Just because a marriage isn't done by a church does not make it any less of a marriage. A marriage through a justice of the peace is still a marriage.

Why do homosexuals wish to get married? For the same reason heterosexuals wish to get married. They love one another and want to be together for the rest of their lives. I know this concept may seem foreign to christians who only think that marriage is about having children.

Just because someone is gay does not mean they can't love someone. If you don't like gay marriage, it's easy, don't marry someone of the same gender. Allowing it doesn't mean you will have to nor does it mean you have to approve since it isn't your wedding to approve of. It also does not mean that you have to allow all kinds of other things that regular people would normally disapprove of.

It would just be 2 people who love each other a great deal, getting married and spending their lives together.

If God doesn't like it, let him/her take care of it in the long run. It is not for general people to decide who has the right to love and marry someone.

Red wrote:

One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminat
--------------------------------

Cowboy relied:

Marriage outside of the church means nothing. The ENTIRE reasoning and why it's done in a church is cause it's a spiritual joining of the two. Making them one flesh in the eyes of the lord. Legal documentation and anything of such means NOTHING. It doesn't matter if two are legally married, or did it behind a barn with their preacher neighbour. The ONLY marriage that holds any kind of power and or is true, is done traditionally. In a church, with the marriage celebration. By a preacher. All other marriages are only real on paper and are pointless.

So you people are talking apples and oranges.

Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale.

Clearly we're not even on the same page here.

The laws of the land have nothing to do with religion and therefore the Christianity shouldn't give a hoot less what the laws of the land are. They have their churches and their religion and they can clearly keep their traditions going in whatever way they want.

There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway.

So Cowboy is just supporting Redy's message that laws should have nothing to do with religion.

Sounds good to me.

I like it when people finally agree on things.

So you people are talking apples and oranges.

Redykeulous is speaking about legal matters in law and Cowboy is off dreaming about his Jealous-God Fairytale.

Clearly we're not even on the same page here.

The laws of the land have nothing to do with religion and therefore the Christianity shouldn't give a hoot less what the laws of the land are. They have their churches and their religion and they can clearly keep their traditions going in whatever way they want.

There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway.

So Cowboy is just supporting Redy's message that laws should have nothing to do with religion.

Sounds good to me.

I like it when people finally agree on things.

1. Interesting concept, a gay God. Some say Jesus was gay, but others say he was not. Saul hated gays, he called them arsenokoitei, right on the pages of the Bible. It is a horribly rude word, ask any person who talks Greek.

2. Interesting choice of words, on the matter of where it is, co-ordinates wise, that gay people have to answer to their god.

If I knew how to put a smiley, I would now.

Gay's god, murderers god, child abductor's god, it's all the same God my friend. There but only one God for us all.

And no Jesus was not gay, for he spoke directly against such an action.

What difference do all these words make to Christians?

What value do Christians really place on these words?

What other church have you ever heard or witnessed ostracizing a divorced member of their congregation?

What level of respect do Christians themselves give to these words?

Do you know of any organized religion besides Mormons and Chistian Scientists who meter out justice to thier congregations?

Still, Christians want to hold everyone else accountable to the same morals that they don't even try to live up to themselves.

Still, Christians want to have say in defining a legal act based on religious morals and values that are not reflected in their own actions.

Still, Christians want to lay claim to a customary tradition practiced world wide regardless of religion. And Christions would shape that tradition to their own specifications when the tradition is not even solely related to Chrisianity.

One final question, why don't Christians simply refuse to marry outside of the church? Why do they need to be married under the law of state and country? That way their precious tradition can retain whatever value they want to assign to it. And the public domain contract of marriage can reflect a legal code that does not descriminate.

========================
There already exist Gay Churches, so clearly the divisiveness of Christianity (and Protestantism in particular) continues to evolve anyway.
========================

Cowboy wrote:

And that's an oxymoron and contradiction all in it's own. Not denying it happens, just still nevertheless is a contradiction.

That's like a bunch of known drug dealers and wanted people going to some party the chief police is holding at his house.

Red wrote:

This is a religion forum so i was speaking of marriage in the spiritual/religion perspective. This isn't the place to be talking about man's law or anything of such, this is a place for religion discussion.

Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God.

All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted.

There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love.

In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics.

So?

There's nothing new there. The whole Abrahamic religion is one big contradiction from start to finish. That's why it's been falling apart over the ages. It started out as Judaism, then split off into Islam, and finally Catholicism was born, then the masses protested against Catholicism giving rise to the myriad of conflicting and divisive forms of Protestantism.

It's no more of a contradiction to suggest that with the "New Covenant" of Jesus the 'old laws' about homosexuality went out with the 'old laws' about stoning sinners to death, etc.

Even you have supported the idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" and that the old laws no longer apply. That's the only way you could get around the obvious contradictions that Jesus did not support the "Old Laws".

So you have no basis for claiming that a Gay Church would be a contradiction. They can use precisely the same kinds of arguments that you use. This is why the religion continues to evolve.

