Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
SirXcalibur
Newcomer
ANy church that condones homosexual marriage is going totaly agaist what the bible says, which makes it not a real church.
Any real church simply would not marry a gay couple, its just against what the church is based on.
Its not like I am saying its any worse than any other thing than the bible says is wrong, its just something that people should not do.
I mean come on guys, most of here are very logical people, homosexuality doesn't even make sense, its tottaly agaist what is natural. People just shouldn't do it, regardless of what their urges are.
Here's a couple verses. I just looked up @ www.biblegateway.com:
Leviticus 18
21"Do not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
23"A man must never defile himself by having sexual intercourse with an animal, and a woman must never present herself to a male animal in order to have intercourse with it; this is a terrible perversion.
1 Corinthians 6
8But instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your own Christian brothers and sisters.[1]
9Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.
Timothy 1
9But they were not made for people who do what is right. They are for people who are disobedient and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who murder their father or mother or other people. 10These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching 11that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
I am not one to normally preach, but from my perspective allowing gay marriges is a dangerous path to be going down.
I know a lot of you think bible stuff is stupid and thiink church and state should keep seperate but I think the world would be a much much happier and safer place if people just made an effort to follow the basic teachings of the bible. Someone here uses a sig that somes my thoughts up here...
Edit: Ahh here it is, I don't remeber who was using this in their sig but I like it.
- Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil. C. S. Lewis
I don't know why you guys want to like in a world where there is no reason to behave or have any morals. I can't see how that would ever be good.
Any real church simply would not marry a gay couple, its just against what the church is based on.
Its not like I am saying its any worse than any other thing than the bible says is wrong, its just something that people should not do.
I mean come on guys, most of here are very logical people, homosexuality doesn't even make sense, its tottaly agaist what is natural. People just shouldn't do it, regardless of what their urges are.
Here's a couple verses. I just looked up @ www.biblegateway.com:
Leviticus 18
21"Do not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
23"A man must never defile himself by having sexual intercourse with an animal, and a woman must never present herself to a male animal in order to have intercourse with it; this is a terrible perversion.
1 Corinthians 6
8But instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your own Christian brothers and sisters.[1]
9Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.
Timothy 1
9But they were not made for people who do what is right. They are for people who are disobedient and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who murder their father or mother or other people. 10These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching 11that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
I am not one to normally preach, but from my perspective allowing gay marriges is a dangerous path to be going down.
I know a lot of you think bible stuff is stupid and thiink church and state should keep seperate but I think the world would be a much much happier and safer place if people just made an effort to follow the basic teachings of the bible. Someone here uses a sig that somes my thoughts up here...
Edit: Ahh here it is, I don't remeber who was using this in their sig but I like it.
- Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil. C. S. Lewis
I don't know why you guys want to like in a world where there is no reason to behave or have any morals. I can't see how that would ever be good.
You can teach values without religion. We do not need to derive what is right and wrong by being told we will burn in hell otherwise. Besides, every religion has their own idea of what is a sin and what is a punishment.
Instead, I think children should be taught to reason about ethical scenarios and taught the mechanism by which ethics, and justice are reasoned within philosophy.
It is better for a child to question "Why is this wrong" and then follow on to discover the reason himself, then be simply told "this is wrong because god says so." If anything, I would rather want my child to believe something is wrong because *I* told him so instead of some guy writing it down 2000 years ago.
Instead, I think children should be taught to reason about ethical scenarios and taught the mechanism by which ethics, and justice are reasoned within philosophy.
It is better for a child to question "Why is this wrong" and then follow on to discover the reason himself, then be simply told "this is wrong because god says so." If anything, I would rather want my child to believe something is wrong because *I* told him so instead of some guy writing it down 2000 years ago.
Sworkhard said:In Alberta it is not law and will not become law for the next 5 years at lease as Premiere Ralph stated he will use the not withstanding clause to prevent itGay Marriages just won't be accepted in this province.
The feds should have used the notwithstanding clause as well. This is being forced (From the top down.) on society by way of judicial activism. Marriage ought to stay in tune with the natural family as that is what it is intended for regardless of who loves whom. This whole hi-jacking of societies social moral values is being done by a very small but influencial group using charter law. It also lays ground work for more infringments in the future.
All this is a political chess game to see how much the left can brake our traditions and culture using the charter of rights. Sure you will see some gays and lesbians rush off and get married..... but what is the point? Divorce rate is at an all time high marriage as an institution is being eaten alive.
In the future we won't see massive numbers of homosexuals getting married. This whole movement is less of a movement to have the government recognize homosexuals can get married but rather a powerful symbolic gesture.
It may have implications on adoption rights in the future. We all know two grown men can have children .... right? Next political chess move will be to get the courts to sanction adoption rights for homosexuals that are married and forced quotas sighting that so few homosexual couples have adopted children that they should be bumped to the top of the list. In reality homosexuals don't need the government to recognize their union, that wasn't the objective. NAMBLA is loving this oh they will be the first ones in court challenging any adoption laws for homosexuals.
Marriage should have remained exclusive to heterosexuality it is intended for the natural family it always has been always will be.(In reality.) Mother – Father – Children……We all come from the natural family like it or not and it should have been supported as such with unique status within the marriage contract.
SirXcalibur
First off, the bible has been translated through at least 7 different languages over the course of 5000 years. Not to mention all of the additions, subtractions, and differing meanings of words through the centuries, even within the same language.
Gay 100 years ago? Meant happy, exclusively. Today? Means Homosexual, almost exclusively.
If I translate the following sentence, "I ate chicken and fish tonight with the love of my life," into a language such as chinese, it would probably come out to something like "Loving my life, tonight fish ate chicken with I." Now you're going to try and translate from ancient hebrew to ancient greek to ancient latin to old latin to old english to modern latin to modern english? Good luck.
Secondly, you seem to be fond of quoting leviticus. Did you also know that in the book of leviticus it bans the consumption of pork? It also bans women from leaving the household during their period. They have to spend 7 days going through an extensive cleansing ritual.
It also says that if your children talk back to their parents, they should be put to death. So tell me, are you willing to enforce those same restrictions as well? Because as Jesus said, you have to take the *entire* Bible as one. You can't pick and choose what makes you happy and what doesn't.
p.s.: You should know that the bible also was used to support african slavery in this country during the 18th and 19th centuries. There are specific passages that most vividly support slavery, and condemn slaves for rising up against their masters.
But I suppose that doesn't fit with your ideal of "morality" right?
First off, the bible has been translated through at least 7 different languages over the course of 5000 years. Not to mention all of the additions, subtractions, and differing meanings of words through the centuries, even within the same language.
Gay 100 years ago? Meant happy, exclusively. Today? Means Homosexual, almost exclusively.
If I translate the following sentence, "I ate chicken and fish tonight with the love of my life," into a language such as chinese, it would probably come out to something like "Loving my life, tonight fish ate chicken with I." Now you're going to try and translate from ancient hebrew to ancient greek to ancient latin to old latin to old english to modern latin to modern english? Good luck.
Secondly, you seem to be fond of quoting leviticus. Did you also know that in the book of leviticus it bans the consumption of pork? It also bans women from leaving the household during their period. They have to spend 7 days going through an extensive cleansing ritual.
It also says that if your children talk back to their parents, they should be put to death. So tell me, are you willing to enforce those same restrictions as well? Because as Jesus said, you have to take the *entire* Bible as one. You can't pick and choose what makes you happy and what doesn't.
p.s.: You should know that the bible also was used to support african slavery in this country during the 18th and 19th centuries. There are specific passages that most vividly support slavery, and condemn slaves for rising up against their masters.
But I suppose that doesn't fit with your ideal of "morality" right?
SirXcalibur said:
Congratulations. Out of thirty one thousand, one hundred and one (31,101) verses in the Bible you used a search engine to find the three (3) that speak out against homosexuality. Of these, two list homosexuality only as filler in a list of sundry sins; and only one (1) verse bothers to condemn homesexuality directly. This verse is from Leviticus, the book cataloging the law code handed down from God to Moses to govern the Israelites while they wandered in the desert. The same law code that, among other things, forbids the consumption of ham, shrimp and cheeseburgers, forbids a man from coming into contact with a woman for the first week of her period, and sets the death penalty as the proper response to children who don't behave themselves. The same law code that specifies the proper way to preform the numerous required animal sacrifices, the proper behavior when you have a rash (you need to have it seen by a priest), and the holidays that God commands everyone to celebrate (the Jewish holidays of Shabbat, Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, Pesach, and Sukkot). The same law code that, according to all mainstream Christian theology, was overturned by Jesus in the Gospels.
