PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Why do gays need to marry???
       To learn the reason for gay marriage

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Sambucan

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

I would like to get side of people who are pro gay marriage. From my readings, I am seeing the reason for gays getting married is so that they can get the same benefits as the traditional married couple. I understand that and would like for that to happen. However, I still feel man and woman is what makes a marriage possible, and what marriage was created for. Marriage is not to oppress people, but that man and woman can unite, and naturally create life.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 4:37 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They don't have to be married to create life.  What is the actual point of marraige.  To seal commitment.  therefore they should be able to seal it.

 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 7:54 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Lost-ish

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps it would not be so controvercial if it were called something else? Not "marriage", but "union" perhaps? It could basically the same thing, but shoot down the people ingraned with the whole man + woman = marriage equation. I think that there's a number of people that feel uncomfortable with the term "marriage" applying to homosexuals, but still feel morally obligated to support gay rights.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 9:59 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the actual point of marraige. To seal commitment.


First, by what basis or authority do you define marriage? And by what rationale or authority do you say that your definition of marriage is correct over someone else’s definition of it?

Further, if the only point of a marriage is to seal a commitment, then why not open up marriage to polygamists, bestiality, and three way same-sex marriages, etc.? Such a generalistic and simplistic definition of “marriage” opens the door to an “anything goes” situation.

 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 11:56 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
queerdan

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Sambucan at 5:37 PM on March 3, 2004 :
I would like to get side of people who are pro gay marriage. From my readings, I am seeing the reason for gays getting married is so that they can get the same benefits as the traditional married couple. I understand that and would like for that to happen. However, I still feel man and woman is what makes a marriage possible, and what marriage was created for. Marriage is not to oppress people, but that man and woman can unite, and naturally create life.



So I assume you wouldn't let sterile heterosexuals marry because they cannot naturally create life?

And why does it have to be a man and a woman? if two men can raise a more functional family than a hetero couple that is on drugs/ alcohol/ prostituion/ etc, why should the messed up heteros be allow to marry and not the queers?

All we're asking for is equal status, no more, no less.

Daniel Wright


-------
Check out my homepage at http://www.angelfire.com/nj4/danwright/
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:57 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is your definition lucky girl?   Isn't  marriage like a promise to stay commited?  I meant it as to seal a commitment not multiples.  Polygamy is not the issue being debated.  It isn't the only point.  oh and please pop a midol.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 7:08 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Polygamy is not the issue being debated.


No, polygamy is a part of this issue. The definition of marriage you provided allows for polygamy and the other forms of marriage I mentioned. Now while the pro-homosexual viewpoint dismisses this point as the “slippery slope” argument, the indisputable fact remains that as one broadens the criteria for what is considered marriage, they inevitably allow for more forms of marriage in principle and reality. In other words, it becomes an issue of where to draw the line.

What is your definition lucky girl? Isn't marriage like a promise to stay commited?


The definition that you offered is problematic at best. Two people living together can promise each other that they will stay committed to one another. They do not need to get married to make such a promise or carry that promise out. In addition, the legal or social recognition of two people’s promise to stay committed to one another does not “seal,” or make secure or authenticate, that commitment in any way. It simply recognizes that same basic promise.

Marriage must offer something more substantive and compelling than a simple promise of commitment and its recognition, otherwise marriage is really no different than any promise of commitment outside of marriage. That is my point.

The only basis by which homosexuals lay claim to civil rights, such as legal marriage, is by saying their sexual orientation is involuntary and equating their sexual orientation to race. However, there is no scientific evidence that their sexual orientation is involuntary or fixed biologically. Further, if homosexuality is involuntary, then nobody should be able to change their sexual orientation from being homosexual to heterosexual. But those who are former homosexuals (“ex-gays”) show that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation and the gay community overtly hates them for it. Thus, it is on this basis that homosexuals can be denied legal marriage. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not an inherent state of a person.

oh and please pop a midol.


For someone wanting to talk about tolerance, in this case homosexuality, you are quick to turn around and pop a sexist comment. Isn’t this a bit hypocritical?

 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 2:22 PM on March 12, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But those who are former homosexuals (“ex-gays”) show that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation and the gay community overtly hates them for it. Thus, it is on this basis that homosexuals can be denied legal marriage. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not an inherent state of a person.


Yet, they still have those "cravings" for men/woman as well.  Which would make them bisexual, not heterosexual.  So, we should only grant marriage rights to heterosexuals and bisexuals?  Your argument, as usual, is flawed.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 2:10 PM on March 23, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yet, they still have those "cravings" for men/woman as well. Which would make them bisexual, not heterosexual. So, we should only grant marriage rights to heterosexuals and bisexuals? Your argument, as usual, is flawed.


How do these “cravings” make a person still a homosexual or even bisexual? When a person quits smoking and they have cravings for a cigarette, does that make that person still a smoker? What matters on the ex-gays is that they changed their preference to be primarily heterosexual. What makes the ex-gay still a homosexual is when they continually have “cravings” for the same sex and then act on those “cravings”. So, in other words, cravings are not an indication of a person not changing. It is frequency and action that are the determining factors for determining change.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 4:35 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
BucketAZ

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like, if I may, to present a different approach to this question. Thus far, the whole debate has been 'should gay men and lebsbians have the ability to legally marry?' But underlying this question is the assumption that marriage is desireable. From a gay perspective, is it? True, it comes with its share of convenient tax breaks and privileges, but is it wise to jump into conformity?

