There is nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, the word Marriage is misunderstood

In my humble opinion the Christian Bible defines the word "marriage", and most religions also have their own version of that WORD which means whatever they say it does.

 

The Christian Bible pretty clearly say a man and a woman, and limits their religiously sanctioned blessing for that union to heterosexual couples, however just as the same word is used by other religions, it's also used by the state to describe the associated MONETARY AGREEMENT that the state issues, documents and enforces.  In many places the state's requirements for entering their financial contract have nothing to do with religion, God, or specific sexuality requirements. 

 

In fact the word marriage used in the Bible has not applied to people from different religious backgrounds ever.  A Catholic person has never been able to get married in a Hindu ceremony or even by a Baptist or Protestant Minister, the marriage would not be considered valid.  Buddhists have their version that they too translate into the word marriage, but it isn't religiously acceptable to Christians.

 

In the US you won't be considered married by the government's definition, unless you sign their non-religious financial contract, which has NOTHING to do with your religious marriage agreement you can also get if you so choose, from the religious institution of your choosing.  Most religious people get both and many Americans only use the state contract.

 

The problem with the word marriage is that many religious people get horrifically offended when it's used to describe a union between people who aren't "a man and a woman".  Most have never been offended that Hindu, Buddhists, and Muslims all over the world, including the US have been using that word to describe their unions.  They acknowledge the fact that those people are using the word to describe a different type of union.  They know the state issued marriage contract has NOTHING to do with their religion, but some how they view it quite differently and are offended.

 

The word Marriage didn't exist before the 14th century, it's not something any religion, even Christianity claims came out of the mouth of God.  It's a man made verbal expression created to describe unions between Christian men and women.  Today in the US it is used to describe obligatory agreements between two people.

 

I think it's time for religious people to face the fact that they can't stop other people from using their sacred word to describe something they disapprove of.  Most are not offended when the word is used to describe unions that don't fit their religious views, they are only upset now because they disapprove of homosexual behavior. 

 

If you are offended by Gay people getting married, get over it, I assure you their use of the same word you think is sacred will not diminish or change your own religious commitments.  In fact I think perhaps you should feel honored, since they have so much respect for your institution of Matrimony that they are trying to copy it the best they can.

 

 

Comments

Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 10:42am
The only thing wrong with 'gay marriage', is the 'gay' part.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:09am
The definition of the word "marriage" is centuries old and shared by virtually societies.  Marriage is the basis and foundation for civilized society and reinforces morals and behavior that are beneficial to all of us.  I have no problem with same sex couples co-habitating, but that is NOT marriage.  
 
What irritates me the most about the "progressives" regarding this and similar matters is their demand that everyone else accept their beliefs while they trash nearly every custom, tradition and belief of ours.  Especially when it involves the "education" (actually indoctrination) of children - this crap has no place in our schools and these "progressives" will find that they have crossed the last line when they start to try and indoctrinate our kids.
 
Dino Manalis Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:13am
Marriage is between a man and woman in all religions, because it's natural to create a family with lots of children!
Stone-Eater Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:21am
Marriage as such is useless. It's a contract, a piece of paper, sort of an insurance, and not a proof of love and affection.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:25am
Stone - any agreement is only worth the character of the people entering into it.  When it is entered into for the right reasons and conditions (love, commitment, children, family) then it is a great institution.
Gerrilea Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:42am
Riley-- Nice article thank you for being a voice of reason.
 
All you posters that are offended. I suggest, if it's soo sacred and meant for only one thing, the procreation of the species, then we should support this idea 100%.
 
Let's ban divorce!  IF you get married it's for 1 purpose, to have at least 2.3 children.  You figure out the .3 part. If you get married and divorced multiple times, each "union" must result in at least 2.3 children. So what if your 70 yrs old and he's 65 yrs old.  Your "marriage" must meet the minimum requirements.
 
If you do not have the offspring required, you get a tax penalty.  Adoption is a viable substitute if your biology prevents you from having them "naturally".
 
There, now that we've solved this "wedge issue" let's move on to those whom have children OUT OF WEDLOCK.  Oh the scourge!!!
 
Be careful what you wish for, the consequences might be a bit more than what you bargained for.
 
Gerrilea Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:43am
Mike H--- "the right reasons"... who decides what those are?  A governmental panel?
 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:56am
Tom, the word Gay does not change the word marriage it only says something about the gender of the people claiming to be married.  It's no more associated than the word arranged.
11b40 Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:56am
Marriage is a religious terms that assumes God blesses the union of 2 believers, as in Holy Matrimony.
Some religions may recognize the joining of 2 members of the opposite sex, but not many.
A union of 2 members of the same sex is simply a civil union.  I could not care less, except for the fact that many want to be married in the eyes of God, in a religious ceremony instead of a Justice of the Peace, and want everyone to simply accept that their religion has changed to accommodate the beliefs of the homosexual community.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:00pm
Duh, okay Riley.  Stick to gay arrangements and leave marriage to the normal, heterosexual people - the ones that breed naturally.  Let us have some sacredness and tradition for Christ's sake!
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:03pm
The word marriage is not universal across time and countries, that "word" was created by Christians who wanted a word they could use to define religious partnerships that they considered sanctioned and blessed by their God.
 
Yes other people all over the earth had similar customs and rituals that in this country are often called "marriages", in English, but most are definitely not real marriages by the original Christian definition or even by our government.
 
This has never been about religious marriages, it's about whether or not the state should allow Gay couples to use the same state provided and defined financial documents, as straight couples get to use.  Religion and God are not relevant to this issue.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:09pm
Dino, it doesn't matter what your religious views are, this is not about religion or even what you believe, its about who can sign up for the governments fiscal contract.  That contract doesn't care what religion you are, or even whether or not you wish to be married, joined, or sealed to another person in the eyes of God.  The government doesn't care if you don't believe in God; they only care about your fiscal situation and promises.
 
If you are angry, get mad at your government for naming their financial contract a Marriage Contract.  From what I can see that's really your only justified reason for being upset.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:20pm
Stone Eater, you are right all a religious marriage certificate is is a piece of paper which is not legally binding.  It gives people no special powers, privileges or enforceable obligations, but in the eyes of many does grant them the approval and blessings associated with their God or Gods. 
 
On the other hand our government's contract which is also called a marriage certificate, has no religious significance or association, and does grant powers, privileges and sign people up for legally binding obligations.
 
If people truly loved each other, neither contract would be necessary except for the times when a married spouse is allowed privileges that an unmarried friend would not be entitled to.
 
I think its nuts to deny anyone who is deathly ill access to visitation to anyone of any gender who might cheer the up in their time of need.  I feel similarly about inheritances, it's not the state's business.
 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:29pm
Gerrela I have noticed that most people who strongly object to Gay marriage because it violates Gods laws, and doesn't promote procreation, have government issued marriage certificates. 
 
Surely some one must have told them the state certificate isn't considered a Holy or acceptable way to get married by their own church rules.  It doesn't promote procreation, or even discourage sinful unions.
 
I'm almost surprised they are willing to sign that sacrilegious document, after all most of them are already "Married" in the eyes of their own God, and their community. 
 
So, why bother getting the one from the government if they hate it so much?
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:37pm
Tom, I don't know which Christian faith you observe, but do wonder if you are just as upset about Hindu's or even Atheists who run around claiming they are married in the US.  After all I presume you would think anyone who didn't get married in the eyes of God as you think they should, is not really "married".
 
Hindu has lots of Gods, Atheists believe in none, should they leave your sacred word alone and use their own to describe their unions?
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:39pm
It's not about God in this instance, Riley.  It is about nature, and it might even be about Christian tradition to a lot of people, but for most of us it's not really about God or Christianity, not directly.  It's more about nature, tradition and the framework of an a agreed society, which is based on Christianity, or has been and was built on. 
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 12:45pm
11b40, I am not among those who think religions should be forced to accept and pretend to bless anyone they don't approve of.  I think it's their right to teach and believe what they believe is true, as long as they aren't harming other people.  I don't consider refusal to include others, to be harming them, others can go elsewhere. 
 
However I understand you concern and admit there are lots of folks who would like to use these tiny steps to get the nose of the camel in the tent, so they can eventually force people like you to include people you're religious views currently exclude.  That is wrong and to me immoral.  If a Catholic school doesn't want Atheist or Homosexual teachers, they should have the right to say no to them.  There are plenty of other employment opportunities for teachers.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 1:05pm
Tom, so in this dream of America that you have which is built on Christian tradition, are any people with dissenting beliefs welcome to live here and practice their religions, or is it only for practicing Christians?  What about Atheists, and Hindu people, or is your dream world only excluding Gay people?
 
About that natural stuff.  I fail to see how the world is better off or any different if Gay people get married or don't... Please enlighten me.
 
The way I see it if they don't get married, they have sex for their own personal enjoyment without the possibility of having children as a result. Judging from your previous posts, I'd think you'd rather they not be raising children, so zero impact on our population, and not passing their beliefs on to the next generation.  If they don't they also don't have enforceable fiscal obligations.  If one does something real bad or even gets Aids and uses up all their money, the other is not responsible, because they aren't married.
 
On the flip side, if they are "married" by the state, they still can't procreate, they are both the same sex.  However if one gets sued or gets horrifically sick, both their monies can be taken to meet the impending fiscal disaster.  Not so good for the one that doesn't need the help, but surely better for society.  Married they get to pay for divorce attorneys, which might cause them to be more monogamous, also better for society.
 
So... help me out by telling me how society pays a high price when Gay people are allowed to be married by our government?
Katharine Otto Added Apr 23, 2018 - 1:07pm
Riley,
I don't care who other people sleep with, and have never believed in marriage, except as a practical matter for raising children.  Why does anyone feel they need church or state permission for sleeping arrangements?  In many cultures, it's a business arrangement, and I suspect it is in the US, too, because of spousal benefits in child raising, insurance, visitation, and inheritance.  Think of the many societies in which polygamy is allowed, even sanctioned, for those who can afford upkeep on many wives (and their children).
 
I've never understood how anyone can promise forever, when I have a hard time promising tomorrow.  The "until death do us part," phrase in traditional US Christian marriages can seem more like a threat than a promise.
Tom C. Purcell Added Apr 23, 2018 - 1:14pm
Exclude 'Christian' and 'God' from your thinking for a moment.  Instead think of a healthy, normal, natural, functional society. 
 
Hetero (Normal and Natural) Society:  Courtship - Marriage - Children = Family - Lineage - Heritage = Identity - Unity = Successful Society.
 
Homo (Trans-Faggot) Society:  Failed to propagate - Failure in diversity - Failure in identities - Exclusions of faiths/religions = Failed Society.   
 
Combination Society:  Chemically volatile = Caustic erosion and/or explosion of society.
 
The only way for homos to enjoy being homos is to remain homo when together, on the fringes of society.  Come to terms with the fact that you are a weirdo, even if you are generally harmless to the rest of society.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 2:56pm
Katherine, you definitely don't sound like you had a strict Christian upbringing.  A Pope once said something like "give me a child until they are 8 and I'll give you a Catholic for life", and I think that's largely true. 
 
I don't think people who didn't get raised in those types of environments can truly imagine the persuasive impact it leaves on most normal people.  They truly believe down to their soles that sinful behaviors are the truth from God and I don't blame them for not being open enough to challenge there core beliefs.  If I'd been brought up that way I might feel the same way.
 
However I do hope they can learn to be tolerant enough to tolerate and freely allow other people the freedom to live as they choose, even if it is sinful in their eyes. 
 
Your point about marriage is well taken, half the marriages fail in the US including plenty between people who believe that failure and a divorce would be sinful.  People change and many don't turn into a person that is equally compatible with their partner as they were when they got married.  Not surprisingly many very religious people stay married ever after they grow apart in values and compatibility, and I'm always sad if I think they are only still together because they think it's a sin to divorce.  In that case I think both would be much better off divorced and open to other relationships than they are suffering together. 
 
As people get older I think many get wiser, and many older couples no longer want to be married and just cohabitate without religious contracts or even state issued ones.  In fact lots of seniors don't get married so they can keep their Social Security.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 3:00pm
Tom, all the societal related failures you listed apply just as well to any single person.
 
Are you equally critical of all the single people who don't pare up and propagate, or only the Gay ones?
 
If a Gay person is single and not cohabitanting, are they being better for society than if they were cohabitating and still single?
 
What about if they are Gay and not cohabitating but still having sex with their partner, are they denegrating society?
George N Romey Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:10pm
Very good article. Marriage is a contract and in itself has nothing to do with religion.
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:14pm
Riley Brown,
Homosexuals can have civil unions. The union of a man and a woman goes back to the dawn of time.
Homosexual marriage is a scam to harvest taxpayer dollars, by gov employees. 
I suppose that we need to claw back the Cadillac benefits of all gov employees
 
Be glad that you can be legally recognized, and stay out of taxpayer's pockets.
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:15pm
It is all about the money, otherwise civil union would suffice.
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:24pm
The Founders said it was wrong to make someone pay for something they found immoral or loathsome.
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:26pm
Thank you George, it's always nice to have someone agree with something I say.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:31pm
Pardero, I do wish the state marriage certificate was called something else, even a "civil union" since to me it's got nothing to do with a religious marriage, but they do call it a marriage so we need to live with it.
 
I also wish civil unions were the same as marriage certificates but often they are not treated equally, and since I don't have the power to merge them, I'd just rather see them allow Gay marriage on the fiscal state marriage certificate and do away with the civil union or do it in reverse. 
 
I am not aware of any way anyone pays for gay marriages that isn't one of the people getting married.  Can you please enlighten me?
 
Question, do you or your parents have a state issued marriage certificate, and if so why?  
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 5:55pm
Riley Brown,
It is common knowledge, that the push for homosexual marriage is to get gov benefits.
 
Taxpayers will likely have to bail out most pension funds. I see no reason to let more into the cookie jar. Just imagine 100s of billions more in expenses for already strapped governments.
 
Even I am willing to be tolerant of aberrant and abnormal behavior if it does not affect me. When it affects me, I get my hackles up. 
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 6:39pm
Pardero, I thought all pension distributions were diminished if the person who was entitled to them selected a payout option where their spouse or partner was entitled to pension benefits their death so that the total payout theoretically stays the same.  Even Social Security is based on that model, you get less if you designate a surviving beneficiary so that total payout will be approximately the same.
 
Which specific plans do you know of that don't do it that way?
John J Bernard Added Apr 23, 2018 - 7:39pm
The question for those of us who ascribe to Biblical teaching has nothing to do with the choices people make....it has to do with what people will seek to do to the Church, through Secular government and secular courts.
 
Marriage  is indeed a Biblical Concept that defines a complete joining of a Man and Woman; it defines a Spiritual and Physical relationship and the establishment of a natural family which can produce children through natural means.
 
You are correct that secular government uses the term, but in truth, government coopted the term which very specifically defines a Biblical relationship.
 
And yes; Christian's purchase licenses to marry from government - but not by choice. When we were married, we were required by the State to obtain a Marriage license even though we were married by the Church.
 
I do not wish to stand in the way of a Homosexual's decision to act upon his proclivities or to join, legally with another of the same sex...HOWEVER, as has been seen of late, there are those who insist on forcing others to legitimize their decision by agreeing with them, ie, Bakers etc.
 
What we are bracing for is a homosexual couple seeking redress through the legal system to coerce Churches to marry them - and it will happen....
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 7:47pm
Riley Brown,
I am about as far as you can get from a person knowledgable about pension distributions.
Hopefully, a smart person will weigh in.
I do know this, all pensions rely on data such as actuarial tables.
What you have, no matter how much reduced, is twice the odds of a payout. If it was reduced in half, it would still not begin to cover the increased payouts. It is not dissimilar to the fact that early SS retirement with reduced benefits, costs SS money based on actuarial tables. Savvy people always retire early. SS needs to reduce early benefit more, so it is not so cost effective for retirees.
 
I do not have a photographic memory, or even a good one, and lack the time for documentation.
We got busy at work, and the time to write this, is out of my sleep period. 
I read several authoritative articles about 4 years ago, that described great additional expense, and characterized the marriage movement as being about gov benefits. I was convinced, though I am unable to quote sources. They would have necessarily been right leaning, though not faith based. Possibly links from Drudge Report, though ZeroHedge is also a possibility.
Pardero Added Apr 23, 2018 - 8:06pm
Riley Brown,
Civil unions should be perfectly adequate, and would indicate great tolerance by our society. 
 
Marriage, or the synonymous word in other languages, needs to be a man and a woman. Civil unions could cover any other arrangements. 
 
Anything else is just PC Newspeak or semantics games. 
 
Just as normal people have shown tolerance for those that are not, so should those, who deviate from tradition, be tolerant of the sensibilities of others.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:23pm
John, yes I agree the state coopted the Christian word marriage similarly and after how Christians applied that term to unions based on other religions.  I think the camel's nose in the tent was long before the state became involved and Christians started saying couples of other faiths were married.  After that the sanctity of the word was already defiled beyond recognition and now instead of meaning a union Joined and Sanctioned by God, it simply means two people who are committed to each other, even among most  Christians.
 
The current argument is not over the definition even though that's what some Christians say, it's about attempting to stop homosexual behavior from becoming legitimized. 
 
By the way, you don't have to buy a marriage license from the government, that's totally optional, you don't even have to get married.  You only need it if you want to buy in to what you get and get obligated to by doing so.  If you just want to be married in the eyes of God, you can do that, no one except perhaps some portion of the religious clergy will deny you the religious ceremony.  By doing that you get all the benefits associated with being married and or joined properly in the eyes of your God or Gods, and none of the obligations associated with the states contract.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:27pm
John, by the way, yes I also agree that there are members of the Gay community who won't stop here, they will attempt to use that as a stepping stone to get other "rights", yes including trying to get churches to be forced to accept, employ, and even marry them.  Some already want to demand that churches that don't lose their tax free status for discriminating, I'm sure they would sue if they thought they could.  I think they are JERKS.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:36pm
Paredo, I think what you remember was the huge increase projected to provide Gay partners with other benefits, mainly health insurance, and that is mostly in the past.  
 
Today most companies that provide medical benefits for spouses also cover Gay partners, doing so avoids discrimination law suits.
 
You are right, doing so did push health benefit prices way up, and lots of companies who couldn't afford it adjusted by stopping providing health insurance, or charging employees substantially more each month, if they wanted to add a spouse, partner, or other dependents to their plan.  Thousands and maybe even millions of employees lost the great plans they had and ended up with far more expensive ones as a result.
 
As Gay marriage becomes more acceptable the impact will actually go down because right now Gay people can swap out partners like shoes and their companies have to cover every partner equally.  If they like someone they can declare them partner and get them added to their employees medical plan at rock bottom rates.  If they have to get married first that will slow them way down, it's not that easy to get married and divorced whenever they feel the urge.
Riley Brown Added Apr 23, 2018 - 9:38pm
Paredo, what part of the Gay couples life offends your sensibilities less if they have something called a civil union, than offends you if they have a marriage certificate?
Gerrilea Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:24am
Riley B--- You have the patience of a Saint.  I'd have started deleting the bigoted and hateful replies.  No matter how much discussion or reason is presented, those that hate, will continue to do so.
 
Marriage is a creation of man, therefore it is flawed, like everything else he creates.  I'd be curious to find out why our species felt the need to force people to mate for life.
 
I suspect it was an adaption of possession.  You see it in the wild all the time.  A lion will fight off other suitors and eat or kill the young of their competitors and steal their mate or mates. 
 
Man deluded himself into believing he was superior to a wild beast and "created" systems of control to convince himself of such.  Funny thing is, it still boils down to "might makes right".  Today they use the collective power of the Almighty State to enforce their system of control and tyranny instead of doing it themselves.  Then they rationalize, rationalize and rationalize that they are part of a "civil society".  They use "god", they use "nature" they use "history" as their justification to subjugate those they despise. 
 
Adding insult to injury they then grant themselves special privileges within that "society" whilst professing "all men are created equal" in the eyes of the law.
 
Clearly you're only "equal" if they allow it.
 
My personal position has always been that equity under law was the cornerstone of this nation.  No matter your race, color, creed, gender or sleeping partner or loved one.
 
I recall my father's generation of Catholics could not marry anyone from any other denomination.  My mother was Episcopalian, they couldn't get "married" in the Church.  So a JP did the nasty for them.
 
 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:39am
Gerrilea, all are created equal, "some are just more equal than others". 
 
I enjoy being challenged and debated, and prefer civil arguments so I usually respond respectfully hoping for the same in return.
 
I think religion gives millions of people reasons to be good and nice to each other and gives just as many who are destitute something good to focus on.   It can be a very good thing, but sometimes even good people get a bit too caught up in it and in my humble opinion become destructive to society in the name of their Gods will.
 
I have also noticed lots who claim to be devote but closer examination reveals they pick and choose which parts of their religion to observe obediently, depending on their own whims.  I consider them to be hypocrites and charlatans.  Among them are many who are so rude in forums that I find it difficult to believe they take their religion seriously since most religions teach kindness and understanding.
Gerrilea Added Apr 24, 2018 - 2:30am
Riley--- May I say, "God Bless Ya!"?
 
I once believed religion was intended to give humanity a path to follow to become "more".   I've grown cynical and see it as a tool to enslave the masses to a set of ideals that are only valid for those whom they wish to oppress.
 
Slaves were forced to convert to Christianity and that tool was used to not only enslave their body but their minds as well.  
 
"Don't you fret about the suffering you must endure today, God has a place for you in the hereafter".
 
The greatest weapon in the hands the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. ~Steven Biko
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 8:22am
Riley; just for clarification, in Massachusetts, at least as late as our wedding in 1982, you had to acquire a marriage license from the State in order to be married "legally", which means, otherwise there was no marriage except in the eyes of God (which is paramount), but there were certain liabilities that could arise (largely medically), if something went wrong. Even the Catholic Church was required to keep a copy of that license.

In any case, it is a shame that the 'C'hurch didn't put its metaphorical foot down multiple decades ago and demand the State utilize a different term to define the Union of a man and a woman in it's secular meanderings. Yes; now the waters are muddied - but not in the eyes of God, to whom we are bound.

Personally, I believe same sex unions will occur with or without the "blessing" of the State - as do many heterosexual unions. I would never have thought to stand in the way of people - regardless of stripe being systematically denied the staples of life; Food, Clothing. Shelter, Medical access.

They do not, however, have any Right to expect me to legitimize their choices or to subvert what I know to be a well versed Biblical definition of a Godly and Natural Union....which again, I believe to be the ultimate goal.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 24, 2018 - 9:06am
Why anyone would willingly involve the state in family business is beyond me. Fuck the idea that the state should have any say in family matters.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 9:07am
Gerrilea; Your assumption is that "religion" is a conjuring of power hungry men.

I would agree that most religion is.

However; the Judeo/Christian religions, are a history of man's relationship with the One God who, recognizing man's inability to not sin (and requiring a price for sin), then sent, in essence, himself to become the one and only necessary sacrifice for the sins of all men.

The Bible - and certainly the New Testament, do not establish a religion through which to control men. The New Testament simply acknowledges the existence of God, the Primacy of his only Son/Self and the efficacy of his Sacrifice to essentially, save us from ourselves.

It is about a relationship - not "smells and bells" or a list of functions and hurdles.

While most religions have a long list of performances and requirements to appease their non-existent "gods", the One God, simply seeks a willing relationship with those who seek him.

That is not "religion" - that is, a relationship.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 9:54am
John, YES, if you want the benefits the state ties to their marriage certificate, you must get THEIR marriage certificate.  However being married in the religious sense has nothing to do with the state issued contract, it's between you, your God or Gods, and your own religious community.
 
A Catholic person who get married by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic temple is married in the eyes of God even if they get married in another country where our state issued marriage certificate isn't even available.  A person who follows the Church of Latter Day Saints, (Mormon to many), can only be sealed to their partner in an appropriate temple ceremony, and to them the state issued marriage certificate is not even slightly binding in the same way.  Do you insist people who came here from other countries are not married because they don't have our state's marriage certificate?
 
The overall Christian community split ages ago as groups like the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants disagreed so vehemently that they don't even recognize the legitimacy of marriages conducted by each others clergy. 
 
None of the marriages above may fit your definition of a legitimate marriage but you like 99% of the Christian community doesn't fret over the use of your sacred word "marriage" by other groups who you are sure don't use it in accordance with your beliefs.
 
Gay marriage is no different, it's just one more group that is applying that word in a way that you believe is wrong because the union they are declaring would not qualify under your religious value system.  The camel was already in the tent, just be happy your own marriage is blessed and sanctioned properly and don't worry about people whose marriages will never be.
 
Even among the Christian community, the word marriage is loosely used on a daily basis to describe a commitment between two people that resembles their own religious marriages, but would never qualify for one in their own church.  If you met a Hindu couple who said they were married, would you adamantly tell them they can't be because God only recognizes Christian marriages?
 
 
 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:04am
Jeffry, more and more young people are opting out of the state's marriage certificate, usually not for religious reasons but because they think the financial liabilities exceed the benefits.
 
When you're married in the eyes of the state it gives you benefits and imposes liabilities that to lots of people are the motivating factors.
 
Usually the weaker partner wants the fiscal protections a state issued certificate provides, including alimony in the event of a divorce, and many insist on that paperwork for that reason.  If they loved me they would be willing to sign up for that.  All too often today the stronger partner doesn't want to get married for the opposite reason.
 
Today, God, love and everything else that little girls dream about when they think about getting married is in the religious marriage ceremony and the state certificate is nothing but a financial agreement.
 
Personally I don't think couples need either certificate to love, honor, respect and commit their lives to each other. 
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:18am
John, the Christian religion may be about man's personal relationship to God, but history is overwhelmingly cluttered with examples of religious and government leaders using their forced or coherced and often corrupting influence on Christian leadership to advance their own personal goals.
 
Even in modern times church groups often find themselves being led by morally corrupt charlatans who preach morality from the pulpit and live sinful lives behind it.  They are not alone, I think that happens with every large organized religion and even large non-religious groups.  What makes religious groups different is that when they do it, it's very hypocritical. 
 
I even think soliciting and accepting church contributions from the poor is immoral when the church patriarch got to be a multi millionaire by skimming money off the top.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:25am
Riley; never assume we "don't fret" over the use of the word or the normalization of a union via the word "marriage" by other groups.

What we recognize, is that sinful men will do what they deem fit - and honor whatever "god" (or lack thereof), they choose.

If you define "fretting" as picketing on the street, then you would be correct,,,but you will also not see us picketing homosexual unions either.

Conservative minded people typically don't picket or protest in huge numbers and it isn't a method we use to display concern - that is a Leftist approach.

The only Unions I, as an Evangelical believe God recognizes, are Unions between a man and a woman - regardless of their religious stripe, and simply because; even though some of those Unions are consummated aside from the Church, God has made it clear he holds the participating Man and Woman accountable until death - anyway.

No where in Scripture, however, does he apply that standard to a Homosexual Union which he states clearly in Romans 1 and other places, as an abomination.

So while the State, non-Christians, Pagans, Atheists and others may use the word marriage for their specific desires, they have indeed coopted the word - but not the spiritual significance of a man/woman union and in all man/woman unions, God holds the Principals accountable to that relationship - until death - that is one of the reasons why the exhortation to not be "unequally yoked", because he will not let either party "off the hook", should one or the other repent and come to him.

And so, to answer your last question about Hindus, I will apply my answer to all man/woman relationships; regardless of before whom they swear their allegiance and consummate their relationship, before God, the relationship is inviolable - however, again, not so with same sex relationships...the admonition is to not do so. Even so, I for one, am not going to stand on a street corner and berate people who do - and the majority of the Christian community won't either - even as we all acknowledge it is ungodly.
Gerrilea Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:46am
John J B--    While you say words that sound reasonable, I must respectfully disagree with most of this.
 
"However; the Judeo/Christian religions, are a history of man's relationship with the One God..."
 
Yes this is accurate, somewhat. The Covenant with David to have an eternal kingdom. The covenant with Noah to never destroy the Earth by water/floods again. The Mosaic Covenant, the law giver. Our Western systems of government are based on Mosaic Law.
 
"Now if you obey Me fully and keep My covenant, then out of all nations you will be My treasured possession."  How many covenants did the Jewish people make with God?  How many deals did the Christians make?
 
What you call "relationship" I call a deal.  Wheeling and dealing with God. And when you don't keep to the alleged deal, death and destruction and everlasting torment in the fires of hell (a Christian concept).
 
"The Bible - and certainly the New Testament, do not establish a religion through which to control men."
 
 
The price of sin is death, destruction and the wrath of God as described in both the Talmud & the Christian Bible.
 
There is a difference between one's faith and the rules established to "confirm" your faith.  Circumcision, the act establishing the covenant between God and Abraham, which is still practiced today.
 
IF you do X, Y & Z becomes you MUST do X, Y & Z.  And if you don't we'll kill, rape, pillage and force your "conversion".  It's no different today with the Muslim belief system.
 
A "marriage" is a deal between two people.  The Almighty State gives those whom have made such a deal, privileges I cannot, as a single person.
 
Where's the equity under law again?
 
The cornerstone of this Republic.
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:59am
Gerrilea; The New Testament Believer, ie, Saved through the Shed Blood of Jesus, is in no peril of Hell because he strays. The very concept of Salvation speaks to this.

As far as your equating Islam and Christianity or at least human and doctrinal intolerance, you could not be further from the truth.

If you truly believe the New Testament exhorts Believers to kill, rape, maim and torture those who do not believe, I challenge you to provide the New Testament exhortation to that effect (hint; you won't find any)...and that is not to say that people have not, in the past, claimed to be doing so "for God", but then again, we shouldn't be judging religion by the actions of men, but rather, seeing if it can be demonstrated that the religion requires it of men.

That test will prove that Christianity makes it difficult for a Christian to justify raising his hand in defense of his own life, while a Muslim, has a difficult time not engaging in Jihad, based on some 164, extent, abrogating verses which command abuses of all kinds of non-believers.

Not all belief systems can be lumped together - and certainly not because of how you see men act out.

And yes; Judaism still practices circumcision and would practice blood sacrifice of animals for the covering of sin - if the Temple were standing.
Bill Kamps Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:05am
The only Unions I, as an Evangelical believe God recognizes, are Unions between a man and a woman -
 
But then that is the Christian God, and if people dont believe in the Christian God, they still can get married.  Christians allow non-Christians to get married, if they are men and women, but they dont want to allow gay people to get married, even gay people who believe in a Christian God. 
 
As Riley points out, marriage is legal agreement enforced by the State.  Therefore the State can define marriage as it and the people wish.  Religions can define marriage in other ways.
 
As for whether Christianity should allow gay marriages, I think many Christians are picking and choosing what things from the Old Testament to follow.  MANY things in the Old Testament Christians no longer do, because they dont fit into our modern society.
 
Christians no longer have multiple wives, as people did in the Old Testament.  Christians in the Old Testament were told to kill non-Christians, and further to kill people that worked on the Sabbath.   Christians dont follow these things, but  they have decided that they will follow the rule that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 
 
Where does the Christian God tell us which things in the Old Testament to follow, and which we can ignore ?
 
In the New Testament, Jesus preached more about inclusion, and empathy, not casting out people who were different.  I find it inconsistent with Jesus preaching of love and inclusion, that this would not also include gays. 
 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:20am
John, your choice not to publicly berate people like Hindu's who are living in sin according to your religious believes because the majority of the Christian community doesn't, reminds me of an old joke.
 
A man asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars.  She says yes, he offers $25, and she replies, "what sort of woman do you think I am?"  He replies "we've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price".
 
You just said that Hindu unions are not really marriages in accordance with your religious views, but you don't express public outrage over them because your a reasonable person who tolerates people like them who have dissenting lifestyles.
 
At the same time you continue to publicly oppose Gay marriage because they too are not really marriages in accordance with your religious views.  They too are no more or less just other people with dissenting lifestyles.
 
You can't have it both ways, that reason for objecting can't work for Hindus and not also apply to Gay couples.  If you just hate Gay people and don't want them using your sacred word, say so.  This is a forum where you can tell the truth without fear from anyone.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:32am
John, Jews practiced ritual sacrifices in an attempt to persuade God to make it rain, give them good harvests, protect them from pestilence, and all sorts of other things that we now know much more about than they did back then.  The contributions were also their way of supporting the priestly class who depended on them for their  own substance and were even allowed to sell portions of what they received in order to get money for other things they needed.  The priests did the sacrificing, not the community.  Old Jewish texts are very specific about all the rules governing the preist's use of what was given to them, that is how we know about it.
 
Long long ago Jews quit believing there was  connection between sacrifices and all the things they thought they could entice God into generously providing.  Oh there might be a few sects of Jews who still believe emulating the old traditions is meaningful, but they are less significant or representative of the overall Jewish community than the Amish or Shakers are to the overall Christian community.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:33am
Polygamy, was actually tolerated by God - not sanctioned even in the Old Testament.

The New Testament is exactly what the title portends; a New Covenant - based on the finished work of Jesus Christ.

All of Levitical Law was suspended once Jesus finished his work upon the cross; there was no longer a "need" for blood sacrifices or so many other things which were only intended as instructive devices and a foretelling of the Messiah yet to come.

And to answer your question; "Where does the Christian God tell us which things in the Old Testament to follow, and which we can ignore ?" - in the New Testament.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law - not eliminate it or perpetuate it. The Law was a mirror for man to look in and see both his sin, and the consequence of that sin....but the Law could not Save a man...only the Messiah, and in some cases (in Old Testament times), a man's lived Faith in God.

And Jesus did not teach "inclusion"...in fact Jesus said;

"...fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.


He also said this, concerning his Word, ie, teaching;

John 14:23 - "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."

There is much more, but a relationship with Jesus is not carte blanche to sin or to ignore God's Word....a relationship with Jesus actually means you dedicate yourself to keeping his Word - even to deny yourself your sinful proclivities.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:34am
Bill, very well said, I agree.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:02pm
Riley; If you go back you will see I was consistent in my discussion about marriages outside the Church.

I said, God holds a man and a woman accountable for their Union - even if that Union is aside from Church.

I also said, God does not acknowledge a same sex Union in that way.

Similarly, I acknowledge that any man and woman who join (whether it is a "marriage" or not), is final in the eyes of God. Their eternal destiny, is not going to be affected by their decision to marry in the Church or live aside from it and so while I recognize that Marriage is established by God, for Believers, I also recognize that the vast majority of mankind do not acknowledge God - even as he holds them accountable for their decision to join.
 
I also acknowledge his admonition against same sex unions - or same sex, sex, for that matter. I just choose not to berate them for it, any more than I would anyone else for choosing to live aside from God's teaching.

It is entirely possible to acknowledge God and his teaching and admonitions; to hold to them personally while acknowledging that the vast majority of the population of the earth reject him...and to not "judge" their eternal destiny.

It might seem paradoxical to you but it is in fact, in keeping with Christian teaching; we recognize sin, and the cost of sin. We recognize John 14:6 and what happens to people who die in violation of it.

We do not, however, pre-judge a person's eternal destiny on account of their current lifestyle.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:07pm
The Israelites performed sacrifices in keeping with Levitical Law which was given them by God.

The Bible also provides recrimination for the Israelites when they strayed from that which God had given them as instruction.

If your test of the authenticity of God - or Scripture, is the aberrant behavior of some men, then both will always fall short.

But again, we should not be "judging God" by the actions of men.

We should be judging the actions of men by the clear teaching of Scripture to see if they are living out what they claim.

There is a difference.
Bill Kamps Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:09pm
We do not, however, pre-judge a person's eternal destiny on account of their current lifestyle.
 
John, perhaps you do not, but many other Christians do.  Many Christians fought against allowing the State to allow same sex marriage, but as Riley points out they did not fight to keep Hindus from using that word in their ceremonies.
 
It is unfortunate that the State marriage, and religious marriage both use the word marriage, since they are not at all the same thing.  One being a legal act with economic and secular benefits, the other being a religious act with faith based benefits.
 
While I am here, does Jesus say anything about same sex marriage or same sex sex, or is that only in the Old Testament?
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:17pm
Bill, even Christians who fought "Gay Marriage" did so largely because of what they feared was inevitable; the State mandated Church ceremony for same sex couples.

Far and wide, the Church and Christians, do not recognize same sex unions are "right", but the only concern about them is the eventual lawsuits against Pastors and Churches that refuse to marry them.

There is no concern about Hindu man/woman marriages because no Hindu is going to seek out a Christian Pastor to perform a marriage ceremony for them.
Gerrilea Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:18pm
John J B-- So I shouldn't judge a religion by the actions of it's followers.  I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or slap the shit out of you.
 
What consequences are there if they don't follow the teachings?  You've already said it...NOTHING.
 
'...is in no peril of Hell because he strays..."
 
In a nutshell, your religion grants you absolution for everything and anything you do.  Would Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc be granted absolution?  Clearly they would.
 
Explain the Book of Revelations.  Ultimately your God will destroy this world for it's sins and evil.  So what's the point of following a religion where we're all gonna die anyways, save 144,000.  Statistically speaking, that ain't any of us here.
 
Transformation can only occur through violence.
 
Hence my postings above with the quote:
 
"The greatest weapon the oppressor has is the mind of the oppressed" ~ Steven Biko.
 
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
 
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
 
1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
 
Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

 
Aren't you taught to correct the bad behaviors of your fellow man? To "help" him back onto the path towards God?
 
Yep.
 
Judging Others: A Closer Look at Matthew 7:1
 
 
 
If your faith were the truth and the way, these things would not be necessary....the truth is self-evident and doesn't need you or I to "protect" it, preach it or punish those whom do not follow it.
 
"First, Do No Harm".
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:21pm
Bill; in both the Old and New Testaments, Same sex relationships are condemned. In the Old Testament, it could bring about a death penalty (within the Jewish community - not outside). In the New Testament the admonition is not to engage in what it calls an abomination - but there is never any physical punishment or incarceration commanded, recommended or exhorted and certainly NO abuse toward anyone for not acknowledging God's Word....

That is the covered by; "...judgment is mine, saith the Lord..."

If you want a very clear rendering of God's view of same sex relationships, read Romans 1.

There is absolutely no ambiguity on the subject.
Gerrilea Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:29pm
Here, we don't need your stinking religion!
 
Government is Replacing Religion, According To Researchers
 
"A group of researchers agrees. They think they have proven that if you have a government you don’t need religion. They concluded that “religiosity” wanes as people get more help from government programs. They think that people replace spiritual help from God with tangible help from the government."
 
 
Ugh...I don't want either, but that's just the anarchist in me coming out.  We can voluntarily come together and help each other or not.
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:30pm
I think that both the Leviticus and apostle Paul have it wrong when it comes to homosexuality. They condemn it completely, so marriage is not even in the picture.
 
There is no biblical story condemning homosexuality (I read the Sodom story differently) and the ancient Hebrews were unlikely to have carried out the laws in its entirety. So the reading is a bit more complex and I don't wanna lose myself here in the details.
 
I think that marriage is vital to ensure a responsible lifestyle. We need gay marriage to combat std like aids and to protect people from committing suicide. Anyway, all of us live in jurisdictions where gay marriage is already law. I don't expect that the status will be changed again. I think that the pro arguments outweigh the contra arguments and i'm aware that there are valid contra arguments.
Dave Volek Added Apr 24, 2018 - 12:46pm
Riley
 
Nice article and great fielding of questions.
 
Maybe a decade or so back, the term "civic union" was used in Canadian political discourse. It inferred all the legal rights of a marriage, but didn't actually use the word "marriage". In this way, the religions could keep their sanctified definition, and the gays would get all their rights. I'm not sure why that term didn't move forward and avoid much of the controversy.
 
John
The Bible is equally condemning of prostitutes and other forms of adultery. Yet somehow these sins are not as severe as homosexuality. To me, it is another case of picking and choosing which religious laws to follow.
 
Divorce is also forbidden in Christianity. Yet this has certainly been turned around this past century. I believe there are a lot more divorced heterosexuals than all the homosexuals.
 
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:04pm
Dave, lying - even a "white lie" is forbidden.
 
I am not parsing - all sin is enough to separate you from God.
 
I am only writing in the context of this piece by Riley - not picking and choosing.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:07pm
Personally I don't think couples need either certificate to love, honor, respect and commit their lives to each other. 
 
Damn skippy they don't. Fully agree.
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:33pm
Jeffry; You are correct. We have Free Will and can chart our own course.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:38pm
Just to be clear; I am not telling anyone what to think. 

I am simply stating what is in fact stated in Scripture.

We all have Free Will and can conduct ourselves as we deem fit; Believe or Not; Marry or Not.

In answer to Benjamin Goldstein; you wanted to see Scriptural evidence concerning God's mind on Homosexuality:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

There is more, if you want it...

Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:42pm
John: I addressed those already. I disagree with apostle Paul who wrote the epistles to the Romans.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 1:50pm
Benjamin; so you disagree with the writer of Leviticus as well?
 
"
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)"
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 2:06pm
Gerrilea;   "...So I shouldn't judge a religion by the actions of it's followers.  I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or slap the shit out of you...."

There is much you you assume about my comment.

What I said is, no Saved person/Christian has to worry about eternal damnation/Hell if they stray.

You took that comment and assumed everyone who claims the name of Christ IS Saved and thus I must mean everyone making the claim...

But that is not what I meant.

If you understood (or at least took the time to understand), what I was saying, you would not have bitch-slapped me with your computer keyboard.

Scripture says; ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21

There are many who claim Christianity - by default. People who are simply filling in a "blank" are neither Saved - nor Christian and if they act out, it is of absolutely no consequence to their eternal condition because they are already Lost.

A Christian - a true Christian who has given themselves to the Christ, will have at least a kernel of understanding and will be going about the business of learning more.

Judging what God has to say in his Word by the actions of men, amounts to blaming the Car for the accident caused by the man driving it.

If a man claims to be a Christian, and murders someone, how do you suppose to hold God responsible for the murder when he has said several times - including in Exodus 20:13 - "Thou Shall not Murder."

So you choose to damn God...for what? He has exhorted Believers not to murder, rape - abuse and yet a man "claiming" to be of God who murders, you hold as less culpable?

My comment about not judging God - or Christian teaching for the actions of men, still stands.

If you believe God and his Word are responsible; prove it. Prove it by finding the errant verses that deceive men into murdering.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 2:10pm
Benjamin; so you disagree with the writer of Leviticus as well?
 
"
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)"
 
Yes, of course! Do you want the death penalty for gay sex? And for adultery? And for working on Saturdays? Since the laws were compiled people disagreed with them and debated to what extend they are applicable. They have never been fully applied throughout history.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 2:52pm
Benjamin; Not only do I not want to apply the death penalty for same sex arrangements, I have the New Testament to back me in that.

But there is a difference between between Jesus reconciling the Law, and changing what is, and is not, Sin.

No Sin in the Old Testament has been mitigated through the New Testament and the "punishment" for those sins is eternal versus temporal, albeit, mitigated by the shed blood of Christ.

So; if homosexual practice is an abomination and a sin in the Old Testament and emphasized as such in the New Testament, it is, still a Sin.

The only thing that has changed is the application of punishment in Levitical Law - which, by the way, only applied to the Israelites.

No I do not want Homosexuals beatened and killed. 

No the New Testament does not call for the punishment of Homosexuals.

Yes, both the Old and New Testaments define Homosexual practice as Sin and an Abomination, and yes, I accept that the Bible then says it is a sin - like hundreds of other things so many of us are guilty of.
 
I accept that you choose to disagree with the Bible on this.

I am simply ensuring you understand what it does say, and that it is consistent from cover to cover on this subject - the only change, is temporal punishment, ie, Courts, Judges, Capital Punishment - even Confinement (all of which are not called for in the New Testament).
 
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 2:53pm
Benjamin; as far as working on the Sabbath is concerned...the Pharisees took it to a level not commanded in the Old Testament and Jesus pointed that out....again; men making the mistake - not God.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:04pm
I think you are wrong. Apostle Paul does not only allow the neglect of circumcision. He condemned the practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity
So the old laws were not just mitigated. They are already debated in what you call the New Testament. What was sin in old days became the only sensible option for apostle Paul. Yet, Christian practice remained undecided. The English speaking world followed Jewish customes while most of the rest of Christianity abolished circumcision in accordance with  Paul.
 
Likewise the sinfulness of homosexuality is debatable.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:17pm
Paul condemns the practice as a religious rite. Circumcision was used as a method of differentiating God's People from the Gentile.

Paul's point isn't that circumcision is wrong, but that "the" Circumcision, which was used to differentiate, was superceded by Christ; the new "circumcision".

He was condemning the "Judaisers" who insisted on bringing the Law into the Church when all of that had been accomplished/abrogated by Christ's Sacrifice.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:20pm
But why did he not decide that the gay sex law was already accomplished by Christ's Sacrifice. One could argue that in his day the vast majority that is needed to procreate have already discerned with whom having a child might work and with whom it doesn't. So why still the law after Jesus' blood shed?
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:39pm
For the same reason he didn't say lying was no longer a sin.
 
The question isn't about what is covered by Christ's Sacrifice - All sin, committed by All men, throughout All time, is covered by Christ's Sacrifice.

That does not give us Carte Blanche to continue sinning...as Paul says in this discourse from Romans 6:


"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
Rom 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! "

The point is; all sin is forgivable, but all sin must also be confessed, we must repent of it (meaning to change our minds to match God's).

Practically speaking, God knows, and we know, some sin is a lot tougher to overcome than others - and tougher for some people than for other people, but if we are Saved, we are generally earnestly hoping to overcome.
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:45pm
...and the Law, which is a litany of Sins and prescription for temporal punishment, is completed - but the sins, are still sins.

The argument is made in Scripture that the person who "accepts" Christ's atonement and yet chooses to sin anyway, is likely not nor ever was saved. Salvation isn't a "get-out-of-jail-card"; it is as much a change of mind and heart as it is an acknowledgement of what God has done on our behalf to ensure we could be Saved from eternal wrath (meted out to us, due to our own arrogance and sin).
 
Christ's "completing" of the Law is that it dealt with the wages of sin, which is death - even eternal death....he didn't change his mind about what sin is, just providing a way to escape eternal punishment for those sins.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 24, 2018 - 3:54pm
You say that we don't get a carte blanche and I agree. I also get how the new covenant can overwrite the circumcision which is indeed primary a sign of the covenant. But you still wear clothes of mixed fibres which is also punishable by death according to the Tora. And I don't see how that is any different from gay sex. Why is keeping sexual purity when it comes to this matter seen as something different from a habitual rite? To what effect is it still useful?
EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:41pm
The concept of family, has been destroyed by Progressive need to make everything equal. In their eye, men and women and deviants are all the same. Same sex marriage is only one brick in the wall.
The role of father has been replaced by government, and the role of mother has become a multitasking morass that leaves children to fend for themselves.
We have lost our purpose to procreate and make every child feel a part of a family and the greater society. Is it any wonder that mass murder is increasing, as children grow up alienated, without tradition and purpose, hating the society that denies them their individuality?
ANTI- is the prevalent mindset, and I believe it is due to the loss of tradition. There is nothing to believe in anymore.
That is why I fled the USANTHILL that progressives have created.
Pardero Added Apr 24, 2018 - 4:48pm
Riley Brown,
That which benefits families and society could be termed virtue, that which is detrimental could be termed vice. Homosexual behavior easily fits into vice, no matter how innoccuous it may seem to some. 
 
I did not say that I agree with the civil union thing, but society has chosen. Many will be sorry, as it appears to be a stepping stone.
 
Much like multi-culturalism, it is another net negative for society.
 
Deviant behaviors and disorders cannot be fully legitimate, even if tolerated by progressive societies.
 
I am reminded again, of the Heinlein quote mentioned by Steve Bull: "Man is not a rational creature, but is a rationalizing creature."
 
People can rationalize and virtue signal until the cows come home, and they can piss off of a roof and claim it is raining, but it still won't be rain.
I don't play word games such as using silly euphemisms in place of the real terms, and am unlikely to subscribe to new efforts along the same lines.
opher goodwin Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:08pm
Mike - nobody is suggesting that you have to have a gay marriage - just to be tolerant of those who want to have one. Why should intolerance and bigotry restrict the freedoms of others?
I thought you were in favour of freedom? Or is it just freedom to conform to a narrow set of rules?
opher goodwin Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:11pm
Padero - homosexual behaviour is found in most animal groups and is perfectly natural. I cannot see how it undermines families. A homosexual couple can be as much a important part of society as any other people. Surely one doesn't need to be heterosexual or procreative to be valued?
I cannot understand the logic of your argument.
opher goodwin Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:12pm
Homosexuality has been venerated by many cultures - including the plains Indians. It was given high status and tolerated. I don't see why it can't be the same in our culture.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:17pm
John and Pardero, I am no expert on the bible but was under the impression being Gay is not a sin, the sin is practicing Gay sex.  I might need correcting on this but hear me out.
 
If that were true, like I know it is for The Church of Latter Day Saints, then marriage by itself is not inherently sinful, if the participants are not using the marriage certificate as a blessing for them to have Gay sex. 
 
I do know lots of men who live with men and women who live with women who are just roommates and a good number that profess to love each other but don't also have sex.  Many are seniors and sex is not an issue any more.  Are these people also living in sin?  Would it be sinful for them to be married if they can't have sex even if they wanted to?
 
I would never argue that a religion that ban sex between same sex partners is not upholding their true beliefs, but in this case there may be an opening that would allow Gay people to get married just like seniors who are way to old to procreate, often do before living together.  I would hope you wouldn't refuse to let seniors marry just because their child bearing years were in the past.
 
If it's sinful for two same sex people to live together, you are condemning a huge portion of the country, which is ok if that's what your religious beliefs are.  Most Christians don't feel that way.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 5:32pm
John, by everything you've said you have illustrated the state issued marriage certificate is not in compliance with you religion's marriage requirements, it is a government contract almost anyone can choose sign that has no bearing on your religious marriage. You don't recognize the state's authority to join anyone; even men and a women who are qualified to get married in your church are not married in the eyes of your religion if all they have is a state marriage license.
 
The people who choose to get the state contract don't have to comply with any of your religious requirements any more than they do when they buy a ticket to a movie.  If they buy the state marriage license they have absolutely no rights or obligations in your church.
 
So outside the fact that your religion would not bless a Gay marriage, because they think it's a sin, why would you care if they buy something you don't even approve of? 
 
Would you also protest sex toy stores that sell them Gay sex toys?  I've heard that some Christians believe that the Missionary Position is the only allowable sex position.  Are straight people who mix it up or the ones that have premarital sex also sinful?
John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 8:54pm
Riley, you correct. The sin isn't in the temptation, but in succumbing to it.
 
And also true; people have added to Scripture as much as others have chosen to ignore it - both are wrong.
 
Again, I am fully aware that the vast majority of men and women will reject part of all of Scripture. My only interest in this, is ensuring people know precisely what they are rejecting.
 
Hearing people say things like, "the Bible doesn't say that...or...it really doesn't mean that" can be dangerous. Denial is never a good place to be.
 
We have seen a lot of Scripture on this link and I would like to add one more just to certify the Bible's teaching on the human coupling;
 


1Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.




2And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.




3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”




4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,




5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

John J Bernard Added Apr 24, 2018 - 8:56pm
For some reason, a verse was truncated...
 
6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
EXPAT Added Apr 24, 2018 - 9:58pm
Riley. Is it your position, that there was no marriage before Christianity?
Marriage before Christianity was about family and tribal alliances.
Today, the courts have made marriage meaningless with no fault divorce. So why do GAY people want the courts to dictate their status, if not for the appearance of being the same as hetero married couples.
Except for religious alliances, marriage has been made meaningless.
Dare I say, commitment to ANYTHING, has become meaningless.
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 10:23pm
John, I am very pleased by your efforts and ability to civilly educate people like me without resorting to insults or a total lack of logic.  Most of the people I disagree with can't seem to keep it together when they meet resistance or often my ignorant or stupid questions.
 
I tend to discount religious arguments from people who suggest it's ok for them to ignore the parts of their religion that are inconvenient, but also realize many really do believe what they are doing actually is permissible because what they are choosing to ignore is not the word of God but rather the word of hopefully well-intended men who got it wrong.
 
The Christian first testaments contains interpretations of earlier works that were not written in English.  They include lessons about things none of us believe are relevant anymore, and lessons that by many people's best guesses are incorrect interpretations of God's actual will.  Simple things like slavery seem to be just fine with God when you read the Bible, but perhaps the translators got it wrong.
 
When the original lessons were written down by people who wanted us to follow God's law, perhaps they only presumed God was OK with slavery and what we read are more examples of the types of limitations and restrictions they think God would have asked for if he'd been asked about that subject.  The Bible deals with a huge range of law and I think it's likely God's actual words may have been much less specific, a logical guide that the Bible's authors expanded so that a simple people could have no doubt about God's will, even about topics God didn't actually mention.
 
As an example, I don't believe God didn't want people with physical flaws to be allowed to worship in his temples, yet it sure looks that way...  
 
Leviticus 21:17-24 King James Version (KJV)
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.
I know of no Christian denomination that puts that into practice, or chooses to treat those "demands from God" as though they really are God's words.  Instead they are treated like mistakes well intended men included because they thought God would be offended by the presence of cripples and ugly people.  Today I'm not aware of any church that would dream of turning away ugly and crippled people, all welcome them into their sanctuaries. 
So what changed, do they all choose to ignore God on this one, or much more likely according to me, our cultural sensitivities have changed so we think something that was so culturally acceptable back when the Bible was written is not, and realize the words in the Bible are not ALL God's words.  Some are no more and no less than laws the people who translated God's laws into something THE PEOPLE could use a guide to a righteous life, incorrectly thought God wanted.
Now I come to Gay sex which is one of the most repulsive things most straight people can imagine, now and probably back when the Bible was written down.  I can easily imagine the people assembling the Bible adding laws forbidding that awful act because it was so offensive to their sensibilities that it
Riley Brown Added Apr 24, 2018 - 11:17pm
Expat, I know formalize marriage rituals predate Christianity, Jews had formal marriage rituals long before Christ was a tinkle in God's eye.
 