Now, mainstream Christian theology will tell you that only part of that law code was overturned by Jesus (by which they mean everything except, for no particular reason, Leviticus 20), but a fair reading of the passage involved (e.g. Matthew 15) combined with the logic of the Gospels as a whole can just as easily result in none of the law being overturned or all of it being overturned. In any case, it is abundantly clear that, in the eyes of the Bible and particularly a biblical ethics based on Jesus' teachings, homosexuality is an infinitely less important sin than such commonplace, legal, and indeed encouraged activities in present-day society as:
- being rich
- having premarital sex
- wanting to be rich
- not opening your house to poor, dirty, homeless people
- etc.
- not believing in God (biggest sin #1)
- believing in a religion that doesn't worship "the right" God (ambiguous but definitely covers e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.; biggest sin #2)
- saying something like "God Damnit!" (biggest sin #3)
- working or at least not going to worship on Sunday (or whenever you think the Sabbath is; biggest sin #4)
- dissing your parents (biggest sin #5)
Sorry, but our laws and our societal ethics have essentially nothing to do with any Bible-based code of ethics. And it's a God damned good thing, too.
Sabastian said:
Let's paraphrase this from another time. I'll even include your misspellings.
--------------------------
[The end of the Anti-Miscegenation Laws which keep those of different races from intermarrying and sullying god's creation] is being forced (From the top down.) on society by way of judicial activism. Marriage ought to stay in tune with the natural family as that is what it is intended for regardless of who loves whom. This whole hi-jacking of societies social moral values is being done by a very small but influencial group using charter law. It also lays ground work for more infringments in the future.
--------------------------
Don't feel bad Sabastian. There were close minded people before you. And there will be close minded people to follow you. Unfortunately.
Sabastian said:
Can I get some of that fortune telling potion you seem to have? I can tell you right now that if marriage rights were granted to homosexuals in the United States, my partner and I would be one of the first in line.
And I can most certainly say that we'd do better than the 50% of heterosexual marriages that fail in this country. I mean cripes if Liz Taylor can marry 50 billion times, my partner and I should get at least one shot.
Sabastian said:
Right right. Because we all know all homosexuals are pedophiles. Just like all heterosexuals are incestuous and like to have sex with barn yard animals and pets.
A resounding yes! There should be no special status given to someone b/c they sign a document, as opposed to a couple who just live together without the consent of the government.
Natoma, you are quickly going down a slippery slope, by stating that heterosexual marriage and homosexual are special, but other unions (eg multiple partners) shouldn't be granted the same status. Its hypocrasy, in the same skewed sense the bible thumpers think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
One either draws the line with the will of the majority, or you follow the more logical track by just not having any government involvment at all.
Natoma, you are quickly going down a slippery slope, by stating that heterosexual marriage and homosexual are special, but other unions (eg multiple partners) shouldn't be granted the same status. Its hypocrasy, in the same skewed sense the bible thumpers think that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
One either draws the line with the will of the majority, or you follow the more logical track by just not having any government involvment at all.
Fred said:
With the way the system is right now, there most certainly is a slippery slope with regard to polygamy. Frankly I'm not for or against it because I'm not polygamous, nor do I wish to be polygamous. I enjoy my monogamous relationship with my partner greatly.
My earlier post was not meant to infer a dislike of polygamy, but to illustrate the technical/legal issues with it, in our current system.
p.s.: I would be most happy if there were no government involvement in marriage, save to grant the marriage licenses. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
Well, I'm all for getting rid of marriage as an official government thing, and more a private contract,shared property, etc but let's face it, government benefits to marriage today are social engineering for children: it is best to have a child raised by more than one adult, and frankly, since it takes 18 years atleast to raise a child, it is a long term committment. Government is sanctioning it to raise the percentage of people who get married.
There were some studies recently that showed that government policies designed to get inner city fathers to stay with their children not only led to boosting the children out of poverty, but also the kids did better in school.
There were some studies recently that showed that government policies designed to get inner city fathers to stay with their children not only led to boosting the children out of poverty, but also the kids did better in school.
Engaging in homosexuality is not a lesser sin than having premarital sex, and not opening your house to poor, dirty, homeless people is not a lesser sin to engaging in homosexuality.
Also, to commit any mortal sin, you would also fail to believe and love God. So you're breaking the biggest sin #1.
