Same sex marriage

[G-Man]

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.  (Gen 19:4-5)

The part, "that we may know them", is in reference to a homosexual act. Some translations add the word carnally others say, "that we may have sex with them".

Now, if you wanted to argue that homosexuality was not the only sin among the people of Sodom and thus was only a part of why God chose to destroy them, I would not disagree with you.  

Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from Jehovah out of the heavens.  And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. (Gen 19:24-25)

God destoyed the wicked cities and ALL who lived in them.

I would say that he clearly didn't like what was going on there.

I read that twice and I still dont see where homosexuality was bad. I can never understand that when someone past bible verses the chapters and versus are always skiped in order to make their point.

The entire story is a very long one. I condensed it, to avoid making a post that was two pages long.

The omitted verses do not change the meaning or the outcome of the story.

I'm sure I can pick out small chapters and make a point that homosexuality is acceptable using that method.

That is one thing that I do not believe that you can do.

The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and wrong before the eyes of God.

It isn't the only sin, and it is no worse an offense than any other sin, but it is a sin.

 

And from which "translation" from which language into which other language, and from which person, of what church did you get these interpretations of translations from?  What was the persons agenda for re-writing and translating it in the first place, or the 1st hundreth place?  Ever play the game telephone?  Now play it with religous heads and politicians of the day.  How silly!

[x]

Erm... what was it that Jesus said about homosexuality?  Or gay marriage?

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate."

Granted the context is a discussion of divorce, but I think it reveals an expectation of the makeup of a marriage.

Incidentally, Wayne, I agree with most of what you have to say about faith. 

Willow, interesting "stretch" but says nothing about the actual views of Jesus with respect to homosexuality, gay marriage, or for that matter, women in the church, drinking too much, or dancing.  Don't think he said much about any of this.
 
Suspected you are one of the faithful... even if we're not aligned on all points.  Blessings, sir.

It's none of your, or anyone's, business!

Wait a minute, Mr. Smiley... I think you posted to the wrong thread... and... are you telling us that you can make all the comments about the failings of the New York legislature, and not have an opinion on gay marriage?  Seems weird to me, mate.

[G-Man]

Erm... what was it that Jesus said about homosexuality?  Or gay marriage?

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate."

Granted the context is a discussion of divorce, but I think it reveals an expectation of the makeup of a marriage.

Incidentally, Wayne, I agree with most of what you have to say about faith. 

Willow, interesting "stretch" but says nothing about the actual views of Jesus with respect to homosexuality, gay marriage, or for that matter, women in the church, drinking too much, or dancing.  Don't think he said much about any of this.
 
Suspected you are one of the faithful... even if we're not aligned on all points.  Blessings, sir.

It's none of your, or anyone's, business!

Wait a minute, Mr. Smiley... I think you posted to the wrong thread... and... are you telling us that you can make all the comments about the failings of the New York legislature, and not have an opinion on gay marriage?  Seems weird to me, mate.

That's right, I'm man enough to my have my smiling face on every one of my posts and stand by them.  Have yet to see who YOU really are.  I posted in the correct thread.  It was in reply to another post.  And I didn't say I have no opinion. 

[Bobbo]

So... bottom line... beyond the process... do you have a problem with gay marriage?

I do. Anyhow, as this push for the normalization of homosexuals into our society continues,
I await the inevitable Supreme Court decision on whether or not South Carolina must
recognize the "marriage" of homosexuals from New York (or whatever)...

-Mike

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals.  Until a 1967 Supreme Court ruling that declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional, it was considered the same as homosexual marriage in many states...  Not ordained by God.  The only way to eliminate discrimination and allow freedom for all is to get the message out concerning these outdated laws.

[ValhallaIamComing]

Actually, those large population centers on the east and west coast are getting poorer by the second with their handout social welfare politics.  Its funny how the "fly over" states are the ones that manage to balance their budgets every year.  Y'all just keep flyin over... but don't land here please!   

