Has your leadership started planning ...
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#142 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
They were also spiritual men for the most part, and gay marriage wasn't a thought for what, 300 more years? So is it a stretch to think that they would have no thought of it? I don't believe so.
Pearl, do you have a negative attitude all the time? You seem very unhappy.
Gay marriage wasn't a thought for three hundred years? Perhaps not for a heterosexual, but something a homosexual has always longed for. As far as negative attitude, I was thinking the same about some of you folks, it's all about perception. Right?
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#143 Jun 30, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
Our language is getting completely distorted. Since the time of Christ, gay did not mean homosexual for the majority of those years (approx. 95% of those years). Likewise with the statement when we look at a gay couple and say they have two children. Impossible, one of them has two children from another partner is the truth. Same sex attraction is also a misconception when one partner takes the role of the opposite sex, dressing and acting accordingly. Look at the pictures of some gay couples, if you want the opposite sex then just marry them. How complicated is that. It is not same sex attraction when the state of the partner is altered physically or mentally in ones mind. That in fact is same sex attraction.
Agreed, our language is getting distorted. I remember back in the seventies, when a lot of big corporate mergers were taking place, they were always referred to as marriages with the three network news programs and within the media. Considered nothing more than a enforceable contract.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#144 Jun 30, 2013
I just disagree with your opinion of homosexuality.

Dave-that's God's opinion. I agree with Him. He has more clout than me. And all of us.

Homosexuality does not cause extreme disgust or hatred in me and so I do not consider it an abomination. The Bible's opinion is that it is an abomination and you CHOOSE to trust the Bible's opinion. However, it is still an opinion, not a fact.

*God spoke of this as well. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting.... who, knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Romans 1:28,32.

Why is homosexuality no longer punishable by death? Apparently, someone's OPINION of homosexuality decided that it was not a crime. I would agree with that opinion.

1. No longer under Moses' law.
2. By Jesus' day, Israel no longer sovereign, couldn't enforce death penalty.
3. MOST governments today simply don't declare it a crime or worthy or punishment (don't go to Muslim countries though).
4. We are people of grace, mercy, and forbearance. Spiritual death is the big concern. 99.9% of Christians have no desire to stone homosexuals. The lunatic fringe always exists.

No. That will not happen. The constitution protects your right to uphold your Bible teachings. No problem, they'll go somewhere that gay marriage is welcome - like they do now.

*Simply naive ASM. Getting legal isn't enough and isn't the point anyway. ACCEPTANCE is more of a goal, and LEGALIZATION does not equal acceptance. It can be legal, still wrong, and unaccepted by Christians. Paperwork don't change that.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#145 Jun 30, 2013
ASM- Don't hide who you are to please other people. They could not handle the stress and pressure of the rejection that comes with "choosing" homosexuality - they were surrounded by people who make no secret that they consider homosexuality to be an ABOMINATION.

Is it your suggestion that Christians should hide who they are, deny themselves, to please those that feel differently? Put their faith in the closet until at home alone?

If so, wouldn't that make your advice to homosexuals be hypocrisy? They need to be themselves, be honest and open- but shut up and keep your faith to yourselves Christians.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#146 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Gay marriage wasn't a thought for three hundred years? Perhaps not for a heterosexual, but something a homosexual has always longed for. As far as negative attitude, I was thinking the same about some of you folks, it's all about perception. Right?
So gay pride marches, flags, and marriage with equal status has been a dream of homosexuals from the beginning of time? Not outrunning the angry mob with stones?

The behavior is not new. Trying to make it an acceptable normal part of life is new.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#147 Jun 30, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is affordable because I am helping you pay for your insurance.
Also why should I pay for the extra healthcare that that the same sex attraction crowd creates for themselves. If everybody would be required to learn exactly what they do and all the health affects that results from this behavior, the public opinion would turn.
Do not read while eating.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/male-homosex...
This is all why media outlets and other sources don't report such things. Adverse physical and medical effects. Simply put, humans are not made to engage in homosexual activity. Nature should tell us something here.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#148 Jun 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
I went to Washington DC twice to protest Obamacare. Anyone claiming it will be "affordable" has a screw loose and the "train wreck" is about to happen. As for the rest of your post I think it's important to realize, and some folks really and truly don't, that heterosexuals engage in the identical sexual activities as some gay men. Not all heterosexuals do and, funny thing, not all gay people do either. What I resent like hell is having to help pay for abortions for women who are behaving like cats in heat.
Agree with all this. I remember Bart Stupak saying he wouldn't vote for Obamacare unless he was assured that public funding for abortions weren't part of it. They told him it wasn't, he voted for it, guess what? We're gonna be paying for abortions. Way to go Stupak, sheer genius there.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Manassas, VA

