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.
Jesus did have something to say about Enuchs and Acceptable Sexual Conduct....The only Acceptable Sexual Contact Was Between A Man And A
Wife Inside Of The Institution Of Marriage....Enuchs are a class of people who are Asexuals meaning they don't have sex none whatsoever.......
Marriage occurred Long Before The Jewish Religion which came before Christianity with (Adam and Eve) and GOD was in Approval Of Their's Relationship and did in fact Give Them HIS SEAL OF APPROVAL...
You WILL SPEAK FOR ALL OF "SOCIETY" IF YOU CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE TO A RELATIONSHIP OF A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A WOMAN AND A WOMAN AND A MAN AND A MAN......
Homosexual are JUST AS NARROW MINDED AS HETEROSEXUALS AND ARE RADICAL WHICH ISN"T BETTER OR WORST THAN A FUNDAMENTALIST.....and
I'm not a Fundamentalist , I'm a very progressive CHRISTIAN THAT SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALS HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS....
P.S. About the two men in the bed....haven't you ever heard About Two Brothers Sleeping In The Same Bed......what About College Male Friends On The Road...And WITHOUT ANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY WHATSOEVER.......
Actually Eunichs were men who had their testicals (and sometimes penises) removed as young boys. Women were never Eunichs. But, yes, they didn't have sex, but not by choice.
This is a very easy question...GOD said that a Man should Marry a Woman...it doesn't matter if they are "Religious" or Ill-religious" Saved or Damned....that's the only reason that GAYS are getting A Lot Of Flaw on the Homosexual Marriage Tip.....GOD doesn't HATE HOMOSEXUALS SOME CHRISTIANS DO AND OTHER LIKE ME DON"T but we all believe that MARRIAGE
IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OTHERWISE IT WOULD REDEFINE WHAT MY MARRIAGE IS....DO YOU FOLLOW THAT LOGIC......
Actually Paul (who wrote what are construed as anti-gay -- no such word back then -- passages) said that marriage should be avoided, it's better to remain celebate and on your own. He said marry only as a last resort if you can't be celebate.
But then again, he also told slaves to obey their masters and women not to wear gold -- care to toss off those sinful wedding rings, ladies?
I'm obviously not going to pore over every one of the dozens of pages in this thread, but from what I see just about every other reply has "Jesus" this, "God" that, "my church says this", or "my good book says that in verse yada, yada, yada." Why? If you want the Christian religion to have an impact upon government, then remove their tax-exempt status and alter the U.S. Constitution to make this feasible. As of right now personal spirituality is supposed to be kept separate from legislation, hence why all of you Christians beating your chests over this are all invalid. The thread is "What's wrong with gay marriage?" I started another thread on the very subject, except I also added "non-religious reasons" as a requirement. I didn't receive any very credible responses, including slippery-slope ones and ones based upon outrageous financial objections. Face it, right-wingers. Most people realize that if you look past religious-veiled hatred and bigotry that there is NO logical reason to deny civil equality.
I'm obviously not going to pore over every one of the dozens of pages in this thread, but from what I see just about every other reply has "Jesus" this, "God" that, "my church says this", or "my good book says that in verse yada, yada, yada." Why? If you want the Christian religion to have an impact upon government, then remove their tax-exempt status and alter the U.S. Constitution to make this feasible. As of right now personal spirituality is supposed to be kept separate from legislation, hence why all of you Christians beating your chests over this are all invalid. The thread is "What's wrong with gay marriage?" I started another thread on the very subject, except I also added "non-religious reasons" as a requirement. I didn't receive any very credible responses, including slippery-slope ones and ones based upon outrageous financial objections. Face it, right-wingers. Most people realize that if you look past religious-veiled hatred and bigotry that there is NO logical reason to deny civil equality.
Yes, yes, yes, yes!!!
Even though I don't know why Gay couples would even want to get married, I agree with you 100%
I am not gay. I did what I thought was the right thing and got married before we had children. By doing so, we got screwed out of tax breaks, WIC, section 8 and help with daycare. Now I know people are going to be "well, these are for people who need it" But, I know a number of women who stay single just for these benefits when they are living with their "baby daddies".
Personally, I think that gay marriage would help the country financially. Think no tax breaks for being single, divorce court costs, legal fees...etc.
I'm obviously not going to pore over every one of the dozens of pages in this thread, but from what I see just about every other reply has "Jesus" this, "God" that, "my church says this", or "my good book says that in verse yada, yada, yada." Why? If you want the Christian religion to have an impact upon government, then remove their tax-exempt status and alter the U.S. Constitution to make this feasible. As of right now personal spirituality is supposed to be kept separate from legislation, hence why all of you Christians beating your chests over this are all invalid. The thread is "What's wrong with gay marriage?" I started another thread on the very subject, except I also added "non-religious reasons" as a requirement. I didn't receive any very credible responses, including slippery-slope ones and ones based upon outrageous financial objections. Face it, right-wingers. Most people realize that if you look past religious-veiled hatred and bigotry that there is NO logical reason to deny civil equality.
Face it, left-winger. The slippery-slope argument remains persuasive. If two gays, why not three heteros? Or four? Or adults and children? Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman for good reasons. If you look past the fatuous argument that two same-sex people can be considered "married", there is NO logical reason to deny civil equality to polygamists or pedarists.
No it wasn't. That was added in the 50s during the McCarthy era (as I recall...might have to check my facts here) as a knee-jerk reaction to the satanic Commie Pinkos.
**Edit: And most of you who spout that rhetoric forget about the "liberty and justice FOR ALL" part.
THANK YOU!!!! Rep points your way. I was gonna say the same thing. I also was going to point out that while those against it state that biblically it is wrong, I don't believe in what the bible spouts as truth. Besides, not everyone in this country who is religious uses the christian bible as their guide to life. This country has citizens of many faiths and also has citizens that are athiests. If someone wants to get married, have at it. How does it really affect you anyway (of those that are against it)?
JESUS said that the only justified "SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WERE BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHIN A MARRIAGE....now tell me is that's the reason why Homosexuals want Homosexual Marriage..trying to get a SEAL OF APPROVAL....
I asked for a passage from God not Jesus. It is obvious you can not find one, and I will take from your reply that the Old Testament does not mean anything except when it is in support of misguided beliefs. From what I have read on this thread is that the Bible can be applied in limited ways, but not in total, especially the Old Testament. I do not understand how anyone can "believe" part of the book, but not all of it.
Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman for good reasons.
By what definition? Not Merriam-Webster as I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
If you look past the fatuous argument that two same-sex people can be considered "married", there is NO logical reason to deny civil equality to polygamists or pedarists.
How can you compare two consenting adults with the rape and explotation of children. This has invalidated your whole argument.
Canada has had same sex marriage since 2003 in some provinces, and all of the country since 2005, and in my opinion that is as it should be.
I'm hetero so it hasn't effected me one iota. I just do not understand why some people want to impose their "moral" standards on others when they don't even have a horse in the race.
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.
Jesus did have something to say about Enuchs and Acceptable Sexual Conduct....The only Acceptable Sexual Contact Was Between A Man And A
