liberal definition

==Biblical support?

Btw, I just finished a social science graduate course in which the professor was a pro-homosexual developmental psychologist. Even she said that there is no known cause of homosexuality. Though she believes a biological cause will be found.

==Personally I have no objection to civil unions. However to call it marriage, or to even imply that the two are equal, is wrong. Neither is true.

==The 10% figure is questionable. Keep in mind that such studies depend upon a lot of factors.

 

One sort of marriage is describedin those few particular lines, but also divorce, so that "for life" is out the window. There are many other verses in the Bible which describe marriages with many wives - do you deny them?

There are more with multiple wives who were blessed, but, really, how many do you need?

The condemnation was not for multiple wives (seven hundred plus three hundred concubines), but for foreign wives who worshipped foreign gods and turned his heart away from God.

Leviticus says that an adulterous woman and her lover should be stoned to death (and, sadly, a rape inside the city limits counts as adultery), but Jesus says that she may only be stoned by those without sin themselves - is that a compromise?

I don't know why he would not bless an uncomsumated union.

However, the State is not God.

 

This bears repeating.

 

==Well first off, I think Jesus' allowance for divorce is so tight that very few divorces are justified. Marriage is for life except in cases of adultery. Second none of the verses you gave is prescriptive in nature. The verses you mentioned are descriptive, not prescriptive, and those verses do not endorse multiple spouses as acceptable for everyone. The Bible does not endorse, as good, anything beyond normal marriage. Those verses deal with what was happening and governs how the civil affairs are to be managed within national Israel.

==Right. Think about it and you will get my point.

==What does this have to do with the topic?

==Bingo, and since only God can define/redefine marriage (which He created) government cannot redefine it.

Your answer to the question, "Do you believe that God approves of and blesses homosexual "marriages", "unions", or whatever you want to call it? Yes/No and why?" is certainly eye opening. By "uncomsumated" I must assume you mean that there is no physical relationship. That leads me to another question for you. Why would people, who are not having a physical relationship, need to be married or have a union? How many homosexual couples do you know, who want to be allowed to marry, are not having a physical relationship? Ok, it is more like two questions.

 

You see, my skin isn't the issue. You are making remarks about me rather than addressing the topic.

Yeah, right...even if "you go off the deep end", "you defend the indefensible" & "wilfull blindness" are all meant in a good way, you are still making remarks about me rather than arguing the topic. Bald assertions about me are not arguments and they are not relevent. They do say much about you however.

You, too.

 

This is why no sane "Christian" would or could support their own Gov'ts approval of queer unions of any kind.


Romans 1:22-27 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

All arguments which try to fog this fundamental issue are baseless and ill advised. Queers got nothing coming. They are a perveted bunch and intend to pervert the entire nation by their unspeakable behavior.

Oppression? Give me a break. The queers are no more oppressed in this nation than the man in the moon. You wish to speak of "rights". Foolish topic. No single groups "rights" should override the rights and privileges of the majority. When you have "sthpethial" groups dictating policy in any Gov't you wind up with utter chaos. And believe me, that is EXACTLY what the queers want. Remember, this nation is NOT a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. There is the problem. Liberals want to make it a democracy.
I resent that and will oppose it with my last breath.

Oppressed? What you sow, that shall you also reap. Act perverted and expect righteous treatment? Nope.

 

Constructive critism.

You wouldn't need it if you'd read the Bible and see what it says instead of what you want it to say.:BangHead:

 

Always count on Jim to decide who is a Real Christian (tm) and who is not.

Here's what his post sounds like:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin
==So you are telling me that you don't see a definition of marriage in any of those verses? One man, one woman, for life? You don't see that? If this is the case with you then we are not even on the same plane.


Question for Daisy. Do you believe that God approves of and blesses homosexual "marriages", "unions", or whatever you want to call it? Yes/No and why?

Toluso. :wavey:

 

She answered the question.

 

Yet the State allows divorce and remarriage for much more (or less, depending on how you look at it).

Same with the three you gave.

Yet, those are called "marriage" and not condemned. You say there is only one definition of marriage, but those marriages do not fit that definition. How do you reconcile that?

I have thought about it and I don't think your point is valid.

That was addressing your contention that there was no compromise in dealing with adultery.

But the State does define and redefine marriage from time to time for its own purposes.

The most most compelling reasons are for romantic love and companionship, for medical decisions and hospital visitations, for survivorship - much the same reasons elderly men and women sometimes marry without consumation.

 

As kind as it is of you to point out the mote in my eye, personal remarks are off topic, destructive and derailing.

You should take your own advice. Now, how about an actual argument about the actual topic rather than a baseless assertion?

 

No one yet has answered the question posed in the OP. It has to be directed at a liberal like you. I don't have a clue how to describe "homosexual oppression", but you're supposed to. You being a liberal and all.

Wanna take you own advice and give it a shot?

 

I answered your question repeatedly. You simply didn't find the answer you were fishing for, and are unhappy I went somewhere your script didn't plan on.

 

Reading comprehension. Consider it.

 

Humor me.

What was the post #?

I'll go back and try again.

 

Carpro: #2

Salt: #8

 

That's a pretty good non answer. No examples or definitions of homosexual oppression included.

How is being treated according to the law of the land oppression?

The answer, of course, is that it's not. Since when a is an accusation of unfairness oppression? The answer is, of course, that it's not.

Oppression is commonly described as: 1.the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

If you wish to try to make a case for "unjust" which is the only one that could even be considered remotely close, you have to consider that homos knew the laws before they decided on their lifestyle. Therefore, if they are "oppressed", it is by their own chioce.

Bottom line:

They are not being "oppressed". They are simply being treated according to the law. If the law is changed and then they are denied their rights under the law, that would be oppression.