This reminds of a thread by MsHarmony where people just don't "get" other cultures and read the Bible through filters of their own culture. Back then the famous "BUTT-SEX" was used much like it is used in prisons today and it is not a prohibition on homosexuality. For example, they will point to the story of Sodom and proclaim "Hate the Homo", when the Bible itself states the story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality:

Ezekiel 16:49

New International Version (©2011)
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn't support the poor and needy.

International Standard Version (©2012)
Look! This was the sin of your sister Sodom and her daughters: Pride, too much food, undisturbed peace, and failure to help the poor and needy.

NET Bible (©2006)
"'See here--this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had majesty, abundance of food, and enjoyed carefree ease, but they did not help the poor and needy.

WRONG...that's the oldest argument in the book, and there isn't evidence strong enough to sway my stance on this. AIDS occurs REGULARILY OUTSIDE of homosexual sex. And for u to use that disease as reason to prove the immorality of homosexuality is disturbing.

So you're also going to accuse African children of living 'immoral lives' when they contract AIDS due to poor living conditions? How so?

And you coined the term 'plague' in your post. Oh yeah, AIDS is ravaging our nation.

Don't matter because it is unnatural anyway.

Just not my job to impose my beliefs on others.

Don't matter because it is unnatural anyway.

Just not my job to impose my beliefs on others.

someone is always 'imposed' upon,,,,,

when marriage was between man and woman, homosexuals felt imposed on

now that the law says marriage is only about 'consenting adults' , it imposes upon Christians

but, that's another reason I would never want a politicians job,,, being told by others actions who its ok to impose on,,,,,

that verse goes on to say,,,,

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed ABOMINATION before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

In what possible way??? Nothing in that law affects anyone in a religious sense. It just says that same-sex couples who are legally married have the same rights to LEGAL recognition of their marriages as hetero couples.

Doesn't say anything about religion at all, and churches who condemn homosexuality are not going to be suddenly required to perform same-sex marriages.

A good analogy would be the issue of divorce and the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC forbids divorce, and will not perform a marriage for a couple when one or both of the partners is divorced. The workaround, of course, is for a divorced Catholic to seek an annulment from the church, which is a matter of canon law rather than church law, after which remarriage in the church becomes possible.

But US law permits divorce and remarriage. This imposes nothing upon Catholicism (note that the procedures for annulment were already in existence long before the US was) and has not in any way infringed upon the RCC's right to say, "Sorry, but we don't recognize civil divorce -- ONLY annulments."


Now that equality is the law, no one is being imposed on. This is a step FORWARD.

Then why do I not hear you pushing for this in the Parents forum:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

I don't see it that way,, respectfully

using your divorce and remarriage as a perfect example,,,,

with divorce and remarriage 'acceptance' it has become more of a cultural mainstay, and therefore imposed upon Christians wanting to raise their families with certain values by having their CHILDREN growing up in a culture which has embraced and supported it...

Christian families are imposed upon in a culture where divorce is just another thing,,,,,

if you are truly interested

my belief of the old testament is as a set of laws for a set aside people who were held to a HOLIER standard than any other because they were 'chosen'

once Jesus died on the cross, during the New Testament,, there was no longer a 'chosen',, no jew or gentile,,etc

all became equal and were afforded salvation through the sacrifice of Christ,,,,,

if you are truly interested

my belief of the old testament is as a set of laws for a set aside people who were held to a HOLIER standard than any other because they were 'chosen'

once Jesus died on the cross, during the New Testament,, there was no longer a 'chosen',, no jew or gentile,,etc

all became equal and were afforded salvation through the sacrifice of Christ,,,,,

So you follow a Xianity based on the teachings of Paul and not Jesus? Most of the world does as well. Jesus basically taught the Noahide code, which his brother James also instructed Paul to do (see Acts).
Things that maake you go hmmmmmm

So you follow a Xianity based on the teachings of Paul and not Jesus? Most of the world does as well. Jesus basically taught the Noahide code, which his brother James also instructed Paul to do (see Acts).
Things that maake you go hmmmmmm

IMPOSE

1.Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place: "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them".
2.Forcibly put (a restriction) in place: "sanctions imposed".

I am not in favor of legalizing sodomy via marriage 'equality', any more than I would be in favor of criminalizing

Im in favor of people leaving that behavior between themselves and their partner and not forcing the country to advocate for and support their choice,,,

One more thing:

I'm probably a bit off the mark in saying that this has NO implications for religion, because it does have ONE:

Religions (such as mine) which do perform, bless and recognize same-sex marriages will now be able to have those marriages be legally recognized across all 50 states provided the marriages were performed in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. There are actually quite a few religions and even Christian denominations in which same-sex marriage is blessed and recognized, including:

Reform Judaism
Some Conservative Jewish synagogues will also perform same-sex marriages, as will some Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues.
United Church of Christ
Metropolitan Community Church
Some Anglican and Episcopalian churches (it varies from diocese to diocese)
Quakers (The Religious Society of Friends) - Some fellowships/meetinghouses do and some don't, as the Friends do not have one monolithic governing body.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA)
The Unitarian Universalist Church
Unity Church

There are others; this list is not exhaustive.

The last time that I checked, no church has the authority to override the teachings of the Apostles.

Show me a church which says that God accepts sex between two people of the same gender, and I will show you a church that is contradicting the teachings of the Apostle Paul.