J
jilly4ski
Guest
Actually that depends on how we define “sex”." If we define sex as the the meeting of complimentary sexual organs in such that the male ejaculates, then no, homosexual sex is not possible.
- Status
A
ACCT
Guest
There are always signs before Divine intervention. Find salvation now!Your posting suggests that you have been listening to too much Dispensationalism, Pat Robertson, and other negative sooth sayers…
H
hglundahl
Guest
Have you not noted that a same sexed “couple” need not consist of two persons with homosexual orientation? Or that a normal couple need not consist of two persons with heterosexual orientation?
So how would the Christian ban on the one discriminate against persons with a certain orientation?
Because Christian marriage - i e with someone of opposite sex - would feel like a second best for a homosexual? But lots of heterosexuals make marriages with second bests, like because they lost their first love or because of other practical circumstances!
H
hglundahl
Guest
Even if “our” views are those of humanity, historically?
Sparta encouraged gay pairs in the military, but each Spartan by law was married to a wife and begat children with her. The forenoted encouragement became a strain on Spartan marriages, which tended to become more and more barren. But never ever did they consider redefining marriage.
The other Doric state, Crete, punished sodomy with death, just as Israel did.
Through his disciple St Paul:
drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm
“Unclean” seems to mean given up to unnatural vice. It certainly does not mean merely leper in the medical sense. So, practising unnatural vice is evil.
Through his prophet Isaiah:
drbo.org/chapter/27005.htm
So, calling an evil thing - like “uncleanness” - a good thing is clearly illicit.
And from his own mouth, about marriage:
drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm
Which is why marriage is undissoluble and good. And therefore it is illicit to call uncleanness indissoluble, illicit to call uncleanness good and illicit to call uncleanness marriage.
So is Scripture, if you think the New Testament belongs to it.
drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm
All nation=disciples? THEN, no nation Amalekites any more.
Misses the point that man belongs to God. Misses the point that as even for sparrows, no man ever dies without it being God’s will. Misses the point that God therefore can kill the innocent to punish the guilty, which we cannot: to us death penalty is ultimate judgement, and therefore we would be judging the innocent with the guilty. To God it is the eternity of the souls that is ultimate judgement and death as life something he does all the time.
H
hglundahl
Guest
So is Scripture, if you think the New Testament belongs to it.
drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm
All nation=disciples? THEN, no nation Amalekites any more.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I am certainly not asking Christians to conform to the rest of society. I am asking them to stop the use of law to force others to conform to their views
Even if “our” views are those of humanity, historically?
Yes.
The other Doric state, Crete, punished sodomy with death, just as Israel did.
Through his disciple St Paul.
I don’t accept that of Jesus was God, and he knew we would be having this debate int he future, and he agrees with you, that he would have left this important point to someone he never met to mention in passing.
And from his own mouth, about marriage:
It would be more useful had he actually said something about same-sex marriage under civil law, which is what we are discussing.
Which is why marriage is undissoluble and good. And therefore it is illicit to call uncleanness indissoluble, illicit to call uncleanness good and illicit to call uncleanness marriage.
But you don’t think all sorts of marriages (like those of divorced people) are valid. Why do you accept civil registration of them?
So is Scripture, if you think the New Testament belongs to it.
Please point me to the New Testament scripture opposing the genocide,
Misses the point that man belongs to God. Misses the point that as even for sparrows, no man ever dies without it being God’s will. Misses the point that God therefore can kill the innocent to punish the guilty, which we cannot: to us death penalty is ultimate judgement, and therefore we would be judging the innocent with the guilty. To God it is the eternity of the souls that is ultimate judgement and death as life something he does all the time.
I do not disagree that if there is a God, and that he is your God, that what you say may be true. But to my mind a God which actively kills the innocent, in preference to, for example, appearing in an unchallengeable way before us and making his existence and power clear, is not a God one can reasonably feel is good.
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I am certainly not asking Christians to conform to the rest of society. I am asking them to stop the use of law to force others to conform to their views
Even if “our” views are those of humanity, historically?
Yes.
The other Doric state, Crete, punished sodomy with death, just as Israel did.
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by **Hokomai** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9328190#post9328190)
*That sounds easy. What exactly were Jesus' words about homosexual marriage?*I don’t accept that of Jesus was God, and he knew we would be having this debate int he future, and he agrees with you, that he would have left this important point to someone he never met to mention in passing.
And from his own mouth, about marriage:
Code:
Quote:
[3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. [6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.Which is why marriage is undissoluble and good. And therefore it is illicit to call uncleanness indissoluble, illicit to call uncleanness good and illicit to call uncleanness marriage.
But you don’t think all sorts of marriages (like those of divorced people) are valid. Why do you accept civil registration of them?
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by **Hokomai** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9331990#post9331990)
*I did not think Christians invented marriage, or owned it in any way. I for one do not want to live in a society ruled by scripture. I'm against genocide for one thing.*Please point me to the New Testament scripture opposing the genocide,
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by **Hokomai** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9331993#post9331993)
*Well if there is a God, and he intends to kill and inflict pain and misery on the innocent, even those innocent of the things to which he objects then God is certainly not right, and is certainly expressing no truth worthy of the name.*I do not disagree that if there is a God, and that he is your God, that what you say may be true. But to my mind a God which actively kills the innocent, in preference to, for example, appearing in an unchallengeable way before us and making his existence and power clear, is not a God one can reasonably feel is good.
