Homosexuality

[TouchTestimony]

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. If our conversation has run its course, then I understand if you don't respond back.



I don't know how you can compare a football game with worship gathering? If 50,000 screaming fans and two football teams decided to have an impromptu game in the middle of downtown, I don't think the response would be "Ok...go ahead and play ball". I'm not aware of any legislation being passed that suppresses ones ability to worship so long as it is not state sponsored, and I'm not even aware of a single representative that would think about trying to pass something akin to that given how politically incorrect such a move would be.

If someone is arguing that separation of church and state, or the establishment clause, means that people can not pray at a baseball or football game, they are wrong. That doesn't mean that separation of church and state or the establishment clause are not real principles outlined within the constitution, it only means people are utilizing them incorrectly.

If, however, the institution in question is government funded and the prayer is deemed state sponsored, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

13th amendment. Are you saying that the constitution should not have been amended in this matter?

Because marriage is not solely a Christian institution, and never has been.

Once again, the marriage that bestows 1700 federal and state benefits is a state sponsored marriage. To discriminate based upon religious laws or standards would be a violation of the establishment clause and unconstitutional.

If a religious individual doesn't like that, then they can get married through their church and don't have to utilize the state sponsored marriage institution if they don't want to. It leaves the choice up to them.

Who says these are moral laws that the government is enforcing? Again, just because a law may have a moral argument or that any one individual may agree with it on moral grounds does not necessitate that the government is legislating morality.

It's actually pretty simple. The state sponsored institution of marriage offers upwards of 1700 federal and state benefits, but discriminates based purely upon ones sexual orientation. If no one can offer a legitimate secular argument as to why this secular state sponsored institution should discriminate purely based upon sexual orientation, then it should no longer do so.

As an analogy: When women didn't have the right to vote in United States elections, should they have fought to create an institution that bestowed that same exact right to vote but named it something else?

Then it should be of no issue to Godly individuals that homosexual people be allowed the right to marry under the state sponsored institution of marriage.

You can use that argument against marriage regardless of whether it is between a man and woman or a woman and a woman. It is more suitable as an argument against the state sponsored institution of marriage and the benefits it bestows as a whole. For example, "People should not be given extra priveledges simply for being in a self-professed committed relationship with each other.".

No one establishes anyone's morality. By definition morality is a personal preference as to what is "good" and what is "bad". Therefore, I am the arbiter of my morality, just like you are the arbiter of your morality.

Which includes ways in which to govern.

A slew of things. Morality, in part, results from empathy and is guided, in part, by our parents and surrounding culture/society. Morality is, by definition, subjective and dependent upon a mind. However, people can still be consistent in believing "X action is always and in all circumstances wrong", thus stating something they believe to be morally absolute.

As far as "truth" when it comes to morality: Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Therefore, objective truth cannot be attained.

It is true that that I most likely cannot change the entire world for the better. That doesn't mean I give up being a good person, but it also doesn't mean I turn to things that I have no evidence for.

I am not aware of anything supernatural, only unexplained. Unexplained does not = supernatural.

I appreciate your kind words, and if there is indeed a God, He knows where to find me.

Respectfully,

Traverse

"I appreciate your kind words, and if there is indeed a God, He knows where to find me. "

 

[Christ4Ever]

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. If our conversation has run its course, then I understand if you don't respond back.

No need to apologize! Takes time, and we do other things in our lives besides this

I don't know how you can compare a football game with worship gathering? If 50,000 screaming fans and two football teams decided to have an impromptu game in the middle of downtown, I don't think the response would be "Ok...go ahead and play ball". I'm not aware of any legislation being passed that suppresses ones ability to worship so long as it is not state sponsored, and I'm not even aware of a single representative that would think about trying to pass something akin to that given how politically incorrect such a move would be.

Not a football game Folks gathering together to watch a football game, at a private residence.

Calif. City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home | TheBlaze.com

If someone is arguing that separation of church and state, or the establishment clause, means that people can not pray at a baseball or football game, they are wrong. That doesn't mean that separation of church and state or the establishment clause are not real principles outlined within the constitution, it only means people are utilizing them incorrectly.

