Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

Looks like you don't know much about equality Glassjester.

Looks like you don't have a logical reason to deny brothers the right to marry.

You can only handle one thing at a time? How do you manage in a class full of pupils?

Huh?

I just don't think that you've ever really thought about the varying reasons why people marry, Glassjester.
It must have left you in a bit of a vacuum, that question.

No, sir. I believe that clarification on the incest question will lend some clarity to your purpose of marriage question.


Your equality argument just doesn't work. Remember, your reason for wanting incestuous marriage to be illegal is because of its link to birth defects. If this risk could be totally removed, would you be for the legalization of incestuous marriage?

 

[glassjester]

BUT it makes it clear it entails marriage as well. "...what fellowship has light with darkness?"
"Yoked" is very much about a union. The Lord Jesus Christ went so far as to say that father against sons in His kingdom.

There is no possible way to say it isn't also about marriage. It certainly is. -Lon

The imagery of a yoke implies being dragged along - forced to walk the same path, right?

The Catholic Church, of course, prefers that Catholic marry Catholics. However, if a Catholic seeks to marry a non-Catholic (or even a non-Christian), they must be granted special permission, and certain assurances are to be made in order for this permission to be granted.

The Catholic spouse must promise to avoid anything that would lead to their defection from the Church (ie, engaging in non-Catholic religious activity). Any children born to the couple are to be baptized and catechized in the Catholic faith. They attend a marriage preparation program in the Church (called Pre-Cana) in order to be educated on the Catholic understanding of marriage and be made aware of the obligations a Catholic marriage entails.

If any of the Church's conditions are not met, the Church will not grant the couple the dispensation to marry within the Church.

These precautions, I believe, fulfill the Paul's prohibition against being "yoked" with an unbeliever.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Eh, I do ... adulterers, domestic abusers and predatory adults who prey on children and teenagers. Those topics are rarely discussed.

Why would they be, unlike gay sex/marriage, who is saying that those things arent sin, and who is demanding acceptance for them?

Pretend you don't get it.

PS, you actually *do* and have seen us make threads and talk about adultery - when someone here talks about polyamorous types of relatonships as if being ok with God and or His plan.

 

[Angel4Truth]

In Greek 'Strange Flesh' is "Sarkos Heteros" from which we get 'heterosexual' and refers to a legend that the WOMEN of Sodom were lusting after the angels.You need to be careful with Jude as he quotes Hebrew legends in his writing. More to the point, it is the Jews that define Sodom's sin as inhospitality, I have far more faith in their exegesis than yours.

Thats gay revisionism.

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

As far as the last line, they dont recognize scripture that points to Christ as messiah either, i see you follow that scholarship also, because you dont know Him.

 

[Angel4Truth]

2peter2:10

yeah, he ignores both jude and peter also as well as other verses in the OT about the sins of Sodom and its sexual immorality being the the last straw.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The imagery of a yoke implies being dragged along - forced to walk the same path, right?

The Catholic Church, of course, prefers that Catholic marry Catholics. However, if a Catholic seeks to marry a non-Catholic (or even a non-Christian), they must be granted special permission, and certain assurances are to be made in order for this permission to be granted.

The Catholic spouse must promise to avoid anything that would lead to their defection from the Church (ie, engaging in non-Catholic religious activity). Any children born to the couple are to be baptized and catechized in the Catholic faith. They attend a marriage preparation program in the Church (called Pre-Cana) in order to be educated on the Catholic understanding of marriage and be made aware of the obligations a Catholic marriage entails.

If any of the Church's conditions are not met, the Church will not grant the couple the dispensation to marry within the Church.

These precautions, I believe, fulfill the Paul's prohibition against being "yoked" with an unbeliever.

I believe its saying not to knowingly be joined to a non believer in marriage, and its being given to the early church where a spouse becomes a believer and one has not (whole context)(for the believer to stay but being free if the non believer leaves) and warning about doing it (marriage) deliberately with those outside the faith.

 

[dodge]

Actually. Jude 7
ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τροπον τουτοις εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι

"sarkos heteras"

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

You have it backwards !

strange

g2087
ἕτερος heteros
Pronounce Greek root for G2087 ἕτερος

flesh

g4561
σάρξ sarx

Heteros i.e strange

Sarx i.e flesh.

 

[Lon]

Are you still upset?
Lon.... you got nailed

Nailed? :think:

because you're so stuck up with your cleverness, and devoutness.

There is a something to that, it is called holiness :think: Separatedness. :think:

And you've helped me to post my first three threads on forum, just when I am ready.

