Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

eider

Well-known member
No, it is not. You are against abortion - sin. You are against murder - sin.
Sexual predation is sin. See RightDivider just ▲above▲ me too.

You really need to re-think God in your life, Rusha. He is there, never silent.

Rusha was right.
Breaking any of the laws of Moses could cause sickness, weakness, break down in tribe cohesion etc. Keeping the laws of Moses, any of the laws, including the 96 sacrificial laws, lead to a stronger, healthier, closer, more successful nation.

To break the laws (sin) lead to sickness. But Jesus repealed over 100 of these laws, and so you cannot hold on to them all now.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Rusha was right.
Breaking any of the laws of Moses could cause sickness, weakness, break down in tribe cohesion etc. Keeping the laws of Moses, any of the laws, including the 96 sacrificial laws, lead to a stronger, healthier, closer, more successful nation.
Congratulations. You are a humanist, not a Christian. A Rationalist, not a man of faith. Why? Because you major on "Love man" and minor on "Love God." It is just secular humanism dressed up and hopeful of an ideal you like to call "Christianity." :nono: You and I will only have one master. We cannot undo scriptures.

To break the laws (sin) lead to sickness. But Jesus repealed over 100 of these laws, and so you cannot hold on to them all now.
Nope. This again is secular humanism against Biblical and Spiritual understanding. Liberal churches are cults, not Christians. I come from that background. There is no 'loving your neighbor' if you choose against what is 'best' for them. It is just secular humanism with pie-in-the-sky ideals. It isn't Christianity.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
so you think the government should have no role to play in controlling sexual behavior?

Just what role would the government play in controlling sexual behavior between consenting adults in a nation of 330 million Americans?

Only 4% of which are gay

"Ok doser" did not specify as to whether the "government should have no role to play in controlling sexual behaviour" that was straight, gay or otherwise!

Even if government were to limit itself to controlling sexual behaviour among gays, that still represents approximately 9 to 10 million Americans!
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Lon said:
Congratulations. You are a humanist, not a Christian. A Rationalist, not a man of faith. Why? Because you major on "Love man" and minor on "Love God." It is just secular humanism dressed up and hopeful of an ideal you like to call "Christianity." You and I will only have one master. We cannot undo scriptures.

Funny that you think you get to decide what 'Christianity TM' is. Add in your naive and simplistic, not to mention selective, understanding of scripture, completely devoid of both any form of contemporary theological thinking and willfully ignorant of every form of well established historical-critical biblical scholarship. That aside, your view of the scriptures would have had to condemn the New testament when it was new and fresh. You enjoy the benefit of being so far away the canonization of the New testament that you unproblematically just assume its scripture. That of course wasn't obvious for the early church. Given your scriptural hermeneutic, you would have to exclude it. None of the evangelists employ these simplistic literalist readings of the scriptures, they employ obvious typological and allegorical readings of scripture, readings that are indefensible with a literalist approach to scripture (Case in point: Matthew's application of the Old testament to portray Christ as the fulfilment of Old testament prophecies).

Nope. This again is secular humanism against Biblical and Spiritual understanding. Liberal churches are cults, not Christians. I come from that background. There is no 'loving your neighbor' if you choose against what is 'best' for them. It is just secular humanism with pie-in-the-sky ideals. It isn't Christianity.

Once again, you just assume the power of definition. He disagrees with me, so not only must he be a liberal. I suspect your actual understanding and knowledge of liberal theology is close to zero, it is just an empty demonizing label used by anti-intellectual groups within American forms of modern Christianity today. Of course, feel free to actually provide an intellectually informed criticism liberal Christianity by providing us with an intelligent criticism of the theological method of Friedrich Schleiermacher and the principles and results of modern biblical scholarship that isn't just a regression to fideism and anti-intellectualism.

