Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tabithakay

Gay Marraige

Recommended Posts

some Christians say that gay marriage is not right and I completely agree. but some Christians hate gay people, but arnt we suppose to hate the sin and LOVE the sinner!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some Christians say being gay is acceptable.  Whether or not you agree with gay marriage hating a person is the most biblically unacceptable.  So I suppose to answer your question: you are not supposed to hate gay people.  

Edited by Crescentheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Scripture, homosexuality is wrong. According to Scripture, hating people is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He who sees his own sins seeth not the sins of others" - St. Moses the Black

 

^^^ That sums up my feelings on this (especially in the past few days :/ ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He who sees his own sins seeth not the sins of others" - St. Moses the Black

 

^^^ That sums up my feelings on this (especially in the past few days :/ ).

 

I am very tired at the moment, would you mind explaining that wisdom for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very tired at the moment, would you mind explaining that wisdom for me?

 

It's just the saint's reinteration of the plank in my eye and the speck in my brother's eye, and which one I should be more concerned about. People who are overconcerned about another person's life and what they do, as St. Maximos the Confessor would say, have not even begun to examine their own lives and what is right or wrong in them. 

 

It's humbling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just the saint's reinteration of the plank in my eye and the speck in my brother's eye, and which one I should be more concerned about. People who are overconcerned about another person's life and what they do, as St. Maximos the Confessor would say, have not even begun to examine their own lives and what is right or wrong in them. 

 

It's humbling. 

 

It seems to me to be the reverse of the plank in my eye and the speck in my brother's eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me to be the reverse of the plank in my eye and the speck in my brother's eye.

 

Really? Hmm. Well, I more or less meant, I focus on my own sins and pray for others, but if I go out "hating" people for their sins, I'm being a hypocrite anyways, because I sin too.

 

I dunno. I just got back from a 12 hour shift, I may not be articulating my thoughts properly xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm...if it wasnt for gay rights i wouldnt be married to my wife....

also if we were going by every rule in the bible we wouldnt be wearing wool

we wouldnt cut our hair

we wouldnt pierce our ear

or get tattoos

or have sex on certain days including sunday,mondays tuesday passover 

we wouldnt have the internet

just saying to those who believe gay marriage"is against the bible" should pratice what they preach before slamming on us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm...if it wasnt for gay rights i wouldnt be married to my wife....

also if we were going by every rule in the bible we wouldnt be wearing wool

we wouldnt cut our hair

we wouldnt pierce our ear

or get tattoos

or have sex on certain days including sunday,mondays tuesday passover 

we wouldnt have the internet

just saying to those who believe gay marriage"is against the bible" should pratice what they preach before slamming on us

 

A lot of what you refer to in your post were covenant laws that OT Israel were commanded to abide by. When Christ came many of those things were done away with.

 

As far as gay marriage, or more specifically, homosexuality is concerned; the NT clearly speaks against it. This isn't gay slamming, but simply truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't this topic be moved to the HDT?

We don't have an HDT anymore.

 

And I tend to think that gay marriage undermines the strength and clarity of institutional marriage, and that it's thus self-undermining from a social point of view, which should be the preeminent interpretive lens in regards to social institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have an HDT anymore.

 

And I tend to think that gay marriage undermines the strength and clarity of institutional marriage, and that it's thus self-undermining from a social point of view, which should be the preeminent interpretive lens in regards to social institutions.

 

I thought you tended to not believe in marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you tended to not believe in marriage?

*Flail*

No. In that thread, I wasn't criticizing marriage; I was criticizing the liberal west for undermining marriage. Gay marriage is a (very small) part of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Flail*

No. In that thread, I wasn't criticizing marriage; I was criticizing the liberal west for undermining marriage. Gay marriage is a (very small) part of that. 

 

For purposes of that thread gay marriage plays no role because it doesn't fully exist so neither party really loses resources via being married if they have a divorce.  And also the divorce rate for gay marriage is really really low.  Regardless you need to explain how gay marriage would undermine the strength and clarity of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erm...if it wasnt for gay rights i wouldnt be married to my wife....

also if we were going by every rule in the bible we wouldnt be wearing wool

we wouldnt cut our hair

we wouldnt pierce our ear

or get tattoos

or have sex on certain days including sunday,mondays tuesday passover 

we wouldnt have the internet

just saying to those who believe gay marriage"is against the bible" should pratice what they preach before slamming on us

I'm not from any camp but you should study the REASONS for those laws before you bring them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Flail*

No. In that thread, I wasn't criticizing marriage; I was criticizing the liberal west for undermining marriage. Gay marriage is a (very small) part of that. 

 

Chris has a very unromantic understanding of marriage. He tends to think that people need to be economically coerced into marriage, so as to avoid a general social disintegration and alienated malaise from overtaking the world. I am not saying I assent with his idea, since the cure is quite possibly worse than the disease, but I do think it is perhaps the most original and reasonable conservative defenses of traditional marriage I have come across. 

 

I and Chris both believe, however, that there is something terribly wrong with the liberal idea of marriage, and that merely expanding rights to same-sex couples will not solve the dilemma. We both, I think, find it deeply disturbing that relationships and marriages have become defined by the liberal-utilitarian notion of preference sets. Marriages are discarded as soon as the costs exceed the benefits, as on a bank ledger; and the zeitgeist of the age says that dating should be based on the same mentality. There is no transcendence in liberalism that carries relations beyond two persons making a mutually beneficial economic contract. Liberalism is turning the relational-man into economic man, homo economicus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who does god allow hermaphrodites to love then? Are hermaphrodites allowed to get married? Or would god punish them for sinning when he has allowed them to be born in such a way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Lazy Albatross, actually, having homosexual desire is not natural but another temptation. Ever wanted to snap at someone? Does that make it right? No. Same with homosexual desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Lazy Albatross, actually, having homosexual desire is not natural but another temptation. Ever wanted to snap at someone? Does that make it right? No. Same with homosexual desire.

Actually homosexuality is natural. It is natural in the sense that genes are natural because they are simply chemicals doing what physics ordains them to do.

If gene's are natural, then so are the mutations. Mutations can be beneficial or non/un-beneficial, but they are still a natural occurence, albeit a possibly undesired one.

For example, a turkey born as an albino may have trouble surviving, but that does not mean that it's mutation is not natural. It might be called unusual for that species, but not unnatural.

And it wouldn't really be proper to tie the definition of "natural" to mutations. Afterall, would you consider a turkey which is born with better camoflage (as a direct result of mutation) than it's normally

light yellow flock, to be unnatural? No. You might answer yes at first, because it's beneficial to it's survival, but there are examples of mutations which may be harmful at first, but prove beneficial at a later point in time. For instance, if a cell has a mutation which causes it to produce to much of a chemical which a simple organism (with less than a couple hundred cells) needs, that cell may actually survive because it's neighbors may stop producing what the mutated cell creates, and instead, allow it to specialize in creating that particular resource while they themselves pseudo-specialize (i.e. not genetically taking up the task, just doing so in reaction to the specializer), and those cells that are better at the pseudo-specialization may go on to produce better, and these specialized jobs means the organism as a whole produces it's energy more efficiently, meaning the cells have been naturally selected for. So.....something which may seem unusual at first, or even harmful in certain cases (on it's own, a cell which does not round out it's production, for meeting it's own needs, dies), does not necessarily mean it is bad. So therefore it does mean it is "unnatural".

 

So, if everything genetically expressed is natural by strict definition, does this mean cancer can be natural? Yes. Cancer can be "naturally occuring", meaning a mutation, outside of external chemical interference, controls the cell division, causing tumors. So if horomone production controls the formation of sexual organs, and when we experience puberty, does this mean such mutations affecting those hormones can affect our sexual attraction? Yes. A good example to demonstrate this is tigers.

 

Tigers rely on the same type of genetic code we do: DNA. So it's fair to say our bodies operate very similiar in terms of how they are formed. So, it's stands to reason their DNA handles their sexual functions as well. Tigers have similiar sexual organs to humans, but they do handle relationships differently. Tiger's are normally a solitary species. The mother and father have sex, the mother raises the offspring alone, an then eventually leaves the cubs to fend for themselves and find their own territory. This means that they do not get taught sexual behavior. They normally are not even present for sexual activity between their mother and another male tiger. So how in the world do they know which gender to seek out? Rarely do female tigers seek out fellow females, and males after males. With a high degree of accuracy, they instinctually seek out the opposite sex on their own. This behavior could technically be altered, meaning chemicals play a role. So technically, a mutation can cause homosexuality. Mutation is not sin (mutations can help us survive, leading to beneficial physical traits, or even intelligence), so we would be hard-pressed to claim it's not natural....or a sin. Again...should hermaphrodites be allowed to engage in sex, having both body parts? Afterall, they can't always make a choice to NOT be intersexed. Should they suffer a life without sexual intercourse because their bodies are mutated?

