toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

[Stripe]

I didn't say that there were not consequences for doing these things. But before you can determine what is a criminal act and what is not, you must first tell me who's laws are being used to determine what is a crime and what is not.

Preferably God's.

I don't recall Jesus punishing a single sinner that came to Him. All He said was go and sin no more. So why do you find it necessary to punish where Jesus did not?

Government.

 

[WandererInFog]

Can you show me in scripture where God makes a distinction between sin and crime in the OT? Can you show me in scripture how we are to differentiate between sin and crime.

There is a clear distinction even directly in the Levitical law. Sin is any offense against God, while crimes are are specific subset of those which God empowers the civil government to, once proven at trial, punish.

Again within the Mosiac law we see any number of sins which are not crimes because the civil government is given no power to punish the person guilty of them. Leviticus 5:1-5 for example lists a number of sins, for which the Isrealites are ordered to seek atonement, but for which the civil government is given no ability to punish or compel obedience.

In fact, contrast Leviticus 5:1 specifically with Deuteronomy 19:16-19. In the first case we have a situation where someone failed to give testimony that he could have. This is sin, but it isn't a crime, and while he must make a sacrifice for atonement, the magistrate isn't entitled to make a determination of guilt or to punish him in any way for it. In the second case, we have the example of someone actually giving false testimony in a trial which not only a sin, but also a crime. In this case the magistrate is empowered to investigate the offense and a specific punishment is spelled out if the person is found guilty.

 

[Persephone66]

Gay marriage? Why not?

I'm not seeing the big deal. Seriously. No gets harmed by marriage.

 

[Nick M]

There is only one unforgivable sin and it ain't sex. That means that homosexuality is a forgivable sin no longer deserving of death.

I don't have to show you what Paul said about fags and even emasculated males, aka flamers or metro sexuals. Can you show Jesus himself in his earthly ministry refrencing such behavior?

You simply lack the intelligence to discern between our relationship with God through Jesus Christ based on His righteousness, and our relationship with one another based on morality through laws.

I can't understand why it is so hard for some people.

Morality is not found in laws.

Then where is it found?

 

[Nick M]

Based on sexual orientation alone, none of them are deserving of death.

Being male of female has nothing to do with it.

So, who in your family is the flamer and you need to defend? If you loved your neighbor, you would tell them their house is burning down.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are drawing distinctions between sin and crime from the old covenant where such a distinction was never made. If you are going to base criminal law on the OC, then you better use ALL of the OC.

Seriously, how stupid are you?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the OC. None at all. You know why? I'll tell you. The Covenants dealt with sin, not crime. Yes most, if not all, sins were crimes as well under the OC, but that is irrelevant because we are talking about the sin aspect of any crime here. It is of no consequence, whatsoever, that there was no disconnect between sin and crime in the OC. And it amazes me that you are ignoring the fact that even then they had to deal with the sin aspect separately from the crime aspect.

But this has nothing to do with the Old Covenant. It has nothing to do with the New Covenant. It doesn't even have anything to do with the current dispensation.

It has to do with criminal behavior, solely.

Under whose laws, men's or God's?

Forget the laws that exist. They matter not. I want you to tell me the difference between murder and homosexuality that leads you to believe the former should be a crime and the latter not.

Whether your child is an adult or a child, Leviticus 20 says that you are to stone them if they curse you. Since have never been a parent I don't think you understand the depth of love a parent feels for their child regardless of how old the child is.

That verse says absolutely nothing about children. Do you really expect a child to even know how to curse their parents?

And do you really think that made a difference? It didn't make a difference back then. It was the law, no matter how much one loved their children.

Go read post 55. Drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources. Drugs should be decriminalized and treated the same way we treat alcohol.

Try to keep up. You think most drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources, but you do not think all of them are. For instance, you believe that driving under the influence should be illegal. And since you mentioned treating them exactly as we do alcohol, you think public intoxication should be illegal too. But, you also think we should be able to buy drugs the same way we buy alcohol. We should even have something similar to bars for things like weed, cocaine and heroin. According to you, that is.

And if I am incorrect maybe you should think about saying what you mean.

