****sexual marriage acceptable to God?

[Columcille]

Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian. I mean, I should think that you should be able to present in the realm of ideas here on this board a Christian presentation of ****sexual acts being acceptable in God's site by Sacred Scripture and by the consistency of which Christendom has practiced since the Church began to the present. If you have the "truth" in regards to ****sexual marriages as sacramental, I would love to hear it.

[Austin Canes]

Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian...

I can't speak for adsf, but if you must consider those who disagree with you and your interpretation of the Bible, belief and faith to be apostate... then SO BE IT (by you).

That happens enough in this world, and God (yes, the Creator) is and will be the final arbiter in all things.

[Columcille]

Correct. He is, and His will can be determined even now, by his revelation to the nation of Israel and through the testimony of his apostles and his Church throughout the ages in the Church's consistency on morals. It is not my own interpretation, that is the fundamental aspect of Protestantism. I, as a Catholic, hold to something greater than myself. The sacramental grace I recieve from the sacraments are only beneficial when my soul is in complete communion with the teachings of my Church. Those Catholics that are ill instructed, may receive the sacramental grace, but when properly catachized and instructed, any idea that one can approach Catholicism like a buffet line and pick and choose those aspects they want to agree or disagree on is a bad Catholic that needs to confess to the priest or just leave the Church to graze with the other Protestants.

At any rate Austin, I wish you well. I do not have a lot of time left before I become active duty. If you absolutely feel it necessary to divert from the OP and go on a t-i-t-for-tat, I'll give you the last word, I will not answer you unless it reflects some substance to answering the intentions of the original post. Besides, I am going to have the last word anyways, just not in the forum. I'm taking my last word to Him in hopes that while I am away for a year that I can expect great things from you. May you have an enjoyable anomie that will lead you into a fuller understanding, blessings, and fruitful relationship with the Lord Jesus.

[Austin Canes]

Correct. He is, and His will can be determined even now, by his revelation to the nation of Israel and through the testimony of his apostles and his Church throughout the ages in the Church's consistency on morals. It is not my own interpretation, that is the fundamental aspect of Protestantism. I, as a Catholic, hold to something greater than myself. The sacramental grace I recieve from the sacraments are only beneficial when my soul is in complete communion with the teachings of my Church. Those Catholics that are ill instructed, may receive the sacramental grace, but when properly catachized and instructed, any idea that one can approach Catholicism like a buffet line and pick and choose those aspects they want to agree or disagree on is a bad Catholic that needs to confess to the priest or just leave the Church to graze with the other Protestants.

At any rate Austin, I wish you well. I do not have a lot of time left before I become active duty. If you absolutely feel it necessary to divert from the OP and go on a t-i-t-for-tat, I'll give you the last word, I will not answer you unless it reflects some substance to answering the intentions of the original post. Besides, I am going to have the last word anyways, just not in the forum. I'm taking my last word to Him in hopes that while I am away for a year that I can expect great things from you. May you have an enjoyable anomie that will lead you into a fuller understanding, blessings, and fruitful relationship with the Lord Jesus.

Peace and grace to you Columcille http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost.gif (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=39976#post39976). Stay safe, and thank you for your service.

[asdf]

Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian. I mean, I should think that you should be able to present in the realm of ideas here on this board a Christian presentation of ****sexual acts being acceptable in God's site by Sacred Scripture and by the consistency of which Christendom has practiced since the Church began to the present. If you have the "truth" in regards to ****sexual marriages as sacramental, I would love to hear it.

Hi Columcille,

I'm sorry I never took the time to methodically make my case for why it is my belief that the Church should put its blessing on committed, monogamous, faithful, lifelong covenantal same-sex relationships (whether or not the Church wants to give that the label "marriage"), based on my foundation in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience).

It doesn't look like that will be able to happen prior to your departure, but I'd still like to get back to that eventually.

You may be interested in a series of articles by a Presbyterian minister called "Not a Sin". He goes through the various sources of influence to both "sides" to the issue. I consider it among the best overviews I've seen, and my forthcoming apologia for same-sex relationships would be along these lines. Here's the index/introduction (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/03/not-sin-introduction.html):

Behind all the arguments about ordination and marriage lies the basic argument over whether or not ****sexuality is a sin.

It is not.

In this series of articles I will deal in a brief way with the variety of sources usually employed to make a case one way or another. I will ultimately suggest that the best way of determining what is sinful is careful moral reasoning, and I will point out that the dominant modes of moral reasoning on the right - divine command (a kind of deontology), and natural law (another kind of deonotology), are faulty.

Here is a taste of what's to come:

The Bible (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/03/not-sin-bible.html)
Conservatives insist the primary source for arguing that ****sexuality is a sin is the Bible. Every relevant p***age has been carefully disected and ****yzed by people on both sides. I will not rehash that work, but I will point out some big problems with using the Bible as a primary source for moral reasoning. In fact, I contend that our values have little to do with what scripture says, that moral reasoning and value judgments always precede our reception of scripture and claiming the Bible as a source, rather than a support is a lie.

