Supreme Court to Decide on Same Sex Marriage

Marriage is NOT a religious institution, particularly a Christian institution. Christians DO NOT have a monopoly on determining what marriage is for everyone else.

But God does. Marriage is HIS design. The first marriage was ordained and created by God, One Man, One Woman.

It's obvious that you're unware of this. It's not changing just because someone else doesn't agree / or believes it. As long as it still takes air to breathe, blood to pump through and give life to one's heart, water to survive, Marriage is and always will be ordained and shall remain as One Man and One Woman.

The definition of Marriage is not changing just because you want it to. Stop being silly. Two people of the same sex are not meant to interact sexually and most assuredly not meant to be married. It's utter foolishless. It's something which will never be right.

And anyone who calls themself a Christian and supports gay marriage has 'left' God and no longer represent His standard and holiness. You may be proud of them, but God is not.

All you can do is disagree, however you cannot validate that God is pleased with this. All you can do is disagree, however it bears no weight, validation, nor value. They have by choice, departed from the faith by defending homosexuality. It's a whole lot deeper than verbally nauseating the words, 'God is Love' thinking that it's changes God's Word and His plan and design for men and women whom He created and not ourselves.

Any Christian who defends homosexuality is in a greater sin than those who are not Christian, for they KNOW better, they KNOW what God has to say about it, and yet they have chosen to depart from His Word of their own free will, in spite of the truth that they know. They are doing more harm to gays than gays are doing for themselves, by validating the lifestyle giving them the false impression that God approves of the gay lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is NOT a religious institution, particularly a Christian institution. Christians DO NOT have a monopoly on determining what marriage is for everyone else.


I don't believe I said marriage was a christian institution, honey. There are Many religions in the world and in most of them, marriage comes via some type of sacramental practice within it. Marriage was definitely religious in past times and since the 1700's, secular marriage was gaining. That's why it's called...."secular marriage."

Please don't insult the intelligence of the people in this thread. I personally do not believe that christianity, a mere 2,000 years old, was and is the sole religious institution that upholds traditional marriage.
 
For me, supporting gay marriage is like agreeing with an atheist that there is no God. Won't happen...
 
I am so disgusted by the number of people in my FB feed who chose to "come out" and support gay marriage. Some of these people self-identify as Christian. NO ONE in my feed stood up for traditional marriage. I was the lone (probably seen as crazy) voice crying in the wilderness LOL. The Book says that men will be given over to their own lustful desires and that's exactly what's happening.

Lady Belle, this is the best time ever... the best. :yep:

It's when we stand 'alone' for righteousness when all others choose not to, that we know that God knows that we are truly His.

Remember when Elijah stood alone? The children of Baal mocked him, claiming that their god, Baal was god.

YET... Elijah said, "How long will you halt between two opinions? If God be God serve God, if Baal be god, serve Baal.

Lawd, don't get me started on this story. I'm totally on fire right now.

While the children of baal were on baal 'Facebook' feed, cheering and shouting for Baal to show up and show out... they only ended up tearing their skin from their bodies, bleeding and crying, yet baal, never came through. Their support for baal was in utter shame and in vain.

Okay... I love this. God has used I Kings 18 to just bless my soul; I love it so much. And I know that you know the story, but I just gotta tell it. :meme:

Okay... here it is: I just gotta praise God for a minute. :meme:

Elijah, all alone watching while they go through all of 'dat'.

Sooooooo Elijah orders a huge trench to be dug around the Altar of the Lord. And he orders to have the Altar of the Lord to be saturated with water. The water filled the trench as it soaked through the Altar.

However......

Elijah said: "Wet it again"

They did :yep:

Elijah said: "Wet it a third time"

They did... a third time. :yep:

Then Elijah prayed unto God, the Holy God of Israel...

The fire came down from Heaven. Yet it did. The fire came down from Heaven and burned upon the Altar; the fire was so great that it lapped up the waters in the trenches and burned the water soaked Altar.

The children of baal, repented and began to cry: The Lord is God, The Lord is God. The Lord is God.

Precious Sister, Lady Belle, I know exactly how you feel. Oh yes. I too, have more often than not been the 'Lone Follower of the Lord', or at least I felt that way. Yet, God always showed up for me. Always.

You are not alone. 'Wet it again'. Continue to honour and stand for God and all that He is on your Facebook feeds. You are never alone.



BTW: I know that you know all of this. I just wanted to encourage you, my sister. That's all.