And how is he secular? Humanist perhaps, but humanism can be Christian. 'Spiritual understanding' seems to just be a nicer phrase for fideism and anti-intellectual forms of religion. 'Biblical understanding' is incoherent (see above), or mostly just a hollow power rhetoric on your part, that attempts to label your opponents as heretics and unbelievers tout court.

All in all, typical of the theologically vapid forms of religion you find in so much of evangelical Christianity today, which implicitly claims that ceasing to think is an all important Christian virtue.

glassjester said:
Take away the physical aspect of the relationship, and there's no difference between a married couple and life-long roommates.

That is just ridiculous. How about their physical relationship being an expression of a loving relationship. A loving relationship isn't reducible to that of two roommates.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Funny that you think you get to decide what 'Christianity TM' is.
No, not funny at all. A Christian FOLLOWS Christ. If you don't, or have people as more important, you aren't. It is as simple as that. Sorry to burst that little bubble.


Add in your naive and simplistic, not to mention selective, understanding of scripture, completely devoid of both any form of contemporary theological thinking and willfully ignorant of every form of well established historical-critical biblical scholarship.
IOW, Humanism. Yeah, that isn't "Christ"ianity. It is "Human"ism, political, and secular. You can call yourself a duck after that. Just because one quacks, does not a duck make. ONLY God can make a Christian.


That aside, your view of the scriptures would have had to condemn the New testament when it was new and fresh. You enjoy the benefit of being so far away the canonization of the New testament that you unproblematically just assume its scripture.
It is much more confirmed than that, but you are correct, "Unproblematic." :up:

That of course wasn't obvious for the early church. Given your scriptural hermeneutic, you would have to exclude it. None of the evangelists employ these simplistic literalist readings of the scriptures, they employ obvious typological and allegorical readings of scripture, readings that are indefensible with a literalist approach to scripture (Case in point: Matthew's application of the Old testament to portray Christ as the fulfilment of Old testament prophecies).
Says the secular humanist bible corrector. Such is NOT Christianity because you have nobody to follow. A Christian follow Christ. Where do you learn or know about Him? --> Scriptures. A Christian esteems scriptures as the source of his Christianity. Not into them? --> Not a Christian then. Sorry, you are more a John Lennonian than a Christian at that point. All you need is love. It is secular humanism, NOT Christianity. Simply say "I love the Beatles" and leave it at that.


Once again, you just assume the power of definition.
Of course. Christianity, by definition, has Christ at the pinnacle. There is NO place else we find Him other than in Scriptures. There is not sense anyone is a Christian without Christ as the center of his/her being. :nono:
Perhaps "Christianish" or "somewhat associated" would be better labels for you :think:


He disagrees with me, so not only must he be a liberal. I suspect your actual understanding and knowledge of liberal theology is close to zero, it is just an empty demonizing label used by anti-intellectual groups within American forms of modern Christianity today. Of course, feel free to actually provide an intellectually informed criticism liberal Christianity by providing us with an intelligent criticism of the theological method of Friedrich Schleiermacher and the principles and results of modern biblical scholarship that isn't just a regression to fideism and anti-intellectualism.
Grew up in that church. Dead bones are dead bones. I'm WELL acquainted. There is no sense they are Christian. They are secular humanists with little Christianish adherence.

And how is he secular? Humanist perhaps, but humanism can be Christian. 'Spiritual understanding' seems to just be a nicer phrase for fideism and anti-intellectual forms of religion. 'Biblical understanding' is incoherent (see above), or mostly just a hollow power rhetoric on your part, that attempts to label your opponents as heretics and unbelievers tout court.
No, a humanist is sociologically interested and vested. Yes God told us to love our neighbor and do good. No, your only duty is not man, but a relationship with God, reading your bible daily, praying, seeking Him, loving Him. Anything else is BUT humanism without the "Christian" part.