Aesthetics (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-aesthetics.html)
One example of value judgments prior to input from supports like the Bible, is our personal reaction of enjoyment or distaste upon encountering ****sexuals. Look at the picture at the top of this article. How does it make you feel? Aesthetics have a huge impact, whether we admit it or not, on our moral judgments. This isn't all bad. It is a good thing for people to be sensitive to violence - to naturally and instantaneously abhor it. But these primitive, instinctual reactions are far from perfect, and they need to be ****yzed. Aesthetic values are certainly no replacement for conscientious moral reasoning.

Biology (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-biology.html)
Evidence is growing that ****sexuality is biologically conditioned. This is one topic which usually gets brought up by progressives to argue that ****sexuality is not a sin. It is indeed relevant, but it is far from a slam dunk. It is not as simple as eye-color, nor as neutral. A genetic predisposition for same-gender attraction doesn't automatically make ****sexual relationships morally neutral. Biology is an important counterbalance to natural law arguments, however.

Natural Law (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-natural-law.html)
One of the most popular arguments for deeming ****sexuality sinful can be summed up in the catchy slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Complementarianism ***erts that because *****es fit into ******s they should always and only be used that way. I admit that it is difficult for me to treat these arguments with seriousness because they are so shabby, but I will do my best to fairly point out why Natural Law is a horrible mode for approaching the topic of sin or human sexuality, or almost anything.

Teleology (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-teleology-i.html)
Does ****sexuality harm (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-teleology-ii.html) anyone? That ought to be a defining question in the debate, yet it is rarely addressed, and when it is the answers given are so poor I am apalled (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-teleology-iii.html). A partner question is, does ****sexuality benefit anyone? Are there positive or negative consequences to ****sexual relationships? Can ****sexual relationships even be differentiated in their consequences from heterosexual ones?

Virtue (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/04/not-sin-virtue.html)
What kind of person does one become by accepting and living out a ****sexual iden***y? Is there evidence in the lives of ****sexuals that ****sexuality impacts the development of virtue in any way? When we have gotten here we are really beginning to consider matters that will help us show why ****sexuality is not a sin.

Gay Culture (http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/05/not-sin-gay-culture.html)
As a sort of appendix to the main subject I will briefly put down some thoughts on "gay culture". What is it? What is good about it? What isn't? I venture into this area with some hesitance because I am not an insider to the gay community, but I feel like I can say some relevant, respectful things.
In any case, shalom and all good to you as you leave for active duty. Thank you for your service, stay safe, and may YHWH bless and keep you.

[archaeologist]

to answer the question: no it isn't.

to pose another question: is ****sexual marriage a threat to hetrosexual unions?

let's see your answers.

[IncitingRiots]

****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.

[archaeologist]

****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.

now that was just rude and uncalled for but it provides a prime example of why ****sexuals should not be granted the right to marry.

they are acting like spoiled people who want something they cannot have--normality. they are not normal, and go against what God has declared to be right.

they seek legitimacy when their actions, desires, and at***ude are not legitimate. yes they are human BUT they do not get to have their cake and eat it too. if they want to participate in abnormal acts and desires then they cannot demand to participate or have granted to them those rewards which come with normalicy.

[archaeologist]

clearly you are not a person one can have an educated discourse so i will ignore you from now on.

suffie it to say, humans are not animals and because animals do it doesn't mean it is correct or a normal human behavior.

[IncitingRiots]

Oh I am more than capable of having an educated discourse. However your blatant ignorance calls for neither courtesy nor respect.

Humans are indeed animals. If you don't know that you need to go back to school.

You still have yet to define "normal"....

[archaeologist]

sorry i won't be continuing any conversation with you as you are too rude, too antagonistic, too flaming and resort to insults and abuse to make your responses.

for everyone else:

God does not change, what was an abomination to him in the old testament, was an abomination to him in th enew and is still an abomination to him today. ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God nor his the ****sexual lifestyle.

[IncitingRiots]

LOL! The last resort of someone who knows they have been beaten but won't admit it; make stuff up.

My last post was more cordial than you deserve.

For the THIRD time you fail to define what "normal" is.

Do you plan on backing your position up or are you just going to use more lame excuses to avoid finding out just how wrong you are?

[Bat-Man]

Humans are indeed animals. If you don't know that you need to go back to school.
Just because some people in some schools teach that humans are animals doesn't mean that what they are teaching is true, IR.

You've been conditioned to believe whatever you believe, whether you realize that or not.

... Heh, heh, and the really funny thing is that you think you are God.

[IncitingRiots]

Humans are animals, we just happen to be the most intelligent animals. You can try and deny it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that we are indeed animals.

And I am God, I am my God. What is really funny is that you are weak and pathetic and have to surrender yourself to a imaginary being because you are unable to take control of your own life.

[Jill]

And I am God, I am my God. What is really funny is that you are weak and pathetic and have to surrender yourself to a imaginary being because you are unable to take control of your own life.

Oh please, IR, that whole line is so old--and so is the "weak and pathetic" thing. LaVey wore it out. Knock off the personal attacks.

And btw it sounds like your "god" is having a bad day. The most pathetic thing of all is when humans made of clay exalt themselves to godhood. Kind of like an ant walking around calling itself a lion. Oh but wait, that's right, it all began with a creation trying to be God:

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.' Isa 14:12-14

Say and do what your god likes, IR, but one day, you will bow to Jesus Christ...

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:9-11

[IncitingRiots]

Old and worn out?

