The Ten Commandments and homosexuality

[Gunny]

The Bible also has a very clear position on adultery...It's a sin.

So why are notorious serial adulterers like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bill O'Reilly, Gary Bauer, Jimmy Swaggart, et al leading the crusade to protect marriage?

Being an adulterer isn;t the problem? They seem to have no qualms about acting on those impulses.

None of the above are trying to have a law passed that caters solely to adultery at the expense of monogamy. THAT would be the difference.

 

[mattskramer]

None of the above are trying to have a law passed that caters solely to adultery at the expense of monogamy. THAT would be the difference.

Okay. This is so easy. Are you saying that we should make laws based on what the Bible says? Oh boy. Let’s outlaw adultery and go back to “Blue Laws” while we are at it.

 

[Gunny]

Okay. This is so easy. Are you saying that we should make laws based on what the Bible says? Oh boy. Let’s outlaw adultery and go back to “Blue Laws” while we are at it.

I think you forgot your coffee, dude. I didn't say nor imply anything of the sort.

 

[CockySOB]

The Bible also has a very clear position on adultery...It's a sin.

So why are notorious serial adulterers like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bill O'Reilly, Gary Bauer, Jimmy Swaggart, et al leading the crusade to protect marriage?

Being an adulterer isn;t the problem? They seem to have no qualms about acting on those impulses.

Problem staying on topic? Or just working on your "artful dodging" capabilities? If the latter, you need much more practice. If you're serious about this topic, why not start a thread for it? I'd be happy to engage you there....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Problem staying on topic? Or just working on your "artful dodging" capabilities? If the latter, you need much more practice. If you're serious about this topic, why not start a thread for it? I'd be happy to engage you there....

It's quite on topic, actually. But hypocrites don't like having their hypocrisy revealed.

 

[CockySOB]

Okay. This is so easy. Are you saying that we should make laws based on what the Bible says? Oh boy. Let’s outlaw adultery and go back to “Blue Laws” while we are at it.

Last I checked, many states (if not all states) allow for both "at-fault" and "no-fault" divorces, which handle the dissolution of the civil union/marriage contract issued by that state. And adultery generally falls into the "at-fault" group of divorces, which usually contains penalties of some nature for the breach of contract.

Sorry Matt, but if you want to try to use this line of reasoning to support arguments for homosexual unions/marriages, then you are specifically placing the issue back into the individual states' hands and out of Federal jurisdiction. As such, you're arguing that we maintain the status quo with regards to legislation affecting homosexual unions/marriages - at the same time you want... what is it again? Federal action promoting homosexual unions/marriages? Or State action? Or no action?

 

[CockySOB]

It's quite on topic, actually. But hypocrites don't like having their hypocrisy revealed.

Read my post to Matt. And if you would, please answer the question I put to Matt at the end of my post. What exactly do you think should be done (or not) regarding homosexual unions/marriages? Federal action? State action? something else altogether? Nothing at all?

 

[mattskramer]

Brother - the sin of homosexuality is VERY CLEAR. You don't want to know about that sin. Id est, sin isn't that much of a worry in your life. If you TRULY are concerned about how God views attitudes of our hearts, you'll read the bible yourself and pray for his guidance.

Those who really want to consider what other people say on the subject – for those who want to consider other perspectives see:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html

 

[dmp]

Those who really want to consider what other people say on the subject – for those who want to consider other perspectives see:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html

What does The BIBLE say about homosexuality brother...not what an OP/ED says. You like what that article says because it agrees with a sin you love. LOOK for yourself. READ the bible.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[mattskramer]

Read my post to Matt. And if you would, please answer the question I put to Matt at the end of my post. What exactly do you think should be done (or not) regarding homosexual unions/marriages? Federal action? State action? something else altogether? Nothing at all?

You must be new. I’ve gone over this many times. I think that if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage, it should equally recognize homosexual marriage. At the very least, I support “Civil Unions”. I’ve gone over the arguments that people post opposing such a thing. All things considered, I think that the good of civil unions would outweigh the bad, if only by a tiny bit.

 

[Gunny]

You must be new. I’ve gone over this many times. I think that if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage, it should equally recognize homosexual marriage. At the very least, I support “Civil Unions”. I’ve gone over the arguments that people post opposing such a thing. All things considered, I think that the good of civil unions would outweigh the bad, if only by a tiny bit.

The government is the representative of the people, and the way our representative government is set up, legislation is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, not every little off-the-wall minority that comes along.

The government is under no obligation to provide the same legal privileges/rights to aberrations of both society and nature that it provides to normal people.

 

[Joz]

I've given this topic a bit of consideration since I read it yesterday. Acludem is right as there is no "Thou shalt not be gay" in the Ten Commandments.

But it does say that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me", which covers ALOT; meaning, no person, sin (activity), or object should be put 1st place in in your life, other than God.

God mentions adultery specifically as this shows the seriousness of the wedding vows a person makes. And, a person can commit adultery to those vows other than physically; it is the breaking of those vows to the point of alienating your spouse.


What if homosexuality is genetic? All men are born into sin. Should we allow drunkneness, lying, stealing or murder to go unchecked because of genetic tendencies? Are we not suppose ask for forgivess, reject sin & strive to attain perfection? Not all sin is genetic. Some choose sin.

