|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 4:51:50 GMT -5
Allowing homosexuals to marry, Bert, is human rights progress
Of course, indications from your numerous posts certainly suggest that you are against human rights for just about everyone except perhaps Christians.
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! T hey won't be bothered about being married will they? Oh, -but you are treating someone who is gay differently than you treat anyone else! Just by the statement they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. They want to be married for the same reason that you or I wanted to be married.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 24, 2015 4:56:20 GMT -5
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! T hey won't be bothered about being married will they? Oh, -but you are treating someone who is gay differently than you treat anyone else! Just by the statement they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. They want to be married for the same reason that you or I wanted to be married.
But why? Because if you believe in God you wouldn't marry because it's wrong in God eyes, and if you don't believe in God you wouldn't marry because marriage is before God and it's in the bible so it wouldn't bother you! I just don't understand!
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 24, 2015 6:05:47 GMT -5
Today Irish voters voted overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage striking a blow against inequality and against those who claim God is on their side on this one. Now one can marry their partner irrespective of what gender they are. No longer can the state insist that gay people can only marry people of the gender they are not attracted to but not marry people of the gender they are attracted to. However one part of the island of Ireland (the North) continues to deny same sex couples the legal right to marry. Here the biggest political party continues to claim, somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality and therefore by denying gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples they are doing the will of God. If God really does oppose same sex marriage then He was clearly not powerful enough to prevent the move to legalise it in that part of Ireland which voted overwhelmingly for it today. Another example of the diminishing power of God or perhaps God really doesn't give a hoot after all? Of course the big question for us is that if a legally married same sex couple attend a 2x2 mission in Ireland next year and feel moved to 'profess' what will the official 2x2 position on this be? Will they be accepted into the 2x2 fold as they are or will they be required to divorce prior to being baptised? Will they be allowed to remain married but required to take a vow of celibacy? Will they be prevented from 'professing' altogether and therefore condemned to a lost eternity? Perhaps this is an issue that 2x2 Workers participating on the board will be best placed to advise upon or, if unable to advise, will be well placed to obtain the views of their Irish co-workers on. Does the 2x2 church have a policy on same sex married couples wanting to profess or will they just make it up as they go along? Matt10 "Somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality". Do you think that God finds it acceptable? Read your Bible and you'll see that God finds it abhorrent. As for God preventing moves to legalise gay marriage, why would He prevent it? There's much He can prevent and doesn't because He gave mankind free will. Diminishing power of God? I'd hate to be the person that thinks that. And of course, there's your spiky little question about same sex couples being welcome in the meetings. If you ever attended the meetings, you'd know the answer. Openly practising gay people will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Married same sex couples will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Of course there are gay people professing in the meetings but they claim not to be practising and if they are secretly, then that's between them and God. Just because the state recognises same sex marriage, churches are not required to follow the ruling. Simple really and I'd have thought you would have known that.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 24, 2015 6:14:07 GMT -5
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! T hey won't be bothered about being married will they? Oh, -but you are treating someone who is gay differently than you treat anyone else! Just by the statement they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. They want to be married for the same reason that you or I wanted to be married.
In Ireland and many other countries there are civil partnerships. This makes a provision for tax, inheritance issues and all the sundry details of marriage between straight people. It also says in article 40 of the Irish constitution that everyone will be treated equally. so why the need to have a vote to allow gay marriage? People in civil partnerships called their contract a marriage anyway but for some reason they want to call it a marriage. They had it all except the word officially.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 24, 2015 6:23:16 GMT -5
1960's Swinging, group and casual sex, living together Ireland 1, God 0 1995 legalising of divorce Ireland 1, God 0 2013 legalizing of abortion Ireland 1, God 0 Coming nextDecriminalizing of narcotics Ireland 1, God 0 Legalization of polygamy, polyamory, polyandry etc.. Ireland 1, God 0 Decriminalizing of child porn. Ireland 1, God 0 Burning or pulling down the churches Ireland 1, God 0 Ireland is on a winning streak.Well, you've got your dates wrong but the general thrust of the post is right. Matt10 and others think its too much of a stretch to allow child pornography and paedophilia but already ages of consent are being lowered and in the UK, there were moves in 2014 to lower the age from 16 to 14. It will happen, but it might take 50 yrs. And in time, The American Psychological Society will have its way and paedophilia will be decriminalised and when this happens, the UK will follow. I don't have a time frame, but when there are moves to have these things made legal, you can be sure their lobbyists will be as aggressive as the gay lobby and it will happen.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on May 24, 2015 6:27:45 GMT -5
since God in the OT did condemn someone who did practice it to death i'd say he was against it. as to why he didn't stop it...free will. however I think God will have the last laugh on judgment day...
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 24, 2015 7:06:16 GMT -5
Allowing homosexuals to marry, Bert, is human rights progress
Of course, indications from your numerous posts certainly suggest that you are against human rights for just about everyone except perhaps Christians.
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! They won't be bothered about being married will they? Maryhig, I'm not knowledgeable about the law in Ireland, but I can tell you that in the USA, marriage is vitally important to many gay people, not because of the religious aspect, or it being in the bible, or being married 'before God,' but rather for the legal benefits. And in the USA, gays had legal domestic partnership and civil unions long before they gained marriage rights at the Federal level and in some States. It's a fact that those arrangements fell far short of full marriage in giving gay couples the same financial and other benefits as married couples. Just two examples: 1) Only by being married can one spouse inherit, tax-free, the entire estate upon the death of the other spouse. That's especially important in our private pension scheme, by which the higher-earning spouse may have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up. Without marriage, that amount could be taxed at 30% or more before passing on to the beneficiary. 2) Our public pension scheme, "Social Security," works much the same way. A surviving married spouse has the right to claim the pension checks of the deceased higher earning spouse. This is especially important where there is a large disparity in income between the two people. So, often, gay people want to get married because the government affords certain financial benefits to married people which are withheld from non-married couples. That's not the only reason, of course. Some may want the 'marriage before God' - others may want it based on what they perceive to be social justice principles, etc. Edited to add: I read yesterday that the Irish law that passed gives gays the right to civil marriage -- but not the right to church marriage. So the "marriage before God" aspect is excluded from the constitutional amendment. Churches have the right to choose whether they will sanctify a gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 24, 2015 7:14:49 GMT -5
Today Irish voters voted overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage striking a blow against inequality and against those who claim God is on their side on this one. Now one can marry their partner irrespective of what gender they are. No longer can the state insist that gay people can only marry people of the gender they are not attracted to but not marry people of the gender they are attracted to. However one part of the island of Ireland (the North) continues to deny same sex couples the legal right to marry. Here the biggest political party continues to claim, somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality and therefore by denying gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples they are doing the will of God. If God really does oppose same sex marriage then He was clearly not powerful enough to prevent the move to legalise it in that part of Ireland which voted overwhelmingly for it today. Another example of the diminishing power of God or perhaps God really doesn't give a hoot after all? Of course the big question for us is that if a legally married same sex couple attend a 2x2 mission in Ireland next year and feel moved to 'profess' what will the official 2x2 position on this be? Will they be accepted into the 2x2 fold as they are or will they be required to divorce prior to being baptised? Will they be allowed to remain married but required to take a vow of celibacy? Will they be prevented from 'professing' altogether and therefore condemned to a lost eternity? Perhaps this is an issue that 2x2 Workers participating on the board will be best placed to advise upon or, if unable to advise, will be well placed to obtain the views of their Irish co-workers on. Does the 2x2 church have a policy on same sex married couples wanting to profess or will they just make it up as they go along? Matt10 1) They would be required to divorce prior to being accepted into the 2x2 fold; certainly prior to being baptised 2) They would not be allowed to remain married under a vow of celibacy; they must "...avoid all appearance of evil..." 3) Yes, they would be prevented from 'professing' altogether, but it's not the not-professing that condemns them; it's the abominable acts they are assumed to be getting up to in the bedroom--or, one shudders to think, in the parlor, kitchen or, god help us all, the garden
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 7:33:23 GMT -5
Emerald quote - "Well, you've got your dates wrong but the general thrust of the post is right. Matt10 and others think its too much of a stretch to allow child pornography and paedophilia but already ages of consent are being lowered and in the UK, there were moves in 2014 to lower the age from 16 to 14. It will happen, but it might take 50 yrs. And in time, The American Psychological Society will have its way and paedophilia will be decriminalised and when this happens, the UK will follow. I don't have a time frame, but when there are moves to have these things made legal, you can be sure their lobbyists will be as aggressive as the gay lobby and it will happen."
