The Bible and gay marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, many of you are ignoring what is coming down the pipe...so let me lay it out for you:

1) Homosexuality will be legally accepted and laws past to outlaw discrimination against gays.

2) Gays will then show up at churches and demand to be accepted into its proceedings.  When they are shown the exit door, they will file a lawsuit.  All they need is to find is a judge who is willing to allow the suit to proceed to trial, and regardless of the verdict, 95% of churches will not being able to afford the cost of a trial (The vast majority of churches are small congregation that scrape by just to keep the doors open).

Example:  Gay couple shows up at a small church.  They sit down in a pew, hold hands and kiss.  The ushers ask them to leave due to their homosexual behavior (just as our church would).  And once they leave, they file a lawsuit claiming discrimination since heterosexuals who held hands and kissed each other were not asked to leave.  They find a judge friendly to their cause, who allows the suit to proceed to trial.  Trial costs, regardless of verdict, force church to close.

Take the above scenario, print it out, tape it to your wall.  It's coming, and VERY SOON!

There's one thing missing in your hypothetical scenario: plausible motivation.  Why on earth would any gay couple do what you suggest?  Said lawsuit would be an expense to the plaintiffs as well, and would not gain them any particular benefit.

[Logical Shunt]

There's one thing missing in your hypothetical scenario: plausible motivation.  Why on earth would any gay couple do what you suggest?

To silence churches preaching against homosexuality. 

---

Said lawsuit would be an expense to the plaintiffs as well, and would not gain them any particular benefit.

it is common practice for a special interest groups to fiance suits on behalf of other people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's one thing missing in your hypothetical scenario: plausible motivation.  Why on earth would any gay couple do what you suggest?

To silence churches preaching against homosexuality. 

---

Said lawsuit would be an expense to the plaintiffs as well, and would not gain them any particular benefit.

it is common practice for a special interest groups to fiance suits on behalf of other people.

Considering that the tactic would not work and would generate considerable backlash, I think you're just being paranoid.  Or maybe hopeful, since in theory such a persecution of Christians could precede the second coming.

[opebo]

Example:  Gay couple shows up at a small church.  They sit down in a pew, hold hands and kiss.  The ushers ask them to leave due to their homosexual behavior (just as our church would).  And once they leave, they file a lawsuit claiming discrimination since heterosexuals who held hands and kissed each other were not asked to leave.  They find a judge friendly to their cause, who allows the suit to proceed to trial.  Trial costs, regardless of verdict, force church to close.

Take the above scenario, print it out, tape it to your wall.  It's coming, and VERY SOON!

Brave boys if it does - being dragged behind a pickup truck seems the most likely outcome...

I think you're frightened of the world changing around you. I feel very sorry for you and hope you find peace.

Who is frightened, the one who attempts to distort the scriptures, or the one who doesn't distort the scriptures?  And our church already has plans to meet without our homes, like the early church did, when the government forces us to close our doors over this issue.  It's no biggie for us, we'll just keep on keepin on.

You have to admit he's got you there aflietch.

By the way, this thread is a very strange sort of joy for me - I don't agree with anything our dear visitor says, nor do we really have much common ground about anything, but the visit fills me with a great joy.  Probably not unlike the resurrection fantasy does for his sort!

[Logical Shunt]

By the way, this thread is a very strange sort of joy for me - I don't agree with anything our dear visitor says, nor do we really have much common ground about anything, but the visit fills me with a great joy.  Probably not unlike the resurrection fantasy does for his sort!

My visit simply reminds you of a time when you weren't such a puss*.











Sorry, bro, I couldn't resist! 

[opebo]

By the way, this thread is a very strange sort of joy for me - I don't agree with anything our dear visitor says, nor do we really have much common ground about anything, but the visit fills me with a great joy.  Probably not unlike the resurrection fantasy does for his sort!

My visit simply reminds you of a time when you weren't such a puss*.

Sorry, bro, I couldn't resist! 

You are exactly right, I regret to say. 

[Logical Shunt]

By the way, this thread is a very strange sort of joy for me - I don't agree with anything our dear visitor says, nor do we really have much common ground about anything, but the visit fills me with a great joy.  Probably not unlike the resurrection fantasy does for his sort!

My visit simply reminds you of a time when you weren't such a puss*.

Sorry, bro, I couldn't resist! 

You are exactly right, I regret to say. 

That's ok, I haven't come back to visit in order to stir up a rebellion against the Empire...I am more freelance, like Hans Solo.

[Blue3]

Also, many of you are ignoring what is coming down the pipe...so let me lay it out for you:

1) Homosexuality will be legally accepted and laws past to outlaw discrimination against gays.

2) Gays will then show up at churches and demand to be accepted into its proceedings.  When they are shown the exit door, they will file a lawsuit.  All they need is to find is a judge who is willing to allow the suit to proceed to trial, and regardless of the verdict, 95% of churches will not being able to afford the cost of a trial (The vast majority of churches are small congregation that scrape by just to keep the doors open).

Example:  Gay couple shows up at a small church.  They sit down in a pew, hold hands and kiss.  The ushers ask them to leave due to their homosexual behavior (just as our church would).  And once they leave, they file a lawsuit claiming discrimination since heterosexuals who held hands and kissed each other were not asked to leave.  They find a judge friendly to their cause, who allows the suit to proceed to trial.  Trial costs, regardless of verdict, force church to close.

