|
Post by huxbux on Dec 2, 2008 22:05:17 GMT -5
Well said Russ.... I might also add that who is to say what is moral? The religious right? remember that there was a time when Christianity was thought to be an abomination... they even went so far as to feed Christians to the lions... So at that point in history I guess that was the "moral" thing to do since it was what the majority thought was right.... Let me ask you this.... Do you recognize the marriage of Jews or Muslims? They are not married in the same fashion that Christians are.... how about Wiccans and Pagans? surely they are not married because your God is not involved in it.... Minorities have had to fight to get everything they have wanted in this country.... The Indians fought to try and save their land... Blacks fought for their freedom... women fought (although in a different sense) for the right to vote and to be treated as equals... By the thinking of some of the posts I have read... it would seem that you would not allow women the that right... or blacks the rights that they fought for... Remember the world is an ever changing place... this country is no different than any other... things change as the times change... different things become the "norm" and older traditions die out.... if you don't think this is true... then please tell me why we are not still living in caves and rubbing two sticks together to make fire? There are many truths in your post Sleazy, but one very obvious, very natural, very basic truth you are ignoring. No matter what religion you follow, what race you belong to, what gender you are, what nationality you were born into, what era of history you live in, or what the moral judgements of any particular society or culture are...............a square peg won't fit in a round hole.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 3, 2008 1:13:32 GMT -5
Huxbux, I see you equate civil unions with marriage, legally. Can you tell me where a same-sex couple can obtain a civil union that carries the complete package of rights that marriage between opposite-sex couples conveys? I can save you the trouble of looking for one.....there aren't any. A few states have attempted to make their civil unions as comprehensive as marriages, but none have succeeded entirely. The most obvious failure common to them all is the lack of portability. We can marry in one state and travel anywhere with full recognition of our union with our spouse, but the same-sex couple's papers concerning their civil union have little or no value in some other states, and there's no guarantee of any recognition of their union in any state or country they travel through or relocate to.
There is also no federal recognition of their union for tax purposes.
In some states, the papers from the civil union, reinforced by a few thousand dollars worth of documentation from an attorney or two will bring their legal status reasonably close to the status of an opposite-sex couple's marriage license, but not quite.
Separate but equal? Don't think so.
As to the legalization of their marriage being the equivalent to the sanctification or support of their union, I disagree completely. We permit all sorts of things legally that we don't endorse, in the name of freedom.
We even allow Democrats to vote here in Morgan County, as long as their numbers are few and no races are actually decided by them.
We allow stretch pants to be sold at Walmart in XXXL size!
We allowed the reopening of the Taco Bell, for cryin' out loud!
We'll do almost anything else in the name of freedom, even some things that have very little redeeming social or scientific value.
Surely you don't think that the majority of us APPROVE or SANCTIFY those things?
But we feel that freedom for all our citizens is more important than our revulsion at the thoughts of some of our own folks actually stuffing themselves on burritos or appearing in public in those stretch pants.
None of us is truly free until we all are free.
I'd think as hunters we might want to be more sensitive to the rights of other minorities, rather than less so.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 3, 2008 10:09:59 GMT -5
This issue is about a TINY part of the population trying to impose it's will on the rest of a largely unwilling populace. If KOOKIFORNIA doesn't think people of the same gender should pretend they are married, then how do you think the issue will play in most other parts of the country?
These days people like to poo-poo morality while climbing astride their own high-horse and waving the new banner of tolerance. "Hey, look at me, I'm so accepting and progressive!" Bah!
Yes, I believe that the idea of gay marriage is morally wrong. That makes me the bad guy. Fine, but let's forget about that for a minute.
Somebody explain to me how the idea makes sense, morality aside. For at least the past six thousand years or so, give or take a few centuries, men have been marrying women. Now, some of each gender want to "marry" each other. I contend that this cannot be a marriage. It must be something else. Why insist on calling it a marriage? If I were to post on here that suddenly, after thousands of years, a shape consisting of four straight lines is now a circle instead of a square, you would all say I was nuts. Marriage is a union of some sort between a man and a woman ---or at various times throughout history & cultures, multiple women. Always has been, always will be. To argue otherwise is absurd.
