Reader: Traditional marriage is the foundation of society - Sen...

[z3ncat]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, that is what the Bible that you read days, but you are discounting the other religions, all of whom make the same claims about THEIR God. I believe in God, a supreme being, but I don't necessarily subscribe to the "one and only" Christian diety. I believe that living a good life and treating others with respect, regardless of who or what they are, will land you a place of comfort somewhere. Remember Jesus, he did not go to teh temples, teh holy people, the rich. No, he ministered to the poor, the destitute the prostitutes, the leppars, the cast outs. Too bad so many Christians have forgotten Jesus' simple life and work.

When I first started questioning this idea that Christianity was THE religion and thinking that maybe there was some aspect of gods in all religions, I thought I was all alone in my beliefs. It's been wonderful over the years to learn that I'm not.

[Christiandadx6]

Seth wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Thank you couldn't have said it better myself.

[Rikki S]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm surprised it took you til now to read this from the "cut and paste" posters. It has been onthis forum alone probably 20+ times!

Can't they be a bit more original in their approach?

[Mrs Shrute]

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>According to bibblical traditions. Those are the only correct traditions.

WHAT A SNOB YOU ARE!!!! "I'm correct. Everyone who thinks different than me is wrong."

It makes me nauseated.

[OkieDarren]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you couldn't have said it better myself.

You couldn't have said this pack of dispicable, bigoted lies better yourself? That's really not something you should say in public.

By the way, did you feel that way the 54 other times Wil posted this pack of hateful lies this week?

[blasterboy1984]

OkieDarren wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't have said this pack of dispicable, bigoted lies better yourself? That's really not something you should say in public.
By the way, did you feel that way the 54 other times Wil posted this pack of hateful lies this week?

They are just relaying what the voices tell them to say.:-p

[Christiandadx6]

blasterboy1984 wrote:

<quoted text>
They are just relaying what the voices tell them to say.:-p

What voices are they?

[Christiandadx6]

OkieDarren wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't have said this pack of dispicable, bigoted lies better yourself? That's really not something you should say in public.
By the way, did you feel that way the 54 other times Wil posted this pack of hateful lies this week?

I apologize because I must admit I did not see the other 51 times the poster pasted the post. I do agree that cutting and pasting a post numourous times is not right. Once is enough.

You call the statements bigoted when there is Truth in what was said. It may have been said with malice on the writers part, but there is truth in what was posted though I know it would unlikely that those in favor of accepting homosexually as no longer a sin would feel very uncomfortable about.

About speaking these words in public, sometimes the truth hurts but in a forum speaking about traditional marraige, this truth has a right to be said. Those on the other side could also be accused of being abusive.

As a Christian, I know many individuals who are homosexual. Many are fine people. Do I agree with there lifestyle? No. Do I bounce my bible off their head? No. Do I pray for there deliverance from sin? Yes.

I may not have written in the way the poster did because I am not wired that way but points that were made are valid.

As a Christian (now I am assuming you are because of the Romans Quote), do you believe that same-sex marraige has a place in todays society? Is it written anywhere in scripture that God accepted the gay lifestyle? No, it is not. It is written, as in Romans 13:9 (NLT), "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

We should love our neighbor but no where in scriture does it say we need to accept there sinful ways. We are to pray for them and show Christ's love for the sinner as we are all sinners.

I do not hate the person who is homosexual, but I do have disdain for the sin, as God would. As we speak about same-sex marriage vs. traditional marraige there are facts that would be considered uncomfortable for those who believe in same-sex marraige. God would call that personal conviction.

[Christiandadx6]

I was just pondering something.

People on both side of this isssue are decent people. Yet when we discuss this issue, which is very personal to many, we all use hate filled speech and milgn those we do not even know.

I may be called a bigot, a homophobe, intolerant, or ignorant for my beliefs but they are no less important to me as the beliefs of those the other side of the aisle are to them.

And as I person that has been called all these things because of my belief in Jesus Christ and the Word of God, I must apologise to those I have offended with the statement I made about the earlier post.