And what of your faith? That is even older, not to mention more worn out and, dare I say, obsolete? Yes, I think obsolete is an appropriate word.

How is that log in your eye doing?;)

I am not made of clay, neither or you or any living thing on this planet. Pottery is made out of clay, I am made out of flesh and blood and bones etc.

I will bow to no one - especially a fictional character.

[archaeologist]

Old and worn out?

And what of your faith? That is even older, not to mention more worn out and, dare I say, obsolete? Yes, I think obsolete is an appropriate word.

How is that log in your eye doing?

I am not made of clay, neither or you or any living thing on this planet. Pottery is made out of clay, I am made out of flesh and blood and bones etc.

I will bow to no one - especially a fictional character.

...SIGGGGGGHHHHHH...!!! is there no intelligent life on internet forums?

[IncitingRiots]

So thinking that people are made out of clay and believing in the existence of something despite any proof is intelligent? That seems like the opposite of intelligence to me.

I see that you still have yet to define "normal". Instead of backing up what you have to say you retort with that lame comment. You truly are a waste of oxygen.

[archaeologist]

for everyone else:

God does not change, what was an abomination to him in the old testament, was an abomination to him in th enew and is still an abomination to him today. ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God nor his the ****sexual lifestyle.

[Columcille]

****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.

It is a threat to the stability of the family. ****sexual marriage is an offense to which all children born should benefit from the stability of a heterosexual union ordained by God. The fact that Inciting Riots cannot see its corrosive effects on the family life only goes to show you the fact that we are engaged in a culture war. To love IncitingRiots means to bless him, despite his cursing us; to pray for him, despite his desires that stem from bitterness. So IncitingRiots, you are a testimony for us. I thank you for the opportunity that I can pray for you, and I hope God blesses you with the joy of his presence. May you one day become like St. Paul, whom as Saul gladly persecuted and lead many Christians to a holy and blessed martyr's death.

[IncitingRiots]

Care to elaborate on how exactly it is a threat to the stability of the family? There is nothing that proves that ****sexual relationships are any more "stable" than heterosexual relationships. Just look at the divorce rates, the number of single parents out there etc. And what about ****sexual couples that do not want children; are they too a threat to the stability of the family?

You are welcome for the opportunity to pray for me. I suggest doing something more constructive. Go for a jog, build something, curl up in bed with a good book, organize the garage - just do something. However, if you must pray for someone, here's an idea: Instead of praying for me, get a phone book, pick out a random name and pray for that person.

[archaeologist]

in one aspect i do not see ****sexual marriage as a threat to the ins***ution of marriage simply because no one is outlawing hetrosexual marriage nor saying that one can only be a ****sexual if they want to get married.

BUT believers in Jesus CANNOT legitimize, give permission, nor advocate sin nor can they support sin which is exactly what ****sexual marriage is. it is sin and it is wrong. it would be ludicrious to eventhink that christians would accept such a sinful practice or even turn a blind eye to it.

of course ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God, why would it be? He has called it an abomination and the act of two ****sexuals getting married does not grant sinless status, like hetrosexual sex, upon the union.

it is sin whether they marry or not; it is an abomination whether they marry or not.

[Columcille]

Care to elaborate on how exactly it is a threat to the stability of the family? There is nothing that proves that ****sexual relationships are any more "stable" than heterosexual relationships. Just look at the divorce rates, the number of single parents out there etc. And what about ****sexual couples that do not want children; are they too a threat to the stability of the family?

You are welcome for the opportunity to pray for me. I suggest doing something more constructive. Go for a jog, build something, curl up in bed with a good book, organize the garage - just do something. However, if you must pray for someone, here's an idea: Instead of praying for me, get a phone book, pick out a random name and pray for that person.

Inciting Riots, a family, in the growth and stability of a society rests in both a husband, wife, and children. A married couple is not a family. We do out of respect sometimes talk about extended family, such as friends, but it is not the same thing. Every person may be a member of a family, but that does not mean they have their own as a parent. Society therefore recognizes heterosexual marriages across universal boundaries to be the necessary tradition that maintains the respect, and stability for its own survival. ****sexuality seeks to mimic what it cannot produce, hence it breaks down the traditional role of "family." It is a dysfunction, a quirk. The fact that marriages are not maintaining its sanc***y is a part and parcel of the culture war from the side at which you wage. The principles from which you seek to encourage ****sexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself. Family use to mean something where the respect for parents by the children produced selfless and noble characteristics. You are in essense the product of the indoctrination of educators that have produced as Lewis claims in the "Abolition of Man" such "men without chests."

As far as my praying for you, I am a firm believer in prayer. The intention of the heart of a person crying out to their maker is a sign of respect. God knows the needs of every individual, but we are his hands and his feet. As such, praying for people in a phone book without encountering them is impersonal. We have some dialogue here to make it much more personal. Since you commented on my prayer intentions for you, it indicates to me a spiritual reality that prayer is effective. I have never turned down prayer from anyone, even when I personally doubted my faith: I figured even in my doubt, that if there is no god listening, it is a waste of time telling others not to pray for me or trying to persuade them not to pray for me for as many reasons as the one you just gave. You don't like people praying for you, probably makes you feel uncomfortable at the thought, I submit such uncomfort is a byproduct of something you understand unconsciously, but cannot pinpoint rationally. Why make all the fuss otherwise? Ignoring it would have been the most rational decision.

