Now that we're back in power, can we turn the tide on the war on marriage?

God is not a US citizen, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. His opinion is irrelevant.

If Christians want to discriminate against me because of their religion, I'll become a satanist and use my religion to discriminate against them. You don't want to sell me a wedding cake? Fine, but you can only buy from me if you let me draw the mark of the beast on your forehead.

 

No actually you are mistaken.

Matthew 19: 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

By the way... it's also the same chapter where Jesus says that homosexuals shouldn't get married. But if you didn't know about the male and female scripture from Jesus I'm certain you didn't know about his teaching against homosexuals marrying.

 

(confuses a necessary with a sufficient condition)

The reason you didn't quote this passage is because you know that it doesn't clearly pertain to homosexuals.

 

Wrong as usual. Jesus stated that God made them "male and female". He then states that BECAUSE OF THIS (this being because God made them male and female) that for that reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife".

The second statement of getting married is CAUSED by God creating them male and female.

You're wrong.

No I didn't quote it because I wanted someone to claim it wasn't there or that it didn't say that... thanks by the way

Matthew 19: 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

Tell me who these three types of eunuchs are.

 

And you have every right to do so as an owner of your own business. Just don't be surprised when nobody buys from your business.

And if there are enough people like yourself who are offended then the Christian business owner will not stay in business either.

Let's say that someone wanted to throw a party celebrating the 6th Circuit declaring that gay marriage bans should stand... should a gay cake baker be forced to make a cake that says "Gay Marriage Bans FTW!!!"? I personally don't think he should.

 

You ignore the context. Jesus is answering the question whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. See the immediately preceding text. Jesus' answer is simply that it is not lawful to do so. He's not defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He was specifically asked whether a man can divorce a woman.

Lastly, if we're going to accept this passage as law, then we must also accept that divorce is an impermissible sin. Tell me. Why should gay marriage be denied while divorce is permitted?

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

I have already thoroughly debunked this argument.

1). Some people are born without the ability to reproduce. But let's conveniently ignore that and just assume eunuchs are gay even though they aren't described as such anywhere else.
2). If people are born gay, then that really takes the wind out of the sails of conservatives who think homosexuality is a choice.

Basically, you're bending over backwards to find textual support in the bible for your bigoted views of homosexuality.

 

Actually the country didn't exist until white Christians built it. I suppose you can make the case that the real estate was stolen from your ancestors, just as they presumably stole it from someone else's ancestors, but that's another kettle of fish entirely.

Perhaps you'd favor us by saying which edition of the Idiot's Bible Digest you got that from.

There is no sense dumbing it down to that. Those people will never have enough money to feel comfortable under the candid gaze of anyone who sees them for what they are.

 

That's irrelevant. Just because he's asked a question doesn't mean that part of his response was not a defining of the marriage paradigm. He even describes what occurs AFTER the causation. The CAUSE is that God made them male and female (not male and male or female and female). The CONSEQUENCE from that causation is that a man leaves his mother and father and becomes one with his wife.

Your insistence that is not the case does not address the statement he is making. He clearly makes a causal statement and then shows the consequences of that action of God creating them male and female.

Absolutely divorce is impermissible sin. Jesus provides no legitimate justification for divorce EXCEPT for sexual immorality. If you divorce for any other reason then it is impermissible.

And I've never used religion as justification for why homosexuals shouldn't get married. I don't need to, there are so many other legitimate reasons.

When I do I'll let you know. Until then you continue making your illegitimate arguments.

Why would not being able to produce make Jesus state that it's better for them not to marry? If it is because reproduction is a fundamental part of marriage then that would still preclude a homosexual from getting married.

It doesn't matter if people are born gay or if they choose to be. It's completely irrelevant. People are born with genetic predispositions to be aggressive, to steal, to be attracted to family, to be attracted to people of the same sex, to be attracted to children, to be attracted to animals...

Just because you're "born that way" doesn't give you the right to act upon that behavior.

I don't need to bend over backwards. It's right there in red and white. You have no logical justification for your position except for kicking your feet and saying "nuhhhh uhhhhhhh" because you don't like what it says.

Keep trying.

