Homosexual marriage don't make sense

[LittleDeb]

Exactly! And if you ask me, homosexual couples deserve to have the same legal rights as other couples.

I would agree with you that homosexual individuals deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual individuals.

Please look at what you are saying here. ‘Couple’ is the operative word here. Why two people? Why not three? What is it that makes a couple a ‘couple?’ Why 2 men or 2 women? Why not 2 men and 1 woman? Or 3 men? Or 4?

Could it be that there is something inherently complementary about being a couple? Where is the logic of drawing an arbitrary line at 2 men but stopping at 3? Why?

There is an act that is objectively complementary. It is called the Marital Act. Whether or not that particular act can result in a baby is subject to the state of that complementary couples particular fertility. (Older people, permanently infertile, or infertile just because of timing in a cycle.) But the act itself is still complementary.

What you are supporting here is about “rights.” Okay, I will agree with you. I think any loved one should be able to visit whomever in a hospital just because they want to. I agree that a single person should be able to define their next of kin without hiring an expensive lawyer. I believe a celibate nun who is 90 years old should be able to assign a 60 year old nun to make end of life decisions for her. But it would make no sense for that same 60 year old nun to have the 90 year old making decisions for her. I could go on and on…oops sorry, I already have… My point is are we confusing the rights of individuals by attempting to redefine marriage?

What I am asking is have you really thought your position through? Do you really believe what you think you believe? Today you recognize the “couple” civilly. Tomorrow that couple adds a third and seeks recognition as a marriage also. Does it matter if that civil couple was 2 men, 2 women, or a civil union of a man and a woman? Where and when do you draw the line?

And to those who may say, “Oh how insulting of course homosexuals always stop at 2! What are you saying?” Please know that I have many, many homosexual friends. Their arguments to, “stop using the heterosexual model for homosexual unions,” is well known.

Is marriage inherently complementary? How do “two become one” without complementarity? How are they really married physically, spiritually, and emotionally without complementarity? How do you really define marriage?

 

[feetxxxl]

many of the things that heterosexuals accuse homosexuals of doing, heterosexuals have done ten times over. yet other heterosexuals having done this, heterosexuals dont see it as a reason to condemn their own orientation. yet they have no problem turning aound and using these very same failings to condemn homosexuality. and then say “we are justified”.

of what spirit do they condemn and what is the fruit of their condemnation. is it the continued historical rejection by the church and society, abandonment by friends and family and the enabling the possible subjugation to verbal and even physical assault?

the truth is the sins commmited in same sex relations in romans1 no more condemns homosexuality than the incestial rape of samuel 2 and the adulterous murder in samuel 1 condemns heterosexuality.

i find it incredibly frustrating, to hear other believers making law leading condemnations without any personnal witness of the spirit and its fruit in the spirit of 1john1" that which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched."

if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another(of the same spirit as christ’s call to love one another as he loved us). are we to say this love and fellowship that we receive in our relationship with christ is from a distance? then why should we offer it in this way to our homosexual brothers in christ?

 

[feetxxxl]

I would agree with you that homosexual individuals deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual individuals.

Please look at what you are saying here. ‘Couple’ is the operative word here. Why two people? Why not three? What is it that makes a couple a ‘couple?’ Why 2 men or 2 women? Why not 2 men and 1 woman? Or 3 men? Or 4?

Could it be that there is something inherently complementary about being a couple? Where is the logic of drawing an arbitrary line at 2 men but stopping at 3? Why?

There is an act that is objectively complementary. It is called the Marital Act. Whether or not that particular act can result in a baby is subject to the state of that complementary couples particular fertility. (Older people, permanently infertile, or infertile just because of timing in a cycle.) But the act itself is still complementary.

What you are supporting here is about “rights.” Okay, I will agree with you. I think any loved one should be able to visit whomever in a hospital just because they want to. I agree that a single person should be able to define their next of kin without hiring an expensive lawyer. I believe a celibate nun who is 90 years old should be able to assign a 60 year old nun to make end of life decisions for her. But it would make no sense for that same 60 year old nun to have the 90 year old making decisions for her. I could go on and on…oops sorry, I already have… My point is are we confusing the rights of individuals by attempting to redefine marriage?

What I am asking is have you really thought your position through? Do you really believe what you think you believe? Today you recognize the “couple” civilly. Tomorrow that couple adds a third and seeks recognition as a marriage also. Does it matter if that civil couple was 2 men, 2 women, or a civil union of a man and a woman? Where and when do you draw the line?

