Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    343

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,382
Hi Colin, You must be feeling better today, have not heard you talk so much during the last six months. lol:.

I wasn't aware that you took such deep notice of my movements on these forums. Combine that with your ad hoc PM's and their strange wording about god, my wife etc. it is getting a bit chilling.

Col
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,382
Welcome back Connor we have missed your contributions, however your quote is from the wrong post as Col who made it has not complained of these people being married, at least not on this thread.

Brian

Nor any other Brian. People can marry cats and dogs for all I care, it's not my problem what they do as long as it doesn't infringe on me.

Plus, I call lots of people freaks, like religious people, clowns, woofters, some magicians etc etc. it's just a saying I use.

Col
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Just trying to go one day at a time. Setting your sights too high tends to blind you or give you dizzy spells. But thanks for the kind intentions..

My Bad--will not happen again to anyone..including Colin...

Hate begets hate just as love begets love and forgiveness begets forgiveness. When the various Christian churches stop vicious public condemnation of the LGBT community then perhaps we can get on track with the idea of loving one's neighbor? Just a wild thought. (See next portion for follow-up.)

Whereas the folks who don't have a choice in their sexual orientation get called Sinners, Perverts, Blasphemers, and other similar names used by the Church doesn't reveal the Religious Right's agenda to deny rights to an afflicted group? (see previous posts on the 1990s PET scan studies, which I take seriously)

You can condemn the Westboro Baptist Church, but in a recent synod (sorry, should that be capitalized?) the Souther Baptists again vowed to always condemn the LGBT folks. It was an AP wire story from about two weeks ago. The Westboro folks are more vocal and more demonstrative, perhaps, but the rest of the Baptists quietly support them by voting the same way. Then you wonder why the LGBT folks get upset when a bunch of virulent yammerheads picket the funerals of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the people of their country? Hatred begets hatred and that sounds like a LOT of hatred to me. You should come to New Orleans (or at least read the news releases) during the Gay Pride celebration known as Decadence Fest. That name was chosen precisely because the gays know how much it will tick off the churches...

I hate no one, please get that through your head........ok


The agenda of the LGBT community (most of them) is not to live in harmony, but rather to remove Christianity as we know it and you are buying into it. oh, well....what will be ...will be...... It has already begun---see various online blogs throughout various cities.

As I said, these people of this church are nothing but haters and do not represent any Christians that I know of, especially not me. The Southern Baptist might not be as you have described. I know, I know it is from the ultra liberal huffington post but here it is... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-groves/is-the-southern-baptist-c_b_6078108.html

As far as the Gay Pride celebration in NO, their name for it causes no one in the Christian world pause. Sorry for the disappointment.........


Since the old phrase "what goes around comes around" appears to be true, it would appear that many on both sides of that particular aisle hate each other. As to the "rapid transition" - I believe that many civil rights cases have returned to that simple yet very true judicial quote: Justice delayed is justice denied.

I'll condense your obviously dense segment about the difference between homosexuality and spinal birth defects. I was contrasting the two situations to point out that they are NOT comparable - because homosexuality is NOT a genetic condition, but rather is a gestational condition...

The Spina Bifida was brought up by another poster, not me. I just expanded on it. Ain't it funny that we have the same gestational condition all over the world. Hum............must be in the water.???????????????????????????????????/

We do not claim that MAN sprang from the ocean. That would be an amphibian of some sort that started the occupation of land. Man came later. However, with that detail corrected, the probability is 1 - because it happened. (That's the nice thing about computing probabilities of this type.) If it didn't happen, the odds are difficult to compute - but if it DID happen, the odds are 1.00 i.e. 100% - a sure bet.

One last thought: The late Will Rogers define the American brand of freedom thusly: Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Well, you get bent out of shape over losing the SCOTUS decision on marriage - but your religious interference denied them their rights to live honestly and without persecution. YOUR fist was in THEIR face on the marriage issue. Don't you SEE that? If you CAN'T see that, then SpikePL's earlier comment is right - logic apparently has no place in a religious discussion.


