L
laurlizzless27
Guest
What are your thoughts on gay marriage? Why is it wrong?
- Status
B
BootCampJr
Guest
It would probably be better if you posted your thoughts on the subject, then let others retort
W
wasmit
Guest
It is bigoted, intolerant and discriminatory to oppose gay marriage. This reprehensible opinion has no place in our society.
A similar situation would be opposition to interracial marriage.
A similar situation would be opposition to interracial marriage.
E
elts1956
Guest
Interracial marriage is in no way similar to gay marriage. Where does that come from?
W
wasmit
Guest
it comes from close-mindedness, bigoty and intolerance.
H
Houro
Guest
Gay marriage is wrong because marriage is between a man and a woman… That’s what marriage is. If you have two people of the same sex in the same situation, then it is not marriage. It is called a ‘civil union’ (in Australia anyway).
It is wrong because it takes away from the purpose of marriage and would be damaging to society.
It is wrong because it takes away from the purpose of marriage and would be damaging to society.
E
Eric_Closs
Guest
BootCampJr -
you assume that laurlizzless27’s opinions require a retort. I assume, by her limiting the post to asking a question, she simply wanted to discover the reasoning against gay marriage.
wasmit -
If you intend to become involved in the discussion I think it would be more helpful to give the reasons why you believe it is “bigoted, intolerant and discriminatory” to oppose gay marriage. Or even what it means to be bigoted, intolerant or discriminatory in this case. I would find an explanation of what these turns of phrase mean very helpful because, in my understanding of that vocabulary, being “intolerant of evil” or “discriminating against what one shouldn’t do” is righteous.
laurlizzless27 -
I think homosexual “marriage” is a misguided practice because (a)it misuses sex for simple pleasure and (b) it claims to change the purpose of marriage from a loving union for the good of the offspring, into a contraceptive and self-focused union. Presumptuously redfining marriage as “a union of any two persons” is harmful to society because of the confusion it causes as to the full purpose of marriage. The full purpose of marriage being: the love and care of the spouses for each other, and the love and care of the spouses for their offspring. God has defined marriage and crafted man and woman as suitable mates to one another. Man is designed for woman, and woman is designed for man. To deviate from this is to deviate from His will and intention.
Man and woman are different and disposed towards different things. This difference is, in many instances, obvious and not theoretical. For instance, women are capable of bearing children while men are not, men are usually physically stronger than women, women have the advantage of noticing many kinds of subtleties sooner than men, etc. etc… These differences complement one another in the marriage and provide fruitful soil for the growth and education of the children, as well as the love of one another. A homosexual “marriage” is disadvantaged in that the two persons are apparently unaware of and disdain the necessity of such complementarity for the love of children.
The idea of homosexual marriage seems to mistake an escape from loneliness, or the assistance of others, or the license of exclusive sexual pleasure, as the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage is the love of God; God who is Love Hisself. Homosexual "marriage’ is not done as an act of love for God, but as a self-originating desire.
I think this quote may be helpful: ""And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. " Luke 9:23-24 The Lord’s command here seems to be to “deny ourselves”, to lose our own desires for doing things and seek his desire, which is the true measure of good. This is not to say something cannot be good if we desire it, but that we should desire it for the Lord and not because of ourselves. To take up one’s cross “daily” seems to be an injunction to perform this extreme command in all instances.
I hope this post is helpful in provoking thought and I hope that I have shown myself willing to carry on a discussion in good faith. I mean no harm or violence to any person experiencing homosexual leanings, and I pray that the Lord preserve and keep them.
May the Wisdom of God guide us.
you assume that laurlizzless27’s opinions require a retort. I assume, by her limiting the post to asking a question, she simply wanted to discover the reasoning against gay marriage.
wasmit -
If you intend to become involved in the discussion I think it would be more helpful to give the reasons why you believe it is “bigoted, intolerant and discriminatory” to oppose gay marriage. Or even what it means to be bigoted, intolerant or discriminatory in this case. I would find an explanation of what these turns of phrase mean very helpful because, in my understanding of that vocabulary, being “intolerant of evil” or “discriminating against what one shouldn’t do” is righteous.
laurlizzless27 -
I think homosexual “marriage” is a misguided practice because (a)it misuses sex for simple pleasure and (b) it claims to change the purpose of marriage from a loving union for the good of the offspring, into a contraceptive and self-focused union. Presumptuously redfining marriage as “a union of any two persons” is harmful to society because of the confusion it causes as to the full purpose of marriage. The full purpose of marriage being: the love and care of the spouses for each other, and the love and care of the spouses for their offspring. God has defined marriage and crafted man and woman as suitable mates to one another. Man is designed for woman, and woman is designed for man. To deviate from this is to deviate from His will and intention.
