Gay marriage

jzeidler

New member
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want. On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.
 

Squeaky

BANNED
Banned
I can show you what He did say.
HOMOSEXUAL

1 Cor 5:9-13
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."
James 1:13-16
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
Gal 5:17
17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.
Gal 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Gal 5:24
24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
1 Pet 2:19
19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.
1 Pet 2:21-22
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
James 4:5
5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?
James 4:7-8
7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Tim 1:8-10
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
Luke 17:28-30
28 "Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
29 "but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 "Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Titus 1:10-11
10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.
2 Pet 2:3
3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(NKJ)
xxxxThis is a revelation I received from the Holy Spirit. Like it or not this is what the bible says. You can look up every verse. Whether your a homosexual or not if you approve of it you could condemn yourself. Homosexuality is a sin.


Rom 14:22
22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
(NKJ)

James 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
(NKJ)


2 Pet 3:9-13
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
(NKJ)

Rom 1:22-32
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
(NKJ)
 

alwight

New member
Gay Marriage doesn't have to mean "holy matrimony".
"Marriage" is simply a word to mean a combining or a joining together not an implied divine contract.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9 KJV)

The context in verses 6-9 explains that God only joins together a man and a woman.
 

Hedshaker

New member
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want. On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.” This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage. It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society. It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity. Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’ If that’s the case in also 'suicidalphobic’ since I disagree with suicide. Do you see the illogical mindset of people who say 'because you disagree with this you’re homophobic’? So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)
 
Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin ;)

What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love.

The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people.

The recognition of heterosexual marriages is a way to promote them because of the benefit they bring to society.

Homosexual marriages don't provide the same benefit that heterosexual marriages do - and therefore shouldn't be promoted as the exact same thing. You only treat two things the same if they are the same - and in this case, they are not the same.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9 KJV)

The context in verses 6-9 explains that God only joins together a man and a woman.
Yeppers.
 

gcthomas

New member
The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society.

Governments never used to regulate marriage, but once they realised they could charge for a licence and also prevent the abuse of women (bigamy, underage girls, etc) they got stuck in. It was never to do with strengthening society or babies or such like, AFAIK.
 

Hedshaker

New member
What basic right are you talking about? The right to love each other and live a life committed to each other?

That right has never been denied.

People can love whoever they want. Being a homosexual is not against the law.

The question you need to ask is why the government would give any special recognition to any relationships. The government isn't interested in love.

The only reason the government started giving recognition to heterosexual governments is because they are a fundamental building block of society. They are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation of people - and they are best equipped to raise that next generation of people.

The recognition of heterosexual marriages is a way to promote them because of the benefit they bring to society.

Homosexual marriages don't provide the same benefit that heterosexual marriages do - and therefore shouldn't be promoted as the exact same thing. You only treat two things the same if they are the same - and in this case, they are not the same.

They are exactly the same, you just don't like it that same sex couples now enjoy the same rights as you regarding marriage. Well tough. Get used to it!
 
In the day of Judgment only God's law/commandments count. Man's law will be meaningless.

"If God doesn't judge America, He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!" - Ruth Graham

Romans 1

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
 
Governments never used to regulate marriage, but once they realised they could charge for a licence and also prevent the abuse of women (bigamy, underage girls, etc) they got stuck in. It was never to do with strengthening society or babies or such like, AFAIK.

Many of the regulations of marriage in the US go back to English Common Law. When Common Law was in force, nobody needed a marriage licence from the state.

Government got involved because marriages were viewed as a type of "small business" entity where the "fruits" of that business were children.

Obviously there were other issues related to these "small businesses" that the state wanted to regulate - such as inheritance or property.

However, most issues related to inheritance or property could be regulated between two parties through other legal contracts.

The government takes special note though when children are involved. For example, a wealthy widow could leave all her inheritance to the pool boy instead of her offspring - even if the government doesn't see this as the best way for her to conduct business.