I think they have already made hash out of Darwinism and the rise of man some years ago but nice try. You say nature made man and I say God made Man and Woman. stalemate no proof on either side: think oneself is God vs faith in a creator. We don't have a lot in common.

You still don't get it. My main concern is that Scotus did this.... Legislate through the bench and not through congress.... They could have simply upheld the constitutional right of each state to decide its own fate..(but lets just throw out the 10th amendment.)..which in actuality, the minds of people in those states were changing slowly but surely....Now.... hearts/minds will be hardened.....To what degree I do not know but they will be hardened.... Now, what is next.......Maybe to save some money we need to get rid of congress and just let the democratic party rule. We don't need elections anymore unless you liberals want to switch leaders??????? Carl Marx would be pleased. This is one of the things I was talking about "be careful what they ask for" p.s. unless I miss my guess, after the 2016 election we will effectively have a perpetual one party system. Is that socialism or communism?

How did religious persecution stop them from getting married in other states that wanted them?
You say I have my fist in their face. If I do it is because they changed the law by being semi-dictators.
Is that what you really want or is this old saying what is really going on.? "It does not matter how you get there and how many people are affected, just so long as you get there". a lot of dictators in the past have had these thoughts.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 04:35
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
18,735
Blade, you are hopeless. You cannot see that the reason your nose gets punched is because by interfering with marriage rights, your nose is in someone else's business. How much clearer can I make it before you understand the terrible truth of religiously-based hatred in the name of the (purportedly) greatest forgiver who ever lived. (Whether He lived or not, the idea of harping on forgiveness as important wasn't wrong, whoever came up with the idea.)

You say I have my fist in their face. If I do it is because they changed the law by being semi-dictators.

Yes? A law that does not affect you because you happen to be heterosexual and would not have taken advantage of the change anyway. TELL ME NOW how that change is a fist in your face. To my way of thinking, it is at most a finger, not the whole fist. I'll let you decide which finger.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Blade, you are hopeless. You cannot see that the reason your nose gets punched is because by interfering with marriage rights, your nose is in someone else's business. How much clearer can I make it before you understand the terrible truth of religiously-based hatred in the name of the (purportedly) greatest forgiver who ever lived. (Whether He lived or not, the idea of harping on forgiveness as important wasn't wrong, whoever came up with the idea.)



Yes? A law that does not affect you because you happen to be heterosexual and would not have taken advantage of the change anyway. TELL ME NOW how that change is a fist in your face. To my way of thinking, it is at most a finger, not the whole fist. I'll let you decide which finger.

Doc.......it is not the marriage that is the problem. It is the law has been changed by judicial legislation, tearing the very fabric of the constitution. Once you tear that away, you will bring about a religious persecution not seen since the 1700s. we are already seeing it.

Had the states that did not allow marriage been allowed to progress normally, Marriage would have eventually been accepted by the majority of the people within these states. The workings of the constitution in action here. However, 6 judges actually tore up the laws made by the states and threw out the 10th amendment. I am sorry you think it is really about Gay marriage. It is about the lawlessness of the judges.

Regardless of what I think or feel about marriages between the LGBT community, The two people are still human beings and deserve the right to be happy. When Jesus returns they like all of us will have to make our case for salvation. Including me...........

.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799


Almost none of this has to do with your rights. Your beliefs aren't tarnished because others are getting married. Are your rights somehow impacted by out of wedlock relations of others? No, same with any other sin others commit.

I'm sure that most gay Christians would be willing to not have their wedding in a church that won't allow them. We aren't talking about cakes here.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I hope we are not getting out of line here trying to keep it civil.

I have no problem with these people getting married. It is in the agenda of the movement that bothers me. The normal couple will get married at the clerks office (by the way,,,this is what my wife and I did as well), and be happy. THen there are some that want a church wedding. This is fine if the Churches decide to marry them. now, the problem will be when they tap a church that says NO,,,then the case of the CAKE becomes apparent. Under the FED Law now, the gov. will remove the churches tax exemption and protections from lawsuits if they still refuse to marry the couple. Lawsuits will then follow for those churches that still resist, the legal cost will bankrupt the church with the government idly watching.

What we have here is because 6 judges by pasted the constitution and threw away the 10th amendment, opened up the door for religious persecution not seen since the late 1700s. If you think not then why is there already a lawsuit filed to do away with all churches tax exemption and lawsuit protections.

If this thing had been handled through the normal channels and allowed to progress naturally, there would have come a time when all states would have permitted gay marriage by way of the people voice. These 6 Judges threw 320 million people voices out the door and now we cannot get it back.


But aren't we all sinners? What makes any other sin worse or better than others? Don't we all keep on sinning?[/QUOE]

This was where I said something about the Gay Christian being an oxi-moron. A gay person knowing that it is against all the teachings of the Bible (Gods Word) yet, believes in Jesus and redemption. I'll leave it at that without debate.

I thought the old testament was trumped by the New Testament according to Christian beliefs. Leviticus has a LOT of ridiculous laws that we don't follow today. Most of the Old Testament does. Why are you singling this one out to believe in?

Was your wife a virgin when you were married? If not, you better stone her to death. Don't forget to invite your friends.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Leviticus is full of laws for the Hebrew people as well as is Deuternomy. There are several scriptures in the New Testament dealing with the same subject.
. Matthew 19:1-8.....Romans 1:18-32 .......several more. Romans scripture deal with the female
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Blade, you are hopeless. You cannot see that the reason your nose gets punched is because by interfering with marriage rights, your nose is in someone else's business. How much clearer can I make it before you understand the terrible truth of religiously-based hatred in the name of the (purportedly) greatest forgiver who ever lived. (Whether He lived or not, the idea of harping on forgiveness as important wasn't wrong, whoever came up with the idea.)



Yes? A law that does not affect you because you happen to be heterosexual and would not have taken advantage of the change anyway. TELL ME NOW how that change is a fist in your face. To my way of thinking, it is at most a finger, not the whole fist. I'll let you decide which finger.

ok,I will bite, what would you have me do??????????????????
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
Thanks for the warm welcoming Brian :)

Don't count me back yet though. BusyBusyBusy!

Just thought I'd check up on the gang.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 21:35
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,172
ok,I will bite, what would you have me do??????????????????

Nothing. Nothing at all, because affording same sex couples the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples has zero effect on you.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 21:35
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,172
It is the law has been changed by judicial legislation, tearing the very fabric of the constitution.

Rubbish. The law has been changed BECAUSE of the Constitution. The majority of the judges found that the Constitution does not allow discrimination of rights on the grounds of sexual preference. Hence existing laws were in conflict with the Constitution.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
For the love of God, Blade, get it through your head:

The "gay agenda", as you insist on calling it, is one thing and one thing only: to be treated like human beings. To have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else.

That's it.

That's the great evil you're opposing: the treatment of LGBT people as if they were real, live humans just as worthy of happiness as you.

***

You should also read the Bible for once in your life before going around calling "one man, one woman" 'Biblical marriage'.

In 2 Samuel 5:13 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 and 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15: "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy 25 requires that a childless married woman whose husband dies is required to marry his brother. No exception is provided in case he is already married - according to Biblical law, they must marry regardless. In Matthew 22, Jesus confirms this, only stating that at the resurrection, there will be no marriage at all.

So this "one man, one woman" thing is purely a law of man, instituted by the Catholic church during the Early Middle Ages, and most emphatically NOT from the Bible.

Now back to lurking.
 
Last edited:

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Rubbish. The law has been changed BECAUSE of the Constitution. The majority of the judges found that the Constitution does not allow discrimination of rights on the grounds of sexual preference. Hence existing laws were in conflict with the Constitution.

Galaxiom........Does the Constitution prevent Gay Marriage??????NO

Does the Constitution allow Gay Marriage ????????NO

Does the Constitution allow any Marriage???????NO

Amendment 10 allows the states to write laws accordingly when the constitution or Federal Laws do not cover.