I would argue that the state has cooped the word marriage and now applies it to contract that has more liabilities than benefits and nothing to do with religion.
 
I see no connection between the religious marriage and the state issued contract except that they both deal with people who wish to be connected to each other. 
 
With the religious one the connection is though or recognized by God who presumably approves of the union, and sets the rules.
 
With the state contract, it's just financially binding agreement that obligates one party or another in the event they wish to break the contract at some later time.  It has nothing to do with God, and doesn't even require the participants to see anyone's approval except the cashier and witnesses who gladly sell their participation if you have the money.
 
I understand why the fiscally weaker party would want a state contract, it helps secure their future if the partner who makes all the money decides to leave them, but I fail to see what's in it for the breadwinner except possibly legitimizing children socially.
 
Personally I think Gay people who are demanding the right to be married by the state are out of their minds, it does give the weaker fiscal partner monetary security if they get the boot but there is nothing in it for the breadwinner.  In fact the breadwinner is much better off if they can tell their partner, "oh honey you know I'd marry you if I could, but you know I can't because it's not legal". 
 
How many straight people would love to have that excuse?  When Gays win, they also get the right to spend horrendous fortunes on divorce attorneys, just like all those poor straight folks.  I don't call that a win, how about you?
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 12:19am
Riley. I agree that marriage has been destroyed by the state. 
 
Your analysis of marriage and comments are all about Christianity. I think that is due to the current war on religion from the left. But Christianity redefined marriage after the fact. The rulers decided it was in their interest to have their serfs stay together and raise all the little serfs.
 
How better to control a population, than to control the family?
TOTALITARIANISM!
Pardero Added Apr 25, 2018 - 12:29am
Riley Brown,
Those are interesting dilemmas that you brought up. 
I try not to argue from any religious standpoint, but cannot rule out possible influences from earlier in my life. I try not to use the word 'sin.'
 
I believe that you are correct, most faiths would not have a problem if a relationship was platonic. The 'sin' would be in the acts, I believe. Although my sense of aesthetics finds male activity far more repugnant, that is not my source of opposition.
 
My concern is about limiting damage to society. I resist the notion of considering homosexuality as just another equal life choice. It should be considered a disorder, albeit one that should not be stigmatized or treated differently from any other disorders.
 
Homosexuality has already been legitimized far too much. It has become a new religion for adherents to proselytize. Instead of being compared to civil rights for negroes, it should be compared to the understanding and sympathy that we should have for those with OCD, depression, and some of the true phobias, not the fake ones that are used as talking points and emotive language. 
 
The extremely high per capita rates of homosexuals in women's shelters, drug use, suicide, and much more, tends to show that homosexuality is just another manifestation of troubled people.
 
I am somewhat familiar with statistics and also anecdotal  evidence from a close relative that worked in a large women's shelter. That person actually made reports documenting predatory behavior that victimized vulnerable young abused heterosexual women. It made a big stink at the time, because it wasn't PC and did not fit the narrative. I assure you that the person was beyond reproach and had no agenda. In fact, that person once gifted me with a subscription to Mother Jones magazine.
 
As an aside, I once dated a gorgeous LDS lady who had been married several times. The last husband turned out to be a homosexual. It boggles the mind that something could go that far.
 
So she said, we have to be married, first.
I said, let's drive up to Coeur d 'Alene and get hitched!
She said, you will have to convert first.
I said, consider me converted!
She said, it will take at least a year.
I had no retort, and that was the end of that.
 
Flying Junior Added Apr 25, 2018 - 2:55am
Gay marriage is just that.  A new twist on the concept of matrimony.  We don't need to look back to religious traditions or social definitions of marriage.  The word marriage is only a word.  Whatever its etymology or its original meaning...  Well!  Anyone who has ever been married knows exactly what it means.
 
Serial divorcers and abusers don't really get marriage.  I"m talking to the rest of you decent folk.
 
I got married, not buried.
 
Gay marriage is new.  Fifty years ago it did not exist in Europe, Hawaii or anywhere else on the planet.  Today everyone is so crunchy, you would just about have to be a tithing member of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas not to tell the world that you have no problem with gay people or gay relationships.  We're way past, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
 
Does anybody have any idea why it is cool to support gay marriage?
 
It's because it makes people really happy to get married.  It's that simple.  You see the happiness on their faces.  Guess what?  It doesn't look all that different than the happiness on the faces of any two people who decide to hitch their wagons.  And what is more, gay couples can make really great parents to kids that need some stability, prosperity and nurturing.  Children of gay parents on the average turn out less fucked up and damaged than most children in prosperous societies.  Maybe it's because gay couples have to try harder to do everything right.
 
It's all about family.
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:21am
How about an article on the DARK SIDE of the GAY world. The NAMBLA trading of adopted boys. The parties where children are passed around. The San Francisco bath houses where AIDS got its start.
I bet you were raped many times Riley. Spanked until your ass bled, all kinds of things shoved up your ass.
You could highlight the article with Mapplethorpe photo's of a man with a fist shoved up his ass, all the way to the elbow.
Examples of Chicken hawks getting run away children from bus stations, taking them home and addicting them to Hard Drugs, to be sold as sex slaves.
I worked with a young gay councilor who tried to rehabilitate these young boys, without much success.
The child abuse of adopted boys, is NEVER exposed by the MSM. Jeffery Domer, was a chicken Hawk, but he not only drugged and raped his victims, he ATE them.
 
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:40am
rel="noopener">Gay parents rape their adopted kids, say new Russian anti-gay ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
A new anti-gay video making the rounds in Russia claims that gays adopt children so that they'll have a readily available source of kids to rape.

rel="noopener">americablog.com/2013/09/gay-parents-rape-kids-says-russia...
More results
 


rel="noopener">Gay couple accused of sexually abusing adopted Russian boy ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
Gay couple accused of sexually abusing ... He noted that according to Russian law an adopted child remains a Russian citizen until lawful age and promised to ...

rel="noopener">https://www.rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/
More results




rel="noopener">Gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
'They took turns raping me': New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial

rel="noopener">dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305125/Gay-couple-accused-m...
More results

EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:41am
rel="noopener">Russian Video: Gays Adopt Children To Rape Them | The New ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
A new Russian video claims that gay people want to adopt children to rape them and use them for sex, gays are forced to turn children gay, half of gays are pedophiles, and gays commit 30 percent of all sexual assaults.

rel="noopener">thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/russian-video-gays-adopt-children-to-rape...
More results


rel="noopener">Homosexual Couple Busted for Raping Adopted Childrel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
Russia's Putin signs law limiting adoption by gays ... Gay men are much more likely to rape children PER CAPITA. End of story, you diksucker.

rel="noopener">moonbattery.com/homosexual-couple-busted-for-raping-adopt...
More results




rel="noopener">Gays and Lesbians Adopt Children in Order to Rape Them—New ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
Gays and Lesbians Adopt Children in Order to Rape Them—New Russian Anti-Gay ... deny LGBT Russians custody of their own biological or adopted children. ...

rel="noopener">https://www.thestranger.com
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:42am
rel="noopener">Gay Couple Accused Of Raping Multiple Adopted Children Will ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
A married gay couple in Connecticut have been accused of abusing several of their nine adopted children. And the couple have decided they want to go to trial to clear their names.

rel="noopener">gothamist.com/2013/04/07/gay_couple_accused_of_raping_m...
More results


rel="noopener">Vladimir Putin: Russia may change its law to stop foreign gay ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
Russian President Vladimir Putin, has confirmed reports that the country may change its agreements for the foreign adoption of Russian children, in the light of France legalising equal marriage, to prevent gay, married couples from adopting.

rel="noopener">https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/04/26/vladimir-putin-russia-may-chan...
More results




rel="noopener">Gay dads live in fear their adoptive child will KILL them ...rel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
By Angela Levin For The Mail On ... allowing the couple to dodge Russian laws which banned gay adoption but ... the youngest of six adopted children who died ...

rel="noopener">dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4259990/Gay-dads-live-fear-a...


EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:43am
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:51am
You won't find any of this on Google. Russia halted overseas adoption, because of GAY child abuse.
The new twist in Thailand is to have a prostitute deliver a baby as a surrogate, then the GAY couple takes the baby home for whatever purpose.
Sorry to piss on your Gay parade folks, but GAY sex is a shitty business, literally!
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:05am
 
I would have let this Fairy Tale go by, with minimal comment, But Flying Junior really pissed me off with his glorification of Gay Adoption.
In too many cases (Not All) Gay adoption is child abuse. At best, the child is denied the Role of either a father, or a mother.
But PC is more important than child welfare.
Pardero Added Apr 25, 2018 - 8:59am
Enter your comment here...
Pardero Added Apr 25, 2018 - 9:02am
EXPAT,
Riley Brown is a girl. Your language is a bit coarse and the ad hominem is particularly offensive.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:09am
Expat, your posts in most forums make me think, but I must admit your flurry of posts in my forum made me LOL.  I'm not sure if this is a test but here goes.
 
First I think your dark side, only applies to a tiny minority, here is a link that presents the real reasons or excuses and motivations that caused the flow of adoptions to be interrupted from Russia,
 
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/20/15984378/putin-trump-jr-magnitsky-act-orphans-adoption
 
The adoption process is pretty long and not fun, I don't doubt that with the thousands being adopted some are abusive and do it for the wrong reasons, but also have concluded that on average adoptive families children are better off than children born to their parents.
 
Most families that adopt tried and failed to have their own children and then spent a lot of time and money trying to adopt one that wasn't wanted by their own parents.  I only have to look at the abusive life that poor kids who weren't wanted in poor families seem to go though and compare it to how the children in more affluent families who can afford to adopt kids live, to come to that conclusion.  On average they are taken from destitution or orphanages where they have no support and a bleak future and end up in a family environment, in America, with parents who have lots of money to help them become healthy, happy and successful members of society.
 
I know a few and all are far better off here than they would have been if they had stayed in Russia.  However because I know several, I also know a well kept secret, that many adoptive parents tend to overlook.  Most adopt from Russia because the want WHITE children that will look like them and it's real hard to adopt White children born in the US, there just aren't enough of them, and many of those come from drug using mom's.  Many of the people who adopt from Russia don't realize how many of those children come from alcoholic or drug using moms too.  I now several that turned out to have pretty bad problems as they grew up and it happens too often for there not to be a link to something like an alcoholic mom.
 
Do you think the problems you've hear of are so bad that they offset the fantastic opportunity that the vast majority of the 60 thousand kids who are here now have?
 
On the other side, we don't actually have a shortage of American children to adopt, but most families that are affluent enough to afford the process don't want Black children, and that's whats in abundance.  It's not all racism, most adoptive parents are also aware that the portion of the Black community that is pumping out adoptive babies they don't want has a huge drug problem.  Affluent people don't want to pay good money to buy a child that is likely to have problems for the rest of their life, because mom didn't care enough about her pregnancy to clean up her act.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:24am
Pardero, no need to try to stick up for me, I don't get offended by rank comments and don't think my own sexuality should have anything to do with the value or validity of my comments, any more than it should for other people.  That is why I pretty much ignore all the comments that attempt to classify me.
 
I agree that Homosexuality has become much more socially acceptable but don't believe that increases or decreases the number of people who are truly Gay. 
 
In your examples I think you might be confusing opportunist sexual gratification with sexual orientation, they are not the same.  Lot of straight men in prison have sex with other men out of desperation, that doesn't make them Gay, it just means they got desperate enough that they didn't care.  Most people crave sexual releases, and if the venue is not what they prefer will settle for what's available and gets the job done.  Masturbation is the most common substitution for a willing partner of their favorite flavor.
 
Today our public schools teach young children all about their sexual identity choices and confuse many into believing they are not straight but over time and usually after puberty sets in, they will all find out what they really are.  The schools can't make them Gay anymore than a counselor can make a Gay person straight again.  All they can do is shame them into behavior that is not natural for that person.  I think the schools should stop their indoctrination, the original intention was to stop bullying, not confuse young children.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:50am
Expat, contrary to popular opinion, I believe a stable family that includes a Father, Mother and enough affluence to provide children with good educations, is the best environment for raising children.
 
That being said, I've been around a lot of foster homes too much to not realize they usually provide some of the least healthy environments a child can grow up in short of the one the parents live in that that gave them away.  They usually lack any form of caring loving parenting, and include other troubled kids, often who have severe problems of their own, together under the guardianship of adults who often want the income more than the children. 
 
I think anyone who truly wants the children and has enough money to adopt them, is likely to provide a better upbringing than the foster care system which will throw them out the second they hit 18.  That includes single and even Gay parents.
 
The question is not are Gay people fit to raise a kid, it should be what is better for the kids, foster-care or being raised by someone who is Gay.  In my view, Gay beats foster care every time.
 
Keep in mind kids raised in Gay households are no more likely to become Gay than kids raised in straight households.
 
Heterosexual households might be the best environment, but Gay households are still far better than foster-care, and that's the real issue.
Pardero Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:50am
Riley Brown,
I know it is a rotten trick trying to blow your cover.
You look like the sitter that took me to Primary. ♡ ; )
Pardero Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:53am
Thank you for the detailed and informative comment. We have some agreement.
It is my understanding that the first sexual experience is hugely influential on sexuality. Whether or not that fits a promoted narrative, is that your information, as well?
Dave Volek Added Apr 25, 2018 - 10:58am
Riley: I admire your patience and willingness to educate.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 11:51am
Pardero, I like tricks and surprises!
 
