Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JoeB131]

Besides the level of "familiarity".

Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....

Why is "Familiarity" a problem?

I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me. Familiarity is a problem? How come?

If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person? Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?

It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy. Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about? They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.

Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar". In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.

As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families. Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.

Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
So was Genocide as an act of war.

So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.

 

[Andylusion]

Besides the level of "familiarity".

Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....

Why is "Familiarity" a problem?

I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me. Familiarity is a problem? How come?

If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person? Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?

It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy. Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about? They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.

Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar". In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.

As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families. Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.

Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
So was Genocide as an act of war.

So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.

I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.

Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.

He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there). He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos. He picked one, and started talking to her on skype. Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.

My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.

The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting. Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match. Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it. If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.

The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.

As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America. The whole kick the kids to college, and let them bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us. Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One™' as if.

And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say. When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know. Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry for the detour from the boring debate on the legality of what is Biblically Morally wrong....

Why is "Familiarity" a problem?

I've heard this before, and it has never made sense to me. Familiarity is a problem? How come?

If you want a life long spouse, wouldn't you want someone you knew was a good person? Someone you were familiar with enough to know what kind of person they were at their core?

It always shocks me that, specifically women, tend to reject really good, decent guys they know, and run off with some absolute nut case they don't know anything about, and are shocked they are crazy. Seriously, why would you want someone you know nothing about? They could be a fruit cake, and then you end up miserable for life, or divorced.

Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar". In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.

As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families. Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.

Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
So was Genocide as an act of war.

So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.

I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.

Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.

He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there). He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos. He picked one, and started talking to her on skype. Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.

My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.

The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting. Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match. Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it. If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.

The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.

As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America. The whole kick the kids to college, and let them bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us. Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One™' as if.

Yeah, I guess it's easy to have a marriage that works if the woman realizes she's property and not a person.

And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say. When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know. Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.

So how many of your neighbors did you stone going to work yesterday?

 

[Andylusion]

Um, yeah, I guess you could marry a close family member who is 'familiar". In fact, in most of the world, people marry their cousins, and that works out as well as you would expect.

As much as you clowns talk about "traditional" marriage, the reality is, through most of history, and in some parts of the world, marriages are still arranged by families. Yet a Modern American would consider this to be ridiculous.

Now, for what is "Morally Wrong" in the BIble.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bible.
So was Genocide as an act of war.

So was inflicting the death penalty for minor offenses like working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on your wedding night, saying a bad word, and so on.

I didn't actually mean necessarily familiarity with family, but just in general.

Actually I know a guy who had an arranged marriage, but it was not like the news media always portray it as in the headlines.

He decided he wanted to be married, and his family was back in Africa (can't remember which specific country there). He asked them to find him a girl, and they sent him some photos. He picked one, and started talking to her on skype. Soon he flew back, and returned with a girl.

My understanding is that few marriages are the ones you see on TV, with the 6 year old girl, and boy, being setup for marriage, and when they turn 15 or whatever, here you go and if you hate each other you are screwed.

The News portrays that, because they want ratings, and reality is far less interesting. Most of the time, the parents of the guy, meet the parents of the girl, and talk it out to see if they are a match. Then, if both parents agree, the boy courts the girl, and they meet just a few times, and decide if they want to get on with it. If they decide not to, then the parents go looking for someone else.

The headline news, where the parents walk in and say "here is your wife." and attach the chains, is not nearly as common as we in the west believe.

As one might expect, the success rate in these marriages is vastly higher than those in America. The whole kick the kids to college, and let them bounce around and 'good luck finding someone' has not worked too well for us. Yet we keep thinking 'we just didn't find the Right One™' as if.

Yeah, I guess it's easy to have a marriage that works if the woman realizes she's property and not a person.

And yes, I am well aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say. When I care what you think about the Bible, I'll let you know. Until then, you can expect I'll stand by my Biblical convictions.

So how many of your neighbors did you stone going to work yesterday?

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

 

[Silhouette]

...Voters don't get to vote on minority civil rights...thank goodness.


..Loving v Virginia was in 1965 or 67 wasn't it?

The US Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on current appeals asking It to determine if an incomplete group of deviant sexual behaviors-become-cult has equal protection as race under the 14th. Until such time as these appeals are in, do not speak with finality because there is no final proclamation...other than in Windsor which upheld constitutionally that each state's broad-swath "discreet community" has a right to weigh in whether or not to legalize the weird and new "gay marriage".

Right now, the weight of law at the very top in the most recent Opinion is that states' voters get to decide. That may change. But for now that is the highest and best interpretation pending appeal.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

 

[Silhouette]

[

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

No, he didn't. Never at any point did he say, "Hey, you know all those crazy laws about slavery and stoning people and you have to be a virgin on your wedding night? Just kidding!"

[
Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

But God was totally cool with Lot having drunken incest with the daughters he offered up for Gang Rape in the same story.

