The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Flash Farley]

There are so many directions that this issue can go. On this thread I'm not addressing what the Supreme Court did and I'm trying to keep it focused on our attitudes. Had I not had close gay friends who are getting married this month, I might not feel as I do, but having those friends has tempered my perception of this issue and allowed me another perspective. And I think that what your friend is experiencing with the person he married goes well beyond a roommate relationship. You should hang out with him more, get to know how he sees it.

And why do you think there is more acceptance of gays and gay marriage today?

The same reason that there is less acceptance of Christianity. Indoctrination.

So you think it was a failure of Christian indoctrination?

The majority of Americans are Christian. And guess what- attitudes of Christians have been changing also.

View attachment 43954

Now- why do you think the attitude towards mixed race marriages changed?

It was successful indoctrination by the media and government school system.

Christianity has no doctrine against mixed marriage. Never. That's a cultural phenomenon.

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

 

[Flash Farley]

E

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Education and the truth is not what they want. Spreading the lie and indoctrination is what they want. Submission.

 

[Syriusly]

And why do you think there is more acceptance of gays and gay marriage today?

The same reason that there is less acceptance of Christianity. Indoctrination.

So you think it was a failure of Christian indoctrination?

The majority of Americans are Christian. And guess what- attitudes of Christians have been changing also.

View attachment 43954

Now- why do you think the attitude towards mixed race marriages changed?

It was successful indoctrination by the media and government school system.

Christianity has no doctrine against mixed marriage. Never. That's a cultural phenomenon.

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

 

[Syriusly]

E

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Education and the truth is not what they want. Spreading the lie and indoctrination is what they want. Submission.

Okay- thanks for outlining the Conservative Christian position.

 

[Syriusly]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

 

[Coyote]

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation - The Wire

Good lord:

That was prior to the SC ruling.

It says NOTHING about how, when you REMOVE THE LIMITING factors of one man to one women, how the number becomes simply isn't arbitrary!

The number was 2 prior to loving and after loving as that was the minimum number required to procreate.

Tell me, what is the minimum number of same sex individuals required to procreate?

2....6.....10,000?

The number now is irrelevant whe you remove PROCREATION. The number is arbitrary and nonsensical.

It is the exact same hysterical slippery slope fallacy.

Has incestuous marriage been legalized? Has polygamous marriage been legalized? Has pedophilic marriage been legalized? Has this slippery slope been realized?

You talk about the limiting factors of 1 man and 1 woman - how would that limit a brother/sister marriage? Yet that has not been legalized.
Same sex is still 1:1. Hetero is 1:1.

You are a pip. You realize that the law was 1 man to 1 woman ( followed by) not too closely related.

The ratio has reasoning behind it. Not too closely related prohibited incest.

Unless the limiting factors were there for reasons of limiting defective bloodlines, be so kind as to explain the reasoning? Or admit it's simply an arbitrary number.

Numbers are arbritrary but they've been so from the beginning. Polygamy could have hit the courts before same sex marriage if there was sufficient support. So I'm not sure why you seem to be claiming that same sex marriage is the slippery slope to all things questionable (pretty much what those who opposed interracial marriage claimed).

 

[Flash Farley]

The same reason that there is less acceptance of Christianity. Indoctrination.

So you think it was a failure of Christian indoctrination?

The majority of Americans are Christian. And guess what- attitudes of Christians have been changing also.

View attachment 43954

Now- why do you think the attitude towards mixed race marriages changed?

It was successful indoctrination by the media and government school system.

Christianity has no doctrine against mixed marriage. Never. That's a cultural phenomenon.

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

Yes, there are people who have used the bible to push their personal biases. Kerry and Obama have used the bible to push bigger government. However, the bible is very precise and clear regarding homosexuality. It's condemned and you know it.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- you ******* idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are ******* bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

Then post the legal distinction with the sound reasonable argument.

Geez, like pulling teeth

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State.

Please post the finding in which same sex siblings have ever produced a child , defective or not, then please share the compelling governmental interest to deny closely related same sex couples from marrying?

I can't come up with a single one. You?

Try sharing it if you actually have one. Using procreation as the reason is stupid and goes against SSM.

Why?

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State

Heterosexuals would need to prove sterility for a reason, same sex would not for a reason.

Homosexuals now have easier and therefor greater access to marriage.

Bizarre

I am enjoying watching you idiots flounder around- and just make up crap about the law.

You are against couples marrying if they happen to be gay- but you couldn't come up with an argument any better than "Its icky".

You are against sibling marriage- but the only argument you seem to be able to think of is 'birth defects'- but as I have pointed out- States resolved that issue with First Cousins marrying by requiring them to prove that they could not bear children. So the States don't believe that argument either.

You are against polygamy- for some reason- so far it appears to be that your argument against polygamy is once again 'its icky'

The State's have laws against sibling marriage and polygamy- if they are as clueless as you are as to why they think they should be illegal then that will be a problem for the State.

