Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 3 of 573 (489889)
11-30-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jt
11-29-2008 1:53 PM


Hello JT,
It seems like this thread is getting off to a slow start.
As a Christian I will reply as to my understanding of the scriptures. First and foremost, the laws and commandments of God are made to help man. They are not made for a hinderance to trap man or bring condemnation to him.
Modern translations of the Bible into English make it clear as day that engaging in homosexual behavior is sin.
Yes, actually virtually any translation makes this clear. But so what? The Bible also clearly defines heterosexual behavior as sinful. In fact, there are significantly more verses addressing heterosexual sin than there are homosexual sin. The point is that there is only one sexual activity that is blessed, and that is sexual activity between one man and one woman within a marriage relationship. All other heterosexual and homosexual activity is condemned.
But some people say that these translations are not accurate, and that the original phrasing in Greek and Hebrew only condemns gay rape, prostitution, temple rites, etc. From this viewpoint, the Bible is silent on the issue of same-gendered marriage.
Yes many people say alot of things about the Bible. However the scripture is not silent on marriage. Marriage has had a definition in every known cultural language including the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic of the Bible. Many passages address marriage, and they are excusively related to a relationship between a man and a woman as is the definition.
Is it valid historical, linguistic, and cultural scholarship to interpret the Bible in this way? Or is it needlessly complicated hand-waving that explains away a valuable teaching and shoehorns human reasoning into scripture?
I think it is the second statement. There is an intrinsic value in marriage that cannot be achieved naturally in a homosexual relationship. (multiply and fill the earth) God makes man aware of that value over and over again in scripture. There are also diseases associated with all types of sexual activity outside of a mariage relationship. Again, God's laws are for the good of man.
Gay marriage is not something new. Reference to this concept occurs within the Roman Empire before 100AD. However, the Romans got the concept from the Greeks long before, and it was probably practiced during those times as well. It is interesting to note that the most often quoted New Testament passage against homosexuality is in the book of Romans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jt, posted 11-29-2008 1:53 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 11-30-2008 6:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 11-30-2008 6:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 6 of 573 (489920)
11-30-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kuresu
11-30-2008 6:03 PM


Of course, as we're all well aware, marriage is not a requisite to "multiply and fill the earth"
Nobody said it was....strawman
Just how many marriages are a result of a pregnancy?
Do you see out of wedlock pregnancies as an overall plus or a minus to society? God sees it as a minus. Your connotation makes me think you agree with Him.
And how many bastards are there (using the original definition)?
Quite a few the last I checked. Again, I will ask you, do you think bastardized children are an overall plus or minus to society?
It really is nothing more than a form of social, legal, and political control.
Then why would homosexuals want it? Or for that matter, why would you, or anyone else want to legislate this control on them?
And you can still get those diseases within marriages.
Not unless at least one partner has had sexual relations outside of marriage.
For christ's sake, you don't even have to kiss to spread oral herpes. Just drink out of the same cup with someone who has a cold sore. Then your partner catches it from you (in the marriage, no less). Marriage does not give you immunity from STDs.
I guess you don't understand the difference between oral herpes (HSV-1) and genital herpes (HSV-2). Genial herpes is considered an STD. HSV-1 is not.
Sex only within marriage by both partners guarantees no STD's. This includes virginity before marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kuresu, posted 11-30-2008 6:03 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 11-30-2008 9:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 32 by kuresu, posted 12-01-2008 5:01 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2008 6:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 35 by Jazzns, posted 12-01-2008 11:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 7 of 573 (489921)
11-30-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by bluescat48
11-30-2008 6:09 PM


So then it should be illegal for a woman past menopause to Marry? Or For a man who had his testicles blown off in combat?
How much straw do you need for this strawman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 11-30-2008 6:09 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 11-30-2008 9:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 34 of 573 (489987)
12-01-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
12-01-2008 6:26 AM


I guess you certainly don't. I hope to god you have never taught a sex ed class
Your hope is reality, but who is this god you are hoping toward? I stand corrected. It's been a long time since sex ed for me. And I've been faithfully married since 19, so I don't have a need to keep up with current STD info. That certainly wasn't the info back in the 70's.
However, genital herpes is usually HSV-2 as you know. And again sex only within marriage is advantageous in regards to the spread of this disease. So my main point, that God's laws are advantageous for man, remains the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 12-01-2008 6:26 AM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024