For as long as I live, I will never forget the wisdom you shared on marriage in the thread about ChicFila, last summer. Your words still live in my heart and I will cherish them forever.

:blowkiss:
 
Why vote for someone that does not like you? I may agree with you, but if you don't like me, your not getting my support.

I don't think the democrats like us either, they just tell us what we wanna hear....and no having Obama in office doesn't change much in terms of How people REALLY Feel. politicians go with the party most likely to get them elected.
 
Marriage IS the HIGHEST INSTITUTION ON EARTH! The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob absolutely created marriage for HIS GLORY and because it's that important to Him, satan wants to distort it through the mind of man.

Man needs to understand that he can be easily manipulated like a puppet by the devil when he is WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST! When you are truly in Christ, you have the MIND OF CHRIST and hold the thoughts, feelings and purposes of His heart and in His heart is NO SIN!

So, as Christians...we have been given by the CREATOR OF MARRIAGE a mandate to be with One man One woman and procreate round-about our tables for the purpose of giving Him the glory.

What God says is true and everything everyone else has to say that is contrary to what He has to say, is a lie.

ETA:
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
in·sti·tu·tion


noun \ˌin(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\


Definition of INSTITUTION

1
: an act of instituting : establishment

2
a : a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage>

Nice & Wavy ... :love3:

Thank you for posting this, especially the word, 'Institution'.

Praise God...

As soon as I read your post, the words to the Wedding Vows began to flow...

"Marriage is an 'Institution' which should not be entered into unadvisedly..."

I love these words. They are striking and make an impact regarding the truth of Marriage.


:wave: Hi Pastor 'A'. I love you. :love3:
 
Came across this Scripture (2 Peter 2) and it really spoke to me!

False teachers will secretly bring in destructive heresies...bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their lewdness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled...They will exploit you with false words. Those who indulge in lust and despise authority, bold and wilful, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct... they will be destroyed... They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation... They have eyes for adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. Accursed children!... For them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved. Uttering loud boasts of foolishness, they entice with lewd passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. If, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become for them worse than the first. It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the commandment given to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb: The dog returns to his vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.
 
Came across this Scripture (2 Peter 2) and it really spoke to me!

False teachers will secretly bring in destructive heresies...bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their lewdness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled...They will exploit you with false words. Those who indulge in lust and despise authority, bold and wilful, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct... they will be destroyed... They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation... They have eyes for adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. Accursed children!... For them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved. Uttering loud boasts of foolishness, they entice with lewd passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error.

They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.
If, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become for them worse than the first. It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the commandment given to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb: The dog returns to his vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

God's Word is always 'current' with the times in which we live.

Thanks for sharing this Galadriel. Awesome Word.
 
Recent article I came across from (OSV) online:

10 Arguments For Gay Marriage--And Why They're Flawed


Perhaps no issue is more nerve-wracking today than same-sex marriage. It’s a magnet for controversy, evoking strong reactions from those on either side of the debate. But beneath all the fiery passion and rhetoric, there are real arguments to evaluate. In this article, we’ll examine the 10 most common ones made in favor of same-sex marriage, many of which you’ve probably heard before. By pointing out the flaws, we’ll show how each argument ultimately comes up short.

However, before we begin, let’s note a few things. First, this article concerns civil marriage — marriage as defined and promoted by the state. It doesn’t deal with the Church’s sacramental understanding, although the two often overlap. Second, the responses to the arguments are emphatically nonreligious. They don’t depend on any sacred text or divine revelation. They’re based on reason, philosophy, biology and history. Third, this article only refutes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It doesn’t touch upon the many positive arguments supporting traditional marriage.

One more note: This is not an attack on people with same-sex attractions. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead, this article is a rational look at whether civil marriage, an institution that touches all people and cultures, should be redefined.

1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change again.

Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some promoted arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries. Still others saw marriage as a political relationship through which they could forge family alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental, unchanging essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a public, lifelong partnership between one man and one woman for the sake of generating and raising children.

This understanding predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law or faith to promote it.

Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change, would that mean it should? We know from other areas of life such as medical research and nuclear physics that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or serve the common good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it would not necessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep, innate longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has given us many failures in this area, including women banned from voting and African-Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, is whether same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.

