• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Same-sex marriage and Vermont

CattleArmy

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
CattleArmy said:
aplusmnt said:
Difference is the continuation of the sin, sure we all sin and God forgives us for them IFFFFF we acknowledge we did wrong and ask forgiveness for it!

I do not think being gay is a slip of the tongue or a slip of anger. It is a direct and continuous participation in a sin with no regard for changing or repenting for it. And that is why it is different from most peoples day to day sin!

Honestly Aplus do you think that gays chose to be involved in a lifestyle that will lead them to be hated by so many in society just because of who they love/sleep with? :???: Why in the world would anyone choose that? Being homosexual and attracted to the same sex is as born with as being heterosexual. The biggest difference being that people don't hate heterosexuals for who they sleep with.

Aplus as soon as you can change being attracted to women then come back and make your suggestion that homosexuals should change who they are attracted to. When I asked one of my gay friends to explain to me how he knew he was gay he said he shudders at the thought of a woman touching him in a sexual way much the same way I do. Made sense to me.

Gay people change who they are attracted to all the time! Who was that woman that left Ellen Degeneres to be with a man? I thought she was born that way?????????????

She would be a bisexual. That is a whole nother conversation.

Aplus a sin is a sin.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Here's what you brought to support your arguement that marriage wasn't for more than two people;
mar⋅riage 
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

However, you ignored this part, "...under which a man and a woman..."
You're doing some serious cherry picking again, CA. How do you exlain using that example to justify your point while at the same time ignoring that it proves mine?


CA, "I guess I am trying to draw the line somewhere."

So am I. I think the current line makes the most sense.

First off as I said before incest is illegal. Even the act. It differs dramatically from both homosexual and heterosexual realtionships due to the nature of the act of incest is illegal

Homosexuality is illegal in many places, too. Gay marriage is illegal. You're not being consistent in your legality arguement.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Here's what you brought to support your arguement that marriage wasn't for more than two people;
mar⋅riage 
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

However, you ignored this part, "...under which a man and a woman..."
You're doing some serious cherry picking again, CA. How do you exlain using that example to justify your point while at the same time ignoring that it proves mine?

Don't forget this part.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
If you are going to quote make sure you get it all............
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's what you brought to support your arguement that marriage wasn't for more than two people;
mar⋅riage 
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

However, you ignored this part, "...under which a man and a woman..."
You're doing some serious cherry picking again, CA. How do you exlain using that example to justify your point while at the same time ignoring that it proves mine?

Don't forget this part.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
If you are going to quote make sure you get it all............

"without legal sanction", yep I got it all.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
aplusmnt said:
CattleArmy said:
Honestly Aplus do you think that gays chose to be involved in a lifestyle that will lead them to be hated by so many in society just because of who they love/sleep with? :???: Why in the world would anyone choose that? Being homosexual and attracted to the same sex is as born with as being heterosexual. The biggest difference being that people don't hate heterosexuals for who they sleep with.

Aplus as soon as you can change being attracted to women then come back and make your suggestion that homosexuals should change who they are attracted to. When I asked one of my gay friends to explain to me how he knew he was gay he said he shudders at the thought of a woman touching him in a sexual way much the same way I do. Made sense to me.

Gay people change who they are attracted to all the time! Who was that woman that left Ellen Degeneres to be with a man? I thought she was born that way?????????????

She would be a bisexual. That is a whole nother conversation.

Aplus a sin is a sin.

I will avoid the complicated debate on this issue, been there and done that!

Even if you are correct and sin is sin! That does not mean you can be forgiven for them if you do not quit doing the sin and repent! The number one key to sin is rather you are forgiven for it! Because we will all sin, key to having Gods favor is getting him to forgive us for them!!!!!!
 

burnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
I guess I am trying to draw the line somewhere. First off as I said before incest is illegal. Even the act. It differs dramatically from both homosexual and heterosexual realtionships due to the nature of the act of incest is illegal. As far as bigamists they aren't trying to make a commitment to one person they are making a herd of women to draw sexual relations and children from. I don't see how that can compare to either homosexual or heterosexual committed couples that just involve two people.[/b]

And who gave you get the right to "draw the line somewhere"? You are coming across as a judgmental, intolerant rightwingnutter. You should know that some of us find your selective intolerance extremely objectionable. Why should some be denied the privilege to express their love just because you and the "legal" system think it is wrong?

How will you feel when the courts make incest legal (as long as it is between two loving, consenting family members, father/son, son/ mother, daughter/father, sister/sister, grandfather/grand daughter, whatever mix turns your crank) just as homosexuality became legal after centuries of being ruled illegal? Just in case you missed it, after centuries of being illegal?

I hope the point I am making is clear. When we base our set of moral standards on what we "feel" is right, then we are all eventually held at ransom by the lowest element of society. Because we lack an ABSOLUTE standard on which we build our values.

