Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

But the World is fed up with the outrages carried through by Christianity before.
Clearly Jesus would have had NONE of the behaviour of Christianity in the past.

The enormous wealth of the CofE and Catholic priesthood used to take my breath away when I visited senior dignitaries' homes, and diocesan offices. I believe I know exactly what Jesus would have said about them all. Hypoocrisy clothed in posh robes and clever words. Imagine what the immerser would have said? !

Has anything changed? I believe in moderate Christianity in adequate means. I believe that living the life is the way and not the chanting of dogmatic mantras.
:idunno:

And what does the Word of God say of "moderate" Christianity?


Revelation 3:15-16 - I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Lukewarm Christians = God's Vomit

 

[glassjester]

Absolutely! How abouty you?

That's right. It is useful to consider "what if?".
So... if the risk of pregnancy was absent, then would you wish to legalize incestuous marriage?

 

[eider]

In your opinion.

...the above sent to another.....
Kiwimacahau...

You seem to know Greek well.
I need to ask you, do you know much about Western and Eastern Aramaic?

It's a long shot, I realise. I just feel lucky today.

 

[eider]

We don't know Christ after the flesh. You married a woman after the flesh by your own admission.

..... 'by your own admission....' :chuckle:
You sound like a Dominican Monk in an Inquisition torture chamber!

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.

Now....... I seek to find out how many TOL members hold your words, these words to their hearts.
The line I need to focus upon is the last one.....
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

Let us put SSM to one side for a brief space, because some Christians here could not even cope with the idea of marriage to a pagan, or other religion. I expect that some could not cope with marriage to another Creed even. SSM in in the far distance for many here....ok?

Each evening I sit with my pagan wife and we chat about our day and all that happened. I mentioned a few sentences that you had written and she listened. And then she suggested that I discover how many people would want TOL to be 'filtered' to exclude 'non-Christians'. OK?

And so, can we find out who would prefer not to have 'other religions' and 'pagans' on TOL?

I wonder what [MENTION=8957]dodge[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6445]glassjester[/MENTION] and dosey, oops, [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] would think?

 

[kiwimacahau]

...the above sent to another.....
Kiwimacahau...

You seem to know Greek well.
I need to ask you, do you know much about Western and Eastern Aramaic?

It's a long shot, I realise. I just feel lucky today.

Sorry, not a thing.

 

[glassjester]

I wonder what [MENTION=8957]dodge[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6445]glassjester[/MENTION] and dosey, oops, [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] would think?

Sure, let 'em in.
What's your point?

Also - If the risk of pregnancy was absent, then would you wish to legalize incestuous marriage?

 

[eider]

Sorry, not a thing.

No probs!
I know several Jews who have intimate knowledge of Hebrew/western aramaic, but Eastern Aramaic knowledge is as rare as hens' teeth.

One day...... one day....

 

[eider]

Sure, let 'em in.
What's your point?

Excellent. No Probs.
My point? Well Lon made the point, all I'm doing is checking around to see who supports his point.

Also - If the risk of pregnancy was absent, then would you wish to legalize incestuous marriage?

Please refer to my multiple posts covering all gender-mixes of incestuous marriage.


I've been scouting around TOL threads and was most interested to see one which included a vote for or against execution of Gays. The average opinion seemed to be that if two or more persons would witness 'homos' in sexual activity that this would be enough to convict with a death penalty sentence. Over 90 members supported this proposal, don't you know....? There was a further proposal that cctv recorders might be erected in the places 'wehere homos meet to have sex' or words to that effect. It was generally considered a bit over the top to install CCTV in everybodies' bedrooms.

This is significant to this thread, really, because nobody (including you?) seems to have much idea about the several reasons why Gays might wish to marry. One member has already declared that there can only be one reason! Now..... if extreme Christians should somehow gain so many converts that 'Gya death penalty could be voted in, I wonder whether all married Gays could automatically be charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and executed, simply on the basis that 'folks only marry for one reasonm'?

Well, with so many devout Christians even thinking in this way, I get the feeling that 'Gay Marriage' might not win too much support from Christians generally?

Seeing as how such a considerable % of Western folks would vote to support Gay-Marriage, might such extreme Christian opinions be yet another cause of a reduction in Christian numbers?

 

[dodge]

eider;



I wonder what [MENTION=8957]dodge[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6445]glassjester[/MENTION] and dosey, oops, [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] would think?

My vote would be let them in just not in ECT.

Debate and sharing of truth is a good thing !

 

[dodge]

In your opinion.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

True but an opinion based on scripture as opposed to the ever changing situational ethics.

Every man did that which was right in his own eyes is rebellion against God and leads straight to hell.

 

[glassjester]

Please refer to my multiple posts covering all gender-mixes of incestuous marriage.

I read them. But there doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind them.

Your objection to incestuous marriage is the risk of birth defects. Yet, with that risk completely removed, you still do not support incestuous marriage.

You have been unable to explain this apparent prejudice.

 

[eider]

I read them. But there doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind them.

Your objection to incestuous marriage is the risk of birth defects. Yet, with that risk completely removed, you still do not support incestuous marriage.

You have been unable to explain this apparent prejudice.

Back you go!
You obviously missed my careful explanations about the importance of 'equality' in the UK.

 

[glassjester]

Back you go!
You obviously missed my careful explanations about the importance of 'equality' in the UK.

I didn't miss it. It just makes no sense.



It fails on multiple levels.

You are implying that a marriage which might result in birth defects ought to be illegal. Yet, I doubt you believe this.

You are also neglecting the fact that a couple can legally marry without reproducing (obvious, by your support of homosexual marriage).

And I doubt you would be for the incestuous marriage of a sterilized couple. Why?

 

[eider]

I didn't miss it. It just makes no sense.

It fails on multiple levels.

You are implying that a marriage which might result in birth defects ought to be illegal. Yet, I doubt you believe this.

Oh you have no idea about how serious I am about marriages which could result in birth defects....... absolutely no idea.

You are also neglecting the fact that a couple can legally marry without reproducing (obvious, by your support of homosexual marriage).

No I'm not, but you are still, still, still, ignoring my careful explanation about Equality doctrine, law and tenets here.

And I doubt you would be for the incestuous marriage of a sterilized couple. Why?

It's no good......... you had careful rexplanations pages back.

Let's see....
You cannot list any reasons why a couple might marry, because you've failed to.
So you don't really understand why gays wish to marry, say, in preference to civil-partnership.
You are undoubtedly against Homosexual freedom and rights.
You are probably opposed to any LGBTQIA recognition or rights.
You may even be opposed to conditions such as 'chosen genderlessness' even though Jesus approved of it.
You are sunk into hsrd-set concrete over SSM.
You therefore cannot really hold a discussion about the subject, because your position is 'fixed'.

The legislation is passed and you must obey the laws of your land. Romans 13:1 ? from memory?
You can't show a strong enough religious position against SSM.
You can't dig up a logical argument.
Philosophy is just that.... philosophy, which will always tend to favour freedom.

But the most amazing point I wish to make is this. The thread title asks 'Why Gay Marriage?' and I have asked you for any reasons that you can think of......... and you are either inadequate to that task, or determined not to help by offering any answers. Now that's my idea of unshakeable prejudice..

 

[glassjester]

Oh you have no idea about how serious I am about marriages which could result in birth defects....... absolutely no idea.

I would like to find out.

Do you oppose the legal right to marry for persons with hereditary diseases?

 

[glassjester]

No I'm not, but you are still, still, still, ignoring my careful explanation about Equality doctrine, law and tenets here.

You support the legal right of non-siblings to marry, and would not grant that same right to siblings.

That's not equality. You deny siblings a right that you would grant to others.

 

[Lon]

..... 'by your own admission....' :chuckle:
You sound like a Dominican Monk in an Inquisition torture chamber!

It isn't meant as an inquisition, but rather a reflection on your values. Does it help me know if you are a believer or not?
Maybe, perhaps. I have had a few friends like you. They got mad at me when I questioned their love for God in becoming unequally yoked (realize the context is fundamental Christians, not something that would be an easy conversation with one who is not).
Christians are about their Savior's business, I told them. Nobody likes to hear that they are neglecting God in their lives but I think it an important word that needs to be said. After already in a marriage? All I can do is watch, these I've spoken to had already ended in divorce and I didn't say anything until atf. Would you hate me for saying your attention is divided? 1 Corinthians 7:33 For me, at least, raising kids with a Christian spouse, we are able to serve Him with understanding, when it interferes with family time.

.Now....... I seek to find out how many TOL members hold your words, these words to their hearts.
The line I need to focus upon is the last one.....
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

Yeah, and perhaps you can sympathize a bit with such. A guard against such is no bad thing. I could have done so a bit or greatly, more gently. Realize I had, at about page 19, read the whole thread and found you to be pretty offensive toward those you were talking with. There is no way any of us are seeing eye-to-eye with you over the thread topic, but perhaps even you could be a bit more empathetic. I'm endeavoring to bring meaning to all of this discussion. I think it was needful, but I wasn't as gentle and for that, apologies.

Let us put SSM to one side for a brief space, because some Christians here could not even cope with the idea of marriage to a pagan, or other religion. I expect that some could not cope with marriage to another Creed even. SSM in in the far distance for many here....ok?

Maybe even start a thread. It would shed light on the rest of this as well. ATF? I don't think anyone of us would recommend you divorce. Israel had even forced mass divorce over such. Paul does not recommend that in 1 Corinthians 7. It is what compromised the Northern Kingdom (intermarriage).

Each evening I sit with my pagan wife and we chat about our day and all that happened. I mentioned a few sentences that you had written and she listened. And then she suggested that I discover how many people would want TOL to be 'filtered' to exclude 'non-Christians'. OK?

Thanks for the sensitivity. It is all public, imo. If I had PMed you, I might ask for a bit of privacy, but not from your wife. One flesh is one flesh.

And so, can we find out who would prefer not to have 'other religions' and 'pagans' on TOL?[/B]

I wonder what @dodge and @glassjester and dosey, oops, @ok doser would think?

Would you like me to start that thread? I'd encourage you to do so, however, so you can ask your own questions regarding it as well.
Thanks for the laurel also.
-Lon

 

[Lon]

Back you go!
You obviously missed my careful explanations about the importance of 'equality' in the UK.

GJ could be a bit more forthcoming and some of his "Catholic is showing." (he loves when we say that).

In a nutshell, he is saying that you 'lovingly' want to disallow some marriages. I 'think' all he is saying, is it is that same love, that we are against homosexual marriages. There are other reasons too, including what reflects the nature of God etc. Disagreement? Of course BUT if you can understand that the context may seem one way, the reasons aren't that different between us: We don't want a 50 year old marrying a 12 year old, etc. etc.

 

[eider]

You support the legal right of non-siblings to marry, and would not grant that same right to siblings.

That's not equality. You deny siblings a right that you would grant to others.

Oh dear! It goes on...
It's time for you to actually answer some questions.

1. Can you think of a few reasons why people would undertake SSM?

2. If my country denied a person with a motorcycle licence (only) the right to fly an A380 Airbus, would you think that to be a breach of their equality rights?

 

[ok doser]

dodge, sidestep, re-direct

:nono: