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.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 28
60
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

That's what you have to ask the Christian men who wrote the law. I didn't write any laws. Tell your congressmen to take the faith out of the law. Remove "marriage" from the civil law. Don't bring "marriage" to gay unions, because that's like forcing gays to accept religion. Let the gay union have its own unique ceremony. Why corrupt both the religious concept and the gay concept, by blending the two together? It's just confusion.

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: text change

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: fixed quote


O.o Did you just like contradict your opening post? (By that i mean the first time you posted here)




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp184

O.o Did you just like contradict your opening post? (By that i mean the first time you posted here)


No contradiction seen by me. Maybe you could point it out?

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: text

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: quote



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
reply to post by The Old American
 


Toa, i know your on my side so as not to piss you off, but they are fixing that. The catholic church has been retranslating all of the holy books into a more literal sense.


The Catholic church has done more harm to Christianity, and the world in total, than Christians themselves have done. People hate Christians and Christianity as a result of the policies and actions of the Catholic church. Protestantism sprang from the Catholic church to help fix what was wrong, but the damage was too great, and too deep. So deep that the world is still reeling from it 350 years later.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW
You've got to live with a woman to understand.


I do. I live with three, in fact. Unlike bad comedians and poorly written sitcoms, however, I don't find it to be a pain.




The psychology of the rapist is that he wants what he can't have. Having it placed on his plate is a turn off for him.


You must not know any rapists. The rapist likes the control and causing shame for the victim. It has nothing to do with what he can't have.

Wiki



I was referring to the biblical verse which continues



and lie with her, and they be found; -- Deuteronomy 22:28 KJV Bible


which clearly implies that the virgin's consent is also included in the rule. For she doesn't run to tell dad that the man had sex with her, they have to "find them in the act", so she is sneaking around with her lover.


No. That is a typical apologist response. Which tells me that you, sir, are the kind of guy that want's to go out and rape somebody, but are afraid of the consequence.

The verse refers to them being caught. If the man is not caught in the act, then there is no proving that anything at all happened. Rape victims are often in such a state of shame and horror that they don't report the attack. Only something like 35% are reported, if I remember correctly.



This captain doesn't drink.


Then there's no excuse.



The difference with slavery is that the "Police" supported the master actions. Here the "Police" would support the wife.


Sure about that?



Right at the beginning...



And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. -- Genesis 1:10



Uh huh. Not long after that he creates mankind, gives them free will, but demands that they do not use that free will. Instead, they should follow his will (usually blindly) or else he would have them burned for eternity. Oh, but just like an abusive spouse, after the threats he lets you know he loves you. Then of course is the worldwide slaughter of the flood, the citywide slaughter of Sodom and Gomorrah, the approved and assisted slaughter of Jericho. at this point, nothing he can do can bring him from evil to good. Period.



That's what you have to ask the Christian men who wrote the law. I didn't write any laws. Tell your congressmen to take the faith out of the law. Remove "marriage" from the civil law. Don't bring "marriage" to gay unions, because that's like forcing gays to accept religion. Let the gay union have its own unique ceremony. Why corrupt both the religious concept and the gay concept, by blending the two together? It's just confusion.

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: text change

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: fixed quote


Marriage is not a purely religious, and certainly not a solely Christian, word you realize?

From Wikipedia:


Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious.


One of the many reasons. Since the beginning of mankind marriage and religion were not always mutual. The performance changed over time and religion tried to lay claim to it, but it can't. The marriage ceremony that myself and my two wives performed was irrespective of religion, since we each belong to a different faith. We are still married, not a civil union.

Also from Wiki, just for fun:


A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





Which one is right? Whichever one you choose on means that you're choosing the one that best fits your personal view of what being a Christian means. So telling someone that they're not a Christian because they believe something that isn't quantitatively different from doctrine as written is self-centered at best.


Sorry have to call it like i see it.........but
You are correct. However the question remains..