Children, on the other hand, are regarded in a sense as property of the state. The state can take children from a biological parent if the parent offends state demands. The state is interested above all in the welfare of its future citizens, and the regulation of marriage is a way to ensure the best possible environment for rearing children.
 
They are exactly the same, you just don't like it that same sex couples now enjoy the same rights as you regarding marriage. Well tough. Get used to it!

How are they exactly the same? Because they involve two people?

Is marriage between two cousins the same?
Is marriage between two minors the same?

These may be the same if your only definition of marriage is the joining of two people in love - but the state is not concerned with love primarily.

There are good reasons for not extending all the same benefits to all people. Native Americans receive different tax benefits than I do.

There are reasons why foreign born American citizens are not allowed to be president of the US - and this isn't about denying them rights. A foreign born person is the "same" as a natural born citizen - but not in regards to governmental regulations.
 

Sealeaf

New member
Traditional, Catholic, moral teaching is that marriage is not primarily either a legal nor a sacramental action. Marriage is preformed and made real by the actions and intent of those who participate in it. The Muslim marriage of one man to four women is still a valid marriage. The church witnesses the two persons taking their vows to each other and blesses the union, but is the two persons themselves who preform the wedding. Bluntly, the sacrament of marriage (usually) does not happen in church but in the bed room! It is the sex and the promise of some sort of exclusivity that make it real.

Two people of the same sex can make a valid bond. Most would say they can also have sex.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Well this is an interesting day when a federal government passes a law that the majority didn’t want.
A new law wasn't passed. Rather, the S. Ct., charged with examining the validity of laws in relation to Constitutionally protected right held that homosexuals had the same right to marry as their heterosexual counterparts.

On this historic day I ponder what Jesus would say about this gay-marriage law. First I think he would say that he didn’t come to make America a theocracy so don’t try to make it one. But I firmly believe he would say something along these lines, “I’ll love you despite what you choose to do or who you love. But don’t call a union a marriage that I and my Father don’t call marriage.”
Maybe. He didn't spend any time that I know of commenting on the laws of Rome. So he might not.


This law doesn’t change the simple fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else.
Then there's no point in talking about it and less in this thread. Or, you could recognize there are, as there has been for a very long time in this nation, two distinct contracts here. One with the state and one before God.

You can call a gay relationship a civil union that’s fine, but it’s not a marriage.
It is and it isn't. That is, legally it's as much a marriage as any other. Biblically, no. But then, the S. Ct. didn't rule on the Bible.

It just isn’t. Now if you’re an atheist this law is irrational since gay marriage does nothing for society.
You're wrong. Marriage makes for more stable relationships and happier citizens. That's a plus for the compact.

It doesn’t bring children into the world to bring about the upward evolution of humanity.
Were you under the impression that the infertile were forbidden entrance into the marital estate? We don't even ask people if they plan to have children.

Now there are going to be people who will say to those who disagree with this law that you’re ‘homophobic.’
You might be, but it isn't necessary that someone be homophobic to disagree with the law. You can even object to it morally and find it a necessary step legally.
 
You're wrong. Marriage makes for more stable relationships and happier citizens. That's a plus for the compact.

The government should not be primarily concerned with giving its citizens what makes them happy. That would be an awful standard for what laws are passed.

I don't know why you need governmental recognition in order to have a more stable relationship. If you want to spend the rest of your life with someone then do it because you want to, not because the government smiles upon the relationship.

Even if the government never offered homosexual unions the same recognitions as heterosexual unions - that never should have stopped homosexuals from having a ceremony and pledging their unending love to each other. They could call it marriage if they want, but that doesn't mean the government should promote these unions to the same level that they should promote heterosexual unions.

Were you under the impression that the infertile were forbidden entrance into the marital estate? We don't even ask people if they plan to have children.

Heterosexual marriages are the only unions inherently capable of producing children - by nature. It is because of this that the government should be concerned with promoting these unions above any other friend or uncle or neighbor or sexual or acquaintance relationships.
 
Top