califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I know -- I was mostly speaking to those who see a homosexual child as the "fault" of a parent. Speaking again to the civil rights issue: Declaration of Independence a la Thomas Jefferson: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by Americans. Furthermore, civil rights are guaranteed and should not be put up for a vote. Homosexual marriage is going to become legal and it is going to become legal through the Supreme Court. If our Constitution, and those of the States we live in, cannot provide true equal rights for all our citizens, including those who live in committed same-sex relationships, simply because enough ideologically rigid people choose to "bring it up for a vote," then what do our civil rights really mean? And finally, a nice quote from an article in the Huffington Post: "Denying gay Americans the right to marry is--it must be admitted--a kind of fascism, a form of oppression and control by which individuals blinded by ideology and fear push their repressive agenda onto our otherwise sound political system and demand that the system bend its principles to accommodate their own ignorance. With the right mixture of fear-mongering, religious saber-rattling and conservative funding, you could probably get a referendum passed in this country on denying people who watch public television the right to marry. Shall we bring that up for a vote?" ---------------------- Marriage is between a man and a woman .. That doesn't mean you won't get your wish, as homosexuals have become militant.. And we are at the deterioration of society - as with legalized abortion, etc. God created man and woman - and told them to reproduce.. Not kill their babies .. Not two women to lay together .. not two men to lay together.
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Where does it say that in the declaration and the bill of rights? ------------------- Where does it say - kill your babies .. As I said, "Gays" may get their wish .. But we are reaching the end times as well..
sally4sara Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 limp wrist....check lisp............check highlights....check sitting ladylike....check He no longer walked, he sashayed. He is someone for whom I could make a case for choosing to be gay. Yes I know, he could have been bi and hiding it etc....but he had to learn/train himself to the new mannerisms....seriously...a lisp? He stated that he did not feel gay until he became an adult. Maybe it was California that did it to him.....(that is an attempt at humor) Yeah, the mannerisms thing I feel is an act and choice. I feel that way because I've had gay friends that were very obvious in their mannerisms while having other friends that were gay that I'd have never guessed to be gay. I remember a past landlord who lived in the complex he rented out. I knew both him and his partner, but only thought they were roomies. Till one day, when dropping off the rent check, his roomie bent and kissed him on his way out. My husband also worked for a guy who was ex military and very masculine acting - completely gay as gay can be and says he knew from the age of 5 that he was drawn to men in the way others are drawn to women. One of my gay friends acts flirty with everyone - men and women. Enjoys art depicting the female form and he even likes breasts! But he wants nothing to do with women sexually. He says he knew the first time he kissed a girl at age 12 that what he had really wanted was her twin brother. Prior to the onset of puberty, he had not given much thought to sex at all. The sashaying and lisping is pretty much the same as any other mannerism someone picks up. Saying "like" all the time or "dude" all the time. Or when you see an urban male walking with his hand at his crotch while he gets his stroll on. It is a way to send signals to others rather than a mandatory mannerism that goes hand in hand with being gay.
sally4sara Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Gay marriage will pass in all states. Right now, much money is passed around by both sides and it is profitable to let things go as they have been. But our government stands to see more money via taxation through letting gay couples marry. Any couple that gets married has to make collectively under $88,000 to avoid being penalized in filing married. If they have kids, they can make a bit more and still avoid the penalty. But if two men marry and they collectively make over $88,000 AND have no children (which is most likely to be the case) they will pay MORE in taxes than they did individually. THIS is the reason why, no matter what or who says its wrong, gay marriage will pass nationally. But you conservative folks and religious folks? Well y'all can continue to complain and donate money to your fight all you want. That is what they are all hoping you do in the mean time anyway.......its a game and you're helping them profit from it.
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 It doesn't? Okay. That's what I thought. Have you noticed how any time something reasonable is posted here regarding gay rights or something straight from the Constitution the people in opposition to gay marriage have no response? Direct questions about specifics having to do with equal rights given to all via the Constitution are totally ignored.
