Jennifer Knapp officially comes "out"

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by yisroelm

Question for everybody: Is there anybody on AFF that knowingly fellowships practicing homosexuals and feels justified doing so?

What is the definition of "fellowship" according to your definition?

[Sam]

I wonder how many years it will be before gay marriage is as acceptable among evangelicals and Pentecostals as inter racial marriage has become over time.

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by Sam

I wonder how many years it will be before gay marriage is as acceptable among evangelicals and Pentecostals as inter racial marriage has become over time.

Sam...I know of not ONE scripture that condemns interracial marriages. Not one. If you know one, please let me know what it is. However...

...the bible has many scriptures condemning homosexuality.

I think some minds are truly being 'seared with a hot iron'. Living for God seems to be a joke to some people...even those who at one time had the Holy Ghost.

God help us all...

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Sam

I wonder how many years it will be before gay marriage is as acceptable among evangelicals and Pentecostals as inter racial marriage has become over time.

Hold the horses!! Interacial marriage doesn't even remotely ralate to same sex marriage.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Hold the horses!! Interacial marriage doesn't even remotely ralate to same sex marriage.

The "problem" with inter-racial marriage was that it produced "mixed" offspring.

A homosexual coupling will not produce any offspring.

It really is "apples and oranges," but the Left is fond of this argument.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "problem" with inter-racial marriage was that it produced "mixed" offspring.

A homosexual coupling will not produce any offspring.

It really is "apples and oranges," but the Left is fond of this argument.

We are?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

We are?

Yeah... you send me emails and IM's all the time making that claim.

What I meant was that there are those who will make an appeal to the old racist laws against "mixed marriages" as being comparable to the present day resistance to "gay marriage."

That's what I'm saying is "apples and oranges."

A racially "mixed" marriage between a man and a woman will still produce offspring. That is what the racists of the past sought to avoid when they legislated against such marriages.

"Gay marriages" produce no offspring. They are being opposed, not on racist grounds, but on moral grounds.

Gays still have the fundamental rights of free association. They can live with and couple with whomever they choose. They are just currently (for the most part, there are some exceptions) having a societal sanction withheld from their unions in the form of a marriage certificate.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah... you send me emails and IM's all the time making that claim.

What I meant was that there are those who will make an appeal to the old racist laws against "mixed marriages" as being comparable to the present day resistance to "gay marriage."

That's what I'm saying is "apples and oranges."

A racially "mixed" marriage between a man and a woman will still produce offspring. That is what the racists of the past sought to avoid when they legislated against such marriages.

"Gay marriages" produce no offspring. They are being opposed, not on racist grounds, but on moral grounds.

Gays still have the fundamental rights of free association. They can live with and couple with whomever they choose. They are just currently (for the most part, there are some exceptions) having a societal sanction withheld from their unions in the form of a marriage certificate.

I'm glad you're putting "mixed" in quotations. I can't STAND the term "Mixed Marriage". Every marriage is a mixed marriage. Every marriage includes a man and a woman (at least here in California, it does) and you can't get any more mixed than that.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah... you send me emails and IM's all the time making that claim.

What I meant was that there are those who will make an appeal to the old racist laws against "mixed marriages" as being comparable to the present day resistance to "gay marriage."

That's what I'm saying is "apples and oranges."

A racially "mixed" marriage between a man and a woman will still produce offspring. That is what the racists of the past sought to avoid when they legislated against such marriages.

"Gay marriages" produce no offspring. They are being opposed, not on racist grounds, but on moral grounds.

Gays still have the fundamental rights of free association. They can live with and couple with whomever they choose. They are just currently (for the most part, there are some exceptions) having a societal sanction withheld from their unions in the form of a marriage certificate.

Ah. Gotcha.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah... you send me emails and IM's all the time making that claim.

What I meant was that there are those who will make an appeal to the old racist laws against "mixed marriages" as being comparable to the present day resistance to "gay marriage."

That's what I'm saying is "apples and oranges."

A racially "mixed" marriage between a man and a woman will still produce offspring. That is what the racists of the past sought to avoid when they legislated against such marriages.

"Gay marriages" produce no offspring. They are being opposed, not on racist grounds, but on moral grounds.

Gays still have the fundamental rights of free association. They can live with and couple with whomever they choose. They are just currently (for the most part, there are some exceptions) having a societal sanction withheld from their unions in the form of a marriage certificate.

If the production of offspring makes a marriage acceptable in God's sight what about the vast number of marriages wherein the couples decide not to have children? Are these sinful unions?

Just asking to get some clarification.