Gee, I wasn't expecting to get exciled from Missouri.

btw, you may be in the wrong thread, this one is not about balanced budgets or "handout social welfare polittics". 
[/quote]

Never mind Old Tiger... you and your Valk are still welcome in Missouri... and I bet you are still welcome in Wyoming too! 

[hubcapsc]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

[Dag]

Same-sex marriage became legal in Norway on January 1, 2009 when a gender neutral marriage bill was enacted after being passed by the Norwegian legislature in June 2008. Norway became the first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

We can not decide what feelings an individual may have against another individual, regardless of gender. We talk about feelings between two people. There is no one on this earth who has the right to deny two people to love each other. Personally, I do not understand how two of the same sex can have such feelings for each other, but I just have to respect that others have different opinions than me. I can not with my best will understand why religion is mixed into this question...
No matter how long this discussions are taking place, you will not reach a conclusion with a common view on the matter.

It's like discussing motor oil or tires.
You'll find something very, very strong opinion on these issues.

These are my personal opinions, and I will not post any responses.

[Bobbo]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

If you need to believe this to be comfortable in escaping the facts, then so be it.

Here's a Wiki page so you can explore anti-miscegenation laws and how they are similar to same-sex marriage laws.  Both use the same flawed logic; God doesn't condone it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[hubcapsc]

Here's a Wiki page so you can explore anti-miscegenation laws and how they are similar to same-sex marriage laws. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Here's a wiki page about Valkyries. You can explore it to see that it has as much to do with the current push to
normalize homosexuality into our society as your miscegenation page does.

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

-Mike

[98valk]

who will go to the site and read it completely?
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality


Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harvey — a nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years — writes:

Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of society — even children — that "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.6

As evidence that influencing children at a very early age is part of the gay rights agenda one need look no further than New York City's public school curriculum. Included in the curriculum materials are four pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children.


http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Authority of Scripture

It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God's inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject — or even ridicule — the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

[Paxton]

QUOTE: "I am not very proud of my state legislators.  Mostly due to the way they seem to always sneak things through and their constant deception."
===================================================================================================================

G-Man;
You need not feel poorly about your state legislators... such is the nature of politics. It has been that way since time began.

BTW, back in the 70's I was a resident of O'dell street in White Plains...

[The Anvil]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

Well, not exactly. He's right, he's just got the wrong century. But the point is true.

[The Anvil]

Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harvey — a nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years — writes:

Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of society — even children — that "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.6

Oh, well if HE says so. 

[Bobbo]

who will go to the site and read it completely?
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality


Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harvey — a nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years — writes:

Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of society — even children — that "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.6

As evidence that influencing children at a very early age is part of the gay rights agenda one need look no further than New York City's public school curriculum. Included in the curriculum materials are four pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children.


http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Authority of Scripture

It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God's inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject — or even ridicule — the church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Oh, boy...  The tired "It's for the children" excuse...  

Fr. John F. Harvey would be the radical one in this issue.  He seeks to prove one orientation is superior to another by using subjective and non-tangible opinions.  Another "leader" tried to do this with race as well, and he ended up shooting himself in a bunker over 65 years ago.  

To teach children that homosexuality exists, and has existed before recorded history, can in no way harm them.  What harms children much more is to attach a stigma to homosexuality as being perverted, sick, or unnatural.  That spawns hatred, fear, and violence towards them.  It also causes stress among gay people as they discover their orientation, so much so, that some commit suicide.

You cannot "teach" people to be homosexual.  Think about how that would apply to you.  What schoolbooks would turn you gay?   ???  What schoolbooks did you read that turned you into a heterosexual?  Homosexuality can be artificially practiced in an attempt to be different or "stylish" but that in no way diminishes the fact that most gay people are born that way.

As far as churches go, the vast majority reject the Bible as the literal "Word of God".  Typically only fringe radical churches believe the Bible is to be interpreted 100% literally.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to use references and links from other than radical religious organizations.

