|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 19:47:21 GMT -5
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 lik e paedophiles are today. Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand that homosexuality is between consenting adults while a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, children which aren't able to give their consent?
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on May 24, 2015 20:34:45 GMT -5
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 lik e paedophiles are today. Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand that homosexuality is between consenting adults while a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, children which aren't able to give their consent? Because there is no consistent grading of the relative sinfulness of Bible sins, and there is no handy dandy chart in the back of the Bible with which one can convert sinful acts to modern day criminality. Therefore, all "sins" that squick people out are deemed Very Bad Indeed and lumped together, regardless of whether they hurt other people or not, or whether they involve minors or not, or whether they're illegal or not. Which is why I prefer to view the Bible as an inspirational book rather than a legal document.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 24, 2015 21:12:29 GMT -5
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? Just to be sure rational doesn't miss this... inquiring minds want to know!!
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 24, 2015 21:15:11 GMT -5
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 lik e paedophiles are today. Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand that homosexuality is between consenting adults while a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, children which aren't able to give their consent? Ever heard of NAMBLA? The wheels are turning...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 21:19:00 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.So how long before slavery will be legalised? How long before we'll be able to watch prisoners of war fighting to the death in the arena?
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 24, 2015 21:27:29 GMT -5
I really don't think this is a logical conclusion. Indeed one wonders how you could possibly think it was. Matt10 It sounds something like "My father gave me my blue eyes, therefore my father is not dead. Belief in a God has never been based on logic though Bob. It's a heart thing, so I'm told.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 24, 2015 21:34:23 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.I don't think that feminism and gay rights are morally equatable with pedophilia and drug use. No, but it does give us a pretty clear glimpse into Bert's mind.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 21:38:25 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.
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! Why did you want to get married?
Did you only exchange vows before a minister? Didn't you also register with some legal government agency? If you didn't , you aren't legally married and none to the legal rights of marriage apply to you, -no inheritance rights. Your children are even illegitimate .
Many Christians simply do not believe as you do that same sex marriage is "wrong in God eyes!"
We know a lot more about sexuality today than they did in "bible" days.
We know that there is no absolute f/m genders but more of a continuum.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 24, 2015 21:48:08 GMT -5
Here is my theory about why the Hebrews preached it was wrong for men to have sex with men and also to masturbate. The Hebrew tribe was small, surrounded by many powerful enemies. They needed more Hebrews to put it simply. If men weren't making it count then they were not making more Hebrews and that wasn't a good thing. No one said anything about women not lying with women because they couldn't waste anything. It wasn't until the NT that the OT was interpreted as women being with women as wrong too. So the powers that were made it wrong and like the rest of the things they did that were rather unfortunate and horrific, they said God wanted that to be the way it was. God also told them to kill all the men, women, children and animals in war, but keep the virgins. Really? Do you really think God told them that? No more likely than God telling them they couldn't lie with men if they were a man. But like most things, it's pick and choose when it comes to all the things God supposedly says is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 24, 2015 22:03:39 GMT -5
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? I quoted the verse. If you loved your mother-in-law like Adam loved Eve I would suspect it was not as chaste as you are hinting at. It is two women loving each other as the first 'married' couple - Adam and Eve. At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman. You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.1 Samuel 20:30 Sounds like a 'manly' love to me. What was the natural use? What was it changed into? This is far from clear regarding what was and was not OK for the women. I guess it is up to the reader to pick and choose as they wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 22:14:53 GMT -5
the verse you quoted has nothing to do with ruth or Naomi...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 22:34:54 GMT -5
It sounds something like "My father gave me my blue eyes, therefore my father is not dead. Belief in a God has never been based on logic though Bob. It's a heart thing, so I'm told. I'm convinced.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 22:36:38 GMT -5
Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand that homosexuality is between consenting adults while a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, children which aren't able to give their consent? Ever heard of NAMBLA? The wheels are turning... Emy,
What do you know about NAMBLA?
Where did you hear about it?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 22:48:40 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.
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! That doesn't make sense. If a person doesn't believe in God, why would the Bible mean anything to him at all? Anyway, how many Christians get married because the Bible supports marriage?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 22:49:02 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 helpredefine marriage too.So how long before slavery will be legalised? How long before we'll be able to watch prisoners of war fighting to the death in the arena? Yeh, Bert! You and Emerald forgot a couple!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 23:00:11 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 you're missing the reason why gay people want to be "married". It's something like adopting a child and refusing to let him use your family name -- just a reminder that he's not equal, and thus second class. If you think about it, the only reason people don't want it called "marriage" is to assure that they are a different class of human beings.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 24, 2015 23:02:37 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. Emerald, Does it ever occur to you & others who are so against "same sex marriage" that some couples want their union affirmed by their religion's sacred vows just as heterosexual couples do?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 23:14:04 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. You're right. Feminism and gay rights involve consensual adults. Pedophilia cannot be a civil right because it violates the civil rights of children, who do not give consent. Drug use is not really a civil rights issue, except in cases where the government outlaws effective medical use. Otherwise, governments regulate drugs use presumably for the safety of the public who "consumes" them -- but some people haven't figured out yet that the government regulates a lot of drugs for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 23:19:10 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? It won't happen, Wally -- unless someone starts a campaign to accommodate that. In the meantime, most humans (especially Western Christians) have a history of recognizing no rights to animals. Heck, we've only recently in this country recognized that all HUMAN should have some rights. I was especially impressed recently to learn that the Australian government has now recognized that all sentient beings have rights.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 23:23:27 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? None of the homosexuals in my family do.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 24, 2015 23:29:29 GMT -5
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? You have to know biblical euphemisms, Wally. I used to think that "sleeping with someone" was pretty innocent, but then I learned that in English is it a euphemism for something people don't like to say. I had a student one time who still hadn't learned all the normal euphemisms in English, and tried to compliment a female teacher by telling her she was "ripe".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 23:44:59 GMT -5
If you think about it, the only reason people don't want it called "marriage" is to assure that they are a different class of human beings. If two women or two men could be a mother and a father, then they would be the same class of human beings. It would make more sense if civil unions were given the same legal rights and obligations as married couples.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 25, 2015 0:04:25 GMT -5
Poor Wally, - how much strain you must be living under, -trying to sure that you obey all those Old Testament commandments. "Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9)," Do you ever eat any clams, lobster, shrimp or ....?
Do you make sure your clothing isn't a mix of cotton & wool, or flax & silk, or flax & wool and cotton or.....?
Unless you are a farmer of course, -you won't have to worry about harvesting.
You don't understand Dmmichgood. You could say if I have to love my neighbor then I can't eat shellfish. Both, after all, are part of the Law, no? From our websiteIn the OT Jews were bound by the "Law of Moses." This Law (also called a Covenant) was firstly composed of the Commandments, such as the prohibition on murder, stealing and adultery.1 Secondly, there were the Ordinances, such as the Tabernacle, the Holy Days, the Levitical Offerings, and role of the priesthood. And thirdly, there were the Judgements, covering legal issues such as slavery; taxation, divorce and inheritance (with secondary issues such as diet, sanitation, military service and even agricultural practices.) The books of Exodus;2 Deuteronomy3 and Leviticus cover these.So eating shellfish is not a moral commandment, nor do we live under the Ordinances or Judgements of the OT. This shellfish argument is boilerplate stuff for the mockers and scorners of the bible. The bible's subtlety and nuances are lost on such people. OK. So it is only a law. It is still one of the divisions of the commandments.
Lev.11: 46
This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth,
Lev.11: 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten. Do you obey all of them? Why don't you we live under the Ordinancesor Judgements of the OT?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 0:20:49 GMT -5
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! Why did you want to get married?
Did you only exchange vows before a minister? Didn't you also register with some legal government agency? If you didn't , you aren't legally married and none to the legal rights of marriage apply to you, -no inheritance rights. Your children are even illegitimate .
Many Christians simply do not believe as you do that same sex marriage is "wrong in God eyes!"
We know a lot more about sexuality today than they did in "bible" days.
We know that there is no absolute f/m genders but more of a continuum.
Quote Many Christians don't believe same l sex marriage is " wrong before God "............. Then they don't believe in their own bible and God, because it says it clearly in there! Marriage is from the bible! It's a union between a man and a woman before God! So if someone is gay and believes in God, then they wouldn't be fighting for Gay marriage to become legal because God says it's wrong! Also because marriage is from the bible, and it's what God requires us to do, why do atheists marry? If God doesn't exist why marry? Marriage is from God! Why not just update civil laws so that they match marriage laws? I don't have anything material to pass to my children, as my mother doesn't have anything for me, (thank God), the inheritance I have for my children, is Christ in the heart. And the holy spirit from God! That's the inheritance I'll be giving. Money means nothing to me!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 0:35:27 GMT -5
I quoted the verse. If you loved your mother-in-law like Adam loved Eve I would suspect it was not as chaste as you are hinting at. It is two women loving each other as the first 'married' couple - Adam and Eve. At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman. You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.1 Samuel 20:30 Sounds like a 'manly' love to me. What was the natural use? What was it changed into? This is far from clear regarding what was and was not OK for the women. I guess it is up to the reader to pick and choose as they wish. Well you seem to read it like that anyway! But I listen to the spirit of God when I read the bible! Nakedness in the bible means showing up your sins! Or God can see your sins. And as for that verse you wrote in Samuel, I don't know how you've got that to mean anything about being Gay in your mind? So what's this verse on Ruth and Naomi, being in love like Adam and eve? I can't find it? Also if you read what I quoted in that whole text from Romans 1. In the context it's written, and not just pick that bit out. It tells you it's wrong for men and women to sleep with the same sex.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 0:39:25 GMT -5
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! That doesn't make sense. If a person doesn't believe in God, why would the Bible mean anything to him at all? Anyway, how many Christians get married because the Bible supports marriage? Exactly, if a person doesn't believe in a God, why marry at all? As it's biblical! Civil laws should be updated so as not to put atheists through something that is required by God! Because that must be so traumatic for them!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 25, 2015 0:58:29 GMT -5
If you think about it, the only reason people don't want it called "marriage" is to assure that they are a different class of human beings. If two women or two men could be a mother and a father, then they would be the same class of human beings. It would make more sense if civil unions were given the same legal rights and obligations as married couples. If you think producing children is the reason to get "married", why do they give marriage licenses to (1) virgins, (2) 70-year olds, and (3) couples who intend not to have children. Maybe couples shouldn't have their marriage certificate finalized until they can produce a child, just so they can be found worthy of marriage. Married heterosexual couples who either can't or won't produce children - does that make them of a different class? That's your criterion for refusing to call same-sex couples married.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 25, 2015 1:09:30 GMT -5
If two women or two men could be a mother and a father, then they would be the same class of human beings. It would make more sense if civil unions were given the same legal rights and obligations as married couples. If you think producing children is the reason to get "married", why do they give marriage licenses to (1) virgins, (2) 70-year olds, and (3) couples who intend not to have children. Maybe couples shouldn't have their marriage certificate finalized until they can produce a child, just so they can be found worthy of marriage. Married heterosexual couples who either can't or won't produce children - does that make them of a different class? That's your criterion for refusing to call same-sex couples married. From the time the word "marriage" was invented it meant something like: The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship.Are you suggesting there's a good reason to change the meaning of the word "marriage"? Is it time to change the meaning of the word "man" and the meaning of the word "woman" as well?
|
|