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Where do you stand on cooking on the sabbath, eating pork / shellfish, wearing mixed fibres or men shaving their faces? How about killing your children if they disrespect you? I see this form of question a lot. I will answer it as if you were asking because it is something you are actually curious about, and not as it is usually asked, to point out hypocrisy in Christians. I will assume that since you are familiar enough with the bible to ask the question, you also have a similar familiarity with its entirety. #1 That is known as old testament Mosaic Law, falling under the Mosiac Covenant. #2 The Mosaic Covenant is about Isreal and their ownership of the Promised Land. It provided the framework by which Israel was to occupy and live prosperously with God in the Promised Land. The close connection between the covenant and the land is stressed repeatedly in the Book of Deuteronomy. #3 The blessings and curses from the Mosaic Covenant were conditional. In Deuteronomy God informed Israel that obedience to the covenant would bring blessing, but that disobedience to the covenant would bring punishment and curses. Deuteronomy 28 is particularly explicit regarding the conditional nature of the Law. Verses 1–14 list the blessings for Israel if they obeyed the terms of the covenant (the Mosaic Law), and verses 15–68 spell out the terrible consequences for them if they did not obey the terms of the covenant. Also the association of the covenant with the land and the conditional aspect of the covenant blessings are often linked in Deuteronomy (30:15–18 #4 The Mosaic Covenant is no longer a functioning Covenant. The New Testament affirms the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has ceased to function as a valid covenant. Hebrews 8–9 makes it clear that Jesus came as the Mediator of a covenant that replaced the old one. "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete" (Heb. 8:13). Thus the Mosaic Covenant is no longer functional or valid as a covenant. This has important implications for one’s understanding of the Law. The Old Testament Law specified the terms by which Israel could receive blessings in the land under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. If the Old Covenant is no longer valid, how can the laws that make up that covenant still be valid? If the Old Covenant is obsolete, should not also the laws in that Old Covenant be seen as obsolete? Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Key word here is "fulfill" or "to bring to its intended meaning." Jesus was saying that He did not come to sweep away the righteous demands of the Law, but that He came to fulfill its righteous demands. As the climax of this aspect of salvation history, Jesus fulfilled all the righteous demands and all the prophetic foreshadowing of the Law and of the Prophets. In addition Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law and its meaning, as other passages in Mathew indicate. Jesus restated some of the Old Testament laws (19:18–19), but some He modified (5:31–32). Some He intensified (5:21–22, 27–28 ), and others He changed significantly (5:33–37, 38–42, 43–47). Some laws He abrogated entirely (Mark 7:15–19). Jesus was not advocating the continuation of the traditional Jewish approach of adherence to the Law. Nor was He advocating that the Law be dismissed altogether. He was proclaiming that the meaning of the Law must be interpreted in light of His coming and in light of the profound changes introduced by the New Covenant. In conclusion, the Law is tied to the Mosaic Covenant, which is integrally connected to Israel’s life in the land and the conditional promises of blessing related to their living obediently in the land. Christians are not related to that land, nor are they related to the conditions for being blessed in the land. Also the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, having been replaced by the New Covenant. Therefore the Mosaic Law, a critical component of the Old Covenant, is not valid as law over believers in the church of the new testament.
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 ---------------------- Marriage is between a man and a woman .. That doesn't mean you won't get your wish, as homosexuals have become militant.. And we are at the deterioration of society - as with legalized abortion, etc. God created man and woman - and told them to reproduce.. Not kill their babies .. Not two women to lay together .. not two men to lay together. Did you read what I said which you quoted before you made this response? Did you consider equal rights which are protected by the Constitution? Your personal religious beliefs -- and mine -- should not be used to oppress other Americans. I'm a Christian also, but you and I have different views on Christianity methinks. Regardless of that, ALL AMERICANS are covered by this: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " And for what it's worth, you're right "His eye is on the Sparrow" (Luke 12: 6-7) and you, me and all homosexuals. Thank God for the love He affords us because we surely fail at times to extend it to each other.
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I've also noted that questions about bible commands which no one follows are also conspicuously ignored. I always tell people I'm too busy taking the beams out of my own eyes to go around admonishing others. I'm going to have to camp out at the Pearly Gates for weeks explaining my own actions.
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I've also noted that questions about bible commands which no one follows are also conspicuously ignored. HEY!!! I just did that! I would be willing to answer any more as well if you wish.
sally4sara Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Christians have been screwing with the bible's true intent for YEARS! When it comes to gays, however, they crack their bibles and try to use them as reasons to oppress them. Sick. Can you say Californian Mormons? Anyone? Anyone?
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " QUOTE] ------------------ The above also applies to babies - regardless of their status .. or biological name.. Yet their destiny is uncertain - leading to suffering through death .. Prochoice? .. You have your son, and his marrying another young man, will not help..
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness " QUOTE] ------------------ The above also applies to babies - regardless of their status .. or biological name.. Yet their destiny is uncertain - leading to suffering through death .. Prochoice? .. You have your son, and his marrying another young man, will not help.. Yes, thank God I have my son and there will be a big thank you God prayer uttered to the day he is allowed to legally marry. I haven't had an abortion and have clearly expressed my views about it from MY perspective. On the other hand, I also understand there are more people than just me living in the world. I believe in the right for a woman to make a choice and, as I've indicated, hope she would choose not to have an abortion. Here's more food for thought: The Bible is the story of God's love for the world and the people of the world. It tells the history of God's love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering humankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality. In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples. * DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. (Try that nowadays and off to jail you go! You simply cannot throw rocks at non-virgins and kill them. Well, not legally. ) * DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. (Probably about half this board just got stoned. ) * MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. (Rut roh. More trouble for many, many people. Oh wait -- it's legal to get a divorce in America in 2010 isn't it?) * LEVITICUS 18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. (Now that one is simply no fun at all. I actually feel more sensitive during that time and orgasms seems to be more intense.) * MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. * DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. Hopefully most rational people don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And they shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude. Over the centuries the Holy Spirit has taught us that certain Bible verses should not be understood as God's law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just. That's what I think many Christians don't get. The Bible's content in many ways is time specific and related to particular events/situations occurring during that time period. Even given the time period, it's INSANE women were getting stoned or hands cut off, etc. for the above listed "offenses."
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I cannot, for the life of me, fathom what one has to do with the other. Are you trying to say babies are gonna die if Samantha's son marries his gay partner? . ----------------------- If the Declaration Of Independence cannot protect All human life, why should it be used to express hope of marriage for two men, two women...
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 I cannot, for the life of me, fathom what one has to do with the other. Are you trying to say babies are gonna die if Samantha's son marries his gay partner? Stay on topic please. He wants children one day and has no plans to cause the demise of any babies. I hope he's able to marry and have one (or more) of his own. I asked him if he was planning on adopting and he said he was going to talk one of his female friends into being a surrogate for him so the baby will look like him. He'd better have some really good female friends if he's going to be able to convince them to do that. I sure didn't love being pregnant!
sally4sara Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 A birth record is what is needed for someone born in the US to be considered a citizen. Once their citizenship is fact, all constitutional rights are applicable. It is not retroactive. Legally, gays are being denied their rights. LEGALLY. No where in legal proceeding is some god; ANY GOD's wants considered when giving or taking a person's rights. Render unto Ceasar (government or state) that which is Ceaser's. Not render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's only when it coincides with your faith. That means you stay your tongue on matters of the state, practice your faith in your home and seek not to mandate others to practice it in their home. If it didn't mean that, some other faith could come into your home and take down your religious affects and texts and deny you access to them. Your prize for following this is your church is not taxed on its tithe accumulation.
