Yet Another Homosexual Marriage Thread

Never. I would rather starve to death than work in an abortion factory.

The Catholic church teaches that abortion is murder. For someone who went to catholic school, I suggest that you start reading.

No it's not. What would you do if you found your father watching pornography? Have you seen your friend become addicted on it?

Yes, we have been taught by God what is wrong and what is right.

If you'd actually read what I said, you'd realize that I'm not pointing fingers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Jesus pretty much took down the death penalty when he did not allow the Pharisee's to stone the woman who commited adultry.

My reasons for the goverment not endorsing homosexuality also are <a href="http://familyguardian.tzo.com/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V11N3-TruthAboutHomo.pdf">medical</a>.

A bigot is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Because I have used evidence to support my case, I'm not a bigot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"A bigot is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Because I have used evidence to support my case, I'm not a bigot."

But the key word here is intolerantly. You are intolerant towards people who carry out homosexual acts. And your evidence is based upon something that carries no weight outside the circle of believers. Can you imagine standing up in court and saying "god told me to do that/ think like that"?

Then theres the relationship between gvt and the people. Why should the gvt endorse or not, or even care about peoples private lives?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The goverment has always reconized that its people must be healthy. Since one of my arguments was that the homosexual act is unhealthy they have a right not to endorse it. We are "one nation under God".

 

"The goverment has always reconized that its people must be healthy. Since one of my arguments was that the homosexual act is unhealthy they have a right not to endorse it. We are "one nation under God"."

But again, can you force peopel to be healthy? Secondly, theres still many healthy homosexuals out htere. And gvts shouldnt have hte power to force people to health etc, that just leads to dictatorship. And as fo rone nation under god, which god? Yours? Someone elses? Isnt the USA supposed to have separation of church and state?

 

The notion of seperation of religion from state is refers only to the practice of religion. It was never the founders intention to restrict the believers of the politicians to not have a religion. True seperation of Church and state would not be allowing christians to practice their religion. As they have given us the freedom to practice any religion, this is not the case. In theory, the founding fathers wanted puritans, catholics, etc. all to share their thoughts on morality and goverment and then let majority to rule. Most of the judicial system is borrowed from the English system, which comes from Roman and Chrisitan roots. So religion is not entirely out of the moral decision process.

There are many healthy people who do not wear their seatbelt as well. Most states of couse have made people wear their seatbelts.

God is an abstract principle. Some of the founding fathers were unitarian. What it means is that we believe in a source of greater goodness then the goverment, which the goverment of course serves.

 

"The notion of seperation of religion from state is refers only to the practice of religion. It was never the founders intention to restrict the believers of the politicians to not have a religion."

And? That still means that the state has no business getting involved in religion. By all means vote for whom your religious beliefs dicate, but dont expect the gvt to uphold your religion.

"As they have given us the freedom to practice any religion, this is not the case. In theory, the founding fathers wanted puritans, catholics, etc. all to share their thoughts on morality and goverment and then let majority to rule."

So wheres peoples freedom now then?

"God is an abstract principle. Some of the founding fathers were unitarian. What it means is that we believe in a source of greater goodness then the goverment, which the goverment of course serves."

Wow, and i thought democracy was based on the rule of the people, not of the gvt under god. How silly of me. Clearly we have a different understanding of it all.

 

We can use religion to find moral basis in society and still have seperation of church and state. If we look at something simple such as why we laws against stealing, it is obviously because of religion. Even an apparent moral basis such as "do not harm others" does not work. At some point we have to use undefined and irrational beliefs anyways.

There freedom is deciding for themselves what is moral and right. It is not the goverments job to layout rational for what is moral.

Under the consitution, we are allowed to revolt against the goverment if it is a just cause. The goverment is not an end all.

 

okrinus, you have not submitted verses from the Bible to show that homosexuality is a sin.

Oh yeah...

But nowhere in the Bible does it say that abortion is murder.

 

I just submitted one.

The Catholic church does not believe in sola scriptura. A pregnant mother in the bible is described as a woman with child so generally it is percieved that the unborn is a human being. In Jerimiah and few other places, God says "in the womb I formed you". So the unborn baby was reconized as the person Jeremiah. Also God said that the life is in the blood, and those who kill a human being will be accountable for their blood. So unless if the unborn babies blood transforms, it's murder.

