DeletedUser
I for one will never consider a homosexual relationship a marriage. Marriage was instituted by God not man and God's definition is the one that matters; not mine or yours. If you have a problem with that you can take it up with him.
- Status
DeletedUser16008
Not prepared to answer my questions on all men are supposed to be created equal or not then ? Marriage was instituted by God not man and God's definition is the one that matters really ? You need to read more history Willy, long and long before the bible there were humans being joined in wedlock.
But that is another story for another day young man.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Let's directly address the opposition arguments:
Traditional Marriage --- one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it is not traditional. Traditional refers to historical. Historically, same-sex marriage has been going on since before 2000 B.C., long before Abrahamic religions instituted death penalties for participating in male/male sexual activity (interestingly, most Abrahamic religions have no issue with women/women sexual activity), which effectively ended same sex-marriage in Abraham-based theocracies. FALSE ARGUMENT - opposite sex marriage is not traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is gender nuetral.
Civil Union --- another argument is that there already exists, in some places, civil unions. Unfortunately, civil unions cover less than half of the legal issues covered under respective States, and nothing Federal. Civil unions are substandard civil contracts, a pale comparison to civil marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - civil unions provide far less rights, powers, and privileges than civil marriages.
No Government --- yet another argument is to claim that the government should not be a participant in marriage. This mentality is a hold-over from theocratic dissociation and the blurring of lines that theocratic governments created. In theocracies, religions dictated and enforced laws, provided and removed rights. However, theocracies were performing two roles: governance and belief systematization. For nations without theocracies, these two are separate and belief systematization has not legal authority, does not provide or deny rights within a governed nation. Governments define/enforce civil and criminal law. Governments provide consequence for breach of contract and provision of contractual rights. Marriage is a civil contract precisely because it provides rights & authorities. FALSE ARGUMENT - marriages are civil contracts governed and enforced by governments.
No "Gay" Gene --- and yet another argument is that homosexuality is not genetic, that it is instead behavioral and a lifestyle. However, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [1] In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [2] [3] Basically what this means is, qouting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [4] IGNORANCE - there are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influence by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions.
[1] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
[2] Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med.1994; 331 :923 –930 <Free Full Text>
[3] Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatr.1998; 45 :107 –144 <Medline>
[4] Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and sexual orientation in men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771-10774. <USA Today article>
Gay Rights --- It is argued that gays have the same rights, that a man can marry a woman and thus everyone has the same rights. But, the mere fact a homosexual is not able to marry their partner, while a heterosexual can, demonstrates they do not have the same rights. I provided ample evidence in my earlier post that clearly shows they do not have the same rights. In the U.S. alone, only six States allow same-sex marriage while 44 other States, and the Federal government, do not recognize these marriages and thus do not provide legal recognition or benefits. FALSE - homosexuals do not have the same rights and are, in fact, prevented from obtaining a civil marriage of equal function to that of a heterosexual civil marriage.
People Hate Gays --- I love this argument. This argument claims that because gays are not liked, they should not receive equal rights (an example is disallowing them the right to assemble for fear violence will be posed against them). Look, it's simple --- if you know there are criminals out there, you do not lock up the potential victims or deny them their civil rights. FALSE PREMISE - Prejudice is not a reasonable governing policy.
Most People Are Against It --- This argument claims that the majority of people are against providing same-sex marriage, and thus it should be denied. However, majority rule, mob rule, is not the manner to manage legal issues. Women and Blacks would not have obtained equal rights in the U.S. if there was no Constitution. Just because it was unpopular is not a legitimate reason to deny equality. FALSE ARGUMENT - majority is not the rule of law, right is the rule of law.
Taking Away Rights --- This particular argument is laughable and claims that providing homosexuals the ability to obtain a civil marriage take away rights from heterosexuals. That is just the most bass-ackwards argument on the table and frankly doesn't warrant a rebuttal (a chuckle perhaps), nonetheless I'll address it. Majorities should not be allowed to impose upon minorities. Equality is measured by equality, not by majority. FALSE ARGUMENT - heterosexuals do not lose rights when homosexuals obtain the right to marry.