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 There are also bible passages about "jealously observing days, weeks, months" (or something to that effect) and that we shouldn't do that and that people are supposed to honor ONLY the day Jesus died for our sins (the memorial around Easter which, because of Christians INSISTING it be on a Sunday, isn't even celebrated on the correct day). People still celebrate Christmas, which ALSO isn't held on the actual day it should be for what it is intended. This is, again, because of Christians wanting it centered around some sun worship holiday. And nowhere in the bible does it say this is one of those days we should be observing. Birthdays as well. But the Christians are fine with the department stores raking in cash because of them. Christians have been screwing with the bible's true intent for YEARS! When it comes to gays, however, they crack their bibles and try to use them as reasons to oppress them. Sick. I think the scripture you are looking for is in Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elements, to which you desire to be in bondage all over again? 4:10 You observe days, months, seasons, and years. All of Galatians is Paul telling the church in Galatia off for falling back in to the practice of legalism under the Judaizers. (Jewish Christians who thought that belief in Christ was not enough for salvation, but that you must also practice Jewish Old Testament customs.) It is him saying that Jesus is enough, you do not have to do those things. The only ceremony or religious day that I have ever seen in the new testament is communion in 1st Corinthians. 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Now think about it, Samantha. If a woman married her H in the first place he's probably attractive to her. I'm betting the brothers aren't exactly two-baggers in her opinion. You may have a point.
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Yes, thank God I have my son and there will be a big thank you God prayer uttered to the day he is allowed to legally marry. I haven't had an abortion and have clearly expressed my views about it from MY perspective. On the other hand, I also understand there are more people than just me living in the world. I believe in the right for a woman to make a choice and, as I've indicated, hope she would choose not to have an abortion. Here's more food for thought: The Bible is the story of God's love for the world and the people of the world. It tells the history of God's love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering humankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality. In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples. * DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. (Try that nowadays and off to jail you go! You simply cannot throw rocks at non-virgins and kill them. Well, not legally. ) * DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. (Probably about half this board just got stoned. ) * MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. (Rut roh. More trouble for many, many people. Oh wait -- it's legal to get a divorce in America in 2010 isn't it?) * LEVITICUS 18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. (Now that one is simply no fun at all. I actually feel more sensitive during that time and orgasms seems to be more intense.) * MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. * DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. Hopefully most rational people don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And they shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude. Over the centuries the Holy Spirit has taught us that certain Bible verses should not be understood as God's law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just. That's what I think many Christians don't get. The Bible's content in many ways is time specific and related to particular events/situations occurring during that time period. Even given the time period, it's INSANE women were getting stoned or hands cut off, etc. for the above listed "offenses." All of your scriptures fall under the old testament and not the new. Even the MARK 12:18-27 that you quoted was the teachers of the law trying to trip Jesus up with questions about the law so they could discredit, seize or kill him. The law portion of it came from the old testament. See my earlier post as to why the Old Covenant does not apply to New Testament Christians. All of that stuff is based off of the covenant between Israel and God. And you are correct. Divorce is not allowed in the New Testament except for infidelity. Matthew 19 3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,"Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 So are you saying that all these things written in the bible, since they were written eons ago and only for other people, have no meaning today? Gotcha! Indeed. I am saying that the Law under the Old Testament was replaced by the fulfillment of the Law in the coming and crucifixion of Jesus in the New Testament. All of the legalism and rules were replaced by one rule. John 14:6 (New International Version) 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. It is the only rule you have to know.
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 All of your scriptures fall under the old testament and not the new. Even the MARK 12:18-27 that you quoted was the teachers of the law trying to trip Jesus up with questions about the law so they could discredit, seize or kill him. The law portion of it came from the old testament. See my earlier post as to why the Old Covenant does not apply to New Testament Christians. All of that stuff is based off of the covenant between Israel and God. And you are correct. Divorce is not allowed in the New Testament except for infidelity. Matthew 19 3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,"Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." ------------------- Please the post that you have referenced is not mine .. It is Samantha's. God is not mocked. And Christians are not to be complacent.