And to those who may say, “Oh how insulting of course homosexuals always stop at 2! What are you saying?” Please know that I have many, many homosexual friends. Their arguments to, “stop using the heterosexual model for homosexual unions,” is well known.

Is marriage inherently complementary? How do “two become one” without complementarity? How are they really married physically, spiritually, and emotionally without complementarity? How do you really define marriage?

you are giving a description of marriage in terms of physicality. its not physicality that makes a marriage, but a spirit relationship supported by certain physical dynamics

in genesis, god made a suitable helper for adam, saying that man would leave his parents and bond with his suitable pardner with whom he would have a one flesh(sexual) relationship.

is not attraction an integral part of an one flesh relationship?

1cor7: 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:4
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

in addition to a suitable pardner being someone an individual was attracted to, it would also be someone with whom there was mutually shared love, devotion, respect and trust.

what would be the good to deny a bonding whose fruit was the same fruit as that of the holy spirit(gal5) how would celibate isolation be better than this?

as i said marriage is a spiritual connection. show anything spiritual that is limited by form?

did not judah say his daughter in law was more righteous than he after she seduced him as a prostitute?

was not the one who led the people out of eqypt raised as an eqyptian prince and had not moses’s father married the person who was moses’s father’s own aunt ?

was not the one who was the greatest hebrew persecutor of christians, saul, the same one who brought christ to the gentiles?

 

[LittleDeb]

you are giving a description of marriage in terms of physicality. its not physicality that makes a marriage, but a spirit relationship supported by certain physical dynamics

Possibly you overlooked the last paragraph of my post where I sum up? Here it is again.

Is marriage inherently complementary? How do “two become one” without complementarity? How are they really married physically, spiritually, and emotionally without complementarity? How do you really define marriage?

You are quoting Scripture to someone who is a serious devotee of Theology of the Body, a series of talks given by our late Holy Father. He takes each of those Scriptures very seriously and reflects on what it means to be human, on what it means to have a body and what that body is meant to do! He clearly shows that our body is not just a warehouse for our soul, but that a deeper understanding of our souls and on the very nature of God is written on our bodies.

I absolutely believe that there is more to marriage than just a physical complementarity! Our souls are also complementary. Being male or female is not just a flip of the coin. Male or female is a bodily manifestation of a masculine or feminine soul. Two becoming one must happen on all levels for marriage to occur.

 

[Pier]

What I don’t understand is, what part of “an abomination before God” don’t some people understand? We can not okay such unions, as lukewarm responses such as that put others’ souls in jeopardy, as well as our own…

If I was a kleptomaniac, should I be allowed to steal just because it gives me a great feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment? Since there are those who are actually struggling with the cross of such urges and find this a great temptation, we are to pray they find the strength through the grace of Christ to overcome it, and let them know they can find the aid they need in the sacraments, and a great support team in the body of Christ.

 

[DailyBread]

I would like to say on a final note (since this discussion although nice is not being rather fruitful for either side), that I believe we have put up some valid arguements that continued to be ignored.

1. The previosu posters have failed to define what love is and especially nuptial love; I am not sure what you mean by bonding, Iove my friends and bond with them, but it is not sexual in nature nor would that be appropriate. As I have stated yes homosexual people can be committed to each other in a love of friendship just as anyone can, but this fails to be a love of spouses or nuptial love as an earlier post clearly demonstrated, but previous poster fails to respond to this or give an actual definition of love. Nuptial love is required for marriage and homosexual acts fail to meet that standard… they can do all the wonderful nice things friends do for each other, but the act itself fails the criteria for nuptial love.
2. Pseudo interpretation of the bible for ones own designs has being going on for too long. Jews and Christians alike have always known the meaning of these teachings from Jewish scholars to Church fathers… this thought has been consistent… somehow we needed modern thinkers to enlighten us because Christ either failed in helping the apostles teach the truth, or the Truth changed… none of them are plausible and the nuptial love discussed in the bible is clearly of a female/male complimentarity. At no point is a male/male or female/female image used… in fact the Church is the bride and Christ the bridegroom. If God did not care about this sexual complimentarity, that imagery would not be used. Modern thinkers twist the interpretation of the bible towards their own designs. As a previosu post showed, this is terrible scholarship.
3. The whole change in the American Psychiatric Association was a political move. As much as you try to knock NARTH which is a group run by actual professionals who quote independent research (not some twisted research they conduct) and not Vatican’s right hand people, the APA and the DSM has its own personal interest that over ride science in truth (in fact the APA just now has made a statement much to the annoyance of its gay members that doctors should respect the right for people to determine if they want to remain gay or try to change; obviously the gay community wants you to think one cannot change even in light of one of its own supporters, Robert Spitz, finding otherwise.). The APA made its change to remove homosexuality from its list of diseases in the DSM after pressure from gay groups and gay members within the APA; not any new research- this was indeed a first in the the history of the DSM to make a change not based on science, but political pressure.
4. Research done by independent groups in europe where homosexuality is rather approved of paint a picture of the larger rates of psychiatric illness in the gay community and issues with multiple partners at very high rates (so why one says they are committed is beyond me) and higher drug use should raise a red flag about the homosexual lifestyle (here I mean people who are living in homosexual relationships, not others who struggle in a courageous way to live chastely). My statements about homosexuals craving to feel like males comes from evidence based medicine and research that comes from a large amount of homosexuals; not anecdotal stories from some people you know merely. I am sorry, but researched based investigations are superiour to merely anecdotal stories (which is how crazy health care items get sold on the internet… “I used ginko before my SAT and scored 200 pts higher” sorry not valid information). This is how medicine and science are done.

So to conclude: research supports what we are saying, and again a failure to engage in a philososphical discussion on what nuptial love (sugar coating words of bonding and devotion are not definitions and again avoid the direct question of how male/male sex fulfills the demands of what nuptial love is… which you have no concise definition for to help us distinguish it from other forms of love like friendship or love of siblings ect.).

 

[DailyBread]

For another previous poster:
books.google.com/books?id=MuM7HyPkUhsC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=homosexuals+maleness&source=web&ots=qAoVARPcwe&sig=It-V63LuEfDQh3USgu2wlBxJjbE&hl=en

This book talks about what homosexuals desire from the sexual encounter; that maleness of the other… so no I do not have a distorted view on homosexuality… it is again evidenced based medicine. It is this desire rather that is distorted (again read my dvd analogy from earlier posts to see this).

 

[feetxxxl]

Possibly you overlooked the last paragraph of my post where I sum up? Here it is again.You are quoting Scripture to someone who is a serious devotee of Theology of the Body, a series of talks given by our late Holy Father. He takes each of those Scriptures very seriously and reflects on what it means to be human, on what it means to have a body and what that body is meant to do! He clearly shows that our body is not just a warehouse for our soul, but that a deeper understanding of our souls and on the very nature of God is written on our bodies.

I absolutely believe that there is more to marriage than just a physical complementarity! Our souls are also complementary. Being male or female is not just a flip of the coin. Male or female is a bodily manifestation of a masculine or feminine soul. Two becoming one must happen on all levels for marriage to occur.

my apologies, ill just refer to the scripture next time. about the term"complementary" you are going to have to be more explanatory on what this term means to you. if your are referring to human genitals.

the anus is an errogenous zone. and anal orgasms are possible. in fact among some women anal orgasms bring more intense orgasms than vaginal ones do.

and if the concern is about exposure to fecal matter. there is exposure to fecal matter in vaginal sex as well.

 

[feetxxxl]

For another previous poster:
books.google.com/books?id=MuM7HyPkUhsC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=homosexuals+maleness&source=web&ots=qAoVARPcwe&sig=It-V63LuEfDQh3USgu2wlBxJjbE&hl=en

This book talks about what homosexuals desire from the sexual encounter; that maleness of the other… so no I do not have a distorted view on homosexuality… it is again evidenced based medicine. It is this desire rather that is distorted (again read my dvd analogy from earlier posts to see this).

why do you say scientific sources without giving the sources. would that include the apa or the ama?

any scientific organizations that has links to any religious organization is not without bias and therefore is not scientific that would exclude narth and organizations that have ties to the catholic church.

surely you can give some source that can be googled.

 

[DailyBread]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12602425&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/9/843

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/91015904/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://archpsyc.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/85

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=128589&toc=y

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/5/423

Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/10/867

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/10/876

Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Mar; 160(3):541-6. Related Articles, Links
Sexual orientation and self-harm in men and women.
Skegg K, Nada-Raja S, Dickson N, Paul C, Williams S.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of a link between increasing degrees of same-sex attraction and self-harm in both men and women, with the possibility of some difference between the sexes that needs to be explored further.
American Journal of Public Health December 2002.
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men
CONCLUSIONS. Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed. This finding looks at the relationship between sexual orientation and relationship violence.