I like your point. Well said. Yes, fifty years would be right. One Georgian professor said it took that long for feminism to be acceptable, and fifty years for gays - so fifty years for pedophiles would work. Georgian Legislator tried to sack him - but already that state has begun watering down child porn rules.
And when it comes it will be framed as a "human rights" issue.
And while we are at it. Lots of gays are into "casual sex." Of course this will help redefine marriage too.
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on May 24, 2015 8:53:51 GMT -5
since God in the OT did condemn someone who did practice it to death i'd say he was against it. as to why he didn't stop it...free will. however I think God will have the last laugh on judgment day...
Thankyou for this post! It made me laugh out loud
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on May 24, 2015 8:58:47 GMT -5
Emerald quote - "Well, you've got your dates wrong but the general thrust of the post is right. Matt10 and others think its too much of a stretch to allow child pornography and paedophilia but already ages of consent are being lowered and in the UK, there were moves in 2014 to lower the age from 16 to 14. It will happen, but it might take 50 yrs. And in time, The American Psychological Society will have its way and paedophilia will be decriminalised and when this happens, the UK will follow. I don't have a time frame, but when there are moves to have these things made legal, you can be sure their lobbyists will be as aggressive as the gay lobby and it will happen." I like your point. Well said. Yes, fifty years would be right. One Georgian professor said it took that long for feminism to be acceptable, and fifty years for gays - so fifty years for pedophiles would work. Georgian Legislator tried to sack him - but already that state has begun watering down child porn rules.
And when it comes it will be framed as a "human rights" issue.
And while we are at it. Lots of gays are into "casual sex." Of course this will help redefine marriage too.I don't think that feminism and gay rights are morally equatable with pedophilia and drug use.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 24, 2015 10:44:48 GMT -5
Emerald quote - "Well, you've got your dates wrong but the general thrust of the post is right. Matt10 and others think its too much of a stretch to allow child pornography and paedophilia but already ages of consent are being lowered and in the UK, there were moves in 2014 to lower the age from 16 to 14. It will happen, but it might take 50 yrs. And in time, The American Psychological Society will have its way and paedophilia will be decriminalised and when this happens, the UK will follow. I don't have a time frame, but when there are moves to have these things made legal, you can be sure their lobbyists will be as aggressive as the gay lobby and it will happen." I like your point. Well said. Yes, fifty years would be right. One Georgian professor said it took that long for feminism to be acceptable, and fifty years for gays - so fifty years for pedophiles would work. Georgian Legislator tried to sack him - but already that state has begun watering down child porn rules.
And when it comes it will be framed as a "human rights" issue.
And while we are at it. Lots of gays are into "casual sex." Of course this will help redefine marriage too.I don't think that feminism and gay rights are morally equatable with pedophilia and drug use. Not with today's state-approved or recognised thresholds but who's to say in 50-100 yrs how they'll be viewed? 100 yrs ago people were being thrown into prison for sodomy, just like paedophiles are today.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 24, 2015 12:09:56 GMT -5
Emerald quote - "Well, you've got your dates wrong but the general thrust of the post is right. Matt10 and others think its too much of a stretch to allow child pornography and paedophilia but already ages of consent are being lowered and in the UK, there were moves in 2014 to lower the age from 16 to 14. It will happen, but it might take 50 yrs. And in time, The American Psychological Society will have its way and paedophilia will be decriminalised and when this happens, the UK will follow. I don't have a time frame, but when there are moves to have these things made legal, you can be sure their lobbyists will be as aggressive as the gay lobby and it will happen." I like your point. Well said. Yes, fifty years would be right. One Georgian professor said it took that long for feminism to be acceptable, and fifty years for gays - so fifty years for pedophiles would work. Georgian Legislator tried to sack him - but already that state has begun watering down child porn rules.
And when it comes it will be framed as a "human rights" issue.
And while we are at it. Lots of gays are into "casual sex." Of course this will help redefine marriage too.I don't think that feminism and gay rights are morally equatable with pedophilia and drug use. What Bert and Emerald are saying is, if you are young enough, you will need to eventually (50 yrs?) decide if that is true. Some of us are old enough to remember when things that are to be tolerated or embraced as 'progress' were very much not acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 13:21:39 GMT -5
Oh, -but you are treating someone who is gay differently than you treat anyone else! Just by the statement they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. They want to be married for the same reason that you or I wanted to be married.