Does God condone Homosexuality/Lesbianism ? Yes or No ?

however, anyone can distort what the scripture says to best fit they lifestyle, and it boils down to relationship, it's like saying ..

God doesn't mind if i cheat on my spouse, because he'll forgive me later for it, and because based upon what his word says.. in john 3;16.. I'm forever his..

you see, it's taking scripture out of context and using it as a 'badge' to get what you want. Kinda like the children of Israel, used their relationship with God and made the golden calf.. but..

that really didn't happen .. or was that actually recorded for us as a reminder ??

but here's somethings to chew on for a bit..

But I say, be led by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sp184

O.o Did you just like contradict your opening post? (By that i mean the first time you posted here)


No contradiction seen by me. Maybe you could point it out?

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: text

edit on 14-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: quote


Well orginaly you where all like: NO!!! and now your all like "Not in religon but in law its ok."



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Being homosexual whether male or female is not NATURAL.

There for it is wrong.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
That's very christian of you.
edit on 9/11/2011 by BeyondMirrors because: different play on words



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Oh hey mister christian, what ever happened to thall shall not judge, lest ye be judged? Hypocrite!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by The Old American
 


Being homosexual whether male or female is not NATURAL.

There for it is wrong.


YES IT IS!!!
If its not natural than howcome ancient civilizations such as rome and egypt have statues that depict homosexual acts?

And what about the 9,000 animals that do it?
How can you say its not natural, when the most natural thing, nature, does it all the time?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
And what about the 9,000 animals that do it?
How can you say its not natural, when the most natural thing, nature, does it all the time?


Animals also eat their young, eat their own waste & vomit. That doesn't mean humans should do that too.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





You should read those words you just wrote, stand in front of a mirror and look at yourself, contemplate them deeply, and see if you can understand how they apply to yourself.


You already accused me of this, which is why I said it- I already realise that you think I arrange my beliefs around what I want to do: that was sort of the whole point of what I said and why.
Similiarly, i don't consider that beliefs can be chosen. You can lie to others and yourself about what you believe but whether you genuinely believe it to be true is not something you can decide.




You've got to live with a woman to understand.

Brilliant, so now we have crass misogyny to add to the list. Obnoxiousness and patronization were already there.



Nobody follows all the laws in the bible. So, by your reckoning, there are no Christians.


Nobody? That sounds very much like apologist talk. If nobody follows them then you feel less guilty for not following them yourself. If literally 'nobody' follows the laws then there are certainly no 'good' christians. I'd say if this book represents absolution then all parts must be equally relevant and important.



No one is expected to follow all the laws, since some laws are not meant for some individuals.

So now you claim to know God's intentions? Many would consider that blasphemy. If laws are relative to the individual in question then they are simply not laws. Again, this sounds like you reassuring yourself over not following the bible fully.




The source is the bible because this thread is about "christian male" etc...How else could I make my arguments "christian" if I don't illustrate with verses from the christian holy book?

But you have already said- not all parts of the bible are to be followed, for everyone, literal or apparently even expected to be followed! So that would mean it comes down to subjective decisions about what to follow- making your opinion (this may upset you) no more valuable than anyone else's.

Finally, I must say, once and for all. Do you know this or do you have faith? If you know something then you CANNOT HAVE FAITH IN IT! Faith implies belief in it despite not knowing it. You cannot claim to know these things and then gloat or lecture about yours and others' faith.
edit on 14-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGod

You must not know any rapists. The rapist likes the control and causing shame for the victim. It has nothing to do with what he can't have.



I read what psychologists say. I can't claim any personal knowledge here.




No. That is a typical apologist response. Which tells me that you, sir, are the kind of guy that want's to go out and rape somebody, but are afraid of the consequence.


Wow. You're really focused on this rape business, aren't you.



The verse refers to them being caught. If the man is not caught in the act, then there is no proving that anything at all happened. Rape victims are often in such a state of shame and horror that they don't report the attack. Only something like 35% are reported, if I remember correctly.