If, however, the institution in question is government funded and the prayer is deemed state sponsored, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

There is the problem. Who determines whether it’s state sponsored? Even if they are wrong and it’s not state sponsored they are not prevented from suing. Say it’s our local school. How many lawsuits of this type can the school afford to deal with? Right and wrong has nothing to do with. It’s who has the biggest wallet in the long run, will win out. I don’t believe and I’m sure you’d agree this was not the intent of the founding fathers.

13th amendment. Are you saying that the constitution should not have been amended in this matter?

Just saying, it had no original intent. It required an amendment to correct. Which I have no problem with. What I was saying that if the document is viewed as malleable then amendments become unnecessary, because it can mean whatever you want it to mean given a particular issue.

Because marriage is not solely a Christian institution, and never has been.

Once again, the marriage that bestows 1700 federal and state benefits is a state sponsored marriage. To discriminate based upon religious laws or standards would be a violation of the establishment clause and unconstitutional.

If a religious individual doesn't like that, then they can get married through their church and don't have to utilize the state sponsored marriage institution if they don't want to. It leaves the choice up to them.

This is where we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I see that marriage was and is a religious standard, well established before all governments.

Gen 2:21-24 NKJV And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. (22) Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (23) And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." (24) Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

That’s why I opened it as I did, because I am unable to separate marriage from who I am, which is what would be necessary for me to do in order to accept your position. Sorry.

Who says these are moral laws that the government is enforcing? Again, just because a law may have a moral argument or that any one individual may agree with it on moral grounds does not necessitate that the government is legislating morality.

Age of consent maybe? How about number of wives? Not that I disagree, with it, but it’s not only a moral argument, but legislating morality that we’re talking about here.

It's actually pretty simple. The state sponsored institution of marriage offers upwards of 1700 federal and state benefits, but discriminates based purely upon ones sexual orientation. If no one can offer a legitimate secular argument as to why this secular state sponsored institution should discriminate purely based upon sexual orientation, then it should no longer do so.

As an analogy: When women didn't have the right to vote in United States elections, should they have fought to create an institution that bestowed that same exact right to vote but named it something else?

Just by including the word marriage, it becomes religious no matter the usage the government decides to place upon it. The reason is, now the government must define what marriage is or is not. Honestly, it shouldn’t be included at all. The 19th amendment which gave the women the right to vote was necessary, so if an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman was ratified, would this then be acceptable?

Then it should be of no issue to Godly individuals that homosexual people be allowed the right to marry under the state sponsored institution of marriage.

Yet it does, because as the last entry points out, the government will have to define what marriage is, and from my biblical reference earlier, shows this. Also, when doing almost any government form, they do require an answer. Try and leave it blank and see what happens

You can use that argument against marriage regardless of whether it is between a man and woman or a woman and a woman. It is more suitable as an argument against the state sponsored institution of marriage and the benefits it bestows as a whole. For example, "People should not be given extra priveledges simply for being in a self-professed committed relationship with each other.".

That’s exactly what I’m saying. If the government is to be truly secular, then it has to get out of the marriage game. Yet it won't happen. Government is in the business of controlling peoples behavior. As the government grows, it will continue to do this until, you won't be able to smoke in your own house! Oops...I've read somewhere that legislation is being drafted or is already in place. Couldn't help it. I'm an ex-smoker. I thank God for the strength to have stopped. Had done it for over 30 years. With much prayer, from one day to the next. The wife says I stopped in Dec 99. Don't know what I'd do without her

No one establishes anyone's morality. By definition morality is a personal preference as to what is "good" and what is "bad". Therefore, I am the arbiter of my morality, just like you are the arbiter of your morality.

Actually, I’m not the arbiter of my own morality. There in is the difference between us. I acknowledge that morality has to have a perfect source. Since I’m not perfect in understanding, how can I define what is right, wrong? What is more likely to happen, is the definition will be determined by what is beneficial to me, and not altruistically.

Which includes ways in which to govern.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Agreed!

