Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

To which I go back to my initial post that it is a matter of civil rights, not morality for which this SCOTUS rendering was made. In the essence of civil rights itself, I believe it was the correct ruling.

I didn't realize that it was SCOTUS' responsibility to order in a theocracy. :)

I am talking about the idea that we must accept the lifestyle. Christians insisting that we should overlook it.

IDK about what SCOTUS did. You could see that coming a mile away. I am concerned about the bad theology that wants to find a loophole to see this as okay. Make a statement that homosexual activity is sin and you will get accused of "cherry picking" verses from the old testament. Or that Paul was dealing with a specific culture in a specific time. I don't need the OT or Paul to see Jesus defined marriage very clearly. And Christians who want to overlook His teaching on the subject are not doing it out a love for scripture but out of a need to justify their own behavior (or that of a loved one).

Dan, this is exactly what you have done on this very thread.

I largely agree with you here expect fur the first sentence. Why are we as believers so concerned with judging the world? We should instead be looking inward, both corporately and individually...including the leaders with odd hermeneutical leaps. ;)
 
Least of These said:
praise_yeshua said:
You're being ridiculous. You can make the same argument for your daughter being a drunk or a habitual liar. Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

I DIDN'T make the choice to be homosexual. I MADE the choice to heterosexual. It is not something I turn off and on. I never claimed your daughter could turn it off and on at the drop of a hat. This still doesn't mean its not A CHOICE. Don't twist the facts.

I'm  not being dishonest or ridiculous - it's a simple and sincere question.  When, exactly, did you choose to be heterosexual?  What made you choose?  What options did you consider?  How did you know which you wanted?  Why can't you turn it off and on?  Why do you think these are silly questions?

Best I can figure is that you are confusing sexual acts with sexual orientation.  On the former, I agree - people do choose if, when and with whom they have sex.  But if being gay is a choice, it stands to reason that anyone could choose it at any time... including you.

I choose to be heterosexual at a early age. From what I can remember, I was a preteen. I could share some rather intimate details of my sexual experiences around that time but I'll leave it your imagination. Either way, lets say I have experience with both. Its not something I take pride in but I've been there. So don't consider me a novice on the material.

As human beings, we are stubborn. STUBBORN. You probably have noticed my stubbornness by now. I've noticed yours..... :)

We are ENDLESSLY... pretending our dumb choices are inevitable. Its call PRIDE.

I suspect, your daughter has some experience with this. Mine does. My son does too. My wife as well. Its not subjective. We all must deal with it.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way.

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren’t born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

It not nature as in BORN that way. Its nature in CREATED that way.

You see the same argument when you're own Master used the term "from the beginning". Which is exactly what Paul is teaching Romans 1:20.

Either way, sincerely make the argument yours...... .or stop being intellectually dishonest and pretend you accept what Paul's words as being inspired. You don't care if everything Paul said vanished from the face of the earth. This is very definition of being intellectually dishonest.
 
rsc2a said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

To which I go back to my initial post that it is a matter of civil rights, not morality for which this SCOTUS rendering was made. In the essence of civil rights itself, I believe it was the correct ruling.

I didn't realize that it was SCOTUS' responsibility to order in a theocracy. :)

I am talking about the idea that we must accept the lifestyle. Christians insisting that we should overlook it.

IDK about what SCOTUS did. You could see that coming a mile away. I am concerned about the bad theology that wants to find a loophole to see this as okay. Make a statement that homosexual activity is sin and you will get accused of "cherry picking" verses from the old testament. Or that Paul was dealing with a specific culture in a specific time. I don't need the OT or Paul to see Jesus defined marriage very clearly. And Christians who want to overlook His teaching on the subject are not doing it out a love for scripture but out of a need to justify their own behavior (or that of a loved one).

Dan, this is exactly what you have done on this very thread.

I largely agree with you here expect fur the first sentence. Why are we as believers so concerned with judging the world? We should instead be looking inward, both corporately and individually...including the leaders with odd hermeneutical leaps. ;)

Who are you kidding? You're more concerned on how I use the word "moron" than you are at looking "inwardly".
 
Do you consider yourself part of the corporate body of Christ?
 
rsc2a said:
Do you consider yourself part of the corporate body of Christ?

Do you consider me part of the corporate body of Christ?

Think... "corporately".... LOL.

 
praise_yeshua said:
rsc2a said:
Do you consider yourself part of the corporate body of Christ?

Do you consider me part of the corporate body of Christ?

