Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

....and our marriage could never fulfill that definition, any more than a gay marriage can.

The marital act is not, in and of itself, contraceptive. A homosexual act is.

SOURCE! BIBLE SOURCE please!

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[glassjester]

Zealots are the ones with the biggest hang ups where it comes to homosexuality. Some of the 'Christian' ones think it should be a capital crime, that those found guilty should be swiftly, painfully and publicly executed . Go figure eh?

lain:

Then just being Catholic makes me an extremist or a zealot?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The marital act is not, in and of itself, contraceptive. A homosexual act is.




1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Um, you do realize that there's plenty of sexual practices within a heterosexual marriage that couldn't lead to the production of offspring right? Or do you class those as a form of contraception?

 

[glassjester]

Um, you do realize that there's plenty of sexual practices within a heterosexual marriage that couldn't lead to the production of offspring right? Or do you class those as a form of contraception?

Yes, I do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then just being Catholic makes me an extremist or a zealot?

No. Why would you say that? If you support the execution of homosexuals it would.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, I do.

Right, okay then...

 

[glassjester]

No. Why would you say that? If you support the execution of homosexuals it would.

Well I definitely don't support the execution of homosexuals.

I thought you were categorizing those against homosexuality as zealots.

 

[glassjester]

Right, okay then...

So do you, right? You don't think that those acts are ordered toward conception, do you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well I definitely don't support the execution of homosexuals.

I thought you were categorizing those against homosexuality as zealots.

Well, fair play to you on the first but on the second it's kinda moot. Some people are homosexual and nothings going to change that so being 'against' it is pretty much pointless.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So do you, right? You don't think that those acts are ordered toward conception, do you?

Well of course they aren't, just like if a condom is being used etc. Unlike you I don't see the problem with it. You want to see anything sexual that can't potentially result in progeny as 'sin' then ok for you I guess...

 

[glassjester]

Well, fair play to you on the first but on the second it's kinda moot. Some people are homosexual and nothings going to change that so being 'against' it is pretty much pointless.

It's not moot. It affects policy.

 

[glassjester]

Well of course they aren't, just like if a condom is being used etc. Unlike you I don't see the problem with it. You want to see anything sexual that can't potentially result in progeny as 'sin' then ok for you I guess...

Yes, it is ok for me. It would be ok for you to believe, too.

Though I don't know what you believe. Perhaps you don't believe in sin at all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not moot. It affects policy.

Eh? What 'policy'? There's people who are going to be homosexual regardless of any 'policy', hangups or 'moral sensibilities' etc. Face it GJ, not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex or can 'train' themselves to be that way.

 

[glassjester]

Eh? What 'policy'?

Homosexual marriage. The whole topic of this very thread, remember?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, it is ok for me. It would be ok for you to believe, too.

Though I don't know what you believe. Perhaps you don't believe in sin at all.

Then good for you. I prefer to remain unfettered from dogmatic belief systems.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Homosexual marriage. The whole topic of this very thread, remember?

Was bound to happen, deal with it.

 

[eider]

Don't forget the Catholics!

They're Christians...... so are Jehovah's Witnesses...... they're just somewhate in disagreement with each other over some 'things'.

But in respect of gays and gay marriage, you all stand together with Muslims. True.

 

[eider]

Zealots are the ones with the biggest hang ups where it comes to homosexuality. Some of the 'Christian' ones think it should be a capital crime, that those found guilty should be swiftly, painfully and publicly executed . Go figure eh?

lain:

Yeah..... and yet, when asked for their reasoning, all they can do is bluster those dogmatic words like abomination and perversion, which they then cannot or willnot explain or define. And they won't quote from their New Covenant.

So they do the bunny rabbit thing. Round and round and round......

 

[eider]

The marital act is not, in and of itself, contraceptive. A homosexual act is.

Ah ha! But we knew that our union would be barren, just like a Gay Union. And yet you'll not criticise our union, buit you will the gay union. Now that is a stance which has no foundation at all.

And you have l;eft tyhe legislation to one side now, quoting only the MORALS about the union of marriage. So we move on. Now let's see what you've got.......

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Right. The TOL translation reads:- 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God.

I cannot comment upon Paul in my posts on this forum, but I can comment upon his letters. If the above letter is correct, neither you, nor I nore any living person can ever make the Kingdom of God, so let us stop bullying Gays in love who want to marry.

However, Jesus does not mirror Paul's letters. Let's see just some of his words taken at random from Mark:

Mark {7:20} And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
{7:21} For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, {7:22} Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: {7:23} All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

And there it is, writ large, all the proof that I need, for Jesus was against 'wandering sex' in the forms of fornication and adultery. These actions can spread sickness and ill health. Jesus often showed that Sin leads to Sickness. But in closed unions, faithful unions, there can be no risk of transmitted sickness. And so any closed union should be left alone in happiness. But incestuous unions do cause sickness, so thast answers your pet 'come-back'.

 

[glassjester]

Ah ha! But we knew that our union would be barren, just like a Gay Union. And yet you'll not criticise our union, buit you will the gay union. Now that is a stance which has no foundation at all.

Again, the marital act itself, is not contraceptive. A gay "marital" act is, necessarily. This accounts for the moral difference between the two. A homosexual act is, by its very nature, not procreative. It is immoral in the same way that contraception is immoral.

Do you not see a moral difference between a couple that willingly uses contraception, and one that engages in the marital act, and simply fails to conceive?

And you have l;eft tyhe legislation to one side now, quoting only the MORALS about the union of marriage. So we move on. Now let's see what you've got.......

Yes. If we're talking about what makes homosexuality a sin, then we're discussing faith and morals. If we're discussing the legality of homosexual marriage, then we need to consider the state's interest in marriage.

I am willing to discuss both. Are you not?

Right. The TOL translation reads:- 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God.

I cannot comment upon Paul in my posts on this forum, but I can comment upon his letters. If the above letter is correct, neither you, nor I nore any living person can ever make the Kingdom of God, so let us stop bullying Gays in love who want to marry.

Then you deny the authority of the Apostle, Paul?

However, Jesus does not mirror Paul's letters. Let's see just some of his words taken at random from Mark:

Mark {7:20} And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
{7:21} For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, {7:22} Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: {7:23} All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

None of that contradicts Paul's words. And none of Paul's words contradict those verses from Mark. What's your point?

And there it is, writ large, all the proof that I need, for Jesus was against 'wandering sex' in the forms of fornication and adultery. These actions can spread sickness and ill health. Jesus often showed that Sin leads to Sickness.

Indeed.

But in closed unions, faithful unions, there can be no risk of transmitted sickness. And so any closed union should be left alone in happiness.

Then you deny Paul's authority as an apostle.
On what basis do you do so?

But incestuous unions do cause sickness, so thast answers your pet 'come-back'.

So you'd be alright with, let's say, homosexual incestuous marriage?