Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Gay marriage 'to be illegal'

400 posts in this topic

You can't reason your way out of the canon of God. If God stated it is an abomination in his eyes. That is what he said.

Then what about all of the other laws and 'canon' in the bible that have changed or been completely erased over the years (ie stoning to death children who disrespected their parents, encouraging slavery, etc)? What makes this one so special that it can't be changed?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what about all of the other laws and 'canon' in the bible that have changed or been completely erased over the years (ie stoning to death children who disrespected their parents, encouraging slavery, etc)? What makes this one so special that it can't be changed?

Good question. This is something that is often. Misunderstood. Unfortunately God says that homosexuality is an abomination. Below is a list of abominations in the Bible.

Please show one that the Church actively promotes as being OK.

http://richardwayneg...abomination.htm

To give you an example. This is one is one that caused Jehovah's Witnesses. To separate themselves from the Church. Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)

Edited by Cassea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not understanding the issue.

Like I said I have been following this issue for months. Youve been what? Concerned for a few days. I have read months of articles and I've lost track of the amount of times the church has tried to derail same sex marriage for all.

This is a statement just two days ago from a catholic bishop

The Rt Rev Joseph Devine, Bishop of Motherwell, believes the prime minister is now “out of his depth” and can no longer be trusted by Christians.

He has also accused the PM of undermining family life for allegedly refusing tosupport moves by Christians at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to demand their right to wear the cross at work.

In a letter, the bishopcompared David Cameron to Nero, the brutal Roman emperor who persecuted Christians.

He wrote: “You vacillate, ambivalent about the role you wish to perform – the disciple of David or Nero”.

“With such a contradiction between your statements and actions, on what basis can you expect anyone – Christians in particular – to trust or respect you?”

Trust me, I've seen countless statements just the same, claiming same sex marriage (for anyone) will break down the traditional family. Will destroy society. Will elad to less children being born and all other sorts of nonsense. And thats on top of the 'we'll be forced to do it arguement.

They are not trying to force it on all churches. They are saying that it will be illegal for Church of England, Church of Wales and the Catholic Church to perform gay marriage. They are saying this to avoid lawsuits. See what is says in the quote. See why they say they are doing it. They are doing this to protect the Church. From being sued. That is how they have had their hand forced. Because they have been threatened with lawsuits.

No, they're doing this because the church has pushed them. Not that the church of england is the only church where itll be illegal to perform same sex marriages. the catholic church doesnt get such protection' it can opt in or ot like anyone else. The goverment made it clear for months that the church wouldn't be at risk from being sued. Now it's had enough and gien one church overblown 'protection'

They are not trying to make it illegal for all churches. You are misunderstanding what they are doing. They are simply protecting themselves. Why don't you understand this. They wouldn't need to do this. If gay people had simply gone to churches where they were welcomed. Instead of attacking the Church for not changing. The rules of God. To suit them.

Again, they've given it a damn good try. The article doesn't say it, but then Im going from reading (at an estimate) 50+ articles over many months about this. You're misunderstanding what they''re trying to do, but then again, you're only going from that article.

They have never needed protection because gay people simply wanted churches that DO welcome them to marry them. But no, the church lies, like it always does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not trying to "reason with them." It's attacking them.

Either tactic is reasonable.

People aren't saying that churches should be legally obliged to marry a gay couple. As far as I'm aware a church can decline to marry a heterosexual couple for any number of reasons. This is their right.

The article is a bit misleading. It's acknowledging that the C of E has the right to not perform these ceremonies and can make this a rule for all it's churches. If someone disagrees they also have the right to try and reason with them, but also to berate and attack them for their medieval mentality. (Of course I mean verbally attack, not physically).

The church does not get a free pass from criticism - even from topless nuns :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry shadowhive. But you are twisting what they are saying. They are not trying to make it illegal for all churches. They are stating it is illegal for the Church of England, Church of Wale and Catholic Church. This is being done to protect them. From lawsuits. It says all of this. In both articles. I am reading the article. And basing it on what they say. You are calling them liars with. Ulterior motives. That's unfair. That's not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but all this hooplah about it being the times have changed...

