2004/10/life_expectancy_of_gay_men.html
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:22 PM
By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 15, 2009
At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.
Ron Simmons, who is black, gay and HIV positive, said he's not shocked by the study's findings. "You have a high incidence of HIV among African Americans, and a lot of African Americans live in the city," said Simmons, who is a member of a black gay support group. "D.C. also has a high number of gay men, and HIV is high among gay black men."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402176.html?sid=ST2009031402211
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 12:23 PM
codie,
I think we're discussing gay marriage for or against it - - not the life expectancy of gays.
You are as annoying as a gnat!
berkeley
08-31-2010, 12:25 PM
codie,
I think we're discussing gay marriage for or against it - - not the life expectancy of gays.
You are as annoying as a gnat!
Straining at a gnat... :grampa
By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 15, 2009
At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.
Ron Simmons, who is black, gay and HIV positive, said he's not shocked by the study's findings. "You have a high incidence of HIV among African Americans, and a lot of African Americans live in the city," said Simmons, who is a member of a black gay support group. "D.C. also has a high number of gay men, and HIV is high among gay black men."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402176.html?sid=ST2009031402211
Still doesn't support your findings ...
1. The initial 3% who have HIV or not just gay.
2. The quote then moves on to say many are African American.
You're fallacious obfuscation still is unable to support your assertion.
Coadie, you struggle with logic and interpreting data.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 12:29 PM
Still doesn't support your findings ...
1. The initial 3% who have HIV or not just gay.
2. The quote then moves on to say many are African American.
You're fallacious obfuscation still is unable to support your assertion.
Coadie, you struggle with logic and interpreting data.
He likes to pick cherries!
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:31 PM
LOL so Bennett's opinion on ABC's This Week is stats?
And to beat that - you Google it!
http://www.hypersync.net/mt/2004/10/life_expectancy_of_gay_men.html
This is a politically not correct topic to research. Cause of death is usually medical, heart, cancer etc. The coroner can't ask sexual preference.
They can measure t-cells or other lab work but it doesn't give gender preference.
Written by J. Bennett Guess
September 14, 2007
A major insurance company that sought out business from a local United Church of Christ congregation in Michigan has subsequently refused to even provide a quote for coverage when it learned the church's denomination supported same-gender marriage equality and the ordination of gay clergy.
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, based in Fort Wayne, Ind., told West Adrian United Church of Christ in Adrian, Mich., that its denomination's gay-affirming stances made it a "higher risk" for property and liability insurance.
"Our company's decision to not submit a quote to your organization arose out of information that was supplied in a supplemental application, indicating that your organization 'publicly endorses or practices the marriage of same-sex couples' and 'publicly endorses or practices the ordination of the homosexual clergy,'" wrote Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual, in a July 30 letter to the church.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 12:35 PM
Has anyone ever smashed a gnat between your hands?
Seems like they always get away, doesn't it?
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:39 PM
codie,
I think we're discussing gay marriage for or against it - - not the life expectancy of gays.
You are as annoying as a gnat!
almost there.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
How does a gay marriage obey this?
Be a fruit is not being fruitfull.
I had a gay boss for several years. He was not outspoken. Never once did he discuss his gay impersonator bar. It made him wealthy.
He was great to work for.
berkeley
08-31-2010, 12:41 PM
almost there.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
How does a gay marriage obey this?
Be a fruit is not being fruitfull.
I had a gay boss for several years. He was not outspoken. Never once did he discuss his gay impersonator bar. It made him wealthy.
He was great to work for.
What does that have to do with life expectancy?
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 12:41 PM
What does that have to do with life expectancy?
Oh, stop it.
He's finally one topic.
coadie
08-31-2010, 12:45 PM
Still doesn't support your findings ...
1. The initial 3% who have HIV or not just gay.
2. The quote then moves on to say many are African American.
You're fallacious obfuscation still is unable to support your assertion.
Coadie, you struggle with logic and interpreting data.
I have noticed you never dig up facts and statistics. Do you know why? Have you ever conducted a behavioral science experiment or survey?
The largest problem with research of gays is the data acquisition. It is done by "self assessment" and is not neutral.
If the average gay in a committed relationship says he has 8 outside encouners a year, how can that be tested for accuracy?
tstew
08-31-2010, 12:57 PM
I have noticed you never dig up facts and statistics. Do you know why? Have you ever conducted a behavioral science experiment or survey?
The largest problem with research of gays is the data acquisition. It is done by "self assessment" and is not neutral.
If the average gay in a committed relationship says he has 8 outside encouners a year, how can that be tested for accuracy?
Perhaps if they were married they would be more monogamous.
(Disclaimer: That was a joke. Said joke does not reflect my views on gay marriage)
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:00 PM
Perhaps if they were married they would be more monogamous.
(Disclaimer: That was a joke. Said joke does not reflect my views on gay marriage)
:toofunny
coadie
08-31-2010, 01:02 PM
Perhaps if they were married they would be more monogamous.
(Disclaimer: That was a joke. Said joke does not reflect my views on gay marriage)
You really said a lot. Both parties to a marriage raise expections of changes in the other one. Divorce is the time after expectations are not met. Marriage will not change "trust issues"
Aquila
08-31-2010, 01:05 PM
Christ died to save sinners and cleanse the leppers.
berkeley
08-31-2010, 01:05 PM
They don't want monogamy. Good grief!
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:06 PM
A guy that I work with has chosen a gay lifestyle and lives with his partner. He has no desire to "marry" his partner, however, he feels to be realize better tax rates (married vs single) and for insurance benefits that it might be beneficial.
See, I have a problem with that.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:07 PM
They don't want monogamy. Good grief!
Some do.
berkeley
08-31-2010, 01:07 PM
A guy that I work with has chosen a gay lifestyle and lives with his partner. He has no desire to "marry" his partner, however, he feels to be realize better tax rates (married vs single) and for insurance benefits that it might be beneficial.
See, I have a problem with that.
Some breeders get married for the same reasons. :bliss
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:08 PM
Some breeders get married for the same reasons. :bliss
Good point.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:10 PM
Hopefully, Charnock has rediscovered what AFF believes.
I have noticed you never dig up facts and statistics. Do you know why? Have you ever conducted a behavioral science experiment or survey?
The largest problem with research of gays is the data acquisition. It is done by "self assessment" and is not neutral.
If the average gay in a committed relationship says he has 8 outside encouners a year, how can that be tested for accuracy?
Sir once again you are obfuscating.
I am very aware with statistical analysis ... yet you are unable to support your assertions.
Bias of course is a factor .... and yours is obvious.
Google s'more
coadie
08-31-2010, 01:15 PM
Some do.
Some want monogamy.
Break that down. They don't want their partner to do it elswhere.
They think their perfect partner will be so nifty they won't think of other partners
They are trying to live out and adopt ideology.
Is there a Kiersey test for gays?
http://keirsey.com/
Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist. interesting pop psychology
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 01:19 PM
Some want monogamy.Break that down. They don't want their partner to do it elswhere.
They think their perfect partner will be so nifty they won't think of other partners
They are trying to live out and adopt ideology.
