Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

Ringo writes:Bro. Jaywill, you might as well give up, dont you realize these secular folk are not ONLY authorities in evolution, atheism, humanism and just about anyother thing imaginable and they are bible scholars as well. You dont have a chance brotherGod didnt mean what he said when he said, "and for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall be one flesh"Dont you realize jaywill, you can have any standard outside Gods?Sorry for the interuption, please proceedDawn Bertot

From the OP Jt writesRingo writes:So, it seems that if you include Gods original pattern, maybe the Bible is not silent concerning the matter."Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."(Genesis 2:24, KJV).If the other is acceptable why is it never mentioned, sanctioned or ordained in any capacity? Atleast from a biblical standpointWhat do you think?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ill repeat the question again. If it is allowed and its silence is an sanction and most of the other nations were doing it, why did the Jews not participate in such actions, why was it not sanctioned, practiced or ordained or participated in. It seems they understood Gods words as limiting anything other than what was prescibedIt seems they did not share your view of silence Marriage is another instituion set out long before the ten commandments were given. it was already instituted and prescribedDawn Bertot

Bigot is to strong of a word in this instance, due to the fact that we are dealing in interpretations and opinions. Those that think it is alright to have relations with children may think you are a bigot for disagreeing with them.Dawn Bertot

I thought we were talking about what the Bible said in this matter and how the Jews applied itSo in your opinion, why do yo think the Jews didnt practice such activities? Certainly there were liberal thinking Jews, even in those days and even ones that would have been drawn to such activities. Yet there is not even a hint of itDawn Bertot

Your letting your emotions run away with your reason (logic). Stay calm and think about it as a logical proposition. It has been argued that silence is allowance. If it is then there is nothing prohibiting sexual realtions w/ infants in suc instances, in the Bible. Remember we are talking about the Bible and its interpretationsI am friends (as much as the Bible will allow) with many gay people. I do not think, feel or TREAT them any different than any other rational personI evaluate them by there personality and method of reasoning, not thier personal preferenceOf course from a moral and Biblical standpoint I think it is wrong, but I dont treat them any differently in normal day to day operationsWhy am I not allowed my personal opinions in such instances, maybe its because you are a tyrantYour comments are illogical, inaplicable and unjustifiedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A few of my goals when I get to heaven are to immediately worship God, immediatley fall over Jesus with praise and worship, shake hands with and hug Abraham, ask Joshua and Michael where the next battle is, pay my respects to Sarah, Mary, Naomi and Ruth, eat and drink with all the loved ones and friends AND finally Run the fields and Hills with Jonathan and David on the Hunt
Tthere is no indication of such implications on your partDawn Bertot

from the OPRingo writes:So from the OP were talking about marraige from a Biblical perspective correctbut you miss the point. From a purely biblical and logical standpoint consent is not an issue, because there were arranged marraiges. Consent is really irrelevent, if one takes a position that silence is a law to do what ever one wishes.So, is it ok, to avoid, circumvent and add to the principle of marraige set out in Gen 2. If it is you will need to desribe from the scriptures the limitations AND BOUNRIES OF YOUR LIBERTY.Unless you can support your contention of liberty to circumvent the basic principle Set out in Gen 2, and show its boundaries, then I must conclude your contention is nothing more than assertionDawn Bertot

The illustration is from a standpoint of logic that addresses the question of silence of the scriptures. You say that infant sex would be wrong because the child cannot give consent, then probably say its perfectly alright for a Dr to murder a nearly born child. when did the unborn child give thier consent in that situationtry to stay rational Taz, I dont agree or approve of either, but that is not the point I am addressing this is just an observation and a sloppy one. I know what I think. You people? Your mixing me up with radicals, a Christians responsibilites reside in preaching and teaching Gods wordChristians do not control the government.However, if by rights you mean giving people something due stricly to thier sexual habits then No. Giving people a special day due to thier sexual orientation is CRIMINAL , or giving them priviledges, money, rights outside the simple right to marry, then yes these things would be criminal by the government and criminal to recieve it You would need to do this logically and scripturally. And we dont compare gay people to animals, you simply dont understand a logical argument You simply dont have the ability it appears to distinquish between an argument being made from a Biblical perspective and some contention about your civil rightsIf the government wishes to allow, or if they should allow men to marry men, has nothing to do with the argument that is being set out here. the question is whether the scriptures allow it , NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Your not the brightest crayon in the box are you. I didnt compare gays to infants. I compared the logical conclusions and implications of a position that states that silence is a law to do whatever one wishes, to, the fact that whatever seems to be reprehensible now would therefore be morally and Biblically scriptural, based on the argument from silence and circumventing Gods only set out plan.No comparison is being made to gays and infants, look deeper, think harderDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I doubt jaywill avoids anything, but in his absence I answer your question, in the hopes you can show the relevance of the question.If he did Im in alot of trouble, the answer is NoDawn Bertot

Of course you are versed in detailed avodance techniques, but I am better at recognizing them. Ringo, its not a matter of punishment that you need to demonstrate, its a matter of demonstrating that the scriptures supports your contention of silence concerning marraige You could of course do this by simply providing a scripture that shows that one can go outside Gen 2 or simply provide an example of gay marraige in the scripturesmy guess is that you can do neither of course you are and that is the point. if by two people you mean a man and a women, then Yes can you explain why I need to do thisDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If you are talking about the bible society, then you are correct. we are not talking about society we are talking about the Bible this is not true, since that is not what I said were Adam and Eve living in sin or did God sanction thier UnionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong for two reasons. that is not the topic of the thread and you have not demonstrated the above assertions from the same scriptures. therefore you are rambling into infinity Were Adam and eve sinning when they were told to multiply?Dawn BertotSince

Does it follow that if two people can go outside the principle set out in genesis two, simply by reasoning in that fashion, that I cannot reason the same way to include anything i wish to constitue marraige? If not, why not?Actually I dont even need to mention, sex with infants as an example, because you cannot show, biblically or logically why that general principle has a right to be avoided or alteredIll let you decide how stupid you think you are Its not what you said, ITS WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IMPLIES.You would need to demonstrate from a biblical perspective that your contention about same sex marragies applies to the position of silence as liscenceIf you cannot do this then it would follow that anything is allowable using this principleDont you understand that this is the same principle Dathan in the OT attempted when he said look guys its not that want to worship another God, WERE JUST GOING TO DO IT THROUGH THE CALF. Additon is never acceptable in Gods view.Addition to Gods basic principles involves the hieght of arrogance and assumptionDawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please dont associate my slowness of response with an unwillingness to respond toyour queries. I have many things in life to do and like the turtle I will finally et to it.I didnt respond to this in the past because I assumed you knew that I thought such a question was simplicity to the extreme. Some of thes examples you offer have nothing do with morals, nor is there a precedence set out concering hanging ten, 20 or 30Marriage does not falll into that category. Try and be atleast realistic Your examples are silliness. First, you cannot adhere to or obey something that is not commanded or instructed. The pain in this instance is not a guideline to be followed. It is the result of someone elses sin. IOW it is the result of not following Gods commands to begin withThe recipient of the punishment, has not broken a command, so there is nothing for them to obey or follow. It is simply a cascading effect of the results of sin, which God holds as reprehensible.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.