Christians: Is marriage between a man and a woman?

[Kenny]

I'm not talking a kissing of greeting or friendship. I specifically asked about holding hands and kissing each other romantically, instead of Jim and Karen on a date together where no sex is involved, it is Jim and Alan doing the same thing. I'm talking dating, not hanging out with friends. Point blank, are you OK with romantic love between two men, or two women, as long as they don't have sex? It's just the sex part that is bad? That is what you indicated was the case, that it is okay for them to love each other, so long as there is no sex involved.

So yes, based upon this obvious double standard you have created, there is no real justifiable basis for it, which makes it based on fears instead. You are in effect saying it is not okay for love to be felt and shared between two people of the same sex, like the other poster imagines that it is somehow possible to love the "wrong person", if such a thing were actually a possibility to begin with. Love is only okay within the bounds of cultural acceptance, correct? That sort of idea of love, is not God's idea of it.

You have a moving goal post. You never answered the question... does holding hands or kissing make you a homosexual.

Did you do that on purpose?

You honestly believe gay sex is at the same level as murder, rape, and adultery? It's purely consensual. How does it equate? Explain rationally.

Interesting how you selected only those things that suited you. Did you omit "lying" on purpose? When you add it all together, one would realize that I wasn't equating different types of actions in equality.

A standard response when one doesn't want to discuss the issues.

The only issue I have is with ignorance, such as believing finding God makes you not gay. That's like saying finding God makes you a foot taller than you were when you were just your average sinner.

No. I never said that. Another misquote. Was this also on purpose? I believe I said that God then helps us change.

I don't have a phobia of Christianity. I have a dislike of the abuse of it, hiding cultural biases behind the name of Love. I have a dislike of religious hypocrisy, which is exactly the same attitude Jesus had towards it. Count me in there with Jesus flipping over the tables of the money changers who pollute Truth with their own self-interests calling it God.

I agree with what you dislike. Whether Christians or non-Christians.

Two people who love each other and share a bonded relationship is not the same as dishonesty, hatred, or infidelity. Let me ask you this pointed question, if you met God face to face, do you think you could convince him of this, like you are trying to convince yourself it is?

Where it ends, is Love. Dropping your biases and fears, and seeing Love as it is. "Love works no ill," "Love is the fulfilling of the law". It ends by accepting Truth.

Again, misquotes and moving goal posts. Do you do that on purpose?

Most certainly I have. I'm not casting stones. I'm not condemning. I'm educating. I'm illuminating the error of these fallacious and misguiding views about the expression of love in homosexual relationships. Your ignorance is forgivable. There is no condemnation. Just a call to a higher state of mind and reason and love.

You sure have a funny way of expressing that thought. Looked more like stones to me.

 

[Windwalker]

You have a moving goal post. You never answered the question... does holding hands or kissing make you a homosexual.

Did you do that on purpose?

I didn't move anything. You did. I asked specifically about romantic love. The context made that plain. You turned that into Middle-Eastern men kissing on the cheek. That obviously does not relate to my question. Will you answer that truthfully now, or is your avoidance the answer you wish to leave? Will you answer my question, which I asked you first?

Interesting how you selected only those things that suited you. Did you omit "lying" on purpose?

It was included in my last post. Did you deliberately gloss over these words, "You honestly believe gay sex is at the same level as murder, rape, and adultery? It's purely consensual. How does it equate? Explain rationally."

"Lying" is the breaking of trust in a relationship, such as adultery. It's all the same thing. You equate gay love, with a violation of trust between people, such as lying, adultery, murder, rape, whatever other ill you equate it with. That is a gross error on your part.

Now, that is clarified, you should be able to answer my questions.

No. I never said that. Another misquote. Was this also on purpose? I believe I said that God then helps us change.

You said it again just now. There is no need to make things up when you hand them to us. "God helps us change", implies he is going to correct their gayness. Do you deny that is what you meant?

If yes, then does God make us taller too? Does he make us all blonde-haired and blue-eyed when we are saved by Grace?

Again, misquotes and moving goal posts. Do you do that on purpose?

Again, with false accusations. Are you deliberately avoiding answering my questions at face value for some reason? Can you do that now, please?

The questions are all pretty straight forward. I would appreciate your honesty in answering them. If you can't, than I'd suggest that be your starting place for your work of self-examination on this issue for you.

 

[Prestor John]

Ethics have improved greatly over time.

I find this to be "laugh-out-loud" funny, but I will digress and claim that it is debatable.

In the days of Scripture authors, marriage was more like a man acquiring an all purposes domestic appliance.

That is such a gross exaggeration that it flirts with being an outright lie.

Only ignorance and laziness can excuse you from being a complete liar in regards to this topic.

I like modern ethics better, because I have a few thousand years more experience to draw conclusions from.

That hasn't helped anyone avoid the mistakes of the past.

We are not better than the ancient. We are all still people.

There's a bunch of stuff Scriptural authors believed that we now consider horrible. Because we're better than they were.

No, it's because we are different than they are.

We live in a completely different world.

This is a simple case of Presentism, a cultural bias that true historians try to avoid because it distorts their understanding of historical facts.

