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.
When such "sin" is based on lies, misinformation, and manipulation of an ancient text it is. As is putting gay people in an impossible position that leads to depression and suicide.
depression, suicide - WTF?
get real, grow a spine!
Life is harsh for many people so why should the gays get special treatment?
That makes absolutely no sense. It already exists, and has existed for thousands of years. It may not fit your definition of marriage, but your definition does not apply to everyone.
Jesus said not a word about gays or same-sex marriage. Clearly you must worship Paul or the Old Testament laws. Hope you don't mind God judging you for your hatred and ignorance.
Another one. "MY" definition!!
Your last statement shows me you have no idea when it comes to Theology. I could send you links to get educated but this is not the time or place.
By whose definition? I think society can define the state contract of marriage to include homosexuals. As a matter of fact some states have already defined it so. Your statement is only valid in terms of Christian doctrine and thus Christian marriage ceremony and acknowledgment.
Again what you say is true in a religious context. But from a civic context not so because it is the same thing as a Christian saying they support the right to worship idols not being synonymous with saying they support idolatry. In the civic sense you are conflating the right to do a thing with the morality of doing that thing. If you support freedom of religion then you support the right to worship Satan. And you supporting that right does not mean you support Satan worship. So when a Christian says they support gay marriage you have to distinguish between the right to engage in and the morality of. Most Christians who say they do are talking about supporting the right, not supporting the idea of it being morally ok.
OK, kind of. I'm no longer a Vatican II Catholic. I was born into that apostate sect but studied through questions and just being curious to come out of it. The very issue you bring up or distinction you make is one of the reasons, among very many, that the Vatican II Church can not be the True Church.
See, it accepts the concept of "religious liberty" which was always condemned by the True Popes. The Traditional teaching of the Church does not allow for the principle that human societies have the right to sanction immorality or worship false Gods. Human beings do not have that "right". That's a masonic principle and "right", not a Christian one. Now of course Pope Leo taught that where neccessary societies had to show tolerance for differing beliefs if the good of society requires it but he made it clear that "Americanism" as he called it was not the ideal situation for the Church. Pope St. Pius X said that society owes God public recognition.
Anyway I could link a whole article on the Traditional Doctrine of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ but that's for the religious section. Any way I don't accept the principle you just illustrted. It's one of the prime reasons civilization is in the state that it currently is.
"(1) "gay marriage" is an impossibility based on my definition of marriage, and my definition is better and more deserving of legitimacy than everyone else's who disagrees with me."
It's not my definition. It's the true nature, objectively, of what the word means, just like 2+2 will always equal 4 no matter how many times you bang your head against the wall. By the wording of your sentence I can see that you're another one whose mind is infected with liberalism. You literally believe on some level that you create your own reality. You shall become like Gods the devil told Adam and Eve, original sin . That there is nothing that simply objectively is what it is, that there is no standard and no authority from anywhere accept a ballot box. The modern mind is a strange thing indeed. The product of hundreds of years of Masonic Revolutions, principles and thought.
"(2) my definition of Christian means you can't support gay marriage and my definition is the only one that's right."
Once again I don't have my own definition. The Church has defined that heretics are not members of the Church. Gay marriage is a heresy so if you support it you're not a Christian.
"So I hope for the sake of consistency that you also believe women are inferior to men and that people with disabilities should be shunned."
Women are not inferior. In some things they're better than men but they're not men. They were created to be a helpmate for men. There's nothing wrong with that. They have slightly different natures and were created for a different purpose in life than a man is. Of course the men and women in religious orders are created for the same purpose. The men's and women's religious orders are very similar.
I don't know where you get people with disabilities should be shunned. People in the Gospel times stayed away from leppers because it was thought to be highly contagious. No one was taught to shun the less fortunate.
"Unless you're definition of "gay marriage" and "Christianity" includes being able to cherry pick whatever Bible verses tend to suit whatever your agenda is. But if that's the case I fail to see why your definitions of gay marriage and Christian is more legitimate than anybody else's."
Once again there is no such thing as "my definitions" for objective reality. I just accept what is. I don't make up my own multiplication tables either and when I add 5+5 it always equals 10.
I don't interpret any Bible verses on my own. Christ gave the Church to do that for us. The Church was around long before the Bible. Christ came to establish his Church and he told the apostles he would send the Holy Ghost. John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you."
These are simply rules YOU believe in because your church says they are right. The US is a free country, we do not make our laws based on some people's religious beliefs. Should we make laws based on Muslim, Jewish, or Buddist rules, and force you through the power of law to follow them, even if they go against everything you believe is right? Those rules are just as valid to those who believe in them.
For true freedom we must separate church and state.
Gays cannot have children together so there is no need for them to marry.
Then there is no need for heterosexuals to marry unless they are going to have children and that also bans sterile people and senior citizens from marrying. Marriage is not just about having kids and is not a requirement to have kids. Gays and lesbians want marriage for the same rights that straights get with a federal civil union paid for at the court house. Your reasoning does not float.
I understand all of the other familial configurations. You don't need to be married to raise a child. I'd rather have two single guys rooming together raising a kid rather for them to be "married".
I said a homosexual union can't produce any offspring - which is true.
I have a problem with basing marriage on sinful behavior.
Then a large portion of the population bases their marriage on sin, is not divorce and remarriage a sin by your bible?
Then there is no need for heterosexuals to marry unless they are going to have children and that also bans sterile people and senior citizens from marrying. Marriage is not just about having kids and is not a requirement to have kids.
heterosexuals can marry regardless, because it would be inappropriate discrimination to not allow them to do so.
ie: if they were infertile or chose not to have children.
but for the homo couple then this kind of discrimination is perfectly acceptable, except we should use the word 'discernment' instead.
They do not fulfill the criteria required for marriage - and that is 'opposite genders necessary'
Quote:
Gays and lesbians want marriage for the same rights that straights get with a federal civil union paid for at the court house. Your reasoning does not float.
So gays want this right simply because straights can have it.
How childish!
A little like young Tommy breaking his sisters toy because he did not get one too.
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.
"MY" definition!!
