Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 1045 by 10CC]

Matthew 15:19 among others. You always ask but never receive the truth. I'm finished with you.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander

Yep no mention of homosexuality there.

I guess ya got me.

[Goat]

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. When we see how He affirmed the Torah over and over again, where same gender sex is an abomination . . . your use of subterfuge is shown for what it is. A pitiful attempt at propaganda and nothing else. You do though, have the right to invent any new religion you so desire.

Yet, if you look at the Torah, the only thing that was condemned (if you read it in context), was anal sex in the practice of temple prostitution. It never addressed women's sexuality, nor relationships.

[10CC]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

Do you mean the biblical truth that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality?

That biblical truth?

And what makes a biblical truth TRUE?

So you admit and you support the honest Christian view that homosexuality is never supported IN THE BIBLE.

Thank you for your support.

JESUS never condemned homosexuality as you rightly contend, thank you for your honesty.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. When we see how He affirmed the Torah over and over again, where same gender sex is an abomination . . . your use of subterfuge is shown for what it is. A pitiful attempt at propaganda and nothing else. You do though, have the right to invent any new religion you so desire.

No 99, what I said was jesus never condemned homosexuality and that is the truth. You claiming to be able to read is mind simply is not.

[Danmark]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. . . .

99, what do you mean by not playing 'fair.'

Stan wrote:
"Pseudocopulation describes behaviors similar to copulation that serve a reproductive function for one or both participants but do not involve actual sexual union between the individuals. The use of 'pseudo' in this compound word, should clearly indicate it is not ACTUAL copulation. Hence it is NOT a homosexual activity. HOMO relates to humans. Don't really see how this is so hard to comprehend?
....
Sorry but that is NOT factual. Avoidance does NOT deal with the issue.
The fact is HOMO is relating to man, NOT animals and whatever animal behavior is cannot be construed as HOMO sexual in nature despite the prevarication. "

Is this of Stan's the kind of argument you consider 'fair?'

In the first paragraph he suggests the mind bogglingly inept argument that unless copulation involves sexual union it is not "ACTUAL copulation" and therefore "NOT" homosexual. If we take this bit of confused logic seriously, then homosexuality in humans (the only kind Stan thinks can exist) is impossible since they are unable to have a true 'sexual union' because two normal men cannot produce a zygote.

Then in his second paragraph he suggests that two male animals who behave sexually toward each other, can't be "HOMO sexual" because "homo" refers to man only; therefore, according to Stan only humans can be 'homosexual.'

He is of course wrong. His pretension that male to male sexual behavior somehow either does not exist or because he won't call it 'HOMO sexual' it does not count.

The second obvious error is that "homo" does not refer to man alone, but to the genus we share with Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and homo neanderthalensis. . . . not to mention our other close relatives in the family Hominidae.

In addition to transparently incorrect logic, Stan is also wrong on his facts as well as his idea of proper terminology:

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.Close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in such behavior and this is well documented for 500 of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

[unfogged]

[Replying to post 1032 by Stan]

As was later pointed out, the 'homo' prefix in homosexual is from the greek for 'same'. The 'homo' part of 'homo sapiens' is from the latin for 'human'. A claim that 'homosexual' can only apply to 'homo sapiens' because the terms in English are homonyms just does not make sense not matter how you look at it.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]



99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

[otseng]

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

Moderator Comment

Please debate the issue, not other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

This is a matter of protecting the Church from attacks by unsavory groups and individuals.

Moderator Comment

You are free to "protect the Church". But do so without referring to others as unsavory.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID
[Replying to post 1043 by 99percentatheism]

99percent, of those 'gay marrieds' that choose to belong to a Christian Church ...what IS this 'sin' that you keep referring to? Please be specific because you're being far too broad here as well as presenting scriptures that are also as broad and don't appear to relate to this particular topic. You should be able to articulate your particular 'problem' with gay marrieds in one sentence if you choose to do so. So, would you do so without all of the additional drama, hysteria and padding?

Please respond to the following:
1. What precisely is it that gay people are doing in the Church that is causing such a threat to your Church . . .?
2. What does what you imagine a homosexual couple might be doing in their bedroom have to do with their effectiveness as a Christian?
3. What does what you imagine a heterosexual couple doing in their bedroom make them more effective Christians than the gay couple?
4. Should not what gay or straight couples might be doing in their bedrooms be off-limits to the Church?

If you need to search through the Bible to find some ambiguous scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic ...please, just tell me that you can't answer the questions in your own words. I'll understand ...really I will . . .

Ply your subterfuge on someone else. It is your lack of the ability to use scripture in any way to celebrate gay activism that is on display here. You will never be able to use scripture to support the gay agenda and that is why you want the use of scripture disqualified.

And it is clear why.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

- Galations 1

Since you choose to refuse to actually answer any of my positions, all I can assume is that you have no answer to orthodoxy other than tricks or of course insults and political neologisms.

All you have to do is to invent another religion and have at your gay agenda all you want. It's a bit unsettling, the demand that gay activism and LGBT political demands be superior to the Christian orthodoxy. Honest Christians desire to follow orthodox truth in honest Christian Churches that see the incompatible nature of LGBT social demands isn't a bad thing. In fact it is just honesty.

But alas, Christians have been through this all before and should realize that there is nothing new under the sun:

. . . I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1032 by Stan]

As was later pointed out, the 'homo' prefix in homosexual is from the greek for 'same'. The 'homo' part of 'homo sapiens' is from the latin for 'human'. A claim that 'homosexual' can only apply to 'homo sapiens' because the terms in English are homonyms just does not make sense not matter how you look at it.

So let's unfog the issue shall we?

Christian Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in Christian truth. That is just pure honesty based on Biblical truth.