David Quinn and Gay Marriage

wonderfulname · 27-08-2011 03:37PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

God didn't smite a city for wearing makeup or mixed materials!

God may not have smited a city due to same sex activity either, sometimes I wonder whether people who claim this outright have actually read the bible, the original Jewish interpretation was that Sodom was destroyed for cruelty, rape of newcomers, blasphemy, and violence. A huge number of Christians argue that there is actually no sexual interpretation of the line "bring them out unto us, that we may know them", that basically you just have a dirty mind and they wanted to interrogate them. References in Jude to Sodom do not mention homosexuality, just strange sexual practices, again, this is only interpreted as homosexuality by those who are already prejudiced against it.
Islam again goes with the sodomites were barbaric raping, stealing meanies reasoning for the destruction of Sodom.

My own feeling is that the story of Sodom is misused and it's actual message of be a decent human or else over simplified to the extreme so that people can use it to do the exact opposite in backing up their prejudice against a group who are different.

PDN · 27-08-2011 04:52PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

God may not have smited a city due to same sex activity either, sometimes I wonder whether people who claim this outright have actually read the bible, the original Jewish interpretation was that Sodom was destroyed for cruelty, rape of newcomers, blasphemy, and violence.

I don't think you're being accurate here. There is no evidence as to how the Jews originally interpreted this passage in Genesis. Any evidence I've seen is quote-mined from many centuries later.

However, a plain reading of the Old Testament indicates that Sodom was simply destroyed for general wickedness, rather than for any particular sexual sin. (None of that, of course, alters the overwhelmingly negative view of homosexual acts in the New Testament.)

wonderfulname · 27-08-2011 08:35PM

PDN wrote: »

However, a plain reading of the Old Testament indicates that Sodom was simply destroyed for general wickedness, rather than for any particular sexual sin.

Certainly in agreement on that.

PDN wrote: »

(None of that, of course, alters the overwhelmingly negative view of homosexual acts in the New Testament.)

Could you elaborate on this please, I find overwhelming to be a tad strong a word, and much of what I have looked into appears to be questionable on meaning, how much anti gay* sentiment is actually in the NT?

*acts!

gimmebroadband · 27-08-2011 08:47PM

Here are two!

Romans 1:26-27

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

wonderfulname · 27-08-2011 09:04PM

Gimmiebroadband what bible do you use?

gimmebroadband · 27-08-2011 09:32PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gimmiebroadband what bible do you use?

Both the Douay-Rheims Bible and New American Standard Bible.

MOSSAD · 27-08-2011 10:04PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So if a woman orally pleasures her husband she too is going to hell?

gimmebroadband · 27-08-2011 10:19PM

MOSSAD wrote: »

So if a woman orally pleasures her husband she too is going to hell?

No, not if they finish the job as they should - they have to be open to pro-creation. It is not permitted to orally pleasure alone!

Keylem · 27-08-2011 10:39PM

Post Deleted!

Keaton · 27-08-2011 10:46PM

Keylem wrote: »

Catholic sexual morality gives us three specific guidelines:

1. Our sexual actions should be directed to our spouse for his or her benefit and pleasure. Sex is a chance to give ourselves to our spouse in a uniquely loving and intimate way.
2. Each specific type of sexual activity must be of loving intent & action.
3. During sexual union, male climax must occur during normal sexual intercourse (it has to be open to the possibility of fertility).

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/christian-oral-sex.html

I wrote to the owner of beginningcatholic some time ago. I believe he is wrong about the morality of oral sex. This is more in line with Catholic moral teaching:

Sexual Sins Within Marriage

3. Each sexual act must be considered individually and separately, and must be natural, marital, and open to life.

Unnatural sexual acts are immoral, not only because they are contrary to the natural law, but also because they are not open to life. Now in judging the morality of any sexual act, each act must be considered individually and separately. Some ethicists have tried to undermine or contradict the definitive teaching of the Church (that contraception is always immoral) by combining an act that is open to life with other sexual acts that are not open to life. But the Church has rejected such formulations, instead requiring each act to be evaluated on its own.
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Certainly, then, not only the openness to life of each act, but also the requirements that it be natural and marital, must be applied to each sexual act individually and separately. One cannot consider acts in combination, nor consider multiple acts as a set, when evaluating the morality of each act. Nor can one claim that more than one sexual act is to be considered a single act because sexual climax occurs only after the other sexual act or acts.

Keylem · 27-08-2011 10:57PM

You're right Keaton - the link I posted only gives some truth, deleted it - sorry Gimme Broadband!

Cybercelesta · 27-08-2011 11:01PM

smokingman wrote: »

Newsflash for ya, we are animals too; your superiority complex can't seem to fathom that but I guess that's what happens when someone thinks they're so special, they were deliberatly magic'd into existance.

Seeing as you think we're animals, then animals can't get married!

Zombrex · 28-08-2011 01:52AM

Homosexual acts are put on the same level as fornication in the New Testament.

Fornication is tolerated throughout society, including by Christians (fornication has never been illegal nor have I ever hear of a Christian group calling for it to be, nor for that matter have I heard anyone call it unnatural).

So how is homosexuality and homosexual relations any worse than non-marital heterosexual relations?

ISAW · 28-08-2011 05:15AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Homosexual acts are put on the same level as fornication in the New Testament.

Fornication is tolerated throughout society, including by Christians (fornication has never been illegal nor have I ever hear of a Christian group calling for it to be, nor for that matter have I heard anyone call it unnatural).

Again I half agree. Christians have tolerated but objected.
Fornication has been illegal however. Specifically sex by a married person with someone outside the marriage. There are laws against adultery, prostitution, bigamy etc.
As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape, and some of it is considered unnatural.
Finally, your "laws" refer to laws in western societies probably in the last 400 years or so.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/fornication-adultery.php

Law dictated that the clergy report known fornicators (those who were unmarried and had sexual relations) to the law authorities, who might either punish the offenders with fines (these varied locally), or in many cases try to coerce the couple to marry

So how is homosexuality and homosexual relations any worse than non-marital heterosexual relations?

Who said it was?

MOSSAD · 28-08-2011 05:51AM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No, not if they finish the job as they should - they have to be open to pro-creation. It is not permitted to orally pleasure alone!

This is becoming surreal. Angels on heads of pins etc. Reminds me of the UK case where a woman sought divorce on the grounds that her husband forced her to perform oral sex.
M'lud dismissed her claim with the response "madam have you no teeth?"

Cybercelesta · 28-08-2011 10:58AM

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

AhSureTisGrand · 28-08-2011 11:07AM

ISAW wrote: »

As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape

Believe it or believe it not, those laws apply to married couples too

gimmebroadband · 28-08-2011 01:13PM

MOSSAD wrote: »

This is becoming surreal. Angels on heads of pins etc. Reminds me of the UK case where a woman sought divorce on the grounds that her husband forced her to perform oral sex.
M'lud dismissed her claim with the response "madam have you no teeth?"

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

Penn · 28-08-2011 01:57PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

And God definitely wrote the Bible, did he? God definitely told people to write that homosexuality was wrong? Or is it possible that people may have wrote that bit based on their own feelings and claimed it was from God?

NuMarvel · 28-08-2011 02:20PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

To put it bluntly, God does not condone gay marriage or gay sex, end of! I agree with God!

But if couples who wish to marry aren't looking for the blessing of God, then why should the right to a civil marriage be denied to them?

I understand that the RCC doesn't recognise it as a marriage, but RCC also doesn't recognise the second (or subsequent) marriage of a person who is divorced. And yet no one questions a divorced person's civil right to remarry, even though God doesn't condone it.

Zombrex · 28-08-2011 02:27PM

ISAW wrote: »

Again I half agree. Christians have tolerated but objected.
Fornication has been illegal however. Specifically sex by a married person with someone outside the marriage. There are laws against adultery, prostitution, bigamy etc.

But not fornication.

ISAW wrote: »

As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape, and some of it is considered unnatural.

Rape is not considered illegal and immoral because it is unnatural or because it is a form of fornication, it is considered illegal and immoral because it is an act of violence.

You cannot rape your wife any more than you can rape your girlfriend.

ISAW wrote: »

Finally, your "laws" refer to laws in western societies probably in the last 400 years or so.

Which find no objection from the vast majority of Christians, including those who get hung up over homosexuality.

So again how is homosexuality any worse than heterosexual fornication? What is the Biblical support for such an idea?

ISAW wrote: »

Who said it was?

How many threads have we had in the last 10 years on making fornication illegal?

Zombrex · 28-08-2011 02:30PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

Where in the Bible does God condemn slavery? Or say life begins at conception?

Christians have never had trouble extrapolating from the "message" of the Bible particular guidelines as to how to face modern issues, when it suits them of course.

gimmebroadband · 28-08-2011 02:34PM

Barrington wrote: »

And God definitely wrote the Bible, did he? God definitely told people to write that homosexuality was wrong? Or is it possible that people may have wrote that bit based on their own feelings and claimed it was from God?

Many archaelogists have found much evidence that have supported historical events which happened in the Bible. Events that happened which brought the word of God to the people!

paddyandy · 28-08-2011 02:36PM

New York is getting it up the derry aer right now.Gay Weddddddddins???^*$"%$^+>

Zombrex · 28-08-2011 02:39PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many archaelogists have found much evidence that have supported historical events which happened in the Bible. Events that happened which brought the word of God to the people!

Actually it is the other way around, there is very little evidence for the events in the Bible (for example there is no historical record in Egyptian history of the events in Exodus), and plenty of contradictory evidence.

Though in fairness it is a bit silly to come onto the Christian forum and start challenging the notion that God inspired the Bible. Bad Barrington, bad.

gimmebroadband · 28-08-2011 02:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Where in the Bible does God condemn slavery? Or say life begins at conception?

Jeremiah 1:5

Zombrex · 28-08-2011 02:41PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jeremiah 1:5

That doesn't say life begins at conception. In fact it mentions "before I formed you in the womb" so it is talking about before conception, if anything.

Try again

gimmebroadband · 28-08-2011 02:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually it is the other way around, there is very little evidence for the events in the Bible (for example there is no historical record in Egyptian history of the events in Exodus), and plenty of contradictory evidence.

Though in fairness it is a bit silly to come onto the Christian forum and start challenging the notion that God inspired the Bible. Bad Barrington, bad.

You must have missed this link!

http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

gimmebroadband · 28-08-2011 02:44PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't say life begins at conception. In fact it mentions "before I formed you in the womb" so it is talking about before conception, if anything.

Try again

Which suggest he knew him also in the womb, when he had intentions of forrming him, he existed in God's mind,before, during and after!

MOSSAD · 28-08-2011 03:04PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

Still doesn't tke from the fact that bible is a histroy of the Jewish peoples and there is no such thing as god

David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Comments