Do you support same-sex marriage?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No way!  The primary purpose of marriage is a family unit for children, not merely love.  A 2013 Regnerus study shows how much worse off children raised by homosexual couples are, compared to those with a mother and a father.  As Ryan Anderson would say, "there is no such thing as parenting, only mothering and fathering".  Like it or not, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses and are intended to be complementary to each other.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

[Green Line]

I believe it's a sin, but who doesn't sin?

Christians get so worked up over this, when there are worse sins than this we should be trying to put an end to as hard as we do this one.

Sins have victims. Right?

Who is victimized by gays forming life/love bonds?

Regards
DL

No, sins do not have to have victims.

It's not a sin anyway IMO.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No way!  The primary purpose of marriage is a family unit for children, not merely love.  A 2013 Regnerus study shows how much worse off children raised by homosexual couples are, compared to those with a mother and a father.  As Ryan Anderson would say, "there is no such thing as parenting, only mothering and fathering".  Like it or not, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses and are intended to be complementary to each other.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Discredited study.

[SNJ1985]

No

[MasterJedi]

Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a women, the government should really have no say in it.

From a government perspective everyone should have the same rights. Be able to openly serve in the military, adopt, decide who gets their inheritance, get the same tax benefits, etc.

At the same time I also have no problem with anyone who's actually gay who is "married". They're people just like everyone else, some nice, some awful, no grudge or bad feels to anyone who's gay.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I believe it's a sin, but who doesn't sin?

Christians get so worked up over this, when there are worse sins than this we should be trying to put an end to as hard as we do this one.

Sins have victims. Right?

Who is victimized by gays forming life/love bonds?

Regards
DL

No, sins do not have to have victims.

It's not a sin anyway IMO.

Romans Chapter 1, ESV:

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

---------

I'm sorry, but homosexuality is clearly a sin. This is a new testament letter written to the populace at large of a given country that reinforces old testament themes.

And I'm not some conservative freak, I accept the scientific age of the earth and am open to the idea of evolution (though I think God played a YUGE role). I'm also "Who cares?" in terms of allowing women to be pastors.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I believe it's a sin, but who doesn't sin?

Christians get so worked up over this, when there are worse sins than this we should be trying to put an end to as hard as we do this one.

Sins have victims. Right?

Who is victimized by gays forming life/love bonds?

Regards
DL

No, sins do not have to have victims.

It's not a sin anyway IMO.

Romans Chapter 1, ESV:

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

---------

I'm sorry, but homosexuality is clearly a sin. This is a new testament letter written to the populace at large of a given country that reinforces old testament themes.

And I'm not some conservative freak, I accept the scientific age of the earth and am open to the idea of evolution (though I think God played a YUGE role). I'm also "Who cares?" in terms of allowing women to be pastors.

Try reading the full passage before you cherrypick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The people who engaged in these "unnatural behaviors" were idol worshippers and shrine prostitutes who performed homosexual acts in rituals.  Being gay doesn't require you to personify God as a reptile or act as the receiver of male seed for idols - you have to pay extra for that.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The part we both left out is this:

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.


So, yes, these people were worshipping idols, but because they were doing that, god gave them up to dishonorable, sinful passions. Homosexuality is mentioned in Verse 27, just after the "gave them up" part. It wasn't something that these people were doing that god decided was distracting them from him and so he banned it for that sector of the population, no, he's giving them up into an action that was already sinful. In Verse 24, it doesn't say "made their actions into dishonorable things" or similar, it says "gave them up to the dishonoring of their bodies (because they were doing these actions)". He didn't create a new rule right then and there, he simply gave them up into actions that he already was against and had been against since at least Leviticus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think religious conservatives in the academy and in public life took essentially the wrong lesson from the Regnerus study. Even presupposing that its conclusions are valid, that's an argument for regularizing and thus stabilizing this family structure as much as possible, not trying to make it go away, which it won't.

[Figueira]

I fink it incredibly sad that people actually care what the Bible says.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The part we both left out is this:

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

...And?  That's exactly what the idol worshippers were doing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, these passages very clearly refer to the people engaging in temple prostitution, not homosexuals in general.  The individuals being referred to likely went against their own natural attraction towards the opposite sex and chose to engage in other sexual acts for the sake of idol worship, not because they always had a romantic or sexual interest toward people of their own gender.  That is what was dishonorable.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm aware of temple prostitution, but no matter how much I read that passage, I've always read it as god giving them up into actions that are already undesirable. I also think it's good to look at the NIV wording:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

While nature isn't explicitly defined here, when you look at the verses in the old testament that reference homosexuality (while I understand the old testament law has been fulfilled, when the new testament seems to reinforce an old testament rule as it does here, it's useful to look at what the old testament says), none of them make an exception for "genetics" or "responsible homosexuals" or what have you. Take a look:

Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

I will also connect this right back to the beginning of the human race. God didn't hesitate at all when finding a partner for Adam - he knew instantly he would want a woman. And no reference to "natural sexuality" or what have you is made.