 

Leviticus

Health and Leviticus. Okinrus, you cited correctly. The passage falls amongst a whole slew of unclean acts.

Alright, here's my analysis. The authors clearly felt the need to keep their poulace healthy. Therefore, they used the scripture to educate what ways they knew of disease control. The question therefore is, has our medical knowledge progressed far enough that we need to revise those standards? If smoking kills more people than unprotected sex, wouldn't it be more prudent to consider that unclean if we wanted to keep our bodies clean?

 

okrinus. I just saw the Bible verse you submitted.

okrinus, have you ever eaten pork? Do you wear clothes of more than one fabric? Do you stone rebellious children? Have you ever shaved?
If you have eaten pork, you've sinned!
If you have worn clothes of more than one fabric, you've sinned!
If you have shaven, you've sinned!
And you have every right to stone rebellious children to death! It says so right their in Leviticus.
Check Leviticus if you don't believe me.

Which leads me to what I wanted to say.
If you don't think that eating pork or shaving is a sin, why do you think that homosexuality is a sin? It says, specifically in Leviticus, that you MUST NOT EAT PORK.

Every Christain against homosexuals uses the Bible to back up their baseless predjudices. But if they took Leviticus seriously, they should be saying goodbye to bacon sandwiches, trendy clothes, and beardless faces.

Before you go and condemn homosexuals, you had better go and condemn anyone who shaves.
If you don't condemn anyone who shaves, you are not obeying the Bible.

Rubbish. Give me the actual verses, because I think that you are taking those verses out of context, and I want to explain them.

Complete and utter nonsense.

In Exodus 21:22-25 we read that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being.

So, abortion is NOT a sin, not matter what some fundamentalists may say.

 

Jesus said that what enters your stomach will not defile you. Later Peter has his vision of the food.

Shaving is not sinning in the old testament. I'm not sure what verse your taking out of context, but the Nazerite shaves all his skin and Paul also shaved himself on a vow.

We no longer have the right to stone others. John 8:8 tells of the story of a woman condemned for adultry. Unless if were sinless we should not kill someone. This leads us to infer that the old testament penalties of death were to manifest the spiritual death. We definitly don't say that adultry is no longer sinful.

There are other verses as well. It is speculated that sodomy refers to homosexual activity. Paul also speaks against homosexual acts which were fairly common among greeks.

I'm not condemning anyone. I condemn the homosexual act. The two are very different things.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."

No, this is clearly refering to accidental man slaughter. Otherwise it's "life for life" and the fetus is certainly alive.

Luke 1:44 "For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."
Mary's voice is so pure that the unborn can hear it even within the womb. For she is our Mother and she is the one who searches for her lost sons.(Luke 2:41)(Revelation 12)

If you haven't noticed yet, the Catholic church put together the bible, the old testament and new testament canon. If they declare something wrong and sinful, they do not have to answer to the bible but to God. As it is the Pope's job to be the faith full and wise manager. Luke 12:42 "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute food allowance at the proper time?" John 21:15-18, Jesus says "Feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."

 

So in otherwords, if the Bible contradicts itself, the rule no longer applies?

Then why include it in the Old Testament? It is CLEARLY written in the Old Testament that you should stone rebellious children.

And also, what do you saw to the rule that you must not wear clothes made of more than one fabric?

What does it mean when God says he knew us before we were even conceived? Does it mean we are fully human even before the egg and the sperm come together? Of course not.

If you are going to use that argument, orkinus, you are going to have to bottle your sperm. Because, since God knows people before you are even in the womb, you are committing murder when you dispose of potential life.

If, by using this verse, you are saying that aborting a fetus is murder, you must admit that having a wet dream is murder.

But why isn't the man charged with murder if he causes a miscarriage? He is charged with murder if he kills a woman, but not a fetus. In otherwords, the fetus is not treated as a life.

 

Every rule in the bible serves a purpose. The giving of rules to mankind was gradual. In the beginning, Abraham was not constrained to follow the Torah. However God made the Jewish people apart from the the Gentiles. Jesus said not an iota will be taken away from the Law until all is fullfilled. And Jesus said when he died that "all has been fullfilled" or something like that. So dietary changes in the law represent maturing of faith, not contradictions.

