gay marriage...

[Alex]

The origin of the tradition of marriage is in Genesis 2:23;
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This tradition does not give a requirement for race, relation, age, landownersip or similar. Also, since at this point there was no multitude of various religions, interfaith was not an issue, either. The only requirement that it does give is gender. Over the following years, especially after the Nefilim corrupted the Human g-nome, various requirements were added both by God and by Man. I would argue that such requirements as race and landownership were added after marriage, its self, was created, and that eliminating those requirements later only brings marriage closer to its original intent. Genesis 2:23 shows us what the natural order that God set into place is. Homosexuality is called an "abomination" because it goes agents that divine natural order. Debates over relation, etc..get only slightly more detailed because we would need to clarify why an added requirement was made.

So the tradition begins shortly after the creation of Man and long before any cultural dynamics come into play.

See post #241 in this thread.

 

[Busta]

I see immature attitudes as getting involved in someone else's personal business that is not yours.

We are discussing public law and debating universal morality. Since no one is discussing personal business, I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[Busta]

See post #241 in this thread.

I'm about half way finished answering the questions. I'll post them when I'm don. (it took me a while to find the going rate for a slave)

 

[Busta]

I am my kid's Dad........and a Dr.Laura fan of @9 years.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Try Bullseye BBQ sauce. That should quiet the neighbors.

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I believe corn is the proper payment for daughters. (see Nehemiah 5)

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Check the bathroom trash can before you approach her with your desires

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Your friend is mistaken. Canadians are our neighbors,too, although they sometimes have heads that look like trash cans.


e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath and if we are to follow His examples then we can work if we wish.

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Shellfish causes gout. Leave it alone.

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

This only applies to members of the tribe of Levi, and he doesn't have any kids yet.

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

This only applied to Old Testament Jews. You spend way too much time in the books of law. Move on!

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Yes, it's OK, as long as you partake in the ritual cleansing afterwards.

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I think that would be acceptable, but it may be a good idea to make it look like the KKK was involved for coverage.

After I got about half way thrue with researching serious answers too these questions, I realized that the person who wrote this is not interested in actually learning the scriptures. Alex, I also do not believe that you are serious. I will save the serious answers that I have so far, so that if you ever want to engage in an honest conversation about the Torah or the Bible, we can do so on an appropriate thread.

 

[Alex]

I am my kid's Dad........and a Dr.Laura fan of @9 years.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Try Bullseye BBQ sauce. That should quiet the neighbors.

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I believe corn is the proper payment for daughters. (see Nehemiah 5)

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Check the bathroom trash can before you approach her with your desires

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Your friend is mistaken. Canadians are our neighbors,too, although they sometimes have heads that look like trash cans.


e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath and if we are to follow His examples then we can work if we wish.

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Shellfish causes gout. Leave it alone.

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

This only applies to members of the tribe of Levi, and he doesn't have any kids yet.

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

This only applied to Old Testament Jews. You spend way too much time in the books of law. Move on!

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Yes, it's OK, as long as you partake in the ritual cleansing afterwards.

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I think that would be acceptable, but it may be a good idea to make it look like the KKK was involved for coverage.

After I got about half way thrue with researching serious answers too these questions, I realized that the person who wrote this is not interested in actually learning the scriptures. Alex, I also do not believe that you are serious. I will save the serious answers that I have so far, so that if you ever want to engage in an honest conversation about the Torah or the Bible, we can do so on an appropriate thread.

I am very serious. If someone is going to abuse the Bible to get their point across in regards to same-sex marriage, then they should be just as willing to use it to answer the questions my original post asked. The Bible is full of hypocritical statements, the ones regarding same-sex relationships are no different. Do you only pick and choose what you want to preach from the Bible or are you truly an adherent? That is the basic question the post is getting at. If you do not believe in the points that it brings up but you do believe the Bible is enough to not allow same-sex marriage, then you are abusing that book for your own bidding.

 

[shuamort]

The origin of the tradition of marriage is in Genesis 2:23;
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This tradition does not give a requirement for race, relation, age, landownersip or similar. Also, since at this point there was no multitude of various religions, interfaith was not an issue, either. The only requirement that it does give is gender.

I call bullshit. Your passage does not address marriage at all. Nowhere does it even come close to mentioning it. Moreover, there is no place in the Bible where it states that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Look it up.

Over the following years, especially after the Nefilim corrupted the Human g-nome,

Nefilm? G-nome? What are you going on about?

various requirements were added both by God and by Man. I would argue that such requirements as race and landownership were added after marriage, its self, was created, and that eliminating those requirements later only brings marriage closer to its original intent.

Race was never a factor in the bible re: marriage. The bible did warn of marrying neighboring tribes not because of race, but because of conflicting religions. Look it up.

Genesis 2:23 shows us what the natural order that God set into place is. Homosexuality is called an "abomination" because it goes agents that divine natural order.

Homosexuality was never in the old testament. Neither was it in the new testament until recently. The term didn't exist then. Moreover, biblical scholars have shown how the words in the NT have been bastardized from their original greek forms of arsenokoites and malakoi. Since it's your religion, I'm sure you knew that already.

Debates over relation, etc..get only slightly more detailed because we would need to clarify why an added requirement was made.

So the tradition begins shortly after the creation of Man and long before any cultural dynamics come into play.

Umm, no it didn't. You have yet to prove that.

 

[Busta]

I am very serious. If someone is going to abuse the Bible to get their point across in regards to same-sex marriage, then they should be just as willing to use it to answer the questions my original post asked. The Bible is full of hypocritical statements, the ones regarding same-sex relationships are no different. Do you only pick and choose what you want to preach from the Bible or are you truly an adherent? That is the basic question the post is getting at. If you do not believe in the points that it brings up but you do believe the Bible is enough to not allow same-sex marriage, then you are abusing that book for your own bidding.

Name the thread.

 

[Timequake]

This is my opinion on the subject, I wrote this essay in high school so if it sounds a bit... naive, please spare me those insults. None of it is directed toward any of you personally, or your beliefs. Just thought since I had it here on the comp it would save me from writing a long post that says pretty much the same thing.

I like to think of myself as a moderate, my beliefs are not quite liberal and certainly not conservative; I try to see both sides impartially and base my beliefs on what’s fair and acceptable to society. When it comes to same-sex marriages I say “why not?” the homosexual populace are citizens, and every citizen has protected rights.

I have found that most people “opposed” to the idea of same-sex marriage are not actually opposed, so to say, but instead they are scared. Scared of what the world will come to if such an abnormal (some even go as far as to say immoral) behavior becomes legally acceptable to our society.

What we must acknowledge in this day in age is that normality can no longer be defined. “What is normal?” Do any of us have an answer? Ten years ago, if we saw two persons of the same sex holding hands or showing any signs of affection we would have been appalled, but in today’s society it has become socially acceptable, even more than socially acceptable… for a short time it was even considered trendy to be gay.

This coincides that we live in a constantly evolving society, one in which never stops to take a breath. In fact, we now find ourselves gasping for air at the fact that homosexual couples want to be married. But wasn’t it our acceptance and enthusiasm of the homosexual community that fueled these couples to advance their strife and consequently demanding allowance to proceed to the next step of their relationship? Some could say we had it coming, others may argue that we never truly accepted it, but the fact is we must now deal with it.

Our society is scared. We are scared of letting social progression change the face of our “Beaver Cleaver” household image. We are so used to what is “normal” we are blind to the fact that nothing normal anymore. We have men and woman blowing themselves up in the name of God, teenagers getting pregnant as young as thirteen, and soon we may even encounter research that can rebuild human organs. It may not be “normal” but it is reality. In reality we have men and woman who have sexual emotions for one another, men and woman who want to be married. We cannot bypass it any longer, we must accept it, and we must accept them.