Question: can any state write a law that prevents a certain people from being served even though it is in the constitution....NO Why because it is covered by Fed. law.

Federal Law. Created by 400+ Congress men and 100 Senators. A voice of the people and by the people. All the people not just 13 million Gay but all 350 million.

What the judges did was 6 of them legislated through the bench and pronounced themselves semi-dictators. There was no law written, nothing...........

No these marriages do not affect me but the tearing down of America brick by brick does. In other words, if TN made a law (any law now) and somebody was not Cooooooomfortable with it, they could take it to a liberal legislating judge and get the law abolished even though the majority of people of the state voted it in. This is pure and simple socialism.

Again, I have not problem with the marriage or the people who are getting married. They have to answer to GOD for it, not me.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
For the love of God, Blade, get it through your head:

The "gay agenda", as you insist on calling it, is one thing and one thing only: to be treated like human beings. To have the same rights and acceptance as everyone else.

That's it.

That's the great evil you're opposing: the treatment of LGBT people as if they were real, live humans just as worthy of happiness as you.

Frothy........again does that include forcing non believers to become part of the wedding, Does it include forcing non-believing churches to allow this type of marriage withing their halls?

Does it include forcing non-believing ministers to partake in the marriage ceremony.

If the answer to these questions is YES>>>>> then we have a big problem in this United States and it is called.....................
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
Frothy.......Matthew 19, 4-6:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Jesus's words in the new testament.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
Frothy........again does that include forcing non believers to become part of the wedding, Does it include forcing non-believing churches to allow this type of marriage withing their halls?

Does it include forcing non-believing ministers to partake in the marriage ceremony.

If the answer to these questions is YES>>>>> then we have a big problem in this United States and it is called.....................

I'm certain that some LGBT people are either so pissed off at religion or so desirous to make a point that they're going to try.

Those attempts will be thrown out of court, as American churches are under no legal obligation to conduct weddings of which they disapprove. The STATE (meaning the courts, in cases of marriage) cannot legally refuse, but churches can. That's part and parcel of Separation of Church and State. In fact, nowhere in Obergefell does it state or even IMPLY that churches must conduct weddings against its own beliefs - if you don't believe me, do what I did and download and read the entire ruling from SCOTUSblog.

Trust me, if a judge were to ever rule that your church MUST marry a gay couple regardless of the church's teachings, I would be just as outraged, but it won't happen. (Well, I can see it happening in one situation: the judge is intentionally trying to force the case to go back to SCOTUS, and doesn't care if he gets removed from the bench.)
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
Frothy.......Matthew 19, 4-6:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Jesus's words in the new testament.

I SO knew you were going there. Luckily, I had already found a rebuttal that I'll just copy and paste here. Also, nice job taking your verses out of context. Leaving off verses 1-3 changes the meaning fairly dramatically. What you are presenting as an argument of one man, one woman is actually an argument against divorce.

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Christians usually mistakenly present the following verses from the Bible to prove that polygamy in the New Testament is not allowed:

Matthew 19:1-12 "1. When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
2. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4. "Haven't you read," he (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?
6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11. Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3. Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife. However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy.

Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman. He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on.... To further prove this point, let us look at the following from the New Testament:

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married). Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy. A man can be one flesh with more than one woman. In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife. Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women, and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

So what about all those verses I quoted earlier showing the Bible approving of polygamy?
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
I SO knew you were going there. Luckily, I had already found a rebuttal that I'll just copy and paste here. Also, nice job taking your verses out of context. Leaving off verses 1-3 changes the meaning fairly dramatically. What you are presenting as an argument of one man, one woman is actually an argument against divorce.



So what about all those verses I quoted earlier showing the Bible approving of polygamy?

no where in there did I see it said man can lay with man or woman can lay with woman.
 

Bladerunner

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
1,799
I'm certain that some LGBT people are either so pissed off at religion or so desirous to make a point that they're going to try.

Those attempts will be thrown out of court, as American churches are under no legal obligation to conduct weddings of which they disapprove. The STATE (meaning the courts, in cases of marriage) cannot legally refuse, but churches can. That's part and parcel of Separation of Church and State. In fact, nowhere in Obergefell does it state or even IMPLY that churches must conduct weddings against its own beliefs - if you don't believe me, do what I did and download and read the entire ruling from SCOTUSblog.

Trust me, if a judge were to ever rule that your church MUST marry a gay couple regardless of the church's teachings, I would be just as outraged, but it won't happen. (Well, I can see it happening in one situation: the judge is intentionally trying to force the case to go back to SCOTUS, and doesn't care if he gets removed from the bench.)
As I stated before there has been another lawsuit that removes the tax exemption and lawsuit protection from Churches here in the US. It is only a matter of time. Now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, what keeps the very liberal scotus to allow this under some ambiguous notion. Nothing NOW..

Regardless of whether you would be mad or not it is too late.


Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,734
I hope we are not getting out of line here trying to keep it civil.

I have no problem with these people getting married. It is in the agenda of the movement that bothers me. The normal couple will get married at the clerks office (by the way,,,this is what my wife and I did as well), and be happy. THen there are some that want a church wedding. This is fine if the Churches decide to marry them. now, the problem will be when they tap a church that says NO,,,then the case of the CAKE becomes apparent. Under the FED Law now, the gov. will remove the churches tax exemption and protections from lawsuits if they still refuse to marry the couple. Lawsuits will then follow for those churches that still resist, the legal cost will bankrupt the church with the government idly watching.

Certainly a civil discussion.

Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly. Do Christians typically go into a Hindu temple to marry? No! But you make it sound as if they did, and were denied, they would be surprised? I think this is nothing more than a convenient excuse to be against gay marriage.

As for the tax exempt status, I won't even go there. When I see multi-million dollar statues outside of churches, it grinds my gears enough.

What we have here is because 6 judges by pasted the constitution and threw away the 10th amendment, opened up the door for religious persecution not seen since the late 1700s. If you think not then why is there already a lawsuit filed to do away with all churches tax exemption and lawsuit protections.

If this thing had been handled through the normal channels and allowed to progress naturally, there would have come a time when all states would have permitted gay marriage by way of the people voice. These 6 Judges threw 320 million people voices out the door and now we cannot get it back.

The point is, the people CANNOT vote for or against something that provides federally recognition and rights that go along with it. These become civil rights at that point. Votes do not matter. This is a 14th amendment issue.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"

If marriage provides federally recognized rights and privileges, no state can pass laws that specifically exclude certain individuals.

This was where I said something about the Gay Christian being an oxi-moron. A gay person knowing that it is against all the teachings of the Bible (Gods Word) yet, believes in Jesus and redemption. I'll leave it at that without debate.

You didn't answer the question. Wouldn't this make any Christian an oxymoron? By your definition, you say being gay is a sin and because it's a sin, you can't be Christian. But, the Bible clearly says all people are sinners. Since all people are sinners, then no one can be Christian?

Leviticus is full of laws for the Hebrew people as well as is Deuternomy. There are several scriptures in the New Testament dealing with the same subject.
. Matthew 19:1-8.....Romans 1:18-32 .......several more. Romans scripture deal with the female

Right, but since you quote that specific passage from Leviticus as a way of stating this is why you are against gay marriage, shouldn't you follow all of it? How do you decide which to follow and which not to? Wouldn't no following all of it be going against God?

I didn't see anything in Matthew 19:1-8 that even sounded like it spoke of marriage, only about divorce between a man and a woman. It didn't state anything about defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. He was answering a specific question with a specific answer. How can this be interpreted any differently. This is like reading a sports magazine that mentions Michael Jordan being a great basketball player and assuming he should be good at all sports.

The Romans passage likewise seems to open-ended. I've seen many different translations of this passage. The one thing I do see is that it sounds more like it's about the acts of unfaithfully going from person to person. I think this is the better interpretation of this passage, moreso, than specifically being against a monogamous couple, regardless of the sexes of the pair. It also doesn't mention marriage in any sense. It seems your interpretation is again one of convenience, and one built upon a specific translation at that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom