Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36050 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27538 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.
You laugh at the facts, yet present pure nonsense. The fact is that heterosexual marriage is a huge failure in terms of providing stability.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#27539 Sep 5, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You laugh at the facts, yet present pure nonsense. The fact is that heterosexual marriage is a huge failure in terms of providing stability.
WW,

Don't fall into the same trap that he is setting and in which he himself is caught. He is looking for company in his viewpoint, much in the same way as Joe DeCaro has often done on these threads. Kim twists whatever you write and doesn't care whether or not there is any legitimate or valid reasoning involved.

Heterosexual marriage is not a "huge failure." However, about half of the people who get married should never have gotten married in the first place. Moreover, there are many instances when life experience and the unfolding comprehension of the two individuals simply grows into an incompatible mix. There are also individuals who, for one reason or another, become abusive. These marriages SHOULD end in divorce. One can reasonably conclude that "what God has put together," in these instances, God also, in mercy, has taken apart.

The real purpose of a successful marriage is for the creation of a unique and personal, shared trust that allows each one the freedom to explore the dynamics of life and being, on all levels, fully confident that their mate is a help and support in their quests. It is also a matter of shared goals. There is no requirement that a family with children MUST be created. But, of course, the form very often does have that capacity and can be a shared goal. All of the legitimate aspects of the form - the "pair-bond" - are reflected in the development of social constructs and the ownership and disposition of property. Hence, society, tradition and culture are derived from this basic bond.

It is interesting that in certain cultures in which marriages are arranged by agreement between family heads from the time the betrothed are yet children, such marriages often survive every difficulty and the couple stays together until one or the other passes on.

In many arranged marriages, True Love develops over time, partly because of the expectations of the traditional social context. However, also, many arranged marriages are devoid of any true love, as the participants basically never submit to each other and communication never truly develops. In the western cultures, where love is considered essential to a proper bond, heterosexual marriages ACTUALLY DO succeed, because the two are truly suited to each other and their chemistry works from the get-go.

A natural love is no guarantee that the union will be successful for a lifetime. But, it sure helps. In Genesis, the reference to the suited pair is made in the words about a "man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

There is truth in the saying that "Love conquers all."

The reference is to an actual spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union. The physical union develops as the two bodies actually are involved in an organic exchange and become accustomed to each other's electro-chemical fields and the galactic blend of microorganisms that each host body brings to the union.

Can the same bond occur, in terms of True Love, trust and exchange at all levels between two of the same sex?

... The pair-bond "which God hath put together" and to which the Genesis story alludes?

Yes.

This bond can occur between two who are homosexual and who find themselves suited to each other. Such a pairing is every bit as legitimate and "complex" in terms of spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union as any heterosexual pairing. They become each other's spouse. How the arrangement unfolds between them is entirely unique and personal, exclusively personal, to and for each other. It is no one else's business, inside the boundary of trust that that they create for each other.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#27540 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
History shows that the only thing that will die off is the stupidity of equating ss couples with the complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life.
It makes ss couples not only epically inferior, it makes ss marriage an oxymoron, literally marrage.
SMile.
"History shows ...?"

What history? We are writing history today, by marrying same-sex couples. By endorsing, legitimizing and legally sanctioning same-sex marriages.

Where and in what tradition or culture have same-sex couples been spiritually and legally endorsed and accepted in Human history?

The answer: Here and now!

As for the complimentary union,.... Yes! The complimentary union of two who are oriented to each other!

There is no such thing as inferior or superior in terms of marriage. Every marriage is unique and personal to the participating individuals, who, by nature and commitment, have chosen to submit to each other. Your point of view is an illegitimate attempt at intrusion in the affairs of a sanctified couple within the sacred spiritual bounds of which you have no standing.

As for your allusion to a new life, is "in vitro fertilization" a "creative union of two people birthed in a new life?"

Ahem.... Yes, it is.

Does such a union require marriage?

Um,... No. It does not.

