Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (minority, priests)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, while - as you say - Ezekiel says NOTHING about homosexuality as being any part of the cause for the destruction of Sodom (Gomorrah isn't mentioned) - he DOES go quite in depth as to what an 'abomination' is in Ezekiel 8:1-18. In fact, the description of 'abomination' in this passage of scripture could also offer a reasonable explanation of the infamous Leviticus 18:22;20:13 texts. 'Abomination' refers to the goings on in the temple that involved, among other things, sexual ritual practices with male temple prostitutes; i.e. idolatry. Idolatry is the abomination! That the majority of Christians equate abomination with homosexuality only speaks to their own ignorance on the subject and this - if they are capable of listening - should be brought to their attention.
So, again, Mr. and Mrs. Christian ...just refer to Ezekiel 8:1-18 for an explanation of 'abomination'. IT DOES NOT MEAN HOMOSEXUALITY!
That's a looooooooong way to go and a lot of jukin' and jivin' to avoid what the passage actually says plainly.
Put it this way. We have three people. Jill, Sam, and Marie. If same-sex marriage is forbidden, Sam can marry Jill, but Marie can't. Marie is denied the legal right to marry Jill (and all other women) just because she is a woman. Denial of a legal right solely on the basis of gender is the very essence of sex discrimination.
That's a better legal argument.
Excellent
All though. This leaves room for polygamy also
Excellent
All though. This leaves room for polygamy also
Darn those polygraphic nodes
Did you realize that there are some things that are gender-specific? That one gender has, but not another?
For instance, women don't have to register for selective service. Is that wrong? there are other rights women have, that men don't...such as being the favorite to get custody of a child in divorce, or the ability to choose to be parent or not.
Genesis 2. God made a helpmate for Adam -- a woman.
Genesis 2:24 " Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
There is a complete absence of ANY text that states that it should be anything other than that. Even Jesus, when he had a chance to repudiate the notion, affirmed it.
Matthew 19:4-6 "He said to them . . .
"Them" being the Pharisees who had asked Jesus a question about divorce . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
“Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.â€"
Do you quote this text to those for whom it was intended, i.e. the many divorced and the remarried folks who attend church every week? If not, why not? The question asked of Jesus pertains to a married man and a woman. The answer given to that question by Jesus pertains to a married man and a woman. That particular text has no relevance whatever to the topic of gay marriage. Moreover, human beings are capable of thinking for themselves (although I sometimes question that) and for making personal decisions that are not based upon ancient writings. Don't you agree that this is a good thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Since God created marriage as a man and woman, and Jesus affirmed that, why would anything think that they can simply redefine it?
Were Adam and Eve married? This is not to mention, of course, that this so-called 'blessed union' was evidently a foul-up from day one ...literally!
Actually, while - as you say - Ezekiel says NOTHING about homosexuality as being any part of the cause for the destruction of Sodom (Gomorrah isn't mentioned) - he DOES go quite in depth as to what an 'abomination' is in Ezekiel 8:1-18. In fact, the description of 'abomination' in this passage of scripture could also offer a reasonable explanation of the infamous Leviticus 18:22;20:13 texts. 'Abomination' refers to the goings on in the temple that involved, among other things, sexual ritual practices with male temple prostitutes; i.e. idolatry. Idolatry is the abomination! That the majority of Christians equate abomination with homosexuality only speaks to their own ignorance on the subject and this - if they are capable of listening - should be brought to their attention.
So, again, Mr. and Mrs. Christian ...just refer to Ezekiel 8:1-18 for an explanation of 'abomination'. IT DOES NOT MEAN HOMOSEXUALITY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That's a looooooooong way to go and a lot of jukin' and jivin' to avoid what the passage actually says plainly.
Excuse me? Didn't I already explain PLAINLY what 'abomination' means from Ezekiel's perspective? Still, if you've anything more to add ...please, educate me. One more time, though, before you do ...'abomination does NOT mean homosexuality! So, go ahead ...prove me wrong . . .
Did you realize that there are some things that are gender-specific? That one gender has, but not another?
For instance, women don't have to register for selective service. Is that wrong? there are other rights women have, that men don't...such as being the favorite to get custody of a child in divorce, or the ability to choose to be parent or not.
Maybe the USA should scrap or revise their selective service act. Women had the right for combat roles in some countries before they did in the States and still don't have them yet in other countries.
Men do have the right for sole or joint custody. Maybe the woman is still favored but men do have the legal right and have been granted custody. Your last point is up to the couple but either can prevent a pregnancy so again both have the legal right to try t9 prevent a pregnancy.
At one time voting or owning property were gender specific. Kind of glad societies moved past that place. In Canada it required the government to redefine the word PERSON. I hope to think that 20 50 or 100 years from now societies are even fairer than they are now .
Completely irrelevant. Kim Davis does not speak for all of Christianity, and I have said on this very board that she should have been recalled for her unwillingness to execute the law. Any politician that refuses to uphold the Law should lose their position.
OK? Yes. As early as Genesis 4 we see multiple wives. But that doesn't mean God commanded it, nor did he condone it. Remember, every single one of us sins daily...but for some reason God has decided to not judge us all immediately.
Oh yes he does condone it. And in spades.
The Old Testament sets forth rules concerning the rights and responsibilities accorded to the partners in a polygamous marriage in Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17.
God directly acknowledges polygamy in 2 Samuel 12:7-8 and 2 Chronicles 24:2-3. Although there is a passage or two that can be used to question the practice, the New Testament does not condemn polygamous marriage, does it? Nada, nothing against it, but tons for it, including where as noted above, God in fact blesses such unions.
The point of view coming from a non-Christian (me): it's all a bunch of hypocrisy and ignorant prejudice.
There is, in my view, no justification for discrimination and bigotry against gay people. Creepy, immoral and sanctimonious Christians advocating disrespect and second class stigma against folks in the LGBT community ... sheesh!
Amen, Clark. Good to see you, by the way. Just know that there are Christians here who agree with your POV.
None of those verses are unambiguous definitions. They are references to something that already existed. That isn't a bad thing, but it isn't a definition either.
Precisely, what it IS is a DEScription, which is certainly not a PROscription for anything else, nor even a PREscription for what is allowed. There is no reason for anything but a description of the norm in context. Why would anyone expect a listing of exceptions which might affect as much as 2% of the population?
Did you realize that there are some things that are gender-specific? That one gender has, but not another?
For instance, women don't have to register for selective service. Is that wrong? there are other rights women have, that men don't...such as being the favorite to get custody of a child in divorce, or the ability to choose to be parent or not.
" On January 23, 2013, the Pentagon decided to end its policy of excluding women from combat positions. Military and legal analysts speculate that this will open the door for Congress to begin the process to amend the law and remove the exemption from registration requirements.[67][68] In July 2015, a 17-year-old girl in New Jersey sued the Selective Service System for the right to register for the draft.[69]
The National Coalition for Men has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only men to register for the military draft.[70][71] The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN.[72] The case was dismissed on July 29, 2013,[73] and the NCFM filed for appeal on June 25, 2014 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[74] Oral argument before a 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was held on December 8, 2015.[75] On February 19, 2016, the 9th Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court on the issue of ripeness, and remanded the case for further proceedings on standing and the other issues.[76] Another case challenging the Constitutionality of male-only draft registration, Kyle v. Selective Service System, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[77]
Bills have been introduced in Congress or announced as planned to be introduced to require women to register whenever the President orders women to register, to prohibit the President from ordering women to register, and to repeal the Military Selective Service Act and thereby eliminate the authority of the President to order anyone to register.[78][79][80]
On June 15, 2016, the United States Senate passed a bill to include women in Selective Service registration.[81] 2016 Democratic candidate for President Hillary Clinton announced her support for the measure.[82]" Bias in child care should be looked into also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