Is there a Kiersey test for gays?
http://keirsey.com/
Dr. David Keirsey has identified mankind's four basic temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist. interesting pop psychology
Wouldn't that be on reason they would want to be married?
Taking this to the actual end of the discussion and answering Charnock’s question…
1. I am against the government using the term “Marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations to define what it means when its members choose to marry.
2. I am for the government allowing any 2 people to form a Civil Union. Said union is a contract with monetary implications. It has nothing to do with sex. Most married people would want to form a civil union. But two sisters who live together might also want to form a civil union. It would allow for protections not afforded such people.
3. I would never perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. I would not likely perform such a ceremony between a man and a woman who did not fully accept the covenant relationship with God that I personally believe marriage to entail (in other words, if you are Baptist or neo-pennycostal go find someone else to hitch you)
Aquila
08-31-2010, 01:37 PM
I don't think there is a question as to gay marriage in a biblical church. We'd not perform them or recognize them. The issue is Constitutional liberty. Who would want the GOVERNMENT to tell them who they can or cannot marry? Personally, I don't think the GOVERNMENT is qualified to tell us what private arrangements or relationships we're allowed to have. That is a highly personal and private matter regardless of preference. Frankly, the GOVERNMENT has more important matters to attend to than who enters a social contract with whom. Besides, the more you involve GOVERNMENT in anything, the more you're going to see it deteriorate. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT meddling with marriage? I think GOVERNMENT should get out of the "marriage" issue altogether. It's been a mess since the GOVERNMENT got its hands on it.
Also you run into issues of "Freedom of Religion". Some liberal churches wish to perform these marriages and theologically see no issue with them (as wrong as we might believe it is). Do we use GOVERNMENT to force those churches to practice their faith as we do?
I think we might agree all day on it's immorality and the issues connected with it. But freedom has a cost...that cost is often allowing others to do what you would never do as long as it doesn't endanger the life, liberty, or property of another. Now, I'm not FOR these marriages... but I do see the principle of individual liberty at stake here. The moment we start codifying distinctly religious laws we open the the door wide open for the coming wave of Islamic enfluence in America. I think a LIBERTARIAN approach is best. Let the sinner live as they choose in a free country. Because although they are choosing something unholy... the freedom to make that choice is sacred. Freedom is sacred. Let's protect it... even if men use that very same freedom to do what we believe to be sin.
The church isn't the world. We should heavily denounce and refuse to marry anyone unless it's biblical. We should teach and preach against certain lifestyles that are sinful emphasizing the dangers they present to the human soul and human happiness. But I get a little nervous when people want to use GOVERNMENT to enforce moral statues on otherwise free individuals. In my opinion... it's about freedom and liberty. We are either Americans who believe in a free country... or we are not. It seems we all value our freedom until another chooses to use that very same freedom to do what we strongly disagree with. The answer isn't using GOVERNMENT to enforce what we believe. The answer is living what we believe and presenting Jesus to a lost and dying world, allowing HIM to change, mold, and lead others by the power of the Holy Ghost.
We are in the world and not of it. Let's keep it that way. Let's not become so entrenched that the church begins to look like just another polical action committee.
Banning these kinds of marriages isn't going to stop the action. People are still doing this. And biblically, the issue isn't taxation or rights. It's sin. So rather they "marry" or not the sin is present. They need Jesus. Just preach Jesus. Preaching politics will only damage the cause of the Gospel. The REAL political issues as I see them are safe guarding OUR freedom of speech and religious conscience. They will one day be free to do as they choose. That's a given. We need to stand up and defend our freedom to speak as we wish about it and maintain our religious convictions.
coadie
08-31-2010, 01:38 PM
Wouldn't that be on reason they would want to be married?
Gay marriage is like substance addiction. It is very self centered. What is in it for me.
Often gay counselors agree that a gay male hasn't been brought to manhood by a present father.
Erikson and Psychosocial Stages of Development show gays in stage 5 of 8 stages.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 01:44 PM
Gay marriage is like substance addiction. It is very self centered. What is in it for me.
Often gay counselors agree that a gay male hasn't been brought to manhood by a present father.
Erikson and Psychosocial Stages of Development show gays in stage 5 of 8 stages.
So is it illegal to have a psychosis?
Do we ban marriage between other Americans who have a psychosis?
And what if it's proven that there is a biological component in some cases?
Just a few questions off the top of my head.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 01:46 PM
Gay marriage is like substance addiction. It is very self centered. What is in it for me.
Often gay counselors agree that a gay male hasn't been brought to manhood by a present father.
Erikson and Psychosocial Stages of Development show gays in stage 5 of 8 stages.
I know many in this lifestyle who were raised in very strong and decent Apostolic homes. They were "different" since they were very young boys or girls. Let's be real here, sometimes you can "tell" even before they become mature young men or women. I've seen them in the church, Holy Ghost filled, singing in the choir, witnessing on the streets and then suddenly they come out of the closet. What do we do? Throw them away? Ban them. Make them second class citizens? Blame their parents??? Many of them had fantastic parents.
It's a complicated issue.
berkeley
08-31-2010, 01:48 PM
they have a bigger um hypothalamus
Aquila
08-31-2010, 01:50 PM
they have a bigger um hypothalamus
Hey, I don't know what language you're speaking but if you're talking about my mother we're going to have words! LOL
...
The study you are referring to also says that homosexuality is not a choice, but has a biological basis. Do you believe that also?
...
I don't think any of us really know why people are homosexual.
Some churches teach that being homosexual is not a sin but living the homosexual lifestyle is.
...
It's a complicated issue.
amen
berkeley
08-31-2010, 02:00 PM
I have a dog... his name is Malakos.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:01 PM
I don't think any of us really know why people are homosexual.
Some churches teach that being homosexual is not a sin but living the homosexual lifestyle is.
Some are eunuchs for the Kingdom. I think we'd be shocked if we knew how many men and women are being mightily used of God who have a predisposition towards this attraction and don't act on it.
Twisp
08-31-2010, 02:01 PM
I don't think any of us really know why people are homosexual.
Some churches teach that being homosexual is not a sin but living the homosexual lifestyle is.
I know that. I was merely checking to see if Coadie was going to believe all of that study, or just bits and pieces of it.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:02 PM
I know many in this lifestyle who were raised in very strong and decent Apostolic homes. They were "different" since they were very young boys or girls. Let's be real here, sometimes you can "tell" even before they become mature young men or women. I've seen them in the church, Holy Ghost filled, singing in the choir, witnessing on the streets and then suddenly they come out of the closet. What do we do? Throw them away? Ban them. Make them second class citizens? Blame their parents??? Many of them had fantastic parents.
It's a complicated issue.
They can be both delivered and can also find conversion therapy. Many just leave the homosexual past.
It isn't born that way.
Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.
Remember they have the same environment.
berkeley
08-31-2010, 02:02 PM
Some are eunuchs for the Kingdom. I think we'd be shocked if we knew how many men and women are being mightily used of God who have a predisposition towards this attraction and don't act on it.
Eunuchs for the kingdom is about not giving into homosexual predispositions?
