Legalisation of Gay Marriage

Since: Feb 07

RI

#176 Feb 12, 2013
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>Yadda. Yadaa..Yeah, whatever.
Another classic twist by Gail.
This is boring with you already.
You chose to disregard the bible because you simply chose to disregard the bible. Plain and simple.
==========
It is really offensive. Woe to you, Gail!
Oh, and just to correct you once again.*I* am not the one disregarding the Bible, but YOU are. I am looking at the scriptures that YOU use to support your bigotry in the proper context, considering the time period in which they were written.

Heterosexual men would often engage in sexual acts with temple prostitutes (both male and female) and THAT was unnatural and condemned. It involved false worship.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn a committed, monogamous same-sex relationship. Nowhere.

You have prejudices, and you (as well as many others) seek scriptures to twist to support your prejudices rather than looking at what was actually intended.

Woe to YOU, sir, for twisting scriptures and trying to change things to back up what YOU want to believe rather than accepting what they say.
hMMMM

Aurora, IL

#177 Feb 12, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
Jehovah says nothing about homosexuality. He does, however, condemn homosexual relations between heterosexuals and temple prostitutes.
Homosexuality is not mentioned, nor is there any prohibition against a same-sex, monogamous relationship. And Sodom and Gomorrah were not condemned because of homosexuality.
There...satisfied?
And, once again, Jehovah created the animals. Animals frequently have homosexual pairings. Therefore, it is something that, while minimal, is still totally natural.
Kind of the same way Jesus never discussed birth control including unwanted pregnancy termination, even though they existed in ancient times.
Since one in three pregnancies end in natural spontaneous abortion ( a medical term for miscarriage), looks like it is not exactly condemned by God.
Weird how Jehovah's witnesses who are bragging about carrying handguns and their rights to murder another human being, disregard God's commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" though.
Jehovah's Witnesses only prove they do not follow the Holy Bible and what God commands, they follow some lunatics in New York and nothing else.
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#178 Feb 12, 2013
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>Another twist and slide by Gail.
Back to my point raised. Do you agree with the bible or not?. What does Jehovah have to say about homosexuality?.
Do you really think that he had homosexual parenting in mind?.
Jehovah condemns homosexuality as well as all forms of immoral behavior. Period.
I am not afan of homosexuality either. But, the bible says nothing about them raising children. It is the ACT God hates, not the actors.
If homosexaul feels the need to raise a child, has the means and the love to give, why not let them? Let's see, why, they do let them! Let's look at a few famous parents. That are homosexuals. Mellisa Etheridge. although she and her spouse broke up, like heterosexuals do all the time. They bought houses a few homes apart so they could continue to see and raise the kids with both parents.To me the weird part is that the real dad of their kids is David Crosby.and he is an active part of the kids lives as well.

Rosie O Donnel. In spite of how some percieve her personality, she and her partner had quite a few kids. They too split but maintain just like heterosexuals to parent as best as possible with new partners and kids added.
Where are all these failures?
Where are the statistics showing how messed up kids are that have Homosexual parent(s)?
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#179 Feb 12, 2013
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text>Yadda. Yadaa..Yeah, whatever.
Another classic twist by Gail.
This is boring with you already.
You chose to disregard the bible because you simply chose to disregard the bible. Plain and simple.
==========
It is really offensive. Woe to you, Gail!
Poor Jose. He forgets how he isn't following the Bible either!
You have disregarded the bible in your thoughts and outspokenness for Politics and Boxing, a violent sport.
You do not respect others and you fall way short of the ideal you set up for everyone else.
Hypocrite!
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#180 Feb 12, 2013
Sure is a lot of argueing by people going outside what the bible actually said. Sort of adding their own words to the bible and imposing thier own thoughts.
This is exactly why there are so many religions.

I say dump all religion and read the bible and go back to how the 1st century Christians practiced. A simple life, simple worship and fellowship in each others homes as a DAILY part of their lives. They also gave up most of their belonings to feed the poor.
I would like to see that!
It wasn;t ever supposed to be complicted.
Just simple and faithful and strong under pressure.
Nothing like the JW's or any other religion.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#181 Feb 13, 2013
Whatever the Bible says about the subject, this is simply a personal issue for me.

There's no religious influence. Most of what gays do is none of mine or anyone elses business IMHO.

