Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17543 Apr 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
And the reality is that the word marriage now represents same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. Once again, marriage has evolved.
There's your slide of reality pie for today, Kuntmary.
No it's not.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

You have no argument against reality.

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17544 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus confronted religious people who violated the truth about marriage with these words;
Matthew 19:4-6 (MSG)
4 He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female?
5 And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one.
6 Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."
Smile.
Sorry. Your definition is incorrect.

Also, the reference to scripture above is a reference to more than one thing:

One is the spiritual union, generally understood to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. The second is the legal union, set in cultural and legal context. The second is derived from the first.

But, just because Jesus spoke of the ideal, does not mean that other, spiritual and legal matrimonial arrangements, defined as marriage, did or do not or cannot properly exist.

In the same scriptural passage, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given."

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17546 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus confronted religious people who violated the truth about marriage with these words;
Matthew 19:4-6 (MSG)
4 He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female?
5 And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one.
6 Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."
Smile.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. Your definition is incorrect.
Also, the reference to scripture above is a reference to more than one thing:
One is the spiritual union, generally understood to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. The second is the legal union, set in cultural and legal context. The second is derived from the first.
But, just because Jesus spoke of the ideal, does not mean that other, spiritual and legal matrimonial arrangements, defined as marriage, did or do not or cannot properly exist.
In the same scriptural passage, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given."
Rev. Ken
-Your opinion about the essence of marriage (it's not 'my' definition) is meaningless without a reason.

-Of course the reference is about more than one thing. Specifically, it expresses God's design for marriage to address the issue of divorce. While doing so, it eliminates the idea of ss couples not just being married, but even being appropriate.

-Jesus clearly stated God's design. He was not concerned about any cultural expressions.

-Like many moral issues, when Jesus addressed them, the standard was raised, not lowered. Hence the Disciples astonishment. With all due respect rev, your assertion that the standard was loosened are once again are idiotic.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#17547 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Smile.
How's that working out for you, Kuntmary? You keep repeating it, yet SSM, and support, continues to expand. It'll be funny to read your posts in five years when you're even less relevant than you are now. Maybe, with a bit of luck, you'll focus your attention on some other marginalized group. Have you thought about degenerating schizophrenic Chimeras?

Smile.
SHADOW

Bulverde, TX

#17548 Apr 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that working out for you, Kuntmary? You keep repeating it, yet SSM, and support, continues to expand. It'll be funny to read your posts in five years when you're even less relevant than you are now. Maybe, with a bit of luck, you'll focus your attention on some other marginalized group. Have you thought about degenerating schizophrenic Chimeras?
Smile.
Your filthy mouth, how's that working out for you?
But like I've said before this is the language we all have come to expect when in a conversation with a same sexer.
You people are trash just like you speak and look.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17549 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus confronted religious people who violated the truth about marriage with these words;
Matthew 19:4-6 (MSG)
4 He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female?
5 And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one.
6 Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."
Smile.
<quoted text>
-Your opinion about the essence of marriage (it's not 'my' definition) is meaningless without a reason.
-Of course the reference is about more than one thing. Specifically, it expresses God's design for marriage to address the issue of divorce. While doing so, it eliminates the idea of ss couples not just being married, but even being appropriate.
-Jesus clearly stated God's design. He was not concerned about any cultural expressions.
-Like many moral issues, when Jesus addressed them, the standard was raised, not lowered. Hence the Disciples astonishment. With all due respect rev, your assertion that the standard was loosened are once again are idiotic.
Sorry, bud.

Jesus did acknowledge the Mosaic Law and the permissions granted.

Yes, he did restate the ideal. But, as I said before, Jesus also qualified his statement, saying that some would not be able to accept this teaching.

Your inability to accept is not sufficient cause to deny.

Rev. Ken

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#17550 Apr 7, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Your filthy mouth, how's that working out for you?

You people are trash just like you speak and look.
It's working out very well, thank you.

YOU PEOPLE are prudes, just like you look and speak.

Since: Apr 13

Seattle, WA

#17551 Apr 7, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bud.
Jesus did acknowledge the Mosaic Law and the permissions granted.
Yes, he did restate the ideal. But, as I said before, Jesus also qualified his statement, saying that some would not be able to accept this teaching.
Your inability to accept is not sufficient cause to deny.
Rev. Ken
hola
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17552 Apr 7, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Expressing love in bed?????? WTH does that mean?
Be honest little guy
Guess you never expressed love. If you have,you would know. Not difficult to fiqure.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17553 Apr 7, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bud.
Jesus did acknowledge the Mosaic Law and the permissions granted.
Yes, he did restate the ideal. But, as I said before, Jesus also qualified his statement, saying that some would not be able to accept this teaching.
Your inability to accept is not sufficient cause to deny.
Rev. Ken
Acknowledging the difficulty is not excusing the failure of marriage vows. THAT is the context of his statement.

