According to the Bible...

[Bass v 2.0]

Homosexuality is just plain wrong so why are homosexuals wanting to be priests and clergy when the Bible explicitly forbids it?

 

[My Winter Storm]

Homosexuality is just plain wrong so why are homosexuals wanting to be priests and clergy when the Bible explicitly forbids it?

Not everyone takes the Bible literally. There are many Churches nowadays which are accepting homosexuals, allowing them to take communion, etc.

The Bible says nothing about homosexuals becoming Priests and/or Clergy. It only says that homosexuality is a sin. You can't take that to mean that homosexuals are not to become Priests or Clergy, and nor can you take it to mean that homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.

 

[jillian]

Jesus never said a word about gays near as I can tell. Though he did say an awful lot about taking care of the poor.

I do believe it was my bible that talked about spilling of one's seed and homosexuality. But then again, Leviticus also said that you could stone someone to death for mixing two fibers.

I don't think we do that anymore though.

 

[dread]

Jesus never said a word about gays near as I can tell. Though he did say an awful lot about taking care of the poor.

I do believe it was my bible that talked about spilling of one's seed and homosexuality. But then again, Leviticus also said that you could stone someone to death for mixing two fibers.

I don't think we do that anymore though.

I dont remember Charlie quoting Jesus.


And yes people DO stone to death for mixing two fibers...They are called Muslims.

 

[Gungnir]

Jesus never said a word about gays near as I can tell. Though he did say an awful lot about taking care of the poor.

I do believe it was my bible that talked about spilling of one's seed and homosexuality. But then again, Leviticus also said that you could stone someone to death for mixing two fibers.

I don't think we do that anymore though.

Don't forget your Oral Law and hundreds of years of Case Law in the Babylonian Talmud.

 

[Abelian Sea]

why are homosexuals wanting to be priests and clergy...?

I imagine that one traditional reason is that the since clergy required celibacy, it was something of a natural fit for homosexuals. It was dangerous - and perhaps to them unthinkable - to pursue others of the same sex and not really tempting to pursue those of the opposite sex, so why not wed the church and channel that pent-up energy towards a higher purpose (in a way that wouldn't make one look like a loser for never getting laid)?

...or, did you mean why are openly homosexual people, now that's it's safe to be honest about it, wanting to be priests and clergy? Well, why does anyone want to be a priest? It's probably something along those lines.

 

[manu1959]

dude or dudette....you might want to read up on gay sex.....funyy though woman on woman action is never mentioned....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Originally priests COULD marry. And last I checked , as far as I know , all protestant churches do allow their clergy to marry.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Not everyone takes the Bible literally. There are many Churches nowadays which are accepting homosexuals, allowing them to take communion, etc.

The Bible says nothing about homosexuals becoming Priests and/or Clergy. It only says that homosexuality is a sin. You can't take that to mean that homosexuals are not to become Priests or Clergy, and nor can you take it to mean that homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.

Well its quite obvious that anyone who lives a sinful lifestyle is unfit to be a pastor and or other position in the church. The Bible should be and is the lone authority on who qualifies to be a clergyman/woman, people just can't bend and misinterpret the scripture as they see fit.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Jesus never said a word about gays near as I can tell. Though he did say an awful lot about taking care of the poor.

I do believe it was my bible that talked about spilling of one's seed and homosexuality. But then again, Leviticus also said that you could stone someone to death for mixing two fibers.

I don't think we do that anymore though.

The Word of God is God's Word given through inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in both the New and Old Testament homosexuality is forbideen, there are no examples of homosexual clergyman in the Bible, and or homosexuals who were seen as devout worshippers of God.

 

[midcan5]

gay marriage argument

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

"The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

 

[jillian]

I dont remember Charlie quoting Jesus.


And yes people DO stone to death for mixing two fibers...They are called Muslims.

Please link to that. I don't believe it to be true.

 

[jillian]

The Word of God is God's Word given through inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in both the New and Old Testament homosexuality is forbideen, there are no examples of homosexual clergyman in the Bible, and or homosexuals who were seen as devout worshippers of God.

You mean "the word" as transcribed by men and mistranslated from the original Hebrew?

And why would I care about what the bible says in ascertaining whether someone should be properly protected by the Constitution?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

gay marriage argument

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

"The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

No where in the Bible does anyone practice chattel slavery intermingled with a touch of white supremacy, so homosexuals can't make concurrent arguments about slavery to justify homosexual marriage. This is just senseless twisting of the Bible.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You mean "the word" as transcribed by men and mistranslated from the original Hebrew?

And why would I care about what the bible says in ascertaining whether someone should be properly protected by the Constitution?

Marriage is a sacred, ie , Holy sacrament, not just some Constitutional thing. It was based on Biblical principals, just like all the laws we have in America. Here in Mississippi, 86% of voters rejected homosexual marriage because these people are making mockery of something that is sacred.

 

[jillian]

Marriage is a sacred, ie , Holy sacrament, not just some Constitutional thing. It was based on Biblical principals, just like all the laws we have in America. Here in Mississippi, 86% of voters rejected homosexual marriage because these people are making mockery of something that is sacred.

No. The right to perform a marriage is granted by the State, not by the Church. You know the line... "by the power vested in me by the state of _____".

It is solely a means of dealing with property interests. Any "holy sacrament" is religious, not condoned by the state and has no place in any consideration of constitutional rights.

Your "holy sacrament" has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anyone else who doesn't believe in your church. And no one cares if the religious folk don't like it and voted against it. Really. Because, again, it's irrelevant as to any equal protection argument.... same as when no one cared about the racists who tried to legislate against interracial marriage.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No. The right to perform a marriage is granted by the State, not by the Church. You know the line... "by the power vested in me by the state of _____".

It is solely a means of dealing with property interests. Any "holy sacrament" is religious, not condoned by the state and has no place in any consideration of constitutional rights.

Your "holy sacrament" has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anyone else who doesn't believe in your church. And no one cares if the religious folk don't like it and voted against it. Really. Because, again, it's irrelevant as to any equal protection argument.... same as when no one cared about the racists who tried to legislate against interracial marriage.

Oh my, so two men who love to have anal sex should have legal property rights the same as a heterosexual couple? Next, people will be fighting to marry their siblings and marry their animals, one bad thing leads to another.

 

[jillian]

so if a heterosexual couple has anal sex, they shouldn't have property rights?

puleeze... let me know when animals are consenting adults.

I do so love when people try to deflect with that one.

The Constitution is the Constitution. Your Bible isn't.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

so if a heterosexual couple has anal sex, they shouldn't have property rights?

puleeze... let me know when animals are consenting adults.

I do so love when people try to deflect with that one.

The Constitution is the Constitution. Your Bible isn't.

Homosexuality, ike bestiality is a sexual fetish, not a sexual orientation. Its simply a case of two men/two women who like to have homosexual/lesbian sex, no more no less. And what about those pedophiles who want to marry and have sex with underage children? What about people who feel they're sexually and emotionally attracted to their brother/sister? They'll be the next ones asking and demanding marriage and property rights. These people are anomalies of nature in their sexual attractions, why should they be rewarded?

 

[roomy]

Homosexuality, ike bestiality is a sexual fetish, not a sexual orientation. Its simply a case of two men/two women who like to have homosexual/lesbian sex, no more no less. And what about those pedophiles who want to marry and have sex with underage children? What about people who feel they're sexually and emotionally attracted to their brother/sister? They'll be the next ones asking and demanding marriage and property rights. These people are anomalies of nature in their sexual attractions, why should they be rewarded?

What a load of ignorant fucking bullshit.