#149 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
So gay pride marches, flags, and marriage with equal status has been a dream of homosexuals from the beginning of time? Not outrunning the angry mob with stones?
The behavior is not new. Trying to make it an acceptable normal part of life is new.
That have the freedom to practice as they please today. Every step they take is intended to make it acceptable. It will never happen in the real church. Only option left? Destroy the real church? By real church I mean the temple or body God's Spirit resides in today, not a building or denomination. Simply put, homosexuality is wrong and will always be wrong to a follower of Christ.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#150 Jun 30, 2013
So, since I wasn't paying attention back then, would you explain how Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Government forcing someone to buy a product simply for being a citizen. Bending the interstate commerce clause for reasons it wasn't designed for. Tricky legislative shenanigans to even get it through by the skin of its teeth. That's a small overview, which is more than any congressman actually gave it. They didn't write or read the dumb thing.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#151 Jun 30, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
On the surface this sounds like a good church. You are making it sound very different from the way you first described your relationship to church and why you left.There must be something else stuck in your craw...
"My church" that I attended my entire youth was AWESOME, Bob, no lie - my church was the BEST! I was a terrific Christian, innocent and wide-eyed, eager to please and work hard for nothing in return. As long as my life was centered around and exclusive to my church influence, there was never any conflict - I happily and passionately dedicated my entire life and all of my efforts to God - I was baptized at around 9 or 10 - I thought I understood it all.

It was society that "corrupted" me - I know you will view it that way. What is it that other people are doing and saying and seeing and thinking that my parents were SO careful to keep me away from? Sleeping in on Sunday? Movies and songs with curse words? Smoking and drinking - whoo, sounds fun. Wait a minute! Is my church trying to keep me from having fun? I began to suspect it was true.

So, as a young teen, I began living a double life - it is common to find teenagers doing this - it is how they experiment with making their own decisions since their parents think that THEY need to be making their teenager's decisions. I dabbled in the secular world and hid it from anyone who would disapprove or stop me from doing it. Why is this whole world available to everyone but ME? No fair, mom and dad! I cursed, I shoplifted, I smoked cigs AND weed, I had sex, and I lied and lied and lied about it - there were no consequences for my actions if no one knew of my actions - oh, except that baby I accidentally got pregnant and created. The whole time I was acting this way, I attended church 4-5 times weekly, choirs, instrumental ensembles, plays, youth trips, eventually achieving my first real job: playing piano accompaniment for a nearby, extremely similar church. So, I could act like a fool behind everyone's back and get PAID to go to church - I corrupted the system, Bob, I'm not proud, but it is true.

My pregnancy at 19 was a life changing event - I chose to abandon my double life and was motivated to participate in church with sincerity, like I did as a child. I chose to ignore the conflicting messages that burdened me when I was younger and focus on the best parts like love and peace and caring for people. It was a re-dedication for me - I became married during this time and the man I chose to marry grew up active in his own church, so we were agreeable to attend church like a family.

We moved our family to another state and decided, like many young families, that going to church was a lot of work and not actually required, so, we made a point to at least visit my hometown church occasionally. This was the first time in my life that I was not an ACTIVE Christian - it sure did free up a lot of time to do what I wanted. Being away from the Christian influence allowed me to get better acquainted with non-Christians and their philosophies - ideas that I had been taught to reject. These ideas answered all the questions that Christianity never could - and the answers are ones I believe because I have tested them myself, not because someone taught them to me.

I "what if"-ed myself out of my faith. It has happened before and it will happen again. A particular church (not "my church") made me angry about something about 10 years ago and I vowed never to attend church again. I have been reconsidering my decision lately. My church really was great.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Manassas, VA

#152 Jun 30, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed, our language is getting distorted. I remember back in the seventies, when a lot of big corporate mergers were taking place, they were always referred to as marriages with the three network news programs and within the media. Considered nothing more than a enforceable contract.
Yeah, corporate mergers is a real distortion of marriage, lol. The only relationship between corporations and anything that is any type of a permanent commitment is their lust for a dollar bill, and that is not a marriage. I will admit their commitment to money is stronger than what is present today between most married individuals towards each other.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#153 Jun 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get out much do you?
Ah, geez, MarkEden, haven't I mentioned that I live in a teeny tiny dot between a multitude of mountains? The population of this entire county is 23,419. Do I leave my house? Certainly. Do I see many people? Nope, not many.

