Same Sex 'Marriage' question

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricofall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I’m fat. The day I decide to marry a doughnut, then we’ll compare the two. :rolleyes:

Everyone is a sinner and gays are not banned from church, anymore than fat people are. This is about more than people being sinners, and about people wanting to redefine a sacrament to suit them. That would be the equivalent of my fat self walking up to the altar and covering the Eucharist with Hershey sauce. It’s not right.
 
thistle said:
Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor :9-10

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,

9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,

10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Click to expand...
fyi, the word “homosexual” was not added into the bible until the 1970’s, as I understand it. Older versions of the bible do not say this verse this way.

Even some current ones do not:

Here is the King James version of that passage, circa 2000:

Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
 
Dymphna82 said:
OK, I’m fat. The day I decide to marry a doughnut, then we’ll compare the two. :rolleyes:

… That would be the equivalent of my fat self walking up to the altar and covering the Eucharist with Hershey sauce. …
Click to expand...
You forgot the part about forcing others to convert their beliefs and accept what you did as right and just.
“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.
 
I guess I should restate my question
You see, I am trying to understand how someone can take the bible and say that it approves of an action (in this case same sex marriage). I am trying to understand that because there will be a point when that topic will come up and I want to be able to discuss it from their point of view.
 
ricofall said:
I guess I should restate my question
You see, I am trying to understand how someone can take the bible and say that it approves of an action (in this case same sex marriage). I am trying to understand that because there will be a point when that topic will come up and I want to be able to discuss it from their point of view.
Click to expand...
People have taken the Bible to justify almost everything. I once read a letter to the editor in which the writer claimed that abortion was not against the Bible because it says in Genesis that “God created man and breathed into him the breath of life.” Therefore, he concluded, if a creature was not breathing, there was no life present. So the question becomes, what if “their point of view” is in error?
The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.
 
Myqyl said:
I should know better than to get into this, but I have to ask… What exactly is it that Jesus said about their marriage? I don’t recall our Lord speaking about homosexuality at all.

Thanks, and God bless
Click to expand...
What did Jesus say about marriage?

3]
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female and male and male and female and female,
5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife or boyfriend, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
7] They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her or him or her away?”
8] He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives or significant others, but from the beginning it was not so for God created a woman and a man and a man and a man and a woman and a woman.
9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife or man and a woman her woman, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Oh wait no Jesus didn’t say that. He left a pretty clear picture of what marriage was as between a man and a woman. Call unions between gays what you want. Call them sodimony if you like. They are not marriage as Jesus clearly knew it and stop using your lame arguements. Jesus did not speak about gay marriage because it was and still is nonsense!
 
They can’t reconcile Christianity with their so called “marriage”. It is impossible to do so. The Bible, the Early Church Fathers, and the Magisterium are clearly and 100% against same sex behavior.
 
ricofall said:
I guess I should restate my question
You see, I am trying to understand how someone can take the bible and say that it approves of an action (in this case same sex marriage). I am trying to understand that because there will be a point when that topic will come up and I want to be able to discuss it from their point of view.
Click to expand...
Have you visited the website for the MCC denomination? It has some theological documents regarding homosexuality and the Bible. Perhaps those documents might help you.

mccchurch.org/resources/mcc-theologies/
 
The 4th Commandment says to Honor thy father and mother. It does not say to honor thy father and father.

Ephesians 5: 31-33 defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Christ’s first miracle was at the wedding feast in Cana also attended by His Mother, the Virgin Mary. Does anyone seriously think it was a gay marriage Christ honored?

Christ calls us to act morally - according to HIS rules, not our own rules. We do have moral limits as to what we can do. In any conflict between man’s rules and God’s rules, we, who truly believe in God, are to choose to obey God’s rules. When certain groups chose to set up their own church they are followng their rules, not Christ’s rules. Given their own rules, they then can justify anything they wish, if only to themselves.
 
I think that if there is a God and he did become incarnate in Jesus, and he did want us to know clearly what his stand on homosexuality was, he would have left us a very clear statement about it. "He left it to the ‘Church’ is not an answer. Why did he have some things recorded in scripture and leave other to the Church? Why mention alms-giving and not homosexuality? For that matter, if there is a natural law, why not mention that, at least in passing?

In any case, all that has been said in this thread previously is about the morality of sexual unions and whether homosexual unions can be Catholic marriages. I’m with everyone else in the thread. No, they can’t. But why can the state not recognise such unions? the Catholic Church thinks marriages between previously married people with still-living former spouses are invalid. But where is the church campaign to ban these civil marriages? Well, yes I know there was one, and all about the Ne Temere decree, but that was long ago. Why does the church not speak out against other non-marriages being recognized by the state? What about mine - a civil marriage between two baptized Catholics. the church says it is not a marriage, but as far as I know is not objecting to the state recognizing it. Why cannot homosexuals be afforded the same consideration?
 
Hokomai said:
Why did he have some things recorded in scripture and leave other to the Church? Why mention alms-giving and not homosexuality? For that matter, if there is a natural law, why not mention that, at least in passing?

In any case, all that has been said in this thread previously is about the morality of sexual unions and whether homosexual unions can be Catholic marriages. I’m with everyone else in the thread. No, they can’t. But why can the state not recognise such unions? . . . But where is the church campaign to ban these civil marriages? . . . What about mine - a civil marriage between two baptized Catholics. the church says it is not a marriage, but as far as I know is not objecting to the state recognizing it. Why cannot homosexuals be afforded the same consideration?
Click to expand...
In a management class I took long ago we were taught this heirarchy from top to bottom:
  1. Concept
  2. Principles
  3. Strategy
  4. Tactics
  5. Techniques
  6. Tasks
Senior leaders are not too concerned with the lower levels - they have subordinates to fill in the details ONCE those subordinates know and understand the higher levels.

With Christ, the Gospels and New Testament make it clear He said and did many things, not recorded, that His Apostles and disciples heard. Christ also said He would send the Holy Spirit to remind them of all He had taught. As to marriage, we have the 4th Commandment and Ephesians 5. We have nothing is support of same sex marriages in teh Bible. And SSM has never been the law of any society and certainly not of the greater societies, regardless of religion.

Many scholars, throughout time and of various religions, recognize natural law. Natural law aplies to all humans regardless of religion. And natursl law is not in conflict with the Bible or Christ’s teachings.

Some 37 of the 50 states do have laws or constitution restrictions on SSMs. Some states allow “domestic partnerships” that provide for legal advantages while preserving the definition of marriage - between one man and one woman.

When certain groups want to take civil law too far away from natural law and moral law, the Church has a duty to speak out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top