So, CattleArmy, I agree that incest, bigamy, bestiality and as well as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. are wrong, but not because I set the standard, but because we are all under the oversight of a demanding yet merciful God who does not change to suit the times.

To act as if he does not have a say in the matter will unavoidably open us up to a completely relative or subjective set of situational ethics where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes".
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
CattleArmy said:
aplusmnt said:
Gay people change who they are attracted to all the time! Who was that woman that left Ellen Degeneres to be with a man? I thought she was born that way?????????????

She would be a bisexual. That is a whole nother conversation.

Aplus a sin is a sin.

I will avoid the complicated debate on this issue, been there and done that! :shock: :shock: :shock: REALLY NOW?????? DO TELL?????

Even if you are correct and sin is sin!
NOW WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR 'SINS' CATEGORIZED AND NUMBERED AS TO THEIR IMPORTANCE. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


That does not mean you can be forgiven for them if you do not quit doing the sin and repent! The number one key to sin is rather you are forgiven for it! Because we will all sin, key to having Gods favor is getting him to forgive us for them!!!!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
CattleArmy said:
She would be a bisexual. That is a whole nother conversation.

Aplus a sin is a sin.

I will avoid the complicated debate on this issue, been there and done that! :shock: :shock: :shock: REALLY NOW?????? DO TELL?????

Even if you are correct and sin is sin!
NOW WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR 'SINS' CATEGORIZED AND NUMBERED AS TO THEIR IMPORTANCE. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


That does not mean you can be forgiven for them if you do not quit doing the sin and repent! The number one key to sin is rather you are forgiven for it! Because we will all sin, key to having Gods favor is getting him to forgive us for them!!!!!!

Seems to me God has at least two levels of sins, wouldn't you agree? :wink:

Mark 3:28-29 (New American Standard Bible)

28"(A)Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29but (B)whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
And in case you do not believe the proof laid out in the Bible versus above I will also attempt to explain it with common sense!

A 6 year old child is with her mother in grocery store and sees a jar of bubble gum for sale, the little girl reaches in and gets herself a piece of gum with out paying for it when mom is not looking. Girl just committed a sin!

Later that day the said 6 year old girl is front of her house playing and is abducted by a 40 year old man, she is held captive for 5 days continuously beaten, raped and sodomized. At the end of the five days the man kills the girl and cuts her body into small pieces and spreads it through out the local River. The man just committed a sin!

Now to add a twist to the story, that is the first time the man has ever killed or abducted anyone but the girl has stole that gum once before and got away with it. So the girl has committed twice the sin as the man. If all sin is sin then the girl is the greater of the sinners in this example.

You wish to tell me that God will judge the girl more severe since she committed twice the sin as the man? :shock:
 

Steve

Well-known member
cattlearmy said:
I guess I am trying to draw the line somewhere.

ironic as it seems so are the conservatives.. they want it drawn where it has existed for thousands of years within the anglo saxon culture.

and sometimes other cultures have tried to redraw it.. in fact the line has been all over from multiple marriages,.. even to the crap some post about children.. The saudis upheld a court declension to make a child (eight years old), the mormons added wives,.. our culture said it was wrong and the line went back to one man, one wife, ,.. whites said interracial marriages were wrong.. the culture changed and the line moved ahead. now the left wants to move the line.. and conservatives in general want the line to stay the same.. the same place it has existed for thousands of years..

by your posts the conservatives do not have the right to maintain the line.. and up to a point I might agree with you.. but

what gives you the right to determine where the line is drawn?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
And in case you do not believe the proof laid out in the Bible versus above I will also attempt to explain it with common sense!

A 6 year old child is with her mother in grocery store and sees a jar of bubble gum for sale, the little girl reaches in and gets herself a piece of gum with out paying for it when mom is not looking. Girl just committed a sin! In my church this would be considered a "venial sin"..a sin which does not result in complete separation from God's Grace and Eternal Damnatioin

Later that day the said 6 year old girl is front of her house playing and is abducted by a 40 year old man, she is held captive for 5 days continuously beaten, raped and sodomized. At the end of the five days the man kills the girl and cuts her body into small pieces and spreads it through out the local River. The man just committed a sin! Again, in my church this would be considered a "Mortal Sin", a sin which unless confessed and absolution received consdemns the soul to hell after death.... a rupture in a person's link to God's savings grace...the soul has become dead
Now to add a twist to the story, that is the first time the man has ever killed or abducted anyone but the girl has stole that gum once before and got away with it. So the girl has committed twice the sin as the man. If all sin is sin then the girl is the greater of the sinners in this example.

You wish to tell me that God will judge the girl more severe since she committed twice the sin as the man? :shock:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
I will avoid the complicated debate on this issue, been there and done that! :shock: :shock: :shock: REALLY NOW?????? DO TELL?????

Even if you are correct and sin is sin!
NOW WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR 'SINS' CATEGORIZED AND NUMBERED AS TO THEIR IMPORTANCE. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


That does not mean you can be forgiven for them if you do not quit doing the sin and repent! The number one key to sin is rather you are forgiven for it! Because we will all sin, key to having Gods favor is getting him to forgive us for them!!!!!!