[
Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

Hey, I did read the bible. And I remember the part where God drowned every baby in the world and then killed David and Bathsheba's baby to teach David a lesson and then sent Bears to maul 42 children to death because they mocked a bald prophet.

Seriously, God is like a total psycho in the bible.

 

[Pete7469]

[

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

LOL...

Joe...

Reading....

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Gadawg73]

[

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit.
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass, is the fact that Greek language there was never a word for homosexuality.
The King James scribes got it wrong.
The word heteras in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. Homois means the same in Greek and the English language added it to sexual forthe word homosexual. Same sex and different sex in English and same and different WITH NO sexual meaning at all in Greek when the words were written in the scriptures in Greek.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word homoios in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant the same only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as homiois
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.

 

[GISMYS]

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit.
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass, is the fact that Greek language there was never a word for homosexuality.
The King James scribes got it wrong.
The word heteras in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. Homois means same as homosexual.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word heteras in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as homiois
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.

GOD'S WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION== God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.

25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,
ROMANS 1:24-28

 

[Gadawg73]

[

The girl could refuse to marry the boy. Do you just make up stuff not said when you discuss topics?

None. Next dumb question?

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.
Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit.
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
The word heteras in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. Homois means same as homosexual.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word homoios in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as heteras
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.

 

[bendog]

These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut. And finally people will start returning to church (-:

 

[JoeB131]

These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut. And finally people will start returning to church (-:

Why, they didn't go to the movie, did they?

 

[Silhouette]

These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut. And finally people will start returning to church (-:

That's the thing about mental illness masquerading as a "civil rights movement". They are blind to their own snowballing momentum & end game.

 

[Smilebong]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Absolutely not. Churches are where religion is practiced. Part of religion is a moral code. Most religions' moral codes define homosexuality as a sin.

 

[Smilebong]

THat doesn't happen that often. not when there are Dowries and shit involved.

But you avoid the question. YOu keep arguing that your homophobia is acceptable because the BIble says so.

The Bible also says to stone your neighbors if they work on the Sabbath.

And stone your neighbor's daughter is she isn't a virgin on her wedding night.

So why do you only selectively follow the rules?

1) Because society would brand you a psychopath if you did.
2) Because you are grasping for any excuse to justify your homophobia?

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit.
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
The word heteras in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. Homois means same as homosexual.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word homoios in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as heteras
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.

Not true. The New Testament is a time of transition. If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished. There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT

 

[RKMBrown]

These people won't stop until church services are mandated to look like the orgy in Eyes Wide Shut. And finally people will start returning to church (-:

Yeah cause gay people having a monogamous relationship is just like eyes wide shut. And plural marriages are just like eyes wide shut. And interracial marriages are just like eyes wide shut. Cause if anyone isn't just like you they must be just like that movie eyes wide shut.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are talking about the Old Testament. Not the new one. Jesus came along to set wrongs like those to right, remember?

Yet in the new testament, Jesus's home-dog Jude reported in Jude 1 that the sin of homosexuality was a different matter. That enabling it to spread as a culture within a city or society was a mortal sin. And that Sodom and other cities that might become like Sodom were destroyed for defying the Sacred Construct of man/woman relations.

Read the Bible before you diss it bro.

The followers of Jesus, ALL Jews, still practiced old Jewish law which is all the Old Testament, after Jesus' death.Eating a ham sandwich is a sin and you must repent because Jude says so.
See how silly your arguments are?
You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to go by and which ones you do not like to go by.
Because you are a hypocrit.
BTW, read your Bible because what I get out of Jude is that Jude is condemning the lust that humans may have for angels and that is a sin as well as having or attempting to have sex with the angels.
What is most interesting in the King James translations, which only a fool believes were "inspired by God" because I do not believe God is a dumb ass.
The word heteras in Greek means different from which the English word heterosexual comes from. Homois means same as homosexual.
In Greek times the Greeks did not use the word homoios in any variation to describe a homosexual or homosexuals. The Greek word meant different only and had no sexuality meaning. Same as heteras
No where in the Greek language do those words mean homosexual or heterosexual. That is a derivative taken in the English language.

Not true. The New Testament is a time of transition. If you read the book of Acts, it describes in great detail what happened as they went from a people who obeyed the OT law to a people for whom it was abolished. There is still moral truth, and every part of the OT code that still applies is restated in the NT

That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.

 

[Silhouette]

That is the Apostles and the spread of Christianity described in Luke and Acts is incomplete. It speaks of a newly formed harmonious church which is quite at odds with Paul's letters as it omits many important events such as the deaths of Peter and Paul.
Fact is they WERE Jews and the norm of the day was Old Jewish Law for over 100 years as even Acts and Luke which constitute over 1/4 of the New Testament was not written until around 90 AD.

So you are arguing for gutting the New Testament/Christanity? Islam too I suppose?

Good luck with your Agenda...youre gonna need it!