Man and woman are different and disposed towards different things. This difference is, in many instances, obvious and not theoretical. For instance, women are capable of bearing children while men are not, men are usually physically stronger than women, women have the advantage of noticing many kinds of subtleties sooner than men, etc. etc… These differences complement one another in the marriage and provide fruitful soil for the growth and education of the children, as well as the love of one another. A homosexual “marriage” is disadvantaged in that the two persons are apparently unaware of and disdain the necessity of such complementarity for the love of children.
The idea of homosexual marriage seems to mistake an escape from loneliness, or the assistance of others, or the license of exclusive sexual pleasure, as the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage is the love of God; God who is Love Hisself. Homosexual "marriage’ is not done as an act of love for God, but as a self-originating desire.
I think this quote may be helpful: ""And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. " Luke 9:23-24 The Lord’s command here seems to be to “deny ourselves”, to lose our own desires for doing things and seek his desire, which is the true measure of good. This is not to say something cannot be good if we desire it, but that we should desire it for the Lord and not because of ourselves. To take up one’s cross “daily” seems to be an injunction to perform this extreme command in all instances.
I hope this post is helpful in provoking thought and I hope that I have shown myself willing to carry on a discussion in good faith. I mean no harm or violence to any person experiencing homosexual leanings, and I pray that the Lord preserve and keep them.
May the Wisdom of God guide us.
- Eric
S
Steve_Van_Horn
Guest
The meaning of the word “matrimony” is literally “the making of a mother”. Neither two men, nor two women having sexual realtions with each other can “make a mother”. God created us “male and female”. Our sexual organs only make sense when a man is joined with a woman. While God made the sexual act pleasurable, pleasure was not the end purpose, but a means to further procreation. When sex is used, absent its intended purpose, it is a violation of God’s will for us.
As Archbishop Chaput (Diocese of Denver) recently stated in an address he made in Canada “Tolerance is not a virtue”. We cannot and should not, as Christians, tolerate any act that violates God’s will for us. This has nothing to do with loving each and every human being on this earth, including the homosexual. The Catholic Church teaches us to love the person. It does not teach us to love the act that violates God’s will. It certainly does not teach us to elevate a perversion of the natural law to the level of a sacrament.
The Church teaches its members to love me. It does not teach them to love my sins (and I have plenty), nor would I expect it to do so.
An interesting point that so many miss is that the Church makes no requirement of the homosexual that it does not make for the heterosexual. Sex outside of marriage is a violation of God’s will for both. Since it is really impossible for gay men and women to enter into the sacrament of marriage, they are called to be celibate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman (the two shall become one) resulting in life itself. A homosexual relationship cannot result in life.
I would refer you to Pope John Paul, II’s “Theology of the Body” for the most profound explaination of sexuality ever written. Assuming some degree of intellectual honesty, I think you will find that it will answer any question you have in this regard.
God bless.
As Archbishop Chaput (Diocese of Denver) recently stated in an address he made in Canada “Tolerance is not a virtue”. We cannot and should not, as Christians, tolerate any act that violates God’s will for us. This has nothing to do with loving each and every human being on this earth, including the homosexual. The Catholic Church teaches us to love the person. It does not teach us to love the act that violates God’s will. It certainly does not teach us to elevate a perversion of the natural law to the level of a sacrament.
The Church teaches its members to love me. It does not teach them to love my sins (and I have plenty), nor would I expect it to do so.
An interesting point that so many miss is that the Church makes no requirement of the homosexual that it does not make for the heterosexual. Sex outside of marriage is a violation of God’s will for both. Since it is really impossible for gay men and women to enter into the sacrament of marriage, they are called to be celibate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman (the two shall become one) resulting in life itself. A homosexual relationship cannot result in life.