[IncitingRiots]

After reading all those pla***udes I still see nothing that backs up your ***ertion that ****sexual marriages are a "threat" of any kind to anything.


The principles from which you seek to encourage ****sexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself.

Really? I must now ask you to tell me from which principles am I arguing. I think I know where I am coming from better than you do. The fact remains is there is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. You Christians (or any other people of faith) have no right to legislate your "morality" on the rest of the world. EVERYONE has the right to love and be loved and EVERYONE has the right to express that love by getting married as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults. If to guys, or two girls want to get married it doesn't affect you at all so just leave them alone. You bigots make me sick to my stomach. Seig Heil!

[Columcille]

Really? I must now ask you to tell me from which principles am I arguing. I think I know where I am coming from better than you do. The fact remains is there is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. You Christians (or any other people of faith) have no right to legislate your "morality" on the rest of the world. EVERYONE has the right to love and be loved and EVERYONE has the right to express that love by getting married as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults. If to guys, or two girls want to get married it doesn't affect you at all so just leave them alone. You bigots make me sick to my stomach. Seig Heil!

I like the way you throw the word "love" so nonchalently. Must be a mantra or cliche by now. In the culture war that you wage, if you were in agreement with the Christian on this of what actually cons***utes a "family unit" and the roles and responsibilities expected, then there would be no need address the side you are on. You are against the Christian and those nonChristians that do not approve of ****sexual marriages, hence your arguments are naturally condescending. Would you please describe to me the natural boundaries of what cons***utes a "family unit?" I think it clear that a family unit involves mother, father, and children. ****sexual unions rob children from other families to engage in ****sexual acts. ****sexual partners can not ever create the family unit, two fathers and children or two mothers and children are not a family unit, they only hope to mimic it since the love cannot ever generate children of their own. Therefore, heterosexual marriages, whether they generate their own children or not, at least have the capacity in adoption to generate a real family as a mother, father, and children is capable. To me the ultimate goal of ****sexual lobbying is not the ****sexual marriage, but the adoption issue. They must first gain legal marriage status if they are to further their cause to appear "normal" in context of a "family unit."

[IncitingRiots]

****sexual unions rob children from other families to engage in ****sexual acts.

So ****sexual couples will sneak into the houses of heterosexual couples and steal their children so they can force them to be gay too? Where in the world do you get that idea from. I have heard some ****** things in my life that has got to be amongst the top ten.


****sexual partners can not ever create the family unit, two fathers and children or two mothers and children are not a family unit, they only hope to mimic it since the love cannot ever generate children of their own.

And what of gay couples that do not want kids? I personally know quite a few.

I would also like to point out that your definition of a family is rather limited. I consider my friends to be family. To me a family is not determined by these "roles" you expect them to follow. A family is a group of people that cares for each other. Your family is the people you can count on. Who they choose to have sex with doesn't matter one bit.

[Columcille]

So ****sexual couples will sneak into the houses of heterosexual couples and steal their children so they can force them to be gay too? Where in the world do you get that idea from. I have heard some ****** things in my life that has got to be amongst the top ten.



And what of gay couples that do not want kids? I personally know quite a few.

I would also like to point out that your definition of a family is rather limited. I consider my friends to be family. To me a family is not determined by these "roles" you expect them to follow. A family is a group of people that cares for each other. Your family is the people you can count on. Who they choose to have sex with doesn't matter one bit.


It seems apparent you cannot fathom my position. It is rather clear from a child's point of view being raised by parents that he is part of a family. It is the most desirable for a child to be reared by his biological mother and father, for those who due to the sinfulness of parents, economical disadvantage, and other such circumstances that leads them to adoption, the next most desirable would be with a mother and father figure. What makes a mother and father figure desirable for adoption and for a healthy biological upbringing except for the fact that it is what a family is made up of. I have already discussed "extended family" and that we say such as a means of respects, but it is not the same. The robbing is the indoctrination of the culture war of which you participate in promoting. You obviously recognize that a child is a biological product of a female and male and that such a relationship is preferred. To undermine such a preference is to undermine the family unit by influencing the young impressionable minds in a way that robs them of their potential for creating their own family, in respecting the yin and yang of creation in male and female.

[IncitingRiots]

So now you are trying to say that kids raised by gay parents will also grow up to be gay? Can you prove this? A friend of mine was raised by a gay father. He is now the father of two children and they are doing quite well.

[Columcille]

So now you are trying to say that kids raised by gay parents will also grow up to be gay? Can you prove this? A friend of mine was raised by a gay father. He is now the father of two children and they are doing quite well.

No, I am saying that the child will be indoctrinated that gayness is ok, which it is not. Your friend had a biological mother and a biological father, I do not think you can prove to me that two male sperm or two female eggs are going to produce your friend. The natural order only supports the family unit to be mother, father, and child. How blind are you?

[IncitingRiots]

Why is it not okay? Because some old book that was wrong about pretty much everything it purports says it's wrong? And I am not trying to say that two males or two females can produce a baby and I don't see where you got such a ludicrous ***umption from. There are plenty of species of animal where there is no "family unit". The "natural order" doesn't support only one thing. How blind are you? I sincerely hope that you have a child that turns out to be gay. Oh delicious irony.

[Columcille]

Why is it not okay? Because some old book that was wrong about pretty much everything it purports says it's wrong? And I am not trying to say that two males or two females can produce a baby and I don't see where you got such a ludicrous ***umption from. There are plenty of species of animal where there is no "family unit". The "natural order" doesn't support only one thing. How blind are you? I sincerely hope that you have a child that turns out to be gay. Oh delicious irony.

The natural order for our species. We are not an asexual species like the amoeba. The preferred family unit is mother, father, and child. If it were not preferred, there would be no need for parents in a divorce to request child support. The dysfunction of such a family unit attests to the fact that child support is deemed necessary precisely because the nature of a married couple to support each other for the care of children. I am sure it is just as preferred that infants recieve milk from their mother than by formula, and the role of the father as protector and provider is fulfilling in its own rite. It is not an old book, it is societies longstanding tradition across the cultural divide. I know you get it that children are procreated by a female and male, what you don't seem to get is that is the natural make-up of a family. Your support of ****sexual marriages is an undermining of that natural order. What you rant at as being unfair is simply how life operates when it is efficiently operated. Don't be mad at me for the natural order, blame God for creating it that way, and don't blame God for what is not his doing either, much offenses is the blame of people's own sinfulness. You don't seem very happy here, so I must ***ume that what you lack is your own deficiency by the very sins you engage in both against the cardinal virtues as well as the theological virtues. I recognize that I am a sinner and I need God's help, but you on the other hand it is quite different. It is lonely at the top, so I hope you come down and mingle with the rest of us every now and then in a more cordial fashion.

[IncitingRiots]

The preferred family unit is mother, father, and child. If it were not preferred, there would be no need for parents in a divorce to request child support.

So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.


It is not an old book, it is societies longstanding tradition across the cultural divide.

You can call a duck a cow but it still quacks.


Don't be mad at me for the natural order, blame God for creating it that way, and don't blame God for what is not his doing either, much offenses is the blame of people's own sinfulness.

If God created it that way then he created gay people therefore the blame lies with God. If you God is so omnipotent then why does it make mistakes like ****sexuality?


You don't seem very happy here, so I must ***ume that what you lack is your own deficiency by the very sins you engage in both against the cardinal virtues as well as the theological virtues.

I lack my own deficiency? Deficiency in what? What does that even mean? Deficiencies are often bad things so lacking a deficiency is probably a good thing. I would much rather lack a mental deficiency than relish in one like so many people seem to do.

[Columcille]

So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.



You can call a duck a cow but it still quacks.



If God created it that way then he created gay people therefore the blame lies with God. If you God is so omnipotent then why does it make mistakes like ****sexuality?



I lack my own deficiency? Deficiency in what? What does that even mean? Deficiencies are often bad things so lacking a deficiency is probably a good thing. I would much rather lack a mental deficiency than relish in one like so many people seem to do.


I stated the preferred was the way God made it, all corruptions are a means of Man's disobedience to that natural order, and as such the temptations of the flesh to mimic and fake that natural order with ****sexual love is just such an instance. You talk about a duck being called a cow and saying it still quacks, but this is what you are doing by subs***uting the ****sexual couple into a biological impossible role situation. Since a family unit is mother, father, and child, it does no good to argue for two mother or two fathers and child. That would displace the child's natural evironment. As far as your own deficiency is concerned, it is much the same as mine in various places called sinfulness. I need forgiveness from God, your own life is quite different. I think it hard enough to tell a blind man what to see, this seems a spiritual matter which the Holy Spirit should teach. I am not the Holy Spirit, but I will continue to pray for you.

[IncitingRiots]

Since you failed to address it I will bring it up again:

So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.


As far as your own deficiency is concerned, it is much the same as mine in various places called sinfulness.

First you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you say I have a deficiency. Which is it? Do you even think before you type?

[Columcille]

Since you failed to address it I will bring it up again:

So it is a matter of monetary support? A gay couple could easily provide the financial support necessary to raise a child. In fact, if they couldn't then they wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child. Yet heterosexual couples are allowed to pump out kid after kid that they can not afford and no one stops them.



First you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you say I have a deficiency. Which is it? Do you even think before you type?

Everyone is deficient and "fall's short the mark" due to sin, you just don't recognize it completely. And being a role model is not just a monetary support, I only mentioned the monetary support as a secular response to parents that split up due to its preferred status of the child in the family unit. The family unit that has parents divorce becomes an unstable family unit due to the sinfulness of the parents to not fulfill their marriage vows. What God has joined together in holy matrimony, let no man break ***under.

[IncitingRiots]

Look, first you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you are trying to recover from using a nonsensical string of words and it is not working.

So now it is about role models? How is that gay parents can't be role models?

[Columcille]

Look, first you said I was "lacking a deficiency" now you are trying to recover from using a nonsensical string of words and it is not working.

So now it is about role models? How is that gay parents can't be role models?

If you cannot even figure out the role parent's play as a natural order in the family unit, your sinfulness has blinded you to a point that at this time is not beneficial in continuing a dialogue. At any rate, my time is short as is. I'll continue to pray for you. May God bless you with his Spirit.

[IncitingRiots]

Now you are just dodging questions. How is that gays can not be role models?

[Columcille]

Now you are just dodging questions. How is that gays can not be role models?

Think about what it means to be a mother and what it means to be a father. Two fathers does not equal a mother and a father, nor does two mothers equal a mother and a father. No matter how much you mimic the roles, it is a fake imitation.

[IncitingRiots]

Thinking about what it means to be a parent, the gender doesn't matter much. You are making all sorts of claims with NOTHING to back them up.

[Columcille]

Thinking about what it means to be a parent, the gender doesn't matter much. You are making all sorts of claims with NOTHING to back them up.

A child is a byproduct of two parents a mother and a father. Not two fathers or two mothers. You seem a little confused as to what nature has produced. You cannot mimic it no matter how you spin it.

[IncitingRiots]

There is more to raising a child than just uniting an egg and a sperm. The fact that a ****sexual couple can not reproduce has absolutely no bearing on their ability to raise a child. That won't change no matter how much you try to spin it.

I don't even know why you keep bringing kids into though. We are talking about gay marriage, not the child raising abilities of ****sexuals. Marriage and kids don't always go hand in hand anymore. More and more married couples are opting not to have kids (God bless 'em) and more and more non married couples are having kids.

[Columcille]

There is more to raising a child than just uniting an egg and a sperm. The fact that a ****sexual couple can not reproduce has absolutely no bearing on their ability to raise a child. That won't change no matter how much you try to spin it.

I don't even know why you keep bringing kids into though. We are talking about gay marriage, not the child raising abilities of ****sexuals. Marriage and kids don't always go hand in hand anymore. More and more married couples are opting not to have kids (God bless 'em) and more and more non married couples are having kids.

I didn't stop at egg and sperm, the role of mother and father is something unreplaceable by ****sexual unions. All it can best do is mimic it. Kids are part of the family unit. Marriage of mother and father is part and parcel to the family stability. Peace out.

[IncitingRiots]

Define the the role(s) of mother and father.

[Columcille]

Define the the role(s) of mother and father.

It is what it is... Genetically a mother produces milk for her child, so naturally there a natural inclination for nurturing from the biological standpoint. A father's role is like a protector, and in some ways a provider. Genesis 3 gives this "role" when discussing a woman in labor pains and the man tilling the soil and the difficulties ***ociated with it. Let's face it Inciting Riots, you know it so plain like everyone else, that you have to obscure the facts to fit your ideologue.

[IncitingRiots]

Some mothers don't breast feed and some fathers make horrible protectors. It is also a well known fact that males can lactate. And what about lesbian couples? Lesbians are women, therefore they can lactate and I also know some women who are tougher than men. Looks like you breast feeding and protection argument was just ****n out of the water.

Once again I will ask why gay couples WHO DO NOT WISH TO RAISE CHILDREN should not be allowed to get married.

[Columcille]

Some mothers don't breast feed and some fathers make horrible protectors. It is also a well known fact that males can lactate. And what about lesbian couples? Lesbians are women, therefore they can lactate and I also know some women who are tougher than men. Looks like you breast feeding and protection argument was just ****n out of the water.

Once again I will ask why gay couples WHO DO NOT WISH TO RAISE CHILDREN should not be allowed to get married.

Are you a byproduct of a same sex marriage Inciting Riots? I think my argument stands until you can produce a child from same sex unions. Genetically it is impossible. The only thing you might reference is a virgin birth in animals that produce female offspring, and yet by a miracle of design, it is our Lord who is the only male from which was born of a virgin. It is this reason that for Catholics that the patron saint used in prolife pamphlets is the Theotokos. Life is precious, even yours. But it is a design from which the miracle of life proceeds from God alone and generally in the cooperation of the design of nature that he imprinted.

[IncitingRiots]

No, I am the product of a "traditional" relationship. And don't give me that **** about virgin birth. There is no such thing. And yet again you refuse to explain why same sex couples that DO NOT WISH TO RAISE CHILDREN shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now if you are going to continue to evade issues then there is no point in continuing. Maybe we will get lucky and an IED will do what your god should have done a long time ago.

[Columcille]

No, I am the product of a "traditional" relationship. And don't give me that **** about virgin birth. There is no such thing. And yet again you refuse to explain why same sex couples that DO NOT WISH TO RAISE CHILDREN shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now if you are going to continue to evade issues then there is no point in continuing. Maybe we will get lucky and an IED will do what your god should have done a long time ago.

I'll be in an MRAP, they are pretty s****y against IEDs. I have to worry more about RPKs and EFPs. The training is fairly good though. Thank you for your concern. My point is purely on what should be based on nature's reproductive ability, not on the exceptions of behavior by those whose sinfulness attempt to obscure the obvious. If God calls me home, I believe I would be a better sacrifice than those that do not know God. If they come to know Christ by my sacrifice, I think I will know in the afterlife that despite my own sinfulness and weaknesses I should be in a better condition. If you have no afterlife to worry about, I suppose the whole discussion of any topic is rather mute. The dead have no concern for your ideologues, and you will succumb to the same fate regardless. It is better to fall into the hands of God, the giver of life, than to face the unknown by one's own wits. That is why for me the topic bears some importance. If you feel it doesn't move you, carry on your own way.

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3
2 Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!
3 What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun?

[IncitingRiots]

There you go avoiding the issue again. We are done here.

[Columcille]

There you go avoiding the issue again. We are done here.

I haven't avoided any isssue. Marriage is meant for the stability of the family unit. Heterosexual marriages are done based on a tradition that is biologically established. Children are a vital component of the family unit. I keep explaining the obvious to you because of your sinfulness you seem to forget it, despite the fact that you are a byproduct of it. What should be and what is is distinct in only the fact that sinful acts create chaos and damage to the human psyche. For all your trying to find expections or what if scenerios, I have no doubt that some sinfulness first caused the problem. The only example of a family parent unit to be seperated from their child of an innocent manner is in cases of accidents. Christ's example in a world of sin is by far the greatest example and through him can we find peace (completion).

[IncitingRiots]

You are just another bigoted and Ign0rant Christian. "And by their fruits you shall know them."

[Follower]

Let’s look at scriptural, wedded sex. 1 Corinthians 6 is a great place to start. Paul shows God’s spiritual design, that through sexual union, 16) ”… the two will become one flesh… (even in harlotry!).” God’s sex plan is not only for pleasure nor only for procreation (both great things, though). It’s far above that. A relation of union to the One God and a monogamous sexual union are spiritual mirrors of each other. The sexual union between two human beings is not to be torn asunder. It is to be JOY and the activity of two honorable temples of the Holy Spirit.

To my ears, all this talk of "****sexuals can be considered Christian IF they remain celibate" rings of some serious self-congratulation for the "winners" in the orientation lottery. Celibates are neither Hetero- nor ****- Sexual. By definition, they are ones who choose to be A-Sexual.

But back to the topic of ****sexual marriage. If God can and does redeem the phileo (brotherly) and eros (grasping) Loves of heterosexual hearts and unions, through Christ, and produce AGAPE (unconditional giving) Love between spouses, is there anyone bold enough to say that Our God CAN’T or WON’T sanctify the Love that is in the heart of ****sexual men or women? (“Can a rich man enter heaven? Can a camel p*** through the eye of a needle?” Jesus would say, “All Day, Every Day! With God ALL things are possible!” Matthew 19:26.)

And if this is true, are WE going to demand of ****sexuals, who Live In Christ, some absolute celibacy when GOD provides for heterosexual weakness, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”(1 Cor. 7:9)?

The CHURCH used to allow (and even Argue FOR) slavery. Thankfully we can say, "That is in our ignoble past." God did not change; we did by abiding closer to the knowledge of the meaning of His Love. We really must change again.

Let the Heart of God speak to our hearts.

[asdf]

Let’s look at scriptural, wedded sex. 1 Corinthians 6 is a great place to start. Paul shows God’s spiritual design, that through sexual union, 16) ”… the two will become one flesh… (even in harlotry!).” God’s sex plan is not only for pleasure nor only for procreation (both great things, though). It’s far above that. A relation of union to the One God and a monogamous sexual union are spiritual mirrors of each other. The sexual union between two human beings is not to be torn asunder. It is to be JOY and the activity of two honorable temples of the Holy Spirit.

To my ears, all this talk of "****sexuals can be considered Christian IF they remain celibate" rings of some serious self-congratulation for the "winners" in the orientation lottery. Celibates are neither Hetero- nor ****- Sexual. By definition, they are ones who choose to be A-Sexual.

But back to the topic of ****sexual marriage. If God can and does redeem the phileo (brotherly) and eros (grasping) Loves of heterosexual hearts and unions, through Christ, and produce AGAPE (unconditional giving) Love between spouses, is there anyone bold enough to say that Our God CAN’T or WON’T sanctify the Love that is in the heart of ****sexual men or women? (“Can a rich man enter heaven? Can a camel p*** through the eye of a needle?” Jesus would say, “All Day, Every Day! With God ALL things are possible!” Matthew 19:26.)

And if this is true, are WE going to demand of ****sexuals, who Live In Christ, some absolute celibacy when GOD provides for heterosexual weakness, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”(1 Cor. 7:9)?

The CHURCH used to allow (and even Argue FOR) slavery. Thankfully we can say, "That is in our ignoble past." God did not change; we did by abiding closer to the knowledge of the meaning of His Love. We really must change again.

Let the Heart of God speak to our hearts.

That's a well thought-out, subtle, comp***ionate, and dare I say Biblical response. Thank you for this. It fits with what I know of God, and with what I know of the grand sweep of the Biblical narrative.

Shalom,
asdf

[disciple]

Let’s look at scriptural, wedded sex. 1 Corinthians 6 is a great place to start. Paul shows God’s spiritual design, that through sexual union, 16) ”… the two will become one flesh… (even in harlotry!).” God’s sex plan is not only for pleasure nor only for procreation (both great things, though). It’s far above that. A relation of union to the One God and a monogamous sexual union are spiritual mirrors of each other. The sexual union between two human beings is not to be torn asunder. It is to be JOY and the activity of two honorable temples of the Holy Spirit.

To my ears, all this talk of "****sexuals can be considered Christian IF they remain celibate" rings of some serious self-congratulation for the "winners" in the orientation lottery. Celibates are neither Hetero- nor ****- Sexual. By definition, they are ones who choose to be A-Sexual.

