Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[classical liberal]

In context:

If you make the choice to be gay, you should suffer the consequences.  It is not my responsibility to keep f****ts out of hell when they make active choices to go there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In context:

If you make the choice to be gay, you should suffer the consequences.  It is not my responsibility to keep f****ts out of hell when they make active choices to go there.

Well, since we all have sinned, how are we any better?  And how can the lost be saved unless someone presents Christ to them?

As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" (Isaiah 52:7; Rom 10:15)

[classical liberal]

What I'm saying is: isn't it each person's job to not sin/atone for past sins, not someone else's?

[Brambila]

Your quotes arn't supporting contraception, they're encouraging sex- and God bless it! Sex is very good! I'm not at all condemning it. But this has absolutely no link with contraception. You're trying to change a belief that has been planted in Christianity since the beginning-  the early Christians beleived it was wrong, the Catholic philosophers found it wrong, even Calvin and Luther thought it wrong. You have failed to answer my quotes from the early fathers. Contraception is NOT biblical, and has been condemned outside of the bible (besides Onan, which Luther used to condemn contraception).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You have failed to answer my quotes from the early fathers.

I have fully answered them - their arguments are not based on scriptural restrictions.

Side Note:  Any novice student of the bible can run circles around the Letter of Barnabas.

---

Contraception is NOT biblical, and has been condemned outside of the bible.

Well, drinking tea is "NOT biblical", and has been condemned by some Christians.  But since there is no biblical restriction against drinking tea, I don't entertain "moral" objections to it.

---

Your quotes aren't supporting contraception

And I couldn’t quote the bible to support playing football, but since there is no scripture against playing football, I’m free to play the game.  

As it is written:  “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15)

[Brambila]

Your argument is basically this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's why we see how the early fathers taught. Everything the four gospels say in the bible are not the ONLY things Christ said and did- even John says that in the last passage in his book. Does that mean we can jump in and say "Oh! This must be OK!". Well, if that's the case, Abortion isn't condemned either. God says that the fetus is a human being, but doesn't say if Abortion is wrong. In fact, the Jews allowed it to an extent. We understand that abortion is wrong from the early fathers. There are many things that we consider sins, but are not mentioned in the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can end this argument easily enough:

First we are told that the Law of Moses was complete in instruction:

Exo 24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said

In fact, it was so complete God instructed them not to add commands to it:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Conclusion:  Since kinkiness between a husband and a wife is not forbidden within the Law of Moses, it was therefore never forbidden by God during old testament times.  

Anyone claiming otherwise is simply wrong.

---

Well, if that's the case, Abortion isn't condemned either. God says that the fetus is a human being, but doesn't say if Abortion is wrong. In fact, the Jews allowed it to an extent. We understand that abortion is wrong from the early fathers. There are many things that we consider sins, but are not mentioned in the bible.

Regardless of the opinion of the early fathers, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read the bible and understand that God views the fetus as a baby who is capable of responding to God (see examples of Jacob and John the Baptist).  Therefore, the argument justifying abortion due to the belief that the unborn are not living is simply false.

Granted I may be in agreement with the "early fathers" on this subject, but I reached that conclusion on my own, for it is written:

John 13:16 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
 
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Heb 5:14 Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

---

That's why we see how the early fathers taught.

So, you’re admitting that you place the teachings of the early fathers in higher esteem, as if their views were determinate of truth?  Then why did Paul advise sticking with scripture to avoid the very thing you’re doing?:

1Cor 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

---

Everything the four gospels say in the bible are not the ONLY things Christ said and did- even John says that in the last passage in his book.

I find it quite sad you simply refuse to read the very passage your quoting, for it states that John wrote down enough for readers to have life in Jesus:

John 20:30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Therefore, John viewed his letter, which you claim is lacking teaching, as enough to bring eternal life to those believing what he wrote.

[Brambila]

Let me give you quotes by famous protestants:

As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument. - C.S. Lewis Abolition of Man.

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. - Martin Luther Lectures on Genesis

Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves. (ibid.)

The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. . . . But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. . . . Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men and women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage. (ibid.)

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. (ibid.)

You will find many to whom a large number of children is unwelcome, as though marriage had been instituted only for bestial pleasures and not also for the very valuable work by which we serve God and men when we train and educate the children whom God has given us. They do not appreciate the most pleasant feature of marriage. For what exceeds the love of children? (Ibid.)


I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor. John Calvin Commentary on Genesis

Even these protestants- strong supporters of sola scriptura think that practicing sexuality outside of marraige for reproduction is wrong!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the Mosaic laws, NOT the new testament, and not the other books of the OT.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One could argue that it doesn't take a rocket science to see that contraception is a sin, but of course that would be a logical fallacy, as you've commited already.

Following your quotes by John, you do not need to listen to the bible, because the bible is teaching you. Of course, this is logically flawed. Of course you need people to teach you! Paul taught people; Peter taught people; Christ taught people. Further, saying that you can discover good and evil yourself is why we have original sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying that the early fathers are of higher esteem, but they should be regarded equally. The bible is the word of God, yes, but we must know what the apostles taught. Remember, Christ said "Hold fast the traditions of mankind". These people were Christians before the bible was compiled, like the apostles. Clearly, if you told them to only follow what was written- how would they do it, since they didn't have the bible?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, John said that he wrote enough so that you may know Christ is the son of God. That's it. You need to know Christ is the son of God, yes, but you need to keep his commandments, as well. If you say you follow Christ, and then rape, murder, and molest children, do you think he'll allow you to go to heaven? Clearly not.

[migrendel]

An interesting account of an eerily reminiscent situation in France:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/weekinreview/13cald.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Let me give you quotes by famous protestants:…

Why can’t you understand that I care ZERO about non-scriptural arguments, regardless of the source (protestant or catholic)?  You might as well quote from the back of a Cracker-Jack box - if the box is making a scriptural argument, then I will consider it; if the box is not making a scriptural argument, then I’m going to ignore it.
---

That's the Mosaic laws, NOT the new testament, and not the other books of the OT.

So, what’s your point?  The fact remains that Moses wrote down all the requirements of God and avoiding contraception was NOT one of them, nor was there a requirement to avoid kinkiness.

---

[abortion]…One could argue that it doesn't take a rocket science to see that contraception is a sin, but of course that would be a logical fallacy, as you've commited already.

Then let me frame it differently:
1) Scripture says that God lovingly forms the fetus within the mother.
2) Scripture says that the unborn can respond to outside influences, even the word of God.
3) The bible says that the unborn are innocent.

Therefore, abortion is the destruction of a totally innocent human life that God is lovingly knitting together and interacting with… None of which can be said of contraception.

Non-scriptural argument:  Even aside from these scriptures, the fact that the fetus is a precious human life is evident to EVERY expecting mother, regardless of religious background.  The fact that Abortion is wrong is evident without scripture, just as creation itself testifies about God...again, this can not be said of contraception.

---

Following your quotes by John, you do not need to listen to the bible, because the bible is teaching you. Of course, this is logically flawed. Of course you need people to teach you! Paul taught people; Peter taught people; Christ taught people. Further, saying that you can discover good and evil yourself is why we have original sin.

Being led by the Spirit into knowledge doesn’t mean that the Spirit will not lead you to study scripture.  Also, the Spirit will indeed lead an “infant in Christ” to find a human teacher.  BUT…the scripture makes it clear the Christians are expected to mature and grow to the point of being able to teach themselves doctrine:

Heb 5:11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

---

I'm not saying that the early fathers are of higher esteem, but they should be regarded equally.

Believe it or not, I ALSO regard them equally, for just as Paul wasn’t afraid to oppose Peter, James, and John…I also am not afraid to oppose anyone who may be teaching things contrary to scripture.

But, also understand that the instruction to "Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another" is NOT simply about choosing sides between the Apostles and the early fathers, rather it is about choosing sides between ANY two parties, period....basically, if you stick to what is written, there is no need to compare one group to another since your comparitive standard should always be scripture.

Also, Paul says that he has applied this standard (not going beyond what is written) to himself so that no one esteems him more than any other man.

---

The bible is the word of God, yes, but we must know what the apostles taught.

Isn’t the NT the teaching of the Apostles?  And weren’t those letters written explicitly for instruction?

---

Remember, Christ said "Hold fast the traditions of mankind"

I believe the context was an admonishment NOT to follow the teachings of men.

---

These people were Christians before the bible was compiled, like the apostles. Clearly, if you told them to only follow what was written- how would they do it, since they didn't have the bible?

1) They had the writings of the Apostles, just as we do.  They also had the personal teaching of the Apostles – which obviously must agree with the their writings included in the NT.
2) They had the OT, which the Apostles used to back up their oral and written teachings.

---

No, John said that he wrote enough so that you may know Christ is the son of God. That's it.

You’re misquoting scripture,,.that is NOT the complete passage:

John 24:31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

---

You need to know Christ is the son of God, yes, but you need to keep his commandments, as well. If you say you follow Christ, and then rape, murder, and molest children, do you think he'll allow you to go to heaven? Clearly not.

1) The Gospel of John includes instructions concerning sin
2) There are no “new” NT sins; all the sins listed in the NT can be found in the OT.
3) A believer in Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit, and those following the Holy Spirit are capable, WITHOUT scripture, to avoid sin:

Jer 31:33 I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

Gal 5:16 Live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Rom 2:13-15 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Further, saying that you can discover good and evil yourself is why we have original sin.

You seem to be disagreeing with the writer of Hebrews: “But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

The original sin was about gaining knowledge of good and evil, it was NOT about being able to distinguish between good and evil.  There is a HUGE difference.

For example:  I know nothing about satanic chants, but I could gain knowledge about them by practicing the chants. And I also could gain knowledge of murder by practicing it.  But, without practicing those sins, I could learn to distinguish those acts as sins by studying the bible.

1Cor 14:20 In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If we are to be "open to God" by obeying the command to "multiply", doesn't Natural Family Planning attempt to duck this commandment by regulating sex to avoid the time of ovulation?

[lolitsadam]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sweden doesn't have gay marriage...and you really can't prove that gay marriage was the root of those problems.

It's ridiculous that people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, your religion should not play a role in any government policy.

The 14th Amendment says all Americans are entitled to equal protection of the law.  Unless there are no marriage laws or gays aren't citizens, then they're completely and full entitled to marriage.

[Brambila]

Sweden has civil partnership I think.

[lolitsadam]

you're right, but that's what a majority of industrialized countries have  (NZ, Brazil, Australia, Japan, the UK, France, Denmark, Finland, etc).  So that can't be the cause of it..

[danwxman]

I don't know why some are using biblical references to oppose gay marriage. They are forgetting that much of the country could care less what the bible says about the issue.

The divorce rate is already through the roof here in the U.S., heterosexuals have made a marriage a complete disgrace -- yet you have a group of people ready to respect and restore dignity to the institution and they are being denied that right.

[Brambila]

We're actually debating about contraception, not gay marriage. gay marriage is wrong for a whole lot of other reasons.

[lolitsadam]

We're actually debating about contraception, not gay marriage. gay marriage is wrong for a whole lot of other reasons.

haha, no...it isn't.  But ok, I'll let you think that.

[danwxman]

We're actually debating about contraception, not gay marriage. gay marriage is wrong for a whole lot of other reasons.

I just jumped to the last page. So you think contraception is bad too? I suppose you are also against masturbation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They are forgetting that much of the country could care less what the bible says about the issue.

Ok, Howard Dean.

[Brambila]

Yes, I do... but I'm not about ready to make anyone else stop masturbating, or using contraceptives. However, since homosexuality is a disorder (it was only removed from the APA's list because homosexuals threatened them, and then literally took over the organization), I believe that the government should not condone homosexual marriage. Further, I only believe that people who have intentions of having children (either through adoption, or if they are infirtle can still because there's still a chance they can concieve) should be allowed marriage. People who do not open up the possibility of having children should not be allowed to married, but allowed to be civilly united. If they change their minds, they can get married.

[lolitsadam]

Homosexuality is most-definitely not a disorder.  It's a very natural orientation.  The APA wasn't threatened by anyone.  

So you think that gay couples who want to adopt should be able to get married?  Nice.

[Brambila]

Gay couples cannot adopt, as studies have proven that children need both a mom and dad in their lives. Two daddies don't make a mom- not even a feminine dad.

And yes, homosexuality is a disorder. Every single homosexual I've spoken to (which is quite a few) has had a bad relationship with men --either peers or fathers-- and tried to make up for this masculinity by having sexual desires for men. Statistically speaking, 46% of homosexual men have been abused as children, homosexuals account for a third of all pedastric cases, even though they make up less than 6% of the population. They are clearly disordered. It's also completely against evolution

Finally, yes the APA was threatened in the 1970 (71?) San Francisco APA convention. Within six months after the convention, the APA went from a very conservative organization that defined homosexuality as seriously disordered, or a very liberal organization that encouraged homosexuality as a way of birth control.

[lolitsadam]

Gay couples cannot adopt, as studies have proven that children need both a mom and dad in their lives. Two daddies don't make a mom- not even a feminine dad.

That's bull.  Studies have shown the only bad thing that comes along with gay parenting is the stigma attached to homosexuality that will often get directed at their children.  Most gays have a lot of friends of the opposite sex, they do have appropriate gender roles in their lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is also bs.  I'm gay.  I'm not going to deny that.  I have never, once, been abused, or been on bad terms with my father.  Am I the exception?  No, I know plenty of other gay people like that as well.

You can't do statistics on a community where it's completely impossible to detect the size of - most gays aren't going to feel comfortable telling someone that has no business in knowing those kinds of things that, don't site statistics that can't be proven.  And as for pediatric cases, that's also fallible, since we're talking about children, who don't understand sexuality at all.

Plus, homosexuality cannot be "cured," (so how is it a disorder?  what bad comes from it?) basically all psychiatrists don't recommend the so-called "cures" because it often leads to suicide, and really has no success rate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Their position was changed on a vote, that hardly could be from any threat, especially since gays couldn't have done anything to them, so where was the real threat?

[Brambila]

Okay :-)