Aw, little me? Yeah, I'm not the one stuck on or nailed by something....wouldn't have given it another thought.
Basically, it is all you. You do this to others. So yep, I deliberately did it back to you. You are nobody's guru.
Posturing over it? Nobody will care. I am not your scapegoat, no matter how hard you will try.

Please, just go and find peace, and you will be in humility, and won't feel the need to shout to the World how special you are.

Er, I didn't. I rather said I was beyond you. You are going to start 3 threads, all in the name of 'you' being better than 'me.' :think:

 

[Lon]

The imagery of a yoke implies being dragged along - forced to walk the same path, right?

The Catholic Church, of course, prefers that Catholic marry Catholics. However, if a Catholic seeks to marry a non-Catholic (or even a non-Christian), they must be granted special permission, and certain assurances are to be made in order for this permission to be granted.

The Catholic spouse must promise to avoid anything that would lead to their defection from the Church (ie, engaging in non-Catholic religious activity). Any children born to the couple are to be baptized and catechized in the Catholic faith. They attend a marriage preparation program in the Church (called Pre-Cana) in order to be educated on the Catholic understanding of marriage and be made aware of the obligations a Catholic marriage entails.

If any of the Church's conditions are not met, the Church will not grant the couple the dispensation to marry within the Church.

These precautions, I believe, fulfill the Paul's prohibition against being "yoked" with an unbeliever.

I can't even say Protestants all are opposed. In fact, many of them will grant that option without the conscientiousness of the church. So, even though I believe it bad and won't do it, your church is more conservative on this view than a good number of protestants are. A 'believer' who wants to marry an unbeliever? Imho, is compromised in their love and devotion to the Savior and caught up in the flesh.

Its believe its saying not to knowingly be joined to a non believer in marriage, and its being given to the early church where a spouse becomes a believer and one has not (whole context)(for the believer to stay but being free if the non believer leaves) and warning about doing it (marriage) deliberately with those outside the faith.

1 Corinthians 7:1-40 Corinthians 6:14
I know of one family, the wife a Christian, married an atheist. She and the two daughters: Christians. The husband and son: atheists. Imho, she doomed her husband and son by disobedience (though God may yet do something in either of their lives). Jesus said not all could refrain, but the context was about Christian in-house directives. Paul said not all could refrain. Neither The Lord Jesus Christ nor Paul condoned mixed marriage by heart. We are either believers, whole-heart, or else it is simply 'faking it.' Add-on accessorized "Christ," rather than fully clothed in Him. Romans 13:14


Perhaps treating them both as unbelievers makes the point moot BUT often times, the wishy-washy luke warm try and come back to Christ, and in so doing, divide the family, having served two masters. I just can't find it in myself. "If you want the Lord's blessing, both of you must 'seek' the Lord's blessing, otherwise your union is a civil matter where neither of you really want the Lord's blessing."

-Lon

 

[Lon]

Looks like you don't know much about equality Glassjester.

See, you are more arrogant than I will ever be. By comparison, that's not good. I'm prideful. You? Not really any reason to be.

But then a lot of Christians don't know much about equality

:yawn: And "I'm" the arrogant one? lain:

Why, I know of denominations where women are not allowed to speak in service, or to hold office. I've even heard that some Churches still require women to promise to obey their future husbands.

OUTRAGEOUS!!! There is nothing in Ephesians 5 that even suggests such a thing! lain:

Of course you wouldn't understand....

"...quoted the pedagogue." lain:

why legal status of a brother would affect legal status of a sister, or vice versa.
In the UK we have 'level' marriages; we even have female priests and bishops.....

You mean in 'Post'-Christian Europe? Yeah, nothing shocks me from "Post"-Christianity, "Post"-Christians.

No, I was silly to expect that you would understand why a male should only have the same rights as a female.
Sorry about that.
:chuckle:

Of course, it is paganism in the 'guise' of Christianity. You clearly don't know your bible. You can't even quote it, have to ask me about where it says this or that, even. Are you by chance a pastor? Professor? Yeah, I'm not really impressed with "Post"-Christian academia either. You've marginalized yourselves into non-existence. It is desperation of the pagans to try to hold on to something that should have died when the Holy Spirit moved out ages ago.

You can only handle one thing at a time?

Ah, see how you take a simple request and turn it around to be a one-up slam?
You really shouldn't be doing this to GlassJester. I don't agree with him on his church differences, but I always listen to him. He is smart, thoughtful, and intelligent. Perhaps even moreso than I :noway:

How do you manage in a class full of pupils?

Slam after slam. It is why I ranted yesterday (starting even before on page 19). You are a condescending man.
You ask if my IQ has anything to do with Spirituality. Next? You slam another upon your 'feigned' idea of superiority.
You over-compensate, and in a worldly manner. :think:

I just don't think that you've ever really thought about....

There you go trying to 'think' again? :nono: Really, it was just your backhand. You know it. He knows it.

the varying reasons why people marry, Glassjester.

Sure. Politically, people will do so. For the Christian, there is but ONE reason. The ONLY reason.

It must have left you in a bit of a vacuum, that question.

You can't seem to help yourself. You suggested I was a 'mirror' for you. :nono: I meet flak for flak, starting page 19, but all through the thread.
THAT man, is you. Oh you'll not say "I'm smarter than you." Rather, you'll emote it and chest thump, and be-little. :wave:

 

[Lon]

you have to ask for a scriptural reference for this.

More telling? You didn't/couldn't find one? :think: I can help if you like. A lot of 1 John came to mind. Tell me what you come up with.
"I" didn't have to ask. I wanted to look at the passages you were thinking of. Apparently none? How can you assert something with no scripture to back it up? :idunno:

God is not OK with hate. Repent.

Does God hate? If so, how can you say hate isn't for Christians? Rather, isn't it 'what' (perhaps 'who' as well) you hate? Is it okay to 'hate' sin?

Give a scripture. Let's see if you are right. :think:

You are one sad little man.

Stuff like this means nothing to me. I have you on ignore simply because you don't really know how to debate, just emote a lot.
Me? I'm into empirical data. For the Christian, scripture works. Why didn't you give any? :think:

 

[eider]

Looks like you don't have a logical reason to deny brothers the right to marry.

Like I said before.... you don't understand just how much we support equality, here in the UK and on the continent. And you don't think that intimate blood-line union is dangerous? Are you having a laugh?

Huh?

Don't worrty about it. Your profile mentioned that you are a teacher.

No, sir. I believe that clarification on the incest question will lend some clarity to your purpose of marriage question.

I believe that you're set fast in some kind of religious cement, and that you will never be able to review your position.

Your equality argument just doesn't work.

Well, of course you would not see that it does. And that's interesting, because a huge % of folks all around here would understand it instintaly and immediately.

Remember, your reason for wanting incestuous marriage to be illegal is because of its link to birth defects.

Absolutely! How abouty you?
And since I could tell you a very great about how equality workls in a community I don't need youi to tell me that I don't count upon this reason to exclude brothers from ssm as highly important. Social, political, working and living equality is very dear to me. I used to write it into courses, teach it in courses, and have lived it for as long as I can remember.

If this risk could be totally removed, would you be for the legalization of incestuous marriage?

Oh, good graciousness! You've crashed and burned on the legal, religious, logical and philosophical angles, so now you want to retreat yet further into the corners of 'IF'......
If I was female I'd be a grandmother..........

But equality is a very young child where you are, methinks, it's only 50 years since inter-racial marriage was made lawful throughout the US.

 

[eider]

I'm reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated. More importantly to me, are the years I've walked with the Savior and know His Word.

Well, bully for you!

The point was, you assert one idea. You know the Apostle Paul's stance. It is even the Lord Jesus Christ's stance (one and the same). -Lon

No...... I think that Paul was talking about Roman and Romanised folks, in a society which counted bi-sexuality as not only normal, but reasonable and socially acceptable. Bi-sexuality and promiscuity could and can s;pread illness through a whole community.

And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality or bisexuality. What he DID say was that if a person fel;t that ANY part of their body could lead them astray from his path, that it was good for them to 'cut that member off' thereby supporting spitual or physical genderlessness, but many here are most vexed by that passage (and the idea of genderlessness) which is repeated by Jesus in the guise of.... Paul.

Look, I know that you believe that Paul was Jesus, and Cephas was probably Jesus when he had his visions at Joppa thus changing the food laws for Christians etc. There are members who believe that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt.

I believe that Jesus...... was Jesus.

 

[eider]

I know why SSM folks marry it is to rebel against and sin against God.

I don't think you knowe anything about SSM folks.
I think SSM folks marry for several reasons, none of which are to rebel against God. Some SSM folks are Christians, I expect.

 

[dodge]

I don't think you knowe anything about SSM folks.
I think SSM folks marry for several reasons, none of which are to rebel against God. Some SSM folks are Christians, I expect.

What is to know ? God says do not and those that do not know God say do !

There is no such thing as a SSM Christian.

The human race does not get to make the rules God does and did, and sadly many follow Satan and love their sin more than God.

 

[eider]

........... you are more arrogant than I will ever be.......
...... I'm prideful.......
.......And "I'm" the arrogant one? .......

Yep....

You clearly don't know your bible.

Clearly. But I know enough to debate your amazing ideas.

Are you by chance a pastor? Professor?