Think... "corporately".... LOL.
That's above my pay grade. If people claim it, I treat them accordingly.
 
rsc2a said:
praise_yeshua said:
rsc2a said:
Do you consider yourself part of the corporate body of Christ?

Do you consider me part of the corporate body of Christ?

Think... "corporately".... LOL.
That's above my pay grade. If people claim it, I treat them accordingly.

This goes against the very nature of a "corporate" mentality.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Either way, lets say I have experience with both. Its not something I take pride in but I've been there. So don't consider me a novice on the material.

I'm trying to understand this.  As a pre-teen, you were equally attracted to - and experimented with - both genders, but based on those experiences, you simply decided to be straight?   

We are ENDLESSLY... pretending our dumb choices are inevitable. Its call PRIDE.

I suspect, your daughter has some experience with this. My does. My son does too. My wife as well. Its not subjective. We all must deal with it.

I don't deny pride and stubbornness, but I don't believe that sexual orientation is nothing more than a dumb choice.  I didn't believe it before I held my precious, Jesus-loving daughter in my arms as she wept,  and I don't believe it now.  My you and your wife, and especially your child, never know that heartache.   

Blessings.
 
Isn't it amazing.....

I hear it all the time. One argument homosexuals make is.... I didn't have a choice...... the same homosexual will then say..... its my choice...... Then it changes from choice to my "right". Which really stems from a choice.

You can't get to the truth with someone that does this. No matter what you say..... the story is always changing to benefit the "story teller"!!!
 
rsc2a said:
RAIDER said:
rsc2a said:
RAIDER said:
Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Yes. You should read the introduction, finish the chapter, then keep reading if you actually want to understand the passage instead of simply having a proof text to beat people up with.

You can read the whole chapter and the whole book.  It will not change the Biblical fact that homosexuality is wicked!
So are pride, greed and gluttony. But you don't see "Christian" groups formed to attack people with those shortfalls. Are you kidding? Those are celebrated in churches across this great land.

Great point!  Pride, greed, and gluttony are not looked upon as healthy behavior.  People are not running around saying, "I am greedy and you will love me that way!"  Pride, greed, and gluttony are sins just as homosexuality is sin!!
 
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

To which I go back to my initial post that it is a matter of civil rights, not morality for which this SCOTUS rendering was made. In the essence of civil rights itself, I believe it was the correct ruling.

I didn't realize that it was SCOTUS' responsibility to order in a theocracy. :)

I am talking about the idea that we must accept the lifestyle. Christians insisting that we should overlook it.

IDK about what SCOTUS did. You could see that coming a mile away. I am concerned about the bad theology that wants to find a loophole to see this as okay. Make a statement that homosexual activity is sin and you will get accused of "cherry picking" verses from the old testament. Or that Paul was dealing with a specific culture in a specific time. I don't need the OT or Paul to see Jesus defined marriage very clearly. And Christians who want to overlook His teaching on the subject are not doing it out a love for scripture but out of a need to justify their own behavior (or that of a loved one).

Dan, this is exactly what you have done on this very thread.

You can feel about me however you wish. I simply pointed out that SCOTUS' action was a result of civil liberties which happens to differ from biblical morality. The Christian argument about the SCOTUS decision was that it is against God's description/definition of what marriage is. SCOTUS is to adhere to the Constitution and Law not a religious belief (i.e. "God's description/definition"), even if that religious belief is better/best for society. Christians would celebrate if predominantly Middle Eastern countries would rid women of a law mandating the wearing of a hijab (and rightfully so). But when a like civil liberties decision is made against OUR beliefs, we go nuts, claiming America is going to hell (perhaps true, but not for this particular reason).

As a follower of Christ, I celebrate civil liberty, even if it opposes religious belief. History of this country has shown things that were at one time to be considered "religious" or "biblical", eventually grew not to be so. Women's suffrage. Slavery. Interracial marriages. Many Christians held these liberties to be restricted based on religious grounds but was the Law correct in allowing these liberties or should we have maintained the previously held restrictions?

If you believe that my wanting to see civil liberties for all as a matter of "justifying sin over Scripture", feel free to believe that. God knows my heart so in the end, that is all that matters. :)
 
praise_yeshua said:
Isn't it amazing.....

I hear it all the time. One argument homosexuals make is.... I didn't have a choice...... the same homosexual will then say..... its my choice...... Then it changes from choice to my "right". Which really stems from a choice.

You can't get to the truth with someone that does this. No matter what you say..... the story is always changing to benefit the "story teller"!!!

Is there a positive example in the Scriptures of homosexuals? 
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Again, this is not my hermeneutic but how it is viewed by this pro-gay Presbyterian minister. Whether you agree with him or not, he is able to make a legitimate case for his side:

Romans 1:26-28

Good news ladies! Up until now, all of this clobbering has been about the guys. In Romans, you get to join in. Lucky you.

Romans is the one place the Bible speaks specifically about a female-female sex act. If you listen to Bible Thumpin’ Gay Bashers, you’d be surprised to learn that, while the counts vary on how many places the Bible directly address heterosexual relationships, it is a lot. Then again, compared to the precisely one verse the Bible has about female-female sex, even two is one hundred percent more.

The number of heterosexually oriented verses isn’t exactly clear. One thing is really clear, there’s plenty of them and, much like the Levitical purity code, we’ve managed to ignore many of them. So, if you aren’t also denouncing the divorced, then get off your lesbian judging high-horse, because otherwise you are just picking and choosing who to judge out of your own accord, and then quoting the one Bible verse that seems to support your choice. And even then, as we will see, it doesn’t actually support your argument. It actually does just the opposite.

In Romans, we have the most extensive discussion of same-sex intercourse in the Bible, a whole two seemingly specific verses – astounding.

There are plenty of approaches to understanding what Paul is trying to teach us in these texts. Any good exegesis ultimately points to the reality that what Paul is talking about and what people who use these verses as clobber verses want Paul to be talking about aren’t the same thing. That is, this is not about homosexual people having consenting homosexual relationships.

One convincing analysis of these texts looks at the fact that one of the most prevalent forms of same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world was male prostitution which frequently involved boys. In that analysis, the texts become a condemnation of pederasty and prostitution, things of which most Christians (conservative to liberal) disapprove even today. There is also the perspective that Paul’s pointing to same sex intercourse as being idolatrous could be referring to the practices of priests and priestesses of Mediterranean fertility gods who regularly practiced that type of prostitution but elevated it, within a religious context, to the state of idolatry. Those approaches are valid and mostly convincing perspectives, but they do require a small leap of logic to arrive at their conclusions. Much less of a leap of logic, mind you, than believing that these texts are about something of which people at that time had absolutely no comprehension, but slight conjecture all the same.

The analysis that I find the most convincing concerns itself with the word “natural.” It is the word that has led many to speak of LGBTQ behavior as “unnatural” acts even though they occur throughout nature (in one study they were found in more than fifteen-hundred species).

As it turns out, the word is actually not “natural.” Not surprisingly, Paul did not speak English. While Paul performed a number of miraculous things, speaking English (which wasn’t around even in its earliest Prehistoric Old English form yet) was not one of them. Not to bore you too much, but the word Paul used was the Greek word, physikos. (Now that didn’t hurt too much, did it?).

It’s important to know the word in Greek because when it is translated into English, it loses a little of its original meaning. Without even knowing it, Lady GaGa has provided a better modern and contextual translation of physikos than the frequently used translation of “normal.” We will get to that in a minute. It doesn’t mean “natural” or “nature” so much as it means “produced by nature.” Those who use these verses as clobber verses tend to understand “natural” to mean something closer to “normal” than “produced by nature.” Not surprisingly, they also then define what is and isn’t “normal” based on their personal biases rather than on science or the reality of the world around them (e.g.: “I think gay people make me feel creepy, so I  henceforth do hereby dub it as an act of not-natural.”).

In reality, physikos has more to do with how things naturally occur in God’s Creation.  At this point, you may have begun to guess that physikos is based on the same root word from which we get the word “physics” which is, of course, the study of the realities of nature. Conveniently, the way Paul uses physikos here in Romans, it also means something very similar to “the realities of nature.” It is concerned with what is of our nature and not with what is defined as acceptable. That is to say, Paul is concerned with how God created something or someone to be. He is concerned with people going against their nature or in the words of Lady GaGa herself, if they are “born that way” he’s concerned with them behaving as if they were not.

That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way.

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren’t born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

Because these texts have been used so much to address homosexuality, it was important to address the issue directly, but the worst thing we could do is to think it is primarily about homosexuality. It is not.

Immediately following verse 28, Paul provides an extensive list of sins. It is so extensive that we all fall into at least one of the categories. “So there you have it,” says Paul, “we all sin. Don’t try to deny it.” And let’s face it, we all go against who we know we were created to be. How many times have you done something, felt guilt or shame, and then said, “I shouldn’t have done that. That’s not who I am.”?