This acceptance includes the allowance of same-sex amalgamation. Notice I did not say marriage. For most, matrimony is a moral unification between a man and a woman, whereas, in this case, amalgamation is the union of two individuals most frequently of the same sex that wish to share their lives emotionally and financially, whether morally or not. This amalgamation allows individuals the legal opportunities parallel to those found in marriage. Offering financial security as well as economic opportunities the same-sex amalgamation is thus thoroughly equal to the heterosexual union known as marriage. Dissimilar only in morality, this amalgamation allows that all couples could be joined in a union equally. Because the matrimonial sacrament is sacred and thus recognized by the church and being that most churches do not offer approval of the homosexual lifestyle it is appropriate to differentiate marriage and homosexual amalgamations. The homosexual amalgamation will offer a legal union identical to those found in marriages, although it will not offer the moral components as do matrimony. Though we have socially accepted homosexuality, our society has not yet begun to morally accept homosexuality, as I believe it never will, but this rejection should not compromise homosexual rights’ as citizens.
This is what this issue is about: our rights. We must not let our morals interfere with our constitutional rights. America is the nation of the free, not of the conventional. We established this nation because we wanted to escape persecution and convey ourselves as we wished in all aspects of life, this does not exclude sexual preference. Religion should not be acknowledged when politics are concerned. Yes, we want our social morals to represented but not in the case where it overlooks our rights as individual Americans. A popular bumper sticker reads: “Last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.” Look at the past and you will find that a nation ruled by moral justifications is one in which is venerable to tyranny and bloodshed. By putting our moral values before people’s rights we create a line that should never have been drawn. By denying same-sex amalgamation we take the first step toward crossing that line, it would be the beginning of many more decisions based on morality.

President John F. Kennedy once said "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all." JFK knew that if religion and government intervened then we would be no better than what most of the first Americans tried to escape. If we ban same-sex marriages we go against all we have stood for in the past. America stands for freedom of every kind, America stands for equal rights, and America stands for the protection of our families. Tell me how can we now deny homosexuals these rights that they too stand for?

It must be known that separate distinguished unions for homosexual couples will not compromise the morals or rights of American citizens, it will equalize them. For so long we have battled discrimination, from women’s suffrage to the African American civil rights movement, we have progressively accepted equality for all. It is now time for America to move forward yet again. If we do not allow homosexual amalgamations in the United States all that we have done in the past would have been in vain.

America still stands for a unity of diversity. There is no stopping the progression in which our society encounters, we must embrace it, not deny it. It is time once again to prove we are a constitutional nation, once in which promotes equality for one and all, one in which denies no one their rights as a citizen.

 

[Kelzie]

This acceptance includes the allowance of same-sex amalgamation. Notice I did not say marriage. For most, matrimony is a moral unification between a man and a woman, whereas, in this case, amalgamation is the union of two individuals most frequently of the same sex that wish to share their lives emotionally and financially, whether morally or not. This amalgamation allows individuals the legal opportunities parallel to those found in marriage. Offering financial security as well as economic opportunities the same-sex amalgamation is thus thoroughly equal to the heterosexual union known as marriage. Dissimilar only in morality, this amalgamation allows that all couples could be joined in a union equally. Because the matrimonial sacrament is sacred and thus recognized by the church and being that most churches do not offer approval of the homosexual lifestyle it is appropriate to differentiate marriage and homosexual amalgamations. The homosexual amalgamation will offer a legal union identical to those found in marriages, although it will not offer the moral components as do matrimony. Though we have socially accepted homosexuality, our society has not yet begun to morally accept homosexuality, as I believe it never will, but this rejection should not compromise homosexual rights’ as citizens.

Good essay....especially for a high school student!

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There are quite a few churches that endorse gay marriage. Should we not allow them to bless a union as a marriage if that is what they believe in?

 

[Timequake]

Good essay....especially for a high school student!

I agree with everything except the bolded part. There are quite a few churches that endorse gay marriage. Should we not allow them to bless a union as a marriage if that is what they believe in?

Are these churches of a Christian denomination?? If not, should the church and it's fellowship choose to recognize an amalgamation as a marriage, i don't see how it would be a problem.

 

[Kelzie]

Are these churches of a Christian denomination?? If not, should the church and it's fellowship choose to recognize an amalgamation as a marriage, i don't see how it would be a problem.