Marriage, among other things, is a means of social control that allows the state to condone and privilege certain forms of sex at the expense of others. Monogamous, opposite sexed couples are given greater social support than same-sex couples, couples with non-committed relationships, single parents, etc. It is the institution of marriage that allows the state to give this support. Asking to be married under the law is asking to be part of the privileged at someone else's expense. Even if gay marriage is made legal, people will continue to be oppressed for refusing to conform to what society and the law says is "normal".

Finally, what's the point of being gay if we're just going to play straight? Wasn't the gay movement originally founded on outrage for the system that told us we were sick and perverted for daring to love? Lesbians and gay men were once a driving force for change in America, but we're selling out. And what are we selling out for? A blender and the chance to be "that nice gay couple down the street." Whatever happened to being proud of being fabulously different?

It's funny, actually, that I'm agreeing with the original question of this debate, why, afterall, do gays need to marry?


-------
Normality is scary, but a society obsessed with being normal, now that's terrifying.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 06:08 AM on March 25, 2004 | IP
CommentMan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And why does it have to be a man and a woman? if two men can raise a more functional family than a hetero couple that is on drugs/ alcohol/ prostituion/ etc, why should the messed up heteros be allow to marry and not the queers?


I see you are trying to justify homosexuals by trying to bring down heterosexuals.

Can't beat that logic!
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:29 PM on March 25, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do these “cravings” make a person still a homosexual or even bisexual? When a person quits smoking and they have cravings for a cigarette, does that make that person still a smoker? What matters on the ex-gays is that they changed their preference to be primarily heterosexual. What makes the ex-gay still a homosexual is when they continually have “cravings” for the same sex and then act on those “cravings”. So, in other words, cravings are not an indication of a person not changing. It is frequency and action that are the determining factors for determining change.


Those cravings are the signs that they are indeed still homosexual or at the very least bisexual.  There are homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals.  Most of this data for the "ex-gays" is based on the fact that they do not have sex with the same gender, how many thoughts they have about homosexual behavior and so on.  Just because they do not have sex with the same gender does not automatically make them a heterosexual.  Those feelings "cravings" are still there.  They are not changed.  

You cannot compare this to smoking.  There are only two outcomes there.  You are either a smoker or you are not.  With these so called "changes", there is a middle ground where they have sexual attraction and thoughts to both genders.  That is what is classified as bisexual, not an ex-gay now heterosexual who also has a sexual attraction to the same sex.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 01:47 AM on March 26, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from CommentMan at 11:29 PM on March 25, 2004 :
And why does it have to be a man and a woman? if two men can raise a more functional family than a hetero couple that is on drugs/ alcohol/ prostituion/ etc, why should the messed up heteros be allow to marry and not the queers?


I see you are trying to justify homosexuals by trying to bring down heterosexuals.

Can't beat that logic!


Here is some better logic

Homosexual and Heterosexual families both have the same problems.  These include child neglect, child molestation, abuse, etc...  Both are relationships found on a common trust and understanding with some connection.  Not all marriages are formed upon this.  There is an extremely high number of people under 25 getting married because of teenage pregnancy.  This is also a very high rate of divorce.  In the homosexual community, the spread of STD's are high.

I've covered two grounds here:  The relationships are the same.  They both are formed under the same pretences and have similar outcomes.  Also, they are both able to raise a family.  (Lesbian couples are able to produce children at the same time.  Automatically, without counting in fertility problems, are able to create twice as many as a heterosexual couple who commonly have one child at a time. )

Statistics are also clear on the acceptance of gay marriage.  Right now, I believe, sits around 45%.  This is way up from ten years ago when about no one would think of it.  As this has shown homosexuals have gained respect as more of the nation has become educated on what homosexuality is and gays have defended against the stereotypes.  Now, this number would automatically include some members of religious groups.  There are well over 55% of people who belong to a religous organization or feel strongly with their religion.  So this takes out the religious right argument.  There are many accepting of this.  They may not allow it in their own families, but if it is the choice of another family they are accepting.

So society clearly has become more accepting of the topic, the relationships are formed on the same grounds, and they are both able to raise families.  What is left?  Isn't that what marriage is for?  Oh, I forgot something...the over 1000 federal laws that heterosexual couples are given.  Here lies the problem.  Should everyone in the country subsidize through taxes Gay marriage?  Why not, will the gays not be paying taxes themselves?  Of course they will.  With all of that said, there leaves nothing else to why gays should not be granted the rights of heterosexual couples.

BTW:  Gays can be "married" whenever they feel fit.  They can have their ceremony, reception, honeymoon.  Just because it is not recognized by the government as a marriage, both have made that agreement of unity.  But, they should also be recognized and be granted rights to visit that person they married if she is dying in the hospital and not risk losing their child because the woman dying is the biological mother of that child.

Think about that for a moment.  You are for taking someone's child away from their mother or father, not allowing an individual to visit their partner in the hospital if they are sick, unable to leave anything after you die to your family, but instead is automatically left to the child and if there is no child given to the family.  All of this because you are gay.

And Luckygal, what do you expect the homosexuals to do?  Go out and be converted to join the ranks in order to be married?  There would be millions of depressed and confused zombies walking around.  I would rather have the gays.  This would also deny the rights of homosexuals to be who they are, not who heterosexuals want them to be.

What are you afraid of happening?  That homosexuals will frollick the streets and proclaim their marriage that might offend you?  Or they that are somehow damaging a "sacred" institution?  That was damaged long ago.

