I think you are in error with respect to explicit biblical warnings against homosexual behavior.
Now It's Just "Marriage"
- Thread starter Heels in Space
- Start date
I'm talking about gay marriage being mentioned specefically. Theres no scripture saying homosexuals shouldnt marry one another. Although, like i said, its reasonable to assume the authors of the bible books would have written against it given the opportunity.
Well, no, it showed how people- humans- have tried to bend, and in some cases literally rewrite, Scripture to fit their views of modern societies and cultures, and do it all based on their own prejudices. As I said earlier, I wasn't really offering that for people like you. You're frozen in time.
That's not the Stars and Bars. PLEASE learn that much.The flag of the Rainbow Mafia is the new flag of confederation. The Southern Poverty Law (Fundraising) Center was using a graphic showing stars and bars going down and rainbow going up. They saw it as a compliment but it captures perefectly the American counter revolution the now Marxist left is trying to impose while hiding behind civil rights jargon. I'm 100% certain the leaders of the Rainbows would put traditionals, religious people etc on reservations or worse. Read the Daily Kos and its like posters are ready to start shooting
THIS is the Stars and Bars:
You're exactly right. These folks who claim that the Bible does not specifically speak toward homosexuality or gay marriage are just spinning it .... the Bible speaks CLEARLY about the union between "one man and one woman" ... it speaks clearly about "men committing shameless acts with other men" etc etc. The Bible also does not specifically say that we should not eat our own feces or have sex with animals or molest children but we all know those things are wrong.
For those of who believe that the Bible is the word of Christ, this is how we discern teaching on many things, homosexuality included. The Bible specifically defines marriage and the nuclear family over and over and over throughout its pages - thereby defining everything that would fall OUTSIDE of what is good in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. marriage to the same sex, marriage to my brother, marriage to my dog, etc.
Another way of putting it, if you line 5 women up on a stage and ask me which one is my wife, I can answer your question two ways: I can either point to the 4 women who are NOT my wife or I can point to my wife ... either way the question is answered. Same applies to many Biblical principles including gay marriage.
Times the church "fell away from the faith"
When gentiles were allowed in without requiring they observe jewish traditions
When they started meeting on sunday instead of the true sabbath-sat
When women were allowed to sit with men
When women were allowed to have their heads uncovered
When drinking songs were converted to worship hymns
When blacks were allowed in the same church as whites
When churches ordained interracial marriages
When churches used amplified music
When "hippies" were allowed in
When churches allowed casual dress
When churches allowed female pastors
When gentiles were allowed in without requiring they observe jewish traditions
When they started meeting on sunday instead of the true sabbath-sat
When women were allowed to sit with men
When women were allowed to have their heads uncovered
When drinking songs were converted to worship hymns
When blacks were allowed in the same church as whites
When churches ordained interracial marriages
When churches used amplified music
When "hippies" were allowed in
When churches allowed casual dress
When churches allowed female pastors
Last edited:
Thanks for correction. Like most people I don't actually care about the flags. I can't name all the historical versions of the US flags either
That's not the Stars and Bars. PLEASE learn that much.
THIS is the Stars and Bars:
Shameless acts with other men is not clear at all. That is totally subjective to the society/culture of human beings at any given time. Would you like proof? I consider men shooting and killing each other in a war zone a very shameless, uncivilized act. It's abhorrent and totally against what Christ teaches me.
It's really interesting to understand that the original Greek Text of the New Testament, and the original Hebrew Text of the Old Testament makes not even the most remote mention of male/male sexual acts, behavior or otherwise. None! Homosexual first found it's way into ENGLISH translations in the Bible in 1946! So, how many centuries was that from it's first inception? Not to mention the unknown amounts of times it was interpreted and reinterpreted. Then, factor in that, until the KJV, average people had NO access to the Bible unless it was from their clerical leaders... NONE! Very few people were literate at all.
All of this aversion to homosexuality is based entirely upon a social human stigma and a social human fear of the behavior. The same was thought of people who were left-handed over a thousand years ago.
But, you DO care about them. You care about them so much that you went to the trouble (several times) of posting about the flags and how their removal is some attack by the "left" on us as a culture. And, then you posted an image of the other flag that bothers you because it represents something you're offended by.
And, apparently, "most people" do actually care about flags, too. Or, at least they do once their TV's start talking about them.
gunslingerdick said: "How do you feel about this picture?
"
I find it incredibly offensive, just as I would if any group or organization altered the image. This photo is an American icon and a symbol of triumph.
"
I find it incredibly offensive, just as I would if any group or organization altered the image. This photo is an American icon and a symbol of triumph.
Are these all offensive?gunslingerdick said: "How do you feel about this picture?
"
I find it incredibly offensive, just as I would if any group or organization altered the image. This photo is an American icon and a symbol of triumph.
It's not the image, it's the context of the use. Same as words.
I don't think homosexual marriage condoned by society with full benefits of traditional marriage was ever contemplated or considered a possibility until the late 1970-early 1980s, so why would you expect ancient man to write about it? However, homosexuality was introduced by the Anunaki in ancient Sumeria many thousands of years ago. They taught man all kinds of things, one of them being homosexuality and beastiality. See the Book of Enoch for some of the earliest references...