Then of course there are the biological problems with the idea. While children, the practical result of--and let's face it, the real point of-- marriage, don't always occur with men & women, they are impossible with same sex couples. If I was in the back yard proposing to breed two bulls or get new chicks out of two hens, We would not be debating the merits of the idea.
Putting the wishes of homosexuals to have some sort of legal parody of marriage on the same level as black equality is just wrong. If I was a black man I think I'd be mad.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 12:29:40 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me how the idea makes sense, morality aside. For at least the past six thousand years or so, give or take a few centuries, men have been marrying women. Now, some of each gender want to "marry" each other. I contend that this cannot be a marriage. It must be something else. Why insist on calling it a marriage? If I were to post on here that suddenly, after thousands of years, a shape consisting of four straight lines is now a circle instead of a square, you would all say I was nuts. Marriage is a union of some sort between a man and a woman ---or at various times throughout history & cultures, multiple women. Always has been, always will be. To argue otherwise is absurd. Actually Sas the biblical definition of marriage is to have had sex with someone.... that is where we get the idea of "consummating" a marriage... to have sex is to be married in the eyes of God.. "and the two become one flesh" ... or another example is the marriage of Issac and Rebekah... Genesis 24: 63-67 "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." ...so by that definition then back in those times men did in fact marry men by todays "laws" these people even though married in the eyes of God would not be married in the eyes of our government... why are they not married in the eyes of our government? Does our government think that it is greater than God? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Says that if a woman is attacked and raped then she is married to that man in the eyes of God. It also says that the attacker can not "divorce" this wife. Mathew 19:6 Jesus says "What God has joined man should not separate" ... notice that this line does not say "whom"
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Dec 3, 2008 15:15:15 GMT -5
Huxbux, We do see the same thing from some very different angles, sometimes. 8^) I don't like to see society, or any member of it, forced to do anything unneccessarily. Freedom is good. And I personally never use the term "bless". I think that if the majority of society doesn't believe it is moral to engage in a behavior, they should have every freedom not to engage in it. However, they don't have the freedom to prevent others from engaging in it due to their belief. Thus, I was able to have a ham sandwich a few minutes ago despite the opinion of a great many people in our society that eating pork is immoral. I didn't have to Google it up and see if the anti-pork-eaters were now in the majority, or if any laws had been passed to make that sandwich illegal. I could simply rely on my own moral compass in making the decision. I hold no grudge against those in other houses who might have opted for chicken or beef or fish. They are free to eat as they wish, as am I. I am strongly suspicious of those who may have chosen cottage cheese, with or without any fruit accompaniment, but I don't plan to start a push towards a constitutional amendment to make that choice illegal. Their disgusting habit seems to me to be ample self-punishment. A society which needs to poke its moral compass into my business can just get lost. Again Russ, you've missed the real issue. We (the majority opposed to gay marriage) do not wish to prevent others from engaging in their behavior, which is where you keep focusing your argument. We have simply exercised our rights in choosing to not officially sanction that behavior by refusing those who do a marriage license. To do otherwise would be tantamount to our approval of said behavior. Although I allow you to eat your pork sandwich or whatever equally disgusting meaty matter you choose to slap between two pieces of bread because I believe it's your right to do so, I absolutely have the right to not approve of it, do I not? If I do not approve of your preference in sandwiches, that does not make my opinion of your eating habits discriminatory as you are still exercising your rights by eating the sandwich. We (the majority) are just not going to force the Surgeon General of the U.S. to declare that the eating of your sandwich is something which we approve of in order to make you feel better about the whole thing. A society which follows a moral compass may not be the ideal fit for all individuals all of the time, but it sure beats the chaos of wandering around without direction. BTW, I absolutely love BBQ pork. I see it similarly, Hux. I don't see a legal union bestowing all legal rights enjoyed by married couples as of lesser quality than marriage--it is simply qualitatively different. We don't call an apple an orange--why should we call a union a marriage? The two imply the union of two totally different sets of individuals. Society as a whole does not wish to put a "stamp of approval" on homosexuality by viewing its union and corresponding behaviors as "marriage", so why should be change this against the preferences of most people in society for the preferences of a minority of people? Whether or not homosexuality is grounded in biology or behavioral choices, it simply exists and we must deal with the issue so that individuals are not denied legal equality. This seems like the most logical solution to me, and it would not discriminate against people legally.
