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?

[Clownboat]

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

You forgot to answer the question.
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

To answer your strawman/dodge: Psychopaths.

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

Yes, when genetics are involved, sexual preference is 5 times as likely to be shared between twins.

This does not mean both twins will choose the same profession. I'm really not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this observation.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life.

Because I stand for equal rights?
How is my sex life even relevant?

Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

You are forgetting one key component. Desire. You see 99, I lack said desire.
Can I assume that you struggle with this desire? I assume so sense you only mention the need for opportunity and lube. This tells me that the desire is already there.

Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose.

Blame mommy and daddy for your lack of equal rights. Nice.

This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just look at the word orientation."

That's your evidence?!?! Now THAT is silly.

Try to seduce me all you want, I just don't have the desire to be with men. I am evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or that it is introduced via seduction.

I lived a secular life through the most libidinous time in my life. I have no problem with anyone that posts here throwing out the self-laothing gay guy tactic. I've been through this ubiquitous comeback from so many adversaries that I couldn't possibly count it up. It would though, continue to prove my positions utterly solid if i were into homosexuality and rejected it for a proper Christian life. I am not on the merry-go-round of the spirit of this age, and I have enough debased actions on my record anyway. One or two more regrets isn't going to change much. And nothing I've done in the degenerate category changes Christian truth at all.

Be that as it may, Christian marriage is still man and woman/husband and wife. None of the Kings Horses and none of the kings men can change that. Nor can all the secularized voices on the United States Supreme Court.

Now, if you'd like to address the OP, give it a try to prove it wrong.

I am very comfortable with truth now.

This keeps getting missed:
You forgot to answer the question again. Third time is the charm possibly?
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

The only reason in your last post that once again suggested to me that you struggle with homosexuality is when you said:
"Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube."
It also takes desire. You left that out, which lead to the conclusion that you have the desire (and likely assume everyone also has the same desire). This was not an attack, it was an analysis of your words.

Back to the OP. If Christian marriage is a man and a woman, then I would think Christians would be against gay marriage. Many Christians are not against gay marriage, so a Christian marriage only being between a man and a women only holds true for some Christians. Can you prove that those other Christians are not really true Christians, or will you admit that some Christians see gay marriage as ok and some don't?

If there is a reason that you should be allowed to speak on behalf of all Christians, please inform us of the reason.

[otseng]

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life. Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal comments and uncivil comments.

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]

Clownboat

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

You forgot to answer the question.
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

To answer your strawman/dodge: Psychopaths.

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

Yes, when genetics are involved, sexual preference is 5 times as likely to be shared between twins.

This does not mean both twins will choose the same profession. I'm really not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this observation.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life.

Because I stand for equal rights?
How is my sex life even relevant?

Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

You are forgetting one key component. Desire. You see 99, I lack said desire.
Can I assume that you struggle with this desire? I assume so sense you only mention the need for opportunity and lube. This tells me that the desire is already there.

Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose.

Blame mommy and daddy for your lack of equal rights. Nice.

This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just look at the word orientation."

That's your evidence?!?! Now THAT is silly.

Try to seduce me all you want, I just don't have the desire to be with men. I am evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or that it is introduced via seduction.

I lived a secular life through the most libidinous time in my life. I have no problem with anyone that posts here throwing out the self-laothing gay guy tactic. I've been through this ubiquitous comeback from so many adversaries that I couldn't possibly count it up. It would though, continue to prove my positions utterly solid if i were into homosexuality and rejected it for a proper Christian life. I am not on the merry-go-round of the spirit of this age, and I have enough debased actions on my record anyway. One or two more regrets isn't going to change much. And nothing I've done in the degenerate category changes Christian truth at all.

Be that as it may, Christian marriage is still man and woman/husband and wife. None of the Kings Horses and none of the kings men can change that. Nor can all the secularized voices on the United States Supreme Court.

Now, if you'd like to address the OP, give it a try to prove it wrong.

I am very comfortable with truth now.

This keeps getting missed:

You forgot to answer the question again. Third time is the charm possibly?
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

Serial rapists then, have the same congenital excuse for their immoral behavior. Promiscuos people the same thing no matter the STD's they spread knowingly to others. Aren't you showing that not homosexuality as a mental disorder shouldn't have been taken out of the DSM? Any more than Downs Syndrome should no longer be considered a congenital disorder?

The only reason in your last post that once again suggested to me that you struggle with homosexuality is when you said:
"Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube."

It also takes desire.

OK. Sin comes from desire in Christian theology. There is also desire in getting someone drunk and seducing them. I have spoken with many young people that say they were seduced by someone of the same gender into having sex with them.

You left that out, which lead to the conclusion that you have the desire (and likely assume everyone also has the same desire). This was not an attack, it was an analysis of your words.

Yawn.

Back to the OP. If Christian marriage is a man and a woman, then I would think Christians would be against gay marriage. Many Christians are not against gay marriage, so a Christian marriage only being between a man and a women only holds true for some Christians.

Some Christians do not believe what the Bible says on a whole host of things. I "test all things" Christian with the New Testament. Marriage is immutably mand and woman in it. I just don't follow Denoms or people that call themslves Christians and support what is unsupportable in scripture. I also reject the spirit of this age.

Read Jude's letter and get back to me. But if you need, I'll repost some of it for probably the hundredth time.

Can you prove that those other Christians are not really true Christians, or will you admit that some Christians see gay marriage as ok and some don't?

Here at this website, I am not allowed to assert nor charge that people are not Christians when they say they are. If that rule wasn't in place, I would most assuredly address this. And I certainly need to obey the rules here right?