Namul Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 ------------------- Please the post that you have referenced is not mine .. It is Samantha's. God is not mocked. And Christians are not to be complacent. Not sure why it shows you as being quoted. I guess I quoted her in a reply where she quoted you.
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Not sure why it shows you as being quoted. I guess I quoted her in a reply where she quoted you. ----------------- or maybe there is something wrong with the system .. when I responded to you .. it still showed the incorrect name afterward.. I will try to be more mindful ..
califnan Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 ----------------- or maybe there is something wrong with the system .. when I responded to you .. it still showed the incorrect name afterward.. I will try to be more mindful .. ---------------- Yes the response posts are showing the wrong originater name, somehow..
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) All of your scriptures fall under the old testament and not the new. Even the MARK 12:18-27 that you quoted was the teachers of the law trying to trip Jesus up with questions about the law so they could discredit, seize or kill him. The law portion of it came from the old testament. See my earlier post as to why the Old Covenant does not apply to New Testament Christians. All of that stuff is based off of the covenant between Israel and God. And you are correct. Divorce is not allowed in the New Testament except for infidelity. Matthew 19 3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,"Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Yes, I know and that's partly my point and was directed at those who think their personal interpretation of the Bible is justification that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. As far as I'm concerned, it's a civil rights issue not a religious issue. I was just speaking to those who use the Bible as a tool to oppress homosexuals. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. Even when it is addressed in the New Testament -- and I'm sure you know Jesus does not address homosexuality -- Paul addresses it in a way that is specific to what was going on in specific churches during that time. ROMANS 1:26-27 This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. If you look back 2,000 years, however, and try to understand why from that context/perspective it all becomes clearer. Well, as clear as something can become written that long ago. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble. It takes away from our relationship with God. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. The homosexuals that I know have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex. And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do... their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be. So, being homosexual does not take a person away from God -- or distance their relationship with God any more than being heterosexual would do so. In that same vein, a loving marriage relationship between homosexuals who believe in God would also not damage their relationship to God just as it does not damage a heterosexual married couples relationship with God. The nature of the church Paul was speaking to above was one that was worshipping other Gods, engaging in lurid sexual practices, etc. He was not speaking to a loving married couple relationship -- be it heterosexual or homosexual. PASSAGES 5 AND 6 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10 Other texts some who are declaring homosexuality is a sin like to use.... What do the two texts say about homosexuality? There are two Greek words used -- malaokois and arsenokoitai. Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." Another version says "male prostitutes." As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means. In 1958, it was determined by a translator to mean homosexuals even though there is no word for homosexual in Greek or Hebrew. Tragically, that translator put the word "homosexual" in the English-language Bible for the first time. 1958!!!!!! It is easy to see where human translation, interpretation, etc. can be and probably is fallible. I think Paul was writing to condemn the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose. Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. This passage does not speak to loving homosexual relationships as we know them today. I think we are causing Christian homosexual couples to stumble by not allowing them to marry. Paul's writings have been used to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Goodness knows the Bible is used in the wrong manner and as a sort of "weapon" by many. In the Southern Baptist church they used one verse in the Bible to determine women should not be in a position over men to disallow women from being pastors even though they had already gone to seminary and were serving as pastors. It's so sad and backward. Also -- I also have to admit -- I think some things written by Paul were Paul's opinions. He may have thought homosexuality was unnatural because it was not natural to him. Paul does tell people he speaks to that what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony. That's what people really need to take home. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another. Edited July 15, 2010 by Samantha0905
Samantha0905 Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 ---------------- Yes the response posts are showing the wrong originater name, somehow.. It just made me look like I was having a discussion with myself! It showed what Namul said as my quote and then I responded to it. Too funny.
Recommended Posts