I'm getting my information from the media - isn't that where people get their information? It's on TV, online, in the paper, on Netflix.(I really enjoy Netflix). Are my views warped? Well, no more than yours! Where are you getting your information? From the gays parked on your porch steps? Oh, yes, the Bible, of course - but the Bible does not mention any efforts of gays to have equal rights - how could it not have predicted this?

You tell me about gays, MarkEden, since I have it all wrong.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#154 Jun 30, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't throw around the word "ignorant" if I were you. We are not talking about birth defects. I'm guessing you have never been around many drag queens and cross dressers who do this for "fun." So what do you think of a biologically intact male who dresses as a woman being allowed to use a women's restroom? This issue doesn't seem to involve women wishing to use men's restrooms while dressed as males although many Lesbians do so dress.
OK - I will take the bathroom question!

That is difficult to determine, MarkEden, what would be the best option for this cross-dressing man?

The man IS a man and so he should go to the men's restroom. Let's imagine what sort of situation that brings to the man dressed as a woman: he is in a secluded haven from onlookers - a place that has opportunities for crimes and activities to go un-noticed - with men who hate him for dressing like a woman. It's not safe for a cross-dressing man to go to a open, multi-use, public men's bathroom because he will leave himself vulnerable to abuse. It would be irresponsible for the man to use the men's room because he would be "asking for it" and it will be in his best interest to avoid "it" if at all possible.

So, the man should use the lady's bathroom. Oh, no! What if he exposes himself like the pervert he must be? Well, you know, if he is timid enough to avoid the men's room for fear of harm, I think he would hide himself in a lady's stall and do his best to avoid all of the OTHER abuse that folks want to share with him for just being who he is - a man dressed as a woman.

A resourceful cross-dressing man would go behind the building where people weren't staring at him just for trying to relieve himself.

Are you suggesting that men dressed as women shouldn't be allowed to use public restrooms? Or, are you waiting for the day that some cross-dressing fag comes into a men's restroom YOU'RE using?

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#155 Jun 30, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
They were also spiritual men for the most part, and gay marriage wasn't a thought for what, 300 more years? So is it a stretch to think that they would have no thought of it? I don't believe so.
Pearl, do you have a negative attitude all the time? You seem very unhappy.
Dave, what role do you think homosexual people have played throughout history? Will you admit that no matter what homosexual activity was happening, it could not have been well documented? This is the result of an ongoing community who keeps homosexuality a secret.

Pearl, do you think federally legalizing marriage will bring about repercussions like forcing churches to perform gay weddings? How would you describe the "gay agenda"?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#156 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - I will take the bathroom question!
That is difficult to determine, MarkEden, what would be the best option for this cross-dressing man?
The man IS a man and so he should go to the men's restroom. Let's imagine what sort of situation that brings to the man dressed as a woman: he is in a secluded haven from onlookers - a place that has opportunities for crimes and activities to go un-noticed - with men who hate him for dressing like a woman. It's not safe for a cross-dressing man to go to a open, multi-use, public men's bathroom because he will leave himself vulnerable to abuse. It would be irresponsible for the man to use the men's room because he would be "asking for it" and it will be in his best interest to avoid "it" if at all possible.
So, the man should use the lady's bathroom. Oh, no! What if he exposes himself like the pervert he must be? Well, you know, if he is timid enough to avoid the men's room for fear of harm, I think he would hide himself in a lady's stall and do his best to avoid all of the OTHER abuse that folks want to share with him for just being who he is - a man dressed as a woman.
A resourceful cross-dressing man would go behind the building where people weren't staring at him just for trying to relieve himself.
Are you suggesting that men dressed as women shouldn't be allowed to use public restrooms? Or, are you waiting for the day that some cross-dressing fag comes into a men's restroom YOU'RE using?
Are you a snake handler or what?
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#157 Jun 30, 2013
ASM- I "what if"-ed myself out of my faith. It has happened before and it will happen again. A particular church (not "my church") made me angry about something about 10 years ago and I vowed never to attend church again. I have been reconsidering my decision lately. My church really was great.

May I ask, without needing all the particulars, what this church did that upset you so much that you vowed never to go again?

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#158 Jun 30, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
Our language is getting completely distorted. Since the time of Christ, gay did not mean homosexual for the majority of those years (approx. 95% of those years). Likewise with the statement when we look at a gay couple and say they have two children. Impossible, one of them has two children from another partner is the truth. Same sex attraction is also a misconception when one partner takes the role of the opposite sex, dressing and acting accordingly. Look at the pictures of some gay couples, if you want the opposite sex then just marry them. How complicated is that. It is not same sex attraction when the state of the partner is altered physically or mentally in ones mind. That in fact is same sex attraction.
How many children do people have if they adopt someone else's children? none?

OK - suppose one person is responsible for some kids because the children's other parent left the family and lives independently. That one person has a new love interest who spends unlimited time in that person's home with that person's kids - the new love interest has filled the missing parent's role. Shouldn't these two adults get married and allow the new love to take responsibility for supporting this family? Doesn't this seem like a good candidate for a successful marriage?

You can't know the answer because you think the answer is conditional on the gender of the two people who want to get married. It would be ok if A=male & B=female, or A=female & B=male, but not if A=female & B=female or if A=male & B=male - I am here to tell you: if A=unknown gender & B=unknown gender -- this marriage opportunity has all of the factors that could predict success: love, devotion, increased financial resources, increased attention and opportunities for the children - a great match, eager to make commitments to one another.

Why won't you allow any two people to receive the legal benefits for their legal families and let them take legal responsibility for one another? Like you do.

Since: Jul 12

Welch, WV

#159 Jun 30, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
Gay marriage is a lie being played out in the lives of man by Satan and it is happening right before our eyes. This is a very awakening period of time in history for those that God has allowed to witness the truth in the short vapor of their lifetime and that are aware of it. God has to open your eyes to the truth of your surroundings and that has not happened to some of the individuals we are observing. There is reason to thank God in all this for what the Almighty has made us aware of. Even some that claim to be Christian are blinded. By this (their fruits) we know them. Thank God again!!! The truth is not always pretty. Time is short for those who can see.
I can see.. that you are against gay marriage. Well, gays are used to this. Gays are the Devil, yeah, I heard. And I'm the Devil for not believing in God. Watch out for the Devil!

Gays have no argument about what the Bible says, its just that they don't care - they just want to be gay regardless of YOU and YOUR beliefs about it.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#160 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, what role do you think homosexual people have played throughout history? Will you admit that no matter what homosexual activity was happening, it could not have been well documented? This is the result of an ongoing community who keeps homosexuality a secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT...

Nothing new under the sun.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#161 Jun 30, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
How many children do people have if they adopt someone else's children? none?
OK - suppose one person is responsible for some kids because the children's other parent left the family and lives independently. That one person has a new love interest who spends unlimited time in that person's home with that person's kids - the new love interest has filled the missing parent's role. Shouldn't these two adults get married and allow the new love to take responsibility for supporting this family? Doesn't this seem like a good candidate for a successful marriage?
You can't know the answer because you think the answer is conditional on the gender of the two people who want to get married. It would be ok if A=male & B=female, or A=female & B=male, but not if A=female & B=female or if A=male & B=male - I am here to tell you: if A=unknown gender & B=unknown gender -- this marriage opportunity has all of the factors that could predict success: love, devotion, increased financial resources, increased attention and opportunities for the children - a great match, eager to make commitments to one another.
Why won't you allow any two people to receive the legal benefits for their legal families and let them take legal responsibility for one another? Like you do.
Studies and interviews with children raised in same sex homes are finding that indeed, traditional homes with a real mother and father are more beneficial and healthy to the children. Many children are saying that yes, they need both mom and dad. Same sex couples just cannot provide the same things traditional couples can.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
i want to be Christian.can i ? (May '15) Apr 16 123abc 8
Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left... (May '12) Apr 8 James A Farmer 45
How many of the 10 commandments have you broken? (Feb '12) Mar '17 sam i am 145
the church of Christ insider discussion boards (Aug '10) Mar '17 Democrappy ... 12
dr.joel smithers (Sep '16) Feb '17 YEPP 4
Is there anything to do here??? Bored..... Jan '17 ATTheWizard85 1
Church of Christ rules and principles (Apr '13) Dec '16 Credal Drone 305

Martinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages