****sexual marriage acceptable to God?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by disciple

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,,,