 

[MissileMan]

The government is the representative of the people, and the way our representative government is set up, legislation is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, not every little off-the-wall minority that comes along.

Except for when the will of the majority infringes on the minority's basic constitutional rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", correct?

The government is under no obligation to provide the same legal privileges/rights to aberrations of both society and nature that it provides to normal people.

The government IS under the obligation to provide the same legal rights to everyone. I think you meant to argue not under an obligation to create laws that cater to each and every individual or group.

 

[Gunny]

Except for when the will of the majority infringes on the minority's basic constitutional rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", correct?

In this case, there is no infringement on the rights of gays. They currently posess every right that I do. Added legislation that caters solely to their aberrance would in fact, be forcing the will of the minority upon the majority.

There are countless examples where in the instance of conflict, the majority has been give legal right of way. Only in recent times has the minorities gotten away with sneaking through the judiciary what they can't get the people to buy off on as law.


The government IS under the obligation to provide the same legal rights to everyone. I think you meant to argue not under an obligation to create laws that cater to each and every individual or group.

That's what I said.

At any rate, the law currently provides the same legal rights to everyone as it pertains to the topic of homosexuality.

 

[mattskramer]

The government is the representative of the people, and the way our representative government is set up, legislation is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, not every little off-the-wall minority that comes along.

Uh. Hello. Did I ever say otherwise? I think that our republic is one of the best forms of government – if not the best. Yet, the majority can still be wrong. It looks like we agree with your message above. I vote and you probably vote.

The government is under no obligation to provide the same legal privileges/rights to aberrations of both society and nature that it provides to normal people.

Give an objective and clear definition to normal. Does the same message apply to left-handed people and smokers? Anyway, if enough votes and representatives think otherwise, then the government would be obligated.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. I see the direction that this is going. I think that adults capable of giving informed consent have a right to get married to other adults capable of giving informed consent – even if those adults are of the same sex. If you agree with this premise, then gays do not have the same rights as straight people.

 

[Gunny]

Uh. Hello. Did I ever say otherwise? I think that our republic is one of the best forms of government – if not the best. Yet, the majority can still be wrong. It looks like we agree with your message above. I vote and you probably vote.

The majority is ALWAYS wrong when it doesn't agree with the agenda of the minority.


Give an objective and clear definition to normal. Does the same message apply to left-handed people and smokers? Anyway, if enough votes and representatives think otherwise, then the government would be obligated.

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal

There you go. And please bear in mind before you go to your usual wordsmithing, that your argument is with the dictionary, not me.

Left-handed people and smokers, btw, are considered normal people.

If the majority votes to allow homosexual marriage, I will accept it as a matter of law. I will NEVER accept that it is right.

 

[MissileMan]

I've given this topic a bit of consideration since I read it yesterday. Acludem is right as there is no "Thou shalt not be gay" in the Ten Commandments.

But it does say that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me", which covers ALOT; meaning, no person, sin (activity), or object should be put 1st place in in your life, other than God.

God mentions adultery specifically as this shows the seriousness of the wedding vows a person makes. And, a person can commit adultery to those vows other than physically; it is the breaking of those vows to the point of alienating your spouse.


What if homosexuality is genetic? All men are born into sin. Should we allow drunkneness, lying, stealing or murder to go unchecked because of genetic tendencies? Are we not suppose ask for forgivess, reject sin & strive to attain perfection? Not all sin is genetic. Some choose sin.

I don't think it's right for homosexuals to expect Christians to modify their religion to accomodate them. If you were unfortunate enough to be born homosexual, find another religion or practice none at all, because you're unworthy to worship Christ if you choose to follow your God-given orientation and live a homosexual lifestyle.

 

[mattskramer]

What does The BIBLE say about homosexuality brother...not what an OP/ED says. You like what that article says because it agrees with a sin you love. LOOK for yourself. READ the bible.

www.biblegateway.com

Using a literal mindset, I’ve read the Bible several times. I’ve seen it full of inconsistencies and absurdities. Sorry, but I don’t think that the Bible can be truly belied by itself alone. I’ve listened to arguments and counter arguments longer than I care to remember. I’m not going through it again. I recommend that you see:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Judge for yourself. Unless something really “mind shattering” strikes me that I have not considered, I’ve pretty much made up my mind. Sorry.

 

[mattskramer]

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal

There you go. And please bear in mind before you go to your usual wordsmithing, that your argument is with the dictionary, not me.

Left-handed people and smokers, btw, are considered normal people.

If the majority votes to allow homosexual marriage, I will accept it as a matter of law. I will NEVER accept that it is right.

Why be normal? Who decides what is normal – the majority? Again, it can be wrong. I already argued natural law. Just because something is natural (normal), it might not be good. Things that are abnormal are not necessarily bad.

I’ve seen schools in which teachers would slap the wrists of students who write with their left hands. Some people don’t consider it normal to be left-handed. As for smokers being normal – what is normal about people wrapping dry leaves in paper, lighting it, putting it between their lips, and breathing the toxic junk? These “normal” smokers are sure being restricted in their behavior. They are not being allowed to engage in their “normal” behavior in as many places as before.

Would you allow gay couples to kiss in public? Would you allow straight couples to kiss in public?

Oh. There are many legal behaviors that I think are wrong.