When she wakes up, I'm going to show that to my wife.
She will crease up with laughter.

You really shouldn't be doing this to GlassJester. I don't agree with him on his church differences, but I always listen to him. He is smart, thoughtful, and intelligent. Perhaps even moreso than I :noway:

I have enjoyed Glassjester's posts on this thread.
And although we differ so much he would be welcome in our home, to our hospitailty and any help he might need.

You are a condescending man.
You can't seem to help yourself.

Yep....... Sometimes, when faced with certain folks, my humour gets the better of me.
But God loves laughter, not the kind or venomous stuff that you spit out.



You are a Calvinist, I expect.??

 

[eider]

What is to know ? God says do not and those that do not know God say do !

Ah, but that was 'back in the day' a single law amongst 613 others, many of which I expect many Christians might ignore, have forgotten, or claim to be repealed.
So now you can cherry-pick the laws you want to try and enforce, whilst discarding laws which you don't like or cannot see any point in.
Yes, Jesus did repeal 96 of them with a sentence, because they were all being used to fleece the poor working Jews and line the pockets of the fat, rich, quisling hypocritical priesthood....... John the Immerser described them all perfectly, and set up a means of redemtion separate from the sacrificial money-go-round.

During his mission for the working people Jesus showed that all the other laws should be kept, but that togetherness, love, understanding were needed first to bring the people close enough together to make a difference against the priesthood and corrupt system.

Somehow a very few Christians have spun this into a mess of self-righteous hatred, indignation, bad-judgement and dangerous attitudes. The vast majority of Christians are bringing love and understanding to the table first and foremost. They are winning, and thank goodness for that.

There is no such thing as a SSM Christian.

There is no such thing as a hate filled, self-righteous, prejudiced Christian.
The Churches are moving away from any extremist and absolutely-wrong position.

The human race does not get to make the rules God does and did, and sadly many follow Satan and love their sin more than God.

OK.... So God is making the rules, and enforcing them. Hence the Churches are moving towards more freedom and equality. The Churches were so corrupted in the past that you can hardly tell me how righteous they ever were before.

 

[ok doser]

The imagery of a yoke implies being dragged along - forced to walk the same path, right?

i've always read it as pulling in the same direction, toward a common goal (that of raising a Godly, righteous, moral family)

 

[dodge]

There is no such thing as a hate filled, self-righteous, prejudiced Christian.
The Churches are moving away from any extremist and absolutely-wrong position.

The churches that allow or promote SSM are not following God they are following Satan.

OK.... So God is making the rules, and enforcing them. Hence the Churches are moving towards more freedom and equality. The Churches were so corrupted in the past that you can hardly tell me how righteous they ever were before.

YOU nor any denomination gets to re-define what God has already condemned. YOU or anyone can do whatever they want but everyone will stand before God some on their way to heaven and some on their way to eternal hell.

 

[Lon]

Well, bully for you!

Those in Christ are on equal footing similarly to my kids being on equal footing with me BUT the faithful are trusted with more.
Matthew 6:33

No...... I think that Paul was talking about Roman and Romanised folks, in a society which counted bi-sexuality as not only normal, but reasonable and socially acceptable. Bi-sexuality and promiscuity could and can s;pread illness through a whole community.

We don't know Christ after the flesh. You married a woman after the flesh by your own admission. I hope that you'll start a thread about it and why it is wrong. see 2Corinthians 5:15-17 2 Corinthians 5:2,5,8,10,11,15-17 Jude 1:4 talks also about the problem of the flesh creeping into the Body of Christ and a need to guard against such, even guarding against such infilteration on TOL.

And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality or bisexuality. What he DID say was that if a person fel;t that ANY part of their body could lead them astray from his path, that it was good for them to 'cut that member off' thereby supporting spitual or physical genderlessness, but many here are most vexed by that passage (and the idea of genderlessness) which is repeated by Jesus in the guise of.... Paul.

:nono: Peter, Paul, Jude? They all walked with the Savior and all talk about it. Again, I think you caught in the flesh but CANNOT know Christ that way. 2 Corinthians 5:5-17 is conditional upon one either being in the flesh or in the Spirit. Paul insists we cannot know Christ after the flesh. Trying to see everything in scripture from that perspective is what makes liberal churches that Jude 1:4 warns about.

Look, I know that you believe that Paul was Jesus, and Cephas was probably Jesus when he had his visions at Joppa thus changing the food laws for Christians etc. There are members who believe that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt.
I believe that Jesus...... was Jesus.

I do too. What I find stranger, is that you pit scripture against scripture, Jesus against Jesus. It is schizophrenic in my estimation.
The Lord Jesus Christ isn't divided.