 

[DailyBread]

Again you can say NARTH is biased, but all groups have some bias in any work- and you have failed to provide evidence to show that research they discuss is wrong or unscientific. I guess you felt you could ignore my other comment about APA made the change in 1973 as an unprecedented and unscientific based decision-which is a novel move. The APA has its own biases that are not always motivated by science.

Also still have no definition of what Nuptial Love actually implies for you.

 

[feetxxxl]

would like to say on a final note (since this discussion although nice is not being rather fruitful for either side), that I believe we have put up some valid arguements that continued to be ignored.

1. The previosu posters have failed to define what love is and especially nuptial love; I am not sure what you mean by bonding, Iove my friends and bond with them, but it is not sexual in nature nor would that be appropriate. As I have stated yes homosexual people can be committed to each other in a love of friendship just as anyone can, but this fails to be a love of spouses or nuptial love as an earlier post clearly demonstrated, but previous poster fails to respond to this or give an actual definition of love. Nuptial love is required for marriage and homosexual acts fail to meet that standard… they can do all the wonderful nice things friends do for each other, but the act itself fails the criteria for nuptial love.

how could i explain something that even paul says is a mystery.

31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[a] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. >33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

what i can give is the basic ingedients of the bonding that set it apart from other relationships. but remember that the range of being united in marriage varies from las vegas drive in ceremonies, ceremonies led by an officer of the court, and common law sanctions to a sacramental ceremony in the church. however the divorce rate for all is the same.

the ingredients is attraction, a shared love for each other …a love that is god(1cor13, 1john4:8), a chaste commitment to each other( there are many forms of adultery… example: emotional) among believers, they are to love each other as christ loved the church.

scripture does not differeniate homosexual love from heterosexual. love is love.

1. Pseudo interpretation of the bible for ones own designs has being going on for too long. Jews and Christians alike have always known the meaning of these teachings from Jewish scholars to Church fathers… this thought has been consistent… somehow we needed modern thinkers to enlighten us because Christ either failed in helping the apostles teach the truth, or the Truth changed… none of them are plausible and the nuptial love discussed in the bible is clearly of a female/male complimentarity. At no point is a male/male or female/female image used… in fact the Church is the bride and Christ the bridegroom. If God did not care about this sexual complimentarity, that imagery would not be used. Modern thinkers twist the interpretation of the bible towards their own designs. As a previosu post showed, this is terrible scholarship.

matthew 19 :11

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given… The one who can accept this should accept it.”

jesus gave a spirit message for all time. that is not limited by legalities. there are those who are not given the word of heterosexual coupling. who is to say to whom the holy spirit has given this word to?.. only the one who receives it in his heart. and even among those who are given this word, if they cannot accept…jesus says they should not do so.

1. The whole change in the American Psychiatric Association was a political move. As much as you try to knock NARTH which is a group run by actual professionals who quote independent research (not some twisted research they conduct) and not Vatican’s right hand people, the APA and the DSM has its own personal interest that over ride science in truth (in fact the APA just now has made a statement much to the annoyance of its gay members that doctors should respect the right for people to determine if they want to remain gay or try to change; obviously the gay community wants you to think one cannot change even in light of one of its own supporters, Robert Spitz, finding otherwise.). The APA made its change to remove homosexuality from its list of diseases in the DSM after pressure from gay groups and gay members within the APA; not any new research- this was indeed a first in the the history of the DSM to make a change not based on science, but political pressure.

here again if bias is acknowledged in both. then exclude both.

as believers in christ, is our theology based on science which vaccillates back in forth, as a fact is discovered then discounted, in science’s quest to discover the truth about our physical world?..of course not. did john determine who was the christ thru science? no, he determined it thru the witness and grace of the holy witness, the source for truth for all believers…“that which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched”

if we cannot trust the holy spirit who lives in us, then who can we trust?

however the testing that john did required a one on one fellowship. but the spirit did not reveal the whole truth in christ until pentecost, when he became resident in each disciple.

why is it that so many believers look at fellowship as possible defilement of the spirit, rather, instead as an OPPURTUNITY to witness and share his spirit?

this was the essence of the ministry of mother teresa?

1john :7 sayS…".But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, PURIFIES us from all** sin."

IN FELLOWSHIP IN CHRIST WE ARE SHIELDED FROM ALL SIN.

possibly, the concern is, instead, about defilement of a particular way of understanding? proverbs says dont lean on your understanding?