When it DOES become my business is when that gay couple wants public recognition and privelege for that relationship in the form of marriage.
Yahoo Me

Antigo, WI

#182 Feb 13, 2013
As haveing a homosexual daughter,she and her partner of three years are raiseing two children, I will not give the detalis however these wonderful children are well adjusted and are excellent children, they are doing great jobs supporting these two on their own and giving these children a wonderful balanced home..
They are better than some kids I see in two parent hetrosexual homes...

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#183 Feb 13, 2013
Mikronboy wrote:
Whatever the Bible says about the subject, this is simply a personal issue for me.
There's no religious influence. Most of what gays do is none of mine or anyone elses business IMHO.
When it DOES become my business is when that gay couple wants public recognition and privelege for that relationship in the form of marriage.
they make good records!

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#184 Feb 13, 2013
TPMP wrote:
Yadda. Yadaa..Yeah, whatever.
Another classic twist by Gail.
You waste your time with the mental defective which you address; her, "temple prostitution" nonsense is just that - nonsense - and long-debunked nonsense at that. It has only ever served to offer so-called "christian" gays a way of feeling better about themselves for engaging in a life-style that is explicitly condemned in scripture, but which they enjoy while, at the same time, imagining that they can exist in an approved state, i.e., be, "Saved!" [2].

When that vile creature speaks of, "context," understand that what it means is, "Whatever is 'right' according to Gail Nadeau, at any particular moment." [That, typically, being anything and everything that is in total opposition to what is being taught by the JWGB.

In fact, there is NOTHING, "in context" about the temple prostitution argument at all, as well illustrated by the author of reference one - specifically that portion of text I quoted, in particular those parts emphasized. Were, "context" to be as that individual you address would have you believe, then incest, bestiality, adultery, engaging in sex during a woman’s period, etc., are all fine - so long as they're not engaged in between a heterosexual and a so-called temple prostitute.

[One only wonders how an animal can be a temple prostitute. But, then, consider the source; there's a reason that, among other things, I refer to her as,'Mrs. Hands.']

References:
_____

[1] From: http://www.bethelcog.org/church/general-artic...
Uncredited Author wrote:
Leviticus 18:22, is very clear. It states:“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”[Homosexual advocates insist that while this text is found within the context of incest, bestiality, adultery, engaging in sex during a woman’s period, etc., the only one that is a religious term-the word “abomination”(v. 22)-is directed against temple prostitution, not against a loving relationship between two persons of the same sex]. Why cannot this view be substantiated Scripturally? As we have already seen, the word “abomination” means many more things than temple prostitution. Why, then, should verse 22 be selected out of the many found in this section-all of which refer to things God forbids-to refer specifically to temple prostitution? The answer:[To support a view that makes some forms of homosexuality acceptable]. When it comes to textual proximity, Byrne Fone says,”... textual proximity is not a definitive argument ...”(Homophobia, page 83). The fact is: The meaning of “abomination” cannot be limited to temple prostitution. Many of the practices God forbids in this chapter were not prohibited because they were idolatrous.[Homosexuality, in this passage, is not associated with idolatry]. Exactly the same thing can be said about the argument used to reject what is stated in Leviticus 20:13. This Scripture reads:“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
[Emphasis added]

[2] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#185 Feb 13, 2013
Mikronboy wrote:
Whatever the Bible says about the subject, this is simply a personal issue for me.
There's no religious influence. Most of what gays do is none of mine or anyone elses business IMHO.
When it DOES become my business is when that gay couple wants public recognition and privelege for that relationship in the form of marriage.
How does gay people being married impact you in any way, that it becomes your business? If they are fornicating it's all good, but if they legalize their relationship, it's bad, I don't get it. This is a serious question, I am just curious as to what your objection is.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#186 Feb 13, 2013
Still coming across lots of different reactions when discussing this. Some folk even convinced this is a government diversionary tactic to take the attention off the impending Rumanian / Bulgarian expected influx of migrants. Others doing the liberal labelling thang (racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc, in other word a gagging decree) Weird. Yet basically lots of folk simply don't want to have marriage re-defined without their OK.

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#187 Feb 13, 2013
Mikronboy wrote:
Still coming across lots of different reactions when discussing this. Some folk even convinced this is a government diversionary tactic to take the attention off the impending Rumanian / Bulgarian expected influx of migrants. Others doing the liberal labelling thang (racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc, in other word a gagging decree) Weird. Yet basically lots of folk simply don't want to have marriage re-defined without their OK.
But it isn't redefining it for them, it has no impact on them. I keep hearing how it is jeopardizing marriage. I am married, and I don't see how it threatens my marriage. I guess they mean it is hurting the concept of marriage? I am not sure. The few gay couples I know aren't that much different than any other couples I know. They love each other, and just want to live their lives.