No, it just speaks to their primitive thoughts, understanding, and ethics.

Even though I do not believe the Bible teaches that the world was flat, how would that assumption made by people who did not have access to technologies and knowledge we do today make them primitive or affect how we should view their perception of ethics?

You suffer from extreme Presentism.

Your strawman is making me itch.

It is hardly a strawman when it is the core of your argument.

You label everything they believed in and taught as "inferior", therefore not worthy of consideration, because they did not have the experience and knowledge to draw from that we do today.

If something is true, it is always true. It does not matter when it was revealed or discovered. It would have been true in the past and it will be true in the future.

Homosexuality has always been sinful and should be avoided.

 

[columbus]

If something is true, it is always true.

Mormons teach that polygamy is Godly and Scriptural.

If something is true, then it's always true. It apparently works for Warren Jeffs.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Mormons teach that polygamy is Godly and Scriptural.

If something is true, then it's always true. It apparently works for Warren Jeffs.
Tom

You should study up on these things before talking about them.

According to LDS doctrine the default, set by God, has always been one man and one woman in marriage.

However, there have been times when the Lord has commanded the practice of polygamy among His people.

He selected among His most faithful men and women to engage in plural marriage for His own purposes.

The Book of Mormon explains this concept simply.

Jacob, the younger brother of Nephi, noticed that his people (called the Nephites) were engaging in the practice of plural marriage and they were using the examples of David and Solomon to justify the practice.

Jacob spoke on behalf of the Lord to the Nephites, saying,

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:27-30)

The Lord claimed that if He desired He could command His people to "raise up seed" unto Him (plural marriage), but unless He directly commands it the people are to follow the default, which is for a man to have only the one wife.

Jacob drove the point home in the next chapter when he said,

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them." (Jacob 3:5)

 

[columbus]

According to LDS doctrine the default, set by God, has always been one man and one woman in marriage.

That's always been LDS doctrine?
No. And it isn't always doctrine now. Depends on who is doing the Scriptural interpretation.

But what I am saying is that things that used to be true aren't any more, sometimes. Especially when the subject is ethics and morals. Because those things are so extremely subjective and tend to change. LDS is kinda the poster child for that.
Like it or not.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

That's always been LDS doctrine?
No. And it isn't always doctrine now. Depends on who is doing the Scriptural interpretation.

But what I am saying is that things that used to be true aren't any more, sometimes. Especially when the subject is ethics and morals. Because those things are so extremely subjective and tend to change. LDS is kinda the poster child for that.
Like it or not.
Tom

There are absolute truths in the universe.

How is the LDS Church a "poster child" of something "extremely subjective" and "tend to change"?

 

[columbus]

There are absolute truths in the universe.

But humans know little to nothing about them.
Science is a method for winnowing the truth from the chaff. Religion doesn't have one.

How is the LDS Church a "poster child" of something "extremely subjective" and "tend to change"?

Does the LDS still teach the same things it originally did about marriage or racism?
No. It doesn't.

I see that as a positive thing, myself. I expect LDS to change to gay marriage supporters sooner than most, if any, major Christian denominations. They have a history of redefining marriage and a mechanism in place for the purpose.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

But humans know little to nothing about them.
Science is a method for winnowing the truth from the chaff. Religion doesn't have one.

I can't speak for every religion, but the LDS Church has many.

We have the scriptures, both ancient and modern, the words of prophets today and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Does the LDS still teach the same things it originally did about marriage or racism?

Yes, it does. Emphatically so.

No. It doesn't.

Again, I encourage you to study these things out before you talk about them because it is making you look foolish.

I don't want you to look foolish.

I see that as a positive thing, myself. I expect LDS to change to gay marriage supporters sooner than most, if any, major Christian denominations.

I never see that happening.

If it does, then I would know that the leaders of the Church have fallen astray.

We have all those things I mentioned earlier to prove that to be the case.

All sorts of methods for "winnowing".

They have a history of redefining marriage and a mechanism in place for the purpose.

How can you still be making this claim after I quoted from the book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon was translated and printed before the organization of the LDS Church.

Our views on marriage have never changed.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19:1-13 - King James Version
People often challenge Christians to demonstrate what Jesus said against same same marriage. My general assumption is that He said nothing in favor of it. The point is not to be unlike Christ, but to convey the information, and let people decide how to live. In the preceeding link, Jesus refers to marriage between a man and a woman, as was the religious opinion of most Jews in His day.
This: Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 5:22-33 - King James Version link also shows marriage between a man and a woman. The husband is shown as the head of the wife, with Christ as the Head of the Christian Church.
Another link, shown here: Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 3:1-7 - King James Version demonstrates that the wife is to obey the husband. Who does the obeying in a gay relationship?
Conclusion, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am not here to force my religious beliefs on anyone, just to convey Scripture and its meaning.

Christ Jesus pretty much summed it all up in the book of Matthew 19:4-5--"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh"

But as it is alot people have a problem with what Christ Jesus is saying here, all because it doesn't fit into their life style, but it doesn't change the fact what Christ Jesus said.