[old2soon]

Phew-i knew i was kickin a hornets nest but wow just wow. I stated in the original post-MY VIEW. Looks to me like that made zero difference. I do NOT track down homosexuals and hurt or defame them in anyway. I feel the same way about drunk drivers(yes i've done it-drove drunk-not no more) about folks that speed on my street(lots of little ones here) And some other issues I WON'T go  into here. If this has gotten out of hand(yep-looks like it did) my bad. While there is a lot in this world that i don't agree with there is a lot i can't change nor would i try to. When the thought police take over-well they won't have me long anyway. I do not understand the same sex life style-nor do i want to. Small minded?? Most likely. Again my VIEW. I'm not trying to change anybodys mind. I relayed a news item i found. I respect your views-please try to respect mine. My views and statements are mine and mine alone. If i started a spirited thread-good on me. No need for anyone here to come to blows over this. I thank each and every one of you that contributed to this thread. And yes-i know it ain't over by a long shot. RIDE SAFE.

[Willow]

... the fact that most gay people are born that way.

That, quite simply, is just false, unless you mean born to include the environmental influences of early childhood rather than physical birth. 

I'm not willing to argue the point with you because, honestly, neither you nor I could likely trot out any "evidence" that would be accepted by both of us.

[Bobbo]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

Well, not exactly. He's right, he's just got the wrong century. But the point is true.

I still stand by that date.  While most of the laws were passed 100+ years ago, many still were on the books in the 1950's, and the sentiment of many back then was similar to the sentiment towards homosexuality today.  If not, why was there violent opposition to civil rights?

[The Anvil]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

Well, not exactly. He's right, he's just got the wrong century. But the point is true.

I still stand by that date.  While most of the laws were passed 100+ years ago, many still were on the books in the 1950's, and the sentiment of many back then was similar to the sentiment towards homosexuality today.  If not, why was there violent opposition to civil rights?

Okay, I'll grant you there was a lot of that attitude then, but what I mean (and that's probably the difference) is that I believe blacks were still being actively denied the right to marry and procreate at will in the 1800's. I don't think states were openly allowed to prevent it in the 50's (though I could be wrong).

[Bobbo]

... the fact that most gay people are born that way.

That, quite simply, is just false, unless you mean born to include the environmental influences of early childhood rather than physical birth. 

I'm not willing to argue the point with you because, honestly, neither you nor I could likely trot out any "evidence" that would be accepted by both of us.

Several questions:  How long did you ponder your environmental influences before deciding your sexual orientation?  Why did you choose one over the other?  How do people become homosexual when growing up in a heterosexual environment?

[Bobbo]

If this were the 1950's, you would substitute "Blacks" for homosexuals. 

This is 2011, and you are doing what you will always do: regurgitating the lies you
have been told.

-Mike

Well, not exactly. He's right, he's just got the wrong century. But the point is true.

I still stand by that date.  While most of the laws were passed 100+ years ago, many still were on the books in the 1950's, and the sentiment of many back then was similar to the sentiment towards homosexuality today.  If not, why was there violent opposition to civil rights?

Okay, I'll grant you there was a lot of that attitude then, but what I mean (and that's probably the difference) is that I believe blacks were still being actively denied the right to marry and procreate at will in the 1800's. I don't think states were openly allowed to prevent it in the 50's (though I could be wrong).

My comment was geared more toward interracial marriages, than denial of marriage.

[The Anvil]

I'm not willing to argue the point with you because, honestly, neither you nor I could likely trot out any "evidence" that would be accepted by both of us. [/i]

Actually there's quite a bit of evidence. It's mostly anecdotal and statistical but it's still evidence and it makes it pretty clear that it's not a "choice".

You know why I know it's not a choice? Because though I was exposed to both regularly as a young boy, John Schneider's shirtless form didn't give me a boner and whether you're gay or not, you gotta admit that's a good lookin' man. But Catherine Bach's Daisy Dukes and bikini top made me beat my d**k like it owed me money.

[Fla. Jim]

... the fact that most gay people are born that way.

That, quite simply, is just false, unless you mean born to include the environmental influences of early childhood rather than physical birth. 

I'm not willing to argue the point with you because, honestly, neither you nor I could likely trot out any "evidence" that would be accepted by both of us.