I believe some of them are. I know there's a list of gay-friendly churches somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Supporters of Gay marriage raely want to discuss what willfollow from its approval.If all it takes is love how is Polygamy illegal, how can you enforce the statutory Rape laws, the incest laws,. Won't the public schools have to teach Gay sexual practices as part of sex education ?

 

[shuamort]

Supporters of Gay marriage raely want to discuss what willfollow from its approval.If all it takes is love how is Polygamy illegal, how can you enforce the statutory Rape laws, the incest laws,. Won't the public schools have to teach Gay sexual practices as part of sex education ?

Because slippery slopes are fallacies? That'd be my response.

Statutory rape laws include a person who is not of the majority and is not able to legally consent. Since we're discussing consentual adults, the point is not relevent.

I know a lot of kids in my high school that would have loved to learn about how lesbians do it. It didn't make 'em lesbians, it just made them educated.

 

[Timequake]

Supporters of Gay marriage raely want to discuss what willfollow from its approval.If all it takes is love how is Polygamy illegal, how can you enforce the statutory Rape laws, the incest laws,. Won't the public schools have to teach Gay sexual practices as part of sex education ?

What will follow from it's approval? Equal Rights?

 

[Busta]

I call bullshit. Your passage does not address marriage at all. Nowhere does it even come close to mentioning it. Moreover, there is no place in the Bible where it states that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Look it up.

Nefilm? G-nome? What are you going on about?

Race was never a factor in the bible re: marriage. The bible did warn of marrying neighboring tribes not because of race, but because of conflicting religions. Look it up.

Homosexuality was never in the old testament. Neither was it in the new testament until recently. The term didn't exist then. Moreover, biblical scholars have shown how the words in the NT have been bastardized from their original greek forms of arsenokoites and malakoi. Since it's your religion, I'm sure you knew that already.

Umm, no it didn't. You have yet to prove that.

Genesis 2:23 shows us the founding of a Man and a Woman coming together, in what will become to be known as marriage, is the divine natural order. Men and Women, not Men and Men or Women and Women, coming to gether to "be one flesh" is the natural order. If you could provide a similar passage in which God tells us that Men and Men or Women and Women should come together and be one flesh, that would certainly help me understand your opposition.

Even if you can not find a passage giving an example of homosexual unions being a part of the divine natural order, since the Bible is filled with heterosexual marriages being accepted, perhaps if you could point out a passage of a homosexual marriage being accepted on equal terms as a heterosexual marriage, that would certainly help also.

As to your suggestion that the Bible allowes gay-marriage because it does not directly forbid gay-marriage, I'll remind you that the absence of proof, is not proof.

The Nefilim come into play in Genesis 6 and are mentioned elsewhere in the bible also. Goliath (of David and Goliath), and his brothers were Nefilim. The ancient pantheons of Greece, Norway, Roam and Egypt as well as the modern pantheons of Wicca are based on the Nefilim. Some of our names of the more well known Nefilim are Thor, Osiris, Rah, and Odin.

It is a theory that Man had a perfect genetic structure before the Nefilim came and breed with us. This is believed to be why insest was of no consequence early on. Later, however, after the Nefilim had come into the picture, insest started to become 'taboo' because the now corrupt Human genetic code causes deformities in the children of insest.

"Race was never a factor in the bible re: marriage. The bible did warn of marrying neighboring tribes not because of race, but because of conflicting religions."

That's rite. My point was that these restrictions, regardless of who added them, were added after the divine establishment of heterosexual unions.

Genesis 2:23 does not need to literally say "marriage" in order to show the establishment of that union. Leviticus 18:22 does not need to literally say "homosexual" in order to issue an ordinance forbiding that act.

I'll kindly ask you to not try and change the subject by appealing to the authority of the Bible. There are many Biblical schoolers who disagree on various translations of the original texts. If you would like to discuss that subject, start a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

 

[Busta]

What will follow from it's approval? Equal Rights?

Marital rights are already equal. Any man my get married to a Woman. Any Woman can get married to a Man. No one may get married to a member of the same sex.

Are you forwarding the view that any two people who love each other should be allowed to be married?

 

[shuamort]

I see you're skipping over my point about Adam and Eve's marriage not being mentioned in the bible. One point to me.

Genesis 2:23 shows us the founding of a Man and a Woman coming together, in what will become to be known as marriage, is the divine natural order. Men and Women, not Men and Men or Women and Women, coming to gether to "be one flesh" is the natural order. If you could provide a similar passage in which God tells us that Men and Men or Women and Women should come together and be one flesh, that would certainly help me understand your opposition.

Passage? I'll give ya three:
Ruth and Naomi
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)


David and Jonathan
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.


1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

Daniel and Ashpenaz
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version


The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.

Even if you can not find a passage giving an example of homosexual unions being a part of the divine natural order, since the Bible is filled with heterosexual marriages being accepted, perhaps if you could point out a passage of a homosexual marriage being accepted on equal terms as a heterosexual marriage, that would certainly help also.

As to your suggestion that the Bible allowes gay-marriage because it does not directly forbid gay-marriage, I'll remind you that the absence of proof, is not proof.

That's funny, since you're claiming that Adam and Eve were married but there's no proof in the Bible that states that. So, is your absence of proof not proof applicable to you too?

The Nefilim come into play in Genesis 6 and are mentioned elsewhere in the bible also. Goliath (of David and Goliath), and his brothers were Nefilim. The ancient pantheons of Greece, Norway, Roam and Egypt as well as the modern pantheons of Wicca are based on the Nefilim. Some of our names of the more well known Nefilim are Thor, Osiris, Rah, and Odin.

It is a theory that Man had a perfect genetic structure before the Nefilim came and breed with us. This is believed to be why insest was of no consequence early on. Later, however, after the Nefilim had come into the picture, insest started to become 'taboo' because the now corrupt Human genetic code causes deformities in the children of insest.

A theory? Hmm, sure.

"Race was never a factor in the bible re: marriage. The bible did warn of marrying neighboring tribes not because of race, but because of conflicting religions."

That's rite. My point was that these restrictions, regardless of who added them, were added after the divine establishment of heterosexual unions.

Genesis 2:23 does not need to literally say "marriage" in order to show the establishment of that union. Leviticus 18:22 does not need to literally say "homosexual" in order to issue an ordinance forbiding that act.

Since you're only using Mosaic codes and laws which weren't part and parcel but wholy eschewed by the new testament, it's really moot, isn't it? The NT didn't pick which parts of the laws to get rid of, it got rid of 'em all. No more mixed fabric problems, no more food issues. Yadda yadda yadda.

I'll kindly ask you to not try and change the subject by appealing to the authority of the Bible. There are many Biblical schoolers who disagree on various translations of the original texts. If you would like to discuss that subject, start a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

Since it's germane to the discussion, we can keep it here.

 

[Ryanmodcon]

Throw your bible away.

 

[Timequake]

Marital rights are already equal. Any man my get married to a Woman. Any Woman can get married to a Man. No one may get married to a member of the same sex.

Are you forwarding the view that any two people who love each other should be allowed to be married?

Any two people, no matter the sex, should legally be jioned if they so wish. A man and a woman under a christian church may be married, two people of the same sex may be amalgamationed

 

[Ryanmodcon]

Why does it bother you Christies so much?
You arent the ones "sinning", youre all so selfish with your marriage, Jesus says to share.
Why does it bother you so bad?

 

[y not peace?]

ryan...it dont bother me and im christian...

 

[Ryanmodcon]

ryan...it dont bother me and im christian...

well, it is the christians who it bothers, I didnt mean ALL, just the Christians I cant tolerate... the majority...

 

[Alex]

Name the thread.

What? Name what thread?

 

[Busta]

What? Name what thread?

Going over those questions, and my answers to them (to say nothing for the people who may want in on the conversation), would take up allot of space. Since these questions, however serious, are not directly related to gay-marriage, I believe that it would be prudent for us to discuss it on another thread.

If you would like, I'll start the thread and bring it too your attention when I'm finished with my answers.

 

[Busta]

Throw your bible away.

What!! And waste a perfectly good *Warning* sticker? No thank you.