Are these all offensive?
It's not the image, it's the context of the use. Same as words.
The first wouldn't be offensive because it's the American flag. It's just a lego version - a tribute of sorts. All the others could be considered offensive to those looking to be offended. Me personally, I'm offended by things from time to time. But I just chalk it up to, "that's life". People are going to be offensive. I can choose to riot in the streets, march in parades, hold up pointless signs and write my congressman, or I can just say, "another day, another jerk offending me" and go about my business.
So, riddle me this - why was homosexual behavior considered taboo and people who engaged in it ostracized and marginalized for thousands of years until just a few years ago when the "enlightened ones" graced man with their presence as part of the sexual revolution? Why was homosexuality considered immoral for all of those centuries based on what occurred at Sodom and Gomorrah? If the Word of God was so misunderstood or not available for so long, why didn't this great homosexual awakening occur many centuries ago???
There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to prove your butt-boy reverend is wrong.
My guess is the thought of homosexual behavior makes many a heterosexual's stomach turn, so it has been ostracized.
There are plenty of instances where a behavior was historically marginalized and ostracized for a variety of reasons but is now generally accepted.
Yeah, it's in the rewritten versions!!! That's what you're not getting and refuse to understand! It was changed, omitted or completely switched in order to project some social attitude in a present-day context. Your homophobia is so loud it's breaking glass.
@gunslingerdick , I came across this article I thought you might like to see:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...r-same-sex-marriage-ruling-a-way-to-reconcile
It notes that in addition to the Constitutional pillars of liberty and equality that formed the basis of the decision, Justice Kennedy saw the need to insert the concept of "dignity" into the majority opinion. Seems to parallel your notion of "validation" above, and the article talks about the dangers of that kind of thinking.
It WASN'T marginalized and ostracized for well over 1400 years! It was accepted. The church even recognized same-sex marriages! Much research has been done and found on this. And, the articale I posted that spawned this dissension from you is an even better source. That blog goes into very specific detail about Greek translations and English equivalents. Biblical scholars will have a far different version of Scripture than the average Baptist Minister or average Sunday-Go-To-Meetin' member.
You people never stop to really consider, and thoroughly understand, how the culture and social understandings of the world back THEN were VASTLY different from ours now. It's next to impossible to truly understand and comprehend in the truest sense, except for realizing that it was, in fact, very, very different. Just look at the acceptable marriages in ancient times of cousins, even siblings, and at VERY young ages, too! 11 or 12 was marriage-ready. This is not some well-kept secret. It's just incredibly different from what we consider acceptable social norms NOW! But, it has not one thing to do with a "Biblical Sin." Besides, if Christ is your Savior, you're forgiven. Why focus on the sins instead of the Salvation?
Last edited:
What really amazes me is how people become so unglued and bothered by the idea of two people loving each other. It's really embarrassing to me that people find this so abhorrent. It's people loving one another... period. If you wouldn't fixate on what they MIGHT do when they're naked, you'd be so much better off. The repressed attitudes of some religious people is staggering. What's more incredible is, they can justify killing a whole city of people they THINK might be "enemies" and not think anything about that. They even manage to extrapolate justification for it from Scripture. They somehow lack the empathy to feel their victim's pain, and they pad that with finding some Scripture, taking it out of context, and bolstering their own inability to control their hatred to where they can murder people.
You're assuming everyone gets married because of love. That's not the case.
On a related note, I've known several gay people. And the ones I've known have been more openly promiscuous than most straight people I know. And my gay friends have always told me that gay people "get around" more than straight people. I don't know if that's true but I can believe it. It seems as if the culture of homosexuality is a bit more ...uhh,...unrestricted. What will be interesting is to see the divorce rate among married gays in the coming years and how it matches up with traditional marriage divorce rates. On one hand, I could see a greater percentage of divorces in gay marriages because of their loose culture but on the other hand, I'm thinking gays may not take that marriage step unless they really do plan on being monogamous.
Bull-o-ney. You're saying entire generations of Biblical scholars, experts in ancient languages and documents, all conspired in the 1940s to slant scholarly interpretation of the Biblical texts against homosexual behavior in anticipation that a great homo awakening would somehow emerge in the 1970s??? WOW!!! Dude, that aluminum beanie of yours must be in hyper-drive!
Answer this- why did it take so long for your homo awakening to occur?
Of course they get around more. How much more sex would the rest of us be having if all the women were looking to get laid as often as we are? That's a no-brainer.
I agree that there are many behaviors that were historically marginalized and ostracized are not readily accepted - but, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
And, I believe there's more to it.
I think man is born with God's law written on its heart and a fundamental, innate understand of the difference between right and wrong - some people refer to it as a conscience. This fundamental understanding was a given for many thousands of years until relatively recently...
The fact that the church is turning away from fundamental morality is an ominous development for our society as a whole. We are probably at a point of no return.
