- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Here is an interesting article that appeared in todays (local) newspaper.
Deborah Russell says the state has no business in the marriage game, but then argues that the state should redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage.
Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.
If it weren't for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for those children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.
Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. On average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.
Russell then argues that denying same-sex marriage is “discriminatory” and “reinforces the power of traditional churches by endorsing their morality”.
Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can't marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.
It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminated against since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCaw can't play for the Silver Ferns.
And secondly, marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage.
And this is where Russell's opinion gets really interesting. She says marriage should be for “three or more, whatever”.
By allowing only gay marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), incestuous, man/boy, or bestial unions if all that counts is love and commitment.
Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, all types of sexual activity could become permissible.
I think the Gay people should create their own way of tieing up a mates ass…your all creative an orignal people, an the earth belongs to you to..
I think the traditional bride an groom should be letf to the origanal expression of romance between a Male an female.
Big smile no offence intended. But it feels a little like muslims beating away to rule earth to suit them…
Hi t8,
Send a letter to the editor on my behalf, commending this well thought out piece of writing!
I love the point that we can't take away a right they never had in the first place.
And someone should do a poll asking gay marriage supporters how they'd vote on the other oddball marriages the author listed. I mean, would THEY vote “Yes” to incestuous or bestial marriages? Would they rally support of these kinds of unions and proudly defend them to their own impressionable children?
mike
Hi t8 Thank you for bringing us that article…. any other institution that consider themselves a union of marriage, except what God has ordained is against God…. And to me wrong…. I too think that you can't take away a right that never was a right in the first place….I always remember what time we live in….it will get worse before it gets better….Peace Irene
I find no place where God instituted marriage! Please read carefully before you blast me. Man instituted “taking” a wife! Adam was the one who said bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh and called her Woman, and “took” her as a wife(underling or subordinate)! God did not “marry them” !
Here is some light that darkness will hate!
Persons that pick on other persons for how they act or what they do or what they want to experience in their own lives will in fact “reap what they sow”…! New testament law…''Condemn not'',…”that you not be condemned”!! When you lay down condemnation for others you best look in the mirror!! You are actually making a law unto “yourself” where there is no law!!If a person doesn't like Ketchup on his burger is he an “oddball” or no good or bad or wrong?
Do we really want to “clone” mankind into a robotic, religious, better than thou, point the finger of condemnation life, where we must act and be kept a certain way or rejected? HEY LAW ABIDERS, WHERE IS THE LOVE? Is point the finger condemnation really what we want…or does it just feel good to step on other peoples heads to elevate oneself?
Can anyone on this site actually picture Jesus…setting the adulterous woman free and then condemning people of the same sex from loving one another and having any form of loving relations together? Religion is the “condemnation” of the world! All the gay people have to do is keep quiet to have a loving relationship….but why should they? I am not gay and I am far from it but that doesn't give me the right to condemn others who may be. I hate religious bigotry….but I love humanity and it loves me in return!! IMO, TK
Quote I hate religious bigotry….but I love humanity and it loves me in return!! IMO, TK Something to consider – John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as it loves its own people. But I have chosen you to be different from those in the world. So you don’t belong to the world, and that is why the world hates you.
Jesus was talking about the “religious” world of the Jews that was about to be destroyed both by doctrine of Jesus and physically destroyed in about 70years. Please read a little further to verse 25, Jesus still talking to the same group makes reference to….”their law”….! The only “world order” that hated and eventually killed Jesus was the ''religious'' world order of that time and it is still the same today. I tell those of the world round about, apart from the religious churches, that they are perfect sons of God by believing Jesus and they jump for joy. When I tell ''religious'' ones they are now made perfect in Christ, they do hate me. I get much anger from religious ones even when I tell them they are free of sin and death. Can you imagine that? When I repeat the same words/doctrine of Jesus…the religious world hates me openly!! If I play their false, religious games they open arms to me and offer me a seat as a brother. Hypocrites!!
You are correct, I do not belong to the “religious” world. TK
Hi Tim,
Since you don’t ascribe to the OT, and therefore would most likely disregard the part where it says Jehovah your God detests men who lie with men, I chose instead to post this scripture from the NT, in which you do believe:
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.I agree that it is not our job to judge, but it is certainly not our job to express to others, especially children, that homosexuality is okay, or a “life-choice”. It is not our job to sugar-coat it or pretend that it is completely “natural”. It is a perversion, plain and simple.
Tim, even if there was no God who created us uniquely male and female, it would still be a perversion to evolution.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 12 2011,01:45) Hi Tim, Since you don't ascribe to the OT, and therefore would most likely disregard the part where it says Jehovah your God detests men who lie with men, I chose instead to post this scripture from the NT, in which you do believe:
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.I agree that it is not our job to judge, but it is certainly not our job to express to others, especially children, that homosexuality is okay, or a “life-choice”. It is not our job to sugar-coat it or pretend that it is completely “natural”. It is a perversion, plain and simple.
Tim, even if there was no God who created us uniquely male and female, it would still be a perversion to evolution.