In Ireland and many other countries there are civil partnerships. This makes a provision for tax, inheritance issues and all the sundry details of marriage between straight people. It also says in article 40 of the Irish constitution that everyone will be treated equally. so why the need to have a vote to allow gay marriage? People in civil partnerships called their contract a marriage anyway but for some reason they want to call it a marriage. They had it all except the word officially. I think it is worth noting that the people who oppose same sex marriage are often the same people who opposed civil partnerships. If civil partnerships really did mean "they had it all" one can only wonder why so many are so opposed to same sex marriage. It's only a word, isn't it? It is also worth noting that in the North the main political party which opposes same sex marriage is also the same party which opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the party which recently lost a government Minister when he resigned after linking gay marriage with child abuse. It is also worth noting that the linking of same sex marriage and child porn/child abuse is something which some appear to be doing here. He later withdrew his remarks claiming his remarks were as a result of him suffering from stress. I'm not sure if anyone is suffering from stress here. Re article 40 of the Irish constitution you may be aware that it did not protect equality prior to 1993 when homosexuality was a criminal offence in Ireland. You may be aware that senator David Norris took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and still lost in spite of Article 40. There are those who still think it is their duty to decide what other consenting adults are allowed to get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Re the reasons why a referendum was deemed necessary, I'll leave it to the Minister of justice and Equality to explain why in his own words ..... "The clear position arising from case law in Ireland - and there is ample case law to this effect - is that marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman, ideally for life. The Government considers that it would be constitutionally unsound to legislate for marriage between same-sex couples in the absence of a constitutional amendment. On this basis, Government referred the issue of same-sex marriage to the Convention on the Constitution for consideration. The Convention also believed that amendment was necessary, and recommended that a constitutional referendum be held on the issue. Government has accepted the recommendation and intends to hold the necessary referendum in the first half of 2015." I hope to respond to your earlier post in due course. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 24, 2015 13:58:14 GMT -5
In Ireland and many other countries there are civil partnerships. This makes a provision for tax, inheritance issues and all the sundry details of marriage between straight people. It also says in article 40 of the Irish constitution that everyone will be treated equally. so why the need to have a vote to allow gay marriage? People in civil partnerships called their contract a marriage anyway but for some reason they want to call it a marriage. They had it all except the word officially. I think it is worth noting that the people who oppose same sex marriage are often the same people who opposed civil partnerships. If civil partnerships really did mean "they had it all" one can only wonder why so many are so opposed to same sex marriage. It's only a word, isn't it? It is also worth noting that in the North the main political party which opposes same sex marriage is also the same party which opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the party which recently lost a government Minister when he resigned after linking gay marriage with child abuse. It is also worth noting that the linking of same sex marriage and child porn/child abuse is something which some appear to be doing here. He later withdrew his remarks claiming his remarks were as a result of him suffering from stress. I'm not sure if anyone is suffering from stress here. Re article 40 of the Irish constitution you may be aware that it did not protect equality prior to 1993 when homosexuality was a criminal offence in Ireland. You may be aware that senator David Norris took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and still lost in spite of Article 40. There are those who still think it is their duty to decide what other consenting adults are allowed to get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Re the reasons why a referendum was deemed necessary, I'll leave it to the Minister of justice and Equality to explain why in his own words ..... "The clear position arising from case law in Ireland - and there is ample case law to this effect - is that marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman, ideally for life. The Government considers that it would be constitutionally unsound to legislate for marriage between same-sex couples in the absence of a constitutional amendment. On this basis, Government referred the issue of same-sex marriage to the Convention on the Constitution for consideration. The Convention also believed that amendment was necessary, and recommended that a constitutional referendum be held on the issue. Government has accepted the recommendation and intends to hold the necessary referendum in the first half of 2015." I hope to respond to your earlier post in due course. Matt10 I think you're grasping at straws