It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1 Corinthians 14:33New International Version (NIV)
33 For God is not a God of disorder ...
Deuteronomy 22:28
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko
Conscientious objection is when someone doesn't participate in an activity. If you don't like gay marriage, conscientiously object all you want, don't participate, just don't ruin it for everyone else in the process.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ketsuko
Its easy enough to get married without a church or any involvement in religion...
Would that me ok?
Or is marriage only for the religious?
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ketsuko
Its easy enough to get married without a church or any involvement in religion...
Would that me ok?
Or is marriage only for the religious?
You can call your ceremony whatever you like. I'll probably call it whatever you like, but I may not consider it to be what you call it.
My sister and brother-in-law are "married" but it isn't exactly what I consider a marriage since they didn't say the vows before God. They have a civil union IMO, not what I consider a marriage. And if my marriage certificate was repealed tomorrow by the state. I said my vows in front of a minister before God. His authority is higher than the state, so it can bite me.
So God is only before ministers when getting married? Why the middle-man? God knows your heart whether a minister hears it or not.
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."
...
J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property."
...
They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."
In most English translations, these verses seem to utterly forbid all forms of male-male sex. However, the verses are not actually that general. If it was general, why is the phrase "as one lies with a woman" present in both verses? Why don't the verses just say "You will not lie with a man", or "You will not lie carnally with a man"? (See Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV.)
originally posted by: ketsuko
Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too.
originally posted by: ketsuko
No we are against gay marriage because God said marriage is between a man and a woman and Jesus doubled down on that.
It has nothing to do with whether or not you are gay. Obviously a marriage cannot be blessed between two men or two women.
Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too. It goes against belief.
However I suppose you are against the idea of allowing people to be conscientious objectors? I'm sure you must be ...
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: rockpaperhammock
There actually is an alternative translation of Leviticus 20:13. It's made by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), so they do have a vested interest, but they say they have translated from the original Hebrew and instead of "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman...", it says, "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman..."
If that is correct, it's not a condemnation of homosexuality itself, but only where the act can be performed.
Religious Tolerance
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."
...
J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property."
...
They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:
"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."
But, of course, religious people know the mind of God and can tell you exactly what it means, even after many translations by many people (with agendas) over many years.
Another interesting point:
In most English translations, these verses seem to utterly forbid all forms of male-male sex. However, the verses are not actually that general. If it was general, why is the phrase "as one lies with a woman" present in both verses? Why don't the verses just say "You will not lie with a man", or "You will not lie carnally with a man"? (See Leviticus 18:20 in the KJV.)
www.inherit-the-kingdom.org...
originally posted by: ketsuko
Even then, if you wanted to have the state put a contract in place for such arrangements, fine, but then you call it marriage and want to force us to call it that too.
No one wants to force you to call it that, too. You can call it anything you want.
My sister and brother-in-law are "married" but it isn't exactly what I consider a marriage since they didn't say the vows before God.