Once again rev, with all due respect, the very substance of his clarification clearly condemns ss couples.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17554 Apr 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
It's working out very well, thank you.
YOU PEOPLE are prudes, just like you look and speak.
People say I look like Bruce Willis. Even have the smirk.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17555 Apr 7, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> Guess you never expressed love. If you have,you would know. Not difficult to fiqure.
Vicky, that scream means stop. My sphincter gets a charlie horse just thinking about it!

How in hell can you call something inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning 'love'???

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17556 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Vicky, that scream means stop. My sphincter gets a charlie horse just thinking about it!
How in hell can you call something inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning 'love'???
Smile.
Go call the Banjo Boy and find out. He has some really nice relatives who will oblige you.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17557 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Vicky,
Sexual union in marriage is a reunion of our evolutionary roots. It harkens back to the earliest pre-gender life forms. Profound that the Bible takes note of that!
Moreover, it is another evidence against ss 'marriage' that redumbant gendered unions are incapable of any such reunion.
Smile.
Smile all you want. Won't justify your ignorance. Marriage occurs without sex to. You keep thumping about sex and reproduction as a staple of marriage. You keep avoiding those questions. Heteros that can't reproduce marry. Seniors that are widowed marry. So should they be denied marriage? Should shemales be denied marriage for being what they are born as? Why does'nt the bible answer that? S.S.couples can enjoy unions. They have for centuries. There is emotional bonding. That eludes you because you can't think outside the "box". Restricted thoughts bevause of religion all the while having the ability for abstact thought. No use having a "god given brain" only to keep it so confined from questioning. Like inheriting a mansion to live in and only use one room.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17558 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Vicky, that scream means stop. My sphincter gets a charlie horse just thinking about it!
How in hell can you call something inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning 'love'???
Smile.
Kimary dear, I don't penetrate him that way. I explained it before. He says little and absolutely no screaming. You go to far and I been civil with you-till now. You insult the love I have for him. After we are finished he goes to sleep and I hold on to him and know that's my home. Wherever he and I are is home. You freaking know squat about my relationship. All you accomplished id more dispising your religious flith. I'll burn a bible in your name. Spit on it and piss on it first. SMILES!!!

Since: May 09

Ardsley, NY

#17559 Apr 7, 2013
Because what Jesus thinks about anything is weawwy, weawwy important to me. Just saying.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17560 Apr 7, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> Smile all you want. Won't justify your ignorance. Marriage occurs without sex to. You keep thumping about sex and reproduction as a staple of marriage. You keep avoiding those questions. Heteros that can't reproduce marry. Seniors that are widowed marry. So should they be denied marriage? Should shemales be denied marriage for being what they are born as? Why does'nt the bible answer that? S.S.couples can enjoy unions. They have for centuries. There is emotional bonding. That eludes you because you can't think outside the "box". Restricted thoughts bevause of religion all the while having the ability for abstact thought. No use having a "god given brain" only to keep it so confined from questioning. Like inheriting a mansion to live in and only use one room.
So since marriage doesn't require procreation OR sex, anyone who doesn't procreate or have sex qualifies for marriage?

Lets just call EVERYBODY married and be done with it!

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17561 Apr 7, 2013
Vick Torre wrote:
<quoted text> Kimary dear, I don't penetrate him that way. I explained it before. He says little and absolutely no screaming. You go to far and I been civil with you-till now. You insult the love I have for him. After we are finished he goes to sleep and I hold on to him and know that's my home. Wherever he and I are is home. You freaking know squat about my relationship. All you accomplished id more dispising your religious flith. I'll burn a bible in your name. Spit on it and piss on it first. SMILES!!!
All that still won't change the fact that ss couples can never be married and that anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

That is the reality of science, not the Bible.

Just a heads up Vicky, I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. I enjoy sinking the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twisting it with a smirk.

You said 'ouch'.

Smirk.
Vick Torre

Baltimore, MD

#17562 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So since marriage doesn't require procreation OR sex, anyone who doesn't procreate or have sex qualifies for marriage?
Lets just call EVERYBODY married and be done with it!
Bazinga!
That's right. Marriage does not require procreation. My brothers wife us sterile. No children out if a 35 yr marriage. Legal in everyway to. Sex not required either. People have married for love. That idealistic emotion you lack. IF you had any you would'nt have posted thst statement. Look around you! Such marriages exist. Hoe you don't know that is the mystery. Must be that book you qoute so much causes you to miss the obvious.

Since: May 09

Ardsley, NY

#17563 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
All that still won't change the fact that ss couples can never be married and that anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
That is the reality of science, not the Bible.
Just a heads up Vicky, I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. I enjoy sinking the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twisting it with a smirk.
You said 'ouch'.
Smirk.
I can only wish that Salman Khan would so demean me........Anywhere, anytime.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News When is it really time for couples therapy? 1 hr Crazy Jae 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr No Surprise 7,036
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 13 hr john parise 32,000
News Documentary explores drag scene in city of the ... Tue snowpale 2
News Alabama chief justice tells judges: Refuse gay ... (Feb '15) Mon ThomasA 40
News Anti-Gay Church Protests Brookfield 'Mega Church' (Jul '12) Jul 24 fuuny 21
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Jul 23 Tex- 18
More from around the web