The Truth about the Bible and Homosexuality!!! Score 10 points for Gay Christians!!!

[itsbob]

So you're saying it's okay to use the bible to condone homosexuality, but not to condemn it?

You give a passage out of the bible to ten different people, and you'll get ten different.. "this is what they were trying to say" .. answers.. If you are gay, the bible will be in support of it, if you want to kill docotrs that perform abortions.. The bible says this is our DUTY.. You want to exterminate Jews.. that's in there.. let me quote you a verse and TELL you it means all of em should die..

It's the idiots that believe it when someone reads a verse, and the listener believes their interpretation.. that is why all the radical religions, all the cults, feed on the uneducated, and those unable to form their own opinion, or interpret the written word. It's a proven fact that you can say. "The Bible tells us that on Dec 28th 2004, aliens are going to come and suck our brains out of our heads, so we have to all kill ourselves on the 27th to prevent that from happening" and you'll find 100 or so people stupid enough to believe your interpretation and will kill themselves to prove they believe it.

And don't get me wrong, I just chose yours to reply to, I do agree with what you are saying..

 

[UrbanPancake]

I've always had a problem with this. My belief in a loving, forgiving God is somewhat opposed to the christian teaching of Jesus being the ONLY way to heaven. Are all Jews, Hindus, Muslems, etc., comdemed to hell because they possibly never even heard of Christ?

I don't think so. That's just my personal thought.

 

[fttrsbeerwench]

Even though there are literally hundreds of kids with out any parents at all?? There is no certainty that a same sex couple will automatically raise a gay child...I think that if two decent people want a kid, let em go for it. I know gay couple who raise children and they are not deviant in any way. I think that if i were an orphaned or abandoned child, I would want any good parents. Sexual preference does not limit your ability to love, make decisions. That should not be the case. Any objection to same sex marriage marriage should not have a thing to do with God. Separation of church and state, right?
The arguement needs to be whether same sex couples deserve the rights of regular married folks in regard to taxes and benefits. If someones gay partner dies, then why is it so bad to give them the deceased persons pention?

 

[kurleybrown]

I never post but today I feel that I should put my 2 cents in.# I am a 30 something Republican that leans more to the center of the party lines.# I consider myself to be part of the next generation that has friends of every religion, sexual orientation, and race.# I understand that you feel threatened by society because they don’t always share your points of view or beliefs, but I feel that you are also making it harder for anyone who wants to understand.# When you force your beliefs and/or change the facts around to make you look like the victim of society you are not only hurting your cause but other causes out there that aren't’t as far left as your own.# Society needs to take baby steps through the generations to make changes but when you force your views you turn off the same people that would normally be very supportive towards your happiness.# I am a happily married Christian with one child, my best friend is a lesbian that has been with her partner for almost 8 years.# They own a house and 2 cars together and lead the same life as my husband and I do.# They attend church on a semi-regular basis and are very well accepted in their community, even by most people that don’t share the same views as they do.# They however do not push there views on others.# They would love to marry one day and they are looking at Canada to exchange there vows, I just want them to be happy.# She however doesn't’t beat others up with her views, she instead writes letters to her elected officials and participates with the elections.# I wish you the best and hope that you don’t single handedly destroy your cause in the process.#

 

[vraiblonde]

I read it, and there is zero chance a Biblical literalist would ever be elected.

I agree and I think the liberals' fear of this is completely unfounded. But how would you feel if there was a book that the majority of your countrymen considered the gospel on how to conduct yourself, and it said that blonde men with custody of their sons named Pete should be put to death?

Food for thought.

His discussion is not to promote acceptance of homosexuality, that already exists, but it is to promote the legitimization of it through government sanctioned same sex marriages. The electorate in this nation just does not see it that was evidenced through 100% pass rate of the numerous state constitutional ammendments and anti-same sex marriage initiatives.

Can we agree that marriage is a civil right and not a religious one? And if we can agree on that, can we also agree that civil rights should be available to everyone, and not just certain people?

There was a time when religious people were aghast at blacks having the same rights as whites. They thought it was perfectly reasonable to forbid miscegnation or any kind of fraternization between the races. Nowadays we call those people "KKK members".

Civil rights are civil rights, not majority rules. Times are changing and gays are demanding their civil rights as tax paying citizens. I, personally, think they deserve it.

 

[T.Rally]

I don't think so. That's just my personal thought.

Your words;

"I find the bible and much of christianity morally offensive and idiotic. I don't understand why people would give up the right to think for themselves in favor of a book that not only contradicts itself so much as to be virtually indecipherable, but is so steeped in superstition and nonsense that it is nothing but a moral sinkhole. The bible as literature is fascinating. The bible as a moral guide is repugnant. The bible legislated is unconstitutional."

 

[vraiblonde]

Look at us! Having a discussion!

 

[ylexot]

Can we agree that marriage is a civil right and not a religious one? And if we can agree on that, can we also agree that civil rights should be available to everyone, and not just certain people?

Actually, I disagree with that. IMO, "marriage" is a specifically religious institution that the government should not be involved with AT ALL.

 

[itsbob]

Actually, I disagree with that. IMO, "marriage" is a specifically religious institution that the government should not be involved with AT ALL.

agreed

 

[vraiblonde]

Actually, I disagree with that. IMO, "marriage" is a specifically religious institution that the government should not be involved with AT ALL.

Okay, then we need to do away with marriage licenses, ages of consent, bigamy laws, etc.

I have to run but this is an interesting conversation.

 

[ylexot]

Okay, then we need to do away with marriage licenses, ages of consent, bigamy laws, etc.

I have to run but this is an interesting conversation.

Yup.

 

[itsbob]

Okay, then we need to do away with marriage licenses, ages of consent, bigamy laws, etc.

I have to run but this is an interesting conversation.

CORRECT.. the issue of multiple marriages SHOULD be a religous thing.. but who's religion? Would we have to adopt a national religion? If I want two wives, (GOD the horror) why should the governemnt deny me the right? Hell in this day and age it might be the answer to our problems.. have 4, 5 .. 10 wage earners living under the same roof. And the women wouldn't be gay as long as I was in the room right?? SO we wouldn't have to deal with the gay marriage thing again.. Should we get rid of all the "relationship" laws.. you live with who you want, there would be no benefits to being married or single.. taxes would be taxes, everyone file single returns..

 

[ylexot]

there would be no benefits to being married or single.. taxes would be taxes, everyone file single returns..

If they go to a national sales tax, that goes away anyway (except state taxes, where applicable)

 

[mAlice]

Can we agree that marriage is a civil right and not a religious one? And if we can agree on that, can we also agree that civil rights should be available to everyone, and not just certain people?

There was a time when religious people were aghast at blacks having the same rights as whites. They thought it was perfectly reasonable to forbid miscegnation or any kind of fraternization between the races. Nowadays we call those people "KKK members".

Civil rights are civil rights, not majority rules. Times are changing and gays are demanding their civil rights as tax paying citizens. I, personally, think they deserve it.

Well said.

 

[mAlice]

Actually, I disagree with that. IMO, "marriage" is a specifically religious institution that the government should not be involved with AT ALL.

How can it be specifically religious, since partnerships existed even before man could grunt?

 

[ylexot]

How can it be specifically religious, since partnerships existed even before man could grunt?

A partnership does not make a marriage.

 

[mAlice]

A partnership does not make a marriage.

Now you're just being difficult. You know what I mean. Two people commit to each other and create a home and a family. This has been going on a lot longer than 'marriage'. In restaurants, you pour the remains of one half empty bottle of ketchup into another half empty bottle of ketchup to make a whole bottle to set on the table for the sole purpose of appearances. It's called "marrying the ketchup". Marriage is nothing more than a word to describe bringing together two and making it one.

 

[mAlice]

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross

 

[vraiblonde]

Should we get rid of all the "relationship" laws.. you live with who you want, there would be no benefits to being married or single.. taxes would be taxes, everyone file single returns..

I actually would go for that but it'll never happen.

I think gay marriage is fine. Polygamy is fine. Whatever arrangement consenting adults agree to is fine with me - shoot, I'd love it if we could get another wife at Casa Gude.

 

[Lenny]

It has been proven that sexual orientation is set before birth, both hetero, and homo. . . .

Another attempt by the lavender, liberal, left to create facts that just aren't there.

There is absolutely no credible evidence (sorry, your wishful thinking doesn't count as credible) that homesexuality is a natural deviation. If it was it would quickly extinguish in the race since homesexuals cannot procreate by practicing HOMOSEXUALITY! There is no survival benefit to a natural mutation of the genetic material that leads to homosexuality. That means it's a personel choice (Hey, how about that! This has now turned into a "choice" arguement).

Because homosexuality is a choice, the normal people in the world want to wipe it out ". . .before you choose my son or daughter to recruit into your perversion."