What you wear is outside of you will not defile you either. It is what is in your heart. These laws were so that we would know that there is one baptism for forgiveness of our sins. Galatians 3:26 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." The physical laws of the old testament are manifested in the spiritual laws of the new testament.

He says that he knows us before he formed us. So a single fertilized cell in a mothers womb is us. He knows what we will look like etc. But we are not formed.

You don't understand. A fertilized egg is not potentional human life, it is seperate human life different from the mother and the father.

The sperm is not seperate human life. It is just a cell of us with genetic information capable of fertilizing a woman's egg. Where are you exactly going here?

I don't see any validation in this. If you read the laws above this one, you will see that you can also kill a slave and go without punishment on earth. Punished will then be left to God when you die. The punishment for causing an accidental miscarriage is not as high as murder. If someone accidently kills someone, then they are not always guilty under the Law. It is much easier to get in fight, and accidently bump into a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage than to outright kill the woman accidently. So where is your basis that the Law brings rightousnes? Fact is that it doesn't bring rightousness. It is clearly designed to create order for society not rightousness. These laws were not even for a modern day society, but a barbaric society in the desert. Now this modern day society knows that the fetus is human life and yet you think it should be looking at the Laws for a barbaric society that don't even bring rightousness?

 

Well it seems just as well suited to a man and a man or a woman an a woman, to me. It's a human institution, ours to define and shape, why does it have to be designed specifically for a man and a woman, when that definition disenfranchises so many?

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Is it a reference to the actual sexual act? Or is it just in a general sense within the relationship. If you're talking about within a relationship, does that mean you feel in a heterosexual relationship the man should always be dominant and the woman submissive? In either case, I can't see how this is a bad thing.

Well, many would disagree with that, A healthy relationship where the partners happen to be going at it like rabbits is still a healthy relationships (so long as 'going at it' isn't all there is to it of course). But I don't see how that previous point matters in the context of homosexuality, to tell the truth. Are you trying to imply that all homosexuals are lusty? What do you mean by "Building your house out of straw" It seems to me that you're implying homosexuals are just a bunch of sluts, and can't controle themselves as well as heterosexuals, that's just rediculous.

It's really no more dangerous than heterosexual sex, the worst you're going to get (short of a STD, which can be transmited just as easily in a heterosexual relationship, so we won't go there) would be a little bleeding, and even then, that would only occur with some really rough and unlubed trade. . . Medicaly there isn't any serious consideration.

Har har, Sorry Galt tried that in another thread, it's a different issue entirely. To say that a homosexual's claims to having a right to marry are satisfied by the fact that homosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex is nothing but a catch-22. We aren't talking about a homosexual's right to marry a member of the opposite sex, we are talking the right of a homosexual marriage (being a union between two members of the same sex) to be legally recognized. It's all just more semantics.

 

Revisionist religion

Okinrus, did the gradual revision of rules end when Revelations was printed?

 

The abortion factory is Planned Parenthood. An evil organization resorting promoting condoms, abortions, and other birth control. Not all hospitials do abortions. For the most part they are only done in abortion clinics, however Catholic hospitials will never do abortions or even hand out contraceptives. You are automatically banned and excomunicated if you perform an abortion. You would have to get special permision from the bishop for medical reasons.

No I want politicians to do what they know is right. So if many chrisitan politicians want to ban homosexual marriage that does not make them a bigot.

I've already quoted you a bible verse.

Are you arguing with statistics? What are you arguing about? Was the statistic that homosexuals on average live to they are 43 wrong? Now I'm a bigot because I do not endorse an institution which kills people?

No I'm implying that an institution such as homosexuality leads to lust. Therefore God has a right to ban it before the seed is planted. Nevertheless, if you want to look at the statitics that say that homosexual relationships are more likely to break up, I've already posted them.

 

Public revelation ended with the book of Revelation, however private revelation still goes on. There have been some debates of this, we know that Revelation describes two prophets. I believe that the rules have ended with the new testament. Jesus really only gives us two, "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" and "Love your neighbor as I have loved you". So we can determine what is sinful, but we also look at what the old testament teaches and we determine a rational for why somethings are sinful. Because Jesus said that the entire Law was based on these two laws.

Using that logic, the few people who have relationships with animals have a right to marry their dog, cat or whatever. We just go by the definition of marriage. There is nothing unconstitutional here, but I agree that this does not fully disprove the allowance of homosexual marriage.