In the New Testament the only place these things come up in is the writing of Paul. But Paul's writings are highly questionable by many people. It's obvious that he was using Jesus as an excuse to dredge up a lot of the old bigotries from the Old Testament.

Since Protestantism is evolving rapidly in this day and age, it would be reasonable for a group of Protestants to get together and reject the writings of Paul from the Biblical Cannon suggesting that Paul's hatred toward Gays and toward Women is clearly out of line with the Love the was taught by Jesus.

So the Gay Christian Churches can be just as 'sound' as any other forum of Christianity. (if you can call any form of it 'sound')

I've personally shown why the whole thing breaks down and that Jesus could have only been a mortal Buddhist and it makes no sense at all to pretend that he was the son of the god of the Old Testament.

Even the Jews could see that fallacy in that idea.

Christianity itself is already a "contradiction" to Judaism. So for Christians to claim that a Gay Church would be a "contradiction" to Christianity is equally absurd. It's just more Protestants continually to protest is all. Nothing new there at all.

Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God.

All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted.

There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love.

In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics.

Well, even so, you're just spewing the views of a single hateful religion that's based on the folklore of a jealous hateful God.

All spiritual/religious views aren't so bigoted.

There's nothing inherent in Mysticism that would deny same gender love. There's certainly nothing in Wicca that would deny same gender love. There's nothing in Shamanism that would deny same gender love.

In fact, outside of the Abrahamic religions it would probably be difficult to find such hateful religious bigotry. This is a strong reason why the Abrahamic religions should be recognized as being ungodly. They clearly do not reflect love, which is what their God is supposed to stand for. So they have a serious problem of being oxymoronic in their description of their God's characteristics.

Love and sex have NOTHING to do with each other my friend. I love you, i love funches, i love everyone on this forum, I love EVERYONE in the world. Male or female it doesn't matter, child or elderly doesn't matter. Does NOT mean i would have a sexual relation with these people whom i love. Again, God tells us not to have a "sexual" relation with the same gender, does NOT say you can't or aren't suppose to love them.

That may be how it is for you, but I was raised to not have sexual relations with someone I do not care for and love. It seems that in todays world love is being forgotten and people just want to have sex. This is the wrong attitude especially if someone gets pregnant. I can't have sex with a woman as I just am not attracted to them. I do not believe in lying so I refuse to be with someone I don't love just so everyone else will be happy. I also refuse to stay single just because people don't want to accept that I am gay.

Gay's god, murderers god, child abductor's god, it's all the same God my friend. There but only one God for us all.

And no Jesus was not gay, for he spoke directly against such an action.

If a frog had wings, would it bumps its azz when it hopped?

MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A MAN NOR A WOMAN AND WOMAN. Marriage is a joining of two people.

=============================================
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mark10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh

Mark10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
====================================================

Notice "God made them male and female" and "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his WIFE." Doesn't say a man and a man, doesn't say a person and person. It specifically says MAN and WOMAN.

====================================================
Leviticous 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
====================================================

---------

All of these talk about something but marriage.


But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. -- but no word at all who can marry whom.



For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; -- yes, for this cause. For another cause, shall a man leave his father and mother and go out with guys. Even get married to them. No forbidding of this here. A man just has to choose his cause wisely.



And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh -- what does this have to do ANYTHING with heterosexual marriage, or more importantly, with forbidding gay marriage?



What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- his has nothing to do anything with marriage. Nothing whatsoever. I think the interpretation that Mark was talking about airplane models or lego train sets that God put tother is equally as valid as the interpretation that after a man and a woman marry, they ought not to divorce. If this was true, no fundamentalist Evangelical church would allow divorces, and yet they do. Because it talks about divorce more than about gay marriage. That's A, and B, once a heterosexual couple fornicates, they ough not to go asunder, since they have been made one flesh by god, so for them to disengage from the fornicatory position is nothing but pure, unadulterated blasphemy. Remember, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."



Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Oh yeah? Then a woman having sexual relationships with a man, even if he is her husband, is an abomination. Don't believe me? Then check the gender of "thou", the pronoun of the subject of the advice or the order by Leviticus. It is genderless, "thou" is. So not only for a man, but for anyone who can be called a thou, is lying with a man an abomination. Maybe Leviticus was giving a sermon to sheep, after word got around that there is an alarmingly growing tendency of Sheep seducing men for sexual favours. I don't know why everyone points fingers at gay people exclusively when they read this passage. People lost their senses, they don't know how to read, they are screwed up totally in the language understandation department in their heads. What has happened to 2000 years of men of the Christian faith? They can't read? they can't think? Christian women have known that all along.


The Christian bible is so easy to pick on and to analyze apart! Much easier than to put it into a perspective that makes sense and analyze it together into a unit that is not 100% pure jiveless mumbo-jumbo. That's a task even I would not want to undertake. What a thankless job it would be for a logician.