One more thing.  Let's get off of this labeling bandwaggon.  Homosexuals want to be recognized as couples and be granted the rights of marriage.  In my opinion, they could care less what you call their union.





(Edited by ffaldo 3/26/2004 at 12:58 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 02:06 AM on March 26, 2004 | IP
LuckyGal

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just because they do not have sex with the same gender does not automatically make them a heterosexual.  Those feelings "cravings" are still there.


As I said before, the issue is not if they have those feelings or "cravings", it is dependent on the frequency of those feelings. If an "ex-gay" only has "cravings" every once in a while, that person can be considered changed. However, if that person has very frequent "cravings", then and only then would I agree with your position that they are not changed.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 02:57 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do they need to be married?  The wolves want to put on sheeps clothing so everyone will take them into the flock so they can begin their campaign to convert the unsuspecting.

Mt 7:15 -"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

2 Tim 3:6-7 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various  impulses,  always learning and never able to come  to the knowledge  of the truth.




-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:55 AM on March 27, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I said before, the issue is not if they have those feelings or "cravings", it is dependent on the frequency of those feelings. If an "ex-gay" only has "cravings" every once in a while, that person can be considered changed. However, if that person has very frequent "cravings", then and only then would I agree with your position that they are not changed.


What constitutes this change?  If the “ex-gay” only had these "cravings" on occasion when he/she was a homosexual, and now has the same frequency of cravings how have they changed.   The data clearly shows that they have cravings and the frequency of those cravings.   They also show how some have very few of these cravings now that they have "changed". However, the data does not show the frequency of the attractions when they “were” gay.  

Why do they need to be married?  The wolves want to put on sheeps clothing so everyone will take them into the flock so they can begin their campaign to convert the unsuspecting.

Mt 7:15 -"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

2 Tim 3:6-7 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various  impulses,  always learning and never able to come  to the knowledge  of the truth


Could you please leave this for the Bible thread.  Religion is not the rightful owner of marriage.  It is something that should be between two people.  I have slightly changed my view since posting here, that marriage should be left to a man/woman.  But the rights of marriage in the law should be granted to any couple who lives in this country.  And a couple is two people.  
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 6:07 PM on March 27, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 6:07 PM on March 27, 2004 : Could you please leave this for the Bible thread.  Religion is not the rightful owner of marriage.  It is something that should be between two people.  I have slightly changed my view since posting here, that marriage should be left to a man/woman.  But the rights of marriage in the law should be granted to any couple who lives in this country.  And a couple is two people.


Funny, according to the Scriptures, God owns everything.

Psalms 24:1-5 The earth  is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas And established it upon the rivers. Who may ascend  into the hill  of the LORD? And who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted  up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn  deceitfully.

Also, the deceitful are the ones that say marriage is for anyone other than a man and a woman.  None of man's unrighteous laws overrules the law of God.  What upsets you is that religion applies to every aspect of life.




-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 01:25 AM on March 29, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny, according to the Scriptures, God owns everything.

Psalms 24:1-5 The earth  is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas And established it upon the rivers. Who may ascend  into the hill  of the LORD? And who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted  up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn  deceitfully.

Also, the deceitful are the ones that say marriage is for anyone other than a man and a woman.  None of man's unrighteous laws overrules the law of God.  What upsets you is that religion applies to every aspect of life.


You have got to be kidding me.  Under YOUR RELIGION God owns everything.  That includes YOU.  Who are you to speak for God.  Because you follow God does not grant you the right to be his judge.  He is the judge.  Your interpretations of the Bible do NOT speak for God.  God is the only one who speaks for himself.  The scriptures were based on God's word, not your interpretations!  However you interpret those ideas are YOUR words, not GOD's.  Not everyone will interpret the words of God in the Bible or any other religious scripture the same.  Thus, to say that you are the one who holds the truth is in fact lying to yourself and to the people in which you try to force their CODE upon.

No part of my life has ever revolved, nor have any of my moral decisions in my life been created out of religion.  Religion is not included in every part of life.  

Also, if you have paid any attention to the words being said, I do not wish for marriage to be between two men or two women.  For a while I did, but now I feel that it should be left only to men and women.  However, the rights of marriage should be granted to everyone.  Also, I never said only homosexuals should be married.  Anyone who thinks that is absurd, and no one on this board has ever proposed such a proposterus idea.  Where did you get this from?  Religion may have been the formal birth of marriage, but the idea of two people who wish to remain partners and bear children has been there since our birth.  This was all before the birth of Relgion.  If God created all of us, in his eyes, he created us BEFORE religion became an aspect of anyone's lives.  It wasn't until people rebelled and created cultures that Religion was born.  Everyone was under the eyes of GOD, not Religion.  Therefore GOD created marriage, not Christianity, Catholicsm, Judaism....etc.

Remember one thing, God is not the law in our country and laws do not revolve around religion.  

"The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature. The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them. What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others." L. William Country

One more thing to continue this religious aspect of the topic, why does one need to be a member of an organized religion.  Faith is between a man and his God.  If you have faith you do not need reassurance from society.  It is up to you, and only you, to have the faith in GOD.  The Bible provides you with the rights and wrongs of life under GOD.  What it does not create is the faith within the higher authority.  One could know the Bible from front to back and still not have full faith in GOD.  Why is that everyone who supposedly has faith, consistently tries to use the words of GOD against others?  Does this in some way reinforce their own faith?  There would be no need to bash others on their faith if you yourself had faith.  Again, God created all of us, not just you.  We are all under God's eye, made from the same Earth, born into the same world...etc.  Who are you, or any organized religion, to tell everyone what should or should not be done.  It is not a political system.  It is up to the individual to find his/her own faith.  They do not reassurance or propaganda to find this faith.