here to try to make justification for your position. I don't know of anyone who opposes civil partnerships, even amongst the most fundamental of my acquaintances. All accept provision must be made for tax and inheritance purposes given they may have had joint mortgages etc. And in spite of what you might think, nobody I know really wants to know what people get up to in their bedrooms, gay or straight. Really, really don't want to know. The problem is, the gay lobby is so aggressive those of us that are opposed to legal recognition of gay marriage feel our dissention is perceived as homophobia and feel we are not entitled to state our conscience view. Your post has reinforced this. I have read through the posts on this thread and see nothing, nothing at all to suggest that anyone is linking gay marriage to pædophilia. Again, you're grasping at straws to try to justify your argument. As for the minister in the North, I don't think he claimed he spoke for the DUP on the issue? He apologised, he resigned. What more do you want, his head on a spike? As for David Norrris, article 40 and equality, I can only conclude that the drafters of the article didn't understand equality. Or maybe they did? As I said, as you said, it's only a word so why kick up about it? Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next move- multi-partner marriage, all of the same gender. If we make a mockery of the institution, we might as well go the whole hog.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on May 24, 2015 17:20:55 GMT -5
Today Irish voters voted overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage striking a blow against inequality and against those who claim God is on their side on this one. Now one can marry their partner irrespective of what gender they are. No longer can the state insist that gay people can only marry people of the gender they are not attracted to but not marry people of the gender they are attracted to. However one part of the island of Ireland (the North) continues to deny same sex couples the legal right to marry. Here the biggest political party continues to claim, somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality and therefore by denying gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples they are doing the will of God. If God really does oppose same sex marriage then He was clearly not powerful enough to prevent the move to legalise it in that part of Ireland which voted overwhelmingly for it today. Another example of the diminishing power of God or perhaps God really doesn't give a hoot after all? Of course the big question for us is that if a legally married same sex couple attend a 2x2 mission in Ireland next year and feel moved to 'profess' what will the official 2x2 position on this be? Will they be accepted into the 2x2 fold as they are or will they be required to divorce prior to being baptised? Will they be allowed to remain married but required to take a vow of celibacy? Will they be prevented from 'professing' altogether and therefore condemned to a lost eternity? Perhaps this is an issue that 2x2 Workers participating on the board will be best placed to advise upon or, if unable to advise, will be well placed to obtain the views of their Irish co-workers on. Does the 2x2 church have a policy on same sex married couples wanting to profess or will they just make it up as they go along? Matt10 1) They would be required to divorce prior to being accepted into the 2x2 fold; certainly prior to being baptised 2) They would not be allowed to remain married under a vow of celibacy; they must "...avoid all appearance of evil..." 3) Yes, they would be prevented from 'professing' altogether, but it's not the not-professing that condemns them; it's the abominable acts they are assumed to be getting up to in the bedroom--or, one shudders to think, in the parlor, kitchen or, god help us all, the garden Recently in a neighboring state a same sex couple was coming to meetings. Not sure what the outcome was...I'm not really in the loop anymore. Eveyone was fairly calm about it, which surprised me. Of course, we don't get many converts in this part of the world! If they did actually profess though, I'm sure your scenario would apply.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 24, 2015 17:36:44 GMT -5
since God in the OT did condemn someone who did practice it to death i'd say he was against it. as to why he didn't stop it...free will. however I think God will have the last laugh on judgment day... I don't think god said anything about marriage to anyone of the same sex or even the same species. You have got to stop being so hung up about people having sex and what they do to whom and who does what and what appendage goes into which orfice and focus on the topic - marriage. It is about much more than having sex.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 24, 2015 17:39:37 GMT -5
Wally, has God changed his mind at all on this topic? only the part about immediate death hes saving that for judgment day... Where did s/he change her/his mind about immediate death? Did I miss a verse? Jesus said the law would stand. Of course he then violated it but, still, forgive and forget even if it is the son of god who did not follow the law of his father.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 24, 2015 17:50:59 GMT -5
Allowing homosexuals to marry, Bert, is human rights progress
Of course, indications from your numerous posts certainly suggest that you are against human rights for just about everyone except perhaps Christians.