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 3, 2008 15:39:17 GMT -5
Sleazy, with all due respect, that is the the most twisted use of Biblical passages that I may have ever witnessed. Yes there is some support that sex was what consummated a marriage, but let us not forget that marriage is something that is done as a covenant before God. The following all show that homosexuality are a abomination before God.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
Genesis 19:1-25 1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 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.” 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” 9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” 14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking. 15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.” 16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!” 18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.” 21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.) 23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.
And a similar one can be found in Judges 19:13--20:48, where the owner of the house actually gives his daughters to the men because of the abomination that homosexuality is in the eyes of God.
If those aren't good enough examples then these might help to clear up what is immoral about the issue.
Leviticus 18:22 22 “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Heck maybe the Greek word for immoral might convince you what is immoral....πορνόι (pornoi)....looks like porno to me......that's because it is.
To even ask a question like what is the definition of morality is nothing more than moral relevance; a philosophy that anything goes because it would be judgmentaly for me to say that what someone else does is wrong. Why isn't murder legal? Surely there are those that feel that it is OK to murder someone.
God does say whom, you just want to skip the parts that say it.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 16:09:51 GMT -5
Call them twisted if you like... all I did was quote passages that were there... I am well aware that the bible says in several different places that homosexuality is a sin... but it also says that sex is marriage... oh and it also says that women are property.... and that we should sacrifice farm animals to avoid the wrath of god... and I suppose you did not live with your wife before you were married huntnprayn? Because to do so is to live in sin...
My point here is to have you realize that the bible is not a living document... times change... as times change portions of the bible are no longer relevant... if you think this isn't true... then I ask you to go and tell your wife that you own her and she is your property to do with as you please. See if that doesn't go over like a turd in a punch bowl...
Also as far as murder being illegal.... Seems to me we are in a war... in war people are killed intentionally by other people... it is not only legal... it is government funded...
Now before some people go getting bent out of shape... remember I spent 5 years in the military before I was discharged with a bad knee.. and then I spent another 5 years trying to get back in the military... So no I am not bashing the troops... I am not bashing the war... I am just giving an example of how murder is legal.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 16:28:25 GMT -5
Doc, How much of a majority do you think it is that is against homosexual marriage? The numbers would surprise you... if you read the report on this link www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar04.htm you will see that a poll started by a group against gay marriage the American Family Association has found that 60% of people that answered are in favor of gay marriage.. and only 32% are opposed... With a poll like this it would seem that the people that are opposed are the minority... I have an idea to end all this very quickly... How about if the government just does away with marriage and only allows everyone to enter in to a "civil union".... and we can let God decide who is married and who isn't.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 3, 2008 18:44:18 GMT -5
Actually Sleazy, if you delve a little deeper into the Bible, you will find that it makes a marked distinction between killing and murder. I do not remember the passages (I'm no expert on the contents of the Bible), but I do know that those passages have been cited in the courts to defend the practice of capital punishment against those who would label it "murder"
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 3, 2008 19:10:08 GMT -5
Huxbux, I see you equate civil unions with marriage, legally. Can you tell me where a same-sex couple can obtain a civil union that carries the complete package of rights that marriage between opposite-sex couples conveys? I can save you the trouble of looking for one.....there aren't any. A few states have attempted to make their civil unions as comprehensive as marriages, but none have succeeded entirely. The most obvious failure common to them all is the lack of portability. We can marry in one state and travel anywhere with full recognition of our union with our spouse, but the same-sex couple's papers concerning their civil union have little or no value in some other states, and there's no guarantee of any recognition of their union in any state or country they travel through or relocate to. There is also no federal recognition of their union for tax purposes. In some states, the papers from the civil union, reinforced by a few thousand dollars worth of documentation from an attorney or two will bring their legal status reasonably close to the status of an opposite-sex couple's marriage license, but not quite. Separate but equal? Don't think so. As to the legalization of their marriage being the equivalent to the sanctification or support of their union, I disagree completely. We permit all sorts of things legally that we don't endorse, in the name of freedom. We even allow Democrats to vote here in Morgan County, as long as their numbers are few and no races are actually decided by them. We allow stretch pants to be sold at Walmart in XXXL size! We allowed the reopening of the Taco Bell, for cryin' out loud! We'll do almost anything else in the name of freedom, even some things that have very little redeeming social or scientific value. Surely you don't think that the majority of us APPROVE or SANCTIFY those things? But we feel that freedom for all our citizens is more important than our revulsion at the thoughts of some of our own folks actually stuffing themselves on burritos or appearing in public in those stretch pants. None of us is truly free until we all are free. I'd think as hunters we might want to be more sensitive to the rights of other minorities, rather than less so. You raise a valid point with this post Russ. I'm not really "up" on civil unions and I apologize for my ignorance. If indeed they do not include every single right enjoyed in a legal marriage, then I would support taking whatever legal steps were necessary to make them equal. I am the last one you'll find that would advocate limiting anyone's freedom. After instituting these logical and just changes, gays should be satisfied. I'm betting they would not. There's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that it's not the legal rights that is the issue with them, it's societies moral acceptance of their behavior that they really desire. They are not getting that sort of appeasement from me, or from the majority of the American populace apparently. I don't demand that the anti's morally approve of my hunting rights, I could care less what their opinion is on the subject. I only ask that I be allowed to exercise that right in peace.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 19:12:37 GMT -5
The use of the word murder to replace the word kill in the 6th commandment is relatively new... Is this because the scholars we have now can translate Hebrew better than people that actually lived in (or closer to) the time when these books were written? I find that hard to believe... This change in the newer bibles is more a case of political influence rather than objective translation.
The Hebrew word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is "ratsach" meaning slay, murder, kill or be put to death... so who is really to know which one of those varying terms was the one meant by the writer? In Exodus 21:12 the writer uses the word "smiteth" in Hebrew the word for "smiteth" is "nakah" which means smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder... so again it is very vague and we have no real way of knowing what was meant.
and one last one for you to think about...
Luke 6:27 says “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" so if "killing" is allowed is that really loving your enemies?
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 3, 2008 19:44:11 GMT -5
Somebody explain to me how the idea makes sense, morality aside. For at least the past six thousand years or so, give or take a few centuries, men have been marrying women. Now, some of each gender want to "marry" each other. I contend that this cannot be a marriage. It must be something else. Why insist on calling it a marriage? If I were to post on here that suddenly, after thousands of years, a shape consisting of four straight lines is now a circle instead of a square, you would all say I was nuts. Marriage is a union of some sort between a man and a woman ---or at various times throughout history & cultures, multiple women. Always has been, always will be. To argue otherwise is absurd. Actually Sas the biblical definition of marriage is to have had sex with someone.... that is where we get the idea of "consummating" a marriage... to have sex is to be married in the eyes of God.. "and the two become one flesh" ... or another example is the marriage of Issac and Rebekah... Genesis 24: 63-67 "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." ...so by that definition then back in those times men did in fact marry men by todays "laws" these people even though married in the eyes of God would not be married in the eyes of our government... why are they not married in the eyes of our government? Does our government think that it is greater than God? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Says that if a woman is attacked and raped then she is married to that man in the eyes of God. It also says that the attacker can not "divorce" this wife. Mathew 19:6 Jesus says "What God has joined man should not separate" ... notice that this line does not say "whom" Come on sleazy... I actually tried to leave religion out of it. None of the three major religions that base their faith on what most of us know as the old testament consider marriage between the same genders even possible, let alone a good thing. People were having sex with everything in the bible, even animals. No one considered them married. We can throw the bible aside and try to justify anything, we can even ignore "inconvenient" parts of it, as some Christian denominations do these days, but we cannot go through the text and make a case that if a man sleeps with a man he's married to him in a moral or legal sense. Gay marriage is a silly idea irrespective of religious considerations. By some of the logic here I can go marry a dog and my health insurance should have to cover it's vet bills just because I love the dog. If there are no boundries on marriage where do we stop?
