[sherman14]

I do not agree with Homosexual marriages. And yes my view is RELIGIOUS based. Because my GOD says that it is wrong and I go by that.

[thecavemaster]

I do not agree with Homosexual marriages. And yes my view is RELIGIOUS based. Because my GOD says that it is wrong and I go by that.

You do understand that the basic issue on this thread is whether or not "marriage" (defined in civil terms) should be open to homosexuals as a matter of "equal protection under the law" (14th Amendment), and not whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong"?

[Shady Grady]

Interesting... In the gospel of john, I think it says that the law came via Moses, but grace and truth in jesus. I would take that to mean that much of the "don't use a razor used on a sheep" type law is a thing for a specific time, a specific people, not now. Also, apparently, impurity does not come from that which is outside of human beings, but flows from a faulty spring within. I take it that gossip and maliciousness toward human beings offend "god" in equal proportion to the "chosen sins."

Gossip is different than defending the truth. Jesus spoke against evil doers. Does that make him malicious? I think not. Speaking against things that are wrong is not gossip and malicious. You need to get on another horse. You keep bringing up that same subject, but the bible does say, "Let your yeah be yeah and your nay be nay". It also says that men will deceive themselves. Lot of that in this thread.

[sherman14]

O we can play hardball if thats what you want cavemaster. Gay marriage is not right as I stated before. Obviously you can't read. I do not believe that a man should be married to another man. A woman to woman. Thats not only wrong in GODS eyes but in my eyes. Yes they may love one another but should not be allowed to be married beacsue of simple ethics.

[cheerdad]

I can see that this thread is like beating a dead horse! :-) We all have our opinions and nothing that is said in here is going to change anyone person's mind and that has not been my intention. I just like a friendly debate and there's been some post in here that started getting a little negative and I definitely did not want that to happen, because God would not have wanted it to get into a name calling match.

But anyway....thanks alot for the interesting thread and discussion, it has definitely been a good one. May God richly bless everyone that has participated and hopefully no feelings have been hurt by this discussion.

GOD BLESS EVERYONE!!!!!

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

O we can play hardball if thats what you want cavemaster. Gay marriage is not right as I stated before. Obviously you can't read. I do not believe that a man should be married to another man. A woman to woman. Thats not only wrong in GODS eyes but in my eyes. Yes they may love one another but should not be allowed to be married beacsue of simple ethics.

By what you an other seem ethical correct?

In my eyes it is ethicaly wrong to not allow two people who love one another not to allow them to marry. My God accepts all people and loves all for who they are.

[Basketballer]

This thread has run its time...Its starting to get stupid!

[thecavemaster]

O we can play hardball if thats what you want cavemaster. Gay marriage is not right as I stated before. Obviously you can't read. I do not believe that a man should be married to another man. A woman to woman. Thats not only wrong in GODS eyes but in my eyes. Yes they may love one another but should not be allowed to be married beacsue of simple ethics.

"You can't read." I will not address the personal rancor contained in that remark. Basically, you are saying that you don't agree with homosexual couples being able to marry. "god" doesn't like it, and you don't like it; therefore, it is not a right. You call this "simple ethics." By this logic, the minority is left to the whim and caprice of the majority. You may call that what you like, but it is not essential liberty as defined by the Constitution.

[Beetle01]

BTW the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Gay marriage. If I remember it came just after the civil war, so that blacks could not be denied their rights as citizens, and it basically refers to the fact that you can't be held, or have property taken without due process and equal protection under the law. Actually I believe it says life, liberty, and something else, maybe property without due process. Gays are not losing, life, liberty, or property. They are free from being persecuted because they are homosexual, but it does not entitle them to marriage rights.

[thecavemaster]

BTW the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Gay marriage. If I remember it came just after the civil war, so that blacks could not be denied their rights as citizens, and it basically refers to the fact that you can't be held, or have property taken without due process and equal protection under the law. Actually I believe it says life, liberty, and something else, maybe property without due process. Gays are not losing, life, liberty, or property. They are free from being persecuted because they are homosexual, but it does not entitle them to marriage rights.

The high court of California is now considering Proposition 8, reviewing it in terms of "equal protection" interpretation. Whether or not the protection of that Constitutional principle applies to gay couples desiring "marriage" will be decided by the courts, soon enough the Supreme Court. I believe they are entitled to equal protection under all federal and state laws...they are United States citizens.

[DevilsWin]

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

• permits polygamy
  
• prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
  
• bans tattoos
  
• prohibits eating rare meat
  
• bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
  
• prohibits cross-breeding livestock
  
• bans sowing a field with mixed seed
  
• prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
  
• requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.

It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

• Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
  
• Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
  
• Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN.
  
  If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

Just curious Cheerdad, who do you think wrote Leviticus?

[cheerdad]

Moses. Why do you ask?

[DevilsWin]

Moses. Why do you ask?

I contend that the 1st 4 books of the bible were written by several different groups of Scribes and not Moses.

I also contend that Moses never actually existed but he was more like a symbolic Heroe as was Joshua and Abraham.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/evidence.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/coogan.html

[thecavemaster]

I contend that the 1st 4 books of the bible were written by several different groups of Scribes and not Moses.

I also contend that Moses never actually existed but he was more like a symbolic Heroe as was Joshua and Abraham.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/evidence.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/coogan.html

Charlton Heston was Moses. Out of the burning bush, he heard god say, "Out of your cold, dead hands before they pry lose the assault rifle."