Chuckle.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27541 Sep 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
WW,
Don't fall into the same trap that he is setting and in which he himself is caught. He is looking for company in his viewpoint, much in the same way as Joe DeCaro has often done on these threads. Kim twists whatever you write and doesn't care whether or not there is any legitimate or valid reasoning involved.
Heterosexual marriage is not a "huge failure." However, about half of the people who get married should never have gotten married in the first place. Moreover, there are many instances when life experience and the unfolding comprehension of the two individuals simply grows into an incompatible mix. There are also individuals who, for one reason or another, become abusive. These marriages SHOULD end in divorce. One can reasonably conclude that "what God has put together," in these instances, God also, in mercy, has taken apart.
The real purpose of a successful marriage is for the creation of a unique and personal, shared trust that allows each one the freedom to explore the dynamics of life and being, on all levels, fully confident that their mate is a help and support in their quests. It is also a matter of shared goals. There is no requirement that a family with children MUST be created. But, of course, the form very often does have that capacity and can be a shared goal. All of the legitimate aspects of the form - the "pair-bond" - are reflected in the development of social constructs and the ownership and disposition of property. Hence, society, tradition and culture are derived from this basic bond.
It is interesting that in certain cultures in which marriages are arranged by agreement between family heads from the time the betrothed are yet children, such marriages often survive every difficulty and the couple stays together until one or the other passes on.
In many arranged marriages, True Love develops over time, partly because of the expectations of the traditional social context. However, also, many arranged marriages are devoid of any true love, as the participants basically never submit to each other and communication never truly develops. In the western cultures, where love is considered essential to a proper bond, heterosexual marriages ACTUALLY DO succeed, because the two are truly suited to each other and their chemistry works from the get-go.
A natural love is no guarantee that the union will be successful for a lifetime. But, it sure helps. In Genesis, the reference to the suited pair is made in the words about a "man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
There is truth in the saying that "Love conquers all."
The reference is to an actual spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union. The physical union develops as the two bodies actually are involved in an organic exchange and become accustomed to each other's electro-chemical fields and the galactic blend of microorganisms that each host body brings to the union.
Can the same bond occur, in terms of True Love, trust and exchange at all levels between two of the same sex?
... The pair-bond "which God hath put together" and to which the Genesis story alludes?
Yes.
This bond can occur between two who are homosexual and who find themselves suited to each other. Such a pairing is every bit as legitimate and "complex" in terms of spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union as any heterosexual pairing. They become each other's spouse. How the arrangement unfolds between them is entirely unique and personal, exclusively personal, to and for each other. It is no one else's business, inside the boundary of trust that that they create for each other.
Rev. Ken
KiMare is a troll. What's news about that?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27542 Sep 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
"History shows ...?"
What history? We are writing history today, by marrying same-sex couples. By endorsing, legitimizing and legally sanctioning same-sex marriages.
Where and in what tradition or culture have same-sex couples been spiritually and legally endorsed and accepted in Human history?
The answer: Here and now!
As for the complimentary union,.... Yes! The complimentary union of two who are oriented to each other!
There is no such thing as inferior or superior in terms of marriage. Every marriage is unique and personal to the participating individuals, who, by nature and commitment, have chosen to submit to each other. Your point of view is an illegitimate attempt at intrusion in the affairs of a sanctified couple within the sacred spiritual bounds of which you have no standing.
As for your allusion to a new life, is "in vitro fertilization" a "creative union of two people birthed in a new life?"
Ahem.... Yes, it is.
Does such a union require marriage?
Um,... No. It does not.
Chuckle.
Appeal to history is a fallacy. It assumes that progress doesn't exist.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#27543 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
History shows that the ...

... complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life ...
SMile.
... was accomplished with the three wives and five concubines of the conqueror, Charlemagne, in the lives of at least eighteen children!

But, the children that came by his military campaigns and by way of his military officers, as the spoils of victory, may have been counted in the thousands!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27544 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:

History shows that the only thing that will die off is the stupidity of equating ss couples with the complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life.

It makes ss couples not only epically inferior, it makes ss marriage an oxymoron, literally marrage.

SMile.
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, kiddo. There is no procreative standard relative to legal marriage.
Would you care to offer a big boy/big girl argument?
Where did I specify any 'standard'? Why do you always distort and confuse what is being said. Is that a learning disability or something more sinister...

I simply noted the stupidity of equating a relationship that fails at every one of three significant distinctions.

Would you care to offer a big girl argument?