Slippery Slope --- This argument pushes the notion that if we allow same sex marriage, other things will soon follow that will undermine society. This argument is closely related to the false argument of traditional marriage, but pushes the envelope in that false assertion by posing the slippery slope fallacy, the notion that if you allow one thing, other things will soon follow (such as polygamy). FALSE ARGUMENT - there is nothing that follows equality for all Man. Polygamy is a different argument and should be addressed as a different argument, particularly because the primary reason for disallowing same sex marriage is hatred or hostility to homosexuality. Such is not the case with polygamy and, as such, should be argued separate from this argument (while there are some similarities in the argument of polygamy, there are some substantial and glaring differences and thus it is disingenuous to group same-sex marriage with polygamy, particularly when the argument isn't about traditional marriage and is instead about equal "legal" rights for homosexuals).
Not Important --- This argument claims same sex marriage is not important, that there are far more important things to concern ourselves over. Well gee, if you were denied the ability to marry the person you love, I'm sure you would find it damn important. In the context of equality, it is important. In the context of honoring the Constitution (of any country), it is important. In your own life, because you're not gay, not important. If it was about women's rights, and you're a guy, not important. Black's rights, and you're White, not important. If your neighbor is taken to a concentration camp, not important to you. FALSE PERSPECTIVE - just because it's not important to you, doesn't make it right to ignore, and particularly not right to deny. Ultimately, if it's not important, then don't stand in the way. Rights denied are rights denied, and there's no reason to continue to deny equal rights merely because it's not on your personal list of priorities.
Not a Homophobe --- This argument claims that a person doesn't oppose same-sex marriage because they're a homophobe, but because of other reasons. Who cares if you're a homophobe, ultimately you're denying equal rights and you're not demonstrating a logical or rational reason why to deny homosexuals from being able to marry their life-partner. FALSE ARGUMENT - this isn't about you, it's about homosexuals being denied the option to obtain a civil marriage.
Marriage instituted by God --- This argument states that God instituted marriage and therefore it is defined as between a man and a woman. However, besides there being absolutely NOTHING in the bible that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which in itself presents evidence in contra to the claim it was instituted by God), marriages were instituted by societies and the first of societies indicated sexual orientation as irrelevant in marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - this is a plea to authority, claiming God dictates it, yet there is no evidence to support this claim nor is it God, Allah, Buddha, Indri, Odin, or Zues that is dictating government policies or enforcing the Constitutions of Man (unless you live in a theocracy, in which case there's no friggin' Constitution, just a bunch of book thumpers cutting heads off).
Traditional Marriage --- one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it is not traditional. Traditional refers to historical. Historically, same-sex marriage has been going on since before 2000 B.C., long before Abrahamic religions instituted death penalties for participating in male/male sexual activity (interestingly, most Abrahamic religions have no issue with women/women sexual activity), which effectively ended same sex-marriage in Abraham-based theocracies. FALSE ARGUMENT - opposite sex marriage is not traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is gender nuetral.
Civil Union --- another argument is that there already exists, in some places, civil unions. Unfortunately, civil unions cover less than half of the legal issues covered under respective States, and nothing Federal. Civil unions are substandard civil contracts, a pale comparison to civil marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - civil unions provide far less rights, powers, and privileges than civil marriages.
No Government --- yet another argument is to claim that the government should not be a participant in marriage. This mentality is a hold-over from theocratic dissociation and the blurring of lines that theocratic governments created. In theocracies, religions dictated and enforced laws, provided and removed rights. However, theocracies were performing two roles: governance and belief systematization. For nations without theocracies, these two are separate and belief systematization has not legal authority, does not provide or deny rights within a governed nation. Governments define/enforce civil and criminal law. Governments provide consequence for breach of contract and provision of contractual rights. Marriage is a civil contract precisely because it provides rights & authorities. FALSE ARGUMENT - marriages are civil contracts governed and enforced by governments.
No "Gay" Gene --- and yet another argument is that homosexuality is not genetic, that it is instead behavioral and a lifestyle. However, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [1] In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [2] [3] Basically what this means is, qouting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [4] IGNORANCE - there are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influence by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions.
[1] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
[2] Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med.1994; 331 :923 –930 <Free Full Text>
[3] Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatr.1998; 45 :107 –144 <Medline>
[4] Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and sexual orientation in men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771-10774. <USA Today article>
Gay Rights --- It is argued that gays have the same rights, that a man can marry a woman and thus everyone has the same rights. But, the mere fact a homosexual is not able to marry their partner, while a heterosexual can, demonstrates they do not have the same rights. I provided ample evidence in my earlier post that clearly shows they do not have the same rights. In the U.S. alone, only six States allow same-sex marriage while 44 other States, and the Federal government, do not recognize these marriages and thus do not provide legal recognition or benefits. FALSE - homosexuals do not have the same rights and are, in fact, prevented from obtaining a civil marriage of equal function to that of a heterosexual civil marriage.