I would refer you to Pope John Paul, II’s “Theology of the Body” for the most profound explaination of sexuality ever written. Assuming some degree of intellectual honesty, I think you will find that it will answer any question you have in this regard.
God bless.
W
wasmit
Guest
disallowing gay marriage is discrimination because it unjustly denies equal rights/priveliges/treatment to a certain section of society. It is no different to racism and sexism in that respect.
Some say that we should allow gay civil unions, with identical legal treatment as a heterosexual marriage, just using a different word. The problem with this sentiment is that words matter. Even if there is no legal difference, the separate words (civil union) and (marriage) are extremely important to people. Also the idea of “seperate but equal” has been shown to be impossible.
E
Eric_Closs
Guest
wasmit -
Thank you for your attentive response.
I sympathize that you lumped together rights, privileges, and treatments to make it clear the effect you were conveying; however, in this case, I think it is important to distinguish between these ideas. I will go through my understanding of each word to explain what I think is “just” in this case.
My understanding of a privilege (or “private law”) is something we give to a person or exclusive group because they deserve it for some reason. For instance, the privilege of the President to use the citizen’s money to fly to other countries or the privilege of a store clerk in taking a discount on that store’s merchandise.
The state rewards marriage, attaching privileges to this tradition. Married couples receive tax breaks, they file joint tax returns, etc. Married couples do something to deserve these privileges namely, the love and care of their children. The state does not owe married couples such privileges, nor should it. But it grants these privilegs in recognition of the much-needed benefit married couples have for society. A homosexual “marriage” does not have this benefit for society and thus does not seem to do anything to warrant a privilege being granted, at least as far as children are concerned.
My understanding of a treatment is simply the way we act towards something. My response to the just treatment of homosexual persons is thus included in the previous and following responses.
My understanding of a right is that it is something God wills that we should do. The founding fathers recognized this; for instance, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”(A Summary View of the Rights of British America)
Jefferson also wrote those famous words, undoubtedly familiar to both of us, “they (Men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
In short, rights come from God. They are not powers granted by the will of peoples but fundamental goods that God requires remain secure. If a political body could conjure what is ‘right’ as something proceeding from its will alone there would be no justice. Justice would be an arbitrary action of government, and so we could not say the treatment or privilege or right of one thing over another was just.
And so, since the “marriage” of homosexual persons is not a right, but contrary to the will of God and the good of the persons (as I tried to argue in my previous post), it is just to legally prohibit it.
I hope that is clear; the form of my arguments sometimes become archaic.
Regards.
Thank you for your attentive response.
I sympathize that you lumped together rights, privileges, and treatments to make it clear the effect you were conveying; however, in this case, I think it is important to distinguish between these ideas. I will go through my understanding of each word to explain what I think is “just” in this case.
My understanding of a privilege (or “private law”) is something we give to a person or exclusive group because they deserve it for some reason. For instance, the privilege of the President to use the citizen’s money to fly to other countries or the privilege of a store clerk in taking a discount on that store’s merchandise.
The state rewards marriage, attaching privileges to this tradition. Married couples receive tax breaks, they file joint tax returns, etc. Married couples do something to deserve these privileges namely, the love and care of their children. The state does not owe married couples such privileges, nor should it. But it grants these privilegs in recognition of the much-needed benefit married couples have for society. A homosexual “marriage” does not have this benefit for society and thus does not seem to do anything to warrant a privilege being granted, at least as far as children are concerned.
My understanding of a treatment is simply the way we act towards something. My response to the just treatment of homosexual persons is thus included in the previous and following responses.
My understanding of a right is that it is something God wills that we should do. The founding fathers recognized this; for instance, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”(A Summary View of the Rights of British America)
Jefferson also wrote those famous words, undoubtedly familiar to both of us, “they (Men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
In short, rights come from God. They are not powers granted by the will of peoples but fundamental goods that God requires remain secure. If a political body could conjure what is ‘right’ as something proceeding from its will alone there would be no justice. Justice would be an arbitrary action of government, and so we could not say the treatment or privilege or right of one thing over another was just.