Didn't all the ancients **** whatever they wanted?

As for Religion they all have their stories and everyone conceives their actions accordingly to how to feel about that situation. I think the whole status of I AM CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM/JEW/ect. HEAR ME ROAR, is sadly pathetic, it's funny how everyone looks at "smut" of the world and think religion is their way out from it.

As for the gay marraige topic which is the REAL conversation at hand, meh do what you feel is right, if religion won't marry you, create your own religion that incorporates gays and christianity/whatever you choose, if it can work for Joseph Smith I'm pretty sure over 3Million homosexuals would be able to do something like that. No that would require logic and actioning something that could solve an issue.

The whole situation can go **** itself tbh. Segregation has turned from the colour of you skin to the lifestyle you choose and most of you idiots just bounce around and let it happen but have the biggest opinions to as who is to blame.

I am engaged in a straight relationship but have homosexual friends, they arent weird and are more on the level than people who claim they have a grip. I have known most of them for a long time. But within saying that there are hatemongers of this variety as welll; classic butch barbie, with "i hate all men" attitude. Vice versa with gender.

Could it be the ancients that had homosexual tendencies have just reincarnated and are "born homo" (to current standards) because it is them to the core of their soul :o

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either tactic is reasonable.

People aren't saying that churches should be legally obliged to marry a gay couple. As far as I'm aware a church can decline to marry a heterosexual couple for any number of reasons. This is their right.

The article is a bit misleading. It's acknowledging that the C of E has the right to not perform these ceremonies and can make this a rule for all it's churches. If someone disagrees they also have the right to try and reason with them, but also to berate and attack them for their medieval mentality. (Of course I mean verbally attack, not physically).

The church does not get a free pass from criticism - even from topless nuns :whistle:

This is a fair observation. They are not trying to make it illegal for all churches. No matter how much shadowhive insists this is what they are doing. Unfortunately. In this day and age. They need to protect themselves from lawsuits. Even a lawsuit they win. Is time and money. And the women protesting. Were physically attacking people. Not just protesting. I thought it was disgusting. It does nothing to promote. Dialogue. Starting from a position of disrespect. And anger. Creates situations. Where people stop engaging. And begin to shut off options. This is what the Church is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Also showing up like this

http://www.theblaze....n-gay-we-trust/

Is not trying to "reason with them." It's attacking them. You can't reason your way out of the canon of God. If God stated it is an abomination in his eyes. That is what he said. One sin is no worse than another sin. Who are we to judge. We are all sinners. But asking people to change the laws of God because you don't like this. Is completely disrespectful to the Bible and the religious beliefs. Of the Church.

Some people do more extreme things than others. I'm not going to condone what they did, but if you do look at iolence between gay and religious people, most is done by people of faith.

Reason is something that must be done for the church to survive. Otherwise it's just going to become more and more irrelevent. Again what the laws of god' actually are and how relevent they are, seem to be different depending on who you ask.

Suing the church and threatening legal action. For denying gay marriage. Has brought the secular world. Into the church. And it doesn't belong there. It is an unfair action. The Church had no choice but to protect themselves.

You know what? I'm going to do what you did to me a few pages back. Your rude. you twist my words and you ignore what I've said. So why should I respond to you?

I have said no one wants to force or sue the church into everything many times now and every time you have ignored it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question. This is something that is often. Misunderstood. Unfortunately God says that homosexuality is an abomination. Below is a list of abominations in the Bible.

Please show one that the Church actively promotes as being OK.

http://richardwayneg...abomination.htm

To give you an example. This is one is one that caused Jehovah's Witnesses. To separate themselves from the Church. Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)

Okay how about

  • Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)

Do they still really sacrifice animals to God? The church i went to growing up never encouraged this.

  • Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)

WTF? Can you seriously get in trouble if your wife/gf is on her period? Do they actively encourage punishment for this? The church I went to growing up never mentioned this either.

Also, it says

  • Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)

SOME same sex acts? So some same sex acts are okay and some aren't?

Well there are three (or at the very least two) for you.

FOUND ANOTHER!

  • Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)

My mom has been married twice and my aunt has been married 4 times, all with the church's consent. Also, my boss and his ex-wife got a divorce then remarried two years later, also with the church's consent.

Edited by RockabyeBillie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but all this hooplah about it being the times have changed...

Didn't all the ancients **** whatever they wanted?

As for Religion they all have their stories and everyone conceives their actions accordingly to how to feel about that situation. I think the whole status of I AM CHRISTIAN/MUSLIM/JEW/ect. HEAR ME ROAR, is sadly pathetic, it's funny how everyone looks at "smut" of the world and think religion is their way out from it.

As for the gay marraige topic which is the REAL conversation at hand, meh do what you feel is right, if religion won't marry you, create your own religion that incorporates gays and christianity/whatever you choose, if it can work for Joseph Smith I'm pretty sure over 3Million homosexuals would be able to do something like that. No that would require logic and actioning something that could solve an issue.

The whole situation can go **** itself tbh. Segregation has turned from the colour of you skin to the lifestyle you choose and most of you idiots just bounce around and let it happen but have the biggest opinions to as who is to blame.

I am engaged in a straight relationship but have homosexual friends, they arent weird and are more on the level than people who claim they have a grip. I have known most of them for a long time. But within saying that there are hatemongers of this variety as welll; classic butch barbie, with "i hate all men" attitude. Vice versa with gender.

Could it be the ancients that had homosexual tendencies have just reincarnated and are "born homo" (to current standards) because it is them to the core of their soul :o

I agree with this. I don't understand trying to be part of a church. That goes against your personal reality. Calling you an abomination. Why would you want them to be part of your marriage. I wouldn't want to step foot in. Humanists and Universalists have churches that welcome anyone. Go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay how about

  • Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)

Do they still really sacrifice animals to God? The church i went to growing up never encouraged this.

  • Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)

WTF? Can you seriously get in trouble if your wife/gf is on her period? Do they actively encourage punishment for this? The church I went to growing up never mentioned this either.

Also, it says

  • Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)

SOME same sex acts? So some same sex acts are okay and some aren't?

Well there are three (or at the very least two) for you.

No you didn't. I asked you to show me any that the Church. Promotes as being acceptable. Have you seen a priest get up and say. It's ok to sacrifice and unclean animal. or It's ok to have sex. With a menstruating woman.

The gay community wants them to say. It's ok to have sex with a man as a man. They want them to say. "It doesn't matter that God says this is an abomination. I am going to join them in marriage. I am going to bless this union." That is what marriage in a church means.

They are asking them to do this. Why? What other issue in the abominations. Do you see people. Demanding that the Church. Say is Ok. Murder? incest? What else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't. I asked you to show me any that the Church. Promotes as being acceptable. Have you seen a priest get up and say. It's ok to sacrifice and unclean animal. or It's ok to have sex. With a menstruating woman.

The gay community wants them to say. It's ok to have sex with a man as a man. They want them to say. "It doesn't matter that God says this is an abomination. I am going to join them in marriage. I am going to bless this union." That is what marriage in a church means.

They are asking them to do this. Why? What other issue in the abominations. Do you see people. Demanding that the Church. Say is Ok. Murder? incest? What else?

I'd like you to find a priest that says it's okay to sacrifice ANY damn animal! He won't, which means THAT one is no longer legitimate. And maybe a priest won't announce "it's okay to have sex with a menstruating woman" because who the **** cares if a man has sex with a menstruating woman? I seriously doubt that one is legitimate today as well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry shadowhive. But you are twisting what they are saying. They are not trying to make it illegal for all churches. They are stating it is illegal for the Church of England, Church of Wale and Catholic Church. This is being done to protect them. From lawsuits. It says all of this. In both articles. I am reading the article. And basing it on what they say. You are calling them liars with. Ulterior motives. That's unfair. That's not true.