People Hate Gays --- I love this argument. This argument claims that because gays are not liked, they should not receive equal rights (an example is disallowing them the right to assemble for fear violence will be posed against them). Look, it's simple --- if you know there are criminals out there, you do not lock up the potential victims or deny them their civil rights. FALSE PREMISE - Prejudice is not a reasonable governing policy.
Most People Are Against It --- This argument claims that the majority of people are against providing same-sex marriage, and thus it should be denied. However, majority rule, mob rule, is not the manner to manage legal issues. Women and Blacks would not have obtained equal rights in the U.S. if there was no Constitution. Just because it was unpopular is not a legitimate reason to deny equality. FALSE ARGUMENT - majority is not the rule of law, right is the rule of law.
Taking Away Rights --- This particular argument is laughable and claims that providing homosexuals the ability to obtain a civil marriage take away rights from heterosexuals. That is just the most bass-ackwards argument on the table and frankly doesn't warrant a rebuttal (a chuckle perhaps), nonetheless I'll address it. Majorities should not be allowed to impose upon minorities. Equality is measured by equality, not by majority. FALSE ARGUMENT - heterosexuals do not lose rights when homosexuals obtain the right to marry.
Slippery Slope --- This argument pushes the notion that if we allow same sex marriage, other things will soon follow that will undermine society. This argument is closely related to the false argument of traditional marriage, but pushes the envelope in that false assertion by posing the slippery slope fallacy, the notion that if you allow one thing, other things will soon follow (such as polygamy). FALSE ARGUMENT - there is nothing that follows equality for all Man. Polygamy is a different argument and should be addressed as a different argument, particularly because the primary reason for disallowing same sex marriage is hatred or hostility to homosexuality. Such is not the case with polygamy and, as such, should be argued separate from this argument (while there are some similarities in the argument of polygamy, there are some substantial and glaring differences and thus it is disingenuous to group same-sex marriage with polygamy, particularly when the argument isn't about traditional marriage and is instead about equal "legal" rights for homosexuals).
Not Important --- This argument claims same sex marriage is not important, that there are far more important things to concern ourselves over. Well gee, if you were denied the ability to marry the person you love, I'm sure you would find it damn important. In the context of equality, it is important. In the context of honoring the Constitution (of any country), it is important. In your own life, because you're not gay, not important. If it was about women's rights, and you're a guy, not important. Black's rights, and you're White, not important. If your neighbor is taken to a concentration camp, not important to you. FALSE PERSPECTIVE - just because it's not important to you, doesn't make it right to ignore, and particularly not right to deny. Ultimately, if it's not important, then don't stand in the way. Rights denied are rights denied, and there's no reason to continue to deny equal rights merely because it's not on your personal list of priorities.
Not a Homophobe --- This argument claims that a person doesn't oppose same-sex marriage because they're a homophobe, but because of other reasons. Who cares if you're a homophobe, ultimately you're denying equal rights and you're not demonstrating a logical or rational reason why to deny homosexuals from being able to marry their life-partner. FALSE ARGUMENT - this isn't about you, it's about homosexuals being denied the option to obtain a civil marriage.
Marriage instituted by God --- This argument states that God instituted marriage and therefore it is defined as between a man and a woman. However, besides there being absolutely NOTHING in the bible that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which in itself presents evidence in contra to the claim it was instituted by God), marriages were instituted by societies and the first of societies indicated sexual orientation as irrelevant in marriage. FALSE ARGUMENT - this is a plea to authority, claiming God dictates it, yet there is no evidence to support this claim nor is it God, Allah, Buddha, Indri, Odin, or Zues that is dictating government policies or enforcing the Constitutions of Man (unless you live in a theocracy, in which case there's no friggin' Constitution, just a bunch of book thumpers cutting heads off).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
According to genesis God created the woman as a compliment to man and paraphrasing here, this is why he will leave his father and mother and stick to his wife. If you don't believe that'd be you exercising your free will; however I have fath in the bible based on scriptural evidence and the effect it has when ppl actually follow the guidelines of the bible.