In Christianity it is said to be the duty of the religion to spread the WORDS OF GOD.  People of these organizations have turned this around so that they in turn act as GOD.  They are not bounded by duty to tell people how to live, what to do, who to obey.  They are only bounded by GOD.  You or anyone else for that matter, are not given the right to tell people how to live their lives and view the words of GOD.  You can preach the words of God, but you cannot tell people how to interpret the words of God.

I have fallen victim to this as you can see in the Bible thread.  But I do this because I am not bounded by the Words of God.  I have chosen not to follow these words.  Instead I choose to believe in a GOD without the contract of an organized religion.  Does this mean I will go to hell?  I honestly don't care.  I still have the faith and this is all that matters.  No one can tell me where I will pass on to, only GOD.  

In Matthew 7 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

In Matthew it does grant rights for an individual to Judge another individual.  In return they will too be judged in the same manner.  It does not make their judgment right or wrong, but makes it their best judgment.  It is your perception of someone's misdeeds.  Using your interpretations of God's word does not make it God's judgement.  

Another argument is that members of Christianity are only saying the words of GOD, are preaching the words of God, and not judging.  In fact they are judging.  They are taking the words of God and preaching not his words, but the interpretations of God’s word.  It is only God who knows his own words.  It is not the priests, the pastors, the disciples, etc… The best any man can do is come to a reasonable interpretation and live under these words.  Jesus was a clear example of God's Word.  Jesus led a life without judgment and preached the words of God.  He didn't preach the words of God to bash people's opinions or views of God as so many have done.

I am not one of those who take this passage to mean that no one has the right to judge.  I am with those who beleive everyone has the right to judge what is right and what is wrong.  What we are not granted is the right to be the final and eternal judge of our actions.  You have every right to be judgmental against homosexuality.  But you do not have the right to decide my faith nor my salvation, so please quit doing so.  Do you in fact know God's decision to be against homosexuality?  Has he personally said this.  There are many passages where God has taken action against homosexual behavior, but has God ever come out to say that being homosexual is a Sin.  Until God has spoken these words, no one has the right to say that God condemns homosexuality.  Interpretations of God's words and God's actual words are not the same.

"Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly,  but the proud he knows from afar. Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the anger of my foes, with your right hand you save me. The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me; your love, O LORD , endures forever- do not abandon the works of your hands."  Psalm 138: 6-8

How can you correctly judge me when my purpose has yet to be fullfilled?  

Also, how can you judge me if you yourself are a hypocrite.  Why is your interpretation of God's word more accurate than my interpreation?  Has God told you that your interpretations are best and that everyone who interprets differently are wrong?  God has not told you that homosexuals are to be damned.

From all that I have read from your postings, you seem to act as a messenger of God's word.  However in some ways you have acted upon a higher authority.  You have told us that being homosexual is wrong and that we will be punished for our sins.  God is the only one who knows whether or not we will be punished.  All that you can provide is your interpretation of the scriptures.  All that I can provide is my interpretation of the scriptures.  Who is right and who is wrong?  God is the only one who knows for sure.  In closing, please stop acting as if you are God.  You are not.  Please use God's word for good, not evil or your own agenda.  Use God's word as God's Word, not your words for God.




(Edited by ffaldo 3/30/2004 at 12:32 AM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 7:25 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am glad to trust in God's word since it makes me wiser than many types of people:

Psalms 119: 97-100 MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.  I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.

Second, because I am wiser, I use the TRUTH revealed in the Scripture for protecion:

Psalms 91:4 - He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

So I know that giving homosexuals a "foot in the door" on marriage is to giving them creditbility and respectibility they do not deserve., since God has seen fit to exclude the from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11).  All the agenda of the homosexuals is bring their false teaching into society to make recruits.

Ga 5:9 - A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

Mt 16:12 - Show ContextThen they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Lu 12:1 - Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, He began saying to His disciples first of all, " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Once in the flock, the false teaching of the homsexuals and their supporters will spread throughout the flock like wildfire.  That is their agenda for marriage.

See, wasn't that nice of God to help me figure out the homosexual's agenda?


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:14 AM on March 30, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes it is God's word, but it is your interpretations of God's words that you are using.  GOD's words are GOD's words.  No one else.  

Once again, I am not setting up any propoganda or anything for the homosexual movement.  As you have tried to influence, homosexuals are NOT trying to recruit anyone.  Nor are they trying to take over the world.  You must live in an area where this runs rampid, because this all that you have focused on.  What homosexuals want it tolerance.  The ability to walk the streets freely without being the focus of ridicule.

It is people like you, who use the words of GOD in a negative way.  If anyone can prove to me that GOD personally spoke to them and told them to attack homosexuals, kill homosexuals, prevent homosexuals from living the lives that others live so freely, then I will trust their word. But I will not trust anyone's interpretations of God's word, but mine.  You interpret GOD's words so that it can help you live a free life without much sin, and I too live with my faith in God to live a free life.  I do not need GOD's words to live this life, because I faith in my GOD that I will not be harmed for my actions.  I choose what I feel is right and wrong, without the influence of others (organized religion).