If they are wrong because they are wrong then there is something greater than God that determines morality. If God is sovereign then God and God alone determines right and wrong. Which is LH, is God constrained by something greater than Himself or is God truly sovereign?

False dichotomy.

God does not determine morality. Morality just is. Yet God is not less than it. God is right, and He is not wrong. This is true. Yet God does not make things right or wrong. God does not legislate morality, as you put it.

God never said murder was wrong before the first murder took place. But when it did He called it wrong. But it was wrong before He said it was. Otherwise Cain did nothing wrong.

Since crime and sin are the same in God's eyes, how could Jesus take care of one without taking care of the other.

They are not the same in God's eyes, you moron.

First define for us crime. Who determines what is a crime and what is not?

As far as what should be a crime it is any action that is injurious to the public welfare or morals.

And you question my intelligence.

If you honestly think the paragraph to which I was referring has any relevance to this discussion, then yes, I question your intelligence. Keep in mind I agree with what you said in that paragraph.

I posted this in another thread but I think it more aptly belongs here.

The fact that people can be so naive and close-minded when it comes to this issue makes me ashamed to be American. Honestly people, this country was founded on religious freedoms, and in America one of the best things is that everyone's free to believe whichever religion they want, or none at all. So why, in a country that allows us to have the freedom to not adhere to a national religion, are principles contained within that religion being forced upon those who may not even follow those beliefs?

What on Earth makes you think this has anything to do with religion?

nope.

Just as a heterosexual can choose to lead a celibate lifestyle, so too can a homosexual choose to lead a celibate life. The fact that they choose not to have sex does not alter their sexual orientation in the least.

You have failed, once again. For one to be defined as a homosexual in accordance with the definition of the Creator of the Universe one must have engaged in an act of homosexual sexual behavior.

As a Christian this should also be your definition.

This is certainly true in regard to sin. Once we have accepted God's forgiveness we are no longer identified as sinners. Not by Him. This includes even the most heinous sins, ones even you believe should be crimes.

Of course, we should still be legally identified as these things if they are in fact crimes until our punishment is meted out. Once a thief has paid restitution he should no longer be legally identified as a thief. Once a murderer has been executed he should no longer be legally identified as a murderer.

And no one should be legally identified as any type of criminal unless they have committed said crime. If homosexuality is criminalized then this should hold true for it as well as all other crimes.

Only if you live under the old covenant. Under the new, if you repent of your ways and turn away from those ways there is nothing but forgiveness.

For sin. And sin alone. God does not forgive crime. He never has, and He never will.

You better believe it!

Stripe is asking you if we should let murderers go and not punish them in accordance with the law if they repent. Is that what you are agreeing to?

There is one unforgivable sin. It is not homosexual sex. It is not murder. Therefore, these must be forgivable.

As sins, certainly. As crimes, we already know you don't believe that about murder. So what makes homosexuality different?

I didn't say that there were not consequences for doing these things. But before you can determine what is a criminal act and what is not, you must first tell me who's laws are being used to determine what is a crime and what is not.

Forget whose laws we are using, for it is irrelevant, because we are not using God's laws except in regard to the fact that He had such laws [but that is not why we are advocating these laws] nor are we using man's laws, because man's laws do not cover homosexuality right now.

We are using morality to define what should be a law and what should not.

I don't recall Jesus punishing a single sinner that came to Him. All He said was go and sin no more. So why do you find it necessary to punish where Jesus did not?

Could that be because Jesus was not the government?:dunce::duh:

 

[Memento Mori]

If you loved your neighbor, you would tell them their house is burning down.

I'd certainly tell them. But then I wouldn't invent a fire just to try to get in and push my beliefs on them either... But that's just me.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Gay marriage? Why not?

I'm not seeing the big deal. Seriously. No gets harmed by marriage.

You've never been to a divorce court or a probate court.

 

[Granite]

Madman, I'm very disappointed. I clicked to see the new posts expecting to see something of value, and instead I saw you being about as useless as I could have expected.

The only use Sozo's ever provided here is showing just how depraved and vile he really is (he's also walking proof of Christianity's hypocrisy and inherent ineffectiveness). Beyond that he's just a pile of self-hatred.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't have to show you what Paul said about fags and even emasculated males, aka flamers or metro sexuals. Can you show Jesus himself in his earthly ministry refrencing such behavior?