Your inability to articulate any reason why you think polygamy or incest should be illegal just goes to show your opposition is more about your 'feelings' than any rational argument.

 

[Flash Farley]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Is there a right to marry my horse?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

 

[Flash Farley]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

The homos aren't going to target a Muslim baker for a cake. Muslims are allies in the war on Christians.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

The homos aren't going to target a Muslim baker for a cake. Muslims are allies in the war on Christians.

Muslims have already been targeted. Muslim cab drivers who refused passengers carrying alcohol were taken to court,

and the Muslims lost. Pay attention before you spout off.

 

[Flash Farley]

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

The homos aren't going to target a Muslim baker for a cake. Muslims are allies in the war on Christians.

Muslims have already been targeted. Muslim cab drivers who refused passengers carrying alcohol were taken to court,

and the Muslims lost. Pay attention before you spout off.

I'm referring to the homos. You obviously are the one who needs to pay attention.

 

[Syriusly]

So you think it was a failure of Christian indoctrination?

The majority of Americans are Christian. And guess what- attitudes of Christians have been changing also.

View attachment 43954

Now- why do you think the attitude towards mixed race marriages changed?

It was successful indoctrination by the media and government school system.

Christianity has no doctrine against mixed marriage. Never. That's a cultural phenomenon.

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

Yes, there are people who have used the bible to push their personal biases. Kerry and Obama have used the bible to push bigger government. However, the bible is very precise and clear regarding homosexuality. It's condemned and you know it.

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality.

Leviticus does- the same chapter that forbids you from eating pork and shrimp- and from cutting your beard- you follow all of those instructions?

If not we can move to the New Testament.

In the New Testament- Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality- or condemn it once.

Adultery yes- often. Divorce- yes- Jesus specifically calls divorce and remarriage a sin- unless the wife(and only the wife) commits adultery.

Jesus also tells his followers to follow the 10 Commandments(no mention of homosexuality there) and tells his followers his two greatest commandments(still no mention of homosexuality).

So where does the New Testament refer to homosexuality? 2 places-



1 Corinthians 6:9-1021st Century King James Version (KJ21)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.


So male homosexuals are condemned as are drunkards and idolators.

Does the church forbid alcoholics from marriage? Do you refuse to serve Hindu's since they are 'idolators'?

Romans
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.


27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

Wait- God gave them up unto vile affections?

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

Do you think that people who are disobedient to their parents are worthy of death?

So yes- there are two brief references to male homosexuals in the NT- no explicit references to female homosexuality.

However- there is explicit condemnation for divorce and remarriage.

You are therefore busy trying to pass laws to forbid people from marrying twice- and of course condemn Newt Gingrich for his sinful marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage defined as a one man and one woman predates Christianity by a long shot... I really tire of you leftists morons blaming everything on Christianity. Please educate yourself just a little bit..

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

The homos aren't going to target a Muslim baker for a cake. Muslims are allies in the war on Christians.

Muslims have already been targeted. Muslim cab drivers who refused passengers carrying alcohol were taken to court,

and the Muslims lost. Pay attention before you spout off.

I'm referring to the homos. You obviously are the one who needs to pay attention.

Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

'war on Christians' in this country exists only in your brain.

For 200 years Christians have actually waged war on homosexuals in this country- passing laws to imprison them and have them fired from jobs- but now Christians can't do that anymore.

So when someone tries to buy a cake from a Christian- that is 'War on Christianity'.

What whiners.

 

[Skylar]

What you'll never see is the Catholic Church compromising on this issue.

Maybe. What you may instead see is an increasing marginalization of Catholicism. As its teachings are more and more out of step with the faithful and the populations it seeks connect with. Though in practice Catholicism is a very adaptable religion. I suspect they'll find accommodation. As I said, giving ground to gays is as Christian as Christmas.

Protestant Churches, being severed from the vine that is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church established by Christ himself, and is today represented by Catholic and Orthodox rites, lack the strength to maintain opposition against the popular tide of changing public opinion.

We'll see. Generally speaking Catholicism's 'strength to main opposition against opposition' works best among the poorest and least powerful peoples. When a society is educated and have more freedom, Catholicism's power tends to wane considerably.

'Catholicism' may not budge. But Catholics most certainly will. Ask Ireland and their public referendum on this issue. That little window into the future of your faith is quite the illustration.

 

[Flash Farley]

It was successful indoctrination by the media and government school system.

Christianity has no doctrine against mixed marriage. Never. That's a cultural phenomenon.

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

Yes, there are people who have used the bible to push their personal biases. Kerry and Obama have used the bible to push bigger government. However, the bible is very precise and clear regarding homosexuality. It's condemned and you know it.

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality.

Leviticus does- the same chapter that forbids you from eating pork and shrimp- and from cutting your beard- you follow all of those instructions?

If not we can move to the New Testament.

In the New Testament- Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality- or condemn it once.

Adultery yes- often. Divorce- yes- Jesus specifically calls divorce and remarriage a sin- unless the wife(and only the wife) commits adultery.

Jesus also tells his followers to follow the 10 Commandments(no mention of homosexuality there) and tells his followers his two greatest commandments(still no mention of homosexuality).

So where does the New Testament refer to homosexuality? 2 places-



1 Corinthians 6:9-1021st Century King James Version (KJ21)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.


So male homosexuals are condemned as are drunkards and idolators.

Does the church forbid alcoholics from marriage? Do you refuse to serve Hindu's since they are 'idolators'?

Romans
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.


27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

Wait- God gave them up unto vile affections?

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

Do you think that people who are disobedient to their parents are worthy of death?

So yes- there are two brief references to male homosexuals in the NT- no explicit references to female homosexuality.

However- there is explicit condemnation for divorce and remarriage.

You are therefore busy trying to pass laws to forbid people from marrying twice- and of course condemn Newt Gingrich for his sinful marriage?

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female in Matthew chapter 19. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi who believed the Scriptures. Make your case that Jesus approved of homosexuality and homo marriage.

 

[Flash Farley]

Really? Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman and one man and many women long before Christianity.

Marriage has also been defined as an institution where the woman is the property of the man.

Why wasn't a 'civil contract' enough?

Because Conservative Christians fought civil contracts just as hard as they fought marriage for same gender couples.

And Americans have no right to a 'civil contract' but we all have a right to marriage.

Where in the constitution are you granted a right to marry? Does this also confer an obligation upon the church to marry two people? I can't wait for you leftwing nutters to demand that a Muslim cleric marry two dudes... that oughtta be a laugh riot.

The homos aren't going to target a Muslim baker for a cake. Muslims are allies in the war on Christians.

Muslims have already been targeted. Muslim cab drivers who refused passengers carrying alcohol were taken to court,

and the Muslims lost. Pay attention before you spout off.

I'm referring to the homos. You obviously are the one who needs to pay attention.

Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

'war on Christians' in this country exists only in your brain.

For 200 years Christians have actually waged war on homosexuals in this country- passing laws to imprison them and have them fired from jobs- but now Christians can't do that anymore.

So when someone tries to buy a cake from a Christian- that is 'War on Christianity'.

What whiners.

My agenda is the truth. Homosexuals are filthy disgusting creatures who should not be adopting children or allowed in a classroom. Christophobic hateful bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

The Christians who support gay marriages are not true Christians. You have to be ashamed. Just because of people like you so many Americans turned away from Christianity.

Well I am sure that other Christians appreciate you telling them that they are not Christians. Eventually your 'Christians' become a fairly small club after you start excluding every Christian you disagree with on religious values.

I know evangelicals who don't consider Catholics to be Christians. I know others who don't consider Mormons to be Christians.
I don't believe in your God- but if he were to exist- you would think that he would either be the one to make that judgement- or provide a clearer instruction manual- one that didn't result in 3 major branches of Christianity, and hundreds of sub branches.

 

[Syriusly]

So you are saying that indoctrination against racial bias in marriage worked.

If that is how you think attitudes have changed regarding sexual orientation bias- okay with me.

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

Yes, there are people who have used the bible to push their personal biases. Kerry and Obama have used the bible to push bigger government. However, the bible is very precise and clear regarding homosexuality. It's condemned and you know it.

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality.

Leviticus does- the same chapter that forbids you from eating pork and shrimp- and from cutting your beard- you follow all of those instructions?

If not we can move to the New Testament.

In the New Testament- Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality- or condemn it once.

Adultery yes- often. Divorce- yes- Jesus specifically calls divorce and remarriage a sin- unless the wife(and only the wife) commits adultery.

Jesus also tells his followers to follow the 10 Commandments(no mention of homosexuality there) and tells his followers his two greatest commandments(still no mention of homosexuality).

So where does the New Testament refer to homosexuality? 2 places-



1 Corinthians 6:9-1021st Century King James Version (KJ21)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.


So male homosexuals are condemned as are drunkards and idolators.

Does the church forbid alcoholics from marriage? Do you refuse to serve Hindu's since they are 'idolators'?

Romans
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.


27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

Wait- God gave them up unto vile affections?

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

Do you think that people who are disobedient to their parents are worthy of death?

So yes- there are two brief references to male homosexuals in the NT- no explicit references to female homosexuality.

However- there is explicit condemnation for divorce and remarriage.

You are therefore busy trying to pass laws to forbid people from marrying twice- and of course condemn Newt Gingrich for his sinful marriage?

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female in Matthew chapter 19. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi who believed the Scriptures. Make your case that Jesus approved of homosexuality and homo marriage.

Jesus Christ never mentions homosexuality at all. I am neither saying that Jesus approved or disapproved of homosexuals or homosexual marriage- from his words the issue didn't seem to be important.

Now divorce- that was an issue he addressed.

You are therefore busy trying to pass laws to forbid people from marrying twice- and of course condemn Newt Gingrich for his sinful marriage?