My husband knew of one case where a gay service member was injured. The parents were notified, and the partner heard about it from them. If they were heterosexual, they could get married. Without a marriage, that is Army protocol. It is just for those kind of things they want marriage to be available. Some things they can arrange by legal means, although it can get expensive, and it takes proactive action. Other things, like health benefits, they just miss out on.
Pam

Bakersfield, CA

#188 Feb 13, 2013
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
You waste your time with the mental defective which you address; her, "temple prostitution" nonsense is just that - nonsense - and long-debunked nonsense at that. It has only ever served to offer so-called "christian" gays a way of feeling better about themselves for engaging in a life-style that is explicitly condemned in scripture, but which they enjoy while, at the same time, imagining that they can exist in an approved state, i.e., be, "Saved!" [2].
When that vile creature speaks of, "context," understand that what it means is, "Whatever is 'right' according to Gail Nadeau, at any particular moment." [That, typically, being anything and everything that is in total opposition to what is being taught by the JWGB.
In fact, there is NOTHING, "in context" about the temple prostitution argument at all, as well illustrated by the author of reference one - specifically that portion of text I quoted, in particular those parts emphasized. Were, "context" to be as that individual you address would have you believe, then incest, bestiality, adultery, engaging in sex during a woman’s period, etc., are all fine - so long as they're not engaged in between a heterosexual and a so-called temple prostitute.
[One only wonders how an animal can be a temple prostitute. But, then, consider the source; there's a reason that, among other things, I refer to her as,'Mrs. Hands.']
References:
_____
[1] From: http://www.bethelcog.org/church/general-artic...
<quoted text>
[Emphasis added]
[2] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Long story short, the bible says not to lay down with another man as you would a woman. That doesn't indicate any "lifestyle" it indicates a sexual act.
And RHW is correct that at that time, temple prostitutes were a part of certain kinds of worship. God looked down on that.
I am sure he isn;t happy with it today either. But who worships that way today? I am sure there are some. That given, I agree that homosexuality is something that God didn't intend when mankind was created. But Satan has changed all that. We donl;t have perfect health either today. Nor immortality.
People are not born perfect. You live with what you are dealt. If a person is homosexual, that does not make that person a bad person. We had an elder that remained single because if he had not been a JW, he would have been a very gay man. He has all the sterotypical things of a gay man, looks, wrist, everyone that meets him thinks he is gay.
He has never dated and is in his 60's.
He has admitted that he has to be careful because gay men out in the field come on to him.
He lives alone, in a big house he inherited from his parents and tries to fill his time by going out in service as often as possible while holding down a desk job.
I am sure he is fine as this is all he has known in life.

But, it still doesn't mean that a gay man or gay couple can;t raise children successfully and happily. Sure seems like an awful lot of parents find out they have gay kids and they raised them in a happy, healthy man.woman family.
And there are many many messed up kids and adults raised in hererosexual marriages.
Look at it logically and not through jaded glasses.
I do not know one scripture that says homosexuals are to never be parents or that they cannot raise children successfully and in loving homes.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#189 Feb 14, 2013
much happier now wrote:
<quoted text>
But it isn't redefining it for them, it has no impact on them. I keep hearing how it is jeopardizing marriage. I am married, and I don't see how it threatens my marriage. I guess they mean it is hurting the concept of marriage? I am not sure. The few gay couples I know aren't that much different than any other couples I know. They love each other, and just want to live their lives.
My husband knew of one case where a gay service member was injured. The parents were notified, and the partner heard about it from them. If they were heterosexual, they could get married. Without a marriage, that is Army protocol. It is just for those kind of things they want marriage to be available. Some things they can arrange by legal means, although it can get expensive, and it takes proactive action. Other things, like health benefits, they just miss out on.
I don't know if the US has similar arrangements available for gay couples as they are in the UK.

Here's how things are at the moment: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relatio...

Interestingly, Civil partnerships are only available to same sex couples, which brings back into question the subject of inequality!

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190 Feb 14, 2013
Mikronboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if the US has similar arrangements available for gay couples as they are in the UK.
Here's how things are at the moment: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relatio...
Interestingly, Civil partnerships are only available to same sex couples, which brings back into question the subject of inequality!
Interesting, nice that you have that. I don't see that as inequality, because it is just attempting to give same sex couples some of the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples already have. I am not familiar with it, so is there some benefit that civil partnerships have that are not given to married couples?

