O'Dannyboy Posted June 2, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,454 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1969 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'm opposed to homosexuals being allowed to marry in a church. However, I don't have a problem with them being allowed to marry through the eyes of the law though. Every religion has it's deffinition of marriage, why is it that we only want ours to be allowed? I am opposed to them calling it "marriage". A marriage is a holy covenant, not a legal contract. Give them whatever rights society considers fair for such unions and give the unions a name, but I would take offense to them calling such unions marriage. Call it anything but marriage and I doubt there would be much opposition. I have noticed that there are some people out there that resist even civil unions between homosexuals. I am not one of those people. The problem is, from what I have seen, is that many homosexuals want their union to be called a marriage and will not be satisfied unless they are allowed to have ceremonies inside churches (our equivalent to temples). Such people as this want nothing more than to openly and publicly defy God every chance they get, it seems. Society has done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than any homosexuals could ever do. With the amount of marriages that are ending in divorce, or with the amount of spousal abuse? A lasting, normal, happy marriage is now something that's considered an exception to the rule. Perhaps in the U.S. but not world wide. Marriage, on a whole, is still considered a holy and sacred institution around the world. Should we, in the U.S. allow marriage to be reduced to a legal contract between" two consenting humans of age" then inevitably, the rest of the world would likely follow suit. Well they are harmless (what harm have they done exactly?) They do want normal lives, I know many homosexuals and they do just try to live a normal life. The ones I know don't go to parades, they don't rub their homosexuality in everyone's face, they're just like all of my other friend's except they prefer members of the same sex. The harm they do is to our social structure. Their efforts to become accepted by society have been taken to the extreme (by some) and threatens to undermine the foundational understanding of the necessity of the traditional family unit (mother, father & children). As far as I am concerned, the family cannot exist without male and female unions. Without the traditional family unit we risk falling into chaos through a dimished sense of loyalty. While I respect your friends' decissions to live and let live, the fact remains that there are many in the homosexual community that refuse to fade into the crowd. These are the ones that are forcing their way of thinking on the public by indoctrinating their children without the parents consent. They are aware that they cannot change the parents so they are using the public school system as their vehicle for change. Their efforts to undermine or alter the parents teaching is the cause of much of our hostility. By doing so they are, in effect, trying to negate our say on the matter and understandably is cause for even more resentment and hostility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dole Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 139 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 I am opposed to them calling it "marriage". A marriage is a holy covenant, not a legal contract. Give them whatever rights society considers fair for such unions and give the unions a name, but I would take offense to them calling such unions marriage. Call it anything but marriage and I doubt there would be much opposition. I have noticed that there are some people out there that resist even civil unions between homosexuals. I am not one of those people. The problem is, from what I have seen, is that many homosexuals want their union to be called a marriage and will not be satisfied unless they are allowed to have ceremonies inside churches (our equivalent to temples). Such people as this want nothing more than to openly and publicly defy God every chance they get, it seems. Ok that I can understand. Although every religion has their own type of marriage. Should we consider anything that isn't a standard judeo-christian marriage a civil union? Perhaps in the U.S. but not world wide. Marriage, on a whole, is still considered a holy and sacred institution around the world. Should we, in the U.S. allow marriage to be reduced to a legal contract between" two consenting humans of age" then inevitably, the rest of the world would likely follow suit. World wide? Have you been outside the U.S. much? Most of the entire outside world was laughing at us when we were in an uproar over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. It's common for a married man to have a mistress in most parts of Europe. Then in the arab nations marriage is between a man and as many women as he can afford. I believe in India they have the same sort of system. Plus in those countries don't they usually have arranged marriages? And then there's this from Wikipedia- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Dannyboy Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,454 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1969 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I am opposed to them calling it "marriage". A marriage is a holy covenant, not a legal contract. Give them whatever rights society considers fair for such unions and give the unions a name, but I would take offense to them calling such unions marriage. Call it anything but marriage and I doubt there would be much opposition. I have noticed that there are some people out there that resist even civil unions between homosexuals. I am not one of those people. The problem is, from what I have seen, is that many homosexuals want their union to be called a marriage and will not be satisfied unless they are allowed to have ceremonies inside churches (our equivalent to temples). Such people as this want nothing more than to openly and publicly defy God every chance they get, it seems. Ok that I can understand. Although every religion has their own type of marriage. Should we consider anything that isn't a standard judeo-christian marriage a civil union? You seem to think of marriage as a "legal" institution and not a holy convenant. I believe that God considers a man and a woman married even though their vows are made to a different God. Either way, a marriage is much more than a legal contract and has always been between a man and a woman, no matter what the religion. The question of how many wives a man may have differs, but the fact remains that they were women. Perhaps in the U.S. but not world wide. Marriage, on a whole, is still considered a holy and sacred institution around the world. Should we, in the U.S. allow marriage to be reduced to a legal contract between" two consenting humans of age" then inevitably, the rest of the world would likely follow suit. World wide? Have you been outside the U.S. much? Most of the entire outside world was laughing at us when we were in an uproar over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. It's common for a married man to have a mistress in most parts of Europe. Then in the arab nations marriage is between a man and as many women as he can afford. I believe in India they have the same sort of system. Plus in those countries don't they usually have arranged marriages? You have a point. That only makes it all the more important that we effort ourselves to preserve the sanctity of marriage as a holy institution. We can hardly measure ourselves against other nations, especially those nations that are not even tolerant of Christians. And then there's this from Wikipedia- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 5, 2006 However, I don't have a problem with them being allowed to marry through the eyes of the law though. Every religion has it's deffinition of marriage, why is it that we only want ours to be allowed? I am reminded of a song: ... heard the reverend say "gay is probably normal in the Good Lord's sight what's to be debated? Jesus never stated what's right" I'm no theology nut, but the