Hey Mike: My brother, is it any of your business who is gay? No!If Jesus set free the adulteress woman would he not set free a persons personal choice of sexual preference?
Were you so busy condemning the “effeminate” persons mentioned in the KJV that you didn't even look up the word and see what it really means?
[malakos: soft, fine clothing, effeminate] Homosexual isn't even listed as a possibility!! Strong's Exhaustive Concordance!! How about “fornication” which is “idolatry'' or works created by man instead of faith……Those who believe in the works and deeds of their hands are not serving “idols” are they??
Did you also forget to read 1Cor.6:9, 10 & V11….and such ''WERE''…SOME OF YOU BUT YE ARE WASHED, BUT YE ARE SANCTIFIED, BUT YE ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS…..???
Have you or any heterosexual you know ever had relations with a man or woman in a less that natural way? Or shall we lie!
Just because it grosses me out doesn't mean is does God. God is androgynous!! He is male and female!
Condemn not…..lest ye be condemned!! IMO, TK
Are we really here to pass out condemnation on people or love and justification in Christ? IMO, TK
Quote (ftk @ Dec. 12 2011,07:35) Were you so busy condemning the “effeminate” persons mentioned in the KJV that you didn't even look up the word and see what it really means?
Actually, I did look it up Tim.From NETNotes:
This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. μαλακός 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for μαλακοί in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.Tim it is not my business to judge those who pervert sexuality as God intended it to be, ie: between a man and a woman.
But it is not your job to defend those who God detests. (Leviticus 18:22)
We will both answer for our stands on this issue, Tim. I cannot go wrong being of one mind with my God in this matter.
all
t8 as soon as i read your comment this came to my mind;
2Pe 2:6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Rev 11:8 Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.this will get worst before it get better
Pierre
Pierre: Was that the story about Lot when he was in the city of Sodom and the men came to his door to kill somebody and Lot tried to pacify the crazed, bloodthirsty men by offering his two daughters to them to do with as they pleased? So, which one was ungodly in your opinion? And then when Lot settled down in another area he had sex with both his daughters and produced offspring from both. How are we doin so far….are we religious yet!! TK
Quote (ftk @ Dec. 11 2011,19:30) Jesus was talking about the “religious” world of the Jews that was about to be destroyed both by doctrine of Jesus and physically destroyed in about 70years. Please read a little further to verse 25, Jesus still talking to the same group makes reference to….”their law”….! The only “world order” that hated and eventually killed Jesus was the ''religious'' world order of that time and it is still the same today. I tell those of the world round about, apart from the religious churches, that they are perfect sons of God by believing Jesus and they jump for joy. When I tell ''religious'' ones they are now made perfect in Christ, they do hate me. I get much anger from religious ones even when I tell them they are free of sin and death. Can you imagine that? When I repeat the same words/doctrine of Jesus…the religious world hates me openly!! If I play their false, religious games they open arms to me and offer me a seat as a brother. Hypocrites!! You are correct, I do not belong to the “religious” world. TK
Tim,
You don't have to go to verse 25 for the context, it is spelled out in the very next verse.John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Now the disciples were chose out of this “world” that you claim is a ''religious'' one. However we're told in Luke 5:8 “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”, another was a tax collector, most were identified as unlearned, but never as part of the ''religious'' sect.
I believe that the “religious” are part of this “world” spoke about and like others they're missing the need for a trusting relationship with God. Now I agree the religious ones will always be the hardest ones to reach and you don't reach someone in sin by condemning them, but we are told not to ignore sin but to “go into mourning” and “gently instruct them, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”. As to the woman caught in adultery Jesus told her “Then neither do I condemn you,” “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
My opinion – Wm
Quote (ftk @ Dec. 14 2011,04:53) Pierre: Was that the story about Lot when he was in the city of Sodom and the men came to his door to kill somebody and Lot tried to pacify the crazed, bloodthirsty men by offering his two daughters to them to do with as they pleased? So, which one was ungodly in your opinion? And then when Lot settled down in another area he had sex with both his daughters and produced offspring from both. How are we doin so far….are we religious yet!! TK
tkfirst ;yes it is that story but only the destruction judgement on those cities
as for the action of the daughters ,you should think ,scriptures did not say it was done for sex,and they made the father drunk,
the law for the interdiction of that practice came with Moses.
as far that it goes his daughters were engaged to two fellows already or became at that time this i do not know ,but how would a men of God be acting in this way unless we interpreting the words in a wrong way,Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 13 2011,19:14) as far that it goes his daughters were engaged to two fellows already or became at that time this i do not know
Pierre,The two daughters were virgins, pledged to be married. But the future sons in law laughed at Lot when he tried to get them to leave with him. Then Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. So that left just Lot and his two daughters alone.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
There was a sensible reason for them doing what they did. At least in their eyes at the time.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 14 2011,19:27) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 13 2011,19:14) as far that it goes his daughters were engaged to two fellows already or became at that time this i do not know
Pierre,The two daughters were virgins, pledged to be married. But the future sons in law laughed at Lot when he tried to get them to leave with him. Then Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. So that left just Lot and his two daughters alone.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
There was a sensible reason for them doing what they did. At least in their eyes at the time.