DeletedUser
The Bible is not a frame of reference for the laws of Man, nor does Genesis 2:20-24 define marriage as between a man and a woman, nor is it appropriate to impose your beliefs upon others. But anyway, according to Zeus, I own your sister. And if you want to stick to the Abrahamic god, women are our servants, we can kill our children if they talk back to us, we can kill our wife if she cheats on us, we can kill our neighbor if he covets our wife, and we can beat our slaves (which infers we can own slaves). Yay...
DeletedUser30834
Lol.. I see the someone is back with the "I don't care what is real, you all are wrong but I am right" style of debate.
WillyPete, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. A civil marriage is not a biblical marriage in the least. A biblical marriage can be a civil marriage though (and I don't believe you need a modern organized church to have a biblical marriage). I do not recognize all marriages as a godly union between two souls. I'm not saying promote gay marriage, or to accept them willingly, my intent is not to lead you into temptation (for lack of a better word), But just to suggest that you do not get too upset about it if it happens and is out of your control. You don't have to You don't have to condone it or anything.
I can go on, but I shouldn't have to. The government gives certain people special benefits all the time to encourage certain behavior. This by default denies other people those same benefits. If they are something everyone should enjoy, then the trick is to convince them that the purpose for doing that include those other people. This isn't anything heinous or evil or depriving of equality, it is just a tool that free societies use to shape their society.
WillyPete, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. A civil marriage is not a biblical marriage in the least. A biblical marriage can be a civil marriage though (and I don't believe you need a modern organized church to have a biblical marriage). I do not recognize all marriages as a godly union between two souls. I'm not saying promote gay marriage, or to accept them willingly, my intent is not to lead you into temptation (for lack of a better word), But just to suggest that you do not get too upset about it if it happens and is out of your control. You don't have to You don't have to condone it or anything.
I disagree. Government does this all the time. They give tax breaks to home owners for the repair and maintenance of the homes, allow them to deduct mortgage interest, allow people with at least one dependent a head of household deduction and so on. Farmers get cash payments as well as tax breaks for not planting fields or not raising animals, and they get payments for planting certain types of crops and raising certain types of livestock. Corporations get tax breaks for employing certain people (disabled, handicapped, welfare recipients and so on),Government has made laws to include those not of a faith or to include those of different faiths/cultures as a one size to best fit all, although im not here to debate a societies rulebook just the main topic. i am not for big government at all other than to oversee a fair one for all very basic system. ( pretty unlikely i know) I also dont care about the benefits perse but if one has them because of a piece of paper then it must include all who hold similar. As far as reproducing that is something the gay community generally wont be up to so it saves on the head count and population growth right there
I can go on, but I shouldn't have to. The government gives certain people special benefits all the time to encourage certain behavior. This by default denies other people those same benefits. If they are something everyone should enjoy, then the trick is to convince them that the purpose for doing that include those other people. This isn't anything heinous or evil or depriving of equality, it is just a tool that free societies use to shape their society.
DeletedUser
I've been to my friends gay wedding. Personally don't care at all. We are not in position to judge anybody. If you feel to be homosexual (man, woman) who can tell if this is wrong or not.
DeletedUser
I don't care what you believe, it won't affect my beliefs is more close.
I agree and I wont condone it. The governments all belong to the devil anyway, why would I get upset if they do what they do. "The whole world is lying in the power of the evil one."-1john 5:19
I still have the right to express my opinion on the law based on my beliefs though. I disagreed when the US government decided to give a bunch of money to rich bankers and auto tycoons also, but I am not out picketing or looking down a rifle scope at any politicians or anything, I just am willing to express my opinion in a peaceful manner without the need to insult ppl (Hellstromm).
DeletedUser
I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone; people are free to live as they choose. I am free to express my opinion as are you. Your view of the bible is very skewed. Ppl were killing their children for talking back, killing their wives, their neighbors, and beating their slaves long before the mosaic law set limitations on such practices. Before the m law you could kill your child for any reason at any time. Pagan cultures burned them alive just to please their gods. To kill a child under the mosaic law you would have to do it at the temple in front of all the people. This was a deterrent as it would become public knowledge. I don't remember coveting thy neighbor's wife being a capital offence and slaves had to be set free at the jubilee year. The pattern was scaling back of things God disapproved of. The Kings were not to multiply wives for them selves for instance.