Take the above scenario, print it out, tape it to your wall.  It's coming, and VERY SOON!

You know, a Irish church could refuse to marry an Irish man to a French woman on account of ethnicity, right?

You know, a Catholic church could refuse to marry a Catholic man to a Protestant woman, right?

You know, a priest at a predominantly-white church could refuse to marry a white woman to a black man, right?

All these things are still legal... and still happen.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

This thread went off track so fast, my head could spin.

[Logical Shunt]

This thread went off track so fast, my head could spin.

Well, since there is no “but they’re in love” exemption to sexual immorality in the bible, and since there is no acceptable sex outside of marriage, and since marriage in the bible is hetero...where exactly could it go?  

In fact, someone brought up bestiality is supposedly forbidden because the animal is being tortured.  But that is not the case in all instances (e.g. a woman having sex with a horse).  The bible simply tells a woman not to present herself to an animal to have sex, the enjoyment of the animal is not a consideration.  Bestiality is sinful because God didn’t intend for us to have sex with animals, period.  And the restriction predates the Law of Moses, for in the account of Genesis, God declared it was not good for Adam, who was created a sexual being, to be sexually alone, then God presented all the animals to Adam and declared none of them suitable to fill the needs of a man, only then did God make Eve and present her to Adam and then God declared “man will leave his father and mother in order to find a wife to bone...et cetera, et cetera . . . fax mentis incendium gloria culpum, et cetera, et cetera . . . memo bis punitor delicatum!”  

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

This thread went off track so fast, my head could spin.

Well, since there is no “but they’re in love” exemption to sexual immorality in the bible, and since there is no acceptable sex outside of marriage, and since marriage in the bible is hetero...where exactly could it go?

But the fact that Jesus mentions men and women when talking about marriage doesn't mean same-sex relationships are prohibited, especially now when most same-sex relationships are consensual, healthy, and don't connotate pederasty or idolatry.  Also, some scholars believe that there are same-sex couples mentioned in the Bible, such as Ruth and Naomi.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Animals are suitable to fill the needs of men, but certainly not in a sexual context.  Even if the Genesis story were accurate (which it's not, but I'm sure science isn't your strong suit, and therefore I'm not surprised you're using this as an analogy), why would Adam get the same love from animals as he would from another human-being?  This isn't even comparable to same-sex relationships.  Also, animals aren't even capable of feeling sexual tendencies towards humans, so there's absolutely no justification for bestiality.


Here's the bottom line.  No, Jesus does not explicitly condemn bestiality.  However, some moral issues, I believe, are left to common sense.  You know bestiality is wrong because of what the act itself entails, not because the alleged "book of all morality" tells you it's wrong.  Homosexual relationships are nothing like bestiality, nor are they innately immoral, provided that true love is the cog in the machine.  In other words, a relationship between two committed men would be seen more righteously than, say, a relationship between a woman and some pig who likes to boast about his wife's breasts on internet forums.  To conclude that a gay relationship built on love is inferior to a straight relationship built on lust in the eyes of God, to me, is blasphemous.  And if I believed God were really that discriminatory, I would become an atheist.

[Blue3]

Yet Jesus gives a gay Roman man the greatest blessing in the entire Bible, when he breaks every social custom to come to Jesus (a Roman seeking help from a Jew? And not any Jew, but one who is rejected by even the Jewish elite, and who many are fearing could incite rebellion against the Romans) and begs for his male lover to be healed... the gay Roman man's love and faith really moves and strengthens Jesus, and Jesus does not use this as an opportunity to say "I healed you, now repent of your sexually deviant ways". Not at all...

And Jesus said so many OT laws were now "fulfilled," saying that only things that make your heart impure are sins...

And the Bible does say that the distinctions between male and female do not matter to the eyes of the Lord.

[The Mikado]

Yet Jesus gives a gay Roman man the greatest blessing in the entire Bible, when he breaks every social custom to come to Jesus (a Roman seeking help from a Jew? And not any Jew, but one who is rejected by even the Jewish elite, and who many are fearing could incite rebellion against the Romans) and begs for his male lover to be healed... the gay Roman man's love and faith really moves and strengthens Jesus, and Jesus does not use this as an opportunity to say "I healed you, now repent of your sexually deviant ways". Not at all...

And Jesus said so many OT laws were now "fulfilled," saying that only things that make your heart impure are sins...

Where do you get the notion that the Centurion in Luke 7 had a relationship with his ill manservant?

[Blue3]

The original translation is the Greek "pais," which means a lover/concubine/spouse from a lower social ranking... the same word is used to describe Hagar's relationship to Abraham in the NT.

Also, in context, what besides Love could have encouraged a Roman centurion to seek out the Jewish wanderer/teacher/healer who might be plotting to overthrow the Romans?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

And the Bible does say that the distinctions between male and female do not matter to the eyes of the Lord.

That's interesting.  Where does it say this?

[Blue3]

And the Bible does say that the distinctions between male and female do not matter to the eyes of the Lord.

That's interesting.  Where does it say this?

Slightly different from what I remembered, but the same idea:

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Blue3]

No one wants to support or argue what I posted?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

No one wants to support or argue what I posted?

No disagreement here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one wants to support or argue what I posted?

Since I'm not a Paulista, there's not much point in my discussing anything from Galatians.

[Blue3]

The Roman centurion?