- - - Updated - - -

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

If this is your best response and you think people will be persuaded by this, then it's your funeral. I'm satisfied that anyone with half a brain will recognize the importance of considering the question that Jesus is being asked before contemplating the meaning of his answer.

If it's a cause and effect relationship, that hardly sounds like a command. Seems more like an observation. How can Jesus command us to do what will already happen?

Again, bending over backwards.

See above.

Jesus' only command here is that it is a sin to divorce.

The church would disagree with you here. In fact, pretty much every church would. So we've basically just established that you're not speaking for the majority of Christians.

Whether you've used it or not, you no doubt think it is a legitimate reason they should not be permitted to get married.

We've been here before. Why would being gay make Jesus state that it's better for them not to marry. And your response was basically DER CAUSE THEY'RE GAY!11

It would also preclude a lot of marriages that Christians currently permit.

The right to act upon that behavior depends on the severity of the moral consequences of acting on that behavior.

My position is that any reasonable person will conclude that you've been defeated. Sure some like-minded conservative will see this and agree with you. But I can't help lost causes.

 

Nobody is asserting that you don't look at the context as far as the answer to the specific question is concerned but you're making the assertion that the two are mutually exclusive and that's preposterous.

If I'm asked to describe divorce and I begin my explanation of divorce by providing a description, definition of understanding of the marriage paradigm ... not only would that be perfectly rational but it would be expected by anyone who is not being dishonest.

Just because you don't like his description of marriage doesn't change what he said.

He's not giving you a command. What are you even talking about? What he's doing is describing the fundamental understanding of marriage and the reasoning and purpose behind it. He does this so that he can then describe to these people that BECAUSE God has set up marriage this way, no man can break it apart.

His answer would have been completely nonsensical if he didn't describe the marriage paradigm to begin with.

This has nothing to do with commanding. Please pay attention.

I don't care what a church says. I'm only concerned with what Jesus Christ says. And Jesus makes it undeniably clear that the ONLY acceptable reason for divorce is sexual immorality. If you or a church doesn't like that, it's not my problem.

Not as a legal argument, no I don't. But you keep grasping.

Because two homosexuals are not just unlikely, but INCAPABLE of procreating in and of themselves.

No it would not. First of all you're not acknowledging what he's saying. He's not saying that any of these groups CANNOT get married. He's stating that it is BETTER if they do not get married. But in doing so he CLEARLY defines the marriage paradigm as being between a man and a woman.

Meaning any of those three groups of eunuchs can get married to someone of the opposite sex. But it's BETTER if they do not get married. Furthermore, they would have to get married within the confines of the description of marriage given in the OT and reiterated by Jesus Christ in the NT. So while a homosexual male could get married to a female, he could not get married to another male.

Sorry you don't like that.

No the right to act upon that behavior depends upon the will of the people.

The only position you have is that you don't like what the bible says, you reject any notion that Jesus Christ came against homosexuality. If Jesus wrote a handwritten letter directly to you 3link stating "Homosexuality is a sin and no man can ever marry another man and no woman can ever marry another woman." You'd claim that the TRUE meaning was lost in translation or some other pathetic excuse.

 

What are you even talking about? 'Mutual exclusivity' doesn't apply here. I'm saying it is a stretch to assume Jesus was purporting to define marriage when he was answering a question about divorce. I'm not saying it is impossible. That is your straw man.

Where is Jesus asked to 'describe' divorce? He's asked if divorce is permissible, not what divorce is or means. He cites a passage from the old testament that he believes answers this question.

Just because you think it was a description of the necessary components of marriage doesn't mean that it was. Especially when he was asked about divorce between a husband and wife.

If it's not a command then there's no reason why Christians can't condone gay marriage.

That's your (highly unsubstantiated) opinion.

Except he doesn't purport to define marriage. He simply says a husband cannot divorce his wife.

His answer to the question as to whether a husband can divorce his wife. Which doesn't require defining the meaning of marriage in every context.

If it has nothing to do with commanding then there's no prohibition against gays marrying.

This is the most sense you have ever made.

Someone born with a deformity preventing him from procreating is incapable of procreation.

So marriages between sterile couples are prohibited by the Church?

How can you possibly not see how this completely destroys your argument.

You really overuse clearly. Here's some reading material about that.

And this is all based on the assumption that people born eunuchs are gays.