1. Research done by independent groups in europe where homosexuality is rather approved of paint a picture of the larger rates of psychiatric illness in the gay community and issues with multiple partners at very high rates (so why one says they are committed is beyond me) and higher drug use should raise a red flag about the homosexual lifestyle (here I mean people who are living in homosexual relationships, not others who struggle in a courageous way to live chastely). My statements about homosexuals craving to feel like males comes from evidence based medicine and research that comes from a large amount of homosexuals; not anecdotal stories from some people you know merely. I am sorry, but researched based investigations are superiour to merely anecdotal stories (which is how crazy health care items get sold on the internet… “I used ginko before my SAT and scored 200 pts higher” sorry not valid information). This is how medicine and science are done.

So to conclude: research supports what we are saying, and again a failure to engage in a philososphical discussion on what nuptial love (sugar coating words of bonding and devotion are not definitions and again avoid the direct question of how male/male sex fulfills the demands of what nuptial love is… which you have no concise definition for to help us distinguish it from other forms of love like friendship or love of siblings ect.).

does this mean you credit this report as speaking for the 12 million in this country and the 320 million worldwide. apart from giving no credence to the study, and knowing anyone can take any study and make it show anything they want, why dont you look at those who are found to be livng decidedly normal lives as a POSSIBILITY rather than an aberration?

we know that until just a very few years ago in the u.s, homosexual behavior was deemed illegal. even in denmark there are continued reports that by in large, homosexuality is merely tolerated and is yet to be fully accepted and embraced in main stream society. this is in the same way that middle eastern islamics are allowed to come into those countries to live, but are subjected to constant racism and exclusion. the riots of the past speak for themselves.

homosexuals have historically in the u.s., for 300 years been rejected by society, and the church, abandoned by family and friends, and subject to possible verbal and physical assault, incarceration and even murder. kern shows that in essence much of this same attiude is still very much alive.

you compare 4000 years of acceptance and affirmation of heterosexuality with merely a few years of toleration of homosexuals and are able to condemn one over the other because of rates of higher drug use, and illness? in truth it is amazing that not every homosexual is guilt ridden from having had to live in societies filled with so much condemnation.

do you see a divorce trend in those homosexual marriages that were legally allowed to take place that even hints of being comparable to the divorce rates among heterosexuals.

jesus said we could recognize then by their fruit…one of the fruit of the spirit being faithfulness.**

 

[feetxxxl]

What I don’t understand is, what part of “an abomination before God” don’t some people understand? We can not okay such unions, as lukewarm responses such as that put others’ souls in jeopardy, as well as our own…

If I was a kleptomaniac, should I be allowed to steal just because it gives me a great feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment? Since there are those who are actually struggling with the cross of such urges and find this a great temptation, we are to pray they find the strength through the grace of Christ to overcome it, and let them know they can find the aid they need in the sacraments, and a great support team in the body of Christ.

abomination is used 136 times in the(kjv) old testament and only six times in the new. of the six, three are about the prostitute in rev., 2 in luke and matthew are about the revelations of daniel and the other is that those things esteemed in the mind of man is an abomination to god. we do you think there is so much difference esp when paul remarked so much about sexual immoralites?

some of the prohibitions in lev of themselves are not sins such as wearing mixed fabric and doing household chores on the sabbath. this does not take away the seriousness of them under the old covenant as expressed in deut 28.

numbers 15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

hebrews differenciates between the old and the new covenant.

hebrews 8: 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said**:
“The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

the law of the old that is carried over to the new are those laws whose essence allies with the spirit of the commandment: loving ones neighbor as oneself, the summation of all the law.

that is why slavery is now deemed an untolerable evil.

how does homosexuality come against loving ones neighbor as oneself so that the prohibition should be carried over?

jesus says you will recognize them by their fruit. what is the fruit of being homosexual or homosexual bonding that it would come against the commandment.

historically, it has been the spirit of the attempts to enforce this prohibition that has come against the commmandment.

the cry today is, we just didnt enforce it in the right way! now we know the right way to enforce it. however this right way requires that there be no fellowship. fellowship is the enemy of this new right way.

if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another…

fellowship… being walking in another’s shoes, carrying their burdens, worshipping with them in christ, looking at them, seeing them with ones eyes and touching them, honoring their life experiences(whether agreeing with them or not…honoring that at a particular moment in time and individual’s life, yes, he did experience, feel, suffer, etc a particular thing) ,and being a servant to them.**

