Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[eider]

Eider said I "cherry-pick" doctrine. I responded by asking how I did so. A reasonable response.

I was writing 'in general' about folks who I perceive to be fundamentalists.
Your name was never mentioned, but if the cap fits, put it on, Sir.

 

[eider]

laws like "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery"?

Jesus confirmed those. You should know better.

 

[eider]

:doh:


i believe i-durrr just jumped the shark of retardedness :dizzy:

Asprin? Soluble Aspirin?

Very fast acting..... :rotfl:

 

[eider]

I don't think I'd even give it that long and I wouldn't worry about the unionists having any power of note. They'll be a distinct second fiddle like Clegg was with Cameron. The conservatives might have misjudged the climate but they're not in the business of committing political suicide itself with policies that would turn back the clock...

I expect you're right.
I hope you're right!

Imagine Mrs May taking part in an Orange-Day parade...... :rotfl:

 

[eider]

God is anti-abortion

God is anti-gay


looks like britain has the opportunity to turn back to God :idunno:

BIBLE SOURCES PLEASE!
REAL BIBLE SOURCES PLEASE!

 

[glassjester]

I was writing 'in general' about folks who I perceive to be fundamentalists.
Your name was never mentioned, but if the cap fits, put it on, Sir.

You'll accuse others of cherry-picking doctrine, yet you openly dismiss the authority of Paul, the Apostle.

On what basis do you do so?

It seems to be that you deny Paul's teaching only because it doesn't fit your personally preferred set of political doctrine.

 

[glassjester]

Why?




No, I think you're a zealot based on what you opine.

The opinion that sexual activity should take place only within marriage, and be open to the possibility of life?

If that belief makes you categorize me as a zealot, then you do consider Catholic teaching zealotry.

 

[eider]

You'll accuse others of cherry-picking doctrine, yet you openly dismiss the authority of Paul, the Apostle.

On what basis do you do so?

It seems to be that you deny Paul's teaching only because it doesn't fit your personally preferred set of political doctrine.

You openly chose the letter of Paul over the word of Jesus.
On what basis did you do so?
It seems that you ignored Jesus's teaching because it did not fit your personally preferred writings, which fit with your dogman more cl;osely.

:idunno:

 

[eider]

The opinion that sexual activity should take place only within marriage, and be open to the possibility of life?

Since you do not oppose marriages which are known., will be childless, your premise above, is shot through and through.

Think again, or come into the light.
:idunno:

 

[glassjester]

You openly chose the letter of Paul over the word of Jesus.
On what basis did you do so?

This is a lie. I accept Christ's teachings, and those of His apostles.

It seems that you ignored Jesus's teaching because it did not fit your personally preferred writings, which fit with your dogman more cl;osely.

:idunno:

Which of Christ's teachings did I ignore?

Also - why do you deny Paul's authority? You're cherry-picking.

 

[glassjester]

Since you do not oppose marriages which are known., will be childless, your premise above, is shot through and through.

Think again, or come into the light.
:idunno:

I have explained this numerous times. An infertile, heterosexual couple is not engaging in an inherently contraceptive act. A homosexual couple is.

 

[glassjester]

You openly chose the letter of Paul over the word of Jesus.
On what basis did you do so?
It seems that you ignored Jesus's teaching because it did not fit your personally preferred writings, which fit with your dogman more cl;osely.

:idunno:

You think Paul's teachings are nothing more than my "personally preferred writings" ?

Is that all the authority an apostle has to you?

 

[quip]

I have explained this numerous times. An infertile, heterosexual couple is not engaging in an inherently contraceptive act. A homosexual couple is.

"Inherently contraceptive"?
Is that even a term?

 

[glassjester]

"Inherently contraceptive"?
Is that even a term?

Maybe "inherently sterile" would have been a better description.

The point is, the marital act is not, in and of itself, against conception. A homosexual act is.

 

[glassjester]

The Catholic Faith has a rather troubled history when it comes to busting commandments..... Jesus's commandments. Oh dear.

I am not sure how the Catholic faith itself can break a command. People can, and do. Because we're, you know, sinners. If we weren't, there'd be no need for redemption.

I never thought that you are a Catholic.

Why? :think:

 

[quip]

Maybe "inherently sterile" would have been a better description.

The point is, the marital act is not, in and of itself, against conception. A homosexual act is.

I don't see how a homosexual act is "against" conception? Plenty such marriages lovingly adopt, as such, isn't marriage largely defined by love not fertility?

 

[MrDante]

The opinion that sexual activity should take place only within marriage, and be open to the possibility of life?

If that belief makes you categorize me as a zealot, then you do consider Catholic teaching zealotry.

Isn't it a mind-boggling coincidence that your "open to the possibility of life" garbage...i mean rational... just happens to exclude the only people you want to discriminate against?

 

[MrDante]

I have explained this numerous times. An infertile, heterosexual couple is not engaging in an inherently contraceptive act. A homosexual couple is.

Your rationale for hate only applies to the people you choose to hate.

 

[glassjester]

Isn't it a mind-boggling coincidence that your "open to the possibility of life" garbage...i mean rational... just happens to exclude the only people you want to discriminate against?

No - it also excludes pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, masturbation, contraception...

 

[Lon]

Ha ha!
You wandering devious creep.........

When you got nothing left, go ad hominem lain:

The Thread is all about 'Gay Marriage', and... presumably

As a guy who reads a lot of his posts, he always makes sense, he is trying to get you to think 'consistently' and fairly about things.
He has a good analytical mind. You'd do well to called non-interesting names and instead try to see where he is going with his conversations.
He is a good thinker. Find out why.

Now..... The Scottish Episcopal Church has voted to recognise and support gay marriage, so that'll show you how Christianity is beginning to move away from your dubious version of it.

And in no way, is being 'Christian' by such a move. It is humanism. You cannot serve two masters, else you lose the right to retain the label 'Christian.' I don't want fornication or bigamy sanctioned either. There is no 'sanctioning' sin in the church. A son had his father's wife in Corinth. Paul said to oust them. Ananias and Sapphira simply lied about a little bit of their own money. Death was the penalty. Whatever degree you do NOT take God's word seriously, you've ceased being 'Christian.'

"We don't believe you have to stop fornicating." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop lying." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop stealing." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop homosexual activity." - Not "Christian."

We may have fornicators, liars, thieves, and gays in the church. Rather, the church cannot sanction these as if they are no longer against God.

Your church has stopped being "Christian" by sanctioning any sin as 'no longer sin.' You don't need a Savior once you are no longer in sin AND you tell homosexuals they don't need a Savior.