I'm glad that you have finally figured out the homosexual's agenda.  What was it again?  Oh that's right, tolerance and equality.   How horrible.  I'm sorry that I'm having to gang up on you, because I don't mean to, but you have consistently used your interpretations of GOD's words to tell me that it was GOD who told me that he had an undying hatred for me and others.  If GOD was so hateful of homosexuals, wouldn't they be dead, as many have said of Sodomn?  If GOD really wanted every homosexual to suffer, wouldn't they all suffer?  There are many who do live free lives without the ridicule of organized religion.  It is the followers of organized religion that are so hateful of homosexuals not GOD.  They call themselves followers of GOD's word, but yet they have their own agenda.  To interpret GOD's word in a way to make one superior to everyone else.  

I am not pro-homosexual or pro-heterosexual, I'm for equality in both.  I do not wish to change the minds or opinions of others, but I do wish for tolerance of both sides.  Without tolerance we have hatred, which you have clearly shown.  How can someone so faithful, hate millions of people?  If this is the life that you wish to lead, then so be it.  My faith leads me throughout life without being hateful.

You have every right to hate homosexuals.  That it is how YOU view God's words.  However, you have no right to push that view onto everyone else.  This is what causes the "wildfire" of hatred in people.  If one preaches others follow.  They are being told one person's views, thus influencing their views onto others.  Is it not possible for people to think on their own?  Is it possible for everyone to interpret GOD's words so that it fits their lifestyle?  Once again, GOD did not create religion, his people did.  And those people of the organized religion have said that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God.  It is their interpretations of GOD's words that lead them to believe this.  They are scholars and other orders, but their word is not final.  GOD is final.   I will trust GOD, far before I will trust the Bible.  As I have stated, there was no word for homosexual until society created one.  If no word existed, then how can he have said that homosexuals were not to enter?  This was created through the translations.  It is clear, in the views of the Bible, that GOD condemned some homosexual behavior.  But God did not eliminate all homosexuals, his people have.

What I'm trying to get at, is that people should not force their beliefs on anyone.  They should only express their beliefs.  Telling someone that they are wrong or making accusations on your behalf, is not the way to settle problems.  I'm not saying that I've never done this, because I have.  We all have.  But once you consistently do this, it goes beyond an expression.  



(Edited by ffaldo 3/30/2004 at 7:20 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 11:46 AM on March 30, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2004 : Yes it is God's word, but it is your interpretations of God's words that you are using.  GOD's words are GOD's words.  No one else.  

Once again, I am not setting up any propoganda or anything for the homosexual movement.  As you have tried to influence, homosexuals are NOT trying to recruit anyone.  Nor are they trying to take over the world.  You must live in an area where this runs rampid, because this all that you have focused on.  What homosexuals want it tolerance.  The ability to walk the streets freely without being the focus of ridicule.
(Edited by ffaldo 3/30/2004 at 7:20 PM).


God's words?  Yes, but we are to speak and practice God's words.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word  of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not  as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which  also performs its work in you who believe.

Tolerance?  It appears the righteous didn't even want homsexuals (the immoral) in their assemblies?

1 Corinthians 5:9 -13 I wrote you in my letter not  to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters,  for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually,  I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother  if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an  idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Do  you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges.  REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Not trying to recruit?  How can homosexuals (two of the same sex) have children?  They have to recruit.  They have to recruit by new converts (adopting innocent children or babies and corrupting them), recruit the immoral to inseminate the lesbians, and recruit the unsuspecting to let them in the flock.

Prov 1:10-19  My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent.  If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who godown to the pit; We will find all {kinds} of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil;  Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,"  My son, do  not walk in the way with them. Keep  your feet from their path,  For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood.  Indeed, it is useless to spread the {baited} net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives.  So are the ways of everyone who gains  by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors.

Oh yes, you are a recruiter and promoter of their propaganda, to shut people out of the kingdom of heaven.











-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:01 AM on March 31, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not trying to recruit?  How can homosexuals (two of the same sex) have children?  They have to recruit.  They have to recruit by new converts (adopting innocent children or babies and corrupting them), recruit the immoral to inseminate the lesbians, and recruit the unsuspecting to let them in the flock.


How is artificial insemniation immoral only when it happens to lesbians?  It is also immoral for heterosexuals to do the same.  A woman is a woman.  Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to raise a child.

God's words?  Yes, but we are to speak and practice God's words.


Did God tell you this?  Or did God's words tell you this?

h yes, you are a recruiter and promoter of their propaganda, to shut people out of the kingdom of heaven.


I am not shutting anyone out of God's kingdom.  That is God's choice, not mine.

 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 6:00 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, you are helping to shut people out of the kingdom of heaven.  Your words and deeds are contrary to 1 Cor 6:9-11. Your words and actions are contrary to God's words.  God's words are able to judge the thoughts and intentions of your heart.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,  and piercing as far as the division of soul  and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

You have no intention of entering the kingdom and you don't want others to enter either.

Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from  people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

How does the saying go: "Misery loves company."


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 8:34 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who are you to determine my intentions?  You clearly are the one trying to prevent my entering.  In no way will your actions determine my fate.

Also my words and deeds are not contrary to 1 Cor 6: 9-11.  They are only contrary to YOUR interpretation of those words.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 10:36 PM on March 31, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It appears Paul "hit the nail right on the head" when he was talking about the false prophets trying to infiltrate the flock trying to promote their false teachings, such as marriage for homosexuals.  He described their thoughts and intentions perfectly.