Your leaps of logic never cease to amaze me. You originally cited this passage for the proposition that Jesus says that homosexuals shouldn't get married. Now you're backpedaling. Now this passage just says that these three groups of people, including what you claim are the gays, should not get married to women. In other words, the meaning of this passage changes as you realize your claims are not supported by the text. You've now been exposed as a fraud.

You can recharacterize my argument all day. It won't make yours any more persuasive.

Very amusing.

 

Since you acknowledge it's possible then what reasoning are you using to claim he's not doing so? Just because you don't like it?

And the passage that he cites and ELABORATES upon is the description of marriage. Jesus IS describing marriage AND the purpose and cause behind it. You have no justifiable reasoning that says it is anything other than that... except that you don't like it.

That's because a marriage between a husband and his husband are not allowed and there are ZERO examples of it occurring within the totality of the OT, NT or for more than 2000 years within the Christian religion.

Of course they can lol That's like saying because there's no command that you can't get married to a 6 month old means that Christians have to condone it.

That's so moronic it really doesn't even deserve a response.

Then tell me, what does this mean?

"And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh."

What is the meaning of that scripture?

Wrong he does NOT simply say a husband cannot divorce his wife. He describes WHY a husband cannot divorce his wife. And his reasoning is that God created them male and female and because of that they are to get married and when they get married they become one in the eyes of God and a man cannot simply then divorce his wife.

Your insistence that he "simply" says that a husband cannot divorce his wife is not only inaccurate but it's also nonsensical.

Show me ANYTHING that justifies homosexual marriage in the bible. I can show where Jesus and God both describe marriage as being between one male and one female. You may want to claim that it's not exclusive but you have NOTHING to justify your position except for your hope.

False. That's like saying if that scripture has nothing to do with commanding then there's no prohibition against staplers getting married in the eyes of God.

Your argument is ludicrously stupid.

Keep smiling, that's what idiots do when they can't answer a question.

I tell the truth whether you or anybody else likes it or not.

That's correct but that's why it's BETTER for him not to marry. It doesn't state he can't. But if he wants to get married he's still required to get married to a woman.

How does the church know who is sterile or not? Don't be obtuse.

Regardless, how many times do I have to tell you that they are not PROHIBITED from being married but it is BETTER for them not to marry. But again, if they want to get married, they're still required to get married to someone of the opposite sex.

Because a homosexual male CAN get married in the eyes of God... but he must get married to a female. I'm sorry you don't like that.

No it's based upon logic and context. And if he's not defining marriage then what is he doing? What is his purpose in making that statement?

Are you not paying attention? I did NOT state that the passage said they could NOT get married. I said that IF your interpretation of the first type of eunuch is someone who is not capable of procreation then it would STILL mean that homosexuals could not get married. I also stated explicitly afterwards that Jesus says it is BETTER for them not to marry... not that they can't. But either way they still must get married to someone of the opposite sex.

I don't need to characterize your argument. Everybody can see that you'd do anything to deny that the bible teaches against homosexuality.

Hell I can even bring up Romans 1 and I'm sure you'd go into some spiel about how Paul was talking about pagans, fertility rituals, prostitution and some other nonsense even though NOWHERE in the book of romans are those 3 things mentioned.

Not nearly as amusing as your "logic".

 

It's a stretch because Jesus was asked whether a husband could divorce his wife. I'm not saying it's impossible. Neither of us can know with certainty.

Just because you're rejecting the plausible reasons I've given you doesn't mean I have no other reason than your straw men arguments.

Circular logic. "Christ is saying marriage between a man and woman isn't allowed because that's how it's been in the 2000 years since his death."

Once again you're confusing necessary and sufficient clauses.

I said then there's no reason why Christians can't condone gay marriage because it is not specifically prohibited. You are now saying that I said that Christians MUST condone gay marriage because it is not specifically prohibited. This is why it gets hard to take you seriously.

I agree. Your strawman was quite moronic. Unfortunately for you I didn't say that.

It means that a husband and wife can't divorce because they are one flesh. That is all.

I don't deny that he provided a premise for why a husband and wife cannot divorce. But that reason doesn't preclude the possibility of homosexual marriage. The passage says WHY divorce between a man and a wife is not possible (in the eyes of God). It doesn't say that only a man and woman can marry.