3. Everyone has the right to marry whomever he or she loves.


Though catchy, few people truly believe this slogan. Most of us acknowledge there should be at least some limitations on marriage for social or health reasons. For example, a man can’t marry a young child or a close relative. And if a man is truly in love with two different women, he’s legally not allowed to marry both of them, even if both agree to such an arrangement.
More on this Topic

What the Church Teaches:

Same Sex Marriage

So, the real question here is not whether marriage should be limited, but how. To answer that, we must determine why the government even bothers with marriage. It’s not to validate two people who love each other, nice as that is. It’s because marriage between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all others.

To put it simply, in the eyes of the state, marriage is not about adults; it’s about children. Claiming a “right to marry whomever I love” ignores the true emphasis of marriage.

Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he or she can or cannot love. Every person, regardless of orientation, is free to enter into private romantic relationships with whomever he or she chooses. But there is no general right to have any relationship recognized as marriage by the government.

4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society.

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

5. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other redefinitions.

When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.

This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.

Continued below...
 
Continued...

6. If same-sex couples can’t marry because they can’t reproduce, why can infertile couples marry?

This argument concerns two relatively rare situations: younger infertile couples and elderly couples. If marriage is about children, why does the state allow the first group to marry? The reason is that while we know every same-sex couple is infertile, we don’t generally know that about opposite-sex couples.

Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo mandatory fertility testing before marriage. But this would be outrageous. Besides being prohibitively expensive, it would also be an egregious invasion of privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority of couples.

Another problem is that infertility is often misdiagnosed. Fertile couples may be wrongly denied marriage under such a scenario. This is never the case for same-sex couples, who cannot produce children together.

But why does the government allow elderly couples to marry? It’s true that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (though women as old as 70 have been known to give birth). However, these marriages are so rare that it’s simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Also, elderly marriages still feature the right combination of man and woman needed to make children. Thus they provide a healthy model for the rest of society, and are still capable of offering children a home with a mother and a father.


7. Children will not be affected since there is no difference between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.

This argument was most famously stated in 2005 when the American Psychological Association (APA) wrote that “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

However, several recent studies have put that claim to rest. In June, LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paper in Social Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the APA relied on for its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the studies used a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children. Several used extremely small “convenience” samples, recruiting participants through advertisements or word of mouth, and many failed to even include a control group. Furthermore, the studies did not track the children over time and were largely based on interviews with parents about the upbringing of their own children — a virtual guarantee of biased results.

One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus released a comprehensive study titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” His research used a large, random and national sample and its scope was unprecedented among prior work in this field. Contrary to the APA, Regnerus found that for a majority of outcomes, children raised by parents with same-sex relationships drastically underperformed children raised in a household with married, biological parents.

He quickly noted that his study didn’t necessarily show that same-sex couples are bad parents, but that it did definitively put to rest the claim that there are “no differences” among parenting combinations.

8. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry, homophobia and religious hatred.

These accusations are not so much an argument for same-sex marriage as personal attacks designed to shut down real dialogue. Let’s look at each one.

First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook, Twitter or any online comment box confirms that for many people, support for traditional marriage is tantamount to bigotry. This holds off-line, too. In November, Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien was pegged “Bigot of the Year” by a gay rights group for simply opposing same-sex marriage in public.

So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definition of bigotry is “unwilling to tolerate opinions different than your own.” However, tolerating opinions does not require enshrining them through law. One can tolerate advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously engage the idea, while still rejecting it for compelling reasons.

Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear of homosexuality, and the assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they’re irrationally afraid. But as this article shows, there are many good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with fear. Branding someone “homophobic” is typically used to end rational discussion.

Third, religious hatred. Some people disagree with same-sex marriage solely for religious reasons. But, again, as this article demonstrates, one can disagree for other reasons, without appealing to the Bible, divine revelation or any religious authority. You don’t need religious teachings to understand, analyze and discuss the purpose of marriage or its effects on the common good.

If these accusations were all true, it would mean that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time — who by and large supported traditional marriage — would likewise be homophobic, intolerant bigots. That would include the most profound thinkers in many different traditions: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes, Plutarch, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. Most people would reject such an absurdity.

9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.

For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.

It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor.

According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at such a comparison.”

10. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should stand on the right side of history.

On Nov. 6, voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — voted against marriage as it has traditionally been understood. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Many advocates of same-sex marriage considered this a sign that the marriage tides are turning. But is that true? And if so, how does that shift impact the case for same-sex marriage?