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 19:52:12 GMT -5
OK Sas setting the bible aside.... You can not marry a dog... consummating the marriage would be breaking the law in this country... it is against the law to have sex with animals.... it is not against the law to have sex with someone the same gender as you...
Like I said a simple solution would be to do away with marriage altogether and just have civil unions....
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 3, 2008 20:06:21 GMT -5
You can not marry a dog... consummating the marriage would be breaking the law in this country... it is against the law to have sex with animals.... it is not against the law to have sex with someone the same gender as you... Sodomy is illegal in a lot of places too, but some people still do it!
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 3, 2008 20:24:24 GMT -5
You can not marry a dog... consummating the marriage would be breaking the law in this country... it is against the law to have sex with animals.... it is not against the law to have sex with someone the same gender as you... Sodomy is illegal in a lot of places too, but some people still do it! sod⋅om⋅y [sod-uh-mee] –noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. This is actual definition of Sodomy from Dictionary.com.... Man am I glad I don't live in one of those places... Now tell me this.... do you really want the government having any say at all over your sex life....
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 3, 2008 20:48:59 GMT -5
Sodomy is illegal in a lot of places too, but some people still do it! sod⋅om⋅y [sod-uh-mee] –noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. This is actual definition of Sodomy from Dictionary.com.... Man am I glad I don't live in one of those places... Now tell me this.... do you really want the government having any say at all over your sex life.... I'm not saying the government should be involved, just pointing out that like beastiality, it is against the law!
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 3, 2008 22:11:12 GMT -5
Sleazy Sleazy Sleazy.....you prove my point........and I am not sure how I missed this point................You quote Matt 19:6 but leave out the verses 1-5......here let me put them up for you......man I love this stuff.
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Again you have taken the part of scripture that you want to support your claim and made a mockery of it. I see that the Pharisees asked about a wife......not a man but a woman......I see that Jesus said that they were created male and female and that they leave home and are united......not man and man or woman and woman............................MAN AND WOMAN. There is no allotment even in a "loophole" way for homosexuality in the Bible.
No I did not live with my wife before we got married.
The Bible does not teach that women are chattel as you say but the opposite since it has polemic attributes to the culture that it was created in. In other words it teaches that women are far more valuable than what the world around them was teaching.
The Bible is alive according to 2 Tim 3:10. It is the culture in which we live that changes not God who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.
As far as translation goes, I am fully aware that there is something lost over time, but I also know that to translate it has to be put into a receptor language........before you argue with me know that I aced Konine Greek.........and that to go from one language to another it has to make sense.
My point about murder is that the majority would say that it is unacceptable therefor it stands as a law......surely you knew that though.
On top of all of that the Jews had a ceremony for marriage which included the building of a home (this is the image that Jesus was using as he takes his bride when he said "In my Father's house there are many rooms" since the home would have been attached to the grooms parents home)as well as what we would recognize as a wedding, but you seem to want to go back to a time before that.
If you want to quote scripture please do not do it so as to twist it to get your point across. I don't have a problem if it makes sense or if it is true, but know what you are talking about first.
