I do draw the conclusion that Jesus was not in favor of gay marriage, but it is from, as you say, what is not said.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 8:26 PM

That is my point. By virtue of Jesus establishing that marriage is between a man and woman — anything deviating from that standard (ie, men marrying cattle, men marrying fish, men marrying men, etc) would be sin. By confirming and establishing the parameters for marriage, Jesus did address the issue of gay marriage.

He might have been clearer and condemned it as he did so explicitly with divorce.

It’s important to note that man already knew sodomy was a very serious sin by then (Sodom and Gomorrah is a great reminder of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically). The people knew “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). They already knew sodomy was sin.

I acknowledge your point regarding Genesis being relevant given Jesus citing it.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Thank you. I am happy for you that you had the courage to admit that. And I don’t look at an admission like that and think, “Yeah! I was right!” Nuh uh. I look at it like, “I am so happy this person is still able to discern between right and wrong.” Be thankful you can still tell the difference. That your conscience is still working properly. Please, don’t become a reprobate, dedalus. I want you saved and going to heaven. That’s my only motivation in all of this.

Acting on lust can be controlled, but experiencing lust often can’t be controlled.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM

That’s right. Now we’re getting somewhere. We all experience lust. I do all the time. I mean, I am tempted to lust on a regular basis. Every time I see a beautiful girl that’s temptation right there. We lust for all sorts of things. For some it’s food. For others money. Some people have a problem with power and pride. Truth is, we’ll have to deal with lust and temptation until this present world is destroyed and we are in heaven with the Lord. The Bible says, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 John 2:16-17). So you are right dedalus. We all experience lust. That’s because man has a sinful nature (Romans 5:12). But, we also experience lust because our enemy wants us to sin against God, and is tempting us to do things we shouldn’t do. ! Peter 5:8 warns us, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” That is who Satan is and what he does, dedalus. He will try to increase your addictive behaviors. Try to increase your emotional conflict. Throw doubt attacks at you (thoughts like “You’ll never get free,” or “You won’t be able to do it”). Try to point you into self-destructive behaviors. Being involved in the sexual sin of homosexuality is no different than an alcoholic or drug addict. It’s a destructive lifestyle. It destroys peoples lives which is exactly what Satan wants! Look what Jesus said when He rebuked the Pharisees, He said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (John 8:44). Satan loves homosexuals! The good news is we can fight him though! Like you said dedalus, acting on lust can be controlled. But, WE NEED GOD’S HELP otherwise the Devil will devour us like a lion. How do we do it? Scripture says to “Walk in the Spirit (according to God’s Word), and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16). We are told, “Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked” (Ephesians 6:16). And to “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11). We can achieve local victories over Satan when we “Resist stedfast in the faith” (1 Peter 5:9). And that’s how you do it! That’s how you defeat sinful lust. You follow the Word of God! Any other way, and you can have no real defense against Satan. You step out on to that battlefield without your shield and you’re committing spiritual suicide. And that’s the truth. God bless you.

The truth is, sometimes a lot can be said by what is not said. Jesus established that marriage is between a man and woman. Let me help you understand this.. that means gay marriage is sinful.
apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I do draw the conclusion that Jesus was not in favor of gay marriage, but it is from, as you say, what is not said. He might have been clearer and condemned it as he did so explicitly with divorce.

What, though, was the question that Jesus was answering? Didn’t the Pharisees ask about a man and his wife?

If I circled every time people like you used the words “might have,” “could have,” “it seems,” etc. That is an answer based not on evidence but opinion, and you should admit it. Your entire answer is filled with typical reprobabte hallucinations.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM

If I’m citing a matter of fact, I’ll try to reference a source. If I’m basing an opinion on observation I’ll use a construct like “it seems”. It seems to me that some guys like tall blonds. If that seems like a reprobate hallucination then we have lived quite different experiences.

So when you say you are only dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, well, I am too. Jesus quoted Genesis in the Gospel of Matthew. He thought it was relevant to the subject of marriage and family. Why don’t you?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM

I acknowledge your point regarding Genesis being relevant given Jesus citing it.

God did not make you gay. God did not make you to have sex with a man. That’s a choice you make. It’s called lust. I have it. You have it. We all have it. We can either control it, or give into it. Pretty simple dedalus. It’s not rocket science.

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Precisely. Most people lust for the opposite sex. About 5% of people lust for the same sex. Acting on lust can be controlled, but experiencing lust often can’t be controlled.

Based on reading about and knowing straight and gay people. When someone is not aroused by the same or the opposite sex and they spend decades having sex exclusively with that gender, then they are either straight or gay.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 6:25 AM

That is pure propaganda. You choose who you take your pants down for, okay. That’s a choice you make.

It seems even more hardwired than a guy who is attracted to a particular type of girl (say blonds, tall women, Asian women, latin women, brainy chicks, or women with large breasts). Some guys will date women repeatedly who fit a given profile, maybe they are all tall brainy blonds. Still, though their attraction was evident, they’d be more likely to switch to a female brunette than to a guy.

If I circled every time people like you used the words “might have,” “could have,” “it seems,” etc. That is an answer based not on evidence but opinion, and you should admit it. Your entire answer is filled with typical reprobabte hallucinations.

If you wanted to collect scientific data you could measure the physiolgical effects of arousal on an individual as evidence that they are attracted to the same or opposite gender.

God did not make you gay. God did not make you to have sex with a man. That’s a choice you make. It’s called lust. I have it. You have it. We all have it. We can either control it, or give into it. Pretty simple dedalus. It’s not rocket science.

In the Matthew 19 passage Jesus is focused on the issue of divorce in response to a question from the Pharisees where they ask about a man and his wife. Jesus says that divorce is always wrong since the man and woman are one flesh. Since he speaks directly about the sinfulness of divorce in that passage and doesn’t address the sinfulness of gay relationships the divorce issue seems clearer in Matthew 19.

dedalus on November 10, 2008 at 7:01 AM

Yes, Jesus does address the sinfulness of gay marriage. It seems to me that you just don’t wanna admit when you are wrong even when the evidence is right there in front of you. Once again, the passage in Matthew isn’t speaking about divorce and nothing else. The truth is, sometimes a lot can be said by what is not said. Jesus established that marriage is between a man and woman. Let me help you understand this.. that means gay marriage is sinful.

The other passage is from Genesis, which is outside the scope of my reference since I was dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, specifically where he changes Mosaic law.

The passage from Genesis is not outside the scope of reference. It’s relevant to this conversation because Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27-28 and Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-6. Check it out. Jesus, when confronted by the Pharisees said, “HAVE YOU NOT READ, that he which made them at the BEGINNING made them MALE AND FEMALE, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:3-6). The BOLD CAPS are where Jesus is quoting the creation account in Genesis (which is the foundation for the institute of marriage) affirming again that marriage is between male and female. So when you say you are only dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, well, I am too. Jesus quoted Genesis in the Gospel of Matthew. He thought it was relevant to the subject of marriage and family. Why don’t you?

IN SUMMARY: Both of your statements about Jesus:

1. The Gospels don’t record Him speaking on gay marriage.

and

2. Jesus spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.
apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:23 AM

In the Matthew 19 passage Jesus is focused on the issue of divorce in response to a question from the Pharisees where they ask about a man and his wife. Jesus says that divorce is always wrong since the man and woman are one flesh. Since he speaks directly about the sinfulness of divorce in that passage and doesn’t address the sinfulness of gay relationships the divorce issue seems clearer in Matthew 19.

The other passage is from Genesis, which is outside the scope of my reference since I was dealing with the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, specifically where he changes Mosaic law.

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Maybe. Perhaps, though, your approach will lead to the more radical innovation. What if gays continue to be barred from marriage and begin to build a culture around civil unions? What if civil unions become the new normal? Gay people have done something similar before by moving into rundown urban neighborhoods–say SoHo or Chelsea in NYC–where they fix up the buildings and open up galleries. Suddenly all the affluent straight people want to live there and property values skyrocket.

Could young straight people opt for the civil unions that their gay friends have? Possibly, if the legal arrangement is cleaner regarding the terms of the commitment, control of the financial assets, home ownership, estate planning and eventual custody of the children.

Which scenario would do more to undermine marriage–gays marrying or straight couples opting for the customized legal arrangements of civil unions?

Why would you think such a stupid thing?

apacalyps on November 10, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Based on reading about and knowing straight and gay people. When someone is not aroused by the same or the opposite sex and they spend decades having sex exclusively with that gender, then they are either straight or gay.

It seems even more hardwired than a guy who is attracted to a particular type of girl (say blonds, tall women, Asian women, latin women, brainy chicks, or women with large breasts). Some guys will date women repeatedly who fit a given profile, maybe they are all tall brainy blonds. Still, though their attraction was evident, they’d be more likely to switch to a female brunette than to a guy.

If you wanted to collect scientific data you could measure the physiolgical effects of arousal on an individual as evidence that they are attracted to the same or opposite gender.

I do think that some homosexuals can’t change their sexual attraction

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Why would you think such a stupid thing?

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

People who don’t understand this should ask themselves why? I’m not trying to isolate homosexuals as lepers. All sexual sin is offensive to God. So, why would people condone it. They need to ask themselves that question because they will have give account to God on judgment day.