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:02 PM
People used to think cerebral palsy was demon possession. We have to be cautious here. We're dealing with human beings who have hurts and fears. We're dealing with souls. I feel more comfortable erring on the side of mercy and grace. There's so much that we don't understand. Preach Jesus.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:03 PM
I don't think any of us really know why people are homosexual.
Some churches teach that being homosexual is not a sin but living the homosexual lifestyle is.
If we use psychoanalysis what do we find they have in common?
pastorrick1959
08-31-2010, 02:05 PM
they have the right to ,go to hell if thats what they choose ...since they want choice.
it is a spirit of the enemy ..
god created adam and eve not adam and steve ..male and female created he them ..
ordered them also to replinish the earth .. GAYS CANT DO THAT..
i've asked gays, what if ur mom or dad had been gay you wouldnt have been here.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:08 PM
They can be both delivered and can also find conversion therapy. Many just leave the homosexual past.
It isn't born that way.
Coadie, I personally believe that spiritual, emotional, and even perhaps a physical healing is necessary in these situations. Only Jesus can set them free. No therapy or self derived force of "will power" will change them. Until they receive this miracle, we need to be patient and full of mercy and grace.
Let me ask several questions. Your statement implies several things. The questions will help me understand your position better...
If you really believe it's just a choice, are you admitting that you could just "choose" to enter an alternative lifestyle?
Could any form of therapy change your preference and what attracts you?
Were you straight since you entered maturity? Or did you choose to be straight? Was it really a "choice" for you?
Remember they have the same environment.
Can you elaborate?
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:09 PM
If we use psychoanalysis what do we find they have in common?
Many psychologists argue that religion is a psychosis. LOL
Coadie... it's just psychology. lol Various schools of psychology have theories. At the end of the day none of them know anything for certain. If they did... they'd have fixed the world by now. The answer for all fallen human conditions is Jesus.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:09 PM
People used to think cerebral palsy was demon possession. We have to be cautious here. We're dealing with human beings who have hurts and fears. We're dealing with souls. I feel more comfortable erring on the side of mercy and grace. There's so much that we don't understand. Preach Jesus.
If I tell someone they are mentally ill, It really messes with their head.
Glad you mention souls. Freud started a lot of this mess by using an approach like C Darwin. He wanted to create a totally non biblical explanation of human mind and behavior and avoid biblical ideas and terms.
Many anxiety disorders are actually guilt. Medicating doesn't deliver people from sin, guilt and self condemnation.
Soul, body and mind are different elements to a healthy person. Many providors want to deal with only one. They are all factors in behavior. Homosexuallity is extensively an acquired behavior set and can't come from genetics. The overt sex drives are shaped and reinforced by several factors.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:11 PM
they have the right to ,go to hell if thats what they choose ...since they want choice.
it is a spirit of the enemy ..
god created adam and eve not adam and steve ..male and female created he them ..
ordered them also to replinish the earth .. GAYS CANT DO THAT..
i've asked gays, what if ur mom or dad had been gay you wouldnt have been here.
This condition is like all other sinful conditions... it's a result of the fall. Their sin is no worse than your own. In God's eyes... you and I are just as filthy if it were not for the blood.
The fall effected us spiritually, emotionally, and biologically. I advocate that we walk softly here. These are souls, precious souls, that many of us love... and that Jesus died for.
There is so much more to a person than their sexual preferences (sinful or not). For example, I love you Coadie, regardless of your private and personal interests. We all have them... we're all human. Sometimes I waver... do I like blondes or brunettes? I hope you understand what I'm saying here.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:14 PM
If I tell someone they are mentally ill, It really messes with their head.
Glad you mention souls. Freud started a lot of this mess by using an approach like C Darwin. He wanted to create a totally non biblical explanation of human mind and behavior and avoid biblical ideas and terms.
Many anxiety disorders are actually guilt. Medicating doesn't deliver people from sin, guilt and self condemnation.
Soul, body and mind are different elements to a healthy person. Many providors want to deal with only one. They are all factors in behavior. Homosexuallity is extensively an acquired behavior set and can't come from genetics. The overt sex drives are shaped and reinforced by several factors.
Coadie.... what if you're proven wrong? I mean, what if tomorrow research proves beyond a doubt that there is a biological component in at least some cases?
Why is it that many of us can spot people with this leaning quite often just as they are entering their teens, sometimes before they even know what's going on with themselves? Sometimes it's in the eyes. Sometimes it's in the way they stand or talk. There's just something "different" about them in their early years. And Coadie... some of them are preacher's kids from very loving homes with wonderful gender roles established.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:16 PM
Many psychologists argue that religion is a psychosis. Coadie... it's just psychology. lol Various schools of psychology have theories. At the end of the day none of them know anything for certain. If they did... they'd have fixed the world by now.
There is a lot of psychology in the book of Genesis.
Phrenology? Biles
Sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric. Melancholia are different labels for people with variation in "Biles"
The field of psychology is loaded with a lot of theories, notions, superstions and changes. like Evolutionism.
Gay marriage? There are many psych factors in gays that lend themselves to difficulty in a sustained relationship.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:18 PM
There is a lot of psychology in the book of Genesis.
Phrenology? Biles
Sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric. Melancholia are different labels for people with variation in "Biles"
The field of psychology is loaded with a lot of theories, notions, superstions and changes. like Evolutionism.
Gay marriage? There are many psych factors in gays that lend themselves to difficulty in a sustained relationship.
Blah, blah, blah. "Psycho-babble"
We don't need a "psycho-Bible". We need to preach Jesus and be merciful and compassionate to a lost and dying world. The only "real love" many of these individuals might ever receive might come from us... those who know Jesus. Hating them and politicking against them isn't an answer to the problem.
Now get off the net and go love a sinner Coadie.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 02:23 PM
Taking this to the actual end of the discussion and answering Charnock’s question…
1. I am against the government using the term “Marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations to define what it means when its members choose to marry.
2. I am for the government allowing any 2 people to form a Civil Union. Said union is a contract with monetary implications. It has nothing to do with sex. Most married people would want to form a civil union. But two sisters who live together might also want to form a civil union. It would allow for protections not afforded such people.
3. I would never perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. I would not likely perform such a ceremony between a man and a woman who did not fully accept the covenant relationship with God that I personally believe marriage to entail (in other words, if you are Baptist or neo-pennycostal go find someone else to hitch you)
I'm 100% in agreement with this post. :thumbsup
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:24 PM
Coadie.... what if you're proven wrong? I mean, what if tomorrow research proves beyond a doubt that there is a biological component in at least some cases?
Why is it that many of us can spot people with this leaning quite often just as they are entering their teens, sometimes before they even know what's going on with themselves? Sometimes it's in the eyes. Sometimes it's in the way they stand or talk. There's just something "different" about them in their early years. And Coadie... some of them are preacher's kids from very loving homes with wonderful gender roles established.
In Piaget he covers
neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is ...(not biological evolution)
Then he writes about cognitive development. Youngsters mimic behaviors,. They are shaped and learned behaviors. reinforced and developed.
The twin studies tell us the biological is a very distant chance. nearly zero.