All in all, typical of the theologically vapid forms of religion you find in so much of evangelical Christianity today, which implicitly claims that ceasing to think is an all important Christian virtue.
Nope. I won't toot my own horn after that...at least not this post.
I don't find humanism but emoting THEN thinking about what they prefer in their emotes. Christianity requires one takes up his/her cross.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, it is not. You are against abortion - sin. You are against murder - sin.
Sexual predation is sin. See RightDivider just ▲above▲ me too.

You really need to re-think God in your life, Rusha. He is there, never silent.

I am against abortion, murder and sexual abuse because it hurts other innocent individuals who are incapable or unwilling to consent to such actions.
 

DavidK

New member
:think: So the only reason ANY couple marries is so that others see their private, sexual relationship as legit. Do you find that a decent reason for heterosexuals to marry? Good thing love has nothing to do with marriage.

Can you give me another reason? Doesn't it come down to legitimacy? Civil unions were seen as making gay couple second class citizens even if they provided all the legal benefits that marriage does. It was very important to make sure the same name was applied to both, because it conveys legitimacy.

I'm very open to instruction if I've got that wrong.


Most people who are content in their own lives do not care. Then there is the whole "homosexuals should receive the DP" crowd.

Even the "homosexuals receive the DP" crowd has no problems with a deep, loving relationship between two men, nor with men rooming together. It's the gay sex they hate.

Which, of course, the same could be said about a heterosexual couple. So ban all marriages.

Absolutely. Let marriage be something the state has no involvement with. Let all the legal privileges of marriage be conferred to any two people who want to covenant together.


Sin is a religious concept.

And I was talking about the religious people who are against the state recognizing gay marriage. I'm pointing out that those religious people have no problem with two men loving each other. In fact, their religion encourages it. They only have problems with two men having sex with each other.

Therefore, the cultural battle over gay marriage is about gay sex.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
In so many words he said that he accepted polyamorous marriage (of one husband-two wives) if all spouses could be treated equally.

And are you for that, as well?


Incestuous marriages produced weak children, so that's damaging the health of and strength of.,... the whole community. So it was outlawed. That's why it's unlawful today.

So you deny incestuous couples marriage equality, based on the chance that they might produce unhealthy children?

Am I understanding your stance correctly?
 

glassjester

Well-known member
That is just ridiculous. How about their physical relationship being an expression of a loving relationship. A loving relationship isn't reducible to that of two roommates.

Minus sexual attraction, sure it is.

If I wasn't sexually attracted at all to my wife, we'd be living together as, basically, brother and sister.
 

eider

Well-known member
:think: ....

Romans 1:28,32

Go figure a worldly man thinking he's a Christian :doh:

Ah..... so Jesus never did say any such things.
So Paul is your prophet........
......... interesting.
 

eider

Well-known member
And are you for that, as well?
The UK allows men with more than one wife to live here with them if they took refuge here.
I accept UK law.

So you deny incestuous couples marriage equality, based on the chance that they might produce unhealthy children?

Am I understanding your stance correctly?
Not just unhealthy, but sometimes seriously disabled.

But Gay marriage cannot produce seriously disabled children, or do you think that it can?
 

eider

Well-known member
STOP PRESS!
The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to support and carry out Gay marriage services.

Another Church has seen the light.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
The UK allows men with more than one wife to live here with them if they took refuge here.
I accept UK law.

How about 2 husbands and 2 wives? Or 1 husband and 10 wives? Or 10 husbands and 10 wives?

Is there a limit?

Not just unhealthy, but sometimes seriously disabled.

Sometimes. Ok.

Then you believe non-incestuous couples with heritable disorders should be denied marriage as well - right?


But Gay marriage cannot produce seriously disabled children, or do you think that it can?

Obviously I do not believe that homosexual couples produce children. Why the condescension?
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
OK Doser , If anyone commits a sexual crime such as molesting a child, raping a woman etc , he or she should be criminally prosecuted and put in jail . But if it's consensual sex in private between adults, it cannot and must not be considered a crime , and no one should ever be criminally prosecuted for this . When will you get this simple and obvious fact into your thick skull ?
 
Top