I'm sure there are zero passages in the bible permitting homosexual marriage. I have no doubt in my mind that the people who wrote the bible did not condone that conduct. I'm simply pointing out that the Gospel doesn't necessarily say what you purport it does, and that your objection to homosexuality based on the Gospel is entirely pretexual. In other words, you're looking to Jesus to justify your bigotry and coming up short.

That's all you got?

I guess that answers my question above.

Note that the smiley face wasn't in response to a question.

The problem is that you tell what you believe is the truth as if it necessarily is the truth without acknowledging that it is an interpretation.

I guess you're not following. You said that eunuchs must refer to gays because it is impossible for them to procreate. But it is also impossible for people born eunuchs to procreate. So you have just agreed that your interpretation of eunuchs as gays has no merit.

If sterile couples are not allowed to be married by the church, you'd think the church would ask. But how often do you think that happens?

Which you base entirely on Jesus' answer to the question whether divorce is permissible.

His purpose is to provide a biblical source to support the proposition that it is impossible for a husband and wife to divorced in the eyes of God.

Nor did I state that you said this. Are you not paying attention?

You cited this passage for the proposition that homosexuals shouldn't get married. Here's the link, again. Feel free to ignore it, again. I'll ignore you too.

Again putting words in my mouth (bolded).

You brought up this passage to show what? That gays shouldn't marry women? How does that contribute to the discussion?

Don't conflate the bible with the Gospel. The latter is the center of our argument here.

Weren't you the guy who said that everything outside of the Gospels was not necessarily the word of God?

 

your religion does not dictate other peoples' rights!

 

Marriage does not require procreation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

seems if you have the Right to deride mine, tis only fair to reciprocate...............eh?
there for, you do not dictate what others can believe.

 

Which of your rights is being threatened by gay marriage?

 

How does that make it a stretch? Especially given that EVERY example of Christian marriage, without exception, from the beginning of the institution before Jesus' time, through Jesus' time and after Jesus' time for 2000 YEARS was between a man and a woman.

You haven't given a plausible reason, you've simply said, he was asked about can a man divorce his wife. You then state that it's a stretch to believe he was defining marriage but you provide no objective reasoning for it whatsoever.

It's not circular logic. The evidence indicates that there was NEVER an example of Christian (or jewish for that matter) marriage that included a man and a man. To assert that somehow God approves of it and it just never happened until 2000 years later is patently absurd.

No you are making assertions that you can't back up and are incapable of providing any justifiable reasoning for your assertion.

Yes there is because Jesus NEVER expressed that marriage could be between a man and a man. The ONLY marriage that he expressed as a legitimate form of marriage was marriage between a man and a woman. I'm sorry you don't like that but it's too bad.

Wrong. He tells you WHY they become one flesh. And what did he say?

Yes it most certainly does preclude that possibility. He is asked why a man and a WIFE. But wife is ambiguous. Homosexuals consider their wife as a man. But then jesus goes further than that. He defines a man and his WIFE as being a MALE AND FEMALE. That precludes the possibility of a man and his wife including a male and male.

No I'm not I'm making sure that I use context and cross referencing. And the fact that Jesus is referencing OT scripture in regards to a male and a female getting married when he's asked about marriage... and the fact that the OT as well as Paul both condemn homosexuality, the idea that Jesus Christ is going to then give ANY allowance for doing so is ludicrous.

Your problem is that you will refuse to accept that possibility without an explicit declaration from Jesus Christ stating homosexuals cannot get married. But that's no different than someone who wants to have sex with their great dane wanting an explicit declaration from Jesus Christ stating that humans and dogs cannot get married. But whether you like it or not, both of you are wrong. And no matter how much grandstanding you do, it won't change that fact.

Oh no I got plenty more. But you still don't address the point being made. According to your logic for there to be a prohibition against staplers getting married in the eyes of God there must be an explicit commandment against it.

Maybe if you actually attempted to address the point you wouldn't be flailing so hard.

No it was an insight into your state of mind.

Truth is not subjective. An interpretation can either be proven or disproven using context and crossreferencing. Just like how I pointed out to you that MY interpretation of Jesus' doctrine in Matthew 19 is consistent with the entirety of the rest of his doctrine, the OT and the NT. Your interpretation would have to mean that Jesus Christ is contradicting everything else taught including his own doctrines.

