Homosexuality v. Divorce - Sin is sin, isn't it?

The Christian view point is only relavant to a Christian. I don't need to understand it to form my opinion on gay marriage. What we commonly associate marriage with has many roots in pagan cerimonies. Let's not forget that Gay Marriage is older than christianity itself. If anyone has altered it's definition it's not the gays.

T
K
O

You are being closed minded in that you would not even consider or listen to a Christian viewpoint. I'm simply saying being "right" whichever the "right" side is will not convince some one. Listening to them and working with them and experiencing them personally allows you to understand where that person is coming from - you can still disagree, but you simply say this biased or bigoted. Open your heart even if you don't agree and try to understand where some one with a difference of opinion comes from - only then will understanding happen on both sides.

On another thread I wrote about a documentary called blue eyed where white children got to experience bigotry - only then can you fully understand what it is like.

I don't fully agree with this, but understand - the thought is those against gay marriage say yes gays have the same rights they can marry just like straight people - both can marry those of the opposite sex so there is no denying of rights. Also, many that oppose marrying of same sex do support a proponent to have civil unions as long as if a church does not believe in gay marriages; they do not have to marry a same sex couple. Only the very extremes do not support this at all. I think it is more the marriage word that bothers most conservatives - marriage to them is between a man and woman whereas a civil union could be between two same sex couples. To me Bush is a more extreme conservative so it doesn't surprise me he would not support this.

Mismi40 - I think we agree on the love of the Bible - I also love it intellectually - I love reading the various interpretations and how one comes up with them. Its interesting all the different possibilities and different thoughts processes. I sometimes wonder and feel it was intentionally written in this way - one to cover appeal for all sorts of people and two in sense it keeps the Book alive - whether you believe in it or not - it certainly even makes non-believers discuss it.

Diest TKO wrote:

The Christian view point is only relavant to a Christian. I don't need to understand it to form my opinion on gay marriage. What we commonly associate marriage with has many roots in pagan cerimonies. Let's not forget that Gay Marriage is older than christianity itself. If anyone has altered it's definition it's not the gays.

T
K
O

Homosexuality may be older than christianity. Show some evidence that gay marriage existed as a legal entity before the 20th century.

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

It has apparently been an issue for a REALLY long time.

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

real life wrote:

Most critics of the Bible that I have encountered profess to know the Bible teaching, but it doesn't take long to find their actual knowledge of the scriptures is superficial at best, and usually 'a mile wide, but a millimeter deep'.

How is you knowledge on the Koran or other sacred scriptures? Do you think everyone should read everything in order to make up their mind? If I wrote a 5000 page book on my new religion 'coolwhipism' and wanted you to believe it, would you bother reading it? Would you bother reading a book from a writer you find questionable at best?

mismi40 wrote:

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

Certainly the Bible has some good stuff. Unfortunately it also comes with the baggage of a lot of absolutely horrific passages such as the treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31.

I don't personally care what people believe so long as they do not attempt to force their particular interpretation of ancient religious texts upon the general population.

Last November, Arizona just narrowly defeated a mean-spirited proposition to amend the state constitution that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would have prohibited recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not with the net effect being the loss of medical benefits to many families and their children.

It is a shame that Christians such as the ones that sponsored and supported this bill don't pay more attention to verses such as "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31 .

Coolwhip wrote:

real life wrote:

Most critics of the Bible that I have encountered profess to know the Bible teaching, but it doesn't take long to find their actual knowledge of the scriptures is superficial at best, and usually 'a mile wide, but a millimeter deep'.

How is you knowledge on the Koran or other sacred scriptures? Do you think everyone should read everything in order to make up their mind? If I wrote a 5000 page book on my new religion 'coolwhipism' and wanted you to believe it, would you bother reading it? Would you bother reading a book from a writer you find questionable at best?

If I didn't read it, then I wouldn't pretend that I knew what it said.

That was my point.

mesquite wrote:

mismi40 wrote:

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

Certainly the Bible has some good stuff. Unfortunately it also comes with the baggage of a lot of absolutely horrific passages such as the treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31.