I like also like to think my opinions have value but know they are still just opinions with all the potential flaws all opinions have so I try not to confuse them with facts. 
 
You could be right about first sexual experiences, but from what I've seen puberty pretty much defines our sexuality once it gets hold of us. 
 
In recent years I've know several children who became they were convinced they were Gay by what they learned in school, and even initially participated in Gay relationships, only to find out they weren't and now they are very happily straight. 
 
All are quite embarrassed by their previous behavior but I don't think they should be, they were indoctrinated by school officials who were authority figures and too young to understand what it was all about when they had their first experiences.  Even straight men in prison apparently enjoy Gay sex enough to do it, so I see no reason it wouldn't feel good to a kid who has no other experience to compare it to.  That however would not change their lifetime orientation unless they were also predisposed to confusion in the first place.
 
Many transgender people change their minds several times about their own sexuality, and I don't think it's what their taught that makes them change their minds, it's that they are mixed up people to begin with.  They have extremely high suicide rates that are just as high or even go up, if they get gender reassignment surgery.  That's why I am against the surgery, it's not doing them any good.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 11:52am
Dave, thanks for the compliment, I do hope I am worthy of it.
 
I may not always be right, or appropriately informative, I don't think anyone is, but at least I try.
Dave Volek Added Apr 25, 2018 - 12:20pm
Riley
 
Your last paragraph got me wanting to comment further on this thread.
 
In my readings, there are people who flip-flop in their sexual orientation during their lives. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not sure why--or even what causes homosexual tendencies in the first place. But there is sometimes a rebellious attitude to traditional society that may play into effect, but it does not explain everything.
 
I have watched several documentaries on transgender people. I haven't got much sense that they are happy, content people when they are given the liberty to express themselves freely. As you say, they are mixed up.
 
In a similar sense, I get the same feeling from many homosexual people as well. It may be because of my latent prejudices or maybe because they still feel outcast from society. Who knows? 
 
I am just thankful that I'm not hardwired in this way. I feel sorry for those going through this life challenge, and I hope they do find some kind of resolution.
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 25, 2018 - 12:27pm
I think that kids who are raised by gay couples are more likely to be fucked up. [Libs: Don't educate me with your activism "statistics"]. Still pros outweigh cons.
Flying Junior Added Apr 25, 2018 - 3:27pm
EXPAT,
 
Are not females also kidnapped or adopted to become sexual slaves and prostitutes?  No offense, but the sex industry in Thailand is quite dark, is it not?
 
That was a fairly serious rantstorm.
 
Riley,
 
Some guys are butt-raped in prison and manage to not turn gay when they get out.  But any guy who is, "desperate," enough to get into the gay prison culture may not have started out gay, but once he has rammed his rock-hard cock into the poop-chute, I'm fairly certain that will qualify him as gay.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 25, 2018 - 3:32pm
Yuck
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 5:56pm
Flying, WOW, by your definition a lot of people who have been straight, land  in prison and have Gay sex in there, and then return to a heterosexual lifestyle when they get out are all GAY?  Really?  That  is even more common among women in prison who I guess you also consider Gay. 
 
Does one Gay act make them Gay for life, or does it take a few?
 
Are all young children who become convinced they are Gay in school and then have a few Gay encounters, Gay for life because of sexual acts they did before they knew what they really liked?
 
What about those who masturbate, are they condemned as sinners for spilling their seed?  Are they forever damned for having sex with their hands...  sex that has absolutely no relationship to the God given purpose for sex, to make babies?  Will they all burn in hell?
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:07pm
Dave there is a whole industry of people who make a living off Transgender people whose jobs depend on a steady flow of willing customers.  Some really believe at one time or another but most know that all their counseling, hormones, and surgery are likely to do is cost those poor people a lot of money and then leave them just as unhappy and mixed up as they were before they "helped" them.
 
The counselors all want to help them with their transition, of course they don't get paid if they don't help.  The doctors that sell them hormones need the business to, as do the surgeons who have recently done a booming business thanks the popularity of the surgery.  However all of them know the suicide rates after all that is over are just as high as they are if they never get it done, often even a little higher.  They know they can't give them what they want, to be accepted socially and sexually as the opposite sex.  The best they can do is dress them up with the trimmings so they look like they were born with the other equipment, but they know those people are extremely unlikely to find happiness with any person who is not also Transgender.
 
Statistically the vast majority would be happier without hormones or surgery.  I'm not saying they can be happy living in a body they don't think matches their born gender, I'm saying that if they don't make the changes, they will be happier and better off.  They are just very mixed up people, and I feel sorry for them.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:14pm
Benjamin, I am guessing you don't know any kids whose parents are Gay, and I do.  Having Gay parents doesn't mean much to a kid who grows up with them any more than having straight parents does, especially at this time in history where it's so commonly portrayed in on the sliver screen.  From all I can see by watching, children with Gay parents grow up quite normally, but perhaps a little more spoiled than average because Gay parents tend to be a little more affluent than the average straight parents. 
 
I do think many kids who have Gay parents aren't as opposed to Gay as much as many children with straight parents, but I don't know any who didn't grow up straight.  I can't see evidence that Gay is passed down, children go though puberty and want what they are attracted to, end of story.
Riley Brown Added Apr 25, 2018 - 6:18pm
Benjamin, I take it back I do know one boy who thought he was Gay when he was in School, whose long dead Grandfather was Gay.  He wasn't old enough to have met him but that's the closest to passed down I can recall and I've met a few.   I now about his grandfather because his grandfather was very famous and well known for being Gay.
 
When the boy got out of high school he discovered girls, and hasn't looked back since.  I don't think he was ever really Gay, just convinced he had all the signs by school officials who told him far too much about his "choices" long before he was old enough to understand them.
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 11:24pm
Riley. My rant was not directed at you or your article! That is why the apology afterwards.
The subject is so propagandized, that FJ glowing endorsement of Gay adoption, needed to be put in perspective.
I am sure you know the Evil of NAMBLA is not typical of the Gay community. But this Evil does exist in the Gay community, but is completely hidden by the Media. You will notice that all the articles I posted come from overseas sources. Google, Ask search engines hide any reference.
What is needed is a balanced approach to Gay adoption as with any matter involving children. There are stable Gay couples who are community staples and can provide a good home; but PC Democraps try to ignore the perverted pedophiles, to protect the ideology.
EXPAT Added Apr 25, 2018 - 11:27pm
North American Man/Boy Love Association
The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 1:30am
It is my understanding that the first sexual experience is hugely influential on sexuality. 
 
Pardero, can you really be this stupid?  People's first sexual experience has everything to do with their choice and attraction.  It is not the other way around you dope.  If you actually had a close relationship, a friend, who is gay, you wouldn't say such stupid nonsense.
Michael B. Added Apr 26, 2018 - 2:00am
NAMBLA = Nasty Ass Molesting Before Legal Age.
Flying Junior Added Apr 26, 2018 - 4:13am
That's not what I said.  I stand by what I said.  I don't get your point at all.
Flying Junior Added Apr 26, 2018 - 4:19am
Shut the hell up before you say anything stupider EXPAT.
EXPAT Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:09am
Flying Junior Added Apr 25, 2018 - 2:55am
And what is more, gay couples can make really great parents to kids that need some stability, prosperity and nurturing.  Children of gay parents on the average turn out less fucked up and damaged than most children in prosperous societies.  Maybe it's because gay couples have to try harder to do everything right.
 
It's all about family.
Since Gay couples cannot have children biologically, I assumed you refer to adoption!
Your own words make you a liar.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:26am
Riley
 
but in the eyes of many does grant them the approval and blessings associated with their God or Gods. 
 
*swallowing tears*
 
Oh, "god", let's rain some brain.  I don't care who marries whom. My friend can marry his car, or I can marry my furniture. It's not MY business who fucks whom and what and marries whom and what.
 
But DO we really need such a discussion in the 21st century ? Let everybody do what hesheit wants. When "god" does not agree, heitshe will put a halt to it LOL
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:34am
Michael
 
Isn't there also a 
 
NCMBLA = Nasty Cunt Molesting Before Legal Age.
 
? Well well, here we go. Gotta ask the "elitist" circle, no matter where is is....
 
BTW: Legal age is a national matter. In Mali for example there IS a legal age too. But people don't know what "legal" is....tradition is what counts. THEIR tradition, not ours, actually. Again: Not OUR business, as it is not my business what my neighbor does. We already brought enough peace and justice to the world LOL
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 7:37am
BTW:
 
Some might say: Look, cowardly Stone closes his eyes on the bad things happening around him.
 
No. I don't.
 
But I'm not the one to accuse anybody because nature has made him the way hesheit is. I only ask for common sense in that matter too. As we should have in matters of bombing around foreign lands and - killing people who - luckily therefore escape NAMBLA ;-)
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2018 - 8:11am
How does gay marriage impact you? It doesn’t.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 8:14am
George
 
That's what I say. Who cares ? It's not even worth discussing. Do what you like. Paper or not.
Riley Brown Added Apr 26, 2018 - 9:57am
Expat, sorry if I misunderstood your intention. 
 
In my humble opinion all NAMBLA really is is a group of pedophiles who have no desire to resist their urges and use the web site as a way to make themselves feel better about what they like to do, and help share ways to do it without getting caught.
 
If it was people who like murdering other people I'd feel the same way.
 
They are totally rejected and not in any associated with ANY Lgbtqiapd types, just as much as straight people would generally reject a murders club.
 
I hope our Government finds a way to identify them and prosecute the ones who act out in the real world.
Riley Brown Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:00am
William, why call Pardero stupid, that just casts doubt on you own credibility. 
Riley Brown Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:03am
Expat, of course Flying was referring to adoption.  That doesn't make him a liar, there are a large group of posts in this form where participants tried to put Gay adoption into perspective from the point of, does it make the kids better or worse off.  Flying's comment fit right in.
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:06am
William, why call Pardero stupid, that just casts doubt on you(r) own credibility. 
 
No, it doesn't.  People who say stupid things are stupid.  It could be temporary.  Who knows. 
Riley Brown Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:11am
Stone, I'm glad you don't care what others do as long as it doesn't effect you and I generally feel the same but know there are many things that don't effect me that still upset me.
 
I am bothered when people disrespect our American flag in public in this country.  I don't like it when people berate others they don't even know, in public with demeaning language just to insult and upset them.  I know that devoted Catholics get very upset when other people have abortions, and Hindu's can't be too happy about all the people who eat their sacred cows right in public, in this country.  Even devote Muslims
 
I am glad this is a country were we are required to tolerate things that don't actually hurt us.  Even devote Muslims are required to turn away and do noting if they see people painting disrespectful pictures of Mohamed.  I think we're all better off for that tolerance.
Bill Kamps Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:46am
People just need to get a grip.  I dont know why straight people concern themselves so much with what gay people do or dont do.
 
One of my best friends is gay, and I have known him for almost 20 years.  Just like all the other guys I know, we dont talk much at all about sexual experiences, it generally is not something guys talk about in detail, gay or straight.  So given that, our friendship is perfectly normal.  We hang out with our other friends, go on ski vacations, go to watch football games, and do all the same things other friends do together.
 
Unfortunately, this friend had to find a "special" Christian church.  One that also didnt care whether he was gay or not.  It seems absurd to me that straight Christians should be deciding that gay people are not allowed in the church without admitting that they are sinning by being gay.  Regardless of what the Bible says or doesnt say, it doesnt pass the common sense test.  
 
The Bible says a lot of things in the Old Testament that we no longer follow.  Even in the New Testament, quotes attributed to Jesus were written many years after his death.  It is impossible for me to believe the the quotes are correct, word for word, written decades after they were spoken, and then translated multiple times. 
 
All that aside, we just need to ask ourselves a basic common sense question, "who  cares?"  Who cares what consenting adults do in private?   Why should what they do, affect whether they can be teachers, adopt children, become Christians or get married.  There are plenty of straight people with strange sexual desires, performing unusual sexual acts, and we dont toss them out of the church.  People can be into BDSM, or other unusual activities, and as long as they arent pedophiles, anything goes.  And yet, sex between two people of the same sex gets everyone worked up to the point that we have to make special rules for them. 
 
What nonsense!
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:54am
People just need to get a grip.  I dont know why straight people concern themselves so much with what gay people do or dont do.
 
Where have you been for the last 20 years, Bill?  The cult-left have made sexual (dis)function a social priority for everyone.  It is just getting worse now with compulsory language to describe these sexual (dis)functions in words that do not offend anyone.  Holy shit!
Bill Kamps Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:11am
William, I just ignore it.  What the cult-left say doesnt bother me, any more than what they do in the bed room.
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:26am
Well, Bill.  You can say it doesn't bother you but it is bothering the vast majority of Americans in many negative ways. 
 
People are tired of our elite culture pushing someone's sexuality (what they do in the dark), or someone's abnormal sex organs in our faces.  This is one sign of a deteriorating culture.  If you don't care about this, that is very odd.  I'm just waiting for the next abnormal sexual behavior that needs "fixing" in our society.  It's insane.
My best-man is gay.  I have known him for many, many years.  He is conservative.  He knows very well that his sexual attractions are not normal.  It is difficult for him.  But he doesn't stick it in everyone's face and does not use his sexuality for cultural advantage.
 