 

[DailyBread]

Well feet, I think we both have reached the end here with neither swaying from his opinion. I thank you for your time, but after your last post, I believe I that our understanding of scripture and faith is so radically different that it is pointless to continue discussing it.
Thank you for quoting Paul’s description of nuptial love… it actually just helped my case because it clearly uses language that Christ uses to describe the mystery; that a MAN will cling to his WIFE and the two will become one (symbolized in the objective definition of their sexual act, that a child can be produced from it regardless of subjective issues of the couple themselves d/t nature: infertility, since God decides when conception can occur). I am suprised that you stear clear of describing it since nuptial love is one of the most heavily discussed topics in either theology or philosophy. Clearly though both Christ and Paul used their words (man and wife) to show at the very heart what two people can partake in this love (they did not use the word persons or any other word that would allow leeway).
Your definition leaves open a lot of issues- what if I am attracted to my sister or mom, and we are committed, and chaste (another word now you would have to define)… why cannot I not marry them, and why should love be limited to two people (why can we not love many people, I mean God does right). Another issue I take is the very fact that most homosexuals are not faithful to one relationship- multiple partners are the rule, not the minority and more multiple partners than heterosexuals. Another word you fail to describe is what is the good of this nuptial love (that makes it nuptial and not other form of love like friendship-again you have to distinguish this because I can actually be attracted by the charisma of a good speaker, but does not mean I have to be sexual- so what unique good does the homosexual act (so saying for emotional support ect does not qualify because friends do that too w/o sex) fulfill that friendship does not?-if you cannot make a distinction you have not shown what nuptial love is).

Your comment on Matthew could not be farther from the truth. Christ was challenging them because they wanted divorce and he said you were not allowed to put away your wife. The discples ask than who should get married because this demand seems so hard and Christ responds in a way to say that those who can live this teaching are called to marriage and those who cannot are not called to marriage then. It has nothing to do with if you can live this teaching do and if you cannot, then don’t. If that were the case, then Pharisees would go away knowing he means that if people feel they can they should, but they do not have to follwo this rule (obviously they did not go away feeling this and were in fact bitter because Jesus was making a greater demand after He clearly criticizes divorce that Moses permitted due to hardness of heart). So no scripture scholar or regular lay person would possibly agree with you on this and if you want I would suggest putting up a seperate thread on this passage interpretation of yours to see what others think.

Yes faith is based not on science merely you are correct- but faith and reason go together- so that in the end, science should help us to confirm truths that the faith holds. Yet lets concede your point: I base my argument on my philisophical understanding of nuptial love that coincides theologically (read Love and Responsibility- you will see 70 pages devoted on the phrase “to use” so yes it can be discussed at length).

On your point about homosexual love and heterosexual love, we see a clear difference because as I said, the wording is chosen throughout all of scripture to say man and wife (it is not ambiguous and you are attempting to twist scripture reading for your own purpose; that which the text will not twist to- man and wife is jsut that; its not man and man, or man and animal or woman and woman or man and two wives, ect).
This link; the first debater does a great job of prooving through actual evidence (the other guy really does not pull on evidence, just twisting or trying to conjecture doubt) that scripture condemns homosexual acts: iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142940

Finally the idea that homosexual acts are only wrong for those who are not homosexual based upon what Paul condemns are individuals not familiar with moral law. Moral law considers three aspects seperately when determining what is right and wrong: these are circumstance, action, and intent.
Circumstance: a friend’s son is running around yelling a lot. It would be good that he be stopped for the good purpose of not disturbing the peace, but it should be his parents not you who discipline him, so you disciplining him would be a violation of this aspect.
Act: The act is intrisically wrong regardless of motive or circumstance… ie killing an innocent person; never justified even if it is for the sake of saving three others (utilitarianism is not defendable philisophical theory).
Intention: Helping an old lady across the street and into her hosue so you can rob her is wrong.

Paul makes a list of absolute actions that are always wrong. If that were not the case let me know under what circumstances adultery is allowed. It does not matter that the person be heterosexual experimenting, or bisexual, or homosexual. These acts are condemned regardless of circumstance or intention.

One of the other studies I failed to put up was a meta analysis of over 100 articles. If you want to make a claim about studies being false, you better back it up with evidence that they did poor research… otherwise you make a baseless claim that any study can have issue and well, than all studies are pointless… sorry not a defendable arguement. Hvae you studied all 12 million and 320 million worldwide?