V3 said:
Homosexuality being a sin is certainly mentioned much less often and with much less emphasis than the sins I listed. And, unlike them, a decent argument can be made that its sinfulness was revoked, along with the rest of Leviticus, with Jesus' coming. I know there are justifications for why this is supposed to be the case, but isn't it a bit odd that of all the hundreds of rules set forth in Leviticus, only a few from Leviticus 20 are somehow judged to be still valid, including one (against homosexuality) not mentioned anywhere else?
Now, if you accept as a theological matter that only those particular rules out of all the rules in Leviticus still apply, and further that all sins are equal in that they put one in a state of sin--indeed, that everyone, even newborn infants, is in that state of sin due to the original sin of Adam and Eve--and that the only possible way out of that state of sin is to accept Jesus who will then redeem your sins...well, then, yeah. But that theology is the result of a great deal of interpretation of the Bible over the millenia; it is certainly not clear from or inherent in the text itself. And it definitely doesn't justify SirXcalibur's claim that:
(Of course, nothing could justify spelling like that!)
V3 said:
Again, that's perfectly valid as a theological matter. But it has absolutely no bearing on public policy in a non-theocratic state.
If it mentioned less often doesn't mean that it is a lesser sin. It's probably doesn't happend that often, ie not many are doing it. So the emphasis are the ones that are more common. But regardless its there, and its there to be obey. And all mortal sins can get you eternity in hell, so they're dangerous.
You can't revoked the sinfulness of those sin stated in Leviticus. Christ gives the forgiveness of sin, that is the punishment associated with those sins, Christ took them on himself, when Christ was tortured and died on the Cross, so we can be saved.
So if, you curses your parents, you aren't stoned to death and go to hell for your sin. You can ask for forgiveness from Christ, because Christ took the punishment for you. But it doesn't revoked the sinfulness of cursing your parents. The same with engaging in homosexual acts and committing other mortal sins.
In Leviticus, there are sacrificial rites for animal and cereal, that are replaced by the best offering, the lamb of God.
Leviticus also deals alot with hygine, and we should still observe those. Again you also have to remember the conditions that the people live at the time and their level of sophistication. So our society today probably have higher hygine than in those days.
And Leviticus deals with moral issues, again with coming of Christ the standard is actually raised. You are committing adultry just by having lustful thoughts. So engaging in homosexual act or other act of perversion are mortal sin.
So, I don't know how theology revoked the sinfullness of the sin in Leviticus. You don't pick and choose as you like, that's for sure.
No, what SirXcalibur claims is on the spot. Any Church that condones homosexual marriage is going against what the Bible says. It also goes against the early Church, when the Bible doesn't exist.
Natoma said:Sabastian said:
Let's paraphrase this from another time. I'll even include your misspellings.
--------------------------
[The end of the Anti-Miscegenation Laws which keep those of different races from intermarrying and sullying god's creation] *snip*
--------------------------
Don't feel bad Sabastian. There were close minded people before you. And there will be close minded people to follow you. Unfortunately.
Heh, never have I made any such a reference to equating two different races becoming married to homosexual marriage. Never have I used any reference to "sullying god’s creation". Even a cheap shot with regards to spellings.
I don’t equate homosexuality (something that is chosen.) to an inherited genetic characteristic such as being white or black or male or female. Stop trying to equate homosexuality (action) with something that people are born with absolutely. People differentiate from one another everyday based on the actions of others.
What is closed minded is too assume that homosexual marriage is absolutely right and good despite the fact that they choose to define themselves based on how they behave in their bedrooms. Despite the natural family. Mother – Father – Children…..
This left wing egalitarian garbage looks to really apply equality in a biblical sense I see. Funny they just spent the last half a century to dissemble the church and societies moral values using garbage science like relativism, looks like all the while what they really wanted to do was supplant it as the moral authority.
Natoma said:
Sure, you will. I don’t really give a dam personally if you love your boyfriend or not, I love my mother, but is that grounds for us to get married? In twenty years time you it is more then likely that you left your boyfriend for another without any real reason to stay with him as their won’t be any offspring to nurture or provide for.. unless you adopt. (NAMBLA is rooting for you.)
Homosexual males BTW are the most sexually active group and most likely to be unfaithful, better keep an eye on that boyfriend of yours, hopefully he doesn’t bring home AIDS or some other related gay bowel syndrome disease.