As Paul says in the very next chapter, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” As he also says to start that chapter, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing/

Dan, you use the words of a guy that most likely is not a born again Christian.
 
Least of These said:
I'm trying to understand this.  As a pre-teen, you were equally attracted to - and experimented with - both genders, but based on those experiences, you simply decided to be straight?

I made a choice. How difficult its that to understand? My experience wasn't all about experimentation but it was a large part of it.   

I don't deny pride and stubbornness, but I don't believe that sexual orientation is nothing more than a dumb choice.  I didn't believe it before I held my precious, Jesus-loving daughter in my arms as she wept,  and I don't believe it now.  My you and your wife, and especially your child, never know that heartache.   

Don't take this the wrong way and I'm not trying to be insensitive....

But I'VE WEEP over many rather stupid thing. In fact, if you really want to the know the truth.... I hope you do....

Only Godly sorrow matters. Our choices being grief. They are suppose to bring grief. Almost everything in this life is meant to pass away and to bring suffering. To bring vanity. In this vanity comes Godly sorrow. Our sense of hopelessness being replaced with hope in God.

Weeping doesn't prove anything.
 
RAIDER said:
praise_yeshua said:
Isn't it amazing.....

I hear it all the time. One argument homosexuals make is.... I didn't have a choice...... the same homosexual will then say..... its my choice...... Then it changes from choice to my "right". Which really stems from a choice.

You can't get to the truth with someone that does this. No matter what you say..... the story is always changing to benefit the "story teller"!!!

Is there a positive example in the Scriptures of homosexuals?

Nope. There are some that try to turn the relationship that David and Johnathon had together into one......but its impossible to see it. Its just a fabricated fairy tale.
 
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way.

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren’t born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

It not nature as in BORN that way. Its nature in CREATED that way.

You see the same argument when you're own Master used the term "from the beginning". Which is exactly what Paul is teaching Romans 1:20.

Either way, sincerely make the argument yours...... .or stop being intellectually dishonest and pretend you accept what Paul's words as being inspired. You don't care if everything Paul said vanished from the face of the earth. This is very definition of being intellectually dishonest.

I don't accept Paul's words as being "God-breathed". He does have some good stuff though (I Corinthians 13, for example). Like with other authors, whether it be Philip Yancey, Joel Osteen, Martin Luther King, John Calvin, Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc, I will agree with some stuff and disagree with others. All are equally "God-breathed" in that they aren't. But that doesn't mean I should throw out everything they mentioned because I don't accept everything they wrote.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
praise_yeshua said:
Smellin Coffee said:
That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way.

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren’t born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

It not nature as in BORN that way. Its nature in CREATED that way.

You see the same argument when you're own Master used the term "from the beginning". Which is exactly what Paul is teaching Romans 1:20.

Either way, sincerely make the argument yours...... .or stop being intellectually dishonest and pretend you accept what Paul's words as being inspired. You don't care if everything Paul said vanished from the face of the earth. This is very definition of being intellectually dishonest.

I don't accept Paul's words as being "God-breathed". He does have some good stuff though (I Corinthians 13, for example). Like with other authors, whether it be Philip Yancey, Joel Osteen, Martin Luther King, John Calvin, Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc, I will agree with some stuff and disagree with others. All are equally "God-breathed" in that they aren't. But that doesn't mean I should throw out everything they mentioned because I don't accept everything they wrote.

So are you going to accept his argument as being true or are you going to reject it?
 
RAIDER said:
Great point!  Pride, greed, and gluttony are not looked upon as healthy behavior.  People are not running around saying, "I am greedy and you will love me that way!"

Actually yes: Both the Democratic AND Republican political conventions. :)
 
praise_yeshua said:
RAIDER said:
praise_yeshua said:
Isn't it amazing.....

I hear it all the time. One argument homosexuals make is.... I didn't have a choice...... the same homosexual will then say..... its my choice...... Then it changes from choice to my "right". Which really stems from a choice.

You can't get to the truth with someone that does this. No matter what you say..... the story is always changing to benefit the "story teller"!!!

Is there a positive example in the Scriptures of homosexuals?

Nope. There are some that try to turn the relationship that David and Johnathon had together into one......but its impossible to see it. Its just a fabricated fairy tale.

Quite amazing that something portrayed as "healthy and natural" as homosexuality would not be promoted in the Bible.  There's not one example.  There's not one command.  There was not a homosexual couple in the Garden.
 
Back
Top