A slew of things. Morality, in part, results from empathy and is guided, in part, by our parents and surrounding culture/society. Morality is, by definition, subjective and dependent upon a mind. However, people can still be consistent in believing "X action is always and in all circumstances wrong", thus stating something they believe to be morally absolute.

As far as "truth" when it comes to morality: Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Therefore, objective truth cannot be attained.

True, if we are the source of this truth. However, I don’t believe we are the basis or source of moral truth.

It is true that that I most likely cannot change the entire world for the better. That doesn't mean I give up being a good person, but it also doesn't mean I turn to things that I have no evidence for.

No insult intended here, but why? And what determines “being a good person”? Also, how much evidence does one need?

I am not aware of anything supernatural, only unexplained. Unexplained does not = supernatural.

Supernatural is just another word for something unexplained. It’s all in a word. Things at one time that were considered supernatural, have been explained, so would that have meant that instead of supernatural, we could have used unexplained instead? It really is perspective and has nothing to do with the reality of it.

I appreciate your kind words, and if there is indeed a God, He knows where to find me.

Respectfully,

Traverse

Traverse, sure God knows where to find you, but do you want Him to make Himself known to you is the question? And would you know it?

I hope I get this joke right

There once was a man who lived next to a very godly old woman. He couldn’t help but make fun of her because she’d always be praying out loud, and thanking God for everything. He heard her one day praying about not having any food to eat “God I know you take care of your people. You know I don’t have any food or money. You said, we should ask you, if we needed help. Well, Lord I’m asking you for help”. The neighbor decided he was going to have some fun at the expense of the old lady, so he went out and bought a bag of groceries and put it on her porch. He rang the bell, and hide behind some bushes to see what would happen. Immediately upon opening the door the lady started to praise God. “Thank-you God, oh thank-you God, you came through on your promise, and provided me a bag of groceries, and you even used the devil to deliver it!”

God has a way of making his presence know, but you really need to be the one to ask and once you ask, be on the lookout. Might seem foolish to do, but go ahead and when no one’s around, you go ahead and ask God to make His presence known to you. If you’re like me, you’ve probably done more foolish things in our youth, that asking God to make His presence known to you, would not really be any worse. Who would know besides you?

Praying that you'll take that first step, because He will reach out. Kinda of Supernatural...naaah just unexplained. Telling that joke has my sense of humor a little on the high side.
Praying for you Traverse.
C4E

 

[Aida Agraan]

I really just think people should just love who they want. I think it's that simple

 

[Stickz]

It isn't "love" that is in question here. Love is encouraged in the Bible—It is required. The words 'love' and 'sex' should not be used interchangeably as though there is no difference between the two. It is possible to have sex without love, and love without sex; they are two entirely separate things that do not even have to go hand-in-hand.

Homosexuality is about sex, not love.

 

[Aida Agraan]

Sorry when I said love I was also meaning sex I thought that would be obvious to what I was replying to.

 

[Stickz]

Aida Agraan

Saying, "I think people should be able to love whomever they choose," sounds a little different than saying, "I think people should be able to have sex with whomever they choose." I was questioning the motive behind your choice of words more than the words themselves.

So, you think that homosexuality should be okay? Is that what you are saying? And if that is what you are saying, what do you make of the verses in the Bible that are obviously speaking against homosexuality? Seriously, I want to hear what you have to say on the issue from a Biblical stand-point. I'm not looking to argue with you. You may be able to help me make a point too.

 

[Aida Agraan]

No it's ok. Sorry I was so unclear with what I was saying. The only thing I was trying to say is I believe homosexuality is okay and that two people of the opposite sex to be in love with eachother and to have sex is fine by me. And for the bible part I know that it is blatantly clear that it's not ok but I don't aree or believe in a Lot of what the bible says

 

[Aida Agraan]

I mean same lol

 

[duckybill]

Christ may not have mentioned it, but the apostle Paul came down hard on the subject in his letters (see Ro 1: 26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10).

SLE

I have noticed that 'gay bashing' charges against Christians are often 'Bible bashing' by homosexual defenders.

 

[duckybill]

And surely if you approve of any sin you are committing a sin yourself. It just doesn't apply to Homosexuality, anyone that condones murder, theft, greed or injustice is as much a sinner as those that actually commit that sin.

Off hand I don't know of any who defend those sins, but homosexuality is constantly defended even by 'Christians'. That is often why Christians speak out against homosexuality.

 

[Christ4Ever]

I don't aree or believe in a Lot of what the bible says

This is what happens when man decides they are the arbiters of what truth is. This is the saddest statement of all that you’ve made. Seems you’ve chosen to follow the wide path, instead of the narrow.

 

[Aida Agraan]

I'm not sure how to reply back to you. I dont see myself as someone who has control over the truth i just believe what's actually real and when I say that I mean things you can look at and study. I guess it is what it is and im sorry if what I said and believe in upsets you

 

[Christ4Ever]

I'm not sure how to reply back to you. I dont see myself as someone who has control over the truth i just believe what's actually real and when I say that I mean things you can look at and study. I guess it is what it is and im sorry if what I said and believe in upsets you

It didn't upset me. How you view the Bible just saddened me. If one can't believe in the inerrancy of scripture, then who determines what parts are true and which parts are lies within its pages? Also, if what you stated was true would scripture then matter or is it just another good book with a lot of well meaning stuff?

 

[Donnie Ducati]

And for the bible part I know that it is blatantly clear that it's not ok but I don't aree or believe in a Lot of what the bible says

When you look up the word, “revelation,” in the dictionary, it can be described as “an act of revealing or communicating divine truth or an enlightening or astonishing disclosure.” Another dictionary I looked at used the word “illumination.” Now, I’m sure all of you who read your Bible have had a verse or passage of Scripture just suddenly seem to jump off the page as you read it, and you felt like you were seeing it or better understanding it much more than ever before. You may have read that verse a thousand times, yet it had never fully sunk in until it was illuminated or revealed to you by the Spirit of God in a special, personal way. Some have called this experiencing a “rhema” word from God. It is as if you hear the Voice of God in your spirit (although not in an audible voice) teaching His Word to you.

 

[Aida Agraan]

First question It depends on who that person is and how much faith they have. I have lost a lot of faith as I have gotten older and learned more about the history of our planet. Second question I don't really know how to answer. It matters to me because it's something my parents would read to me and It was a big part a my childhood because I believed in it so much and did my best to follow it and I learned a lot on how to be a good person. I guess today I see it as more of just a book with made up stories

 

[TouchTestimony]

No it's ok. Sorry I was so unclear with what I was saying. The only thing I was trying to say is I believe homosexuality is okay and that two people of the opposite sex to be in love with eachother and to have sex is fine by me. And for the bible part I know that it is blatantly clear that it's not ok but I don't aree or believe in a Lot of what the bible says

amen to that

 

[Nana Ivan]

2Tim 3:16 - All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness.

I believe God is wiser than all, older than all, experienced than all, greater than all and so if he says 'This is wrong', to me it is wrong and i can't question or disagree.

Stay blessed everybody

 

[TouchTestimony]

2Tim 3:16 - All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness.

I believe God is wiser than all, older than all, experienced than all, greater than all and so if he says 'This is wrong', to me it is wrong and i can't question or disagree.

Stay blessed everybody

thank you Nana Ivan

 

[gdemoss]

Does the Bible mention homosexuality being in sin any where in particular?

Would you mind me asking why you would ask?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aida Agraan View Post
No it's ok. Sorry I was so unclear with what I was saying. The only thing I was trying to say is I believe homosexuality is okay and that two people of the opposite sex to be in love with eachother and to have sex is fine by me. And for the bible part I know that it is blatantly clear that it's not ok but I don't aree or believe in a Lot of what the bible says
amen to that

Originally Posted by Nana Ivan View Post
2Tim 3:16 - All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness.

I believe God is wiser than all, older than all, experienced than all, greater than all and so if he says 'This is wrong', to me it is wrong and i can't question or disagree.

Stay blessed everybody
thank you Nana Ivan

I'm assuming that you are not agreeing with Nan Ivan on the contents of his post outside of his blessing everybody since both his post and Aida Agraan are actually opposites on the position of Homosexuality?