Mikeyou right ,they were burned to the ground for not having listen to Lot ,
so if we to not take scriptures seriously the same thing may happen to USPierre
Quote (seekingtruth @ Dec. 14 2011,11:46) Quote (ftk @ Dec. 11 2011,19:30) Jesus was talking about the “religious” world of the Jews that was about to be destroyed both by doctrine of Jesus and physically destroyed in about 70years. Please read a little further to verse 25, Jesus still talking to the same group makes reference to….”their law”….! The only “world order” that hated and eventually killed Jesus was the ''religious'' world order of that time and it is still the same today. I tell those of the world round about, apart from the religious churches, that they are perfect sons of God by believing Jesus and they jump for joy. When I tell ''religious'' ones they are now made perfect in Christ, they do hate me. I get much anger from religious ones even when I tell them they are free of sin and death. Can you imagine that? When I repeat the same words/doctrine of Jesus…the religious world hates me openly!! If I play their false, religious games they open arms to me and offer me a seat as a brother. Hypocrites!! You are correct, I do not belong to the “religious” world. TK
Tim,
You don't have to go to verse 25 for the context, it is spelled out in the very next verse.John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Now the disciples were chose out of this “world” that you claim is a ''religious'' one. However we're told in Luke 5:8 “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”, another was a tax collector, most were identified as unlearned, but never as part of the ''religious'' sect.
I believe that the “religious” are part of this “world” spoke about and like others they're missing the need for a trusting relationship with God. Now I agree the religious ones will always be the hardest ones to reach and you don't reach someone in sin by condemning them, but we are told not to ignore sin but to “go into mourning” and “gently instruct them, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”. As to the woman caught in adultery Jesus told her “Then neither do I condemn you,” “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
My opinion – Wm
seeking truth: Greetings friend…There are actually two worlds mentioned in my opinion. The “cosmos” world of total existence and the “religious” world of that time. One passed away!The religious order of that time was almost as powerful or at least as influential as the government of the time. My definition of religion being the organized church headed by the Jews with the temple and man created rules, rituals, doctrines, services, days, moons, seasons, efforts for cleanings, tithings etc.!
The outside world (cosmos)mostly accepted Jesus and his teachings. They followed him everywhere and accepted his teaching. The Jews/religious ones only understood enough of his teachings to know he was destroying their ritualistic means of worship.
Jesus was preaching a complete change in mans ideas of God. Jesus actually called his teaching, the end of the world! The religious order was in sin and darkness. Jesus brought the truth to light which was exposing the sin/error of the entire church structure! They knew their lively-hood was being destroyed by the doctrines of Jesus. The new “spirit” way, new temple made without hands, new priesthood, removal of the sacrifice, no rituals, no rules, no tithing of money, just tithing of the heart for “true” riches from God.
The Jews hated him as more and more people began to follow him and they felt their religious demise coming! They hated him enough to “influence” the government to kill him (the rotten hypocrites didn't believe in killing so they justified themselves by having Pilot do their dirty work.
It is strongly my position that the world that hated Jesus and had him killed was the “religious” world order of that time. All religions of the time were based on the same basic OT truths.
The major, powerful, selective religion of the Jews was destroyed by the New Doctrines of Jesus. That's why he said, ''repent'' which is turn around from the way you are going and follow me(a whole new way to God)!! IMO, TK
the best definition of Marriage = Companionship with a vow,pledge,before God,
it become more and more impossible to men to do this ,
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 14 2011,12:14) Quote (ftk @ Dec. 14 2011,04:53) Pierre: Was that the story about Lot when he was in the city of Sodom and the men came to his door to kill somebody and Lot tried to pacify the crazed, bloodthirsty men by offering his two daughters to them to do with as they pleased? So, which one was ungodly in your opinion? And then when Lot settled down in another area he had sex with both his daughters and produced offspring from both. How are we doin so far….are we religious yet!! TK
tkfirst ;yes it is that story but only the destruction judgement on those cities
as for the action of the daughters ,you should think ,scriptures did not say it was done for sex,and they made the father drunk,
the law for the interdiction of that practice came with Moses.
as far that it goes his daughters were engaged to two fellows already or became at that time this i do not know ,but how would a men of God be acting in this way unless we interpreting the words in a wrong way,Pierre
Pierre: Or maybe you have deep seeded religious doctrines and ideas about sex and many other things that are not against God and never have been.You put Gods chosen men up on a pedestal and try to make them into some religious form of what you consider purity or any reason they might be “better” than all the rest. These guys resisted Kings orders, they had hundreds of wives, hundreds of concubines, drank much, had inner family relations, killed thousands, and much much more! These great men are far, far from religious. They were, “GODLY” men. They believed their hearts and held fast to the voice of God.
There is to much more to show a person with very small perceptions of truth. TK
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