Our situation in the US is a bit more complicated, as marriage laws are determined at the state level. Currently some states allow same sex marriages, some do not. There is some speculation that it may be addressed at the national level, because Obama has come out in favor of gay marriage.

I think it will be legal in all states, someway or another, in the not too distant future. Polling shows that most Americans support same sex marriage. I thing it will happen, the conservatives will act like the sky is falling, but in the end, it won't. Traditional marriage will survive, it's a non issue to me.

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#191 Feb 14, 2013
ApostABag PammieFarsicalDove wrote:
Long story short, the bible says not to lay down with another man as you would a woman. That doesn't indicate any "lifestyle" it indicates a sexual act.
A sexual act that is integral to the lifestyle led by those who identify as homosexual; to pretend otherwise is moronic, though, again, I'm considering the source.

Idiot Troll: And RHW is correct that at that time, temple prostitutes were a part of certain kinds of worship. God looked down on that.

Reply: It has never been denied that temple prostitution was a part of FALSE, pagan whorship per scripture. It's also never been denied that "god" looked down both on temple prostitutes and temple prostitution.

What is denied is your friend HorseFecesGail's idiotic assertion that the only form of homosexual acts that are condemned in scripture are those engaged in by heterosexuals with temple prostitutes. And it's denied because it's patently untrue, and no reading of scripture - contextual or otherwise - even hints at it. It's nothing more than an unsupported opinion of so-called christian proponents of homosexuality, and the suggestion that their unsupported opinion has any basis in fact or "context" is factually bereft. But, again, consider the source.

Idiot Troll: I am sure he isn;t happy with it today either.

Reply: I could care less whether he/she/it/they is happy with it or not. At issue where it concerns your friend HorseFecesGail is her factually-bereft assertion that the only form of homosexual acts that are condemned in scripture are those engaged in by heterosexuals with temple prostitutes.

Idiot Troll: But who worships that way today?

Reply: I don't care, and it's not the point.

Idiot Troll: I am sure there are some. That given, I agree that homosexuality is something that God didn't intend when mankind was created. But Satan has changed all that.

Reply: So because of, "Satan," you believe God's standards have changed? Gay sex, which you believe "god" condemned at the time, is now acceptable - so long as it's only gay sex between gay people, and not gay sex between a heterosexual person and a, "temple prostitute" - because of, "Satan,"?

Have I in any way misrepresented your position?

If not, do, please, cite any supposed biblical support you have for it.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#192 Feb 14, 2013
I wonder if same-sex couples could also be divorced for non-consumation of marriage?
man_711

Seattle, WA

#193 Feb 14, 2013
It should not be called marriage call it garriage.
JJJ

Sydney, Australia

#194 Feb 14, 2013
FH Chandler wrote:
<Reply: So because of, "Satan," you believe God's standards have changed? Gay sex, which you believe "god" condemned at the time, is now acceptable - so long as it's only gay sex between gay people, and not gay sex between a heterosexual person and a, "temple prostitute" - because of, "Satan,"?
Have I in any way misrepresented your position?
If not, do, please, cite any supposed biblical support you have for it.
Now you are just too nasty chandler.... I can this being discussed in court now...
hMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#195 Feb 16, 2013
much happier now wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, nice that you have that. I don't see that as inequality, because it is just attempting to give same sex couples some of the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples already have. I am not familiar with it, so is there some benefit that civil partnerships have that are not given to married couples?
Yes, they are civil partners to start with, not married.
Kind of like the "separate but equal" laws of Jim Crow.
There is no reason on planet earth that gay couples should not be allowed to have the same rights as straight couples.
God created some people to be gay,period.

The same bigots tried this stuff with the races, including Jehovah's witnesses.
Many people hide behind the Bible to justify their hate, it is happened throughout time.
Gay marriage will be legal in the USA very soon, just a matter of time, and rightfully so.
Nobody has the right to judge what God created, nobody.

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.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who is Jesus? 9 min PrufSammy 125
WT must pay $4,000 a day. 23 min Bobby 82
Matthew 16:18 and Eph4:8-9 and 1 peter 3:18-20.... 1 hr frgoad 1
Help needed 1 hr rsss1 106
News Hate campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses - why? (Aug '06) 1 hr dee rightful 2,306
Another REASON why the NWT is the best Bible ever! 1 hr rsss1 1,228
Isaiah 38:17-18 2 hr frgoad 1
Why Do Animals Grow Old and Die? 5 hr rsss1 773
Let's try this again, 144,000 ONLY? No jw has b... 6 hr dee rightful 4,387
More from around the web