Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Asher]

I have a better perception of everything in the known universe than you do.

[Berzerker]

So you believe that Christ would bless sodomy?

Did Jesus bless the missionary position? Did he bless BJs (or is that sodomy?).

I think he made his views on marriage very clear.

We cant even agree he was talking about marriage, he was talking about divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did Jesus bless the missionary position? Did he bless BJs (or is that sodomy?).

He doesn't explicitly mention the other two, but he does mention sodomy.

We cant even agree he was talking about marriage, he was talking about divorce.

"For that reason a husband will leave his mother and his father, and cleave to his wife; where the two shall become one flesh"

Seems to me he's talking about marriage.

[Asher]

It is clearly saying a husband should murder his wife and consume her remains.

[Berzerker]

He doesn't explicitly mention the other two, but he does mention sodomy.

So Jesus didn't "bless" any particular sexual act? Then why ask if he blessed sodomy? Do you have a verse for that? Sodomy can mean so many things that dont rely on the gender of the actors.

"For that reason a husband will leave his mother and his father, and cleave to his wife; where the two shall become one flesh"

Seems to me he's talking about marriage.

If it seems, it aint clear

He was asked about divorce, not about marriage.

Matthew 19
Divorce (see?)

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Now, aside from Moses breaking the tradition Jesus (and God) endorses we have a few problems:

1) let us make man in our image, so they made them in their image - male and female - and told them to be fruitful and fill the Earth. This is the first story of the creation of mankind. No marriage is mentioned

2) Adam and Eve had no parents. So who was Jesus talking about?

3) Look at what happened to Adam and Eve - God was hardly endorsing marriage. I dont think the word is used but its a curse. God tells Adam he will have to listen to his nagging wife and she will have to be subordinate to him, etc... Sounds like hard hearts from the beginning

Marriage is inferred by the fact divorce can follow marriage but its not clear Jesus was defining who could marry and who could not. He defined adultery but he didn't say it should be illegal, and that includes people who've married divorcees who weren't properly divorced. If a husband and wife divorce because the man beats the woman and you later marry the woman, are you an adulterer? Should it be illegal for anyone to marry her?

render unto Caesar is not a job application

[Berzerker]

actually thats a good question, Ben... Since adultery is not marriage, does that mean all those people out there who married divorcees who were improperly divorced (for reasons other than infidelity) aren't really married but are in fact adulterers? Should the laws reflect this definition of adultery (and marriage) given by Jesus?

[Agathon]

Ken Starr has been involved in filing a suit to force the divorce of some 18,000 gay and lesbian couples in California. In response to this bigoted anti-family threat, gay and lesbian couples have been sending out photos and videos of themselves to people who are willing to listen to their stories about love, compassion, and commitment.

Below is a link on one such website where a video presents a slideshow of photos of loving, committed couples.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce

Why are you arguing against this? If he loses the suit, won't it validate the marriages by some sort of precedent?

If he wins the suit, doesn't it demonstrate that the law needs to be changed?

Do you want to constitutionally prohibit the bringing of lawsuits you don't like?

[Theben]

Originally Posted by gay guy with big chip on shoulder

it explains everything: Your lack of integrity, your unwillingness to hear contrary opinions, and your tendency not to understand logic.

Originally Posted by insane christian poser

it couldn't be because i enjoy being a christian?

please please please need bigger sig line !!!1!11

[Ben Kenobi]

actually thats a good question, Ben... Since adultery is not marriage, does that mean all those people out there who married divorcees who were improperly divorced (for reasons other than infidelity) aren't really married but are in fact adulterers? Should the laws reflect this definition of adultery (and marriage) given by Jesus?

The answer will vary depending on who you talk to, and my own opinion on this has changed.

The way it works in the Catholic church is that marriage is a sacrament like baptism. You cannot be 'remarried', just as you cannot be 'rebaptised'. That would seem to preclude what you are talking about here, but there are exceptions. The marriage has to be conducted in a licit manner in the first place. If it wasn't and there are extenuating circumstances, the marriage can be annulled, and then you would be free to get married again.

Other churches have different opinions on the matter. The usual exceptions for divorce are infidelity, physical abuse (either of the wife or children), or failure to support. We're not talking about someone who gets injured and has to quit his job, but someone who has the money but doesn't support his wife or kids. The final one is abandonment. You can get remarried for all three of these, so long as you are the spouse who has not been the one initiating any of these.

As for secular law reflecting church law, I don't think they should be the same.

[MrFun]

*mistaken

gah!

[snoopy369]

[q="Ben Kenobi"]
As for secular law reflecting church law, I don't think they should be the same. [/q]
... so you don't mind if they permit gay marriages then? Okay, I can close the thread now

[Ben Kenobi]

Now, aside from Moses breaking the tradition Jesus (and God) endorses we have a few problems:

1) let us make man in our image, so they made them in their image - male and female - and told them to be fruitful and fill the Earth. This is the first story of the creation of mankind. No marriage is mentioned

This is the crucial part. God made them complementary to one another, male and female. If he wanted it otherwise then why did he bother making men and women? Why not just men and men or women and women?

2) Adam and Eve had no parents. So who was Jesus talking about?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

3) Look at what happened to Adam and Eve - God was hardly endorsing marriage. I dont think the word is used but its a curse. God tells Adam he will have to listen to his nagging wife and she will have to be subordinate to him, etc... Sounds like hard hearts from the beginning

This is after the fall. Christ again is referring to before the Fall, when the curse was not on Eve and Adam. When he refers to the quote, "male and female he created them", he is speaking of God's plan for man before the fall. Sin has entered the world, which is why, as Christ says, our hearts are hard.

Marriage is inferred by the fact divorce can follow marriage but its not clear Jesus was defining who could marry and who could not.

He was very clear in stating that Adam and Eve before the fall was God's model of marriage.

He defined adultery but he didn't say it should be illegal, and that includes people who've married divorcees who weren't properly divorced. If a husband and wife divorce because the man beats the woman and you later marry the woman, are you an adulterer? Should it be illegal for anyone to marry her?

I'd argue it depends on the circumstances both in how the marriage was contracted, and under what circumstances they split up. Of course, that's just for Christians.

render unto Caesar is not a job application

[snoopy369]

[q="Ben Kenobi"]This is the crucial part. God made them complementary to one another, male and female. If he wanted it otherwise then why did he bother making men and women? Why not just men and men or women and women?
[/q]
That one I can answer, easy. God likes different combinations. Just men means only one combination, m-m, boring. Men AND women means, m-m, m-f, f-f, m-f-f-f-f-f...err, well, at least the three...

[Ben Kenobi]

... so you don't mind if they permit gay marriages then? Okay, I can close the thread now

Two very different things.

Under the Mosaic code divorce was permitted. It's different to say that the ideal of marriage is without divorce, then it is to say that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. I don't believe it's right to enforce a code wrt to divorce on people who are not Christian. Gay marriage on the other hand makes about as much sense as "government worker", etc. It's an oxymoron. You cannot have marriage other then as the union as a man and a woman.

The term you are looking for is sodomy.

[snoopy369]

You don't even see the contradiction in your own post, do you

Ben, if you don't believe it's right to enforce a christian code on non-christians, why is it right to enforce a christian definition of a word and/or legal act on people? What's the difference?