Maybe because homophobic, crystallized, old men are finally in the minority on the subject in our present-day society. Why did it take so long for people to stop using leeches? Why don't they stone women for certain transgressions in Jewish families anymore? Why does anything drift in and out of social favor?
I'm not implying there has been any conspiracy by any biblical scholar. I'd say many of the scholars are/were more familiar with what was actually translated. The people who print books and newspapers are not typically biblical scholars, ya know? They are people in charge of controlling other people. They own the publishing companies, the presses, the contracts for distribution, and the various forms of communication that we all get. That's no conspiracy, that is just absolute fact. It's up to you to accept it or be in denial of it. The proof of all of that is everywhere! You're free to continue to condemn everyone that doesn't fit your interpretation. You're stuck there. Enjoy it.
Well, the thing about sex is that it has other uses besides just getting off. Procreation and all that. And back in the day about 20,000 years ago, you needed a bunch of kids to hunt, gather, farm, etc. So those who were born with homosexual proclivities either ignored their desire or probably slept with both men and women. And so it went up until pretty recently, when the necessity to breed became lessened. So people were more free to chose their own path as there were fewer obligations.
Look, I'm not going to worry about someone else committing a sin against their own self. That person can work it out with his or her own God as is deemed appropriate.
Why so dramatic? "For thousands of years up until recently..." How do you know? You've only been here "until recently." Why do so many religious fundamentalist feel the need to always insist that THIS is "the end times?" They always think they've managed to be here for the final curtain call. Times have been much worse than now. I have no doubt.
A Short Guide as to How This Ruling Affects You
If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:
If you had been lucky enough to live in a state that allowed gay marriage, the federal government already recognized your marriage as a thing, and you were eligible for tax, health, and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple. Previously, if you had moved to another state that didn't recognize gay marriage, that state didn't have to recognize your marriage. Now, your marriage is recognized everywhere, the same as anyone else's.
If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:
Where before this came down to whether or not your state had legalized it, now you are free to do so regardless of which state you live in.
If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter into a Homosexual Marriage:
You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.
If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:
This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:
If you had been lucky enough to live in a state that allowed gay marriage, the federal government already recognized your marriage as a thing, and you were eligible for tax, health, and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple. Previously, if you had moved to another state that didn't recognize gay marriage, that state didn't have to recognize your marriage. Now, your marriage is recognized everywhere, the same as anyone else's.
If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:
Where before this came down to whether or not your state had legalized it, now you are free to do so regardless of which state you live in.
If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter into a Homosexual Marriage:
You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.
If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:
This decision does not affect you in any way.
If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:
This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.
How frequently are they sued if a pastor does not want to marry two people who have been married multiple times already? Divorce amongst heterosexuals is almost inevitable nowadays. Any "sanctity" that marriage ever had was thrown away when people relented to allowing the state to recognize it and authenticate it/validate it. The sanctity of the institution is also rejected when the society divorces at the rate it does now. No one here is railing about that. A good many here are divorced, at least once. Divorce is strictly forbidden in the Bible, too.
Such utter crap. Did you even bother to actually READ the freakin' article you posted?!?!?!?!?! From YOUR article:
Of course, Boswell's theories had many critics at the time his book was published. One of his most well-known detractors may have been cultural critic Camille Paglia, who penned a caustic takedown of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe for The Washington Post in 1994.
"Boswell's treatment of the Middle Ages, ostensibly his specialty, is strangely unpersuasive," Paglia wrote. "Indeed, he seems grotesquely incapable of imagining any enthusiasm or intimate bond among men that is not overtly or covertly homosexual. ... The cause of gay rights, which I support, is not helped by this kind of slippery, self-interested scholarship, where propaganda and casuistry impede the objective search for truth."
Absolutely! I have been married 29 years. It is sanctified. Where do you get this crap?
Where? Um, SOCIETY as we know it? i wasn't talking about YOU, specifically. Obviously if you're married and never divorced, then the comment wouldn't pertain to you. Surely you're aware of divorce rates. I'm referring to the overall, general "sanctity of marriage" that's being discussed.
I don't see you railing at people who are divorced at all. Yet, you are fixated on men being married to men. You're actually fixated on how icky you think they are for being attracted to one another. I look at hetero couples everywhere, all the time and think "Man, that woman is fugly... does he actually have to f*ck that woman? Wow! He's just as bad... I hope the lights are off!"
Why religious people even allow, or want, the state's approval makes no sense to me.
Does divorce cheapen the institution of marriage? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Absolutely, and that discussion continues as our society continues to devolve to a base state. Gay marriage is just a dramatic step in the devolution of the species...
You make sweeping generalizations that aren't true for many individuals, I was offering myself as an example. I don't want the state involved in marriage. If you read a couple of pages back, I brought that point up already.
Well, good. Then if the state's not involved (or you prefer not having the state even recognize it), why do you care at all who is marrying each other in the state's eyes? How is that harming you at all? I just don't understand the basis for the outrage.
You managed to overcome your dislike for divorced heterosexuals, maybe the same will happen for homosexuals who get married.
You managed to overcome your dislike for divorced heterosexuals, maybe the same will happen for homosexuals who get married.