But back to the topic of ****sexual marriage. If God can and does redeem the phileo (brotherly) and eros (grasping) Loves of heterosexual hearts and unions, through Christ, and produce AGAPE (unconditional giving) Love between spouses, is there anyone bold enough to say that Our God CAN’T or WON’T sanctify the Love that is in the heart of ****sexual men or women? (“Can a rich man enter heaven? Can a camel p*** through the eye of a needle?” Jesus would say, “All Day, Every Day! With God ALL things are possible!” Matthew 19:26.)

And if this is true, are WE going to demand of ****sexuals, who Live In Christ, some absolute celibacy when GOD provides for heterosexual weakness, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”(1 Cor. 7:9)?

The CHURCH used to allow (and even Argue FOR) slavery. Thankfully we can say, "That is in our ignoble past." God did not change; we did by abiding closer to the knowledge of the meaning of His Love. We really must change again.

Let the Heart of God speak to our hearts.


Greetings Follower,
Nice to meet you. First let me say that you certainly are en***led to your opinion on this subject as we all are, so my comments are written with no malice but this is what I believe.
How do we not take the following scripture literally?

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to vile p***ions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

I Cor. 7:2 says the following,
"Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

God's plan is for a man to have a wife and a woman to have a husband and according to the above scriptures anything else is against His law. Leviticus 18 shows that any sexual activity except for again, that involving husband and wife is breaking God's law. There is no law against love, men and women can and do love members of their own gender without practicing sexual immorality. God did not destroy Sodom because of men having love for one another but because of sexual immorallity.

[Follower]

Hello asdf,

It's a pleasure to meet you, and I'm glad to find someone who is stirred by the Good News in a similar way. You are a blessing to me.

Shalom, back at'cha!



And disciple,

Thank you for your response as well. It's also nice to meet you (and especially nice to have such a decent self-introduction that admits to no malice but offers a question, instead). What a grand way to be welcomed into a new Forum.


Greetings Follower,
Nice to meet you. First let me say that you certainly are en***led to your opinion on this subject as we all are, so my comments are written with no malice but this is what I believe.
How do we not take the following scripture literally?

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to vile p***ions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

I Cor. 7:2 says the following,
"Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."

God's plan is for a man to have a wife and a woman to have a husband and according to the above scriptures anything else is against His law. Leviticus 18 shows that any sexual activity except for again, that involving husband and wife is breaking God's law. There is no law against love, men and women can and do love members of their own gender without practicing sexual immorality. God did not destroy Sodom because of men having love for one another but because of sexual immorallity.

Well, since you ask, let's look briefly at the Leviticus and Romans p***ages (briefly, because my time at the moment is limited -- we can certainly delve more deeply, later on)

First, I'll say that of the scriptures you provide (and indeed all of Scripture), I take them most "literally." I know we all hate being reminded of "context" as though the reminding has some special revelation (and is thus "warmer and fuzzier" in the merry Heart of God -- I'm SO not claiming that for me).

The Context of "Lev" is within the Holiness Code (chapters 17 - 20; actually could end in Chp 21, but most commentaries don't break that way.) In the Romans section from which you quote, interestingly enough, Paul is summarizing This Very Section of Leviticus to get affirming Nods from the Jewishly descended Christians in Rome -- i.e. "look at those CRAZY Gentiles!";).

The reason "Strange Sex" is mentioned in either section is because of the very weird uses by which it was implemented by the Pagans in their IDOLATRY! In each section God's children are being told not to do as the Pagans/Gentiles have done in worshipping their gods. Notice, There is no prohibition in Leviticus for woman/woman sex (actually NoWhere in Scripture) but the woman-and-animal kind, (immediately following the prohibition of man/man) is because it was part of a Pagan rite of both Egypt (which they'd just left) and of Canaan (which they were just entering).

I'll reply with more later, but I must go now. I hope this feeds the hearts of God's people.

Bless you (and all) mightily.

[Columcille]

I would have to say in regards to Dr. Walter Martin's teaching on Biblical Hermenuetics, that what you have here is a combination of two unrelated texts to produce something that you want to hear or want to believe. Dr. Martin uses the example of Judas hanging himself and then taking another p***age that says "Go thou and do thou likewise." All things are possible through Christ, but this is not a text related to ****sexual unions as being something God designed and approved. God cannot do things outside the parameters of his being and will, so now you have a "Christian" God that says it is ok now but not ok then. The bible does not support slavery as an endorsement, but as a reality. Its instructions to Masters and Slaves is not one of abuse, but of a social reality in times much different than our own, and even much different than the slavery ins***ution of American blacks. To compare two things as being related, you might have similiarities, but that does not necessarily equate sameness. You may have certain correct premises, but that does not guarantee a correct conclusion. If you feel comfortable just because you have people agreeing with your position, I suggest your position is not strong enough. I may like people who agree with me, but flattery is not going to p*** God's judgement.

[alanmolstad]

the gay sex stuff is evil, and such people burn...case closed.

I have no issue with gays being married, or forming such legal unions however...I believe under our laws that have that ability.
But it might be legal yet a huge sin,,,

[aaronpaul]

If ****sexuality is just a sin (“just” a sin), and Christians struggle with habitual sins, is it possible for someone to be both a genuine, going-to-heaven Christian and a ****sexual?