UESP Forums

Again, God did not write the Bible, at least not physically. I may not like gay marriage, but I can't tell someone else they may not marry because I do not. It is not my life; I can not live it for them. And for that matter, every shaman, witch, wiccan, or warlock can get married too. Because at the end of the day. it is they, not me, that makes the choice on how to live. And if America wants to let its citizens decide how to live religiously, regardless of what that religion may be, then more power to them.

This is not true. The Kings of Israel disobeyed God by taking more than one wife, which was the practice of neighboring countries at the time.

Way to go! Oh wait..old fashioned polygyny? Well goddamnit, literally..

Read the bold women gave up natural relations for those opposite, the mean likewise (also read as also) gave up relations with women and where consumed with passion for another, men AND men)

its quite clear there

women and men with the same is wrong.



If you read my posts you would see I don’t see how marriage = a right

not required, don’t need it to be happy, and all it dose is give you a chance for more money then
which you also get with disability, but not every one can get those benefits either

I never said = rights was bad I said I don’t see marriage as = rights we already deny a few types of marriage, and to me gay marriages is one of them
to me, unless the others are a “right” then this one is not a right

Once again you are putting your beliefs in on me it DONT work that way.

Translation: “I'm ignoring his belfries and putting my own as FACT!!!! he must be using my beliefs”

See, everyone likes to forget this.

Ms. T

Heb 8: 7-13

Except that it was extremely likely edited-in once monogamy started becoming the "norm".


ALSO!

A marriage before God, is not a marriage before the state. Christians, all Christians, want to have at least the first if not both. It is okay if they share the same name. It is better, IMO, for the ones getting married, to have their wedding stande for what they believe is right. We can all have different opinions on what "true" marriage is, but it is a right to have what the state believe marriage is.

Amen.

You keep claiming this, but the oldest one we can find, the dead sea scrolls, is still the same as today, soooo your point is?

you claiming "its been chnaged!" and have no proof for it...
seems thats the same thing you dont like about our faith, no proof in the belife.



Not acording to the bible, Christains and non christains take part in "God's marrige"

Also yes it dose but A adpoted sister cant marry her adopted brother, wheres there right?

the point is there ARE times that someone cant marry someone and I see no rerasson to say this HAS to be a right and not the others that are not,

Even then the state took marrige from the church, did they have a right to do so?
church and state should of been seperated so why dose the state have a right to take one of the chruchs thing and say "mine" and do what they will?

Right. That matters to "Christians". To non-Christians, not so much.

Because there are so many religions, that all have there own beliefs. The state needs a broad term to describe people who live together and must share everything. It is easier on the entire family, if the couple is joined in spirit and law. It guarantees the rights of both partners, and shows that you are willing to promise before all to be faithful. That is what marriage is.

And what if?
Even if the author makes the mistake of assuming women can't have sex with each other this seems just as likely an explanation.

But that means that the government, with marriage benefits, is giving favor to Christians, a direct violation of the first amendment.

Article 16 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a right.

Huh, I'm really not sure how to interpret that.. Bible verse always seems so confusing to me.
Umm, but if the first covenant is obsolete does that mean that the NT invalidated all of the OT or only parts of it?
I don't quite see how that would work. I mean, if the NT trumphs the OT then surely a lot of the stuff in the OT is basically well, obsolete. How then can people say that stoning children is oboslete when condemning homosexuality is not?
Shouldn't all of the OT be obsolete? How are the choices made for which parts to keep?

For that matter, religion is a right. And it should belong to everyone. This should mean that every worshipper should be able to fully enjoy, or loath, what ever they want. If one defines what is right and what is wrong from personal opinion, is trully a right? In the NT, it seems the Jesus came to forgive all sins, except one. That he would not condemn those who feel a different way, and have no choice.

Quote:
The question could just as well be, "Does Romans 1:26 teach against what everyone thinks it does?" There are two reasons why I questioned this teaching.


God don’t change but his RULES do, I cant answer this fully, I dont know the full scope of the bible,
he changed many things during the time, at one point what you eat made you unclean later it did not
but even then it says when man lays with a women which is true, as for if it means it or not, I would have to know the original language which I don’t know






I'd ask how he came to the idea that its nomral intercourse and what proof that person has for this.




Is it? it seems like he is trying to use terms they did not have back then

they did not have "gay" "lesbian" or "homosexual?" those are new so the reason it don’t translate well si they did not exist.



Becise its said in the NT I know you dont read it as that but if you study it (and honestly when you get this far you have to
A. read all the civlazations that have used the book, that way you know what it was put that way
B. when this part was wrote and what wrods meant diffreint things then now and in betwen.

C. what words mean now and did not mean back then

pepole who study these their whol lifes go to collage can tell you them would tell you why, I'm not one of them

The idea is that NT IS saying its aginst ANY form of sex, maybe they did not count one type of sex as sex, maybe any thing doing with the reproudction rogans was sex, i really dont know, have to study a lot to udnerstand it then.

Is this wrong? I dont know, I go with what the guy who studys this for says.

Yep but an adopted brother cant marry an adopted sisster, and many other reassons they cant marry... so its not like evrey type of marrige is okay, so where dose it say gay marrige is one of them?

The word being used, covenant, is not synonymous with testament in this instance. This is not saying that the Old Testament is trumped by the New Testament.

The notion we like to support is that if it's between consenting adults it's ok.
The good old BDSM guidelines work for marriage as well: Safe, Sane and Consensual!
So yes, I do believe siblings should be allowed to marry.

And Musicman, why did you lock the chicken thread when we finally started talking about chicken again?

Yes the old covneant is where all the rules came form betwen God and jews, the new covanet is diffreint then NT

The bible is actually on my reading list but I'm starting to doubt my ability to get through it. Verse just isn't my thing and I'd probably never be sure what was actually meant.

You might start with the New Testament, then. It is on the whole much more historically provable and more reader friendly than the Old Testament.

I think the NT is a lot easier to read, mainly because the stuff their is definently ment to be taken literally.