I suppose that's one way to look at it. I didn't see that at all. Why is it only the man gets caught, but never the woman? The verse clearly says and "they be found", it doesn't say "and he be found" in the act. I guess each person's interpretation shows individual bias. I take "they" to mean "both", but you see only "he".

Don't the women of your world have their own " will " too?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Care to elaborate? You ever masturbated? Do you condone oral sex? If either of these is a yes then your argument seems to crumble.

Similiarly, do you live your life only through and with things that occur naturally? Considering you have just used the internet I don't think that is so.

I cannot see how that argument has been thought about in any way whatsoever. Sounds more like a copy and paste opinion.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by yes4141
 


Hedgehogs masturbate and dolphins have oral sex, so thats kinda natural too...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GNUFanx86

Originally posted by spw184
And what about the 9,000 animals that do it?
How can you say its not natural, when the most natural thing, nature, does it all the time?


Animals also eat their young, eat their own waste & vomit. That doesn't mean humans should do that too.


I have to disagree. I think being gay is very natural.
If you watch the video, it shows a little kid with no preconceptions that being gay is bad. Without the preconception that being gay is bad, there is nothing wrong with it. The little kid thinks its weird because he's never seen it before, but he still comes to the conclusion "So that means you love each other." That's it. Being in a homosexual relationship means you love each other despite it being two guys or two girls. I don't see how there can be anything wrong with that.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by The Old American
 


Being homosexual whether male or female is not NATURAL.

There for it is wrong.


Yet it exists in nature.

Great argument.

Glad we had this discussion.

Bricks aren't natural, did you use them to build your Church?
edit on 15-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Take religion out of the equation fully, as marriage is no longer in that realm and what do you have? Inequality on the basis of discrimination on the part of the government towards one group of people.

There is a wall of seperation between church and state, and in this area more so than any other. There really is no reason why 2 people of the same sex can not legally get married, none what so other, beyond the fear of social change that would come along with this. And is it so bad social change? After all was it correct about the Jim Crow laws, or the legalized discrimination and separation of people all based on the color of their skin? Or to keep one group enslaved legally for all of those years, by transporting them from their homeland to a foriegn land to be misused and mistreated?

Jim Crow, legal discrimination and slavery were all at one time justified by those who use religon as a weapon, and it was wrong then as it is wrong now.

Marriage once was in the pervue of the religous, and now is in the realm of the state, so to be a free and equal society, to prevent discrimination on all aspects, it should be open to 2 consenting adults, where the issues has not been through the courts before, to get married, be they gay, or straight or of different skin colors.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by The Old American
 


Being homosexual whether male or female is not NATURAL.

There for it is wrong.


Unnatural does not imply wrong in any way. I am sure the computer you wrote that on did not grow on a tree, but that does not make it evil.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Marriage once was in the pervue of the religous, and now is in the realm of the state, so to be a free and equal society, to prevent discrimination on all aspects, it should be open to 2 consenting adults, where the issues has not been through the courts before, to get married, be they gay, or straight or of different skin colors.



Why just 2 consenting adults, though?

Why not 3 consenting adults, or 5, or more?

Long ago marriage was between 1 man and many women. Even today, the muslims have 1 man and 4 women, and the mormons have 1 man and as much as 21 women.

What's wrong with more that 2 people marring each other?

The more the merrier. Group love is bigger than couple love. Even the lord said love one another. There are lots of "swingers groups" that exchange wives to liven up their marriage. But, it's not legal in any state. Swingers get a bad reputation today, and they suffer the same kind of persecution that gays suffer. Yet, they only share their love among more people than couples do. Why should those who love more get shunned and punished, while those who love less get accepted and rewarded?

Notice that a muslim man cannot fully practice his religion in the United States today, because while other nations allow him to have 4 wives, the US will only allow him to have 1 wife. That's discrimination against religion. There's no freedom of religion if the civil law prevents the expression of the religious rules.



edit on 15-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: add text




top topics



 
60
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join