2 Timothy 3:1-9  But realize this, that in  the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers  of money, boastful,  arrogant,  revilers,  disobedient  to parents, ungrateful,  unholy,  unloving, irreconcilable, malicious  gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters  of good,  treacherous,  reckless,  conceited,  lovers  of pleasure rather than lovers of God,  holding to a form of godliness,  although they have denied  its power; Avoid  such men as these.  For among them are those who enter  into households and captivate weak  women weighed down with sins, led on by various  impulses,  always learning and never able to come  to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes  and Jambres opposed  Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.  But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's  and Jambres's folly was also.

Yes, Paul was good with nails.

Ec 12:11 - The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of {these} collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:05 AM on April 1, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Phew, that was good to know.  I know that by using your hatred of humans, your "malicous gossips", "unloving", "ungrateful", and "arrogant" remarks, your comments should not be tolerated.  You are trying to break the faith of those who trust in God, to come to believe in your image of God, for you are trying to act like God.  I know that God is the only one who knows Good from Evil.  I know that God will be my only Judge.

I know that God does not allow for man to distinguish from good and evil and he punishes those who try or do.

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Genesis 3: 22-24

I know that God has told us not to distinguish from good and evil.

"Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Also, I still am unclear where homosexuals wanting to form a legal partnership in America is condemned by God.  I see where homosexuals behavior is condemned, but not the justice in a land where God is not used as an authoritarian.  To continue to say that just because your heterosexual and a Christian who follows Jesus Christ you are the only one in the eyes of God who is perfect or close to it, is absurd.

"When it comes down to it, it's a matter of personal faith and feeling toward the analysis of scripture."


(Edited by ffaldo 4/1/2004 at 4:54 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 4:13 PM on April 1, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It appears that David hated those who hated God.  

Psalms 139:21-24 Do I not hate  those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?  I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search  me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts;  And see if there be any hurtful  way in me, And lead me in the everlasting  way.

Homosexuals and the supporters of homosexuals all hate God, since God will not let them into the kingdom of heaven.

Joh 7:7 - "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

Joh 12:25 - "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Joh 15:18 - "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 - "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

1Jo 3:13 - Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.

So who is the real HATE GROUP?  You, the homosexuals and the other supporters of homosexuals.



-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:28 AM on April 2, 2004 | IP
Valerie Martinez

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi all,

The issue of marriage is a difficult one. Of course, anyhone can fall in love and just stay boyfriend and girlfried. But others deeply feel that theywant their lover to be a part of them, to say "he's/she's mine". So that's why marriage happens an important part of life. For homosexulas this is a tough situation because they know that gays aren't allowed to marry in most states because marriage is usually defined as "between a man and a woman." But we must understand that people do want to happy and enjoy life in this world and we shouldn't let ourselves forbid others from enjoying the values of life.

Have a nice day everybody,

Valerie
 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 12:02 PM on April 2, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from unworthy servant at 08:28 AM on April 2, 2004 :
It appears that David hated those who hated God.  

Psalms 139:21-24 Do I not hate  those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?  I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search  me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts;  And see if there be any hurtful  way in me, And lead me in the everlasting  way.

Homosexuals and the supporters of homosexuals all hate God, since God will not let them into the kingdom of heaven.

Joh 7:7 - "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.

Joh 12:25 - "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Joh 15:18 - "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 - "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

1Jo 3:13 - Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.

So who is the real HATE GROUP?  You, the homosexuals and the other supporters of homosexuals.



I could go on and on combatting these allegations, but in order to defend homosexuals within context of our government,
the issue doesn't need religion.

Also, I know that God will allow me in the Kingdom of Heaven because of my faith in him.  I don't need Bible Babble to prove it to me either way.

Valerie, I agree with you.  There is no reason for anyone not to be able to access rights and live free lives.  It is only those who bear the sole rights that get offended.  

 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 8:14 PM on April 2, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 8:14 PM on April 2, 2004 :
I could go on and on combatting these allegations, but in order to defend homosexuals within context of our government,
the issue doesn't need religion. Also, I know that God will allow me in the Kingdom of Heaven because of my faith in him.  I don't need Bible Babble to prove it to me either way.


Really?  It is obviouswhy you are a promoter of the unrighteous homosexuals as you have no intention of entering the kingdom of heaven.  How can one enter the kingdom of heaven when they deny God and Jesus Christ?

Quote from ffaldo at 8:19 PM on April 2, 2004 :
And because I do not follow Christ (No mention of him in the Bible for 30 years!), I will trust only God, not your interpretations, conjectures, and hatred.  My faith has told me that I should not trust people like you who bear nothing but hatred for others who are not 100% the same as you.  


No antichrist will enter the kingdom of heaven.









-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:08 AM on April 3, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't deny God or Jesus Christ.  I never said that.  I should have known you would have taken things completely out of context to support your position.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 11:11 PM on April 3, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 11:11 PM on April 3, 2004 :
I don't deny God or Jesus Christ.  I never said that.  I should have known you would have taken things completely out of context to support your position.


You are the author of your own confusion.  Explain your ramblings.

1Co 14:33 - for God is not a God of confusion  but of peace,  as in all  the churches of the saints.

Quote from ffaldo at 11:09 PM on April 3, 2004 :
I never said I didn't believe in Jesus, I choose not to follow Christianiaty.  The true reason is because of those who follow no religion, but choose to use it to their advantage and spread hatred.