That means I'm right and you're wrong.

As I pointed out to you multiple times the last time I pwned you in this conversation, the possibility exists that he COULD be talking about someone who is born without genitals. However, the statistical likelihood that someone is born without genitals is a miniscule portion of 1/10 of 1% of the population... whereas homosexuals represent ~5% of the population. The likelihood that he was referring to people born without genitals, while possible, is exceedingly unlikely compared to the probability that he was referring to homosexuals.

Also, when you make the assertion that he's talking about people who are born without genitals then you're stating the REASON he does so is because those people without genitals are not capable of procreating with their partner. As such it would be better for them not to marry their partner. But in doing so you admit that procreation is an integral part of marriage in which case that would STILL put homosexuals in a position where the homosexual marriage paradigm would completely undermine the point of marriage in the first place and logically would still dictate that two men cannot get married.

Which church? The catholic church? Presbyterian? Baptist? 7th Day Adventist?

The church is completely irrelevant in regards to the doctrines teachings and examples set forth by Christ. The only thing that matters are his teachings.

No I base it upon the fact that Jesus Christ is referencing Genesis where God said "male and female" over a dozen times and NEVER making any reference to making them male and male or female and female. He also ties the idea of male and female (that Jesus is referencing) with the concept of procreation over and over and over again. Additionally, the OT makes it clear that the act of engaging in homosexual sex is unacceptable. Not only does the OT do so but so does Romans 1 and the NT.

First of all, it's not impossible. He says there's only one reason, sexual immorality. Second of all, that doesn't answer the question, why does Jesus waste his time making those statements? Does he just like to hear himself talk? Of course not. He's making a point. What point is he making? What does being made male and female have to do with divorce?

Do you know what the word SHOULDN'T means? It doesn't mean can't.

And I was referring to post #235 where I said "Why would not being able to produce make Jesus state that it's better for them not to marry? If it is because reproduction is a fundamental part of marriage then that would still preclude a homosexual from getting married."

I brought the passage up to show that #1 Jesus points out that marriage is between a male and a female. Jesus then states that it's better for homosexuals not to marry at all. They're prohibited from marrying another man but it's BETTER that they don't marry a female either.

Also, I made my original comment in response to the other individual stating: "I've read the bible and what did Jesus say about same sex marriage: "Don't Judge others" and "Everyone is welcome in my house."" And Jesus said more than just that.

I have no problem pointing to the gospel. I'm simply pointing out that my interpretation is consistent whereas yours is not.

I said that the bible is not the Word of God. The bible is the INSPIRED word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.

That means that If those teachings were not consistent with Jesus' teachings then they are not legitimate. Unfortunately for you they are consistent with Jesus' doctrine.

 

That's not the point. The point is... here let me try it this way.

Why do you think we give away literally hundreds of millions of dollars every single year to provide marriage subsidies? Do we do so because we like giving our money away? Of course not, we provide subsidies for a reason. What tangible economic benefit are we paying for by providing marriage subsidies?

 

So you are saying giving marriage benefits to gays would destroy the system?

 

I am saying it would be a completely unnecessary and non-beneficial detriment to the system. And if we take the homosexuals logic and apply it across the board to all groups and all peoples then it could eventually destroy the system, absolutely.

 

because Monogamous relationships help stop the spread of STD's

marriage encourages Monogamous relationships

.

 

sure they said the same about inter-racial marriage... but I am curious, what other groups are you thinking of that are both unrelated consenting adults that want to become related through marriage?

.

 

We're paying hundreds of millions of dollars every year for monogamy? Are you joking?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you have to put unrelated? Because you know it doesn't fit your narrative? Polygamous also.

 

no one else has the right to marry more then one person, you can divorce and marry as many as you want, but the same rules apply to everyone, one marriage at a time

now if white heterosexual men could marry as many women as they wanted to, then it would be discrimination to prevent outer groups from marrying more them one

because marriage makes family where there was none before, unrelated consenting adults become related through marriage... if your already family, then you don't need marriage as your already related

it's like asking why you need to adopt some children, but not your own... your own are already family is why

.