 

[DailyBread]

I will rest my faith on my position with God and let readers of logic and reason see my statements are true. You can have your rebuttal, but my time is through with this thread.

I am not mad at you, I thank you for taking the time to draw out this arguement and hope it was not too bad of a spirit. May we both pray for each other that we all be with Christ in His kingdom.

To homosexuals reading this thread and other supporters; know I do not have ill will or hate towards them- we disagree maybe about morals of a particular act as others disagree with me on things like abortion and we are still friends. To those who courageously live the teachings of Chrrist and the Church- God bless you on yoru shining example- you have a special place in the kingdom of heaven and your chaste service to Christ and His Church will be greatly rewarded over and above the cross which you did not desire, but accepted like Jospeh of Arimethea.
God Bless,
DB

 

[feetxxxl]

Well feet, I think we both have reached the end here with neither swaying from his opinion. I thank you for your time, but after your last post, I believe I that our understanding of scripture and faith is so radically different that it is pointless to continue discussing it.
Thank you for quoting Paul’s description of nuptial love… it actually just helped my case because it clearly uses language that Christ uses to describe the mystery; that a MAN will cling to his WIFE and the two will become one (symbolized in the objective definition of their sexual act, that a child can be produced from it regardless of subjective issues of the couple themselves d/t nature: infertility, since God decides when conception can occur). I am suprised that you stear clear of describing it since nuptial love is one of the most heavily discussed topics in either theology or philosophy. Clearly though both Christ and Paul used their words (man and wife) to show at the very heart what two people can partake in this love (they did not use the word persons or any other word that would allow leeway).

im not sure i understand how bringing up a new term changes the discussion… the bonding of 2 human beings whether of same gender or opposite. the divorce rate is the same whether done under religious ritual or a justice of the peace, does that mean nuptial love occurs whether joined secularly or religiously. i have difficulty understanding your point unless your interest is to discuss different myths.

i think our differences are that i see scripture as pointing out one possibility, while you see scripture as saying its the only possibility. have you considered doing of the word study ofthe word “only” to see the limited use that scripture makes of the word “only” in describing the works of god.

continued

 

[feetxxxl]

Your definition leaves open a lot of issues- what if I am attracted to my sister or mom, and we are committed, and chaste (another word now you would have to define)… why cannot I not marry them, and why should love be limited to two people (why can we not love many people, I mean God does right). Another issue I take is the very fact that most homosexuals are not faithful to one relationship- multiple partners are the rule, not the minority and more multiple partners than heterosexuals. Another word you fail to describe is what is the good of this nuptial love (that makes it nuptial and not other form of love like friendship-again you have to distinguish this because I can actually be attracted by the charisma of a good speaker, but does not mean I have to be sexual- so what unique good does the homosexual act (so saying for emotional support ect does not qualify because friends do that too w/o sex) fulfill that friendship does not?-if you cannot make a distinction you have not shown what nuptial love is).

as far as multiple pardners go…have you ever watched the tv show “maury”? its just another case of one having a log in one’s heterosexual eye.

i find it interesting those who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, must also believe in some romantic aura associated with incest or sibling incest.

as one whose has witnessed this i can tell you that incest only occurs when there is an absence of love, nurturing, and and parental concern. the destructive influences of incest ranks right up there with pedophilia.
if there is an incestial attraction betwen siblings its because there are major issues of low self esteem and self loathing, and an absence of parental nurturing…check it out…pamramsey.com/incest.htm

human bonding is about finding a suitable helper(genesis).im talking about bonding that involves attraction and .that is expressed thru sexual intimacy which in turn affirms the relationship. its natural for the human species to be sexual. why should homosexuals be forced to be limited in the way they express themselves. here again… that old double standard.

continured

 

[feetxxxl]

Your comment on Matthew could not be farther from the truth. Christ was challenging them because they wanted divorce and he said you were not allowed to put away your wife. The discples ask than who should get married because this demand seems so hard and Christ responds in a way to say that those who can live this teaching are called to marriage and those who cannot are not called to marriage then. It has nothing to do with if you can live this teaching do and if you cannot, then don’t. If that were the case, then Pharisees would go away knowing he means that if people feel they can they should, but they do not have to follwo this rule (obviously they did not go away feeling this and were in fact bitter because Jesus was making a greater demand after He clearly criticizes divorce that Moses permitted due to hardness of heart). So no scripture scholar or regular lay person would possibly agree with you on this and if you want I would suggest putting up a seperate thread on this passage interpretation of yours to see what others think.

i am merely reading the words. please use the words to show what you mean.