Snicker smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27546 Sep 5, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
WW,
Don't fall into the same trap that he is setting and in which he himself is caught. He is looking for company in his viewpoint, much in the same way as Joe DeCaro has often done on these threads. Kim twists whatever you write and doesn't care whether or not there is any legitimate or valid reasoning involved.
Heterosexual marriage is not a "huge failure." However, about half of the people who get married should never have gotten married in the first place. Moreover, there are many instances when life experience and the unfolding comprehension of the two individuals simply grows into an incompatible mix. There are also individuals who, for one reason or another, become abusive. These marriages SHOULD end in divorce. One can reasonably conclude that "what God has put together," in these instances, God also, in mercy, has taken apart.
The real purpose of a successful marriage is for the creation of a unique and personal, shared trust that allows each one the freedom to explore the dynamics of life and being, on all levels, fully confident that their mate is a help and support in their quests. It is also a matter of shared goals. There is no requirement that a family with children MUST be created. But, of course, the form very often does have that capacity and can be a shared goal. All of the legitimate aspects of the form - the "pair-bond" - are reflected in the development of social constructs and the ownership and disposition of property. Hence, society, tradition and culture are derived from this basic bond.
It is interesting that in certain cultures in which marriages are arranged by agreement between family heads from the time the betrothed are yet children, such marriages often survive every difficulty and the couple stays together until one or the other passes on.
In many arranged marriages, True Love develops over time, partly because of the expectations of the traditional social context. However, also, many arranged marriages are devoid of any true love, as the participants basically never submit to each other and communication never truly develops. In the western cultures, where love is considered essential to a proper bond, heterosexual marriages ACTUALLY DO succeed, because the two are truly suited to each other and their chemistry works from the get-go.
A natural love is no guarantee that the union will be successful for a lifetime. But, it sure helps. In Genesis, the reference to the suited pair is made in the words about a "man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
There is truth in the saying that "Love conquers all."
The reference is to an actual spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union. The physical union develops as the two bodies actually are involved in an organic exchange and become accustomed to each other's electro-chemical fields and the galactic blend of microorganisms that each host body brings to the union.
Can the same bond occur, in terms of True Love, trust and exchange at all levels between two of the same sex?
... The pair-bond "which God hath put together" and to which the Genesis story alludes?
Yes.
This bond can occur between two who are homosexual and who find themselves suited to each other. Such a pairing is every bit as legitimate and "complex" in terms of spiritual, mental, psychic and physical union as any heterosexual pairing. They become each other's spouse. How the arrangement unfolds between them is entirely unique and personal, exclusively personal, to and for each other. It is no one else's business, inside the boundary of trust that that they create for each other.
Rev. Ken
Another chapter from rev's religiosity book. Also known as the Devil's play book...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27547 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
History shows that the ...

... complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life ...
SMile.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
... was accomplished with the three wives and five concubines of the conqueror, Charlemagne, in the lives of at least eighteen children!
But, the children that came by his military campaigns and by way of his military officers, as the spoils of victory, may have been counted in the thousands!
Did you really just equate that to God's plan?
Cali Girl 2014dal

Sylmar, CA

#27548 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:

History shows that the only thing that will die off is the stupidity of equating ss couples with the complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life.

It makes ss couples not only epically inferior, it makes ss marriage an oxymoron, literally marrage.

SMile.

Where did I specify any 'standard'? Why do you always distort and confuse what is being said. Is that a learning disability or something more sinister...

I simply noted the stupidity of equating a relationship that fails at every one of three significant distinctions.

Would you care to offer a big girl argument?

Snicker smile.
You spelled complimentary wrong!!
Oh no....Back to Trucking school..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27549 Sep 5, 2014
Cali Girl 2014dal wrote:
<quoted text>
You spelled complimentary wrong!!
Oh no....Back to Trucking school..
Sorry Thunder Thighs, I spelled it right. Look it up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27550 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
History shows that the ...
... complexity of a diverse gender couple, the complementary sexual union, and the creative union of two people birthed in a new life ...
SMile.
<quoted text>
Did you really just equate that to God's plan?
and you know God has a plan. How?
Cali Girl 2014dal

Sylmar, CA

#27551 Sep 5, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Thunder Thighs, I spelled it right. Look it up.
No I didn't triple nip...U look it
up you horrid creature!!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#27552 Sep 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you really just equate that to God's plan?
No. You did.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27553 Sep 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
and you know God has a plan. How?
Keep with the subject child.

The Bible states God's design of marriage three times.

As far as a plan for someone's life, the Bible calls it predestination.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27554 Sep 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep with the subject child.
The Bible states God's design of marriage three times.
As far as a plan for someone's life, the Bible calls it predestination.
Smile.
The Bible is irrelevant. First you must prove that God exists using both tangible and readily verifiable information from non-ontological sources. Next, you must prove that the Bible is really God's authorized text. Good luck with that.
Cali Girl 2014dal

Sylmar, CA

#27555 Sep 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible is irrelevant. First you must prove that God exists using both tangible and readily verifiable information from non-ontological sources. Next, you must prove that the Bible is really God's authorized text. Good luck with that.
I thought you were a believer?
Ya I know.....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#27556 Sep 6, 2014
Cali Girl 2014dal wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were a believer?
Ya I know.....
What is a believer?
Cali Girl 2014dal

Sylmar, CA

#27557 Sep 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>What is a believer?
Someone who believes in Jesus?
I thought you were a Christian...
Whoops my bad...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#27558 Sep 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is irrelevant. First you must prove that God exists using both tangible and readily verifiable information from non-ontological sources. Next, you must prove that the Bible is really God's authorized text. Good luck with that.
Only to you.

I don't have to prove anything. I accurately noted what the Bible says.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Boy Scouts suffer a setback in Supreme Court ov... (Oct '06) 1 hr RecoveringRacist 318
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 2 hr Fishinggal40 77
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 3 hr Wondering 344
News College to offer sensitivity training after ant... 4 hr Breeding Is A Sym... 8
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr Travis Turbil 13,066
Transgender "woman" convicted of raping 10-year... 6 hr Travis Turbil 2
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 8 hr Astro 2,570
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 10 hr Noe 41
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 10 hr Travis Turbil 18
More from around the web