Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>
Poll Question: What is your opinion on this?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
55 [73.33%]
1 [1.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [10.67%]
9 [12.00%]
2 [2.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2013 at 18:56
...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 2420
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 05:13
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 06:15
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.
Reminds me of that old joke (probably a Benny Hill sketch) of a vicar talking to a woman pushing a pram containing twins with another pair of twins in tow. "Do you get twins every time?" the vicar asks. "No, most times we get nothing at all" she replies.
 
If sex was solely for procreation then humans would conceive every time and it would be perfunctory not pleasurable, there is more to this than just christian "sin" and procreation. If everything we did was purely for function and purpose we would not have music, beauty and art. Sex is fun because sex is fun.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2532
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 09:54
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.


That's not what we believe.  Not even close.  I'm not even going to bother answering all of your "points" but I will say this: just because some Christians said something at some period in time doesn't mean most Christians believe it.  If you actually read the Bible...absolutely none of that is in there.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 2420
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 10:24
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.


That's not what we believe.  Not even close.  I'm not even going to bother answering all of your "points" but I will say this: just because some Christians said something at some period in time doesn't mean most Christians believe it.  If you actually read the Bible...absolutely none of that is in there.


Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2532
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 11:51
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.
 
Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Geek


Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.


That's not what we believe.  Not even close.  I'm not even going to bother answering all of your "points" but I will say this: just because some Christians said something at some period in time doesn't mean most Christians believe it.  If you actually read the Bible...absolutely none of that is in there.


Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?


1.  Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.
2.  I challenge you to find a single passage that prohibits "interesting positions" and other such practices.  You won't be able to, because there aren't any.
3.  Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.  God made it that way for a reason.  Paul even tells married couples "do not deprive one another" in Ephesians 7.  Once again, I challenge you to find any Bible passages that claim that sex should not be pleasurable.  Again, there aren't any.

Finally, a word about that Ephesians 7 passage I cited earlier; it is true that later in the chapter, Paul encourages his audience to remain celibate if they can.  I anticipate you using this to attempt to prove your previous points, so let me respond preemptively: one should not take this passage to mean that sex is somehow "dirty" and unpleasing to God.  If that were the case, God would not have created sex and ordained marriage as he did in Genesis 2: "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."   One flesh refers to a physical union as well as a mysterious one; in sexual intercourse, a man and woman quite literally become one.  Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.  Furthermore, Paul wrote in an age of persecution, in which it was advisable for believers to keep personal commitments to a minimum merely because the church, as a fringe group constantly in danger of attack, needed to ensure that its members could commit fully to following Christ and supporting the body of Christ.  Paul obviously thinks it possible for believers under persecution to be married and committed to the church (otherwise he would have forbidden marriage) but he warns that the concerns and cares of married life may impair the believer's ability to give himself fully to God.  Recognizing all of these things, Paul encouraged his audience to remain celibate if they could, but also allowed marriage and even encouraged it if one thought he was in danger of falling into sexual sin - in which case Paul advised that person to marry, but not because sex was dirty and could only be permitted as a concession.  Rather, Paul viewed marriage as a good thing, but in light of present circumstances thought it best for Christians to remain celibate if they could.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 12:02
I believe it to be true that when they were picking the bits to keep and the bits to chuck out of the bible there was the story of Moses and the Eleven Commandments.  It was decided that Ten had a much more even ring to it and they should remove one of the lesser Commands.  They got rid of Thou shalt not fornicate in interesting positions! True.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 13:15
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