4"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7"Why then," they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given… The one who can accept this should accept it.”

it sounds like you are believing that jesus is creating another law to which we are to die to. what would be the purpose of that?

why do insist on seeking tobe led by another law when paul says we are led by the spirit.

why would god come to earth to personnally give us something that we receive no righteousness by following?

continued**

 

[feetxxxl]

Yes faith is based not on science merely you are correct- but faith and reason go together- so that in the end, science should help us to confirm truths that the faith holds. Yet lets concede your point: I base my argument on my philisophical understanding of nuptial love that coincides theologically (read Love and Responsibility- you will see 70 pages devoted on the phrase “to use” so yes it can be discussed at length).

On your point about homosexual love and heterosexual love, we see a clear difference because as I said, the wording is chosen throughout all of scripture to say man and wife (it is not ambiguous and you are attempting to twist scripture reading for your own purpose; that which the text will not twist to- man and wife is jsut that; its not man and man, or man and animal or woman and woman or man and two wives, ect).
This link; the first debater does a great job of prooving through actual evidence (the other guy really does not pull on evidence, just twisting or trying to conjecture doubt) that scripture condemns homosexual acts: iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142940

that is not true. scripture does not condemn hpomosexuality as sinful. show me how the words of scripture say that homosexulity is a sin. no one has yet been able to show how the words in the verses of scripture say that homosexuality is a sin.

Finally the idea that homosexual acts are only wrong for those who are not homosexual based upon what Paul condemns are individuals not familiar with moral law. Moral law considers three aspects seperately when determining what is right and wrong: these are circumstance, action, and intent.
Circumstance: a friend’s son is running around yelling a lot. It would be good that he be stopped for the good purpose of not disturbing the peace, but it should be his parents not you who discipline him, so you disciplining him would be a violation of this aspect.
Act: The act is intrisically wrong regardless of motive or circumstance… ie killing an innocent person; never justified even if it is for the sake of saving three others (utilitarianism is not defendable philisophical theory).
Intention: Helping an old lady across the street and into her hosue so you can rob her is wrong.

Paul makes a list of absolute actions that are always wrong. If that were not the case let me know under what circumstances adultery is allowed. It does not matter that the person be heterosexual experimenting, or bisexual, or homosexual. These acts are condemned regardless of circumstance or intention.

One of the other studies I failed to put up was a meta analysis of over 100 articles. If you want to make a claim about studies being false, you better back it up with evidence that they did poor research… otherwise you make a baseless claim that any study can have issue and well, than all studies are pointless… sorry not a defendable arguement. Hvae you studied all 12 million and 320 million worldwide?

how are the translators able to take a compound word from the greek meaning " malebed", an inanimate object, and translate it into an animate person “homosexual”. is it because most translations were made in england in the 18th and 19th century, where a king henry enacted law(1500’s) made acts of sodomy punishable by hanging. england having no seperation between church and state. the head of the church of england is queen elizabeth.

do you realize that your whole argument is based on the law and your.reasoning. do you believe that by it you receive an iota of righteousness?

1john1 if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another.

“that which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched, this we proclaim”

not a scintilla of what you are saying comes from any fellowship with those you condemn. you accuse them of being without the possibility of" nuptial love". but that is without witness. are you saying that even if homosexuals have nuptial love it is still disallowed?

consider that the opposite of love is not hate …but instead is indifference. that like james said about faith. without works it is dead. that works indicates the depth of faith. could not the same thing be said about love. that love is dead if ones does not acknowledge another"s suffering or pain, walk in another’s shoes, carry their burdens, fellowship with them in worship, and honor their life experiences

you put such an emphasis on the law.

john 5: 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

do you think he lives in those because they follow the law, or he lives in those because they have faith in him as lord? if you say those who do what he commands love him you are right.
what he commands is to love one another as he loved us…

1cor13 anything done without love is nothing and gains nothing.

your refusal to fellowship gives the impression that your understanding will collapse under exposure of fellowship.

when the massachusetts supreme court legalized gay marriage thousands of couples married, whose testimonies were that they had had an on going committed relationships. for some it was 30 years, others 20 years.

since that time there has been no trend to divorce, as is seen with heterosexual marriages…

these relationships thrive (in spite of societies rejection), are real, do exist. they exude and embrace the fruit of the spirit love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, self-control, faithfulness, goodness, and patience. can you say the same of your scriptural understanding?