Gay Mob Attacks Christians

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Can I then apply that to any word? If what you recognize is accepted as a world, and the standard conventions of the English language, why should I have to? If I want to view the word “legal” as in meaning mother, you are saying that I have the right to?

If marriage is just a word, then how can it have any legal implications/ramifications/bindings/ or consequences? If you are saying that the meaning of the word is based on perspectives, how do you propose that there is any basis on which to found a legal conclusion?

Also, marriage is a concept, which would entail that if you wish to use in the form of said concept (which in this case would be the bindings of two people), you cannot change it. You are setting multiple standards, in that the word marriage means nothing- is not affiliated with any church- but yet has legal consequences which set it apart from a civil union?

Care to clarify your point?

What makes marriage any different from a civil union? Nothing in this day and age. Both are pretty much controlled by the government.

If you were to say… I don’t know, something like Catholic marriage, then you’re free to say it’s between 1 man + 1 woman. If you say marriage, you aren’t attaching a specific (or any) religion to it. It’s still open to interpretation. Specifics become important when playing around with a loaded term where multiple denominations use it.

Also, I don’t personally like the idea of government involvement in any marriage, but removing it would make a whole lot of other problems.

Also, you’re assuming marriage has always been 1 man + 1 woman. It hasn’t. Gay marriage and polygamy have been around for a LONG time.[/quote]

Yeah but they used to be smart and quiet about it, not push it in your face and piss you off.

242

[quote]haney1 wrote:
It isn’t and no I am not twisting it. I am using exegesis to understand Paul’s original meaning.[/quote]

No, what you’re doing is using exegesis to claim Paul’s statement was a recommendation rather than a command from God. He very clearly says it is a command from God, so how can you claim otherwise with any amount of integrity?

243

[quote]Makavali wrote:
First point - federal rights.

Potential loss of couple’s home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

Unlike a company’s contribution to an employee’s spouse’s health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

Things like that. WRT your second point, I firmly believe a gay couple cannot force a religious group to accept them.[/quote]

As a gay man, I agree 100% with what Makavali posted above. For me, it’s about securing equal rights with my partner. I respect the right of religions to believe whatever they want about homosexuality, and would never ask a religion to recognize my marriage as long as the government recognizes it.

244

[quote]forlife wrote:
Makavali wrote:
First point - federal rights.

Potential loss of couple’s home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

Unlike a company’s contribution to an employee’s spouse’s health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

Things like that. WRT your second point, I firmly believe a gay couple cannot force a religious group to accept them.

As a gay man, I agree 100% with what Makavali posted above. For me, it’s about securing equal rights with my partner. I respect the right of religions to believe whatever they want about homosexuality, and would never ask a religion to recognize my marriage as long as the government recognizes it.[/quote]

That would be great if the rest of the gay community acted on what you just said, but as many groups that feel oppressed they are never satisfied even if they are brought to a level that is equal.

sorry i get very combative sometimes but I work with one of the aformentioned type of people.

245

There may be a few people like that, but I can honestly tell you that of the hundreds of gay people I personally know, not one of them cares whether other religions recognize their civil union/marriage. It’s all about securing equal rights from the government, and nothing more.

246

[quote]forlife wrote:
Makavali wrote:
First point - federal rights.

Potential loss of couple’s home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

Unlike a company’s contribution to an employee’s spouse’s health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

Things like that. WRT your second point, I firmly believe a gay couple cannot force a religious group to accept them.

As a gay man, I agree 100% with what Makavali posted above. For me, it’s about securing equal rights with my partner. I respect the right of religions to believe whatever they want about homosexuality, and would never ask a religion to recognize my marriage as long as the government recognizes it.[/quote]

I pretty much agree with you here. Other than I don’t think the government should be evolved in marriage at all.

I think the government should only be able to do civil unions for anyone. I think marriage is inherently a religious matter, and should remain completely separated from the state.

I am completely against prop 8 for this point, it is none of the governments damn business to oversee and regulate a religious ceremony. I see it as a blatant intrusion on religion.

I personally, however, do not believe Christians should practice gay marriage. On this basis I won’t support a church that practices or preaches this.

If gays want to belong to an organization that marries them, I have no problem with that, but it won’t be a church I go to.

247

[quote]forlife wrote:
There may be a few people like that, but I can honestly tell you that of the hundreds of gay people I personally know, not one of them cares whether other religions recognize their civil union/marriage. It’s all about securing equal rights from the government, and nothing more.[/quote]

Not many of the ones I know. There is a difference between being tolerant and accepting of a person and being forced to condone actions.

It seems to me the “gay agenda” is geared more towards trying to force people agree rather than just agreeing to disagree.

248

[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
It isn’t and no I am not twisting it. I am using exegesis to understand Paul’s original meaning.

No, what you’re doing is using exegesis to claim Paul’s statement was a recommendation rather than a command from God. He very clearly says it is a command from God, so how can you claim otherwise with any amount of integrity?[/quote]

first off that would be impossible to use exegesis to do that. If I am doing that it would be called Isagesis.

secondly I gave you reasons why I believe he is using word play and I cited a reference.

As for integrity on this forum my reputation speaks for itself. I have had plenty of conversations with people on this forum and everytime I say things that are incorrect I own up to it.

I am telling you this as honestly as possible. I think you are over emphasizing that passage and being way too literal. To be fair though let me ask you can the characters of the Bible ever use sarcasm or hyperbole?

249

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I pretty much agree with you here. Other than I don’t think the government should be evolved in marriage at all.