And so, since the “marriage” of homosexual persons is not a right, but contrary to the will of God and the good of the persons (as I tried to argue in my previous post), it is just to legally prohibit it.
I hope that is clear; the form of my arguments sometimes become archaic.
Regards.
- Eric
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Because…
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 18
1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'I am the LORD your God.
3’You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
4’You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God.
5’So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
6’None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
7’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
8’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
9’The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
10’The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
11’The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative.
13’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative.
14’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
15’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17’You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
18’You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
19’Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
20’You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
21’You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
** 22’You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. **
23’Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24’Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25’For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
26’But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
27(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
28so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29’For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
30’Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’"
**
Ever wonder why no one is protesting for any of the other things were not suppose to do?
**
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 18
1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'I am the LORD your God.
3’You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
4’You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God.
5’So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
6’None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
7’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
8’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
9’The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
10’The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
11’The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative.
13’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative.
14’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
15’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17’You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
18’You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
19’Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
20’You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
21’You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
** 22’You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. **
23’Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24’Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25’For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
26’But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
27(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
28so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29’For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
30’Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’"
**
Ever wonder why no one is protesting for any of the other things were not suppose to do?
**
F
fellowChristian
Guest
**Leviticus 20:13 **
13’If there is **a man who lies with a male **as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; **for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, **
**27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. **
**1 Corinthians 6:9 **
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
**1 Timothy 1:10 **
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
I think we’re suppose to be equally offended by all murderers, kidnappers and liars and perjurers, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, also… but we have become less sensitive because of all the stuff we watch on t.v and in movies and eventually we will become desensitive to the whole gay marriage thing too thanks to all the “in your face” tv and movies. But it does not matter what I think, what matters are the words of God. All these verses clearly indicate that He doesn’t like it.So your either with Him or against Him. And as a Christian who follows Christ who happens to be God you can not pick and choose what you want to follow or not follow. It’s pretty much all or nothing. We can’t be on the fence either.
Romans 12
1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God,** to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God,** which is your spiritual service of worship.
2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
13’If there is **a man who lies with a male **as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; **for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, **
**27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. **
**1 Corinthians 6:9 **
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
**1 Timothy 1:10 **
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
I think we’re suppose to be equally offended by all murderers, kidnappers and liars and perjurers, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, also… but we have become less sensitive because of all the stuff we watch on t.v and in movies and eventually we will become desensitive to the whole gay marriage thing too thanks to all the “in your face” tv and movies. But it does not matter what I think, what matters are the words of God. All these verses clearly indicate that He doesn’t like it.So your either with Him or against Him. And as a Christian who follows Christ who happens to be God you can not pick and choose what you want to follow or not follow. It’s pretty much all or nothing. We can’t be on the fence either.
Romans 12
1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God,** to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God,** which is your spiritual service of worship.
2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
E
elts1956
Guest
You can say that again. I have wondered when bo will come up with a committee for Unrecognized Murderers Groups, or Pedophiles Left Out In The ColdBecause…
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 18
1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'I am the LORD your God.
3’You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
4’You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God.
5’So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
6’None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.
7’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.
8’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
9’The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
10’The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.
11’The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
12’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s blood relative.
13’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s blood relative.
14’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.
15’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.
17’You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
18’You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.
19’Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.
20’You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
21’You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
** 22’You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. **
23’Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24’Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25’For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
26’But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
27(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
28so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29’For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
30’Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’"
**
Ever wonder why no one is protesting for any of the other things were not suppose to do?
Sorry, time for bed. After I become completely saturated with all the left wing nonsense I sometimes see on the threads here, the brain gets unstable.
H
Houro
Guest
In no way is disallowing gay marriage discrimination. The simple fact is that there can be no such thing as ‘gay marriage’ because of what marriage is. It is between a MAN and a WOMAN. That’s it. If there is no man and woman then it is not marriage, it would be something different… like a civil union. There is no discrimination.
I can’t play for the Australian cricket team if I want to play rugby union when we take the pitch… it can’t work because then it wouldn’t be cricket, it would be rugby… There is no discrimination, it’s just not cricket…
I hope that helps?