Ahh Willow don't know if you have read this report....http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Seems pretty clear cut to me that they are just born that way or become that way shortly after birth. kind of collaborates some of my gay friends feelings on the matter....And all of them fought the fact a long time before accepting what they were.

[musclehead]

New York became the 6th and the largest state to approve same sex marriage. Law goes into effect next month. As a christian i myself find this repulsive. Just reporting the news and my view. Flame suit on. RIDE SAFE.

I agree! I long for the old days when they were still in the closet!
TT

might I say "eeew!"
But you don't have any problem snooping in their bedrooms?

[musclehead]

Should a dwarf not be allowed to be a priest?

Well uh, now that you mention it.  



I kid of course. Everyone knows that little people are filled with sunshine, rainbows and candy.  

no, when you hit one on the head with a stick they turn into 40 gold pieces 
Patton Oswalt

[The Anvil]

Should a dwarf not be allowed to be a priest?

Well uh, now that you mention it.  



I kid of course. Everyone knows that little people are filled with sunshine, rainbows and candy.  

no, when you hit one on the head with a stick they turn into 40 gold pieces 
Patton Oswalt

 

[Brad]

More interesting reading

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html

[musclehead]

I don't mind, I follow the adage 'lover the sinner, hate the sin'  we've got a good friend that we go to gun shows with, nice lad always packing heat.

whats sad is you hear the stories of couples that have been together forever and have no say in each other disposition in the event of death or disabling disease. they aren't related so some times they can't even visit in the hospital.

[thumper]

I can see only one circumstance in which I could support gay marriage and that's if both chicks are hot!

[Robert]

Paxtons little meditation is a bunch of bs and really deceptive.

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Ti 1:8  But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Ti 1:9  realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
1Ti 1:10  and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

1Co 6:9  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10  nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

om 1:23  and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24  Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27  and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom 1:28  And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Rom 1:29  being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Rom 1:30  slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31  without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32  and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

[RoadKill]

Ok,it is a SIN. What the hell does that have to do with the U.S. Government?, especially the judiciary branch ?  Should the there be Laws enforcing the ten commandments of the bible?

Isn't the 1st commandment 'no freedom of religion' ? 
Are you in the wrong country?

[DarkMeister]

Great thread! Some interesting and civilized discussions.

Yet it seems some doth protesteth too mucheth. Hm. Here is an interesting chart to consider:

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=550

Seems that google Google is not always your friend.

 

[3fan4life]

And from which "translation" from which language into which other language, and from which person, of what church did you get these interpretations of translations from?  What was the persons agenda for re-writing and translating it in the first place, or the 1st hundreth place?  Ever play the game telephone?  Now play it with religous heads and politicians of the day.  How silly!

Since I do not read nor understand Hebrew or Greek, I must rely on English translations.

I do not rely on any "renegade" or "rogue" translations.

I typically read and study the New King James Version.

Here is the verse in question in several mainstream translations:

Gen 19:5  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (King James Version)

Gen 19:5  And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them carnally. (New King  James Version)

Gen 19:5  and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" (Contemporary English Version)

Gen 19:5  They called out to Lot and asked, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us!" The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them. (Good News Bible)

Gen 19:5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”  (New Living Translation)

Gen 19:5 They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!”  (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

I inferred from your post that you may believe that all scholars have translated the Bible with a hidden agenda of some sort. While I will readily acknowlwdge that some translations are more accurate and hold truer to the original scripture than others. I find it hard to believe that they all posessed a hidden agenda.

According to what I could find the original Hebrew word for know in this passage is:

ידע

Which is translated as:

yâda‛
yaw-dah'

Like many Hebrew or Greek words it has many potential definitions. One of which is:

Adam knew [yada] his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain... Cain knew [yada] his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... Adam knew [yada] his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth... (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25)


So, no hidden agenda here. I am just trying to do my best to study and understand God's Word and then apply it to my life as best as I can.

[3fan4life]

Describing parallels in your opinion and that of WBC does not imply you hate homosexuals.  You expressed concern that God will decide we have become as Sodom and Gomorrah and there will be eternal repercussions because of it.  WBC shares this concern, and it is the basis of their protests.  WBC goes much further, and believes these repercussions are happening already, as witnessed by military deaths.  I am not suggesting you are a member of WBC, or that you will join their protests.