Later the mosaic law was put to rest at the proper time. The mosaic law was set in place as a temporary set of rules in order to prepare the Jews to accept Christ, it was never meant to be a permanent law forever. After Christ the law was fulfilled and the Christ put forth new standards and certain principals. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."-Matt 5:17
You have told others to research a topic before commenting on it, you would do well to follow your own advice before you slander the holy book.
DeletedUser
lol, you would do well to not assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I read the Bible, many times. As well as many other religious tomes. The Old Testament is an excerpt from the Talmud (Jewish). Regardless, you're full of crap there Willy, with your above assertions.
First, let's start with your comment of, "I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone; people are free to live as they choose. I am free to express my opinion as are you."
Guess what Willy, denying homosexuals from being allowed to marry, and with it obtain all the rights indicated in my earlier post <click here>, is indeed imposing your beliefs on others.
Next, your little fantasy as to the meaning of Matthew 5:17 is intentionally taken out of context. In context, we have:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ~ Matthew 5:17-19
In other words, the "Law" stands until heaven and earth disappear.
DeletedUser
I did, and He said it was okay.
DeletedUser16008
Aww come on I asked for the thread to be unlocked once already after it was going off topic... keep it on topic or start another scriptures one, I get that willy is stuck on what gods book told him but Eli just checked it out and the man said it was ok ....so...
Move along now nothing to see here ... move along
Move along now nothing to see here ... move along
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser30834
It is hard not assuming you do not know what you are talking about just from reading your own posts. Of course the old testament is from the Talmud, Jesus was a JEW. Was there supposed to be some shock value with you including that? And way to go with yet again picking what you think supports your assumptions and ignoring the rest of what was said.
Christianity is the last of several covenants God made with the world and a lot of the laws in the bible were negated with each new covenant made with the world.(I use the term world loosely as the covenants until Jesus was typically with a select set of people and it wasn't until Jesus came that outsiders had a path to heaven) If you were able to actually read and understand the Bible or the Talmud, you would know what WillyPete said was correct (except the Talmud doesn't place too much stock in Jesus). It's almost as if you skimmed through the bible picking and choosing words you think serves your purpose or visited one of the websites that gets it so wrong in an attempt to inflame Christians. I'm surprised you haven't brought up the argument about the bible says Pi is the wrong value or says the earth is flat therefore the entire thing is invalid (Both incorrect statements but often brought up by ignorant people trying to pretend to be smart enough to discredit a religion that has been around for thousands of years).
But he isn't denying anyone anything. You are working off incorrect assumptions. Straight people can't always marry their partner either. They have to follow the same rules too. You have this wonderful habit of imposing your own assumptions on things then ignoring everything around you or said to you in order to maintain your views.
Actually, no. Mathew 5 is about Jesus describing the new covenant and some laws that were not strict enough. The accomplishment is not the end of the world, but when Jesus Died and was resurrected as in fulfilling the prophecies. Not all the laws of the old covenant was abolished when this happened though, just the ones "Jesus came to fulfill". The laws that need to be still honored are reapeatd by him in this chapter and others.
Now when he said "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. " he is talking about fulfilling biblical prophecy and bringing the new covenant into effect. There are several covenants throughout the bible and with each covenant, old laws disappeared while some were reworked or added. When everything is accomplished, the new covenant laws take effect and the Heavens and earth do not need to disappear.
The law does not stand until until heaven and earth disappear, it stands until the prphecies have been fulfilled and the new covenent is instituted. If that didn't happen, they would stand until until heaven and earth disappear. In other words, he said you have to wait until he has proven he was the savior and brings the new era in before following the laws of the new covenant.
If you are going to tell someone the context of something, perhpas it would serve you to not only explore the context as written that makes you appear silly, but the common interpretation of it by others who claim to practice the faith before you look silly.
Oh, and to remain on topic, most of those benefits associated with marriage did not come around as connected with marriage until the 1950's or so. Times have changed since then and I think that either convincing society that gay relationships is for it's own betterment or to create another path to those benefits of mariage as the association with them has become obsolete when so much of the population is no longer married.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Correct! Jesus words right before he died was
John 19:30
Common English Bible (CEB)
30 When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “It is completed.” Bowing his head, he gave up his life.
When he said "it" was "completed" or "accomplished" he was referring to the messianic convent or old covenant. The new covenant changed the nature of Godly worship as Jesus was a perfect sacrifice negating the need to sacrifice animals. Many of the rules also changed to be more strict.