First, if the tide is in fact turning, it’s still little more than a ripple. The states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so with slim margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of the vote. The tiny victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages, sitting governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support among the media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states had voted on the definition of marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of the six states that recognized same-sex marriage before the November election, none arrived there through a vote by the people. Each redefinition was imposed by state legislatures and courts. Overall, Americans remain strongly in favor of traditional marriage. Most polls show roughly two-thirds of the country wants to keep marriage as it is.

Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted, that does not make arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We don’t look to other moral issues and say, “Well, people are eventually going to accept it, so we might as well get in line.” We shouldn’t do that for same-sex marriage, either.
 
Threads like this honestly make me wonder why the AA community is not more REPUBLICAN...the Republican Party aligns with most AA family values, they are not for gay marriage but the democrats are. There are a whole list of traditional values that the repub party holds but we as blacks completely block them out.

FYI I am not a repub but I will be doing more research on all there policies and beliefs...

I don't believe that all AA share these same conservative values.
 
Threads like this honestly make me wonder why the AA community is not more REPUBLICAN...the Republican Party aligns with most AA family values, they are not for gay marriage but the democrats are. There are a whole list of traditional values that the repub party holds but we as blacks completely block them out.

FYI I am not a repub but I will be doing more research on all there policies and beliefs...

I think it is because even though republicans were instrumental in abolishing slavery, democrats have been most instrumental in the most recent civil rights issues. I think AA in general hold civil rights and fiscal policy out to be more important than morals/family values.

That's why I'm an independent. I don't align closely with either party.
 
I think the problem is that it was never defined as who "owns" marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and institution if you get married in a church or other religious setting. But two atheist can get marriage before a judge and be married as well. I think the problem is that the world marriage means two different things for two groups of people. Maybe the state should have a different word for marriages not preformed in a religious setting, hetro- or homosexual.

I usually don't post because the debate is just too much. I don't think anyone is "wrong". I think that Christians and other religions have every right to refuse to marry Gay couples based on their beliefs. If Gay couples cannot be married in a church then that's that, end of discussion. But on the other hand, if Gay couples want a government sanctioned marriage with no religious ties, they should have that too.

Basically I think anyone who does not get married before God should not use the word married. Not only Gays but others who do not have God as the foundation of their Union. That would require changing the speech and vernacular of out American language but still.
 
Last edited:
I just don't believe this at all. I believe in God. I don't call myself a Christian. So, it doesn't really matter to me how Christians use the Bible to validate why the believe being gay is a sin. I don't see the Bible as God's literal word. I don't really understand why other people do either. I respect it, but I DO NOT agree with it at all. I think that people put way too much stock into what the Bible says. I think that God speaks to us all and you don't need a Bible, or any book, to interpret that.

When I see Christians embracing queer people into the Church, it looks like a beautiful thing to me.

Ummmm this is a Christian Forum though.:look:
 
People created marriage. And as such, people can redefine it. Some unions between men and women do not bear fruit, and others definitely shouldn't. I don't think that's valid. I think God smiles when a lesbian or gay couple come together in love.

Clearly these religious arguments opposing gay marriage are not doing anything to stop it from being legalized. I don't understand the fuss. If someone is gay and wants to get married in the Church, why not let God be the one to take it up with them? Why not let God be the judge?

Well, I think He already is, though. :yep: I get what you are saying...but you came in kamikaze :lol:. People aren't daft over here...at least, I'm not. I look at things from a much larger perspective. Many others do as well.
 
I just don't believe this at all. I believe in God. I don't call myself a Christian.

Clearly the god you believe in is one of your own fashioning and not the One, True, Living God.

So, it doesn't really matter to me how Christians use the Bible to validate why the believe being gay is a sin. I don't see the Bible as God's literal word.

Of course you don't, because then it would be very uncomfortable for God to tell you through Scripture that fornication, homosexual sex, lying, stealing, etc. are sins. If you're guilty of committing these, then it's very convenient to say, "Well, I don't really believe that," or "That's not my idea of God."

I don't really understand why other people do either.

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. You don't understand why we believe what we believe.

I respect it, but I DO NOT agree with it at all. I think that people put way too much stock into what the Bible says.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Why wouldn't we read it, study it, and abide by it as a rule for belief and living?

I think that God speaks to us all and you don't need a Bible, or any book, to interpret that.

That's sort of a vague New Age-y idea. The problem with this is that you subject "God" to your own personal interpretations or desires. This also makes God inconsistent or untruthful, because you're saying God is telling or teaching people contrary truths--God is Truth itself, and cannot lie or contradict Truth.

When I see Christians embracing queer people into the Church, it looks like a beautiful thing to me.

I think it's beautiful to embrace them as fellow human beings with dignity, with souls that need ministering and support. However the Church could never contradict God and proclaim homosexual sex as "good" or "right" when God clearly taught us otherwise.
 
I didn't know that I was talking to you directly, "honey." Please don't insult MY intelligence. My opinion may not be the same as yours or anyone else's in this thread, but I'm allowed to have it.


Nobody said you didn't have the right...but you are NEW in this side of the forum and came in kamikaze style without realizing YOU were insulting many intelligent and well-informed people who regularly post in this forum. Even my opinions are not well-taken over here and are deemed "strange." There are many over here who think I don't have the right to claim I belong to Jesus, so this is not new to me. Essentially, you blanketed your statement and insulted my intelligence without realizing it.


Why not come at this backing up your statements like many of us do with scripture, the early church writings of the Doctors of the Church, theologians modern and old, various methods of preserving your argument? Thread etiquette no. 1 ....KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. And actually, you are not allowed to go against christianity over here...read the rules. Talking openly about an issue differs from attacking the believers of any faith. I personally feel you thought that we are ignorant of the variety of cultures and faiths that do most certainly support traditional marriage. It's how it came over.
 
People created marriage.
If someone is gay and wants to get married in the Church, why not let God be the one to take it up with them? Why not let God be the judge?

The problem is that the god you're talking about and the True God are two different ones. You've created an idol in your own image, where you stand in judgment over the Bible and regard it as superfluous and insufficient, and God's commandments as mere suggestions.

Your god is a god of contradictions, moral relativism, and at a nice cozy distance so that He doesn't demand anything from you.

Sin? What's that? In your worldview, Original Sin and Sin are bad words that surely must not be uttered and bandied about. According to you, sin is what we personally define it as.

:nono:
 
Last edited:
God created men, women, hemales, shemales, gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, mentally unstable folks, physically disabled folks. He created everyone.

I'm not speaking as a Christian. I'm not speaking from what I've read in the Bible. I'm speaking from my heart, which I think is more valuable than what was written in the Bible.

Dear, your heart cannot be trusted. The heart is so desperately wicked no one can know it. I will pray for you. It futile to discuss this further at this point if you think we're spreading hate. This is what love looks like. God chastens those He loves, He doesn't let them continue to go downhill in sexual depravity. Have a great day.
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 
I think the problem is that it was never defined as who "owns" marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and institution if you get married in a church or other religious setting. But two atheist can get marriage before a judge and be married as well. I think the problem is that the world marriage means two different things for two groups of people.

Both a Christian marriage and a marriage between an atheist man and woman are still marriages, however as a SACRAMENT, only the Christian couple would be sacramentally married whereas the atheist marriage would be a natural marriage. BOTH marriages are valid, but one would be natural and the other would be sacramental.

However both couples would have what's necessary to make a marriage--one man, and one woman.


Maybe the state should have a different word for marriages not preformed in a religious setting, hetro- or homosexual.

I don't think that's the issue (as stated above). Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, it's an inherently heterosexual institution. Whether it's done in a civil court or church, it is still the union of one man and one woman.

Just as I could never be recognized as the father of my children because I lack the necessary ingredient, a homosexual couple can't call their union a marriage because they lack the necessary ingredients--one man and one woman.

Also, as it has been pointed out, if we simply strip marriage down to a system of public validation of people's romantic choices, then what's to stop three or four "consenting adults" from entering a polyamorous marriage? In Brazil this is already happening.

You can't marry someone who is already married.
You can't marry a child.
You can't marry a close relative.
You can't marry someone of the same sex.


I usually don't post because the debate is just too much. I don't think anyone is "wrong". I think that Christians and other religions have every right to refuse to marry Gay couples based on their beliefs. If Gay couples cannot be married in a church then that's that, end of discussion. But on the other hand, if Gay couples want a government sanctioned marriage with no religious ties, they should have that too.

I would argue that they shouldn't have a government sanctioned marriage, because the government only involves itself in marriage to begin with because marriage produces CHILDREN and the family is the basic unit of society. The government has a vested interest in its next and future generations of citizens.
 
Back
Top