Sure we see it in pastors homes. When we see them in extensive sessions of psychoanalisys we see sources or causation of patterns that mould behavior.
I have no interest in telling gay people what they can or cannot do. My interest lies soley in protecting the church from government encroachment.
The government should not be messing with the church. the government should stay out.
I'm 100% in agreement with this post. :thumbsup
Do you think Charnock agrees with us?
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:25 PM
Many psychologists argue that religion is a psychosis. LOL
Coadie... it's just psychology. lol Various schools of psychology have theories. At the end of the day none of them know anything for certain. If they did... they'd have fixed the world by now. The answer for all fallen human conditions is Jesus.
Holy Rollers have OCD. Obsessive Compuslive disorders. We can't sit down in church when the spirit moves.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:27 PM
In Piaget he covers
neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is ...(not biological evolution)
Then he writes about cognitive development. Youngsters mimic behaviors,. They are shaped and learned behaviors. reinforced and developed.
The twin studies tell us the biological is a very distant chance. nearly zero.
Sure we see it in pastors homes. When we see them in extensive sessions of psychoanalisys we see sources or causation of patterns that mould behavior.
Coadie... while I'm certain this is true in many situations, we can't be so foolish as to think that this is the case in EVERY situation. Sometimes it's just a "kink" and a "choice". Sometimes it's a disposition they've had from their earliest years, even in loving and godly homes. Sometimes it comes from abuse or neglect. You can't go around blaming good and loving parents for this. Imagine the guilt and shame you've now shifted onto decent loving parents who believe their child is in sin.
This is more complicated than you're realizing.
Coadie... this isn't right. I don't like the spirit I feel in it.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:27 PM
I have no interest in telling gay people what they can or cannot do. My interest lies soley in protecting the church from government encroachment.
The government should not be messing with the church. the government should stay out.
Amen.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:29 PM
Coadie... what if tomorrow they find a biological connection in at least some cases? Instead of screaming, "That's impossible!", what will you do if what you thought was impossible is proven to be a fact?
I mean... what if the world really is round? lol
Coadie for all the letters you have strung together in this thread, there isn’t a single cogent secular argument for all the mumbo-jumbo you are saying.
and the general rule of etiquette is to post links to statistical data and/or links to scientific papers.
if links are not available, the etiquette is to post the information needed to get the information from a library.
Studies should always be provided by name and author.
Not doing so negates the argument and leaves you with empty rhetoric.
I doubt there is a person here who will disagree with the notion that spiritually speaking homosexual sex is a sin. It is damning. it is against our common Christian code.
that however is not the question being asked.
Make a valid argument or vacate the field my friend.
Peace to you.
Coadie... what if tomorrow they find a biological connection in at least some cases? Instead of screaming, "That's impossible!", what will you do if what you thought was impossible is proven to be a fact?
I mean... what if the world really is round? lol
I dont know what is so hard about this. the sins of the father visited to the third generation....
sin messes up DNA.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 02:37 PM
I dont know what is so hard about this. the sins of the father visited to the third generation....
sin messes up DNA.
Amen.
Paul stated that in his flesh there was no good thing. We're corrupted all the way down to the genetic level. Yes, we're BORN sinners. That's why he had to be BORN sinless.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:39 PM
they have a bigger um hypothalamus
Size matters?
If we bring a pathologist a box of Hypothalmus (It is an area and not a definitive organ) and ask for a diagnosis, he can tell which are gay and which are not?
:bliss
it instructs the pituitary. If a promiscuis person has so many sex partners, that could increase the use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone.
Can these be weighted and tested in autopsies?
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 02:42 PM
Gay marriage will eventually be legal in the United States.
As such, what should the church have to say about the issue?
How do you feel about the issue?
Do you believe a gay person should have a legal right to marry? If so, which do you think is most important, that person's individual liberty (rights as an American), or God's opposition to homosexuality?
Should the church remain silent on this issue, or should the church work the political system to preserve traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays.
Which should a Christian be most concerned with; protecting individual liberties or declaring Bible absolutes?
The church should be most concerned with persuading individuals to the truth of the Gospel.
I don't believe Jesus wasted any time in the courthouse trying to tell them what should be done to address sin in the community. He addressed people and their sinful lives directly; not indirectly through their government.
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
rgcraig
08-31-2010, 02:42 PM
The church should be most concerned with persuading individuals to the truth of the Gospel.
I don't believe Jesus wasted any time in the courthouse trying to tell them what should be done to address sin in the community. He addressed people and their sinful lives directly; not indirectly through their government.
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.Oh, that will preach!
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:54 PM
Coadie... while I'm certain this is true in many situations, we can't be so foolish as to think that this is the case in EVERY situation. Sometimes it's just a "kink" and a "choice". Sometimes it's a disposition they've had from their earliest years, even in loving and godly homes. Sometimes it comes from abuse or neglect. You can't go around blaming good and loving parents for this. Imagine the guilt and shame you've now shifted onto decent loving parents who believe their child is in sin.
This is more complicated than you're realizing.
Coadie... this isn't right. I don't like the spirit I feel in it.I don't blame good parents. That is very clear. They are not the sole environmental influence.
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D @narth.com does this.
Intensive Body Work of Affect-Focused Therapy.
http://www.narth.com/docs/dblloop.html
This is a chapter from a new book. He takes a lot of heat for success in reparative therapy.
Just a side note, Most prescription drugs do not do what they were prescribed for. Many do. Placebos in psychotropic tests actually work ball park 1/3 of the time.
coadie
08-31-2010, 02:57 PM
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
Healing, restoration, joy, forgiveness and in the 2010 world deliverance are all available in the Lord's house.
This, m'am, is genius:
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 03:08 PM
Size matters?
If we bring a pathologist a box of Hypothalmus (It is an area and not a definitive organ) and ask for a diagnosis, he can tell which are gay and which are not?
:bliss
it instructs the pituitary. If a promiscuis person has so many sex partners, that could increase the use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone.
Can these be weighted and tested in autopsies?
Wouldn't married people have enlarged hypothalmususisis? I mean, when I was married we had relations sometimes two or three times a day for several weeks with a short break... and would rev up again. lol How would my hypothalmacupakis know the difference??? LOL
Aquila
08-31-2010, 03:09 PM
The church should be most concerned with persuading individuals to the truth of the Gospel.
I don't believe Jesus wasted any time in the courthouse trying to tell them what should be done to address sin in the community. He addressed people and their sinful lives directly; not indirectly through their government.
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
Amen!
That's what I've said several times here. But I don't think everyone gets it.
Aquila
08-31-2010, 03:11 PM
I don't blame good parents. That is very clear. They are not the sole environmental influence.
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D @narth.com does this.
Intensive Body Work of Affect-Focused Therapy.
http://www.narth.com/docs/dblloop.html
This is a chapter from a new book. He takes a lot of heat for success in reparative therapy.
Just a side note, Most prescription drugs do not do what they were prescribed for. Many do. Placebos in psychotropic tests actually work ball park 1/3 of the time.
Coadie... you're not answering my questions. Could a therapy turn you gay? Is being straight really a choice for you? I mean, could you actually choose to be gay?
OnTheFritz
08-31-2010, 03:21 PM
I'm 100% in agreement with this post. :thumbsup
Me too. :thumbsup
OnTheFritz
08-31-2010, 03:23 PM
The church should be most concerned with persuading individuals to the truth of the Gospel.
I don't believe Jesus wasted any time in the courthouse trying to tell them what should be done to address sin in the community. He addressed people and their sinful lives directly; not indirectly through their government.
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
Fantastic post.
coadie
08-31-2010, 03:35 PM
Wouldn't married people have enlarged hypothalmususisis? I mean, when I was married we had relations sometimes two or three times a day for several weeks with a short break... and would rev up again. lol How would my hypothalmacupakis know the difference??? LOL
Sorry. There is a gay scientist that theorized that he found enlarged hypothalmic areas in brains. a hand full of gays that died from aids, some animals and 1993.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/outed-at-last-the-gay-hypothalamus-1483925.html
His own analysis is based on the examination of less than 50 brains (19 gay men who had died of Aids, 16 presumed heterosexual men, and six presumed heterosexual women), as well as some monkeys and rats
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346/?searchterm=levay
LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media.[2] LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
He is not a neuro surgeon. I describe fresh life human brain tissue as a texture between stiff jello and cream cheese. It can't be touched by a suction tip directly or it will come out. These samples can dehydrate before he gets them set in formaldehyde.
His belief that Freud was mostly wrong - that homosexuals are not the product of over-bearing mothers and weak or hostile fathers
- may please his own dad, one of very few breeders in a sardined audience.
Freud also a zero regarding live human anatomy of the brain. He was an MD but in the 60's and 70's the field took off. But he was also a Psychologist.
Just a little comment, the brain tells the hypothalmus to send orders to the pituitary which influences the pelvic and other flushing activities of engorgement.
(Just for FERD, I post a lot from memory, hands on experiences and education) no links.
Coadie, memory is wonderful he certainly helps to have one and I have misplaced mine...
but in a debate like this, one must must must provide context and reference. without it, one simply looks like they are making stuff up.
you certainly dont want people to think that of you...
peace my friend.
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 03:48 PM
Its Disgusting and from the Pits of Hell Period.
Excuse me but don't use the word "Pit" on this forum young man!
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 03:54 PM
No, legally, your children cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with an adult. An animal cannot consent to sexual relations or to marriage with a human, since they have no way of expressing their consent.
I have to agree with Coadie here lol. That it can't consent could be seen as a reason to legalize bestiality. Animals are not human and therefore technically we can say they don't deserve basic human rights. Humans own animals and animals are technically seen as property
Someone can argue they love their animal so much, they want to be married to it
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 03:55 PM
Well, yeah, since we were talking about legal issues, I assumed you understood that.
It's about making laws actually. It's not currently legal for gays to marry in all states and at one time it was not legal in any
coadie
08-31-2010, 04:09 PM
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. 37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.
http://www.domawatch.org/index.php
This thread is off track and you know how hard i work to stay on topic.
If we have states provide laws and constitutional ammendments, it is up to the gay community to prove changing them benefits the planet and change.
Charnock
08-31-2010, 04:59 PM
The church should be most concerned with persuading individuals to the truth of the Gospel.
I don't believe Jesus wasted any time in the courthouse trying to tell them what should be done to address sin in the community. He addressed people and their sinful lives directly; not indirectly through their government.
Protecting individual liberties is not contradictory to declaring Biblical absolutes. God is the One who gave the gift of free will to people in the first place. Therefore, we allow the same freedom for people to choose sin or choose righteousness, and at the same time, we offer the solution for sin, should that be their choice.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin; not enforce righteousness.
Our job is to offer the solution to sin and to preach righteousness.
DaffyDuck
08-31-2010, 05:00 PM
Coadie, memory is wonderful he certainly helps to have one and I have misplaced mine...
but in a debate like this, one must must must provide context and reference. without it, one simply looks like they are making stuff up.
you certainly dont want people to think that of you...
peace my friend.
I TOTALLY think that of him. There's no question about it.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 05:03 PM
Our job is to offer the solution to sin and to preach righteousness.
Absolutely! But preaching and enforcing are NOT the same thing, and trying to make laws for the express purpose of enforcing righteousness is not in the jurisdiction of the church, IMO.
Charnock
08-31-2010, 05:09 PM
Absolutely! But preaching and enforcing are NOT the same thing, and trying to make laws for the express purpose of enforcing righteousness is not in the jurisdiction of the church, IMO.
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
Cindy
08-31-2010, 05:12 PM
Legislating morality has been tried for centuries. It doesn't work.
Charnock
08-31-2010, 05:16 PM
Legislating morality has been tried for centuries. It doesn't work.
Baloney.
Every constitution in the world legislates morality.
A world without laws is unimaginable.
Cindy
08-31-2010, 05:18 PM
Baloney.
Every constitution in the world legislates morality.
A world without laws is unimaginable.
And yet we still have criminals.
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 05:19 PM
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?\
Eh...no. Can you please explain the logical conclusion? Because your statement seems to be a non-sequitor
How does it follow that not making laws to legislate morality or force righteousness on people also means we would be required to not at least speak out against those things? You left that part out
Charnock
08-31-2010, 05:20 PM
And yet we still have criminals.
What's the answer then?
Should we just do away with laws? Would that stop criminal activity?
Of course not. The laws exist for the lawless.
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 05:21 PM
Baloney.
Every constitution in the world legislates morality.
A world without laws is unimaginable.
Not every constitution legislates a religions view of morality. Most of a secular code of morality one that does not infringe on the liberty of others.
Our own constitution and our laws do not force people to not fornicate except in certain conditions of age. But they do have laws where you can't force another person against their will to have sex (rape).
Charnock
08-31-2010, 05:22 PM
\
Eh...no. Can you please explain the logical conclusion? Because your statement seems to be a non-sequitor
How does it follow that not making laws to legislate morality or force righteousness on people also means we would be required to not at least speak out against those things? You left that part out
Every time you vote on a proposition in the affirmative you are making a law.
And laws against speeding, drunk driving and rape enforce righteousness.
Should we do away with them?
Cindy
08-31-2010, 05:22 PM
What's the answer then?
Should we just do away with laws? Would that stop criminal activity?
Of course not. The laws exist for the lawless.
No, of course not. But laws cannot stop sin.
Charnock
08-31-2010, 05:24 PM
Not every constitution legislates a religions view of morality. Most of a secular code of morality one that does not infringe on the liberty of others.
Our own constitution and our laws do not force people to not fornicate except in certain conditions of age. But they do have laws where you can't force another person against their will to have sex (rape).
Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 05:54 PM
Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.
That's what I said. The law in bold enforces a law, one law. Obeying that law does not make you righteous.
Keeping a civil code might make one legally righteous but not necessarily religiously righteous
Praxeas
08-31-2010, 05:56 PM
Every time you vote on a proposition in the affirmative you are making a law.
And laws against speeding, drunk driving and rape enforce righteousness.
Should we do away with them?
You still did not support your assertion.
Here is your assertion in case you forgot
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
Im waiting for you to clear up the non-sequitor
Cindy
08-31-2010, 06:08 PM
No Gay divorce in Texas.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/090110dnmetgaydivorce.aa8079fa.html
Jermyn Davidson
08-31-2010, 06:17 PM
Which should a Christian be most concerned with; protecting individual liberties or declaring Bible absolutes?
In this case, declaring Bible absolutes.
Sin is sin and the church can never (and I add will never in America) be forced to condone sin.
jfrog
08-31-2010, 06:25 PM
I think the goal of lawmaking has been missed. Laws cannot create righteousness. This is a fundamental principle of Christianity for not even the law that God gave Moses could create righteousness.
So what is the true goal of lawmaking from a Christian perspective if its not individual righteousness? Lawmaking and government ought to be for the benefit and protection of the people. So, with this Christian perspective on lawmaking, can gay marriage be shown to harm anyone or to affect society in an overly negative way? I don't think so.
So since banning gay marriage doesn't meet the criteria of benefiting or protecting the people, then from a Christian perspective on lawmaking gay marriage should be allowed.
Is that to say that Christians ought to not say being Gay is sin? Not at all. They have every right to. But the Christian perspective on lawmaking will prevent laws being made that simply try to legislate righteousness.
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
Charnock the statement said what our job is ... is your job to enforce righteousness or to preach it?
Please answer wisely.
coadie
08-31-2010, 07:53 PM
Charnock the statement said what our job is ... is your job to enforce righteousness or to preach it?
Please answer wisely.
The resident fruit inspector demands an answer.
The resident fruit inspector demands an answer.
Your postings speak volumes, homophobe. :bigbaby
Your hermeneutic lacking.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 09:33 PM
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
First of all, I didn't endorse silence at all. Secondly, I do believe it's the job of the government to protect its citizens, keep order and exact justice when crimes are committed. It is not the job of the church to handle that. We have a different purpose. We cooperate with the government and its authority, recognizing it's ability to enhance our lives, but we shouldn't BE the government. And no, that doesn't mean I believe Christians can't be involved in politics, but when they are, they have to use a lot of discretion and wisdom.
From that perspective, I believe firmly in separation of church and state. Not only because I don't want the government overly involved in my life, but also because many Christians start trying to legislate righteousness, which isn't what we're supposed to be about. And when I say "legislate righteousness", I mean trying to legislate obedience to God in all areas--not just trying to keep order in society.
MissBrattified
08-31-2010, 09:39 PM
Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.
Just because some laws enforce some righteousness (for the benefit of a community as a whole) doesn't mean that all righteousness should be enforced.
There's overlap between God's laws and the laws of man, but that doesn't mean the church should go around trying to force God's laws upon all men.
Absolutely, our laws reflect a moral code and define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. What does that have to do with the purpose of the church? We aren't supposed to enforce any type of behavior--including moral behavior. Is it a pastor's job to make sure no one commits adultery? To make certain that no one steals anything? We can support laws, but in my opinion, unless it's something that protects the community as a whole, we should keep our noses out of it, and be about our "Father's business."
In that light, how is my family threatened by gays entering into civil unions/contracts for financial purposes?
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:15 AM
Sorry. There is a gay scientist that theorized that he found enlarged hypothalmic areas in brains. a hand full of gays that died from aids, some animals and 1993.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/outed-at-last-the-gay-hypothalamus-1483925.html
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346/?searchterm=levay
He is not a neuro surgeon. I describe fresh life human brain tissue as a texture between stiff jello and cream cheese. It can't be touched by a suction tip directly or it will come out. These samples can dehydrate before he gets them set in formaldehyde.
Freud also a zero regarding live human anatomy of the brain. He was an MD but in the 60's and 70's the field took off. But he was also a Psychologist.
Just a little comment, the brain tells the hypothalmus to send orders to the pituitary which influences the pelvic and other flushing activities of engorgement.
(Just for FERD, I post a lot from memory, hands on experiences and education) no links.
Coadie... none of that really matters. LOL
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:17 AM
I have to agree with Coadie here lol. That it can't consent could be seen as a reason to legalize bestiality. Animals are not human and therefore technically we can say they don't deserve basic human rights. Humans own animals and animals are technically seen as property
Someone can argue they love their animal so much, they want to be married to it
LOL
I think most gay people would find the idea repulsive as we do. Animals can't offer consent. They can't also file for divorce if abused or mistreated. I think this is a stretch, personally.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:19 AM
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
Issues that threaten the life, liberty, and property of others are fair game. The private arrangements and lifestyles of private citizens isn't the domain of government.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:21 AM
Baloney.
Every constitution in the world legislates morality.
A world without laws is unimaginable.
Yes... and no. Moral principles relating to the protection of life, liberty, and property are constitutional. However, if a constitution tells me I can't marry a woman because she's African American or if a law tells me that I can't live or do what I wish privately with myself, my wife, or any other consenting adult isn't. If so, they could ban cookouts!
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:23 AM
Every time you vote on a proposition in the affirmative you are making a law.
And laws against speeding, drunk driving and rape enforce righteousness.
Should we do away with them?
Charnock, if you think laws against speeding, drunk driving, and rape are to "enforce righteousness" you're seriously misguided. These laws are designed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of law abiding citizens. Get a grip my brotha. lol
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:24 AM
Every constitution in the world exists as a moral code. They exist to define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. BTW, the law in bold enforces righteousness.
Not necessarily. The age of consent is designed to protect minors from being manipulated or cohersed into intimate relations. It's to protect their liberties and their very lives.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:27 AM
In this case, declaring Bible absolutes.
Sin is sin and the church can never (and I add will never in America) be forced to condone sin.
Should we ban mature literature, entertainments, items, movies, etc., etc.? There goes the freedom of speech and expression. Should we ban unwholesome music?
Maybe we need Shariah Law in the United States. It seems so many have no issue FORCING their religious moral views on others at the gun point of GOVERNMENT.... until those views and morals aren't their own. Maybe being forced to live under Shariah Law will teach us something about how sacred FREEDOM is... even when that same freedom allows men to choose sin.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:29 AM
FREEDOM is sacred. LIBERTY is holy.
Even when the same freedoms and liberty allows others to make sinful personal choices.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 06:33 AM
To side with FREEDOM is holy. To attempt to use the gun point of GOVERNMENT to enforce narrow religious views or interpretations is tyranny. Ask the multitudes of people who perished under Roman Catholic rule and inquisitions for being pagan, sinners, and heretics (many were Oneness).
If we set up a "Christian" standard of law in the United States, it will not be distinctly Apostolic. It will reflect the majority opinion of Christians as it waxes and wanes...and trust me... it will not reflect our views or values. It also opens the door for a growing Muslim population to be justified in attempting to codify their own religious law in our land using democratic principles. Do you want Muslim laws creeping into the US? I don't.
We protect our own freedom and liberty by protecting the freedoms and liberties of ALL (that includes sinners whose personal choices do not endanger life, liberty, or property).
Your mindset, carried to its logical conclusion, would require Christians to stay silent on issues such as rape, theft, and slander as well. After all, those are legal issues just as much as marriage is a legal issue. Why enforce righteousness in those areas?