My principle is that gay marriage not only provides equality to those whose sexual orientation is to the same sex, but that it is beneficial to society as a whole since it provides for more stable lives for a significant percentage of the population.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:00 PM

I get it now. You support gay marriage. No wonder I have trouble getting a straight answer. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

My point has been that he (Jesus) spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

That is NOT what you originally said, dedalus. You said that the Gospels didn’t record Jesus speaking on gay marriage. Look. See for yourself:

Christ did speak specifically against divorce and remarriage, but the GOSPELS DON’T RECORD HIM speaking on gay marriage.

dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:25 PM

That’s what you said. And that is absolutely so dumb to believe such a thing. Like I said before (and you haven’t acknowledged yet) the GOSPELS DO RECORD Jesus speaking on gay marriage because He established marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN in the Gospel of Matthew. Not man and man, or woman and woman. The Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) established marriage to be a life-long union between one man and woman who were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Do you understand that? Do you get it?

And your other statement:

My point has been that He (Jesus) spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM

That’s another false statement. You gotta check all the verses together before you make such broad statements, alright. You want clarity. Is this CLEAR enough for you! ALL sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sin to God. This includes gay sex. Even lust is adultery! Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). Jesus is obviously talking about sexual sin. In the next verse He says, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” In otherwords, if your eye causes you to sin by looking at lustful things, it’d be better for you to be blind than to end up in hell with both your eyes.

IN SUMMARY: Both of your statements about Jesus:

1. The Gospels don’t record Him speaking on gay marriage.

and

2. Jesus spoke with more clarity about divorce being a sin than gays marrying.

Are wrong! I know you said (after the fact) that you weren’t making a case Jesus was in favor of gay marriage, and you said that Paul clearly condemns homosexuality. But, those weren’t the statements I was objecting to. I’ve laid out my case above. You need to understand that what you said about the good Lord Jesus is wrong, as is shown by many verses in the Bible above. Thank you. Have a nice day/night.

“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”

Nancy…what about the 2nd amendment (part of the bill of rights). that you choose to ignore?

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous. You should have picked the more appropriate nickname icarus.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Ha Ha. No I’m more the artificer by nature, perhaps merely looking to escape a maze.

You are right about the similarity and differences in our views. I do think that some homosexuals can’t change their sexual attraction but are capable of deriving the benefits of commitment and devotion.

How this explains the state going to Obambi, you tell me.

I’d looooooove for Nan to discuss this in terms of voter breakdown, so she can explain why the majority of Hispanics & Blacks voted the way they did. C’mon, Nancy — this oughta be good!

When animals can be party to contracts then we can worry about people marrying their pets. Currently, there is a barrier.

I have very little or nothing to say as regards legal or constitutional matters as I have no competence in these areas though I’d be fairly sure some legal loophole or reinterpretation could be finessed in order to advance the principle of non-discrimination which in my opinion is more of a core fundamental belief than a legal principle.

Is there a principal behind my view that gays should be recognized in marriage? Here are my reasons:

1.) Sexual intimacy and devotion are part of the center of a marriage. Gay people are not attracted to the opposite sex.

I am not convinced that the hypersexual sub-culture in which homosexuals participate can be reconciled with ordinary marital devotion. I am thinking here of “gay pride” parades which resemble pagan festivities with their loud crashing drums, demonic-like semi-naked paraphenalia and public sex acts. That marriage will “sivillise” homosexuals does not seem likely to me.

2.) Marriage is the most beneficial arrangement for an individual adult. Society benefits when people are in committed relationships and can care for one another during pemotional or financial ups and downs. That is true whether one is gay or straight.

There is nothing to stop homosexual “life partners” from pooling their resources or writing each other into their respective wills as inheritors of their wealth.

3.) Gays increasingly live openly as couples within locales where they are employed and participate in the community. It is better for the community if the couple is married and their commitment recognized and supported.
4.) Children are a reality with some gay couples, especially women. It seems reasonable to recognize the marriage of a couple that is raising children.

All this means is that the normalisation of homosexuality is leading to the normalisation of homosexual marriage. Thus it “seems reasonable” but in my opinion it isn’t.

There is no requirement for reproductive ability.

There is an unspoken societal requirement to replace the population (a spoken requirement in contemporary Australia and Turkey).

My principle is that gay marriage not only provides equality to those whose sexual orientation is to the same sex, but that it is beneficial to society as a whole since it provides for more stable lives for a significant percentage of the population.

I think you would agree with me when I say that homosexuals desire legitmacy afforded them for their unions. I think we would disagree on the why.

You would say its because they can’t change their behaviour and they’d be harming no one in the process.

I would say its because they know in their conscience that their behaviour is wrong. If I’m correct they will not be at peace and settled once married. They will still be subtly deranged in a moral sense. It is a gamble on your part.

Homosexual marriage is the most radical social innovation in human history and the consequences in countries where it has been legalised have been disastrous. You should have picked the more appropriate nickname icarus.

aengus on November 9, 2008 at 8:29 PM

A shorter answer to the principle question is: exclusivity and fidelity.