Send me a PM if you'd like. But I think Jude, Peter and Jesus speak well on the subject. And I agree with them.

If there is a reason that you should be allowed to speak on behalf of all Christians, please inform us of the reason.

The New Testament. And I am not speaking for all Christians, but rather about Christian theology. I am also, just agreeing with the ones that wrote the New Testament. I am not a Christian that jettisons the reality I do not like, because of some pop culture fad going on in the world.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 2 by Dantalion]

99percentatheism had written:

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife.

Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

99percentatheism continued:

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.

We who are Christians have freedom of religion. And we have freedom of speech. If we should say to the world that a "Christian Marriage" is between a man and a woman, then it is indeed a hate crime if such Christians should be subjected to accusations of hatred, bigotry, or irrationality, simply for stating what they believe.

99percentatheism continued:

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?

I'd be a little dismayed if they didn't. But then again, I'm a little dismayed.

Dantalion wrote:

Well the origin of marriage does predate Christianity...

That's a Red Hering. You've side-stepped the question. You are introducing irrelevant material, unless of course you are using that as a justification to advocate the hate crimes referred to by 99percentatheism.

Dantalion wrote:

So why should anybody give more value to the Biblical interpretation ?

So you are saying that you have the right to use hateful speech because you do not value Biblical interpretations? Interesting.

Dantalion wrote:

If you mean strictly the christian marriage ritual, I don't see why a non-christian would want it, so I suppose it's only fair to state that it makes no sense to try to change that ritual.

It seems to me that there are gay and lesbian people who profess to be Christians. Do you not think such people would want to change the ritual to include gays and lesbians? And do you not suppose that hate speech from secularists and gay/lesbian "Christians" is not inflicted on other Christians who desire that the ritual of marriage should remain to be restricted immutably between a man and a woman?

[10CC]

99percentatheism had written:
Quote:
There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife.


Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

Well not according to the holy bible. But you are probably using some other definition.

[Sonofason]

99percentatheism had written:
Quote:
There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife.


Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

Well not according to the holy bible. But you are probably using some other definition.

Do you not feel compelled to cite a reference? Or do you consider your opinion to be valid evidence that your statement here is true?

Please cite a verse from the New Testament where Christ or one of His apostles declares that marriage is acceptable to God between two men, or two women, or that marriage is not immutably between one man, and one woman.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

"A Christian marriage" seems to me to mean, "a marriage between people who label themselves as Christians." If these Christians are both men, I don't see a problem.

[Sonofason]

Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

"A Christian marriage" seems to me to mean, "a marriage between people who label themselves as Christians." If these Christians are both men, I don't see a problem.

Your opinion is interesting, but incorrect. You must understand that a Christian is a follower of Christ. You cannot say that you are following Christ if what you do is contradict and oppose the teachings of Christ.

Jesus Christ iterates the importance and sacredness of marriage in his own teachings. He said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mathew 19:4-6)

I think your only hope of salvation was quite clear. Two boys sodomizing one another will never cause them to become one flesh, not in a million years, not ever, not in God's eyes. He declared his intentions. It's our duty to obey Him. All other courses of action are depraved courses of action, at least according to Christ.

[A Troubled Man]

You must understand that a Christian is a follower of Christ. You cannot say that you are following Christ if what you do is contradict and oppose the teachings of Christ.

All other courses of action are depraved courses of action, at least according to Christ.

So, you follow every teaching of Christ? Seriously?

[KCKID]

Please note the statement that was made, and who the statement pertains to. We are here talking about "Christian marriage." A "Christian marriage" with no doubt is a marriage that takes place immutably between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. There is no other "Christian marriage."

"A Christian marriage" seems to me to mean, "a marriage between people who label themselves as Christians." If these Christians are both men, I don't see a problem.

Your opinion is interesting, but incorrect. You must understand that a Christian is a follower of Christ. You cannot say that you are following Christ if what you do is contradict and oppose the teachings of Christ.

Jesus Christ iterates the importance and sacredness of marriage in his own teachings. He said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mathew 19:4-6)

The bold part is the entire gist behind the answer Jesus gave about the question of divorce. Many Christians, of course, don't honor that command since they divorce and remarry quite frequently throughout the world. 99percent wears selective blinders whenever that issue is raised and claims that once one repents they can continue with the status quo ...that is, remain in their 'sin'. Homosexuals, it would seem, are the only ones expected to 'change their ways'. This, to me, is an absolute mockery of the Christian repentance and forgiveness system and it's little wonder that Christianity is hardly taken seriously by an increasing number of people.

That said, 99percent has so far ignored a question I asked of him so I'll ask you the same question since you appear to share his viewpoint with regard to this topic. The question is: What are the human 'benefits' of straight marriage that are not also applicable to gay marriage? And, please don't say "children".

I think your only hope of salvation was quite clear. Two boys sodomizing one another will never cause them to become one flesh, not in a million years, not ever, not in God's eyes. He declared his intentions. It's our duty to obey Him. All other courses of action are depraved courses of action, at least according to Christ.

You appear to be seriously misquoting Jesus who never said a word about homosexuality. And, as previously mentioned, He only referenced marriage because someone asked Him about divorce. The topic had nothing to do with the one that WE are discussing here. Of course Jesus would have brought up the 'man/woman' portion of the Torah since it was man/woman relationships that He was addressing. This text has nothing to do with the topic of gay marriage.
Incidentally, are you suggesting that only heterosexual people who marry receive salvation?

Anyway, if you could respond to my question above I'd much appreciate that.