Riley here knows very well about using his/her (Zim) "uniqueness" for social advantage.  (see pic.  see 'Riley').  Good advertisement for his/her vague uniqueness.  Hell, we are all unique in some way.  But Riley advertises his/her sexual ambiguity because he/her knows damn well it is a social priority given special treatment.
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:39am
How does one “ stick it in your face?” Sorry not everything in life is to our personal taste and like. It’s easy to ignore most of what is around you if you actually worry more about yourself.
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 11:55am
How does one “ stick it in your face?”
 
Are you kidding?  Ever been to any modern movies?  Ever watch any main-stream media broadcast?  Have you been in a silo somewhere without contact with the modern world? 
Do you not work anywhere that requires you to take "awareness" courses for people's sexual functions?  What about those special bathrooms in your workplace?
 
If you guys are retired and sitting at home watching movies from 1970, then yes.  It is quite easy for you to escape.
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2018 - 12:00pm
So your forced to watch gay oriented content. And no I’ve not been forced to take a diversity class and if I was I’d be happy I was employed making a decent salary.
Spartacus Added Apr 26, 2018 - 12:07pm
Well George, its all about you then. 
 
If you had kids that attended a public school, you would know very well about the SEXUAL indoctrination occurring within those walls.  Diversity awareness my ass.  It is a program designed to normalize sexual dysfunction and abnormalizing NORMAL sexual functions. 
 
But you guys think its just ok and can be easily dismissed.  This explains so much about why we are having major issues in the west. 
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 1:53pm
Bill
 
People just need to get a grip.  I dont know why straight people concern themselves so much with what gay people do or dont do.
 
*Sigh* Thanks. As usual, you seem to be one of the only reasonable minds here.
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2018 - 1:57pm
Yeah we have unbridled greed and war mongers because of gays. Makes sense to me.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 26, 2018 - 1:57pm
BTW: I have 3 daughters and one of them is bisexual. So fucking what ? As Bill said: Get a grip. Better concentrate on things that makes your kids feel human and act humanly so these bloody wars can be reduced. I bet when your gay or LGBTwhatever kid is dead you will NOT mourn his sexual orientation but his death...
Flying Junior Added Apr 26, 2018 - 3:00pm
Cult-left?
 
I am nothing more than a dyed-in-the-wool liberal democrat.  I consider myself quite conservative.  Views have evolved over time.  My father never had a prejudice against homosexuality.  OTOH, I grew up in an extremely homophobic culture in the beach communities of San Diego.
 
I completely understood how Obama came to change his mind on gay marriage.  It was my own mother who pointed out to me how happy gay couples were to be allowed to legally marry.  It is a tiny fraction of young people today that keep the old prejudices alive.
 
There's no going back in time.
Riley Brown Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:04pm
William, Bill and George, right now all things Gay are being shoved in your children's face and in your's, that's just where we are today, its the PC thing to do and I think its bad.
 
I don't car much about sexual orientation of other people, as long as I'm not required to participate in their escapades and I think the entertainment industry, in their fight to prove how UN-homophobic they are, insulting their audience and demeaning the LGBTQ community by forcing something Gay into almost every show. 
 
In order to make shure the audience realized they are including Gay content they do flaunt it in you face.  It's not good enough that they have characters that seem to be gay if you followed the programing, they need to have them making a spectacle of themselves by being outrageously Gay in every program.  That is not realistic and it is insulting to the Gay community.
 
These days most people know someone whose Gay and can't tell by watching anything they do in public most of the time.  99% of the time they are just normally behaving people who happen to be Gay and unless you heard them talk about it once, or followed them into their bedrooms, you'd never know it.
 
I don't blame straight people for being fed up, I don't like it shoved in my face all the time.
George N Romey Added Apr 26, 2018 - 6:17pm
Hollywood has always dangled the lastest “ thing” in people’s face. It what sells. In the 40s and 50s it was pro war. The 70s “jiggle tv.”
 
Thats why television came with an off switch. Given the sheer amount of variety entertainment  today anyone watching something they consider offensive or not of their value system I’d have to question their motives. The biggest homophobes seem to have sexual identity issues.
EXPAT Added Apr 26, 2018 - 10:00pm
Bill Kamps, et al.
 "I dont know why straight people concern themselves so much with what gay people do or dont do."
  
Let me be as succinct as possible. Society is under attack from LGBTQxyz!
 
1.Businesses are being sued and bankrupted for refusing to participate in Gay events.
2. Schools are telling our children that Gay is the same as straight, BEFORE they even know what sex is.
3. LGBTQ are demanding consideration in employment, education as a protected group.
4. Firemen and Police are forced to participate in Gay events, by Gay administrators elected by PC Democraps.
5. Tax laws and incentives to support families with children, are being usurped to extend to individuals living together.
6. State agencies are tasked to extend services intended for families, to two or more men living together.
7. 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce. We can expect the same from Gay marriages, further burdening the courts.
8. Sports that accommodate the less physical female, are being forced to allow surgically altered males to participate. This physical advantage will dominate Title 7 opportunities.
9. Male/Female accommodation, is being challenged.
10. Instead of LGBTQ learning to function in society; Society is expected to change to accommodate deviation at taxpayer expense.
 
The question should be, Bill Kemps, Why do Gay people want to inflict their chosen lifestyle, and force participation on society?
Michael B. Added Apr 27, 2018 - 1:24am
I've known several lesbians so far, and they are among the coolest chicks I've ever met. I was recently introduced to a gay couple that live down the street, and they seem to be very nice guys. No, I can't say I have a problem with homosexuals; they're just like anyone else in this world in that if they don't mess with me, I don't mess with them. I generally accept people for the fucked-up assholes that we tend to be. The militant extremists and headline-grabbers among them fuck it all up for the rest of them, like just about everything else that militant extremists do.
Stone-Eater Added Apr 27, 2018 - 8:40am
Michael
 
Good one. Now I'm gonna fuck my dog LOL
EXPAT Added Apr 28, 2018 - 2:31am
Looks like my 10 points on LBGTQ intrusion on society fell on deaf PC ears, not surprising considering all the money and effort expended of the Gay Charade.
Riley Brown Added Apr 28, 2018 - 11:36am
George, yes, I agree our best way to vote is with our feet, simply don't watch things you don't enjoy or disapprove of.  Hopefully advertisers will notice and force appropriate change.
 
Unfortunately the Gay content today is being made attractive to many parts of the public who find the "super Gay" antics they throw into every show entertaining.  It's insulting to the Gay community because it promotes demeaning stereotypes that are no less damaging to the overall community back when Gay was never mentioned at all.
 
However that's entertainment.  They do the same for other types of people, the good guy always goes though entire seasons performing extraordinarily risky behaviors, often managing to kill or disable or escape from bad guys without getting killed themselves.  Sleuths practically always manage to outfox the bad guys, so I expect the media industry to keep providing examples of entertaining but flamboyant public behavior by Gay characters as long as doing so increases their ratings and keeps maintaining their PC certification.
Riley Brown Added Apr 29, 2018 - 11:28am
Expat, I'm a realist and yes there are portions of the LGBT community who are pushing and hoping for everything you mentioned, but they don't represent the majority of Gay people any more than the Amish represent the overall Christian community.
 
I am bothered by how many of the activists with agendas you mention are working in our public schools and or being invited in to help "EDUCATE" our young children about sexuality issues, I think that is very wrong.  Institutions like public schools which have been very kind to the Gay community, treating them fairly and even offering them benefits for their partners, became very attractive to the Gay community and have much larger portions of Gay employees than most other businesses in the same communities.  They are Gay magnets. 
 
I agree with the goal of reducing the amount of bullying but that goal has become little more than an excuse for the activists to get in the door the same way a few activists will try to use Gay marriage as a stepping stone to forcing churches to marry Gay people.  It's no different then pedophiles looking for jobs where there are vulnerable young children.
 
I think we need to keep our focus on bad people and bad behavior and try not to suppress lots and lots of good people in a frantic attempt to eliminate all the bad behavior. 
 
Riley Brown Added Apr 29, 2018 - 11:33am
Michael, yes it's true, its the extremists the usually get most of the attention, and create stereotypes that majority have to contend with. 
 
Even most Christians have a dichotomy between they way they live their lives and what their clergy tells the world they are all about.  It's not just Catholic people who enjoy the company of Gay friends and use birth control, its the majority of people who don't behave the way they do when their mom is watching all the time when she's not there.
EXPAT Added Apr 30, 2018 - 2:43am
Riley. You show good common sense. The problem with all reasoning today, in my opinion, is the loss of individuality. We "Group Think", and lose perspective into nuances of the person.
But the greatest social sin, is thinking we know how others should live, and trying to force compliance. In America, every aspect of existence is under scrutiny.
In Pattaya, Thailand, we have every aspect of human behavior, and most are at least tolerated. Openly Gay behavior, is seen and there is a Boyz Town, where Gays can be Gay without judgment. We have Lady Boys, known as Katoey, and man Lady known as Tom. They also have their own clubs, where Western Women come.
Open Bar Beers offer every type of woman from around the world.
All are free to participate, or avoid the areas not liked.
That is true freedom!
Riley Brown Added Apr 30, 2018 - 9:37am
Expat, those are good examples of tolerance and perhaps where we're headed in America but we're not there yet.
 
Unfortunately Thailand is also known for a darker side too, it has the stigma as being a haven for pedophiles.  I'm not sure if it's deserved or if it's like in the US where it's very illegal and strongly prosecuted but everyone remembers the few incidents they hear about so well that it taints their perceptions.
Dr. Rupert Green Added May 6, 2018 - 6:12pm
Listen guys, give it up. Riley has you by the balls. Here is a WB sister who cannot be feathered, tarred, and run out of town with a spurious argument.
Dr. Rupert Green Added May 10, 2018 - 6:11am
"Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless"
 
The preceding proves the historical genesis of homosexuality. The Romans were heavily into that stuff in their bathhouses, preferring tender lassboys with round pretty nuts and not prodigious members. Look at their marble statutes and see the evidence of the dainty men and their pretty round balls as opposed to statues of the rough riders who depicted male members used for hitting as opposed to catching.
Kurt Bresler Added May 13, 2018 - 9:06am
Dr Green, I think you have found the truth.  Someone who is Gay or who upholds homosexuality has already lost their ability to understand the building blocks of all civility.   As we move toward open sex in this country we will finish showing the signs of the Big Satan we are so accused of being.   Never in all my life would I have figured that acceptance of the LBGTQ agenda and Gay Marriage would have been passed into Law in this country.  The fact is as Riley pointed out in one of his other articles is that IT WAS PUSHED upon us as they CLAIMED EVERYBODY was for it.  Not So, says the TRUTH,  AMERICAN's have been bent over and given the shaft, ..just keeping pace with the article here...   But since it is here, We can now push to ban it, again.
WHY THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT BLOSSOMED?
1. LAWS making PARENTS PAY for CHILD SUPPORT or GO TO JAIL! Clinton made irresponsible parents responsible for the costs of their children, no more parents having free sex and having kids for someone else to take care of.
2.  THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE coupled with Overpopulation, and global shortages.
     Actually this worked subliminally turning humans much like insects adapting to their environment,  humans saw the need to quit using fossil fuels as well as quit having loaded sex and thus depopulate the earth, thus saving it.
Kurt Bresler Added May 13, 2018 - 9:15am
@EXPAT "Looks like my 10 points on LBGTQ intrusion on society fell on deaf PC ears, not surprising considering all the money and effort expended of the Gay Charade.
 I agree your 10 points are a case in point!    They should be inserted every few comments as a refresher course for new...comers.  Yes I almost used the wrong word there.
Riley Brown Added May 13, 2018 - 11:53am
Kurt... Kurt... Kurt, "Someone who is Gay or who upholds homosexuality has already lost their ability to understand the building blocks of all civility"???  What a global statement, you've said so much in a few words.
 
Please help me out and explain that "the building blocks of civility" is all about and how it relates to homosexuality?
 
At this moment I'm guessing it means that you believe homosexuality  does not promote things that God wants and the world needs, like propagation.  If that is what you had in mind I'd argue that God might have wanted man to propagate as fast as possible long ago when the earth was largely unpopulated and overpopulation wasn't such a problem, but today I think God might actually be happy to see people who refrain from procreation because over population is now a problem.  In fact many Gay people have been more than willing to adopt children who would otherwise be abandoned in foster care.   These days perhaps Gay people are even endearing themselves in the eyes of God by doing so.  I've always thought highly of people who help others, how about you?
 
Please also explain how child support laws., and "the global warming scare" each helped the homosexual movement blossom?
 
Sometimes I'm a little slow at seeing the associations, so I do appreciate your clarification.
 
I think child support laws are more than a little one sided, but can't imagine how they help the homosexual movement.  I've just as lost regarding global warming, I can't see ANY connection.  Help me please.
Riley Brown Added May 15, 2018 - 10:04am
Benjamin and John, you have been discussing parts of the bible that the vast majority of Christians would agree make no sense in a contemporary society but even so if we take what is written literately as the word of God, good Christians would have to.  
 
Doesn't it make more sense to presume what you read is the word of good intention-ed men who translated their understanding of God's laws into something ordinary and uneducated people could follow?
 
There is no need to fully comply with laws that were never really complied with God's intentions. 
 
At this point in time we all have to evaluate what we read and decide for ourselves what is and is not really God's vs Man's word, not blindly apply values that very possibly violate God's desires just because that's what the Bible says.
John J Bernard Added May 15, 2018 - 11:14am
Riley; Christian understanding of Scripture is that it is "God Breathed"/Inspired/a product of the precise dictation of what God spoke to the Prophets and others he is said to have spoken to.

Personal "translations" and "intentions", then, have nothing to do with what is provided us in written form; we firmly believe it is a flawless rendering of God's conversation with the men he chose to relay his message through.

If, that is true, then it also stands to reason that the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent - pre-existent and creative God, is fully capable of making those men provide the intent of his message with us without fault or flaw.

If God is none of those things, then it also stands to reason he either does not exist or is of very little consequence to the world, men or the Universe...in which case, it is a complete waste of effort to read Scripture.

Even if, he is none of those things, why would anyone bother to read, attempt to understand and decipher any of it in a vain attempt to pick and choose what applies and what does not?

The prohibition against same sex unions or even casual sex, are neither time specific nor for a particular people. Being as the prohibition is very specific and speaks to the entirety of mankind (Old Testament and New), it is clear the intent is to say what it does; that God considers it Sin....and sin, is not mitigated by time, space, gender, technological advance, social consciousness - or good intentions; Sin is defined by the Creator. We do not define it or mitigate it's eternal consequence by our "current understanding".

But you are correct; each individual has Free Will and deductive reasoning skills. At least to that degree, we are free to chart our own course and to decide what we choose to accept, or deny; to Sin or not to Sin - to agree with God as to what is Sin - or not.

A warning however; God, is not required to submit his mind to our current thinking as a society or as individuals. If God is indeed, God, we must decide whether or not to submit to him and his Word, or suffer whatever consequence he chooses to mete out, when we breathe our last.
Riley Brown Added May 15, 2018 - 8:39pm
John, if the Scripture is that it is "God Breathed"/Inspired/a product of the precise dictation of what God spoke to the Prophets and others, than would you say all the other things it also seems to condone like slavery, blood sacrifices, and banning ugly or deformed people from churches are also God's words to be honored and respected as God commands?
 
I don't believe the written scripture is an accurate translation of what God commanded, but you used another word that I do think may apply better, God INSPIRED.
 
God spoke and man wrote, but man is not perfect and in man's attempt to honor and respect God, error-ed on the cautious side by expounding on things he truly did not understand well enough to be totally accurate about God's intent.
 
A good moral man trying to honor God and not taking any chances may have included rules about slavery, sacrafices, and yes even banning ugly and deformed people from churches because the MAN thought that would cautiously avoid doing anything that upset God. 
 
It's even conceivable to me that God never mentioned many of the rules in the Bible, they were added by well intended men so that no one might offend God by doing something stupid just because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible.
John J Bernard Added May 16, 2018 - 5:56am
Your deduction necessitates a weak God unable to keep those he has chosen to write his Word....a truly Omnipotent and involved God, would certain retain sovereignty over his Creation - especially as it pertains to the "dictation" of his mind.
 
Those things you mention; slavery, for one, was never condoned or called for by God.
 
Blood sacrifices (animals), were a teaching tool, a precursor and a reminder of the price that would be paid for sin - and only for the Jew, and were stopped with the advent of the Christ.
 
The banning of "ugly" people from Chirch is not found in Scripture and thus, not the mind of God.
 
There are many things people have done - including being involved in Polygamy that are never allowed or commanded in Scripture. God allowed many of these things in that he showed restraint in not destroying people for practicing them. But showing mercy, is not the same as condoning, and people practicing them, is not proof or men "misunderstanding"...it is only proof of men's disobedience.
John J Bernard Added May 16, 2018 - 5:59am
"...I don't believe the written scripture is an accurate translation of what God commanded, but you used another word that I do think may apply better, God INSPIRED...."
 
Your predisposition informs your opinion and thus your attitude and following actions - as does all of us. But this, does not define God, just your former opinion.
John J Bernard Added May 16, 2018 - 6:06am
formed....not "former"
Riley Brown Added May 16, 2018 - 1:53pm
John, is this not in your bible:
 
 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
 
16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.
 
Please explain why it's ok to ignore these passages if you argree they are in the bible and believe they are God's  own words.
John J Bernard Added May 16, 2018 - 3:32pm
Yes it is "my Bible"...But if you do not understand who Peter is speaking to or the conditions of the day, you will certainly misunderstand what he is saying;

Peter was speaking to a larger audience which included Slaves/Servants. Nowhere does he say that God desires for them to be slaves, or that God is commending slavery; Peter is simply speaking to Slaves/Servants and telling them to submit themselves, to not be hostile or disrespectful. For in this way, they will be a living testimony to the change that has taken place in their lives, through Jesus Christ....and may well change the hearts of their Masters so that they might be Saved.

Peter is acknowledging an existing condition - not supporting it or upholding it.

Peter, was an Apostle and all of the Apostles knew, their lives were to be cut short through brutal methods of death for the sake of the Gospel and because of that, gave their lives wholly to the Gospel to the point they would not raise a hand against anyone or start or support any kind of protest, or revolt...He, is exhorting those who were unfortunate enough to be slaves, to take heart, trust God, and honor their Masters, for the good of the Gospel.
 
John J Bernard Added May 16, 2018 - 3:42pm
The Second point you raise, is not dealing with "Church" being as the Church was not yet formed.

If you read the entirety of that Scripture in Leviticus, you will find that the list of prohibitions is very long, because, the Glory of God himself was to be in the Tabernacle (the forerunner to the Temple, while the Israelites were in the Desert those 40 years)...No one but the High Priest could even pass through the inner curtain into the Holy of Holies or they would be struck dead.

Animals raised for Sacrifices, to be offered up to cover their sin, had to be without blemish.

No one could serve in the Tabernacle who was not of the tribe of the Levi.

On, and on...

The Tabernacle was eventually "retired" when the Israelites were led into the Promised Land, ie, the Holy Land, ie, Israel and when the First Temple was built...and there were prohibitions associated with it as well.

You need to understand, that God did not have "communion" with men - of any brand before the coming of Jesus, because of Sin (the willful disobedience of his Word). Only through Jesus could there be reconciliation - and to this day, ie, John 14:6.

None of us are ignoring these verses you bring forth, you simply do not understand to whom, and when these requirements were in effect - and why.

God does not condone Slavery - it is an abomination to him.

God does not condone our treating anyone with derision - it is Sin.

Those things you cite, were for a time, a people, and a season and are now passed.
Bill H. Added May 16, 2018 - 5:55pm
It appears that many still misunderstand or refuse to accept the truth about homosexuality.
The fact that it is a normal function of nature designed to control populations, level sex ratios, and prevent shortages of food and habitat. It occurs in many species, especially in herding animals, social animals, and fish.
For those who actually have an open mind, do some research.
For those who don't, stay ignorant.
Rusty Smith Added May 16, 2018 - 5:55pm
I have no doubt that you know your Bible much better than I do but I don't see where God says slavery is an abomination, or even wrong, but rather lots of rules "from God's own mouth" if what you say is true, telling us how we should treat our slaves.  If it was an abomination to God I can't imagine him having any rules beyond, slavery is an abomination, don't do it.
 
Please explain how the quotes below are not God giving us rules he wanted applied by us to our slaves?
 
Leviticus 25:43 You are not to rule over them with harshness. You are to fear your God.”
 
Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
 
Colossians 4:1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
 
Exodus 21:26-27 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
 
Exodus 21:20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.
 
In America our own founders wrote things like "All men are created equal" and we know back then their world included slavery and a total denial of women's rights.  Today we ignore what our forefathers wanted give equal rights to former slaves and women even though that was never what our founders meant when they made the rules.
 
When I read what you say GOD said about slavery and compare it to what you just wrote I conclude you are viewing slavery through your contemporary values and willing to ignore what you profess to be the true word of God.  I don't see text that is so ambiguous that there is serious doubt about God's intention when he instructed us about how we were to treat our slaves.  I see rules that look very Jewish and or Christian being applied to slaves, who at the time the bible was written, such an integral part of the culture that NO ONE thought even God would forbid slavery.
John J Bernard Added May 17, 2018 - 7:02am
Rusty Smith; 
You are still seeing “regulation” as "permission" or even a command to do so, which is not and was not the case. Divorce and Polygamy were also rampant in those days and were regulated but neither are God's desire.

The following is not mine but might as well be. Unfortunately, I am very short on time this week…
“As with divorce, the same was true for slavery. The rules regulating slavery were added "because the hardness of the hearts" of humanity had created a situation where slavery existed and served certain functions in their societies, "but it was not that way from the beginning." In the beginning, there was human dignity and equal value resulting from the fact that every single individual—young or old, rich or poor, royal or commoner—was made in the image of God. But after the Fall, the ideal society was out the window, and God had to deal with what was actually there.
Deeply ingrained cultural patterns don't change overnight, but must be redeemed over time. Slavery was intricately woven into the cultures of the day, so, as with divorce (neither being the situation God desired), God made rules to keep the evil of the practice to a minimum. For example, if you kidnapped someone and made him a slave, you were put to death. If a slave escaped from his master for whatever reason, you were not allowed to return him. If you harmed so much as a tooth of your slave, you had to let him go free—in other words, no person was allowed to keep a slave if he mistreated him or her. Slavery in Western countries would never even have gotten off the ground had these rules been followed; the first rule alone would have prevented it.
God regulated divorce, and yet He explicitly said He hates it, so the regulation of the practice did not mean He condoned it. Therefore, one cannot assume that God's regulation of slavery meant God condoned slavery.
“For [a]I hate [b]divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and [c]him who covers his garment with [d]wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” Mal 2:16
All that said (and much more could be said), it also needs to be stated that since the Fall, suffering has served an important purpose in this world. God's highest goal for us is not our comfort, but our more intimate knowledge of, appreciation for, and love for Him. The existence of suffering around us has long been used by God to remind us of the ugliness of sin—a physical illustration of the fact that our hearts are far from God's perfection, and a reminder of our desperate need for Him and His mercy.
Slavery has served this same purpose. Freedom is God's ideal—the kind of freedom found in the Garden at the beginning before the Fall (that is, the freedom to follow God openly and completely, without hindrance). And God's rescue of the Israelites from slavery served for them (and for all generations) as a physical illustration of a spiritual truth. Because they understood the meaning of physical slavery, the invisible truth of their spiritual slavery to sin and their need for redemption could be made visible for all to see and understand. And because they knew God orchestrated their release from slavery, they knew not only that slavery—physical or spiritual—was not the ideal, but that He cared about their condition and desired to release them from it.
The existence of slavery taught God's people both the condition of their own hearts and a crucial truth about their great, good God. This is why it was Christians in the 18th and 19th century who not only worked to see that others were freed from their spiritual slavery, but who also led the way in following God's desire to free others from physical slavery.
Could God have prevented slavery from ever existing? Yes, I think He could have, just as He could have prevented all other episodes
Rusty Smith Added May 17, 2018 - 10:00am
John J Bernard I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.  You have confirmed my observations that the Bible contains lots of rules about slavery, which you say are God's own words, but at the same time say you believe what God's real message is that slavery should not be permitted.
 
I have to tell you from what I can see the Bible if full of things God is not shy about disapproving of in the strongest way.  I am not swayed by arguments that when God gave us rules for slavery he wanted us to read between the lines and that was God's way of telling us Slavery an immoral and despicable institution that good Christians shouldn't participate in.
 
If that was true God would have left no doubt and said so, very clearly, just like he did so many other times in the bible on other topics.  
 
From what I can see you are not reading and following the instructions you believe God gave man, you are reinterpreting them to fit your contemporary worldviews so that you can feel more comfortable about what you chose to obey and and accept and what you choose not to obey and accept.
 
I do the same thing with the Bible but just not the same way.  I don't believe the words in the Bible are Gods own, I think they are God inspired, written by man who frequently included things that were not mentioned by God, or perhaps not completely understood by man when he wrote them.
 
I also consider what the Talmud has to say about how the Old Testament Bible stories were assembled, with detailed notes about which stories should be included, in what order and arguments about which versions of the Torah stories were "the correct" version, and even the names of the scholars who made specific arguments..  I fully realize there were many other interpretations that were not chosen, making me pretty darn sure the exact wording we read in any of the Bible versions, can't possibly all be "God's words".  They are at best very well educated guesses by people who admittedly guessed about a lot of the content because the language the stories are written in in the Torah had been a dead language for quite some time before it was translated into the Old Testament.  
 
Why do you think there are so many different versions of the Bible, do you think they are all God's words?
Benjamin Goldstein Added May 19, 2018 - 4:55pm
I ditched that thread too early. Now there is so much interesting theological discussion that I cannot possibly read and address it as a whole.
 
Anyway, nice to see how Rusty takes a Jewish look at the Torah. The texts were not meant to be literal representations of the past and the will of the lord. They were educated guesses and the scribes reworked them constantly. They are still valuable insights into a deeper understanding of culture that just includes wider time periods than we usually take into account when we talk about history today.
 
Above, I said that I looked into history and cultural decline and came to the conclusion so far that there is no clear enough connection between the downfall of societies and gender confusion (plus homosexuality). That view is changing again. It is not a clean cut. There were, for example, always attempts to bring back a sense of straight masculinity during the Roman Empire (notably the stoa), but I think the culture had already fallen irreversably. There was a stark break at the time when Caesar rose to power that cannot be overlooked.
 
I also don't know, but consider the possibility, that homosexuality might feel undetermined by culture because it has some biological foundation yet still said foundation might be a consequence of the overall feminization.
 
In any event, the way homosexuals were treated in the past and are still treated in other parts of the world is despicable. I believe that the discussion about LGBT is a sideshow and that the numbers would actually go down again in the long run if our culture would strengthen a well-rounded sense of masculinity.
 
I think, John Bernard's chivalry shows a lot how manliness should look like. He explains his concerns and respects the responsibility of the individual to do the best with his advice. He doesn't nanny or "mother" anybody.