Homosexuality in the New Testament

[Star_Cards]

this is the typical junk people try to use to get people to side with them, you give them no way to be right. this is the only method people can use to get people to agree with them, when they can't debate it with logic.

being against homosexual marriage does not make you homophobic or even anti gay.

I agree with this. There are some people that are overly homophobic due to their need to look straight, but most people do not follow into this category.

I also agree with you that not everyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic.

[jessejordan419]

What are you a racist? You have a problem with a certain segment of the population "outbreeding" you? You can't be serious. What kind of a christian are you? The WORST kind for sure.

Seeing as islam is not a race, I'm not a racist. It is their plan to take down infidel nations and install a caliphate. Look at Belgium, Holland, and soon Germany, France, and Italy. Spain is a great victory, for it will be reclaiming islamic lands that were lost.

Funny to be judged by an atheist to tell me what kind of Christian I am.

[jessejordan419]

Basically you will never be happy until your warped version of Christianity is the law of the land and everyone regardless is made to obey it.. How Christian of you, Jesus would be proud

So you would be happy under sharia law? They execute homos. So much for a religion of peace. Christians just call them to repentance in Christ Jesus to escape eternal separation from God.

[jessejordan419]

If gay marriage becomes legal, you don't have to marry another guy. How is it imposing on you?

Reread the thread, starting from post 1.

[jessejordan419]

this question is for anyone against gay marriages: If you are not gay, then why do you even take a stand against gay marriages when it has nothing to do with you?? Just because it may be against the bible....there are no scientific facts to back up why its wrong?

So science is your God?

Once again, marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are for gays. Gays wish to disrespect and deform the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, muslims, and probably others by redefining marriage to fit their whim.

[jessejordan419]

You know what they say about people who are so homophobic about gays? That deep down they are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and openly speak out against gays because deep down they are really homosexual.

Says the man who hates God by denying the Truth of the Bible and substituting his own belief of god in place of Scripture. Hey, you say so in your sig.

Namecall all you want, it bothers me none. It actually encourages me by letting me know I'm shining the Light in the darkness.

[jessejordan419]

This has always been a question I'd like to know the answer. I get that someone can say that it is against their religion and that they have the right to think it's wrong, but that does not mean that it should be banned. I've brought this up before in this thread, but there are many things that are legal and against a religious rule. The religious thought about a subject has no business in the legality of said subject.

How many times must I repeat myself. Gays have the same rights as marriage in civil unions. Gays reject this because they want to pervert the traditional, Judeo-Christian definition of marriage, and impose pagan immortality upon religious people by perverting marriage. Same reason for the denial of polygamy, which was never condoned in Scripture, and always ended badly for those in the Bible who practiced it.

[jessejordan419]

I never said Jews were outlawing pork. I said that they aren't trying to outlaw pork for everyone because it happens to be against their religion to consume it. I still don't know what you are talking about with civil unions. Also, it's not up to Christians "to give" anything to anyone. They may be the majority in America, but it's not up to them to dictate to the rest of America what should be.

As far as prayer goes, if a student wants to pray, they have every right to do so during the school day. No one will keep them from praying on their own if they are so inclined. If someone is stopped then that is an issue. The prayer in school issue deals with organized group prayer which has zero place in public school. If you want that for your child there are plenty of schools they can go to if you want them to have an education within a religious organizationi.

Posting the 10 commandments in publicly funded areas like courthouses endorses one religion over all of the other religions that the people of the United States has the right to worship or not. A government may have people within that believe specific religious ideals but should not endorse one over the other in a manner like posting the ten commandments does. Posting the 10 commandments isn't just about atheists and christians. It's about the millions of other religious people in this country who pay taxes just like us and shouldn't have their government endorse christianity over their religion. Yes, I agree it's not really that big of a deal if I see the 10 commandments at a government building, but it's simply not needed. And yes, it's not forcing anyone to believe something they don't want to, but religion needs to be left up to the individual, not the majority.


as far as sharia law being cited in a ruling or legislation... I'm not aware of these cases. I'd love to see a few that you are referencing. I'm against ALL religious ideals being used to legislate. It doesn't matter if it's christian, muslim, jewish, buddist, etc.

I'm not sure why you think this is a christian vs atheist thing alone. The last time I checked, most religions tend to be against gay marriage or homosexuality in general.

Constitutionally, this is all fallacy. Congress is prevented from establishing a national religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF. This means you cannot stop public prayer in school, you cannot force US to take down the 10 Commandments in front of courthouses, and you cannot block nativity scenes in from of government buildings, whether state, local, or federal.

Like it or not, the Constitution says we have the right to do these things. Liberal interpretation has allowed all sorts of unconstitutional nonsense.

[jessejordan419]

And how exactly can one claim a civil union is the same as a marriage?

Benefits that are restricted to "married" couples could be denied to those in civil unions because technically, it's not a marriage.

Separate but equal strikes again...

Fallacy, outright untruth, another attempt to allow the perversion of the sanctity of marriage.

So much for equality. Affirmative action, hate crime laws, diversity, hate speech laws, protected groups or classes, all elevate one group over the rest. The liberal pursuit for "equality" has achieved exactly the opposite.

[jessejordan419]

Exactly, how do people conveniently forget this when arguing for civil unions instead of marriage..

Because it is not true.