|
|
|
Post by TagTeamHunter on Dec 3, 2008 22:22:14 GMT -5
If you want to use the Bible as an basis for this discussion go to the beginning. In Genesis God Created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Dec 4, 2008 9:16:23 GMT -5
Sleazy Sleazy Sleazy.....you prove my point........and I am not sure how I missed this point................You quote Matt 19:6 but leave out the verses 1-5......here let me put them up for you......man I love this stuff. 1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”Again you have taken the part of scripture that you want to support your claim and made a mockery of it. I see that the Pharisees asked about a wife......not a man but a woman......I see that Jesus said that they were created male and female and that they leave home and are united......not man and man or woman and woman............................MAN AND WOMAN. There is no allotment even in a "loophole" way for homosexuality in the Bible. No I did not live with my wife before we got married. The Bible does not teach that women are chattel as you say but the opposite since it has polemic attributes to the culture that it was created in. In other words it teaches that women are far more valuable than what the world around them was teaching. The Bible is alive according to 2 Tim 3:10. It is the culture in which we live that changes not God who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. As far as translation goes, I am fully aware that there is something lost over time, but I also know that to translate it has to be put into a receptor language........before you argue with me know that I aced Konine Greek.........and that to go from one language to another it has to make sense. My point about murder is that the majority would say that it is unacceptable therefor it stands as a law......surely you knew that though. On top of all of that the Jews had a ceremony for marriage which included the building of a home (this is the image that Jesus was using as he takes his bride when he said "In my Father's house there are many rooms" since the home would have been attached to the grooms parents home)as well as what we would recognize as a wedding, but you seem to want to go back to a time before that. If you want to quote scripture please do not do it so as to twist it to get your point across. I don't have a problem if it makes sense or if it is true, but know what you are talking about first. ok huntnprayn.... you can see what I have made bold face type... would you agree that what is done is Gods will? When a child dies of cancer is that not "God calling them home" or when you met your wife didn't God have a hand in it and your children being born were a part of Gods plan weren't they? Are you familiar with the saying "wanna hear God laugh tell him your plan"? Because God is all knowing and God himself knows our fate... and God at anytime can alter our lives... So by this reasoning then it is God that placed two men or two women together... so "what God has joined together let not man separate" Before you go stating "freewill".... God created all the creatures big and small according to the bible... but humans are the only ones with freewill... so when primitive animals engage in homosexual activity... then it has to be Gods will... because they have no will of their own... Read this interesting article from National Geographic... news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.htmlTagteam... While your point is somewhat valid about God making Adam and Eve..... you forget that God has made all of us... so in making all of us he did in fact create Adam and Steve.. Decatur... OK so if you don't want the government having any control over your sex life... what makes you think that they should have any control over your love life... Should the government be able to tell you who to love? And what if the government decides that interracial marriages should not be legal... would you be offended? What is they were to take it a step farther and decide that Jews can't marry Christians... or Baptist marry Protestants... Then there would be outrage I also find it very convenient that no one has responded to my idea about getting rid of marriage and making everyone join under a "civil union" after all if it is the same thing just with a different name... and it s good enough for homosexuals... then it should be good enough for everyone correct?
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Dec 4, 2008 12:04:14 GMT -5
Silly silly Sleazy,
And I mean that in a good way.
Did you read it? Didn't some suggest that this may be rights of passage and social ladder climbing and conflict resolution? I once saw a NG video on this very subject where dominate male apes were doing this in a display of dominance. They are ANIMALS. I am not in any way shape or form denying that there could be a gay gene if that is what you are thinking. There probably is due to the fall of man, which is after Adam and Eve......I'm helping you here Sleazy....but what you put in red type is what you quoted in an earlier post without the rest of the story, which is irresponsible btw. If you use Biblical "proof" that homosexuality is acceptable behavior amongst humans, you sir will loose that battle. There is no reasoning that God has put two men together or two women for that matter. While God does change his mind, that which He sees as an abomination He does not. That being said, I don't think that God wants us to put them to death. On the contrary, He wants to see them come to saving grace. He wants me to love them the same way that I love myself. He wants me to accept them as human beings while not accepting that which is sin the same way that I, you or any other person should not accept adultery in others as being "normal" or "OK". Then it is up to Him, the work of the Holy Spirit, to convict them of their sin and change their hearts. Homosexuality is a spiritual battle, gene maybe/probably but a spiritual battle. You never hear of people walking away from it without the work of God in their lives......you don't. You do however hear of people that come to Christ and walk away all of the time. The couple that started the ministry know as "Love Won Out" are former homosexuals.......it does happen. The point of all of this is that it is not acceptable for a majority of people in this country for gays to marry.
|
|