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Gay marriage is wrong for many reasons, one of which is the fact that marriage is an institution for the family. Since homosexual partners cannot contribute to society the way married couples can - i.e., reproduction - they should not be allowed to take part in the institution for the family, which is marriage.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
Why isn’t calling it “civil unions” good enough?
But for them to say that “we” (homosexuals) are the same as “you” (heterosexuals) is a lie and wrong for they are not equal.
The thing is I’m not saying that they are less then human. They’re human,duh I know that.
It’s like this…
to keep a teeter totter going is a balancing act.
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
if you are in a homosexual relationship it looks like this…
**xx/ ** … (girl n girl)
does it “look” like this?
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
or does this
**/**yy … (guy n guy)
“look” the “same” as this…
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
Do they “look” the same? No. Why? Because they’re not.
(I mean you can call a cat a dog all you want it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a cat.)
this is what I mean when I say that a homosexual relationships are not the same, not equal and in fact very different. Are we becoming so “blind” that we don’t notice that it’s a guy and a guy? Or are we just focusing on the fact that they’re human? The people who are against gay people calling it matrimony know that they’re human they’re just saying two guys together is not a “marriage”.
By the way if I want to marry my cousin, in some states thats against the law.
No one is saying that a guy can’t get married we’re saying that 2 guys can’t get married.
I can’t marry my little brother.
I can’t marry my uncle or my dad.
who else can’t I marry?
we know I can’t marry a 15 year old.
and as a 15 year old I couldn’t even have sex with a 20 year old, let alone marry him.
I am human and I have rights. Isn’t that enough? Apparently it’s not…
I can’t drive drunk.
I can’t shoplift.
I can’t go above the speed limit.
But I’m human and I have rights. What if that’s what I want to do?
What if I want two husbands?
Oh yeah…its’ coming you mark my words. Another group of minorities who want they’re rights…polygimists. And why not??? They’re human.
And I’m so tired of hearing that this is just like the whole interracial marriage issue. It’s not about race it’s about gender.2 totally different things indeed!
My skin color is not the same thing as my… you know what:blush: And if someone doesn’t know the difference between the color of skin and peoples gentials…they shouldn’t even be thinking about marriage.
But for them to say that “we” (homosexuals) are the same as “you” (heterosexuals) is a lie and wrong for they are not equal.
The thing is I’m not saying that they are less then human. They’re human,duh I know that.
It’s like this…
to keep a teeter totter going is a balancing act.
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
if you are in a homosexual relationship it looks like this…
**xx/ ** … (girl n girl)
does it “look” like this?
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
or does this
**/**yy … (guy n guy)
“look” the “same” as this…
x / y … (x being girl) (y being boy)
Do they “look” the same? No. Why? Because they’re not.
(I mean you can call a cat a dog all you want it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a cat.)
this is what I mean when I say that a homosexual relationships are not the same, not equal and in fact very different. Are we becoming so “blind” that we don’t notice that it’s a guy and a guy? Or are we just focusing on the fact that they’re human? The people who are against gay people calling it matrimony know that they’re human they’re just saying two guys together is not a “marriage”.
By the way if I want to marry my cousin, in some states thats against the law.
No one is saying that a guy can’t get married we’re saying that 2 guys can’t get married.
I can’t marry my little brother.
I can’t marry my uncle or my dad.
who else can’t I marry?
we know I can’t marry a 15 year old.
and as a 15 year old I couldn’t even have sex with a 20 year old, let alone marry him.
I am human and I have rights. Isn’t that enough? Apparently it’s not…
I can’t drive drunk.
I can’t shoplift.
I can’t go above the speed limit.
But I’m human and I have rights. What if that’s what I want to do?
What if I want two husbands?
Oh yeah…its’ coming you mark my words. Another group of minorities who want they’re rights…polygimists. And why not??? They’re human.
And I’m so tired of hearing that this is just like the whole interracial marriage issue. It’s not about race it’s about gender.2 totally different things indeed!
My skin color is not the same thing as my… you know what:blush: And if someone doesn’t know the difference between the color of skin and peoples gentials…they shouldn’t even be thinking about marriage.
S
Snerticus
Guest
(Disclaimer) This is just an opinion, and I fully realized that my opinions can be wrong. Often they are.