Upon re-reading the post I commented on, I must apologize for saying that "I could not have written it better myself." You know something, I could have. I could have written the same ideas in a way that would have been more gentle to the eyes and thoughts of others. Many of the poster's thoughts I may agree with but to be so malice in the presentation was not required.

This debate will live on forever and most who are intrenched in their beliefs will never change their thoughts. So let's have a lively debate as an intellectural exersize, but let's not make it a diatribe.

[Christiandadx6]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, that is what the Bible that you read days, but you are discounting the other religions, all of whom make the same claims about THEIR God. I believe in God, a supreme being, but I don't necessarily subscribe to the "one and only" Christian diety. I believe that living a good life and treating others with respect, regardless of who or what they are, will land you a place of comfort somewhere. Remember Jesus, he did not go to teh temples, teh holy people, the rich. No, he ministered to the poor, the destitute the prostitutes, the leppars, the cast outs. Too bad so many Christians have forgotten Jesus' simple life and work.

You are correct in what Jesus did. He brought the weakest out of sin and they followed him. He ministered to those who were open to hear his teachings. The lost and the hopeless.

Jesus washed sin from the prostitute, healed the lepper, and even on the cross, stated that the thief next to him would meet him in paradise because he believed.

He does the same today. For those who seek him, he give us sinners an opportunity to turn from our sinful ways and live as he did. In no way will we become perfect, only God is perfect, but we can progress from the sinful life we once lived to a life of hope and faith.

Now this is were disagreement begins. The bible clearly states that sex outside of marraige is a sin. Furthermore, it states that sex between those of the same sex is a sin. So to combine the thoughts, if Jesus were walking the earth today in an earthly body, he would be searching out those who sin to bring them out of a sinful life.

Now of course, only those who believe in the bible as the inspired Word of God would believe what just said and I would not expect to sway those individuals that do not believe. But even those who "religions" that do not believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior, believe that sexual relations between those of the same sex is immoral. Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike agree on this issue. This does not mean that homosexuals are evil people. As individuals they are as sinful as the rest of us. The Lord does not have a rating scale for sin. Sin is sin no matter what it is. I just happen to beleive that through the cruxifiction, death, and resurrection of Christ, at 38 years old (when I was saved) that the sins of my past were washed clean and that I have a God who forgives me when I sin today.

[Rikki S]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct in what Jesus did. He brought the weakest out of sin and they followed him. He ministered to those who were open to hear his teachings. The lost and the hopeless.
Jesus washed sin from the prostitute, healed the lepper, and even on the cross, stated that the thief next to him would meet him in paradise because he believed.
He does the same today. For those who seek him, he give us sinners an opportunity to turn from our sinful ways and live as he did. In no way will we become perfect, only God is perfect, but we can progress from the sinful life we once lived to a life of hope and faith.
Now this is were disagreement begins. The bible clearly states that sex outside of marraige is a sin. Furthermore, it states that sex between those of the same sex is a sin. So to combine the thoughts, if Jesus were walking the earth today in an earthly body, he would be searching out those who sin to bring them out of a sinful life.
Now of course, only those who believe in the bible as the inspired Word of God would believe what just said and I would not expect to sway those individuals that do not believe. But even those who "religions" that do not believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior, believe that sexual relations between those of the same sex is immoral. Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike agree on this issue. This does not mean that homosexuals are evil people. As individuals they are as sinful as the rest of us. The Lord does not have a rating scale for sin. Sin is sin no matter what it is. I just happen to beleive that through the cruxifiction, death, and resurrection of Christ, at 38 years old (when I was saved) that the sins of my past were washed clean and that I have a God who forgives me when I sin today.

You are right in an earlier post about how passionate people are on both sides of this issue and how bad words are exchanged. I guess that is the nature of the human condition.

I consider myself Christian and have never had sex outside of my marriage (over 30 years and still counting), but where I have the total problem with folks who push the "christianity" thing on everyone else is the "pick what fits" attitude. We hear the word "abomination" applied yet I have never seen a single poster here who will apply the same Bible terms to eating shellfish, pork or many other things listed in Leviticus. I don't read about children who direspect their parents being killed as directed by the Bible. You say the Bible is clear on it's views of same sex intercourse. There are Bible scholars out there who will disagree with that. One of the translations of "Man shal not lay with man as he lays with a woman" is the prime example. In the original text, one of the other translations uses the word "know" for "lay". That makes a HUGE difference in what that sentence says. The list goes on.

