A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[garyganu]

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com

 

[daws101]

Never said there was a question you just don't have any rebuttal to what I say.

right! oops! that's a rebuttal!

See you don't have one.

you are as tragically stupid as you seem!

 

[daws101]

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

right! oops! that's a rebuttal!

See you don't have one.

you are as tragically stupid as you seem!

Blather much? Stupid is saying Paul was gay

 

[BDBoop]

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view. Here is an excerpt:


The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”

While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.

“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”




Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.

However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The entire article can be viewed here: Albert Mohler Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality | CNN Belief Blog | TheBlaze.com

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

Phfft. You don't even go to church, how the fuck would you know.

 

[Gadawg73]

Undisputed:
1. Gay marriage is a non issue as it affects no heterosexual marriage in any way.
2. Gay marriage is 537th or maybe 538th on the priority list for American politicians. Too many other issues more important to focus on.
3. Gay marriage is no one's business other than the folks getting married.
4. Gay marriage should be encouraged as they will most likely have more success than straight marriages.

 

[WinterBorn]

Or the sixteen year old might have been married.

So a married 16 year old molested a 5 year old? Yeah, that changes everything. NOT!

nope not in your wildest dream/

These aren't my dreams you are posting online.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.

You make the claim that marriage is all about children. You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant. Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?

 

[garyganu]

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.

You make the claim that marriage is all about children. You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant. Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?

Sarah had been a barren woman when she had her first child at 90 years of age.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

kinda contradictory as paul was gay:Was St. Paul Gay? Claim Stirs Fury - NYTimes.com

Not even going too read your source Paul wasn't gay.

Phfft. You don't even go to church, how the fuck would you know.

I read the Bible that's why.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.

You make the claim that marriage is all about children. You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant. Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?

I didn't say you had to be fertile to get married. I didn't say people only marry to have children.

My God. I forgot I have to dumb it down to 2nd grade level.

I SAID that marriage, as in the institution of marriage, the world over, exists to protect children.

That isn't the same as saying "only people who can have children can get married and that's what marriage is all about".

Muddy thinking loons.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.

You make the claim that marriage is all about children. You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant. Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?

Sarah had been a barren woman when she had her first child at 90 years of age.

The odds are pretty good that she hadn't had a hystorectomy, wouldn't you say?

I get what you are saying, that couples may still concieve when they thought they were infertile. But in many cases, child birth is a physical impossibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So a married 16 year old molested a 5 year old? Yeah, that changes everything. NOT!

nope not in your wildest dream/

These aren't my dreams you are posting online.

It must be since you weren't there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage exists to protect children and provide them with a safe and stable home environment.

Nonsense:

Proponents [ of Proposition 8] failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8. The only rational conclusion in light of the evidence is that Proposition 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households.

Perry v. Brown

Your continuing attempts to label those who support gay marriage as people who want children viewed as sexual objects is ridiculous and insulting. If you must use strawmen, perhaps you could come up with some more reasonable ones?

Not likely. This poster, along with others opposed to equal access rights for same-sex couples, realizes she’s lost the argument long ago, and can resort only to this failed tactic.

Well, I had a hysterectomy two years before I got married, so I'm just gonna go with 'no' again.

And per the ‘reasoning’ of the right, you should not have been allowed to marry.

I came across an interesting article from a Christian point of view.

Interesting, perhaps, but Constitutionally and legally irrelevant.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry, you aren't making sense at all. I didn't mention your hysterectomy once.

Logical fallacy. Though I have to give it to you, it's almost so out there as to not make any sense at all, which would take it out of the realm of logical fallacy into the gibberish field.

You make the claim that marriage is all about children. You make that point as an argument against gay marriage, since gays can't have children.

So Boop's statement is certainly relevant. Since she cannot have children either, why would she be allowed to marry?

In other words, if you are going to disallow one set from marrying because they can't have kids, why do you allow others who cannot have kids to marry?

I didn't say you had to be fertile to get married. I didn't say people only marry to have children.

My God. I forgot I have to dumb it down to 2nd grade level.

I SAID that marriage, as in the institution of marriage, the world over, exists to protect children.

That isn't the same as saying "only people who can have children can get married and that's what marriage is all about".

Muddy thinking loons.

So there are other reasons for marriage? What a great concept!

BTW, you never did answer why you got married. (or why you would, if you aren't)

 

[WinterBorn]

nope not in your wildest dream/

These aren't my dreams you are posting online.

It must be since you weren't there.

Just going by what you originally said.

 

[koshergrl]

?

Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.

Homosexuals are in no way prevented from participating in these unions. They each have the same right as any hetero to get married. If they don't want to, that's fine, nobody cares if they do or they don't, that's their choice. But it is their choice. It's nonsense to force us to pretend that homosexual families are the premier baby-raising construct that we should all aspire to participate in...that's nonsense.

Like I said, it's the exact same thing that was done in the 70s, when the same people lied about how much happier children would be if their parents were able to fuck around with no consequences, and buy stock in "no fault divorce". The same people continue to tell us the other side of this fairy tale..."Abortions save lives!" What a crock of shit.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families.

Sorry, you aren't the ideal, and nobody is going to pretend you are. You can change the laws, you can lie all you want, but you are not the norm, you are not the preferred and most reliable construct we have for raising kids, and you never will be. If you want to enjoy the advantages of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex, then you have to actually do that.

 

[BDBoop]

?

Anyway, back to the discussion...marriage exists as an institution to protect children, and we afford certain perks to encourage unions that provide the most stability and the best nurturing for children, since a society lives or dies by children.

Homosexuals are in no way prevented from participating in these unions. They each have the same right as any hetero to get married. If they don't want to, that's fine, nobody cares if they do or they don't, that's their choice. But it is their choice. It's nonsense to force us to pretend that homosexual families are the premier baby-raising construct that we should all aspire to participate in...that's nonsense.

Like I said, it's the exact same thing that was done in the 70s, when the same people lied about how much happier children would be if their parents were able to fuck around with no consequences, and buy stock in "no fault divorce". The same people continue to tell us the other side of this fairy tale..."Abortions save lives!" What a crock of shit.

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything except a place up there on the pedestal with traditional families.

Sorry, you aren't the ideal, and nobody is going to pretend you are. You can change the laws, you can lie all you want, but you are not the norm, you are not the preferred and most reliable construct we have for raising kids, and you never will be. If you want to enjoy the advantages of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex, then you have to actually do that.

So what? So the fuck what.

We never aspired to do, or be, perfect.

Marriage isn't all about having or raising children, or who would be best suited to doing so.

And I cannot believe after all this time, you're still claiming that gays absolutely can get married - as long as they're willing to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Why won't you answer WinterBorn's question about why you wed. Or why you would.

 

[koshergrl]

I did. I'm sorry you're an idiot, but you are.