However, if gays or lesbians want to be married in the sense that their marriage is viewed entirely equal to “heterosexual” marriage, then I have no reason to oppose it, as long as it is called something else. Marriage throughout the eons has been viewed as a union between man and woman. In religious circles, it quite frequently means only that. I’d say, if you want to start a new tradition, that’s fine since so many want it. Just don’t call it marriage, and don’t mock other people in creating the new name.
If you want it to be viewed seriously, then there has to be compromise. My idea of compromise, while it may not be yours, at least addresses the fact that there are two sides and one wants what the other has. Let the one have what the other has, and let them call it something that expresses the act, and let it in essence be exactly what the other has. Since both sides themselves are called something different, why not call the act that both sides have something different? In essence, they’d both be the same (both are humans and both want unions). I would think that would solve a lot of problems and break down a lot of barriers.
But then, I’m just a mere mortal…
However, if gays or lesbians want to be married in the sense that their marriage is viewed entirely equal to “heterosexual” marriage, then I have no reason to oppose it, as long as it is called something else. Marriage throughout the eons has been viewed as a union between man and woman. In religious circles, it quite frequently means only that. I’d say, if you want to start a new tradition, that’s fine since so many want it. Just don’t call it marriage, and don’t mock other people in creating the new name.
If you want it to be viewed seriously, then there has to be compromise. My idea of compromise, while it may not be yours, at least addresses the fact that there are two sides and one wants what the other has. Let the one have what the other has, and let them call it something that expresses the act, and let it in essence be exactly what the other has. Since both sides themselves are called something different, why not call the act that both sides have something different? In essence, they’d both be the same (both are humans and both want unions). I would think that would solve a lot of problems and break down a lot of barriers.
But then, I’m just a mere mortal…
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Why should we accept gay marriage?? It is a sin. God created them man and woman. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
C
chris_molter
Guest
The State already limits who can marry whom (ie, no incestuous marriages, no plural marriages, etc). So we have established that “discrimination” already occurs, legally. We discriminate all the time. Nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination.
Same sex “marriage” is not a matter of ‘rights’ but of redefining the term marriage. Of course, once you redefine marriage to mean something it isn’t, then you’ve aptly opened up the floodgates to redefining it to mean essentially any legally recognized union.
Why not me and my dog? Why not me and my 5 friends? Why not me and a limited liability corporation? Why not me and my cozy recliner?
Because none of those unions is a MARRIAGE.
Same sex “marriage” is not a matter of ‘rights’ but of redefining the term marriage. Of course, once you redefine marriage to mean something it isn’t, then you’ve aptly opened up the floodgates to redefining it to mean essentially any legally recognized union.
Why not me and my dog? Why not me and my 5 friends? Why not me and a limited liability corporation? Why not me and my cozy recliner?
Because none of those unions is a MARRIAGE.
E
edwest2
Guest
What is the value of saying I could be wrong or can be wrong? “has to be a compromise”? Why? Especially if you could or can be wrong?(Disclaimer) This is just an opinion, and I fully realized that my opinions can be wrong. Often they are.
However, if gays or lesbians want to be married in the sense that their marriage is viewed entirely equal to “heterosexual” marriage, then I have no reason to oppose it, as long as it is called something else. Marriage throughout the eons has been viewed as a union between man and woman. In religious circles, it quite frequently means only that. I’d say, if you want to start a new tradition, that’s fine since so many want it. Just don’t call it marriage, and don’t mock other people in creating the new name.
If you want it to be viewed seriously, then there has to be compromise. My idea of compromise, while it may not be yours, at least addresses the fact that there are two sides and one wants what the other has. Let the one have what the other has, and let them call it something that expresses the act, and let it in essence be exactly what the other has. Since both sides themselves are called something different, why not call the act that both sides have something different? In essence, they’d both be the same (both are humans and both want unions). I would think that would solve a lot of problems and break down a lot of barriers.
But then, I’m just a mere mortal…
Gay sex is not the same as the complimentary, unitive and procreative act that men and women were made for. Get it?
That’s all this is - legalizing gay sex.
Peace,
Ed
- Status