No, I can't find anything specifically said by Jesus to a homosexual. I can find where He told a woman who was deserving of death under the OC penalties for adultery to go and sin no more. Sexual immorality is sexual immorality.

Then where is it found?

The Helper that God sent to us, He helps us find good and meaningful morals.

 

[Frank Ernest]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 6th, 2010 11:05 AM

toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

I suppose the idea is to legally confer social legitimacy upon a perversion. It wouldn't. It would render the concept of marriage to be essentially meaningless.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Seriously, how stupid are you?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the OC. None at all. You know why? I'll tell you. The Covenants dealt with sin, not crime. Yes most, if not all, sins were crimes as well under the OC, but that is irrelevant because we are talking about the sin aspect of any crime here. It is of no consequence, whatsoever, that there was no disconnect between sin and crime in the OC. And it amazes me that you are ignoring the fact that even then they had to deal with the sin aspect separately from the crime aspect.

But this has nothing to do with the Old Covenant. It has nothing to do with the New Covenant. It doesn't even have anything to do with the current dispensation.

Really? So if being homosexual or practicing it has nothing to do with the OC or sin or crime, why are we even discussing it? Since it has nothing to do with the with the NT then it must not be a sin or a crime and and we are free to do what we will.

It has to do with criminal behavior, solely.

Well since it has nothing to do with the OC or NC, who decides its criminal? Oviously God can't since it has nothing to do with His Covenants with men.

Forget the laws that exist. They matter not. I want you to tell me the difference between murder and homosexuality that leads you to believe the former should be a crime and the latter not.

One is a crime of violence that robs a person of their life. The other is a moral sin against God that harms no one else.

That verse says absolutely nothing about children. Do you really expect a child to even know how to curse their parents?

Well then please tell us oh wise one, who else can curse their mother and father other than a child?

And do you really think that made a difference? It didn't make a difference back then. It was the law, no matter how much one loved their children.

You bet it made a difference! People have not changed between then and now. Their love for their children is no less than our love for our children.

Try to keep up. You think most drug laws are a waste of time, money and resources, but you do not think all of them are. For instance, you believe that driving under the influence should be illegal. And since you mentioned treating them exactly as we do alcohol, you think public intoxication should be illegal too. But, you also think we should be able to buy drugs the same way we buy alcohol. We should even have something similar to bars for things like weed, cocaine and heroin. According to you, that is.

I forget that you are so literally minded that you must have everything spelled out for you. I never said that I am opposed to drug laws. I said drugs should be decriminalized and treated like alcohol.

False dichotomy.

God does not determine morality. Morality just is. Yet God is not less than it. God is right, and He is not wrong. This is true. Yet God does not make things right or wrong. God does not legislate morality, as you put it.

God never said murder was wrong before the first murder took place. But when it did He called it wrong. But it was wrong before He said it was. Otherwise Cain did nothing wrong.

Okay, so it is your position that morals are greater than God. Who or what created the morals that God is subject to?

They are not the same in God's eyes, you moron.

Really? Hmm. I bet the Israelis would be shocked to hear that.

As far as what should be a crime it is any action that is injurious to the public welfare or morals.

Okay.

You have failed, once again. For one to be defined as a homosexual in accordance with the definition of the Creator of the Universe one must have engaged in an act of homosexual sexual behavior.

As a Christian this should also be your definition.

Have you ever asked a homosexual person when they decided to become gay? They look at you like you have lost your mind. I'll ask you. What day did you decide to become a heterosexual? Like you, they have always known their sexual preference. Like you, they must make a choice. You can choose to have sex outside of wedlock (which would be illegal in your book because it harms public morals) or you can decide to wait. In either case, you are still a heterosexual male. A gay person has the same choice to love God or love sex. If they choose to love God then they choose to forgo sex but they remain a homosexual person. We are all sinners and do things that God does not approve of. By repenting of those things, we are forgiven. That does not mean they are without consequence, but we are forgiven.

For sin. And sin alone. God does not forgive crime. He never has, and He never will.