Edited by lazy_Albatross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you attribute a sin to genetics, as God is creator, you attribute sin to God's creative activity. Sin is something that is "desired" or "done", not something that comes from a gene pool. No sinful desire, it be to murder, steal, lust after someone else's wife, or a homosexual desire, is natural. Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a sin, in its desire and activity. The Apostle Paul says of homosexuals "such WERE some of you"; 1 Corinthians 6:11. They were homosexual, now they are not. The question here is, "is the Bible without error?". As it is, we know that anything said by man that conflicts with the Bible is wrong. The scientic case argued above conflicts with 1Corinthians, therefore it must be wrong. And, the science, from twin studdies to testimonies of former homosexuals, refutes the idea that homosexuality is genetic so natural anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you attribute a sin to genetics, as God is creator, you attribute sin to God's creative activity. Sin is something that is "desired" or "done", not something that comes from a gene pool. No sinful desire, it be to murder, steal, lust after someone else's wife, or a homosexual desire, is natural. Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a sin, in its desire and activity. The Apostle Paul says of homosexuals "such WERE some of you"; 1 Corinthians 6:11. They were homosexual, now they are not. The question here is, "is the Bible without error?". As it is, we know that anything said by man that conflicts with the Bible is wrong. The scientic case argued above conflicts with 1Corinthians, therefore it must be wrong. And, the science, from twin studdies to testimonies of former homosexuals, refutes the idea that homosexuality is genetic so natural anyway.

 

Why can't any sins (including homosexuality) be genetic? You are Reformed as I am, and we believe that man inherits from his first parents a totally depraved nature. Could this not be by genetics? Not every genetic configuration can be God's good creative work, for disease and painful medical conditions can come from genetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you attribute a sin to genetics, as God is creator, you attribute sin to God's creative activity. Sin is something that is "desired" or "done", not something that comes from a gene pool. No sinful desire, it be to murder, steal, lust after someone else's wife, or a homosexual desire, is natural. Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a sin, in its desire and activity. The Apostle Paul says of homosexuals "such WERE some of you"; 1 Corinthians 6:11. They were homosexual, now they are not. The question here is, "is the Bible without error?". As it is, we know that anything said by man that conflicts with the Bible is wrong. The scientic case argued above conflicts with 1Corinthians, therefore it must be wrong. And, the science, from twin studdies to testimonies of former homosexuals, refutes the idea that homosexuality is genetic so natural anyway.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical

 

http://www.saburchill.com/IBbiology/chapters03/007.html

 

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110329/New-schizophrenia-research-reveals-difference-in-identical-twins-genetic-makeup.aspx

 

Typically, yes, heterosexuality is the usual outcome for sex preference. However, the evidence for sexuality being linked to gene's is strong. Again, your dna is actually no different from a tigers in function. How do you explain sexuality being controlled genetically in them and not humans?

Also, the twin studies don't truly help. The study of twins has a few kinks as those articles above show. Schizophrenia is still only developed at a rate of 50% in each set. This is despite the fact that having parents or other family with the mental disease does typically increase your risk of having it yourself. Apparently this is due to the fact that our bodies are set up to be able to develop this disease indirectly, not because of a single gene necessarily, but because of a host of other's that make us susceptible to mutations which can cause it. That is one theory. But never the less, it shows how twins don't always develop to be exact copies. Normally, twins are the same skin color as well. But you can find twin pairs in which one is albino and the other is not. Again, normally, their skin color will match. But ever now and again, you can find pairs in which mutations have occurred in only one out of the pair. The same goes for sexuality. Undoubtedly more than one gene controls our sexual development. This means that the likelihood of each mutating in unison is low. So you don't see as often as heterosexuality in the general population. So if you have twins, the genetic info will generally be predisposed towards heterosexuality, with a small percentage

having one twin experience unusually divergent mutation for whatever reason.

 

Also, other studies have given evidence to the theory that having more older brothers increases your chances of being gay:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10287958/Having-more-older-brothers-increases-likelihood-of-being-gay.html

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/45962.php

 

If we are relying on evidence to prove or disprove homosexuality...can you attack this and say it is not valid? Or can you explain how this does not actually prove genetic bias in sexual preference?

Edited by lazy_Albatross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×