Charnock you are running to the absurd here. rape, theft and slander are issues where innocents are being harmed. It is the primary role of government to protect innocents from predation.
Christians, just like all others in a civil society have a responsibility to protect the innocent.
coadie
09-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Coadie... you're not answering my questions. Could a therapy turn you gay? Is being straight really a choice for you? I mean, could you actually choose to be gay?
If you want the therapy to turn you gay. Strait is a default setting. Sure, one can choose to be gay. If one doesn't want to respond to therapy, it doesn't work.
Claims that reparation therapy does damage are false.
coadie
09-01-2010, 09:01 AM
More poor hermeneutic ... from the theocrat.
Genesis 19:1-4:
Who came to see the messengers of God? The men, the young men, the old men, "all the people from every quarter." What does this say about this town? Were ALL of the males in the city homosexual? They ALL were here at Lot's front door, weren't they.
Genesis 19:5:
There's that word again, "know." There is no Old Testament text where "yadah" refers to homosexual sex! The only passage ever quoted is THIS one. The less ambiguous word "shakhabh" is used for heterosexual intercourse as well as homosexual intercourse and beastial intercourse. "Shakhabh" appears fifty times in the Old Testament. If it had been used in this passage, the real meaning would have been clear. As it is, there are NO grounds for assuming that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. If the story is taken in context and in light of the other passages, it is easier to understand. Because "yadah" is a word of aquaintance, some have suggested that a serious breach of hospitality was implied. That is certainly to be taken into consideration.
Back to the story: Lot offered his two daughters instead. Women were looked upon as far inferior to men. Lot was trying to pacify the group and considered the two visitors more important than his own beautiful daughters.
Genesis 19:6-13:
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.htm
Rainbow Hermeneutics
Leave out the inconvenient verses and use the filter on the rest.
The word "homosexual" was only recently invented.
You seem to interpret scripture by readin Lot's mind.
What did he mean when he called their behavior wicked?
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:01 AM
If you want the therapy to turn you gay. Strait is a default setting. Sure, one can choose to be gay. If one doesn't want to respond to therapy, it doesn't work.
Claims that reparation therapy does damage are false.
Actually, according to the research you offered earlier, homosexuality has a biological basis. Trust me, I was surprised to see you take that stance also, based on your previous posts, but apparently you believe that.
Rainbow Hermeneutics
Leave out the inconvenient verses and use the filter on the rest.
The word "homosexual" was only recently invented.
You seem to interpret scripture by readin Lot's mind.
What did he mean when he called their behavior wicked?
You're the one reading his mind ...
Are you submitting everytime we read wickedness in the Bible ... it's code FOR GAY??
This is why your becoming the butt of our jokes.
Don't ever teach my kid's Sunday school class.
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:06 AM
You're the one reading his mind ...
Are you submitting everytime we read wickedness in the Bible ... it's code FOR GAY??
This is why your becoming the butt of our jokes.
bad choice of words for this topic. lol
bad choice of words for this topic. lol
:bliss
Digging4Truth
09-01-2010, 09:08 AM
FREEDOM is sacred. LIBERTY is holy.
Even when the same freedoms and liberty allows others to make sinful personal choices.
Indeed. And, while reading your post, the following thought came to mind...
Freedom is sacred, Liberty is Holy, and taking un-granted power over another is evil... in every form.
Coadie Logic:
All the men from every quarter in Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked.
Wicked means gay.
All the men at Lot's door were wicked and gay.
coadie
09-01-2010, 09:10 AM
Actually, according to the research you offered earlier, homosexuality has a biological basis. Trust me, I was surprised to see you take that stance also, based on your previous posts, but apparently you believe that.
Give an example. I know what I believe. The example I gave was one study showed in identical twins, if 1 was gay the other one was only gay 38% of the time. In black twins, if one is black, they are both black. In identical twins, we can test a lot of nature vs nurture questions. We covered that in psychology 201. Identical twins are identical in physical ways. In regards to gay behavior, not even close.
Since you are on a roll of misquoting, another example. Give a neurologist a hypothalmus and let him predict whether it was a gay or not. Real blind study. Can't do it?
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:13 AM
I have to agree with Coadie here lol. That it can't consent could be seen as a reason to legalize bestiality. Animals are not human and therefore technically we can say they don't deserve basic human rights. Humans own animals and animals are technically seen as property
Someone can argue they love their animal so much, they want to be married to it
Yeah, but it is the same as wanting to marry an underage child. That child cannot consent, therefore marriage is never an option.
The issue at hand is about two consenting adults. The bestiality and/or pedophilia angle doesn't relate to the issue at hand. I don't think anyone was arguing that bestiality should be allowed.
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:14 AM
It's about making laws actually. It's not currently legal for gays to marry in all states and at one time it was not legal in any
It's about discrimination. There is no legal reason to not allow homosexuals to marry just as heterosexuals do.
The HCT reads -- Homophobe Coadie translation:
The LORD saw how great man's GAYNESS on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Genesis 6:5
-----------------------------------
Genesis 18:23
Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the GAY?
-----------------------------------
Genesis 38:10
What he did was GAY in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
----------------------------------------
Genesis 39:9 (Joseph to Potiphar's wife)
No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a GAY thing and sin against God?"
-----------------------
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:17 AM
Give an example. I know what I believe. The example I gave was one study showed in identical twins, if 1 was gay the other one was only gay 38% of the time. In black twins, if one is black, they are both black. In identical twins, we can test a lot of nature vs nurture questions. We covered that in psychology 201. Identical twins are identical in physical ways. In regards to gay behavior, not even close.
Since you are on a roll of misquoting, another example. Give a neurologist a hypothalmus and let him predict whether it was a gay or not. Real blind study. Can't do it?
The study you referenced as legitimate in post #55 concludes that homosexuality has a biological basis. Since you believe the other numbers from the study, it stands to reason that agree with that study on the biological basis for homosexuality.
Cindy
09-01-2010, 09:23 AM
It's about discrimination. There is no legal reason to not allow homosexuals to marry just as heterosexuals do.
Do you believe that being a homosexual is something people have no control over? Like the color of skin, age, sex? If not, then there is no discrimination legally.
coadie
09-01-2010, 09:30 AM
You're the one reading his mind ...
Are you submitting everytime we read wickedness in the Bible ... it's code FOR GAY??
This is why your becoming the butt of our jokes.
Don't ever teach my kid's Sunday school class.
Getting edgy? Can't read the bible? Big word alert. Wicked.
Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly
apparently the household of Lot didn't fit the bill of wicked.
Genesis 18:23
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Lot an observer of human behavior says
3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Lot didn't seem confused about the Sodomites wanting sex with the stranger that were guests.
Another version
5 They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.
Lot calls the behavior wicked. He knew what it was. I take Lot's observation of behavior at face value.
There is a very high propensity toward pedophilia amoung sodomites.
11And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
12And he took away the sodomites out of the land,
has that changed?
I suspect doing right in God's eyes will get him called a homophobe today by the gay advocates.
Twisp
09-01-2010, 09:35 AM
Do you believe that being a homosexual is something people have no control over? Like the color of skin, age, sex? If not, then there is no discrimination legally.