Seems to me God has at least two levels of sins, wouldn't you agree? :wink:

Mark 3:28-29 (New American Standard Bible)

28"(A)Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29but (B)whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--


What have you done that you are trying to justify with these ' levels of sin???


Hmmmmmm????????????????
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
29but (B)whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

This is what is often referred to as the "Unforgivable Sin".
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:

Seems to me God has at least two levels of sins, wouldn't you agree? :wink:

Mark 3:28-29 (New American Standard Bible)

28"(A)Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29but (B)whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--


What have you done that you are trying to justify with these ' levels of sin???


Hmmmmmm????????????????

I will take that as a yes you know you were wrong! Hey the Bible says it, either be an atheist or accept it! :wink:
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
burnt said:
CattleArmy said:
I guess I am trying to draw the line somewhere. First off as I said before incest is illegal. Even the act. It differs dramatically from both homosexual and heterosexual realtionships due to the nature of the act of incest is illegal. As far as bigamists they aren't trying to make a commitment to one person they are making a herd of women to draw sexual relations and children from. I don't see how that can compare to either homosexual or heterosexual committed couples that just involve two people.[/b]

And who gave you get the right to "draw the line somewhere"? You are coming across as a judgmental, intolerant rightwingnutter. You should know that some of us find your selective intolerance extremely objectionable. Why should some be denied the privilege to express their love just because you and the "legal" system think it is wrong?

How will you feel when the courts make incest legal (as long as it is between two loving, consenting family members, father/son, son/ mother, daughter/father, sister/sister, grandfather/grand daughter, whatever mix turns your crank) just as homosexuality became legal after centuries of being ruled illegal? Just in case you missed it, after centuries of being illegal?

I hope the point I am making is clear. When we base our set of moral standards on what we "feel" is right, then we are all eventually held at ransom by the lowest element of society. Because we lack an ABSOLUTE standard on which we build our values.

So, CattleArmy, I agree that incest, bigamy, bestiality and as well as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. are wrong, but not because I set the standard, but because we are all under the oversight of a demanding yet merciful God who does not change to suit the times.

To act as if he does not have a say in the matter will unavoidably open us up to a completely relative or subjective set of situational ethics where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes".

I just find it very hard to say that two people of the same sex that God made with these sexual urges and desires cannot have the same rights that marriage bring to heterosexual couples that God also made with the sexual urges and desires for the opposite sex.

What gave me the right to draw the line? I have a pencil isn't that what lines are drawn with? :wink:
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
CattleArmy said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's what you brought to support your arguement that marriage wasn't for more than two people;
mar⋅riage 
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

However, you ignored this part, "...under which a man and a woman..."
You're doing some serious cherry picking again, CA. How do you exlain using that example to justify your point while at the same time ignoring that it proves mine?

Don't forget this part.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
If you are going to quote make sure you get it all............

"without legal sanction", yep I got it all.

So keep your word marriage and keep it out of churches but why can't homosexual couples have civil unions and have the same rights as heterosexual couples? Keep God out of it tell me legally why?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If you open the doors for gays to have a union under those reasons, you had better open the doors for every deviant group that has the same qualifications, and you've already shown that you're not in favor of that.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
I just find it very hard to say that two people of the same sex that God made with these sexual urges and desires

Now I understand the communication issue we are having. I assumed you believed in the Bible and Gods word.

Now I see you must be an atheist, because there is no way God made these people gay and then he condemns them and even kills many of them at Sodom and Gomorrah.

Think about it, he kills people for doing something that he made them to do????? :? :shock:

Being an Atheist is fine, just hard to discuss biblical reasoning with you!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Some days you cite the Torah and other days you say that The New Testament and Jesus' word superceded it. All depending upon your agenda.

Personally I do not look at it as Old and New Testament. It is one book from God, just written at different times. One the Hebrew Scriptures and one the Greek scriptures.

Much like if you wrote a book of your family tree, different things would have happened at different times during it. The Hebrew scriptures happened at a specific chronological order of things in Gods plan. Much of it actually predicts what was to come later in the Greek Scriptures.

But most things can be substantiated and cross referenced in both books. Such as Gods view on homosexuality. You can look to the Hebrew scriptures to find how he dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah and then you can look to the Greek scriptures to see that Jesus reconfirmed Gods displeasure with Gays.

Much like the Hebrew scriptures predicted what would happen in Jesus time, Jesus predicted what would happen in the time we are living in today. Just read the 24th Chapter of Mathew to get an idea of it.

God dealt with his people much like a Parent does his child, different phases of their development they had different rules, when they are younger they have earlier bedtimes, when they get older they can stay up later. But the fundamentals of right and wrong did not change as they matured. Neither did the overall message from God as the Jewish nation grew and then was opened up to Gentiles after Jesus death.
 

Latest posts

Top