I think the government should only be able to do civil unions for anyone. I think marriage is inherently a religious matter, and should remain completely separated from the state.

I am completely against prop 8 for this point, it is none of the governments damn business to oversee and regulate a religious ceremony. I see it as a blatant intrusion on religion.

I personally, however, do not believe Christians should practice gay marriage. On this basis I won’t support a church that practices or preaches this.

If gays want to belong to an organization that marries them, I have no problem with that, but it won’t be a church I go to.[/quote]

That sounds very fair and reasonable to me.

250

[quote]haney1 wrote:
I am telling you this as honestly as possible. I think you are over emphasizing that passage and being way too literal. To be fair though let me ask you can the characters of the Bible ever use sarcasm or hyperbole?[/quote]

Not when they are directly stating that such and such is a commandment of God. I can’t imagine any case where someone would state that a doctrine or practice is a commandment of God, and not actually mean it.

251

[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
I am telling you this as honestly as possible. I think you are over emphasizing that passage and being way too literal. To be fair though let me ask you can the characters of the Bible ever use sarcasm or hyperbole?

Not when they are directly stating that such and such is a commandment of God. I can’t imagine any case where someone would state that a doctrine or practice is a commandment of God, and not actually mean it.[/quote]

Well if you are so right on that passage then tell me why most biblical scholars and the church through out the ages doesn’t agree with you?

252

Where is your evidence that “most biblical scholars” state that Paul didn’t really mean it when he said it was a commandment of God?

Besides, how do you know they aren’t following the same cafeteria Christianity you are? Since society today doesn’t generally recognize the second class status of women that existed in the new testament, wouldn’t it be politically incorrect for them to support Paul’s statement, portraying it as cultural rather than a commandment of God?

I don’t honestly see how you can interpret it any other way. He said very clearly that it was a commandment of God.

253

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I pretty much agree with you here. Other than I don’t think the government should be evolved in marriage at all.

I think the government should only be able to do civil unions for anyone. I think marriage is inherently a religious matter, and should remain completely separated from the state.
[/quote]

I’d be fine with that, assuming that all the rights and benefits that currently attach to marriage are transferred to civil unions. That’s kind of how it’s done in Germany - everyone has to be married in a registry office, and those that want a religious ceremony can do that in addition, but only the civil ceremony is legally recognised.

254

[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is your evidence that “most biblical scholars” state that Paul didn’t really mean it when he said it was a commandment of God?

Besides, how do you know they aren’t following the same cafeteria Christianity you are? Since society today doesn’t generally recognize the second class status of women that existed in the new testament, wouldn’t it be politically incorrect for them to support Paul’s statement, portraying it as cultural rather than a commandment of God?

I don’t honestly see how you can interpret it any other way. He said very clearly that it was a commandment of God.[/quote]

I have already cited an article that had references in it.

As for the most part that is an obvious one. Since churches today in many cases violate some part of that “so called command of God passage” then everyone of them would be “sinning”.

It gave rules for speaking in tongues and prophecy that most AG and spirit filled churches would clearly be in violation of.

Every church would be in violation of women speaking since every church has atleast one woman who teaches a Sunday school class.

If the Biblcal scholars thought it was such a hard fast rule like you seem to think than why don’t we hear the protests.

Shoot I grew up in a fundamentalist church and even then while we though AG\spirit filled churches were wrong in their worship we didn’t think they were openly defying God and sinning.

You know in revelation it very clearly says that one of the epic battles will be fought on horse back with bows and arrows. So should we assume that all christians must think mechanized vehicles will no longer exist as well?

255

[quote]haney1 wrote:
As for the most part that is an obvious one. Since churches today in many cases violate some part of that “so called command of God passage” then everyone of them would be “sinning”.

It gave rules for speaking in tongues and prophecy that most AG and spirit filled churches would clearly be in violation of.

Every church would be in violation of women speaking since every church has atleast one woman who teaches a Sunday school class.[/quote]

So your defense is that most contemporary churches ignore the passage, so it must not have actually been a commandment from God despite Paul clearly saying that it was?

How about the possibility that most contemporary churches either a) are cafeteria Christians or b) allow that the statements recorded in the bible may not have relevance to our day, including statements contrary to what we now know about sexual orientation?

256

[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
As for the most part that is an obvious one. Since churches today in many cases violate some part of that “so called command of God passage” then everyone of them would be “sinning”.

It gave rules for speaking in tongues and prophecy that most AG and spirit filled churches would clearly be in violation of.

Every church would be in violation of women speaking since every church has atleast one woman who teaches a Sunday school class.

So your defense is that most contemporary churches ignore the passage, so it must not have actually been a commandment from God despite Paul clearly saying that it was?

How about the possibility that most contemporary churches either a) are cafeteria Christians or b) allow that the statements recorded in the bible may not have relevance to our day, including statements contrary to what we now know about sexual orientation?[/quote]
that isn’t my defense. I gave you sources for my defence.

you asked for proof that the majority of biblical scholars support that idea concerning the passage. Since I can’t poll every single christian scholar I am pointing to the silence that is coming from them on the issue.

I think I have said that some statements recorded don’t have a direct relevence since they are cultural rules.

Sexual immorality will never qualify though as not have relevance.

at this point though we are just in a circle jerk, so why continue?

257

[quote]ninearms wrote:
I’d be fine with that, assuming that all the rights and benefits that currently attach to marriage are transferred to civil unions. That’s kind of how it’s done in Germany - everyone has to be married in a registry office, and those that want a religious ceremony can do that in addition, but only the civil ceremony is legally recognised. [/quote]

Wow, that does sound pretty good.