The Bible verses were from WBC's website, which they use to justify their beliefs and protests.  They are probably among the same verses you interpret to show God's disapproval of homosexuality.

The converse of a statement is formed by switching the hypothesis and the conclusion. The converse of "If two lines don't intersect, then they are parallel" is "If two lines are parallel, then they don't intersect." The converse of "if p , then q " is "if q , then p ."
 
The truth value of the converse of a statement is not always the same as the original statement. For example, the converse of "All tigers are mammals" is "All mammals are tigers." This is certainly not true.


 

[RoadKill]

"study and understand God's Word and then apply it to my life as best as I can."   Great Idea!

What does that have to do with the Gov't or federal/state law ?

[3fan4life]

I thoroughly disagree with this definition of faith.  Faith is not about 'believing' and therefore is not about 'believing in something you know isn't true'.

Faith is a state of mind whose opposite is fear.  

Both are states of mind that exist in response to uncertainty.

Fear arises out of not knowing what the outcome of a situation will be.

Faith is that state of mind that says, "I will be OK, no matter what the outcome."

Those with faith, regardless of whether they accept or reject the decision, don't feel threatened by by it.  Their faith carries them forward in an uncertain world.

This is my definition of faith:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:1 (KJV)

Amazingly, much of how you defined faith is very close.

A 'believer' is one whose beliefs cannot be altered, no matter what reality or the fact situation may tell her/him.  He/she is rigid in beliefs.

Those that live rigidly in their lives, their religion, and their views to change don't have faith.  They attempt to control uncertainty through rigidity in life, particularly religion, a foundation for 'certainty'.
 
The true believer cannot acknowledge that religious beliefs that are actually homophobic bigotry exist only to support the framework of 'certainty'.  To acknowledge the rights of gay people to marry would completely upset the framework, even if it is a house of cards.  It is a threat to the 'certainty' of an evangelical Jesus and bible.

What purpose does it serve to hold beliefs if you aren't willing to stand by them?

Religious beliefs are also called "convictions", they are called this because of how deeply one feels about their validity.

I for one would not trust anyone whose "convictions" are swayed by which ever direction the wind blows.

[3fan4life]

"study and understand God's Word and then apply it to my life as best as I can."   Great Idea!

What does that have to do with the Gov't or federal/state law ?

Never said that the Government doesn't have the right to make a law.

I'm only saying that in this case I don't agree with the law.

BTW, some of the most dangerous words ever spoken by man are:

"There ought to be a law".

[Paxton]

Quote: "Paxtons little meditation is a bunch of bs and really deceptive."

=======================================================================
Ouch! Brother Robert ... ??? I deceptively love thy too Dude...
as I love my Valkyrie... err, perhaps a little less!


=========================================================================
"The fact that one's paranoid, does not mean they're not out there looking for you."

[Walküre]

And from which "translation" from which language into which other language, and from which person, of what church did you get these interpretations of translations from?  What was the persons agenda for re-writing and translating it in the first place, or the 1st hundreth place?  Ever play the game telephone?  Now play it with religous heads and politicians of the day.  How silly!

Very obviously the truth:

David Cross - The Bible	powered by Aeva

[Robert]

If anyone is worried about authenticity and doesn't trust God to keep His word then the Dead Sea Scrolls have some interest for you not to mention for just historical interest Josephus is pretty good. The book of the Essen's is also essential reading.

Paxton is that the atheist decree?

[The Anvil]

According to what I could find the original Hebrew word for know in this passage is:

ידע

Which is translated as:

yâda‛
yaw-dah'

Like many Hebrew or Greek words it has many potential definitions. One of which is:

Adam knew [yada] his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain... Cain knew [yada] his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... Adam knew [yada] his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth... (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25)


So, no hidden agenda here. I am just trying to do my best to study and understand God's Word and then apply it to my life as best as I can.

"I've yadda, yadda'd religion."