1.  Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.
2.  I challenge you to find a single passage that prohibits "interesting positions" and other such practices.  You won't be able to, because there aren't any.
3.  Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.  God made it that way for a reason.  Paul even tells married couples "do not deprive one another" in Ephesians 7.  Once again, I challenge you to find any Bible passages that claim that sex should not be pleasurable.  Again, there aren't any.
Aside from " the producing of children" ... all these things are possible within a gay marriage. A gay couple is an infertile couple, so even gender fails to be an issue since there is nothing immoral or objectionable to a marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. The logical objections to gay marriage are fast receding into the dim distance yet the objections persist "on moral grounds" and these christian moralites appears to have no concrete basis for their existence.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Finally, a word about that Ephesians 7 passage I cited earlier; it is true that later in the chapter, Paul encourages his audience to remain celibate if they can.  I anticipate you using this to attempt to prove your previous points, so let me respond preemptively: one should not take this passage to mean that sex is somehow "dirty" and unpleasing to God.  If that were the case, God would not have created sex and ordained marriage as he did in Genesis 2: "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."   One flesh refers to a physical union as well as a mysterious one; in sexual intercourse, a man and woman quite literally become one. 
This also fails to make any logical sense because the man and woman (as I have explained before) do not "quite literally" become one - if I stick my finger in your earhole we have not "become one", we just have a somewhat absurd and comical image and nothing more. Many species procreate by penetration, others do not - some species even have detatchable reproductive organs - procreation is not "becoming one" [if that is the definition then cats, dogs cattle and elephants also "become one" when they procreate] - nothing here seperates mankind from any other animal, we're not the only monogomous species, we're not the only promiscuous species, we're not the only species to gain pleasure from sex, we're not the only species that has celebacy and we're not the only species to have homosexual relationships. We cannot be 100% certain we are the only spiritual species and given the diversity of spirituality within our own species even our own spirituality is uncertain.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together. 
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you are not married. As a non-christian I am as committed to (and devoted to) my wife as anyone can be, after 31 years of marriage nothing has been "hard work" and nothing has been "distasteful" - in fact it has been the easiest interpersonal relationship I have ever known, far easier than brother/sister, parent/son, father/daughter, or just between good friends.
 
There are some somewhat specious statistics that claim to show that divorce rates are lowest among atheists - truth is, the margin of error in those stats pretty much shows that religion has no bearing on divorce or life-long commitment to monogamy - we as a species have a natural inclination to monogamous relationships but there is a failure rate in some relationships regardless of religion, ideology, sociology, education, political leaning or any other groupings and affiliations you care to name.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Furthermore, Paul wrote in an age of persecution, in which it was advisable for believers to keep personal commitments to a minimum merely because the church, as a fringe group constantly in danger of attack, needed to ensure that its members could commit fully to following Christ and supporting the body of Christ.  Paul obviously thinks it possible for believers under persecution to be married and committed to the church (otherwise he would have forbidden marriage) but he warns that the concerns and cares of married life may impair the believer's ability to give himself fully to God.  Recognizing all of these things, Paul encouraged his audience to remain celibate if they could, but also allowed marriage and even encouraged it if one thought he was in danger of falling into sexual sin - in which case Paul advised that person to marry, but not because sex was dirty and could only be permitted as a concession.  Rather, Paul viewed marriage as a good thing, but in light of present circumstances thought it best for Christians to remain celibate if they could.
Celibacy isn't an issue unless it is enforced, then it is a big issue.


Edited by Dean - June 04 2013 at 13:15


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2532
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 13:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


1.  Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.
2.  I challenge you to find a single passage that prohibits "interesting positions" and other such practices.  You won't be able to, because there aren't any.
3.  Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.  God made it that way for a reason.  Paul even tells married couples "do not deprive one another" in Ephesians 7.  Once again, I challenge you to find any Bible passages that claim that sex should not be pleasurable.  Again, there aren't any.
Aside from " the producing of children" ... all these things are possible within a gay marriage. A gay couple is an infertile couple, so even gender fails to be an issue since there is nothing immoral or objectionable to a marriage between infertile heterosexual couples. The logical objections to gay marriage are fast receding into the dim distance yet the objections persist "on moral grounds" and these christian moralites appears to have no concrete basis for their existence.


I'm not trying to make a logical case for or against gay marriage; as I've mentioned before, I accept Scripture's teaching on the issue but don't seek to force anyone else to follow it.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Finally, a word about that Ephesians 7 passage I cited earlier; it is true that later in the chapter, Paul encourages his audience to remain celibate if they can.  I anticipate you using this to attempt to prove your previous points, so let me respond preemptively: one should not take this passage to mean that sex is somehow "dirty" and unpleasing to God.  If that were the case, God would not have created sex and ordained marriage as he did in Genesis 2: "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."   One flesh refers to a physical union as well as a mysterious one; in sexual intercourse, a man and woman quite literally become one. 
This also fails to make any logical sense because the man and woman (as I have explained before) do not "quite literally" become one - if I stick my finger in your earhole we have not "become one", we just have a somewhat absurd and comical image and nothing more. Many species procreate by penetration, others do not - some species even have detatchable reproductive organs - procreation is not "becoming one" [if that is the definition then cats, dogs cattle and elephants also "become one" when they procreate] - nothing here seperates mankind from any other animal, we're not the only monogomous species, we're not the only promiscuous species, we're not the only species to gain pleasure from sex, we're not the only species that has celebacy and we're not the only species to have homosexual relationships. We cannot be 100% certain we are the only spiritual species and given the diversity of spirituality within our own species even our own spirituality is uncertain.