Since sin and crime were synonymous when God handed down the mosaic laws, how come God is suddenly incapable or unwilling to forgiving crime?

Stripe is asking you if we should let murderers go and not punish them in accordance with the law if they repent. Is that what you are agreeing to?

No. We need to deal with murderers appropriately.

Forget whose laws we are using, for it is irrelevant, because we are not using God's laws except in regard to the fact that He had such laws [but that is not why we are advocating these laws] nor are we using man's laws, because man's laws do not cover homosexuality right now.

If you are not advocating these laws based on what GOd says is moral, why are you advocating them?

Could that be because Jesus was not the government?:dunce::duh:

This has got to be one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard from you. Just exactly who gave government their authority?

 

[Lighthouse]

I can find where He told a woman who was deserving of death under the OC penalties for adultery to go and sin no more.

And you cannot show that He rejected the Law in so doing.

Really? So if being homosexual or practicing it has nothing to do with the OC or sin or crime, why are we even discussing it? Since it has nothing to do with the with the NT then it must not be a sin or a crime and and we are free to do what we will.

Are you seriously that utterly stupid?!

*cough*

:sozo:I NEVER SAID IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIME!

And it is an absolute non sequitur to theorize that its irrelevance to the Covenants, Testaments, or Dispensations must mean it is not a crime.

:doh:I just can't believe you're such an idiot.:doh:

:bang:

The fact that it is a sin has everything to do with God and His word [all of it]. That fact that it should be a crime has nothing to do with any of that.

Well since it has nothing to do with the OC or NC, who decides its criminal? Oviously God can't since it has nothing to do with His Covenants with men.

:squint:

God never decided it was criminal. He saw it and knew it was wrong as it went against everything He designed, planned, and desired. He saw it as a sin against Him, because that is what it was. So He told His people that it was a sin and to outlaw it, assigning it the most extreme and merciful punishment possible.

Now, as men we should, hopefully, see what God does when He sees this act. And we should know it is wrong. Not just wrong but so wrong that it deserves to be a capital crime. Because it is extremely injurious to the public and its welfare.

One is a crime of violence that robs a person of their life. The other is a moral sin against God that harms no one else.

You're daft if you believe it harms no one else.

Well then please tell us oh wise one, who else can curse their mother and father other than a child?

:doh:

An adult. As in vs a five year old.

Good night, you're a moron!

You bet it made a difference! People have not changed between then and now. Their love for their children is no less than our love for our children.

You have to be one of the stupidest people on the planet.

It made absolutely no difference how much one loved their children if their children committed any capital crime, even crimes against their own parents. The law stated that those children must die, no matter how mama and papa felt.

I almost feel like I need a power drill to get through your thick skull.

I forget that you are so literally minded that you must have everything spelled out for you. I never said that I am opposed to drug laws. I said drugs should be decriminalized and treated like alcohol.

No kidding. I know what you said, and I know what you meant. And what you have just said here doesn't change my response one bit. In fact, it doesn't even address it.

Okay, so it is your position that morals are greater than God.

No, you twit.

Who or what created the morals that God is subject to?

Morals were not created. They just are. Moral is moral and immoral is immoral.

Really? Hmm. I bet the Israelis would be shocked to hear that.

Even in the Old Covenant sin was dealt with separately from crime. The price one paid for their crimes was not the same they paid for their sins, even when the sin and the crime were the same exact act. Why? Because God wanted it that way.

And today though God forgives sin He does not have any desire to see crime go unpunished.

Okay.

I highly doubt you understand that.

Have you ever asked a homosexual person when they decided to become gay? They look at you like you have lost your mind. I'll ask you. What day did you decide to become a heterosexual? Like you, they have always known their sexual preference. Like you, they must make a choice. You can choose to have sex outside of wedlock (which would be illegal in your book because it harms public morals) or you can decide to wait. In either case, you are still a heterosexual male. A gay person has the same choice to love God or love sex. If they choose to love God then they choose to forgo sex but they remain a homosexual person. We are all sinners and do things that God does not approve of. By repenting of those things, we are forgiven. That does not mean they are without consequence, but we are forgiven.

