Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

Whether I have convinced Jar is beside the point, that I have more than demonstrated the point in questionThis statement demonstrates the length aand depth of you silliness, to try and wedge in your position from mere assumption. Hey Jar, I am prsenting the only pattern available, the one mentioned, what do you have?????If there is another one then please present it, if male and male is present, present it, demonstrate it, give me an example of gay marraige. Oh yeah thats right you cannot present one This happened in your mind, not in actuallity. I have discussed and responded to this to many times tomention. The OP is talking about what the Bible teaches, not society Wrong, go back and read the OP. Its not a social contract because Jar says it is. Please get over yourselfDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now that others have asked you the same question and you still refuse to answer, it has been shown that the reasons you gave for not answering me were just bullshit(yes I swore again, I hope it offended your sensibilities).I will ask one more time before I leave for a bit. I am going to South Africa for 10 days, so will have limited access. Did your god make marriage and sex only for procreation? Yes or no.P.S.
Huntard
I will wave when I am in the Amsterdam airport tomorrow morning.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thanks. Though I live about 250 Km from the airport, in the south of the country, so I won't see it. Consider this my wave back

When it comes to patterns the Bible is not just factually wrong, it is also very incomplete. It mentions making males and females and yet we know for a fact that there are not just males and females but also hermaphrodites and drones and asexual organisms and ones that change sex.You make the claim that because the Bible only mentions males and females that that is the only pattern.When I look around at what GOD actually created I find that there is far more variety than the authors of the Bible stories ever imagined.I have consistently said that many of the authors of the Bible thought homosexuality was a sin and that the only marriage recognized back then was between a man and one or more women. No, it happened in the Bible. You guys are even using the very verses that support the fact that the standards evolved over time to support YOUR opposition to homosexuals or same sex marriages.Look at Mark 10:

quote:

---

Mark 10
Divorce
1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

​

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

​

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

​

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

​

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

​

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

---

Now the Laws of Moses (according to the story) were given by God directly to Moses. Yet here is an example of the author of Mark having Jesus set a different standard.BUT Wait...there's more...when the author of Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, note he adds even more...In Matthew 5 we find:

quote:

---

Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

---

where an exception is added that did not appear in Mark, that divorce can be permitted in cases of infidelity.Yet later in Matthew 19 we find even more exceptions added:

quote:

---

Matthew 19
Divorce
1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

​

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

​

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

​

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

​

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

​

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

​

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

---

Note the additional exceptions at the end.Standards changed and Jesus was very active in pointing out that as times and conditions change, the standards change. The standards were those that God gave Moses until Jesus presented a revised set of standards. If so perhaps you can provide us a link to where you discussed this then?And I am not talking about what society teaches, but rather what the Bible teaches in case you have not noticed. The Bible teaches us that we have a responsibility to do for others. The question I ask above is "How do we address the needs of long term committed couples under the law?" And I have never asserted that marriage is only a social contract because I say it is a social contract, but that the evidence and facts are that marriage IS a social contract.Have you ever really read the Bible?Do you understand that when marriage is mentioned in the Bible it is almost always in relation to social issues, individual property rights, societal property rights, shelter, protection, inheritance.Seriously, have you ever even read that Bible?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The Biblical view of marriage includes several purposes, the primary one being that God made the marriage covenant to mirror His covenant relationship with us:
God-Israel,
Christ-Church.He made it the way He chose make it. It's really not up to me or you to *fix* it.Procreation is another purpose.
Sexual fulfillment is one purpose.
Familial and societal stability is one purpose.I may be leaving some out, but this is a fairly comprehensive list.
Marriage done right accomplishes God's purpose in His design for it and is a really beautiful thing to see.You can disagree with the Christian vantage point, but I would ask you guys seriously to stop mocking it. I understand that you are not bound under the same authority that we are, but that is no reason to disrespect fellow man.DP

The problem is that I think everything you said about marriage is not just nonsense, but pernicious nonsense.Christians who are content to live their own lives from their "vantage point," without forcing their beliefs on others, get my tolerance and respect.Christians who try to press their "vantage point" on everyone as policy and law get all the mockery and opposition I can muster--once you start calling others an abomination, brother, you can't really expect smiles and fellowship in return.Your call for tolerance reeks of hypocrisy.Edited by Omnivorous, : space

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Fortunatley, the Bible stories are what God imaginedOnes approach to the scriptures in the first place, of course makes a big difference in how one understands them. A humanistic approach such as yours will allow any interpretation and ruleIOWs, if it is notthe word of God, who cares what it saysFor example if one follows the directive and command to not add to its words, then the example and pattern in Gen 2, will stay exacally the way it is.Based on this principle alone, you have not demonstrated why you have a right to go beyond what is given as the pattern, evenif you do notthink it is a patternWhat gives you the right to add to what is written.If your answer is that there are other thingsthat constituescripture, then point out of them, the right and example of Same sex marraige.This principle alone shuts your assumptions down Oh my goodness the liberals approach to the scriptures.Of course nothing you said in this connection is true. Actually Jesus is saying from the beginning it has not been so,But now, watch, even if God were changing the rules which he did not, Christ was simply reaquainting them with what Gods intentions were fromthe beginning.Now notice again, even if he did make changes, the standard of fidelity remainedNow notice again,even if he did make changes, the pattern itself remained the same. No same sex marraigesYour attempts to find justification in these passages, for same sex marraiges, because God might have changed something is nothing short of sillinessEven if God changed something, which he did not, you WOULD HAVE NO RIGHT.Nice try though Wait a minute, why would you quote Moses or Jesus, for justification for your assumption,concerning sam sex m? How do you know they were any more reliable than Paul?Were Moses and Christ being led by God?Your approach to the scriptures Jar,makes you opinion and assumption pointlessWhen you decide it is actually the word of God, then your opinion will be considered atleast logical. Your flip flop approach tothe scriptures makes your contentions nothing short of nonsenseHere is what I mean Really, does the Bible actually teach us something. One minute your saying its unreliable, the next your saying we should pay strict attention to some principle. How do you choose the one you advocate here and ignore the one that tells us not to add to what is writtenWe meet the needs of the people by taking allof what God said, not adding to it, then applying all of it , not some or it or what we choose.Get a grip Jar, you are a logical nightmareDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

"Your call for tolerance reeks of hypocrisy."Yours wreaks similarly.

Fortunatley your vantage point is worthless, when compared to what God wants. Nothing that you can muster is worth the energy it takes you to produce itYou do realize that arguments work better than threats correctOh I see, you have nothingDawn Bertot

Now I know you are from texas, but do you have todemostrate a simplicity, like that of someone from the third grade."almost always" is not all the time Jar. It talks about the things you mention, it talks about what to do to get back into the proper relationships, what to do if the partner dies and many other things as wellAnd lo and behold it tells us what a valid marraige is and what constitues a God given pattern for marraige, is as wellIt talks about the beginning ,middle and even the end of a marraige, but no same sex marraigesAsserting or implying that it does not address the, how and why of marraige, is simply not true and you know itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Threats?! Are you delusional as well as deluded?You have no argument but the made-up authority of your god-thug. In case you hadn't noticed, you are losing this debate in the real world: the louder you chant your hateful superstition and bigotry, the faster you lose.You are the threat, Dawnie-boy; I am the cure.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

If that was supposed to be a telling pun, it fell stillborn from your mouth.I stopped appealing for tolerance from Xians long ago--you are largely a broken people, leaning on religious crutches to justify the worst forms of bigotry and discrimination.Eventually, you will go the way of the dodo and human sacrifice; until then, you must simply be resisted, in text, speech and act.As far as I can see, Xians cannot offer genuine tolerance, and thus have no claim on mine.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Ive already responded to you once concerning the idea of God being a thug. You have no moral platform from which you can make such an assertion. Humans think because they treat eachother with some form of respect but exterminate, irradicate and consume animals,that this somehow makes them justified in thier thug like behaviorWhere is the rational that says God cant do this or that but we canThe chants as you call them are what the thread called for and that is what the Bible teaches. If you dont like them take it up withGod not me, I didnt write the pattern.Even your tone in this post is threatning. Who are you the terminator or the exterminator, that you are the CURE, Omnivorous-ieDawn Bertot

What you stopped appealing to was the Word of God for answers and a pattern for marraige. It is you that will go the way of the knucklehead and long after you and I are gone his word will endure and continue until the end of time. I know that already, because like the pattern of marraige in the bible, he has promised his word will endure foreverSo you appeal to whatever it is you think you need to. Becuase when you quit appealing to his word, your endeavor is worthless anyway.Oh and by he way. Its was already promised by the same God that gave the pattern, that WE would be oppossed in, word, act and deed.Did you realize you are fulfilling prophecyDawn Bertot

The rationale is that we exist and God doesn't.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.