[SixBlackRabbits]

Our country has gotten so far off track from what the founding fathers intended that its pitiful.

[Magicjefferson25]

I believe they should have the same rights as a man and a woman and should be able to get married. i dont believe you should bring in all the bullsh!t religion when it comes to gay marrage. They are facing the same stuff blacks had to face to get all their rights, i think it is just a matter of time b4 they can get maried.

[blitz43]

Only God can help them.

[thecavemaster]

Only God can help them.

Perhaps "god" can help the gossips, backbiters, warmongers, etc. to.

[blitz43]

Perhaps "god" can help the gossips, backbiters, warmongers, etc. to.

He will if they let him!

[thecavemaster]

He will if they let him!

"christians" seem to despise homosexuals more than gossips, backbiters, etc. Isn't that true?

[blitz43]

"christians" seem to despise homosexuals more than gossips, backbiters, etc. Isn't that true?

Not all Christians! I for one believe sin is sin. Don't matter if its laying with an old hairy man or telling a lie. We get in trouble when we start labeling sin. Bottom line is: If you don't ask Jesus into your heart and totally submit to Him, you will not make it to Heaven. The only way we can get to Heaven is to accept the "free" gift. We get caught up in "what can "I" do to make it"? "I" can't do nothing to make it. "He" done did it for me. He died on the cross for me. All "I" can do is fully trust in Him.

[thecavemaster]

Not all Christians! I for one believe sin is sin. Don't matter if its laying with an old hairy man or telling a lie. We get in trouble when we start labeling sin. Bottom line is: If you don't ask Jesus into your heart and totally submit to Him, you will not make it to Heaven. The only way we can get to Heaven is to accept the "free" gift. We get caught up in "what can "I" do to make it"? "I" can't do nothing to make it. "He" done did it for me. He died on the cross for me. All "I" can do is fully trust in Him.

If the playing field is level, then the gossiping "christian" is a bigger threat to the United States being "blessed of god" than the unbelieving homosexual.

[blitz43]

If the playing field is level, then the gossiping "christian" is a bigger threat to the United States being "blessed of god" than the unbelieving homosexual.

I can't believe you think that homosexual behavior is alright. It is very unhealthy. Anything that you have to "come out of the closet" for, couldn't be good. I always tell my kids that if you have to sneak to do something, then it couldn't be a good thing. Wake up!

[BIGREDDAWG]

Not all Christians! I for one believe sin is sin. Don't matter if its laying with an old hairy man or telling a lie. We get in trouble when we start labeling sin. Bottom line is: If you don't ask Jesus into your heart and totally submit to Him, you will not make it to Heaven. The only way we can get to Heaven is to accept the "free" gift. We get caught up in "what can "I" do to make it"? "I" can't do nothing to make it. "He" done did it for me. He died on the cross for me. All "I" can do is fully trust in Him.

Amen! Jesus paid it all! I am so thankful that this is true!:Thumbs:

[thecavemaster]

I can't believe you think that homosexual behavior is alright. It is very unhealthy. Anything that you have to "come out of the closet" for, couldn't be good. I always tell my kids that if you have to sneak to do something, then it couldn't be a good thing. Wake up!

A young boy growing up in a Pentecostal church secretly desires to have long hair. He feels that long hair is a better fit for his personality. His desire for long hair stays "in the closet" until he is eighteen, away at college. Why should someone have to "sneak" to have long hair? Your "sneak = wrong" peasant wisdoms hardly fathom the issues at hand in this debate.

[lawrencefan]

My reason for opposing same sex marriages is that, I assume, they will be able to adopt children. I'm sure there are good gay parents out there, but it just feel right to me.

[blitz43]

A young boy growing up in a Pentecostal church secretly desires to have long hair. He feels that long hair is a better fit for his personality. His desire for long hair stays "in the closet" until he is eighteen, away at college. Why should someone have to "sneak" to have long hair? Your "sneak = wrong" peasant wisdoms hardly fathom the issues at hand in this debate.

Bottom Line: If you believe the Bible is true, then homosexualality is Wrong. If you don't believe the Bible is the true word of God, then this debate is over. The Bible tells you in plain words that it is an abomination to God.

[Beetle01]

It isn't going to happen. Unless they can somehow pass an amendment which will never happen, gays will never have the right to marry.

[DevilsWin]

It isn't going to happen. Unless they can somehow pass an amendment which will never happen, gays will never have the right to marry.

"They will never have the right". Lets think about what you just said here Beetle.

They will never have what right?

The right to marry?

I have the right to marry, you have the right to marry. Someone else who just happens to be gay doesn't have that right.

Why?

Is it because "The Bible Says So"?

The Bible says a lot of stuff, we don't take it all litterally. Anyone that does take it all litterally is just a weak minded sheep.

So, becasue some ancient story teller/scribe who collected stories passed down for generations via the spoken word, decided to write all of this stuff down, gays can't marry who they want. That's a really weak arguement.

[DevilsWin]

Bottom Line: If you believe the Bible is true, then homosexualality is Wrong. If you don't believe the Bible is the true word of God, then this debate is over. The Bible tells you in plain words that it is an abomination to God.

Weak arguement.

The Bible wasn't written by who you think it was written by.

Sorry to break it to you.