Should be easy to figure out.  Do say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?  Do you believe that Christ died and rose again from the grave?  Or do you believe that Christ was only a prophet of God and not the son of God?  Do you say you are or are not a Christian according to Acts 11:26?

Ac 11:26 - and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Why would a Christian deny the words of an imitator of Christ , Paul, who was teaching that homosexuals were unrighteous and would not enter the kingdom of heaven?  Do you believe that Paul was an antichrist as some falsely believe?



-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 03:46 AM on April 4, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My comments are in the other To marry thread.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 3:30 PM on April 5, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 3:30 PM on April 5, 2004
My comments are in the other To marry thread.


Yeah, the further admission of being an antichrist promoting the homsexuals.

Quote from ffaldo at 3:37 PM on April 5, 2004 :
What on earth are you talking about?  I do believe Jesus was the Christ!  I never said that I didn't.  I said I don't believe the HUMAN Jesus was the Christ, as Christians believe.  I believe in the SPIRIT of Jesus.  I would rather follow someone who was more than a human.






-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 6:26 PM on April 5, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really do not understand your reasoning behind your responses.  There is absolutely no logic.  I have read and read the Bible, and never did I read where Jesus THE HUMAN was to be believed in.  I read numerous times where his SPIRIT and JESUS was to be worshipped.  Jesus is no longer a human, so why follow some literal object that no longer exists.  His spirit exists, and the Bible clearly states this.  

You dig yourself into a hole everytime you mention Biblical verses.  You use them out of context, however not in your interpretation, to support your OPINION.  

Yes Paul may or may not have spoke of homosexuality, but he was an apostle.  He was not Jesus.  He was the founder of Christianity that we in society use today.  They are not God's words, but PAUL's.  Yes, I am going back to those passages that you so closely stick to.  And to use Christianity or Catholicsm to combat gays is hypocrtical.  Do you think many will continue to follow the words of those priests and bishops, who gave in to their sexual desires?  To speak of one evil and to submit to that evil is evidence enough for me of the irrelevancy of the Church in this argument.
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 10:33 PM on April 5, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 10:33 PM on April 5, 2004 :
I really do not understand your reasoning behind your responses.  There is absolutely no logic.  I have read and read the Bible, and never did I read where Jesus THE HUMAN was to be believed in.


It is perfectly logical for those who have the mind of Christ.  You have no desire for the mind of Christ since, you want God and Christ to bow down to you.  That is the same desire of the homosexuals.  That is why the gospel is veiled to you and the homosexuals.

2Co 4:3 - And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,

Why? Because, neither you, an antichrist, nor the homosexuals will enter the kingdom of heaven.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 1:24 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not want anyone, God and Christ, to bow down to me.  I have no need for this, I have no desire to do this, I never have, and never will do this.  You are adding words that were never spoken.  I have faith in God, that is all that I need.  I do believe Jesus was the Son of God.  In human form as a way for humans to relate the words of God in their own lives.  As a person who, like many other Jews, died on the cross to repent EVERYONE's sins.  At least those who TRULY believe in his duty.

Your views are very close to the lines of Hitler, or at the very least the Viennese Christian Social movement.  

"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure." Hitler, Mein Kampf

That is exactly what you are doing on this board.  Religion is the reason for the terrorist attacks.  Religion is responsible for the Holocaust.  And now and most likely soon, religion will be responsible for the death of other innocent humans. It is rather scary to think that people like him and you still exist today.

Homosexuals may not deserve the right of marriage, but the deserve the rights of marriage.  The rights of marriage are something that everyone is responsible for, and to this date is only granted to heterosexuals.  Why?  Because that is the way society is.  One-hundred years ago we would have never heard of the so-called "African-Americans" getting married.  It is going to be a long road, but someday they will have the rights that they are given.

Also, this is probably the fourth time I've asked you this:  Why is it alright to use what homosexuals have helped to provide to you, but then contradict that statement and say they do not deserve rights?  The answer is clear, you will take, but never give back.  You are bounded by your blindness of reality that you are committing sins that the Bible clearly makes wrong.  Solely on your biased and influenced interpretation of the Bible.  And yes, the Bible is open for interpretation, as interpretation is the foundation of ones understanding.  Why do you use laws that homosexuals use?  Why do you use items that homosexuals use?  You bear so much evil hatred within yourself, that you can not see that you are in fact acting and using items that homosexuals use and homosexuals have provided to you.

If homosexuality was such a grave and serious issue, far worse than adultery or fornifaction, why didn't GOD utter those words within the Ten Commandments?  The fact is, no one can prove that GOD or any passage in the Bible forbid homosexuality, the sexual-orientation of a person.  Homosexual behavior is mentioned rarely within the Bible, and is associated with Sodohm on most occasions.  This behavior was consistently used as torture and rape.  The visitors were strangers to their land, and were not welcome.  If someone invaded your property, would you want them to leave?  If they didn't leave would resort to throwing them off?  If so, you have committed the same sins as Soddohmites.  And only until the 20th century was the word HOMOSEXUAL used.  Which you seem to not understand.  

"Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality merely reflect biblical authors' cultural biases and are not among the "essential" messages of the gospel."

"...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative." - Jimmy Creech

The behavioral characteristic of homosexuals existed, but no one was able to describe this without using a homosexual behavior.  When you walk down the street can you tell who is a homosexual and who is not?  I'm sure you could tell if two males were having intercourse.  But can you see into their minds and know their true feelings.  There are many homosexuals who do not give into their sexual temptations in order to keep in with what society has created.