1. Did I ever say they decided to become a homo?
2. I never decided to be a heterosexual. I'm a man. End of story.
3. I am forgiven of sin. I am a saint, no longer a sinner. My identity is in Christ, not in sin.
4. This still isn't about sin.

Since sin and crime were synonymous when God handed down the mosaic laws, how come God is suddenly incapable or unwilling to forgiving crime?

He was never willing to forgive crime. I've already addressed this, numerous times. And sin and crime were not actually synonymous in the OC. It just happened that some sins were crimes, as it is today.

No. We need to deal with murderers appropriately.

So, what makes homosexuality different?

If you are not advocating these laws based on what GOd says is moral, why are you advocating them?

Because of morality, you dimwit!

This has got to be one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard from you. Just exactly who gave government their authority?

Irrelevant. Jesus, when He walked this Earth in the likeness of man, was not recognized as a governing authority. In that regard He had no authority to place sentence and carry it out apart from those who were the authority. The fact that you don't understand that show you to be the stupid one here.

 

[Ktoyou]

Gay marriage is a contradiction of terms.

Yes, it is!
Here are my reasons: marriage is legal-cultural institution, whereby a man and a woman, unrelated by blood, become related by law for the purpose of their children to be legitimately to both parents; the child of father and mother is related legally and by blood to the families of both the father and mother; uncles and aunts on both sides of the family are equally related to both families, through blood and sanctioned by law.

Homosexuals cannot procreate, their children, adopted or related to one parent are not related to both parents by blood, which is the legal purpose of marriage. Now, one can argue the married people my also adopt, yet that is condoned within marriages, the child is not related by blood, but by law. The adopted child has a father and mother, as usually this is mandatory for adoption, in the majority of cases. It is not true in all cases and it is the idea of legal single adoption by a single parent, where homosexuals point to discrimination under the 14th amendment's equal protection.

Now, here is the problem: homosexuals want to circumvent a minority of cases of adoption by claiming if one parent may be found fit to adopt, why should they be not be also able to adopt, yet their motive is surreptitious because their intention is to include both parties as parents; this is not the intention of special cases of single parent adoption; it has never been the intention of the law to include a second unrelated parent; the sole purpose of the law is to provide adoption for older children most adoptions centres have trouble placing in homes; the law was never intended to include two parents of the same sex.

Marriage is a family institution; it provides the union of of persons unrelated by biology, for the purpose of biology. When a lesbian has a child by a man. the biological father is the legal father and if he gives up his right. this does not make the woman's lesbian partner the father. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers; the idea of homosexuals being married would legally make this possible, yet the families cannot have the potential for a blood relation, as is the foundation of marriage; homosexuals who want to be married are attempting, through law, to circumvent is purpose on grounds of circumvention.

marriage, being an institution for legitimate bloodlines, precludes the nature of homosexual partners. This being the case, homosexuals have no grounds for marriage. It my be correct, under the equal protection act, that homosexuals may have a right to to be recognized by law for other protections included in marriage, such as the right of spousal-ship, the right to inherit, to be considered a family member, to file joint tax return and claim one as a dependent.

The law may choose the recognition civil unions, yet homosexuals reject what is a fair compromise because they are not as focused on their own rights, as much as they are focused on changing the institution of marriage. This is cultural subterfuge, an attack on family relations, which have been the norm going back to the beginning of human relations; what has changed is laws enforcing monogamy, not banning homosexuality.

There are no cultural grounds for homosexual marriage. The sole purpose of homosexuals declaring marriage as a right is built of provisions in the law to protect the equal rights of racial minorities, not homosexuals.

If homosexuals cared about what rights they may have a claim to, they would be pursuing civil unions, not marriage!

 

[chrysostom]

I suppose the idea is to legally confer social legitimacy upon a perversion. It wouldn't. It would render the concept of marriage to be essentially meaningless.

divorce has already done that

 

[assuranceagent]

The only use Sozo's ever provided here is showing just how depraved and vile he really is (he's also walking proof of Christianity's hypocrisy and inherent ineffectiveness). Beyond that he's just a pile of self-hatred.

Oh, SNAP!

 

[chrysostom]

The only use Sozo's ever provided here is showing just how depraved and vile he really is (he's also walking proof of Christianity's hypocrisy and inherent ineffectiveness). Beyond that he's just a pile of self-hatred.

why would you use him as an example of Christianity?

is that what you are looking for?