Clearly you've ignored what Ive said so I'll present to you seveeral pieces of eidence of what I mean.

these are a few statements made during the government consultation on same sex marriage when it was still CIVIL only.

Bishop Davies made his latest comments at a mass in Chester involving the Catholic Women’s League and the Union of Catholic Mothers.

He said: “The determination of the present coalition government to legally redefine marriage may soon present new questions of conscience and legal threats to those who continue to profess the truth about marriage as the lasting union of one man and one woman.

In June, Bishop Davies criticised Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, after he stated that religious institutions should be given the right to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples – but that this would not impinge on religious freedom.

According to the Telegraph, Bishop Davies responded by saying: “Experience, of course, might make us cautious of such assurances, even those given by a deputy prime minister, that this agenda will not threaten religious freedom”.

The bishop added: “Today we see a government, without mandate, disposing of any credible consultation, seeking to impose one of the greatest acts of ‘social engineering’ in our history in uprooting the legal definition of marriage.

“Marriage lies at the very foundation of the family.”

In the message penned by Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland and the most senior Catholic in the UK restates his “deep disappointment that the Scottish government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same sex marriage.”

Cardinal O’Brien said: “The Church’s teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments, politicians or Parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality.”

“With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online prescence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to

support and sustain marriage”

Mormon seventies, holders of a particular priesthood in the faith, in the UK along with presidents of districts, mission and stakes have been asked to tell congregations: “On June 11 2012, in response to a request by the UK Government for comments regarding the definition of marriage, the Church filed an official submission confirming the need to protect and promote marriage, as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

The submission was sent to the England and Wales consultation on marriage equality. A similar consultation closed in Scotland in December but the Mormon statement refers to the UK generally.

The submission says in part: “The promotion and protection of marriage – the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife – is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and humankind. We join together with others to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society

In its official response to the government consultation on equal marriage, the office of the Chief Rabbi has submitted that Jewish Law prohibited ‘the practice of homosexuality,’ and argues against all same-sex unions, both civil partnerships and marriage.

The consultation, which closed last Thursday, was aimed at soliciting responses from people in England and Wales as to how (rather than whether) to implement equal marriage for gay couples, and also asked if religious ceremonies for gay couples must continue to be disallowed.

These were all taken between June and October of this year and are just a few. The message is clear that they wanted same sex marriage to remain banned even when it was just done in the civil environment. So no, this has never had anything to do with protecting themselves'. That's just the excuse that's stuck.

I call them liars because I have seen all the truely horrible things that they have said, just to get their way some of which are outright fabrications and they know it.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the women protesting. Were physically attacking people. Not just protesting. I thought it was disgusting. It does nothing to promote. Dialogue. Starting from a position of disrespect. And anger. Creates situations. Where people stop engaging. And begin to shut off options. This is what the Church is doing.

I agree, to a point.

Crappy behaviour does nothing to further your argument, and is less likely to persuade people to your cause.

But I think the disrespect comes primarily from a religious organisation that discriminates against them. I think they have very good reasons to be angry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay community wants them to say. It's ok to have sex with a man as a man. They want them to say. "It doesn't matter that God says this is an abomination. I am going to join them in marriage. I am going to bless this union." That is what marriage in a church means.

They are asking them to do this. Why? What other issue in the abominations. Do you see people. Demanding that the Church. Say is Ok. Murder? incest? What else?

two men or women having sex and getting married is a beautiful god loving act.. they should accept two men together in marriage, because that is what god preaches isnt it?? accept all men as equal.. do not judge others.. (you get the drift).. so accept..

murder and incest are very diff things Cassea..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like you to find a priest that says it's okay to sacrifice ANY damn animal! He won't, which means THAT one is no longer legitimate. And maybe a priest won't announce "it's okay to have sex with a menstruating woman" because who the **** cares if a man has sex with a menstruating woman? I seriously doubt that one is legitimate today as well.