Not only that if you think i personally have the power to deny a group of ppl their rights you are sadly mistaken.
DeletedUser
It's called a vote. Yes, you personally have the power to deny a group of people.
According to Christians. According to Jews, Christians are wrong. According to Muslims, Christians are wrong. According to Buddhists, Christians are wrong. According to a multitude of other religions, Christians are wrong.
You can believe what you want, but that has nothing to do with this discussion unless you live in a theocracy. We do not.
I wasn't aware heaven and earth ceased to exist.
So, you're claiming that "Law" translates to prophecy? Convenient reinterpretation. The laws and prophecies are separate, but both are to be maintained "as written." As it is, heaven and earth have not disappeared, so "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen" of both law and prophecy is to be ignored nor dismissed, and instead must be adhered to, followed, acted on.
As it is, if you wish to argue the opposite, if you wish to argue what you are presently arguing, then you must follow that homosexuality is not for Man to ordain rules upon, but instead for God. So, if the Laws of God are to be enforced, then kill homosexuals, liars, atheists, your obstinate children and your cheating wives, then of course have the Laws of Man incarcerate your ass. If the Laws of God are to be abandoned (as Willy & Sum contend), and instead it is now God who imposes, then leave homosexuals alone and allow them to marry by the Laws of Man.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser30834
Do you have ADD or something? I mean we were talking about the interpretation of a verse in the Christian bible. I'm not sure what conflicting theology between different religions has to do with this. Can you explain how this point is even relevant?
And why we do not live in a theocracy, society and it's expectations is largely influenced by it's religious convictions. My point the entire time was that you have to convince society that including gays in the definition of marriage is to it's betterment so the entire point is completely within this discussion. The fact that you want to ignore my point or anyone else' point at will, does not make it disappear.
The verse is easy enough to a child to understand, I'm not sure why you cannot understand it. Heaven and earth does not need to cease to exist, the fulfillment of biblical prophecy does. In the Christian religion, that has been done regardless of any of your beliefs. Again, it is a quote from a christian Bible concerning the Christian religion so lets try to stay with the program.
Yawn.. I thought you said you understood Christianity? You really have no clue do you? Law does not translate to prophecy, prophecy when it is fulfilled, brings in a new covenant with God and the new covenant amends, replaces, and reinforces the old laws as well as brings in new laws. This has happened several times throughout the bible and the latest Covenant is not the first.
You are purposely missing the part where it says "until everything is accomplished". Everything is accomplished is Jesus' death and resurrection which brings in the new covenant with god. Those who do not believe Jesus accomplished this in the religion, are Jews and follow the laws of the last covenant which still does not include everything ever written as a law in the bible or talmud.
DeletedUser
I don't vote.
It really only matters what you personally believe(not you specifically). I believe based on evidence I have personally seen and what makes the most sense to me.
The whole discussion is based on belief. "should gay marriage be allowed;" as in do you believe in gay marriage... And yet again you only comprehend the part of the argument that fits in with you ideas. You missed the whole part of the law being fulfilled...
The Law is part of the covenant to Abraham that the messiah would be in his lineage. The law was to prepare the Jews for Christ's arrival.
Its God's place to punish the wicked.
DeletedUser
That's a choice, but having the power to vote still exists.
Despite the bulk of your (and others) arguments being fallacious reasonings, false logic, I responded to them in my earlier post here ---> http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=626018&postcount=83. That you decided to completely ignore my rebuttals doesn't make your present assertion true. In short, you're lieing.
I see, I guess I'll rephrase then. I wasn't aware the whole world is worshiping the One God of Israel, there is no more hunger, illness, or death, or that all the dead have arisen, all weapons of war have been destroyed, barren land was made abundant and fruitful, or that we have World Peace.
I must confess one thing. It is refreshing to see that, ultimately, when all other false arguments are effectively challenged, this argument is really about religious extremists violating their tenets to impose their beliefs upon others (luckily, women gained their rights despite the religious extremists, now let's see if other wrongs can be righted whilst battling the wave of idiocy imposed by extremists and their distorted interpretations of their sacred tomes).
DeletedUser16008
Thats about the size of it.
One thing, don't bring Buddhists into it. Buddhism is not and never has been a religion.
DeletedUser
There you go again, just because you cannot argue a point successfully you ignore pertinent facts; then resort to misinformation and insults, and make believe that is an effective rebuttal.
- Status