----------

And for the record, politically I have largely washed my hands of this issue. If I was in congress and asked to vote on this issue, I would vote Present. It's settled law. We've debated it enough as a country and we need to move on to more pressing items. I have no problem with gays/lesbians/bisexuals being in office or receiving non-discrimination protections as long as religious individuals are able to opt out of participating in gay weddings (I do not support an exemption in other matters). I think this way because I believe strongly in the first amendment and the separation of church and state. But on a personal level, I will always be against homosexuality.

[LLR]

Oh, didn't realize you were a bigot too, Wulfric. I didn't know I could think any less of you!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, didn't realize you were a bigot too, Wulfric. I didn't know I could think any less of you!

Uh, have I ever given the impression that I personally supported SSM?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm aware of temple prostitution, but no matter how much I read that passage, I've always read it as god giving them up into actions that are already undesirable. I also think it's good to look at the NIV wording:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

While nature isn't explicitly defined here, when you look at the verses in the old testament that reference homosexuality (while I understand the old testament law has been fulfilled, when the new testament seems to reinforce an old testament rule as it does here, it's useful to look at what the old testament says), none of them make an exception for "genetics" or "responsible homosexuals" or what have you. Take a look:

Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Actually, the connections to Levitical law are extremely weak, especially if you're attempting to divert the focus away from temple prostitution.  The Hebrew word "shakab" (which translates as "to lie with") contains many definitions, not all which have a sexual nature, and there are notable passages in the OT (Genesis 19:32, Genesis 34:2, Genesis 39:14 to name a few) in which the usage of that word strongly implies incidence of rape.

But even the way the Levitical laws are ordered would suggest worship of the fertility god, Molech, who is mentioned directly before the supposed prohibition against men "lying with" other men.  (Leviticus 18:21 switches from specific acts to being with people near of kin to acts that are specific to idol worship of Molech.)

The reference to "homosexuals" in Corinthians is also very new, given that the church decided to insert that word into the verse in early 1900s.  The Greek compound words for "homosexual" were not translated that way at any time before that and they occur numerous times in the OT without any possibility of meaning gay sex.

(I should add that this is just the condensed version of what I've learned on the subject after studying this issue more in depth.  I'm not particularly interested in continuing this conversation much further - at least publicly - because most people on this forum don't care what the Bible has to say about anything, as you can plainly see.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because human sexuality as we know it is a relatively new concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's great.  I don't care.

And neither does my church, for the record.

[LLR]

Oh, didn't realize you were a bigot too, Wulfric. I didn't know I could think any less of you!

Uh, have I ever given the impression that I personally supported SSM?

I can't say I cared enough to find out. Anyway, please tell us in more detail why you hate gay people!

[White Trash]

Can't think of a good, secular reason to be against it.

[Starpaul20]

Of course I do.

[JerryArkansas]

I like the men, so yeah I do.

[Kingpoleon]

I believe it's a sin, but who doesn't sin?

Christians get so worked up over this, when there are worse sins than this we should be trying to put an end to as hard as we do this one.

Sins have victims. Right?

Who is victimized by gays forming life/love bonds?

Regards
DL

No, sins do not have to have victims.

It's not a sin anyway IMO.

Romans Chapter 1, ESV:

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

---------

I'm sorry, but homosexuality is clearly a sin. This is a new testament letter written to the populace at large of a given country that reinforces old testament themes.

And I'm not some conservative freak, I accept the scientific age of the earth and am open to the idea of evolution (though I think God played a YUGE role). I'm also "Who cares?" in terms of allowing women to be pastors.

... You mean the gay Roman and Greek sex slaves, young boys belonging to much older men, was a sin? Shocking! There's also some interesting ideas about what eunuch means in the New Testament.

[NeverAgain]

I thank Wulfric and ExtremeGOP for fighting the good fight against the radical gay agenda. We need to be institutionalized IMO, I mean we make women look bad at fashion, hairdressing, and cooking.

BAN THE GAYS!

[afleitch]

It's nice to read my marriage being debated over while eating my breakfast.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Oh, didn't realize you were a bigot too, Wulfric. I didn't know I could think any less of you!

Uh, have I ever given the impression that I personally supported SSM?

ing idiot...

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's nice to read my marriage being debated over while eating my breakfast.

?

Almost every issue being debated on this forum is personally relevant to someone. Sure, a person who's living on food stamps is less likely to be posting on here, but why does that matter? Is it more acceptable to tell someone they shouldn't be able to feed themself, or to tell a woman that she shouldn't be able to afford contraception, or to tell a minimum wage worker struggling to make ends meet that they're making too much, than it is to tell someone their marriage shouldn't exist?

Edit: And no, I'm not trying to make apologies for opposition to SSM. It's clearly wrong, just as the other stances I described are clearly wrong. What I don't get is the idea that this one stance is uniquely offensive and callous.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Very sad to see so many hateful Trump people. I thought this was a campaign about love.

No way!  The primary purpose of marriage is a family unit for children, not merely love.  A 2013 Regnerus study shows how much worse off children raised by homosexual couples are, compared to those with a mother and a father.  As Ryan Anderson would say, "there is no such thing as parenting, only mothering and fathering".  Like it or not, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses and are intended to be complementary to each other.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Lol, when your list of 'social norms' is this messed up, of course you are going to get screwy results. Also, consider the obvious biases in this study and what people have been together long enough to raise children -being denied rights by the state makes life a lot harder, doesn't it? You should be smart enough to figure this out.