reverend may be a little confused for if the Lord don't care and he chooses to ignore-ah tell it to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah Call it just an alternate lifestyle, huh? morality lies within consciences are restin' please repeat the question again Whatever happened to sin? When the closets are empty and the clinics are full when your eyes have been blinded by society's wool when the streets erupt in your own backyard you'll be on your knees praying for the national guard if you don't care now how the problems get solved you can shake your head later that you never got involved 'cause the call came ringing from the throne of gold but you never got the message 'cause your mind's on hold . . . "Whatever Happened to Sin?" by Steve Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tah Posted June 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,131 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2006 Thanks nebula...I have never heard that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dole Posted June 7, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 139 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 7, 2006 You seem to think of marriage as a "legal" institution and not a holy convenant. I believe that God considers a man and a woman married even though their vows are made to a different God. Either way, a marriage is much more than a legal contract and has always been between a man and a woman, no matter what the religion. The question of how many wives a man may have differs, but the fact remains that they were women. I know what marriage is in a religious context. I also know m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e is just a word. Changing the legal deffinition of the word marriage does NOT change the meaning of marriage in the eyes of god. I have already said that I to not dispute civil unions or domestic partnerships. Such unions recognise that they are "civil" in nature and not holy. I simply wish to distinguish between unions that we consider as holy and those that are considered unholy. I'm sure even in aforementioned Islamic states they do not recognise same sex unions even though they don't quite line up with Judeo-Christian idea of marriage. Give them the same rights as married couples if you must, but respect our beliefs that marriage is holy and that homosexuality is unholy. You have even said that you agree that sex with someone of the same sex is a grave sin. I would consider it a sin to encourage same sex couple to have sex and by saying that they should be allowed to marry each other is to encourage such acts and is not in keeping with scripture. Ok, so what if someone creates a religion where marriage is between two people who love each other? Why does any one religion get priority over another? The marriage is holy to them. I'm all for civil unions as long as they've got the same rights, but I see no harm in calling it marriage (I wouldn't describe it as a marriage according to God, I hope you understand this point, they are not married through the eyes of my God but they can use the word marriage, it's only a word.) There is no necessity to the traditional family unit. You have to be kidding! I guess we should just play God from here on out and have nothing but test tube babies or by artificial insemination? By saying this you are putting your stamp of aproval on childbirth out of wedlock. I can't believe anyone professing to be a Christian would advocate devaiting from scriptural unions. I didn't have artificial insemination in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking more along the lines of a parent whose spouse has died while the child was very young (or still in the womb.) There's also adoption. Although I see nothing wrong with artificial insemination for families who want children but can't have them any other way and can't afford to adopt. If I had to choose between Sir Ian McKellen and any partner he might have, or Britney Spears and K Fad to raise a child, I'd pick Ian McKellen. It wouldn't even be a contest. Britney Spears could win an award for world's worst celebrity mother. Also, her child was probably unplanned but a gay couple would have to plan for children. Same sex couples can't PLAN to have a child. They have to have the child by unnatural means or it will not happen. They are using science to play God. But you would encourage this? You can plan to buy a house. You can plan to take a cruise. You can plan to buy a car. None of those things are "natural" yet you can still plan to do them. A gay couple must always plan for a child. It won't happen by accident during sex. They have to try and adopt a child. Or obtain one through artificial insemination. Or have sex with a member of the opposite sex. My entire argument there was really that a gay couple that has a child wanted it and had the resources to take care of it. In the case of a straight couple, the child could be unwanted and in a lot of cases the couple might not have the time or the money to be able to look after a child so it becomes more of a burden then a blessing. They will never produce a child by accident. They will never request an abortion, and they'll love a child more than most straight couples because they had to work so hard just to receive the child. I understand that you have many friends that are homosexual and that you want the best for them and to see them happy. You should understand that you are only condemming them by encouraging them. You profess to be a Christian or at least seem to have some understanding of scripture, yet you continue to defend their acts, or at least their right to commit them. You agree that sex with someone of the same sex is a sin but you continue to promote environments and conditions that only serve to encourage such behavior. These people don't need tolerance they need the truth and as a Christian it's your duty to either present it to them or to come out from among them. Your misrepresentation of scripture is as bad if not worse than the the sin of homosexuality, because you should know better. 2corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Even if I knew no homosexuals, I'd still understand them as people. My beliefs differ from theres. Should I try to change them by sharing the message of the Lord with them? Yes. Should I make living a normal life harder for them just so they get fed up and change their ways? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Ok, so what if someone creates a religion where marriage is between two people who love each other? Why does any one religion get priority over another? If you are trying to convnce a Christian to change his/her position, a statement like that isn't going to work. Which "God" do you serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dole Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 139 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Ok, so what if someone creates a religion where marriage is between two people who love each other? Why does any one religion get priority over another? If you are trying to convnce a Christian to change his/her position, a statement like that isn't going to work. Which "God" do you serve? Well I thought I served the same God as you, apparently I don't. In America there are laws against the government giving priority to one religion over the next. Yes, God tells me marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's my God and not everyone believes in my God, and in America God isn't part of the law, so marriage as a legal term can be defined as between two people of any sex. I have no problem with that, it doesn't change my religion it just changes a legal term. Deuteronomy 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Do you know Jesus? Rev. 21:8 - But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. 22:14,15 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Rev. 2 14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Dole Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 139 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Fornication, lust, and adultery are sexually immoral. It doesn't say homosexuality is sexually immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.59eed8b93aa1c92d8b306f10811981dc.jpg)
Recommended Posts