I don't personally care what people believe so long as they do not attempt to force their particular interpretation of ancient religious texts upon the general population.

Last November, Arizona just narrowly defeated a mean-spirited proposition to amend the state constitution that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would have prohibited recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not with the net effect being the loss of medical benefits to many families and their children.

It is a shame that Christians such as the ones that sponsored and supported this bill don't pay more attention to verses such as "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31 .

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

Why are you saying that Christians should vote in accordance with a New Testament passage?

Is it only when you agree with it that violating the wall between church and state becomes acceptable?

This is becoming a very common strategy for liberals in America. Very selective though. Same thing they have been accusing conservatives of, BTW.

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

mismi40 wrote:

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

Certainly the Bible has some good stuff. Unfortunately it also comes with the baggage of a lot of absolutely horrific passages such as the treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31.

I don't personally care what people believe so long as they do not attempt to force their particular interpretation of ancient religious texts upon the general population.

Last November, Arizona just narrowly defeated a mean-spirited proposition to amend the state constitution that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would have prohibited recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not with the net effect being the loss of medical benefits to many families and their children.

It is a shame that Christians such as the ones that sponsored and supported this bill don't pay more attention to verses such as "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31 .

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

Why are you saying that Christians should vote in accordance with a New Testament passage?

Is it only when you agree with it that violating the wall between church and state becomes acceptable?

This is becoming a very common strategy for liberals in America. Very selective though. Same thing they have been accusing conservatives of, BTW.

you obviously misunderstood. i think the point is that since they're going to vote and base their choices on the bible, they should take that phrase into account.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

mismi40 wrote:

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

Certainly the Bible has some good stuff. Unfortunately it also comes with the baggage of a lot of absolutely horrific passages such as the treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31.

I don't personally care what people believe so long as they do not attempt to force their particular interpretation of ancient religious texts upon the general population.

Last November, Arizona just narrowly defeated a mean-spirited proposition to amend the state constitution that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would have prohibited recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not with the net effect being the loss of medical benefits to many families and their children.

It is a shame that Christians such as the ones that sponsored and supported this bill don't pay more attention to verses such as "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31 .

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

Why are you saying that Christians should vote in accordance with a New Testament passage?

Is it only when you agree with it that violating the wall between church and state becomes acceptable?

This is becoming a very common strategy for liberals in America. Very selective though. Same thing they have been accusing conservatives of, BTW.

you obviously misunderstood. i think the point is that since they're going to vote and base their choices on the bible, they should take that phrase into account.

Then you validate my point.

As long as liberals can decide which scripture should or should not be emphasized, or employed to promote a policy ----

--- then political action based on religious tenet is ok with them.

But if someone ELSE decides what religious principle should guide public action, then liberals are all AGAINST any such church / state corrollation.

They oppose 'mixing of church and state' ONLY if the result is one that they do not favor.

The true God, by definition, would be incapable of sin.

mesquite wrote:

mismi40 wrote:

The Bible is much older than 300 years old. The New Testament was Canonized in 375 A.D., and I know that is not the point. But I absolutely do believe it is as relevant today as it ever was. Beautiful truths there...it certainly is relevant to me.

Certainly the Bible has some good stuff. Unfortunately it also comes with the baggage of a lot of absolutely horrific passages such as the treatment of the Midianites in Numbers 31.

I don't personally care what people believe so long as they do not attempt to force their particular interpretation of ancient religious texts upon the general population.

Last November, Arizona just narrowly defeated a mean-spirited proposition to amend the state constitution that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

In the state of Arizona there are counties and municipalities that currently grant medical benefits to dependent "unmarried domestic partners". The Protect Marriage Arizona initiative would have prohibited recognizing these domestic partners whether they be same sex or not with the net effect being the loss of medical benefits to many families and their children.

It is a shame that Christians such as the ones that sponsored and supported this bill don't pay more attention to verses such as "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31 .

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

Why are you saying that Christians should vote in accordance with a New Testament passage?

Is it only when you agree with it that violating the wall between church and state becomes acceptable?

This is becoming a very common strategy for liberals in America. Very selective though. Same thing they have been accusing conservatives of, BTW.