Also, if anyone can come to believe in God, and the teachings of Jesus, as you do, where does the bible tell them that they can only be a heterosexual?  Why does the bible not mention for them to change their sexual orientation and God will forgive them? But provides that right to everyone else, under your view?

1 Cor 6:11 "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

He does not mention homosexuality in the verse before or after?

God treated homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.  You and many many others have turned it around to prevent human rights from all but those who belong to your mind set.

God never condmened David & Jonathan's relationship:

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."  2 Samuel 1:26

In this era, men only had "sexual" love for women.  It was not proper in those biblical times to have a non-sexual relationship.  Like a man merely talking to a women.  So it is clear, the feelings between these two men is the same as two men have today.  LOVE!  Love is love.

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."  1 Samuel 20: 41

Hmmm, homosexual behavior and it is not condemned.  Go figure!

You may feel otherwise, as many do.  But to those without prejudice they realize that their relationship was far greater than a simple friendship.

And yet another mistranslation to skew the views, as you are so familiar with:

Saul clearly recognizes this relationship between David and Jonathon.  In your translation it states:

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."

The translators of the last verse clearly did not get this from the Hebrew version.  

Here is how it is translated:

"Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children"  

Clearly recognizing the relationship between his son and David.  And possibly another reason why he wanted him to perish before the Philistines.

Why again do you feel God condemned homosexuality?  Oh that's right, because the biblical authors mentioned homosexual behavior a few times within the scripture.  I will, as will millions of homosexuals, continue to have faith in God and/or follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Whether or nt they will enter the Kingdom of God, well God never told them that they weren't, so more than likely they will see you in the afterlife!

(Edited by ffaldo 4/6/2004 at 6:38 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 6:34 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ffaldo at 6:34 PM on April 6, 2004 :
I do not want anyone, God and Christ, to bow down to me.  I have no need for this, I have no desire to do this, I never have, and never will do this.  You are adding words that were never spoken.  I have faith in God, that is all that I need.  I do believe Jesus was the Son of God.  In human form as a way for humans to relate the words of God in their own lives.  As a person who, like many other Jews, died on the cross to repent EVERYONE's sins.  At least those who TRULY believe in his duty.


Make up you mind.  I know it is hard for doubleminded people but give it a shot.  James 1:8being a double-minded man, unstable  in all his ways.

Quote from ffaldo at 10:33 PM on April 5, 2004 :
I really do not understand your reasoning behind your responses.  There is absolutely no logic.  I have read and read the Bible, and never did I read where Jesus THE HUMAN was to be believed in.  I read numerous times where his SPIRIT and JESUS was to be worshipped.  Jesus is no longer a human, so why follow some literal object that no longer exists.  His spirit exists, and the Bible clearly states this.


Homosexuals may not deserve the right of marriage, but the deserve the rights of marriage.  The rights of marriage are something that everyone is responsible for, and to this date is only granted to heterosexuals.  Why?


They are unrighteous.

Also, this is probably the fourth time I've asked you this:  Why is it alright to use what homosexuals have helped to provide to you, but then contradict that statement and say they do not deserve rights?


How have the homosexuals contributed to righteousness?

Romans 8     Read This Chapter

8:6For R347 the mind set on the flesh is death, R348 but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

8:7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile R349 toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

8:8and those who are in R350 the flesh cannot please God.





-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:55 AM on April 7, 2004 | IP
spazzer8

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 This topic always seems to come down to religion or peoples sense of morality. What concerns me is that the goverment is taking a specified group and denying them the privelages any citizen should have. The argument that the constitution states that a marriage is of man and woman doesn't fly with me either. When the constitution was made women were not allowed to vote,but that changed. Can't they change it to reflect the times? If we as citizens allow banning of gay marriages then what other rights can the government take from the people? We have to set aside our religious beliefs and moral beliefs to make America balanced. If gay marriages are banned then we are giving the government too much power to take the rights of others.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 4:56 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Lisab

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's see, how about companionship, love, economic reasons, etc. Either way, why do homosexuals need to explain why they want marriage? Do heterosexuals have to go through this?
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 11:35 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
Armaski

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not going to give a big explanation of why.  To break it down:

In the United States of America, we are guaranteed civil rights.  We have our freedoms.  Marriage is a freedom.  There is no effective or good legal claim of why homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.  This is why the Supreme Court over in Massachussets legalized gay marriages.  There was no actual good reason of why they CAN'T be wed.  Plain and simple.


-------
Disagree? Feel free to IM me on AIM at Armaski to discuss it.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:34 PM on June 24, 2004 | IP
sailonsilvergirl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] why, afterall, do gays need to marry?
[/random]

Why does anyone need to marry?  The only REASON that you could possibly give me for "NEED" is religion.  If you believe that you cannot have sex before marriage without going to hell, and you wish to reproduce.  Other than that, there is no "need"

So, I suppose that I, being a heterosexual female who has no desire to have children, has no belief in any god, and has already gone against any christian belief of no sex before marriage, should not be allowed to be married?

No religious mumbo jumbo.  (especially due to the first amendment)  Maybe I shouldn't be allowed a church wedding (not that I'd want one).  Maybe my marriage would not be recognized by any church or by "god"...  

BUT, we should be talking about a LEGALLY recognized marriage.

Why does ANYONE...gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, whatever...why does anyone NEED to have a legally recognized marriage?

Any answer you give will answer the original question "why do gays need to marry"

cellac
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:17 AM on June 29, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.