I do not know for sure, since it has not been verified.
Even if it is a choice, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against.
Religious discrimination happens all the time, and religion is a choice, not something people have not control over.
Discrimination also happens against disabled individuals, which, are not always biological in nature.
coadie
09-01-2010, 09:39 AM
Do you believe that being a homosexual is something people have no control over? Like the color of skin, age, sex? If not, then there is no discrimination legally.
"Gay" Penguins in New Zealand are cited in part of the "Born Different" ad campaign. However, Jane Carruthers, a representative for Antarctic Encounter & Underwater World in New Zealand, where the penguins live, says the two "gay" penguins aren't as close as they used to be. "Penguins tend to change partners each season, so it was strange that the penguins stayed close for 10 years prior to their 'breakup.' Because of this, it is probably not appropriate for them to be seen as promoting gay rights."
A waiter wearing a tuxedo wants to be a gay Penguin?
http://www.narth.com/docs/campaign.html
The motive behind "born that way" is to make it a civil rights mandate like race/colour.
coadie
09-01-2010, 09:49 AM
I do not know for sure, since it has not been verified.
Even if it is a choice, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against.
Religious discrimination happens all the time, and religion is a choice, not something people have not control over.
Discrimination also happens against disabled individuals, which, are not always biological in nature.
Freud posed fetishes in his theory of development. Which ones are natural or normal?
They display these in gay pride parades.
tstew
09-01-2010, 10:34 AM
Give an example. I know what I believe. The example I gave was one study showed in identical twins, if 1 was gay the other one was only gay 38% of the time. In black twins, if one is black, they are both black. In identical twins, we can test a lot of nature vs nurture questions. We covered that in psychology 201. Identical twins are identical in physical ways. In regards to gay behavior, not even close.
Since you are on a roll of misquoting, another example. Give a neurologist a hypothalmus and let him predict whether it was a gay or not. Real blind study. Can't do it?
I don't believe that homosexuality is a matter of nature, but I think that if this study is true it is presenting the opposite of what Coadie is arguing. 38% is a very high percentage...exponentially greater than the average.
MissBrattified
09-01-2010, 11:05 AM
I don't believe that homosexuality is a matter of nature, but I think that if this study is true it is presenting the opposite of what Coadie is arguing. 38% is a very high percentage...exponentially greater than the average.
I personally know a pair of gay twins--one of them died of AIDS.
There really isn't a threat from facing the idea that it's [I]possible there's a genetic component to this tendency. Being born with a tendency toward any particular sin doesn't mean that God has endorsed the behavior. If that were the case, then all sin would be God-approved, because we are all born with a sinful nature. We don't judge what God has approved by first determining what our temptations are and then assuming they must be normal and God-given in our nature.
I'm sure there are a lot of heterosexual men who have the "tendency" to have sex with every woman they're attracted to, but God called that sin, too.
coadie
09-01-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't believe that homosexuality is a matter of nature, but I think that if this study is true it is presenting the opposite of what Coadie is arguing. 38% is a very high percentage...exponentially greater than the average.
Correct. That can be explained by environment. They were ofcourse in the womb together and have many of the same human contacts.
Lot of preachers kids become pastors. It is not biological.
I say if it is biological, it would be the same for both of a monozygotic pair.
That means 100%
Aquila
09-01-2010, 11:10 AM
If you want the therapy to turn you gay. Strait is a default setting. Sure, one can choose to be gay. If one doesn't want to respond to therapy, it doesn't work.
Claims that reparation therapy does damage are false.
What if there are biological factors? I'm sorry, but no amount of therapy could turn me gay. lol
I think you should do more research on reparation therapy. We have kids killing themselves over this kind of thing. It's not worth it. Therapy doesn't change the heart, the soul, or the mind. It takes a sovereign act of God to change a person, whatever their condition.
I'd also like to present to you that those that claim reparation therapy worked, are most likely not really "gay". You'd have to prove that they were truly gay and not just dabbling, confused, or caught up in something they thought was exciting.
coadie
09-01-2010, 11:10 AM
I personally know a pair of gay twins--one of them died of AIDS.
There really isn't a threat from facing the idea that it's [I]possible there's a genetic component to this tendency. Being born with a tendency toward any particular sin doesn't mean that God has endorsed the behavior. If that were the case, then all sin would be God-approved, because we are all born with a sinful nature. We don't judge what God has approved by first determining what our temptations are and then assuming they must be normal and God-given in our nature.
I'm sure there are a lot of heterosexual men who have the "tendency" to have sex with every woman they're attracted to, but God called that sin, too.
Adam blamed Eve. Blame it on genetics is alive and well in alcoholism and other addictive behaviors.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Indeed. And, while reading your post, the following thought came to mind...
Freedom is sacred, Liberty is Holy, and taking un-granted power over another is evil... in every form.
True. Sinners are sinners. We can't use the police power of GOVERNMENT to regulate them unless what they're doing truly endangers the life, liberty, and/or property of another.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 11:14 AM
Getting edgy? Can't read the bible? Big word alert. Wicked.
Genesis 13:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly
apparently the household of Lot didn't fit the bill of wicked.
Genesis 18:23
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Lot an observer of human behavior says
3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Lot didn't seem confused about the Sodomites wanting sex with the stranger that were guests.
Another version
5 They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.
Lot calls the behavior wicked. He knew what it was. I take Lot's observation of behavior at face value.
There is a very high propensity toward pedophilia amoung sodomites.
11And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
12And he took away the sodomites out of the land,
has that changed?
I suspect doing right in God's eyes will get him called a homophobe today by the gay advocates.
Coadie... they were trying to rape Lot. Their society was violently given over to this practice as an act of violence. While sin is sin, this was deplorable. A far cry from two women peacefully cohabitating.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 11:15 AM
I do not know for sure, since it has not been verified.
Even if it is a choice, that does not mean they cannot be discriminated against.
Religious discrimination happens all the time, and religion is a choice, not something people have not control over.
Discrimination also happens against disabled individuals, which, are not always biological in nature.
Are you saying that discrimination is therefore right? Maybe you lost me.
Aquila
09-01-2010, 11:17 AM
Adam blamed Eve. Blame it on genetics is alive and well in alcoholism and other addictive behaviors.
No one is "blaming it on genetics". We are trying to explain that even if there is a biological component, it's the result of mankind's fall. There is NO good thing in our flesh (biology).
MissBrattified
09-01-2010, 11:18 AM
Adam blamed Eve. Blame it on genetics is alive and well in alcoholism and other addictive behaviors.
You're missing the point. Even if someone can legitimately blame genetics, it's irrelevant. Sin is still sin, even if you ARE genetically predisposed to it. (As we ALL are.) Therefore, I don't need to waste my time arguing over whether something is truly genetic--because it doesn't change the conclusion about the behavior.
MissBrattified
09-01-2010, 11:19 AM
No one is "blaming it on genetics". We are trying to explain that even if there is a biological component, it's the result of mankind's fall. There is NO good thing in our flesh (biology).
Exactly! :thumbsup
This is like a merry-go-round....lol...I think I'm getting dizzy.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.