But according to Scripture, our species is set apart from other species.  I'm not trying to scientifically prove this, I'm trying to show what Christians believe based on Scripture.  I have no desire to prove any of it, I'm merely attempting to explain Scripture's position on the issue.  The passage in question refers to a physical union and whether or not the significance of that physical union can be scientifically proven is irrelevant for my purposes at the moment.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together. 
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you are not married. As a non-christian I am as committed to (and devoted to) my wife as anyone can be, after 31 years of marriage nothing has been "hard work" and nothing has been "distasteful" - in fact it has been the easiest interpersonal relationship I have ever known, far easier than brother/sister, parent/son, father/daughter, or just between good friends.
 
There are some somewhat specious statistics that claim to show that divorce rates are lowest among atheists - truth is, the margin of error in those stats pretty much shows that religion has no bearing on divorce or life-long commitment to monogamy - we as a species have a natural inclination to monogamous relationships but there is a failure rate in some relationships regardless of religion, ideology, sociology, education, political leaning or any other groupings and affiliations you care to name.


I think if you talked to most other married couples their account of their relationship would be much different.  I'm not married, but if anything, it gives me more objectivity because my opinions about marriage are not slanted by my own personal experience.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Furthermore, Paul wrote in an age of persecution, in which it was advisable for believers to keep personal commitments to a minimum merely because the church, as a fringe group constantly in danger of attack, needed to ensure that its members could commit fully to following Christ and supporting the body of Christ.  Paul obviously thinks it possible for believers under persecution to be married and committed to the church (otherwise he would have forbidden marriage) but he warns that the concerns and cares of married life may impair the believer's ability to give himself fully to God.  Recognizing all of these things, Paul encouraged his audience to remain celibate if they could, but also allowed marriage and even encouraged it if one thought he was in danger of falling into sexual sin - in which case Paul advised that person to marry, but not because sex was dirty and could only be permitted as a concession.  Rather, Paul viewed marriage as a good thing, but in light of present circumstances thought it best for Christians to remain celibate if they could.
Celibacy isn't an issue unless it is enforced, then it is a big issue.


Paul didn't enforce it, as the passage in question demonstrates.  He actually spoke very harshly about those who "forbid marriage" (in 1 or 2 Timothy, I believe).
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 3375
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote timothy leary Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 14:31
Been trying to stay off this forum but have to say this is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen...... Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.,,,,,,,,,,,,,baloney
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 14:34
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Been trying to stay off this forum but have to say this is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen...... Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.,,,,,,,,,,,,,baloney
For once, I'm with you there Tim. Thumbs Up


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 18:12
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


I'm not trying to make a logical case for or against gay marriage; as I've mentioned before, I accept Scripture's teaching on the issue but don't seek to force anyone else to follow it.
I would never expect you to make a logical case because one cannot be made based upon scripture.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


But according to Scripture, our species is set apart from other species.  I'm not trying to scientifically prove this, I'm trying to show what Christians believe based on Scripture.  I have no desire to prove any of it, I'm merely attempting to explain Scripture's position on the issue.  The passage in question refers to a physical union and whether or not the significance of that physical union can be scientifically proven is irrelevant for my purposes at the moment.
LOL I would never expect you to prove any of it scientifically - if you could I'd fall off this chair in shock.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I think if you talked to most other married couples their account of their relationship would be much different.  I'm not married, but if anything, it gives me more objectivity because my opinions about marriage are not slanted by my own personal experience.
Well, based upon our ad hoc straw poll of two married couples that have responded directly to your "objectivity" I'd say that forming your opinions about marriage without personal experience is not a resounding success.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Paul didn't enforce it, as the passage in question demonstrates.  He actually spoke very harshly about those who "forbid marriage" (in 1 or 2 Timothy, I believe).
So, celibacy isn't an issue unless it is enforced, then it is a big issue...


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 18:42
If a Christian says X is a sin, but a Christian says the sinner must accept Y to be saved, then what does it profit the Christian purpose if X is outlawed by secular legislation but Y is not accepted?


Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 2420
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 19:54
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?


Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.


But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations. And the "spilling of seed", as in coitus interruptus, caused the death of Onan (Gen. 38: 3-10) for not fulfilling his obligations in impregnating his dead brother's widow (Gosh, do I love bible stories!).

The Levitical Regulations, derived from the Torah (Leviticus and Laws), specifically abhor the spilling of seed, and whether by masturbation or nocturnal emission or sex that does not involve procreation, it would leave the man ritually impure (and the woman also, if the evil sperm hit her). See Leviticus 15:16-18:

16 “‘And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening.
17 And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.
18 The woman also with whom a man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

Both the Hebraic Talmud and the early Christians interpreted the bible to mean the "spilling of seed" in any manifestation was a sin. St. Jerome wrote:

 "Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed....Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"

And Clement of Alexandria concurred:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted...To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

Then in 1930, the Vatican used the same biblical premise to ban contraception. Which, of course, is still with us today.

This just goes to show you books that are open to interpretation (whether the bible, koran or bhagavad-gita) should not be blindly followed. Conversely, nearly all Christians (and I bet we are talking over 95%) cherry-pick through the mind-numbing amount of prohibitions in the bible, like not eating shellfish (no Red Lobster restaurant for you!) or even touching pigskin (no football for you!), and requiring a circumcision (no foreskin for you!). So rationalize away your position on the bible, just don't foist your opinion on everyone else, particularly in the court and congress.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

  Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together. 


Paul was a priggish misogynist who never had any direct contact with Jesus (Paul would have thrown the first stone at Mary Magdalene). And whoever thinks marriage is "tainted with sin" does not deserve anything but celibacy. I have never considered marriage to be "distasteful", never felt I was forced through some coercive law to "stick together", and highly recommend retaining the spark of romance throughout married life (I am in my second decade). You interpret love like you do the bible. Flawed.



Edited by The Dark Elf - June 04 2013 at 20:01
Please pay a visit to my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 31757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2013 at 19:59
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Paul would have thrown the first stone.



Probably.  He also oversaw and approved of the death of Stephen.

Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dtguitarfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 05:27
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations.

Ah, now see, here is a problem.  Calling a certain sex act "sodomy" is kind of like calling it Naziism.  People will try to convince you that the real problem of Sodom was that they liked a certain sex act, but you'll notice that the story they base this on is a story of attempted gang rape.  Also, what does the Bible say the real problem with Sodom was?
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Ezekiel 16:49

Oh crap...that kind of sounds familiar...kind of like a certain country I live in......
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 05:45
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations.

Ah, now see, here is a problem.  Calling a certain sex act "sodomy" is kind of like calling it Naziism.  People will try to convince you that the real problem of Sodom was that they liked a certain sex act, but you'll notice that the story they base this on is a story of attempted gang rape.  Also, what does the Bible say the real problem with Sodom was?
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Ezekiel 16:49

Oh crap...that kind of sounds familiar...kind of like a certain country I live in......
Regardless of the etymology of the word sodomy - it does not mean anal sex, its meaning is considerably broader than that.
 
I wouldn't get too uptight about the biblical meaning, there is no reason to assume that Sodom or Gomorrah (or Lot's family) even existed - it is one of the allegorical tales of the bible written to teach a morality lesson not as a history text book, as are all of the pentateuch stories.


Edited by Dean - June 05 2013 at 05:46


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 12:08


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 12:42
As with so many other things in life, the key lies in 'getting familiar with the enemy', then it stops being the enemy.

Very rightly they say that the best recipe for tolerance, against racism, xenophobia, religious hates etc is travelling. By travelling and meeting all kinds of people you learn that there are good people and bad people everywhere, regardless of race, religion, culture or whatever. And you learn that good people deserve to be appreciated and valued, regardless of their race, religion, beliefs or whatever.

Sure we have historical taboos and rivalries, as a Spanish I can give the example of football (soccer) supporters of Barcelona and Real Madrid (which politically goes beyond just sports). Many people who have never been further away than 200 Km from their home take this very seriously, and they 'hate' the rival community. But any Barcelonian who visits frequently Madrid or any Madridian who visits frequently Barcelona take it as just a game, they know there are lovely people in both communities and they get along together perfectly fine, and they love each other.

Similarly, thanks to the openness about this subject in my residence countries Spain and Belgium, I have met many homosexual people, both men and women, and some of them are really good friends of mine. No need to go too far, my neighbours upstairs are a couple of lesbians and we get along great, they are a wonderful couple. A close friend of mine is a male homosexual (not engaged at the moment) and her sister is homosexual too, and she and her girlfriend make a lovely couple.

I believe it's only ignorance that make some people reluctant to understand and accept that the wonderful human diversity includes also homosexuality as one of its facets.

Once you understand this, why not let them marry?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Status: Offline
Points: 2532
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2013 at 13:06
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?


Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.


But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations. And the "spilling of seed", as in coitus interruptus, caused the death of Onan (Gen. 38: 3-10) for not fulfilling his obligations in impregnating his dead brother's widow (Gosh, do I love bible stories!).

The Levitical Regulations, derived from the Torah (Leviticus and Laws), specifically abhor the spilling of seed, and whether by masturbation or nocturnal emission or sex that does not involve procreation, it would leave the man ritually impure (and the woman also, if the evil sperm hit her). See Leviticus 15:16-18:

16 “‘And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening.
17 And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.
18 The woman also with whom a man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

Both the Hebraic Talmud and the early Christians interpreted the bible to mean the "spilling of seed" in any manifestation was a sin. St. Jerome wrote:

 "Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed....Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"

And Clement of Alexandria concurred:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted...To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

Then in 1930, the Vatican used the same biblical premise to ban contraception. Which, of course, is still with us today.

This just goes to show you books that are open to interpretation (whether the bible, koran or bhagavad-gita) should not be blindly followed. Conversely, nearly all Christians (and I bet we are talking over 95%) cherry-pick through the mind-numbing amount of prohibitions in the bible, like not eating shellfish (no Red Lobster restaurant for you!) or even touching pigskin (no football for you!), and requiring a circumcision (no foreskin for you!). So rationalize away your position on the bible, just don't foist your opinion on everyone else, particularly in the court and congress.

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

  Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together. 


Paul was a priggish misogynist who never had any direct contact with Jesus (Paul would have thrown the first stone at Mary Magdalene). And whoever thinks marriage is "tainted with sin" does not deserve anything but celibacy. I have never considered marriage to be "distasteful", never felt I was forced through some coercive law to "stick together", and highly recommend retaining the spark of romance throughout married life (I am in my second decade). You interpret love like you do the bible. Flawed.



Onan's sin was not the "spilling of seed," per se; rather, the context of the passage suggests that his sin was the shirking of his familial obligations. 

Originally posted by Genesis 38:1-10 Genesis 38:1-10 wrote:


It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her and went in to her, and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judaha]">[a] was in Chezib when she bore him.

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

When a woman was left widowed and childless in ancient middle eastern culture, it was seen as her husband's brother's duty to take her as his wife and to bear children with her.  This was for the protection of the widow (A widow with no children was in quite a bad situation back then) and for the carrying on of his brother's name.  The text clearly says that the reason Onan spilled his semen on the ground was to "not give offspring to his brother."  His sin was pride and selfishness; he loathed his duty to provide offspring for his brother but still wanted the pleasure of having sex with his wife.  The sin was not "sex without procreation," but a shirking of his duty to his brother.

As to the Levitical regulations...are you talking about the same ones that prohibit eating bacon and wearing synthetic garments?  Christians are no longer bound to the Law, as Paul makes quite clear in Galatians, Romans, and Colossians.  The Law was supposed to be burdensome and impossible to keep; it was not meant to establish a universal moral code but rather to set God's chosen people apart and to point them toward Christ.  Now that Christ has fulfilled the Law, we need not submit to dietary restrictions or circumcision or laws about ritual impurity due to the spilling of semen.  The reason that Christians do not follow those laws is not that we "cherry pick" through them; it's that we have been freed from them.

And the church fathers also said negative things about music, science, and a host of other things.  Their opinions are helpful and often enlightening, as they lived close to the time of Christ and the writing of the Scriptures.  However, their perspectives were tainted by the times, just as ours are; and many were influenced by neo-platonism to the expense of proper Scriptural doctrine.  Christians do not hold to their writings as inspired truth, as we do the Scriptures, so all you have proved with their quotes is, as I said, that some Christians believed what you are saying at some point in time.  That doesn't make it true biblical doctrine.

Furthermore, I'm tired of being accused of "foisting my opinion on everyone else in the courts and congress."  I've already made it perfectly clear in this thread that I have no desire to prohibit homosexuals from getting married or to prohibit sexual immorality in general, and I would prefer that you not assume that I hold certain opinions merely because you have pre-existing assumptions of what Christians must believe. 

And on the marriage topic; I may have been unclear if my previous statements made it sound like I think marriage is a horrible thing that ends up badly for everyone.  On the contrary, I think marriage is a good thing, and that a good marriage is ultimately fulfilling.  But I do believe that, like everything else, it is tainted by sin, and that it is hard, not always pleasant, and involves conflict and strife like any other relationship, except intensified by the very nature of the marriage relationship.  With that said, I stick by what I said before.

In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.