A
ACCT
Guest
J
Jules_Verne
Guest
Why would they change their views on marriage, the Spartans that is? Marriage wasn’t about love, for the Spartans or other groups. Sure, sometimes you were lucky and got to marry someone you loved, but that wasn’t the point. Traditional marriage was about a political and financial agreement between families.
Also, the Spartans were huge into infanticide. Only the best and strongest babies got to live. Infanticide in general is a pretty traditional human behavior. Doesn’t mean we should do it today.
In traditional Roman culture, divorce was common,. Because couples would be split up by order of their families due to shifts in fortune or political alliances.
In Roman culture, you could legally force your 14 year old to marry an 80 year old, who could then legally kill her and his children at his whim. Or, conversely, as head of a family, you could force a member of your family to divorce a spouse even if they had grown to love them and did not want to marry another, they way Octavian Caesar did with his step son.
Tthat’s the kind of marriage you claim you support? One where women and children are property and can be killed at the father’s discression, and when couples can be forced into both marriage and divorce?
The fact is, my marriage in current form, one in which I chose my husband of my own free will, because I loved him, and he is not allowed to legally beat and rape me, is an extremely modern concept. Since I no longer have to be subject to “traditional marriage,” I don’t see why gays should be either.
Besides, something being tradition doesn’t make it right. Slavery is a big part of traditional human history, as is the subjugation of women. Not that heterosexual marriag is a bad thing, but keeping something a certain way based on “tradition” is not a convincing justification.
This isn’t a theocracy. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, than just don’t do it. But legislating based on scripture? Yeah, this isn’t feudal Europe. This isn’t the Inquisition anymore guys. You don’t still get to force your religious views on others at the point of the sword.
The majority of young people, even religious ones, support gay marriage. This is a losing battle you’re waging. I honestly see you no different than racists in the 60s fighting against interracial marriage.
How do you feel knowing that a few years from now, you will be regarded as history’s villains?
H
Hokomai
Guest
A
ACCT
Guest
H
Hokomai
Guest
J
Jules_Verne
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
P
Publisher
Guest
ACCT;9336134:
That’s ok…you can come sit with the Quakers as we enter into Meeting as we raise our hearts in praise to the Eternal…even in the depths of Hell he will be there…“though I make my bed in the lowest hell…Thou art there.”
C
CopticChristian
Guest
ACCT,
You do realize that Jews look for signs and Gentiles look for miracles. When you read the NT you will see in the writings when there is a suggestion of signs this is to garner the interest of the Jewish audience. Since I am Gentile at heart I am more for miracles.
Salvation comes in stages as you know. It is not a one time process. But on the other hand, If you ask me to, I mean…do I hear an Amen…do I hear a prayer…can the brothers out there jump, can you shout…and you are wondering…and you are asking…do I have it in me…now…now…now is the time…don’t wait…and I say…turn from your sorrowful ways…and I say…amen, amen…brother…do you hear me, brother…ahh
Ok…I will work on it…
S
stewstew03
Guest
Congregation:ACCT,
You do realize that Jews look for signs and Gentiles look for miracles. When you read the NT you will see in the writings when there is a suggestion of signs this is to garner the interest of the Jewish audience. Since I am Gentile at heart I am more for miracles.
Salvation comes in stages as you know. It is not a one time process. But on the other hand, If you ask me to, I mean…do I hear an Amen…do I hear a prayer…can the brothers out there jump, can you shout…and you are wondering…and you are asking…do I have it in me…now…now…now is the time…don’t wait…and I say…turn from your sorrowful ways…and I say…amen, amen…brother…do you hear me, brother…ahh
Ok…I will work on it…
:clapping: :extrahappy: 
:coolinoff:
H
Hokomai
Guest
Hokomai;9336148:
It will be nice to see you all. But isn’t one expected to remain silent at a meeting until something truly worthwhile to say occurs to one? For prolix persons such as me, that could be hell!That’s ok…you can come sit with the Quakers as we enter into Meeting as we raise our hearts in praise to the Eternal…even in the depths of Hell he will be there…“though I make my bed in the lowest hell…Thou art there.”
E
edwest2
Guest
Here is what the Church teaches:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Peace,
Ed
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Peace,
Ed
H
Hokomai
Guest
Thank you Ed. You provide an interesting test of Catholic support for the Church teaching, and church leaders’ commitment to it:
Have Catholic lawyers; court registrars; people who register civil unions or administer adoptions; or note next of kin in hospitals; or administer wills; or note people to call when a child is sick at school; or provide employment rights to homosexual spouses under law; been following this teaching in all those many countries which legally recognise homosexual unions? if so, how many and what proportion? My guess is almost none and one zillionth of a per cent.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
??? What are you talking about? You don’t have to be in a homosexual “marriage” nor a regular marriage to leave your property via a Will to someone, nor give them power of attorney, or direction over your healthcare if you become incapacitated. All this can be done regardless of sex/gender and sexual orientation or relationship status (unless you are married or have kids, because then most states don’t allow you to completely disinherit a spouse or kids). So I do not know how letting people do any of those things have to do with “formal cooperation.” Again, if someone is the legal guardian of a child then they are notified if the child is sick at school, (maybe 2 brothers/sisters gained legal custody of a niece/nephew after the death of their sibling), it again has nothing to do with formal cooperation of a unjust law.
Now for some of the other things, indeed, Catholic adoption agencies have closed down, and businesses and some Catholic entities have stopped provided spousal benefits at all, because of these same sex marriage laws. I know that a few individuals in key government positions (those who issued marriage licenses) quit after the NY state “marriage” law passed.
- Status