Exactly. Think about what a marriage ceremony is. The priest doesn't care if they get married elsewhere. Just stop trying to force them to do it. There are requirements in place. It isn't just the ceremony. First you have this.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/FAQ_Marriage.htm

Then you are asking the priest to announce in a mass. That he blesses the union. Do you know. A priest can refuse to marry people. I have two friends who were refused marriage in a Catholic church. It's not off the the cuff. You are asking a priest. To get up. And announce to everyone. That he condones and blesses an abomination in the eyes of God. When else have you ever seen anyone. Ask a priest to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two men or women having sex and getting married is a beautiful god loving act.. they should accept two men together in marriage, because that is what god preaches isnt it?? accept all men as equal.. do not judge others.. (you get the drift).. so accept..

murder and incest are very diff things Cassea..

I totally agree. But the Church doesn't have that luxury. It goes by canon. I don't have to. They don't have to accept it. The words in the Bible state. It is an abomination. In the eyes of God. I can cheer on Gay marriage. But that's because I don't have to stand. Before God. And disagree with his statement. I do not stand as a representative of God. I am only me. The priest is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't. I asked you to show me any that the Church. Promotes as being acceptable. Have you seen a priest get up and say. It's ok to sacrifice and unclean animal. or It's ok to have sex. With a menstruating woman.

The gay community wants them to say. It's ok to have sex with a man as a man. They want them to say. "It doesn't matter that God says this is an abomination. I am going to join them in marriage. I am going to bless this union." That is what marriage in a church means.

They are asking them to do this. Why? What other issue in the abominations. Do you see people. Demanding that the Church. Say is Ok. Murder? incest? What else?

OH! I found some abominations of the old testament, since the ones you presented are from the new testament.

Leviticus 11:10-19 - (6) "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you."

I have Cajun Catholic family and they happen to LOVE shellfish, so I know this one isn't practiced today.

Isaiah 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD."

Apparently if you eat pork you should die? Pretty sure that's not followed anymore.

Genesis 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.

An Egyptian and a Hebrew can't eat together? Yeah.

Judges 20:6 "And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel." (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)

This doesn't count as murder?

Point is, there are plenty of abominations that USED to be valid, but aren't anymore. Why was it okay to get rid of those, but homosexuality is so bad even though it's not really hurting anyone?

Edited by RockabyeBillie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like you to find a priest that says it's okay to sacrifice ANY damn animal! He won't, which means THAT one is no longer legitimate. And maybe a priest won't announce "it's okay to have sex with a menstruating woman" because who the **** cares if a man has sex with a menstruating woman? I seriously doubt that one is legitimate today as well.

Also yes you can find a priest that says its ok to sacrifice an animal. The entire ritual of Eucharist replaces the sacrifice of the animal. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb. It is done every single mass. You do know this. I'm sure. I think you just didn't relate the two.

As far as who the ....cares. Menstruating women in Jewish cultures. Must go to a ritual bath. Before engaging in sexual intercourse with their husbands. Now today. There are mikveh's all over the place. Google them if you don't believe me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah

http://www.mikvahminder.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH! I found some abominations of the old testament, since the ones you presented are from the new testament.

Leviticus 11:10-19 - (6) "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you."

I have Cajun Catholic family and they happen to LOVE shellfish, so I know this one isn't practiced today.

Isaiah 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD."

Apparently if you eat pork you should die? Pretty sure that's not followed anymore.

Genesis 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.

An Egyptian and a Hebrew can't eat together? Yeah.

Judges 20:6 "And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel." (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)

This doesn't count as murder?

Point is, there are plenty of abominations that USED to be valid, but aren't anymore. Why was it okay to get rid of those, but homosexuality is so bad even though it's not really hurting anyone?

my ex father-in-law was raised catholic - was an alter boy as a matter of fact - and he used to recite this little poem about the hpocrisy of the catholic church:

hail mary full of grace

st christopher's flat on his face

meatless fridays up the spout

what the hell's it all about??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also yes you can find a priest that says its ok to sacrifice an animal. The entire ritual of Eucharist replaces the sacrifice of the animal. Jesus became the sacrificial lamb. It is done every single mass. You do know this. I'm sure. I think you just didn't relate the two.

As far as who the ....cares. Menstruating women in Jewish cultures. Must go to a ritual bath. Before engaging in sexual intercourse with their husbands. Now today. There are mikveh's all over the place. Google them if you don't believe me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah

http://www.mikvahminder.com

If the animal is replaced by something symbolic that is NOT an animal, then they're STILL not sacrificing an animal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH! I found some abominations of the old testament, since the ones you presented are from the new testament.

Leviticus 11:10-19 - (6) "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you."

I have Cajun Catholic family and they happen to LOVE shellfish, so I know this one isn't practiced today.

Isaiah 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD."

Apparently if you eat pork you should die? Pretty sure that's not followed anymore.

Genesis 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.

An Egyptian and a Hebrew can't eat together? Yeah.

Judges 20:6 "And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel." (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)

This doesn't count as murder?

Point is, there are plenty of abominations that USED to be valid, but aren't anymore. Why was it okay to get rid of those, but homosexuality is so bad even though it's not really hurting anyone?

You are debating two different things. I am not stating there is anything wrong. With homosexuality. I don't think there is. However. You cannot expect a priest. To stand up and join them in a marriage. That is the topic. Not homosexuality. The issue is forcing a priest to join them in union. Debating the abominations is one thing. But asking a priest to announce to the word. That he is blessing. What God deems an abomination. Is completely wrong. I have had premarital sex. I have sinned. But I am not asking a priest to announce in from of everyone. That he is blessing my sin. That he is holding it up in glory. That is what gay marriage in a church is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the animal is replaced by something symbolic that is NOT an animal, then they're STILL not sacrificing an animal.

You obviously don't understand this ritual. It is supposed to be symbolic. Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus. God demanded ritual animal sacrifice. Jesus was the pure lamb. He died for our sins. The Eucharist is based on His command. Do this in memory of me. If we did sacrifice an animal. It would be disrespectful to Jesus. And God. We are no longer supposed to sacrifice. Because Jesus died. But this is getting off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. I don't understand trying to be part of a church. That goes against your personal reality. Calling you an abomination. Why would you want them to be part of your marriage. I wouldn't want to step foot in. Humanists and Universalists have churches that welcome anyone. Go there.

I'm agnostic and don't believe in the use of churches and what theyre used for in the modern world. But most of these people have been brought up to believe in these ways, that is their right as a homosapian to preceive the world the way they want. My point was for those who are homosexual and want to use a church build you own church/religion cut their **** out completely. By showing compassion more would be bound to follow.

Just a theory to end all of the madness, it wouldn't further the segregation aslong as they did not fearmonger they beliefs into wars like the current systems are fond of doing.

At the end of the day, if you can get married in klingon, buck up gays and do something about your situation, comic-con did. Nothing legally stops you from creating a homosexual religion if you please to, then your marriage lisence would be approved and they would not be able to tell you that you can not be married, as it would follow as false discrimination of a belief and biased. If any of this can be refused as a statement. Muslims in that case would be banned to practise in public, not that I am lobying for that, but the world is full of red tape in which most of us could run circles around these idiots in power

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two men or women having sex and getting married is a beautiful god loving act.. they should accept two men together in marriage, because that is what god preaches isnt it?? accept all men as equal.. do not judge others.. (you get the drift).. so accept..

murder and incest are very diff things Cassea..

wbo - sorry dude, but honestly that would be like trying to disprove science, even if there was something to prove everything wrong it would not be adopted and practised as it would change entire structures which is too much work. Think of religion as a old man, just because times have changed doesn't mean they are going to. Mind you I don't blame them, 50-70 years of conformative knowledge I would be stubborn as well, as most of us are already or will end up being by that age :P

Hence I say if their god doesn't want you, it would be at their own loss.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.