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! They won't be bothered about being married will they? Does it say a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman? But the bible does say: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. And we know how Adam and Eve loved from the history of the children they had. A suppose that you could twist this into 'spiritual love' but after the arrival of Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters it would seem that there was an exchange of bodily fluids as well as that spiritual love! I think the discussion is, again, about marriage and not the sexual habits of the people involved. God, it seems, is very concerned with what fits into what and when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 24, 2015 17:53:54 GMT -5
And while we are at it. Lots of gays are into "casual sex." Of course this will help redefine marriage too. From what I have been able to determine there are some heterosexuals that are also into casual sex. Is there any evidence that homosexuals engage in extradyadic sex more than, say, heterosexuals?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 24, 2015 18:12:05 GMT -5
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! They won't be bothered about being married will they? Does it say a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman? But the bible does say: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. And we know how Adam and Eve loved from the history of the children they had. A suppose that you could twist this into 'spiritual love' but after the arrival of Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters it would seem that there was an exchange of bodily fluids as well as that spiritual love! I think the discussion is, again, about marriage and not the sexual habits of the people involved. God, it seems, is very concerned with what fits into what and when it happens. Talk about twisting the scriptures! Ruth loved Naomi like a mother, if you loved your father in law would that make you gay? I love my mother in law, that doesn't make me gay! Their hearts bonded, like Jonathan and Davids did in God! Can you show me the scriptures you're referring to please? As for women with women yes it does say it's wrong! Romans 1:26 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: 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 18:15:41 GMT -5
It might be human rights, but it's not right by God! I'm not against the gay people, but it says in the bible that the act is wrong. I would never treat anyone gay any different to how I would treat anyone else I meet. But it does say in the bible that a man shouldn't sleep with a man and a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman. And if a religion believes in God, then they shouldn't be allowing gay marriage. If people don't believe in God, then fair enough. It doesn't matter to them anyway! They won't be bothered about being married will they? Does it say a woman shouldn't sleep with a woman? But the bible does say: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. And we know how Adam and Eve loved from the history of the children they had. A suppose that you could twist this into 'spiritual love' but after the arrival of Cain, Abel and Seth, plus a minimum of two other sons and two daughters it would seem that there was an exchange of bodily fluids as well as that spiritual love! I think the discussion is, again, about marriage and not the sexual habits of the people involved. God, it seems, is very concerned with what fits into what and when it happens. where does it say that Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 18:20:26 GMT -5
only the part about immediate death hes saving that for judgment day... Where did s/he change her/his mind about immediate death? Did I miss a verse? Jesus said the law would stand. Of course he then violated it but, still, forgive and forget even if it is the son of god who did not follow the law of his father. Jesus abolished the law of sin and death. and quite eloquently when he saved the woman caught in adultery...
Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 18:26:08 GMT -5
I think it is worth noting that the people who oppose same sex marriage are often the same people who opposed civil partnerships. If civil partnerships really did mean "they had it all" one can only wonder why so many are so opposed to same sex marriage. It's only a word, isn't it? It is also worth noting that in the North the main political party which opposes same sex marriage is also the same party which opposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the party which recently lost a government Minister when he resigned after linking gay marriage with child abuse. It is also worth noting that the linking of same sex marriage and child porn/child abuse is something which some appear to be doing here. He later withdrew his remarks claiming his remarks were as a result of him suffering from stress. I'm not sure if anyone is suffering from stress here. Re article 40 of the Irish constitution you may be aware that it did not protect equality prior to 1993 when homosexuality was a criminal offence in Ireland. You may be aware that senator David Norris took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and still lost in spite of Article 40. There are those who still think it is their duty to decide what other consenting adults are allowed to get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Re the reasons why a referendum was deemed necessary, I'll leave it to the Minister of justice and Equality to explain why in his own words ..... "The clear position arising from case law in Ireland - and there is ample case law to this effect - is that marriage is understood as being between one man and one woman, ideally for life. The Government considers that it would be constitutionally unsound to legislate for marriage between same-sex couples in the absence of a constitutional amendment. On this basis, Government referred the issue of same-sex marriage to the Convention on the Constitution for consideration. The Convention also believed that amendment was necessary, and recommended that a constitutional referendum be held on the issue. Government has accepted the recommendation and intends to hold the necessary referendum in the first half of 2015." I hope to respond to your earlier post in due course. Matt10 I think you're grasping at straws here to try to make justification for your position. I don't know of anyone who opposes civil partnerships, even amongst the most fundamental of my acquaintances. All accept provision must be made for tax and inheritance purposes given they may have had joint mortgages etc. And in spite of what you might think, nobody I know really wants to know what people get up to in their bedrooms, gay or straight. Really, really don't want to know. The problem is, the gay lobby is so aggressive those of us that are opposed to legal recognition of gay marriage feel our dissention is perceived as homophobia and feel we are not entitled to state our conscience view. Your post has reinforced this. I have read through the posts on this thread and see nothing, nothing at all to suggest that anyone is linking gay marriage to pædophilia. Again, you're grasping at straws to try to justify your argument. As for the minister in the North, I don't think he claimed he spoke for the DUP on the issue? He apologised, he resigned. What more do you want, his head on a spike? As for David Norrris, article 40 and equality, I can only conclude that the drafters of the article didn't understand equality. Or maybe they did? As I said, as you said, it's only a word so why kick up about it? Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next move- multi-partner marriage, all of the same gender. If we make a mockery of the institution, we might as well go the whole hog. First of all, I'm not sure which position or argument you think I was seeking to justify. I wasn't seeking to provide justification for my position or my argument in my last post but merely responding to the issues you had raised. As to the issue of support for civil partnerships, you may not know anyone opposed to civil partnerships but that doesn't mean such people don't exist. The two main unionist parties in the north were against civil partnerships at the time they were made law in Northern Ireland. Had devolution been in force at the time I suspect they would not be legal now. Anti gay feeling is still around in the north. Here are the views of a candidate running in this months UK election - I don't think she's in favour of civil partnerships. www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/susan-anne-white-wants-gay-people-jailed-adultery-made-illegal-and-rock-bands-outlawed-now-she-wants-your-vote-31133489.htmlAnd here are the views of a current local councillor in the north. I don't think he's in favour of civil partnerships either. www.midulstermail.co.uk/news/local-news/homosexuality-should-not-be-legal-says-magherafelt-councillor-1-6713629I think it's fair to say that both these people WOULD like to decide what consenting adults are allowed to get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms although you may disagree of course. As to the issue of linking gay marriage to child porn/child abuse, I will leave it to others to decide whether any link appears to have been made. You may recall that on a previous same sex marriage thread the issue of child porn was raised by the same person who also raised it here on this thread. If no one is making a link then it seems peculiar to me that it keeps being raised on similar threads. Finally I'm not sure what leads you to make a link to multi partner marriage of the same gender being legislated for. There appears to me to be tactic of arguing against marriage equality on the basis that it leads to other things but with little evidence being put forward to support the argument. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 24, 2015 18:39:13 GMT -5
1) They would be required to divorce prior to being accepted into the 2x2 fold; certainly prior to being baptised 2) They would not be allowed to remain married under a vow of celibacy; they must "...avoid all appearance of evil..." 3) Yes, they would be prevented from 'professing' altogether, but it's not the not-professing that condemns them; it's the abominable acts they are assumed to be getting up to in the bedroom--or, one shudders to think, in the parlor, kitchen or, god help us all, the garden Recently in a neighboring state a same sex couple was coming to meetings. Not sure what the outcome was...I'm not really in the loop anymore. Eveyone was fairly calm about it, which surprised me. Of course, we don't get many converts in this part of the world! If they did actually profess though, I'm sure your scenario would apply. And what part of the world might that be? Hemisphere is okay for starters. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, you could state the continent!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 18:47:08 GMT -5
As I said, as you said, it's only a word so why kick up about it? Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next move- multi-partner marriage, all of the same gender. If we make a mockery of the institution, we might as well go the whole hog. What if folks want to marry their pet? Probably not a hog, but perhaps a dog?
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on May 24, 2015 19:10:24 GMT -5
Recently in a neighboring state a same sex couple was coming to meetings. Not sure what the outcome was...I'm not really in the loop anymore. Eveyone was fairly calm about it, which surprised me. Of course, we don't get many converts in this part of the world! If they did actually profess though, I'm sure your scenario would apply. And what part of the world might that be? Hemisphere is okay for starters. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, you could state the continent! Eastern US.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 24, 2015 19:19:13 GMT -5
And what part of the world might that be? Hemisphere is okay for starters. Or, if you're feeling adventurous, you could state the continent! Eastern US. You're my neighbor! I'm in northern NJ.
|
|