[Christiandadx6]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right in an earlier post about how passionate people are on both sides of this issue and how bad words are exchanged. I guess that is the nature of the human condition.
I consider myself Christian and have never had sex outside of my marriage (over 30 years and still counting), but where I have the total problem with folks who push the "christianity" thing on everyone else is the "pick what fits" attitude. We hear the word "abomination" applied yet I have never seen a single poster here who will apply the same Bible terms to eating shellfish, pork or many other things listed in Leviticus. I don't read about children who direspect their parents being killed as directed by the Bible. You say the Bible is clear on it's views of same sex intercourse. There are Bible scholars out there who will disagree with that. One of the translations of "Man shal not lay with man as he lays with a woman" is the prime example. In the original text, one of the other translations uses the word "know" for "lay". That makes a HUGE difference in what that sentence says. The list goes on.

I guess as a brief explanation (I apologize if I do not do it justice) is that when Jesus died on the cross, a new and everalsting convenant was created. The covenant made by God during the time of Leviticus (I give you credit for reading that book becuase it can become redunant after ther first chapters) was about individual requirements to make sacrifices to God. Sacrifices to repent for the sins of the people to include sins I spoke about in an earlier posting.

When Jesus died on the cross, His sacrifice was for all. The last blood sacrifice required. A new covenant was created between God an His people. Instead of God seeing us as the sinners we truly are, Jesus, through His never-ending forgiveness, cleanses us from our sin. In the Old Testement, death did occur when the Lord witnessed us not living in repentance for our sin. Individuals of that day were banish those who would sin because of a fear that they would be stuck down by God.

Now again this only makes sense to those who believe the Wod of God as written in the bible which comes from faith in Him. What I am not saying is that those who do not believe are somehow not as intelligant or wise as those who do.

But as with you last post, Jesus went to those who were downtrodden and weak. Not those who believed they had everything and relied on their own strength.

As to the interpretation of the written word of God. I am not educated enough to speak on the origin of words in the bible. I can say though, that in the Book Of Revelations it speaks on those who will twist the words of God to their own sinful benefit and that there would be "wolves in sheeps clothing" out there attempting to lead God's people away to slaughter.

[Rikki S]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>.......As to the interpretation of the written word of God. I am not educated enough to speak on the origin of words in the bible. I can say though, that in the Book Of Revelations it speaks on those who will twist the words of God to their own sinful benefit and that there would be "wolves in sheeps clothing" out there attempting to lead God's people away to slaughter.

I am glad you pointed out the interpretation of the Bible as being a problem. If it were so simple and so staightforward, then there would only be ONE Bible and only ONE Christian religion. This is definitely NOT the case as we have hundreds of English version Bibles and hundreds of Chrisitan sects, all of whom telling us they are THE WAY. This makes it totally confusing to those who try to push of THEIR beliefs on someone else. Do I believe Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists or James Dobson from Focus on the Family or the Pope and their Catholic beliefs or Ted Haggerty former head of National Association of Evangelicals or.....? All of these religious leaders claim that they are the right way to believe. Which of these is the "wolves in sheeps clothing"? Who really knows THE WAY? Your belief is that homosexuality is against God's will yet there are many churches who believe otherwise based on their interpretation of God's word.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that God is what is in your heart and in your deeds, not some diety to worship and cast gloom and doom to those who don't follow a particular interpretation. There are 10 commandments, not one of which lists sexual preference. If one follows those 10 simple rules, then I believe they are on the right track. Jesus did not preach gloom and doom but acceptance and love and a GOOD life. That is the key, my friend.

[Christiandadx6]

Rikki S wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad you pointed out the interpretation of the Bible as being a problem. If it were so simple and so staightforward, then there would only be ONE Bible and only ONE Christian religion. This is definitely NOT the case as we have hundreds of English version Bibles and hundreds of Chrisitan sects, all of whom telling us they are THE WAY. This makes it totally confusing to those who try to push of THEIR beliefs on someone else. Do I believe Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists or James Dobson from Focus on the Family or the Pope and their Catholic beliefs or Ted Haggerty former head of National Association of Evangelicals or.....? All of these religious leaders claim that they are the right way to believe. Which of these is the "wolves in sheeps clothing"? Who really knows THE WAY? Your belief is that homosexuality is against God's will yet there are many churches who believe otherwise based on their interpretation of God's word.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that God is what is in your heart and in your deeds, not some diety to worship and cast gloom and doom to those who don't follow a particular interpretation. There are 10 commandments, not one of which lists sexual preference. If one follows those 10 simple rules, then I believe they are on the right track. Jesus did not preach gloom and doom but acceptance and love and a GOOD life. That is the key, my friend.

This debate can become taxing on the average bible believeing Christian.

I have learned not to debate doctorine between "true Christian" sects. Some believe that we operate inidividuals still can operate within the gifts of God (speaking in toungues, etc.), others don't. Some believe the sabbath is on Saturday, others Sunday. Some believe in no make-up, no dancing, no secular music, and not going to the movies. Many do not have these restrictions.

It is unfortunate today though, that many pastors and preachers have turn a deaf ear to the still small voice og God and am preaching what the world wants to hear, not what is truly of God. Same-sex marraige is one of those areas, along with abortion, and other areas. These individuals only think about filling their pews each week and do not want to alienate anyone from coming to their church. They want the largest church, they want the status, they want to income. But by doing so, the preach a false message.

At the end only God knows where peoples hearts are at and we will only know the real truth when we leave this earth and have to stand before God in judgement for our sins.

[Mrs Shrute]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
You call the statements bigoted when there is Truth in what was said ... sometimes the truth hurts but in a forum speaking about traditional marraige, this truth has a right to be said.

The only 'truth' in that message was that a child will never be born directly from a homosexual relationship. That truth doesn't hurt. It is fact.

Everything else in that copied and pasted drivel is opinion.

[Mrs Shrute]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you couldn't have said it better myself.

So you believe: Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage.

Are we to assume that you believe that marriage is not real if children are not the result?

[Christiandadx6]

Mrs Shrute wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe: Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage.
Are we to assume that you believe that marriage is not real if children are not the result?

Thank you for your post. To answer you directly, a marriage is real between a man and a woman even when no children come from it. But with that said, they have the possiblity to have childre, of course except for those medically unable to. I also believe that children are the usual and natural result of marraige.

[UnbelievableFL]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for your post. To answer you directly, a marriage is real between a man and a woman even when no children come from it. But with that said, they have the possiblity to have childre, of course except for those medically unable to. I also believe that children are the usual and natural result of marraige.

Actually, children are the usual and natural result of a sexual act between an opposite-sex fertile couple not using birth control correctly. Whether or not that couple is married is irrelevant. Chidlren can result either way.

[Mrs Shrute]

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for your post. To answer you directly, a marriage is real between a man and a woman even when no children come from it. But with that said, they have the possiblity to have childre, of course except for those medically unable to. I also believe that children are the usual and natural result of marraige.

So marriage isn't necessarily about biology and children. Isn't it about love and respect? About devoting your life to another person?

[Christiandadx6]

In a biblical sense, God create a man and a woman to procreate. That is right from Genesis. No where in the bible does it discuss the same-sex relationship as acceptable. Or even as an alternative. There honestly may not be anough charectors allowing in a single post to past all the scripture references pertaining to the marraige covenamt made of God being between a man and a woman. The bible speaks of man and wife through the two testements and as far as I know does not refer to the parties in a marraige as anything but husband and wife. Never as party 1 and part 2.

I believe that marriage is a sacred convenant between the husband and wife and God himself. It is a weave of three strands that can not be broken. Since it was not God's intention to have marriages between the same sex, a convenant can not be made with God to bless that marriage.

Now again, I am speaking from my Christian belief system knowing full well you may disagree with me. But even though you may disagree, I hope we can discuss this issue in a civil manner.