Natoma said:
I don’t and am not commending multiple marriages, never have. But if you think for a second that gays will somehow be magically more likely to stay together for the rest of their lives you are dreaming. I don’t look to Hollywood for my morals, unfortunately though much of North America does.
Natoma said:Sabastian said:
Right right. Because we all know all homosexuals are pedophiles. Just like all heterosexuals are incestuous and like to have sex with barn yard animals and pets.
NAMBLA is by its definition homosexual.
The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm
Never mind that in 1972 the gay rights plateform called for homosexuals to be teachers of sex education.
Homosexuals also called for all laws regarding age of consent to be dropped.
Homosexuals in the same article called for changes to adoption laws and homosexuals.
Homosexuals also called for changes to the number of persons that may enter into a marriage contract. Funny that, these are the next discriminated peoples to make charges in court against the state based on the same arguments that homosexuals have made.
[sarcasm]What is to stop say me and my sister from getting married? I mean after all the only thing wrong with it is genetic flaws in potential offspring.. But outside that if everything is relative there is nothing morally detestable about it. Besides we could abort any children that may be conceived as a form of birth control.[/sarcasm]
If we are both consenting adults that love one another we ought to be able to get married, right Natoma? I am not going to go on and on about the left wing homosexual social political agenda again. I couldn’t be bothered, I believe we have already covered all this elsewhere. My stance on left wing social political aspirations isn’t likely to change despite your arguments Natoma nor is it likely that you will have a change of heart anytime soon…. I despise what the left is doing to my culture and heritage.
Marriage should have remained restricted to heterosexuality. The instinctive family always has been always will be Mother – Father – Children in the real world……Every human being comes from the natural family and it ought to be supported as a unique social element with matchless standing within the institution of marriage. Homosexual marriage is in actuality a poor counterfeit.
SirXcalibur
Newcomer
Natoma and Dave H: Yes I am am poor at spelling, deal with it
As for disproving the bible, there is always a constant battle about that stuff and there is no concrete proof anywhere debunkning it. But you guys don't have to believe if you don't want, thats your choice, I am just showing you where I get my values from.
As for morales, I don't know how you think that people can govern their own actions without having an reason to do so. If there is no lasting concequences for doing something wrong, there is no reason not to do it. If everyone just went to Heaven automatically, what would be the point!!
There is just no way the world can survive based on secular laws, it just doesn't make sense.
And why be so vehement against biblical teachings? Everything in there is for your own good, there is nothing it there that makes you suffer for no reason. Yes church states have screwed things up by twisitng parts of the bible to their own agenda, but thats human falicy entering into it. None of the attrocites caused by the church would have occured if churches had just followed basic biblical teachings.
Anyway, all I wanted to say was I don't think gay marriages are right, and have stated why.
As for disproving the bible, there is always a constant battle about that stuff and there is no concrete proof anywhere debunkning it. But you guys don't have to believe if you don't want, thats your choice, I am just showing you where I get my values from.
As for morales, I don't know how you think that people can govern their own actions without having an reason to do so. If there is no lasting concequences for doing something wrong, there is no reason not to do it. If everyone just went to Heaven automatically, what would be the point!!
There is just no way the world can survive based on secular laws, it just doesn't make sense.
And why be so vehement against biblical teachings? Everything in there is for your own good, there is nothing it there that makes you suffer for no reason. Yes church states have screwed things up by twisitng parts of the bible to their own agenda, but thats human falicy entering into it. None of the attrocites caused by the church would have occured if churches had just followed basic biblical teachings.
Anyway, all I wanted to say was I don't think gay marriages are right, and have stated why.
Natoma said:
Never mind you opened the door to this "idiocy" by insisting on making what you do in your bedroom a social political agenda and constantly post your favorite subject here. You invited the "idiocy", I live in Canada. You make *REALLY* bad arguments with regards to it. Too bad you decided to make your personal choice a social political aspiration we do live in a democracy you know, err we are supposed to be. Anyone who disagrees is *stupid*, *homophobic*, *Christian* on and on. This isn't about me, it is about what you and your left winger friends are doing on the political level to society from the top down, that means by force.
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-603586526.htm
http://www.inoohr.org/medicalproblems.htm
http://www.sacwriters.com/features/sex_survey_results.htm
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/news/01043001.htm
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/96/34/03_4.html
http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2001/LT010104.html