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Let's legalize it and move on to something more interesting and important...

Yeah, like getting rid of those thilly thilly age of consent laws (amongst other things).

Exposed: The Next Phase Of The Homosexual Agenda
Homosexual activists are now pushing for legalization of public sex in restrooms and parks; abolishing ‘age of consent laws,’ and legalizing prostitution.
www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/PublicSex.pdf

The sodomite's "utopia" is just around the corner.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Let's legalize it and move on to something more interesting and important...

Yeah, like getting rid of those thilly thilly age of consent laws (amongst other things).

Exposed: The Next Phase Of The Homosexual Agenda
Homosexual activists are now pushing for legalization of public sex in restrooms and parks; abolishing ‘age of consent laws,’ and legalizing prostitution.
www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/PublicSex.pdf

The sodomite's "utopia" is just around the corner.

 

[Uberpod1]

Yes, it is!
Here are my reasons: marriage is legal-cultural institution, whereby a man and a woman, unrelated by blood, become related by law for the purpose of their children to be legitimately to both parents.

But, in practice, this "ideal" has not been the norm. Ten percent of couples are childless by choice, ten percent are sterile, and over fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. Elderly folks are not barred from matrimony. Marriage has many purposes -- childrearing as the central purpose is now happening in the minority of marriages. To deny homos the right to marry in the face of this hetero landscape is quite ridiculous.

the child of father and mother is related legally and by blood to the families of both the father and mother; uncles and aunts on both sides of the family are equally related to both families, through blood and sanctioned by law.

These things are just not that important. They are the priotities of someone who seeks uniformity over substance. Perhaps an OCD sufferer?

Homosexuals cannot procreate,

False.

their children, adopted or related to one parent are not related to both parents by blood, which is the legal purpose of marriage.

No. it's not! No one is asked about their intent to have children when applying for the license. No one has denied a elderly couple a license.

Now, one can argue the married people my also adopt, yet that is condoned within marriages, the child is not related by blood, but by law. The adopted child has a father and mother, as usually this is mandatory for adoption, in the majority of cases. It is not true in all cases and it is the idea of legal single adoption by a single parent, where homosexuals point to discrimination under the 14th amendment's equal protection.

This is easily brought into parity when gay marriage is legalized.

Now, here is the problem: homosexuals want to circumvent a minority of cases of adoption by claiming if one parent may be found fit to adopt, why should they be not be also able to adopt, yet their motive is surreptitious because their intention is to include both parties as parents; this is not the intention of special cases of single parent adoption; it has never been the intention of the law to include a second unrelated parent; the sole purpose of the law is to provide adoption for older children most adoptions centres have trouble placing in homes; the law was never intended to include two parents of the same sex.

You are a good egg, but so set in your ways.

Marriage is a family institution; it provides the union of of persons unrelated by biology, for the purpose of biology. When a lesbian has a child by a man. the biological father is the legal father and if he gives up his right. this does not make the woman's lesbian partner the father. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers; the idea of homosexuals being married would legally make this possible, yet the families cannot have the potential for a blood relation, as is the foundation of marriage; homosexuals who want to be married are attempting, through law, to circumvent is purpose on grounds of circumvention.

Why is blood relation such an important thing? Do you think adoptive parents love their children any less?

The law may choose the recognition civil unions, yet homosexuals reject what is a fair compromise because they are not as focused on their own rights, as much as they are focused on changing the institution of marriage. This is cultural subterfuge, an attack on family relations, which have been the norm going back to the beginning of human relations; what has changed is laws enforcing monogamy, not banning homosexuality.

Has separate but equal worked well in other situations?

There are no cultural grounds for homosexual marriage. The sole purpose of homosexuals declaring marriage as a right is built of provisions in the law to protect the equal rights of racial minorities, not homosexuals.

We have a very strong cultural basis for gay marriage, it's called Equal Protection Under the Law.

If homosexuals cared about what rights they may have a claim to, they would be pursuing civil unions, not marriage!

Right, they should fight for second class status so that other people's OCD doesn't act up. :bang: