David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Keaton

Wicknight wrote: »

What are the other 3 and do Christians call for them to be restricted by law?



Because Christians accept (or should accept) that non-Christians will not hold themselves to the same standards Christian do and that this is ok in most regards when it comes to running things on Earth, not getting into heaven.

Christians and non-Christians have always agreed to a shared standard of law based on around common values and objection to homosexuality is not one of them, as it is very difficult to make a non-theological argument to object to homosexual couples.

For example, in Judeo-Christian religions, based on the commandments, it is a terrible sin to worship other gods. You should have none before God.

How many Christians believe it is wrong to allow non-Christians to do this, that this must discouraged or restricted through rule of law lest Christians be seen to be condoning idolatry?

Very few, because this is considered a matter between the individual and their personal faith. While it might anger God, it doesn't harm you.

On the other hand stealing both angers God and harms you, and thus Christians and non-Christians agree in the notion that, irrespective of religious faith, stealing is something to be prevented with the rule of law, any more than you harm a Hindu by being Christian.

Objections to homosexuality, like objections to idoltry, fall squarely into the former rather than the later, actions that while displeasing to God do not harm humans here on Earth.

So why the insistence from some Christians quarters to regulate this using Earthly laws. It is a matter for the individuals and God.

Homosexual behaviour harms everyone - there are health repercussions and also dangers and various adverse effects for the good of children when placed in homosexual care. Society is founded on marriage between a man and a woman and same-sex unions just don't cut it. They can't produce children for one thing! See here: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Murder, sodomy, oppression of widows and orphans, and depriving workers of their wages are the 4 sins mentioned in the Bible as crying out to heaven. See here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

Keylem

Keaton, you beat me to it!

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]The 4 Sins that Cry Out to Heaven

Willful murder
The sin of Sodom
Oppression of the poor
Defrauding laborers of their wages


Genesis 4, Genesis 18, Exodus 2, James 5, respectively. [/FONT]

http://www.fisheaters.com/lists.html

NuMarvel

Keaton wrote: »

Homosexual behaviour harms everyone - there are health repercussions and also dangers and various adverse effects for the good of children when placed in homosexual care.

The State disagrees. There is at least one set of gay foster parents registered with the HSE for foster care, and in their first year as foster parents, they had 14 children placed with them. Given the already vulnerable state that some of these children are probably in, the last thing the State would do is place them in environments where there are potential dangers and adverse effects.

Keaton wrote: »

See here: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

I stopped reading when it referred to homosexuality as a "disorder", as it clearly is from before the 70's. Do you have any source that was written AFTER the various psychiatric associations stated that homosexuality wasn't a mental disorder?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I mean for non-Christians. Laws effect everyone.

So you are stating "homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians"?
...as well as for Christians?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74086681#post74086681

If all Christians were calling for were religious laws for themselves I don't think anyone would be objecting.

All natural laws could be claimed to be religious laws e.g. thou shalt not kill,steal etc. We have been over that issue. But criminal laws (as you have acknowledged) apply not just to those who want them but to everyone including those who don't want them.
Are you really suggesting that if Christians call for criminal laws against child abuse and slavery that such laws should only apply to Christians?

It is the insistence of regulating non-Christian through the laws of the state that irks so many people.

So in a country where 80-90 percent of people are Christians and those people because of religious conviction call for laws against slavery religious descrimination or child abuse then the people who aren't Christan and who don't see it the same way as the Christians should be allowed to continue their abuse?

Christians can object to anything they see as a sin, but as I explained to Monty they have also recognized the difference between Earthly concerns and heavenly concerns.

Child abusers can object to a christian majority "foisting" criminality upon them bu no matter how "normal" they claim to be the law will be against them.

Christians do not (at least not for hundreds of years) attempted to enforce various objections to sins such as idoltry through rule of law.

You have been shown how this isn't true. Increase in civil laws and criminal laws and call for enforcement of financial regulation or standards in public office are one example. the recent debate on the Blasphemy Act is another. I would think someone abusing Holy Communion in public, or eating pork openly n a synagog or Mosque should also be prosecuted.

So why are they insisting on doing that with laws related to homosexuality and marriage?

They are not only focusing on marriage and the family as you have been shown but seemed to have ignored. The family and marriage are also central to how we run society and a change in that is a fundamental change in what we know to work for time immemorial. I have also shown that the people who tried to make such changes in the past such as atheistic regimes all failed and contributed nothing to society but hundreds of millions of dead. I would consider that a fair enough reason. Just as deregulating banks would be met with "why are people insisting that the Narket cant rule over all? Why insist on laws regulating banks?" would be met with the point that every time we did it it resulted in mayhem.

And yet this is accepted by Christians throughout the world. When was the last time any Christian organisation called on the state to impose laws preventing the worshipping of gods other than God?

I have pointed out you are restricting your argument to Western democracies. Many non Christian countries have laws like this. but of course you seem to think it only applies to Christian countries and not to non Christian or atheistic ones. Even in christian countries the Church has called for laws to prevent idolatry as you have been shown.

It is the only one that Christians are currently actively lobbying against.

the church would not be in favour of Capital Punishment, slavery, trafficing in human beings for prostitution or exploitation of workers, the arms trade, sweat shops, enforced poverty, denial of education etc. If you actually looked you would find ample evidence of this.

But the objection to homosexuality is purely theological, Christians should not do this but why then does that require that non-Christians also be held to that standard.

Nor should Christians abuse Children. Should non Christians also be held to that standard?

ISAW

Keylem wrote: »

The sin of Sodom

Was not necessarily that of homosexuality.
One can claim it was a sin of refusing hospitality to guests and abusing that tradition. The tradition of treating a guest honorably is a very ancient one

Genesis 19 1:10

Lot asks the men outside the house to do nothing to the guests because they were under his protection as guests. This was taken more seriously than the safety of his own daughters.
Lot offered his daughters to them. If they were homosexuals, there would have been no point in this. Rape ti can be claimed is a crime that is not about sex, so much as about power.

Ezekiel 16:49-50,
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

gimmebroadband

While Christians tolerate the rights of homosexuals (not condone), some muslims on the other hand do not!

In its 1991 Constitution, Iran adopted the extreme punishment of execution for sodomy. Articles 108-113 say:
Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide.


http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm


Christianity is on the decline in most parts of Europe, Islam is on the increase. In a recent article it was officially declared that France is now a Muslim Nation, with Christianity lagging behind!


http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/08/official-france-is-now-muslim-nation.html

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So you are stating "homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians"?
...as well as for Christians?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74086681#post74086681

No I'm asking why homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians. Notice the question mark at the end and the "why is" at the start

Despite it being a serious sin most Christians would say worshipping other gods is an acceptable choice for non-Christians, ie they aren't going to try and stop it with laws and regulations.

Why would Christians attempt to stop non-Christians from something like homosexual marriage? Why is it not acceptable to Christians that non-Christian homosexuals marry?

ISAW wrote: »

All natural laws could be claimed to be religious laws e.g. thou shalt not kill,steal etc. We have been over that issue. But criminal laws (as you have acknowledged) apply not just to those who want them but to everyone including those who don't want them.
Are you really suggesting that if Christians call for criminal laws against child abuse and slavery that such laws should only apply to Christians?

No, I'm suggesting that Christians should not call for criminal law against theological choices that do not effect things here on Earth.

It may damn a persons soul to hell to marry a member of the same sex. But then so does worshipping the wrong God, or any other sin that Christians accept others have the right to do if they choose because it is not harming anyone else.

ISAW wrote: »

So in a country where 80-90 percent of people are Christians and those people because of religious conviction call for laws against slavery religious descrimination or child abuse then the people who aren't Christan and who don't see it the same way as the Christians should be allowed to continue their abuse?

No, because as I explained to Monty we have a shared criteria for laws against those things, mostly based around the harm they cause.

Equally most Christians wouldn't dream of a law banning other religions even in a country with 80-90 of Christians, despite worshipping other Gods being a sin.

Why? Because such an act does not fall into the shared criteria of harm or damage.

It does not harm others if I am an atheist or a Muslim. Christians (most of them) recognize that there is no Earthly justification to forcably ban other religions, even in a country where they are the majority.

It is a choice for the individual and it is between God and them.

ISAW wrote: »

Child abusers can object to a christian majority "foisting" criminality upon them bu no matter how "normal" they claim to be the law will be against them.

Correct, because child abusers harm children.

People worshipping other gods don't. They don't harm anyone apart from increasing the chances they will end up in hell.

Homosexual marriage falls squarely in the latter, not the former. While it may be a sin and may effect the salvation of those involved, it isn't going to harm others.

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown how this isn't true. Increase in civil laws and criminal laws and call for enforcement of financial regulation or standards in public office are one example.

Oh don't be silly ISAW. None of those things are regulated due to fears that they may be idoltry. They are regulated due to the harm they case if they are not regulated. There isn't a single financial law in place today that is there to stop the worshipping of false idols.

The first commandment says have no god but God. There isn't a country with a Christian population that I'm aware of that enforces that through rule of law. It is considered

ISAW wrote: »

They are not only focusing on marriage and the family as you have been shown but seemed to have ignored. The family and marriage are also central to how we run society and a change in that is a fundamental change in what we know to work for time immemorial.

A fundamental change that only has theological repercussions. Again traditionally Christians do not regulate with rule of law things that only have theological repercussions, such as worshipping the wrong god.

ISAW wrote: »

I have pointed out you are restricting your argument to Western democracies. Many non Christian countries have laws like this. but of course you seem to think it only applies to Christian countries and not to non Christian or atheistic ones. Even in christian countries the Church has called for laws to prevent idolatry as you have been shown.

Again as has been explained those laws were not created to prevent idolatry, they were created to regulate financial practices to avoid the economic problems if such practices were not regulated.

And saying non-Western countries do it is not a particularly good argument is it. Do you really want to be compared to Iran or Saudi Arabia?

ISAW wrote: »

the church would not be in favour of Capital Punishment, slavery, trafficing in human beings for prostitution or exploitation of workers, the arms trade, sweat shops, enforced poverty, denial of education etc. If you actually looked you would find ample evidence of this.

And all those things fall into the category of Earthly concerns, ie things that cause harm here on Earth.

Despite your some what pathetic attempt to link gay marriage campaigners to Pol Pott (something you seem to retract as much as you state), there is very little argument being put forward the homosexual marriage is harmful in an Earthly manner, just a theological manner (ie its a sin)

Christians do not desire to enforce their spiritual standards on non-Christians without Earthly cause, except in the example of homosexual marriage.

Zombrex

Keaton wrote: »

Homosexual behaviour harms everyone - there are health repercussions and also dangers and various adverse effects for the good of children when placed in homosexual care.

As has already been established the science does not support that view, and it is rejected by most people including Christians.

Unfortunately for those who hold this view that it is damaging, there have been kids placed with homosexual families since the 1970s, so there is plenty of examples to study. Report after report have found no adverse effect on these kids with homosexual families over those in heterosexual families.

The argument that it will damage the kids holds about as much water as saying that if non-Christian families adopt that will damage the kids as well.

Keaton wrote: »

Society is founded on marriage between a man and a woman and same-sex unions just don't cut it. They can't produce children for one thing! See here: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Neither can sterile heterosexual couples and, despite calls from religious extremists, they are not banned since there is more to State recognition of marriage than just the production of children.

ISAW

gimmebroadband wrote: »

While Christians tolerate the rights of homosexuals (not condone), some muslims on the other hand do not!

and some secular views also do not condone homopsexuality for example Confucianism and Taoism.

In godless atheistic china Homosexuality was a crime. Since the recent coincident of religion growing in China decriminalized began in China in 1997 and it was removed as a mental illness in 2002. But the atheist Chinese regime still don't allow even civil union. Obviously this has nothing to do with the Church but I don't see people saying "Athiests have such influence on the Chinese government and are pushing the atheistic agenda by denying these laws. Why are they not instead pushing laws on the love of capitalism and markets?"

So to those who say the church is preoccupied with homosexuality and not dealing with traditional religious core values, I say go and preach to atheistic China that they are not dealing with their core values.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No I'm asking why homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians. Notice the question mark at the end and the "why is" at the start

so you are asserting : homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

Asking "why is X not acceptable for group Y"
asserts that group Y do not accept X.

I think I see the problem/error

What you may mean is "why do christians believe that homosexuality by non Christians is not an acceptable lifestyle"

i.e. why is such behavior by non Christians not acceptable for Christians.

NB You have already been shown that such behaviour is also not acceptable for many non Christians whether religious or secular e.g. Muslims, Confucians, Taoists
It isn't a belief reserved only to Christians.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would Christians attempt to stop non-Christians from something like homosexual marriage? Why is it not acceptable to Christians that non-Christian homosexuals marry?

Why would Christians attempt stop non Christians from child abuse/murder/terrorism?
Why would other non Christians stop non Christians from child abuse/murder/terrorism?
Maybe they thought it was wrong?

No, I'm suggesting that Christians should not call for criminal law against theological choices that do not effect things here on Earth.

They don't. If someone chooses to be homosexual or to hate blacks or to be greedy that frown on it and say it is wrong but call for no criminal penalty. when the other person acts on their belief then they call for laws.

But being Christian isn't only about belief it is about how one lives ones life.
Faith and good works And that argument isn't restricted to christian as I have demonstrated.

It may damn a persons soul to hell to marry a member of the same sex. But then so does worshipping the wrong God, or any other sin that Christians accept others have the right to do if they choose because it is not harming anyone else.

Who are you to judge it is not harming anyone else?

No, because as I explained to Monty we have a shared criteria for laws against those things, mostly based around the harm they cause.

Who are you to judge it is not harming anyone else? Is your criteria like the US criterion for torture i.e. "no permanent physical harm"?

The think is we have a shared universal criteria ( which we can call the natural law) which is shared by Christians non Christians Muslims atheists Confucians and Taoists for example which suggests condoning homosexuality isn't good for society.

Equally most Christians wouldn't dream of a law banning other religions even in a country with 80-90 of Christians, despite worshipping other Gods being a sin.

That is a different issue. Homosexuality isn't banned. Laws against the criminality have been appealed. What we are addressing here is not punishing homosexuals for being homosexual but condoning it by awarding homosexuals rights traditionally reserved for heterosexuals and defined as such.

It does not harm others if I am an atheist or a Muslim. Christians (most of them) recognize that there is no Earthly justification to forcably ban other religions, even in a country where they are the majority.

Again banning something and condoning it and giving it state support are different issues.
For example we don't have a constitutional ban on private ownership of a house. In fact we support such rights. But we don't have a right for everyone to have a house. Similarly everyone does not have a right to marriage. Only a man an woman does. And Not two men or two women or three people etc.

It is a choice for the individual and it is between God and them.

Homosexuality is. Legal marriage isn't.

Correct, because child abusers harm children.

Only by acts of abuse. Pedophiles don't harm children unless they act on it. So you agree that being a pedophile while unnatural is not harmfull and should be accepted?

People worshipping other gods don't. They don't harm anyone apart from increasing the chances they will end up in hell.

That would depend on your own personal belief. As you are an atheist you view that people who worship other gods or the devil or whatever would be regarded as harmless. But not to a believe or to God.
Also, leaving personal belief aside, if following a "true God" means following good then following something else is not following the 100% truth.

Homosexual marriage falls squarely in the latter, not the former. While it may be a sin and may effect the salvation of those involved, it isn't going to harm others.

That is a personal belief. Many people belief promoting the homosexual life is harming traditional values and structures. These people are not only Christian.

And while one can accept such behavior insisting the state sponsor it is another different issue

Oh don't be silly ISAW. None of those things are regulated due to fears that they may be idoltry.

Worship of money and the material world caused much of the problems we currently face!
It is a form of idolatry. Worshiping a false God.

They are regulated due to the harm they case if they are not regulated. There isn't a single financial law in place today that is there to stop the worshipping of false idols.

And one can argue all finantial regulation is to prevent people placing monetary gain above anything else i.e. the worship of the material. Should money be your god you are an idolator.

The first commandment says have no god but God. There isn't a country with a Christian population that I'm aware of that enforces that through rule of law.

And I have pointed out it does not necessarily mean idol worship but the consequences of acts of worshipping a false god like money. If such is true ALL christian countries have laws against worshipping money.

Again traditionally Christians do not regulate with rule of law things that only have theological repercussions, such as worshipping the wrong god.

Again I would say they do and finance laws for example are such. As are adultery laws. laws against stealing. etc.

Again as has been explained those laws were not created to prevent idolatry, they were created to regulate financial practices to avoid the economic problems if such practices were not regulated.

Economic problems caused by the worship of material things and greed and putting money for example about non material things. The laws were created to prevent greedy people who care more about money than people.

And saying non-Western countries do it is not a particularly good argument is it. Do you really want to be compared to Iran or Saudi Arabia?

That isn't the point. I don't want to be compared to Hitler either but if he said "Bach was a great composer" he was correct. Iran by the way is a highly cultured country with a variety of different people. It is only under Muslim fundamentalists rule for about 30 years.
I note you cherry pick out countries with extreme views. Ther are Muslim countries which are not as extreme as Iran. turkey for example I believe tolerates homosexuality but does not condone or support it. There is a law I believe in Morocco against "lewd or unnatural acts" with people of the same sex but that assumes such acts can happen with those of opposite sex so i don't see how that is much different to elsewhere.

And all those things fall into the category of Earthly concerns, ie things that cause harm here on Earth.

Yes worshipping money can cause harm here on Earth and christians and others can and do insist there are laws about that.

Despite your some what pathetic attempt to link gay marriage campaigners to Pol Pott

He said having brought upi Iran and saudi Arabia and tried to link them to the Vatican.

(something you seem to retract as much as you state), there is very little argument being put forward the homosexual marriage is harmful in an Earthly manner, just a theological manner (ie its a sin)

Worshipping money is also a sin. Asking for laws about the consequences of acting on such worship is acceptable.
I linked campaigns against natural law and destroying traditional values to Pol Pot.
Many people believe that promoting homosexual marriage is such an attack on the family.

Christians do not desire to enforce their spiritual standards on non-Christians without Earthly cause, except in the example of homosexual marriage.

That is your opinion and you are wrong. Christians and non Christians desire to legislate in line with natural law. this to them means acting on the working traditions of the past and not trying to destroy tried and tested systems. The applies as much to the environment as to social structures.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

so you are asserting : homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

No, I'm asserting that some Christians here do not believe homosexual is an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians, and I'm asking why, as in what do they use to justify that position.

ISAW wrote: »

Asking "why is X not acceptable for group Y"
asserts that group Y do not accept X.

No it doesn't.

If I asked you Why should blacks should not be allowed vote? that is not asserting that blacks believe they should not be allowed vote, nor is it asserting that blacks shouldn't be allowed vote. It is asking you why you think blacks shouldn't be allowed vote.

ISAW wrote: »

What you may mean is "why do christians believe that homosexuality by non Christians is not an acceptable lifestyle"

i.e. why is such behavior by non Christians not acceptable for Christians.

There is no other way to take the question I asked, so I'm not sure what your confusion was.

ISAW wrote: »

NB You have already been shown that such behaviour is also not acceptable for many non Christians whether religious or secular e.g. Muslims, Confucians, Taoists
It isn't a belief reserved only to Christians.

This is a thread about Christians. The views of Muslims belong in the Islam forum.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Why would Christians attempt stop non Christians from child abuse/murder/terrorism?
Why would other non Christians stop non Christians from child abuse/murder/terrorism?
Maybe they thought it was wrong?

I've already explained the distinction Christians themselves draw between things that are harmful in an Earthly way and things that are harmful in a heavenly way.

Christians traditionally do not attempt to stop things that are harmful in a heavenly way. Which is why you do not get Christians banning the worship of other religions.

I've explained this a number of times, your continuos ignorance of this point smacks of disingenuous tactics at this stage.

ISAW wrote: »

They don't. If someone chooses to be homosexual or to hate blacks or to be greedy that frown on it and say it is wrong but call for no criminal penalty. when the other person acts on their belief then they call for laws.

Christians, including those on this forum, have called for ban on gay marriage.

ISAW wrote: »

Who are you to judge it is not harming anyone else?

I don't. I leave that to the scientific studies. Unfortunately for some with religious claims "harm" is a measurable quantity, unlike say chances of salvation. Christians can claim homosexual marriage is harmful, but they struggle to objectively support this.

ISAW wrote: »

That is a different issue. Homosexuality isn't banned.

Homosexual marriage is.

ISAW wrote: »

Again banning something and condoning it and giving it state support are different issues.

The state currently supports non-Chrisitan in their worship. For example non-Christians can marry, start schools, form churches, all recognized by the State.

ISAW wrote: »

Similarly everyone does not have a right to marriage. Only a man an woman does.

You might as well claim only a Christian has the right to worship in a church because it is a sin to worship another god.

Christians do not make such claims because they recognize that that is not a matter to be regulated by the State, but a matter between the individual and God.

ISAW wrote: »

That would depend on your own personal belief. As you are an atheist you view that people who worship other gods or the devil or whatever would be regarded as harmless. But not to a believe or to God.

Yet Chrisitans do not call for this to be banned.

ISAW wrote: »

Worship of money and the material world caused much of the problems we currently face!
It is a form of idolatry. Worshiping a false God.

There is no law that bans the worshipping of money.

ISAW wrote: »

And I have pointed out it does not necessarily mean idol worship but the consequences of acts of worshipping a false god like money. If such is true ALL christian countries have laws against worshipping money.

No country has laws against worshipping money.

ISAW wrote: »

That isn't the point. I don't want to be compared to Hitler either but if he said "Bach was a great composer" he was correct. Iran by the way is a highly cultured country with a variety of different people. It is only under Muslim fundamentalists rule for about 30 years.
I note you cherry pick out countries with extreme views. Ther are Muslim countries which are not as extreme as Iran. turkey for example I believe tolerates homosexuality but does not condone or support it. There is a law I believe in Morocco against "lewd or unnatural acts" with people of the same sex but that assumes such acts can happen with those of opposite sex so i don't see how that is much different to elsewhere.

Again picking oppressive Muslim states does not help your position, unless you want to claim that Christian countries should be more like them.

ISAW wrote: »

Worshipping money is also a sin. Asking for laws about the consequences of acting on such worship is acceptable.

Name one law that bans the worshipping of money?

ISAW wrote: »

That is your opinion and you are wrong. Christians and non Christians desire to legislate in line with natural law. this to them means acting on the working traditions of the past and not trying to destroy tried and tested systems. The applies as much to the environment as to social structures.

Can you name a single campaign in the last 30 years in Ireland or England that attempted to ban non-Christians from worshipping their false gods?

Cybercelesta

Wicknight wrote: »

.
Neither can sterile heterosexual couples and, despite calls from religious extremists, they are not banned since there is more to State recognition of marriage than just the production of children.

Hetrosexual couples marry under the assumption that they can have children. In many cases it's discovered that they're sterile after marriage. There are also those who are sterile due to a medical condition, through no fault of their own! Homosexuals however know they can NEVER have children naturally with the same sex, which is a big difference!!!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I'm asserting that some Christians here do not believe homosexual is an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians, and I'm asking why, as in what do they use to justify that position.

So you DO mean for christians!
I think you may mean for "Christians" and not non Christians?
Or at least "for some Christians posting here" and you don't mean for non Christians!
Which is why I stated:

I think you may mean for "Christians" and not non Christians?

And you contradicted that and said you did not mean "for Christians" when clearly you did..

No it doesn't.

If I asked you Why should blacks should not be allowed vote? that is not asserting that blacks believe they should not be allowed vote, nor is it asserting that blacks shouldn't be allowed vote. It is asking you why you think blacks shouldn't be allowed vote.

No it isn't! But as I stated it is stating that some group exists which think blacks should not vote.
Now as I have pointed out non Christians also believe in not promoting homosexuality.
But not all Christians may be against gay lifestyle, for example many openly gay relationships have caused problems in the Anglican communion. The church of England/Ireland may be more accepting of openly gay people but the point I have made the roman/Orthodox rump of Christianity don't believe in promoting homosexuality.

There is no other way to take the question I asked,

There is!

so I'm not sure what your confusion was.

I think I was quite clear.

What you asked:

Why is homosexuality not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

you did not ask

Why do some Christians believe homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

The point is that it is not only some Christians believe this. Non christians believe this and some Christians don't believe this. Also Christians believe it is unacceptable for other Christians.

This is a thread about Christians. The views of Muslims belong in the Islam forum.

But you specifically asked about non Christians. the thread by the way is about laws promoting homosexuality. It is you who have tried to turn it into a "dictatorship of Christians dictating their values to non Christians"
Clearly that is not the case! Non christians believe it and some Christians don't believe it and Christians believe it is unacceptable for other Christians and not just non Christians.

You whole "Christians are dictating to non Christians" is a non issue! Not alone that but the "this isn't about Muslims" comment by the same logic can be applied to non Christians.

You cant just take the tiny minority of non Christians who want something and then rule out the views of a vast number of other non christians who don't want it on the basis that those people are not Christians! Especially when you are arguing that the whole issue is about Christians imposing their views on non Christians!

Zombrex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Hetrosexual couples marry under the assumption that they can have children. In many cases it's discovered that they're sterile after marriage. There are also those who are sterile due to a medical condition, through no fault of their own! Homosexuals however know they can NEVER have children naturally with the same sex, which is a big difference!!!

So would you call for a legal ban for couples who wish to marry but know they are sterile before they marry?

Cybercelesta

Wicknight wrote: »

So would you call for a legal ban for couples who wish to marry but know they are sterile before they marry?

Sterility is not the same thing as homosexuality!!!

Sterility can be a medical condition, afaik homosexuality isn't!!!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So you DO mean for christians!
I think you may mean for "Christians" and not non Christians?
Or at least "for some Christians posting here" and you don't mean for non Christians!
Which is why I stated:

I said non-Christians, I meant non-Christians. A ban on gay marriage effects everyone. You and others hold the position that it is not acceptable for non-Christian homosexuals to marry, that this is not an acceptable lifestyle for them.

Can you justify that, or is your answer just well others think that too so why don't you go pick on them :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't! But as I stated it is stating that some group exists which think blacks should not vote.
Now as I have pointed out non Christians also believe in not promoting homosexuality.

We are not on the non-Christian forum.

At the moment we have some Christians calling for a ban on gay marriage, something that effects not only Christians but also non-Christians.

Given that the Christian objection to homosexual marriage is that it is against God's wishes why would any Christian expect a non-Christian to have to follow this when they are already going against's Gods wishes by being non-Christian?

ISAW wrote: »

But not all Christians may be against gay lifestyle, for example many openly gay relationships have caused problems in the Anglican communion.

I never claimed they are. I'm addressing my question to Christians on this thread who oppose legal gay marriage.

ISAW wrote: »

There is!

No their isn't, as I explained. It was a pretty simply question, any confusion seems to be a product of you trying to read way too much into the question.

Let me ask it another way, why would a Christian like yourself require a non-Christian to hold to Christian notions of correct sexual practice?

ISAW wrote: »

you did not ask

The question was addressed to gimmebroadband who is a Christian. Obviously I was asking what he believed :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

The point is that it is not only some Christians believe this. Non christians believe this and some Christians don't believe this.

Which is irrelevant since I wasn't asking a non-Christian, or a Christian who doesn't believe this. I was asking gimmebroadband and his fellow Christians on this thread who oppose legalization of gay marriage.

Are you purposefully being silly or are you just looking to be argumentative to avoid answer the substantial questions?

ISAW wrote: »

But you specifically asked about non Christians. the thread by the way is about laws promoting homosexuality.

Yes I did, because that is what I want you to explain, the justification for forcing non-Christians to hold to Christian notions of sexual practice and marriage.

ISAW wrote: »

You whole "Christians are dictating to non Christians" is a non issue!

It is not a non-issue since we have you and others calling for gay marriage to remained banned in Ireland.

Saying Well the Muslims believe that too is utterly irrelevant to whether you can justify your own beliefs. If I ever meet a Muslim to discuss this subject I will ask him exactly the same question.

But as it stands you are not a Muslim and neither are gimmebroadband and the others discussing this subject here.

Now, since that is clarified, can you actually stop avoiding the question?

ISAW wrote: »

You cant just take the tiny minority of non Christians who want something and then rule out the views of a vast number of other non christians who don't want it on the basis that those people are not Christians!

What the heck are you talking about ISAW?

I asked gimmebroadband the question. Can you or him justify your own views or is you justification really just Sure everyone else does it too :rolleyes:

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I've already explained the distinction Christians themselves draw between things that are harmful in an Earthly way and things that are harmful in a heavenly way.

Christians traditionally do not attempt to stop things that are harmful in a heavenly way. Which is why you do not get Christians banning the worship of other religions.

But you don't get Christians asking for state support to promote other religions or other non christian lifestyles which they find offensive either!

And Christians should always do works to prevent things which are not good.

I've explained this a number of times, your continuos ignorance of this point smacks of disingenuous tactics at this stage.

THis is the "attack the person when you can't deal with the issue" tactic is it? Sorry but ad hominem won't work on me. If you can't state clearly what you meant then dont blame others for pointing out the problems with vague statements you make. try instead to accept corrections and move on.

Christians, including those on this forum, have called for ban on gay marriage.

And Jews and non Christians and Taoists have also called to not promoted gay marriage. It isn't exclusive to Christians

I don't. I leave that to the scientific studies. Unfortunately for some with religious claims "harm" is a measurable quantity, unlike say chances of salvation. Christians can claim homosexual marriage is harmful, but they struggle to objectively support this.

Given the incidence of it is tiny it is difficult to produce quantitative evidence. But it isnt for them to say "let us remove all the rules on international finance and against rape and murder so we can have objective evidence to show it is not good for society" is it?

Homosexual marriage is.

It isn't banned it just doesn't exist! It isn't defined. Marriage is defined as being heterosexual. In the same way you cant have "mixed race couples" where both people are white. If two black people marry or two Chinese or two white people it is pointless for them to be demanding they be called "mixed race". they just aren't! this point is important because ther is a distinction between condoning or promoting and condemning or being against it.

The state currently supports non-Chrisitan in their worship. For example non-Christians can marry, start schools, form churches, all recognized by the State.

Not because they are non christian. The state recognises any group can set up schools for example. But the state also recognizes "family" and "marriage" as having a specific meaning. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

You might as well claim only a Christian has the right to worship in a church because it is a sin to worship another god.

No because it is clearly defined and understood to be that under law.
The only way to allow gay marriage would be to change the definition of marriage.

Christians do not make such claims because they recognize that that is not a matter to be regulated by the State, but a matter between the individual and God.

Actually Christians can and do by their actions assert temporal power. Marriage is both a Sacrament and a legal arrangement. By the way the "only in the afterlife " argument is kinda weak for a Christian because Jesus was himself challenged on the "man with seven wives" argument and pointed out the marriage ends with death.

Yet Chrisitans do not call for this to be banned.

But they do! Every day! Every day Christians oppose the worship of the material and other false gods.

There is no law that bans the worshipping of money.

Any law that opposes greed opposes the worship of money. But you are missing the point. It isnt about bans. It isn't about the letter of the law! It is about encouraging what is natural and not promoting what is unnatural., this applies to Christians non Christians and even atheists.

No country has laws against worshipping money.

You are taking it literally. Devil worship is not restricted making an idol and praying to it. It is much more subtle. It involves doing what that demon wants or taking on the values of that demon.

Again picking oppressive Muslim states does not help your position,

I didn't pick them! I pointed out Islam and Atheist countries have traditions of not promoting homosexuality. You picked out the fundies like Arabia and Iran.

unless you want to claim that Christian countries should be more like them.

In certain respects. In atheistic china for example they may respect older people more than in the West. I may not agree with the millions of dead slaughtered by their atheistic regime but I could respect this one aspect.

Name one law that bans the worshipping of money?

All finance regulation acts strive to restrict the excesses of greed.

Can you name a single campaign in the last 30 years in Ireland or England that attempted to ban non-Christians from worshipping their false gods?

the annual Trocaire lenten campaign?

Zombrex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Sterility is not the same thing as homosexuality!!!

It is when it comes to producing children.

One of the justifications given for not allowing homosexuals to marry is that they cannot produce children.

Neither can sterile heterosexuals.

So why can they marry but not homosexuals if they cannot produce children and marriages that cannot produce children are bad and should be banned?

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Sterility can be a medical condition, afaik homosexuality isn't!!!

What does that have to do with whether they can or cannot produce children?

NuMarvel

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Sterility is not the same thing as homosexuality!!!

Sterility can be a medical condition, afaik homosexuality isn't!!!

But if a sterile couple knows they cannot have children BEFORE they marry, regardless of the circumstances as to why, why should they be allowed to marry if they cannot produce children naturally?

And by extension, should women who have experienced menopause be allowed to marry if they have little if any chance of bearing children?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

And Christians should always do works to prevent things which are not good.

Can you name a Christian organization that works to ban other religions?

ISAW wrote: »

THis is the "attack the person when you can't deal with the issue" tactic is it?

No it is the I'm sick of repeating myself because you are not listening tactic.

Do you agree that Christians do not attempt to make illegal everything that is a sin in the Bible, that they make a distinction between sins?

Please bother to answer this question instead of ignoring it again.

ISAW wrote: »

And Jews and non Christians and Taoists have also called to not promoted gay marriage. It isn't exclusive to Christians

I have no idea why you keep making that point, no one ever claimed it was nor is it a justification to just say everyone else does it.

ISAW wrote: »

Given the incidence of it is tiny it is difficult to produce quantitative evidence.

The incidences are not tiny. Since the 1970s thousands of homosexual couples have adopted children in America.

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't banned it just doesn't exist! It isn't defined.

Christians in the UK Ireland and America have called on gay marriage to be specifically banned, precisely because they fear that marriage will simply be redefined.

ISAW wrote: »

Not because they are non christian. The state recognises any group can set up schools for example.

And the State is on the verge of recognizing that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry. No objection from you?

ISAW wrote: »

No because it is clearly defined and understood to be that under law.

Laws change. It was clearly defined that a man cannot rape his wife at one point.

ISAW wrote: »

But they do! Every day! Every day Christians oppose the worship of the material and other false gods.

Not with legal methods. Can you explain why?

ISAW wrote: »

Any law that opposes greed opposes the worship of money.

Nonsense. Worship is a specific thing, so is idotary. You are talking about desire, which is not the same thing at all.

ISAW wrote: »

But you are missing the point. It isnt about bans. It isn't about the letter of the law!

Good. So when the law is changed to allow homosexual marriage you will not oppose this nor will you try to have it banned.

Can I take it that gimmebroadband and the others agree to?

ISAW wrote: »

You are taking it literally. Devil worship is not restricted making an idol and praying to it. It is much more subtle. It involves doing what that demon wants or taking on the values of that demon.

Who mentioned devil worship? I'm talking about other religions, eg hindism.

Should they be banned? They worship false gods.

ISAW wrote: »

All finance regulation acts strive to restrict the excesses of greed.

Greed is not worship, as I'm sure you are well aware.

ISAW wrote: »

the annual Trocaire lenten campaign?

How did that attempt to ban the worship of false gods, given that we established that greed and desire is not worship of false gods.

Did Trocaire attempt to make Hindism in Ireland illegal?

Cybercelesta

NuMarvel wrote: »

But if a sterile couple knows they cannot have children BEFORE they marry, regardless of the circumstances as to why, why should they be allowed to marry if they cannot produce children naturally?

And by extension, should women who have experienced menopause be allowed to marry if they have little if any chance of bearing children?

Because they're bodies 'compliment' each other - male and female! (God made them male and female, and the two shall become one!)

efb

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Because they're bodies 'compliment' each other - male and female! (God made them male and female, and the two shall become one!)

The prostate stimulated through the anus allow two men to become one with wonderful hormonal results.

Keylem

For Catholics, it is sinful to support any legislation which normalises homosexual lifestyles, if it came to a vote, then I as a Catholic would have to vote no to gay marriage!!!!

Cybercelesta

Keylem wrote: »

For Catholics, it is sinful to support any legislation which normalises homosexual lifestyles, if it came to a vote, then I as a Catholic would have to vote no to gay marriage!!!!

Ditto!

efb

What if you abstained?

optogirl

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Ditto!

Delighted to see that bigotry and small mindedness gets you so excited. If you are against gay marriage, don't have one.

Cybercelesta

Sorry opto, I shouldn't have used the grin icon, very juvenile of me!

NuMarvel

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Because they're bodies 'compliment' each other - male and female! (God made them male and female, and the two shall become one!)

Their bodies may "compliment each other", but their bodies cannot be used in a complimentary way unless it is for the purpose of producing children. i.e. they can't have sex unless it is for the intention of procreation.

So, is it your contention that a couple that cannot procreate (for whatever reason) can marry as long as they both abstain from sexual activity for as long either party lives?

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

For Catholics, it is sinful to support any legislation which normalises homosexual lifestyles, if it came to a vote, then I as a Catholic would have to vote no to gay marriage!!!!

Is it not equally sinful to support any legislation that normalized idolatry or the worshipping of false gods?

How many Christians seek to repeal freedom of religion laws?

Zombrex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Because they're bodies 'compliment' each other - male and female! (God made them male and female, and the two shall become one!)

If they can't have children then obviously their bodies don't "compliment" each other, otherwise they could have children?

So really are you saying now that the ability to produce children is nothing to do with it?

Monty.

Keylem wrote: »

For Catholics, it is sinful to support any legislation which normalises homosexual lifestyles, if it came to a vote, then I as a Catholic would have to vote no to gay marriage!!!!

They are going to use all the sophistry they can muster to ensure it never goes to a referendum and "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy is passed without consulting the people of Ireland. Norris was all part of that plan, but they'll get someone else in place eventually.

NuMarvel

Monty. wrote: »

They are going to use all the sophistry they can muster to ensure it never goes to a referendum and "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy is passed without consulting the people of Ireland. Norris was all part of that plan, but they'll get someone else in place eventually.

As I pointed out in this thread earlier, the law decriminalising same sex sexual activity was passed nearly 20 years ago without a referendum.

If your concern lies with "normalising homosexual lifestyles", then I would suggest that your campaign should start with repealing that piece of legislation. After all, if sodomy is one of the 4 grave sins, then does it really make any difference to you if it happens within a legally recognised civil marriage or not?

And as I also pointed out earlier in the thread, the State, via the HSE, also recognises same sex parents as being equal to heterosexual parents for the purposes of fostering. There was no referendum there either.

And finally, as I said before, the need for a referendum will be determined in part when the Supreme Court hears and decides upon the appeal of Senator Katherine Zappone and her partner. Nothing can happen before that appeal is heard and a judgement is delivered. There's no point claiming others are trying to avoid a referendum when it's all in the hands of the judges.

Or are the judges part of "the plan" as well?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you name a Christian organization that works to ban other religions?

You seem to have ignored the points made.

1. Idolatry is not only saying prayers in front of a idol.
2. Christians accentuate the positive rather than ban the negative. they would encourage christian worship and discourage the homosexual lifestyle rather than ban homosexuality or satanism. In fact pagans worshiping naked at Celtic monuments while not encouraged would not be found to be as bad as human sacrifice or mistreatment of other people by pagan rituals or traditions.


The issue isn't one of banning homosexuality. It is of making gay marriage legal.

Do you agree that Christians do not attempt to make illegal everything that is a sin in the Bible, that they make a distinction between sins?

As I have already stated, the promotion of homosexual lifestyle was not instigated by the Church and there are many many things the church also opposes which don't suit the media to promote such as poverty (of the spirit and physical poverty) for example. I would reckon Priests preach and the church produces reams more pronouncements on poverty, war, famine etc. than on homosexuality. The idea that the Church is fixated on homosexuality to the neglect of other things they should be opposing (in line with their own policies) is a myth.

I have no idea why you keep making that point, no one ever claimed it was nor is it a justification to just say everyone else does it.

You are the one who keeps harping on about the myth of the church being fixated on homosexuality above all else. You are the one who is claiming Christians are foisting laws on non Christians and that that isn't fair. I'm only showing you Jews Muslims and non believers all agree with these laws or lack of them. the conspiracy theory of Papal control and final approval over what the law says is another myth.

The incidences are not tiny. Since the 1970s thousands of homosexual couples have adopted children in America.

How many children have been adopted in the world since the 1970s? How many marriages have happened since the 1970s. Hundreds of millions at least I reckon? The instances are TINY and geographically restricted.

Christians in the UK Ireland and America have called on gay marriage to be specifically banned, precisely because they fear that marriage will simply be redefined.

Gay politicians in Ireland have called for Civil partnerships rather than calling any arangement "marriage" precisely because Marriage has a religious connotation.

And the State is on the verge of recognizing that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry. No objection from you?

It is apparently also on the verge of banning Priests from remaining silent about confessions. LOL! What I personally think is beside the point. I am just trying to represent was I think is the Christian viewpoint.

Laws change. It was clearly defined that a man cannot rape his wife at one point.

So if the law said adults can have sex with children then that would be alright with you and it would suddenly become acceptable?

The point anyway is the law as it stands is what you are arguing about and not some fantasy law which does not exist.

Not with legal methods. Can you explain why?

Yes with both legal and extra legal and meta legal methods. But as St Paul said "Sin existed before the law".

Nonsense. Worship is a specific thing, so is idotary. You are talking about desire, which is not the same thing at all.

No Im not just talking about regulating greed as a desire. I'm talking about regulating actions based on that . Red line scandals, insider trading, inadequate risk assessment etc.

Good. So when the law is changed to allow homosexual marriage you will not oppose this nor will you try to have it banned.

What I do is beside the point. The point is Christians dont believe in homosexual marriage. They are happy to allow legislation which allows homosexuals and non homosexuals to make arrangements provide for other people who are not family members according to the current law. That solves the inheritance and property issues. Redefining marriage and the family is a separate issue. Christians would oppose this. AS would muslims , Jews Confucians Taoists etc.

Who mentioned devil worship?

You did. Idolatry and laws against it remember?
One can't serve God and Mammon. Mammon being a demon.

Wealth regarded as an evil influence or false object of worship and devotion. It was taken by medieval writers as the name of the devil of covetousness, and revived in this sense by Milton

By the way some Christians regard having statues or Icons as idolatry. But this is "worship2 in a different sense to worshiping money as I have pointed out. Idolatry isn't only just praying to a statue or totem.

I'm talking about other religions, eg hindism.

Christianity would see some of the message of God is present in other religions but not all of it. In that way they don't oppose other religions but they do point out the missing parts or anti Christian parts. for example the caste system and the idea that people deserve poverty would be opposed by Christians.

Should they be banned? They worship false gods.

Christianity would say the institutionalisation of the bad elements such as the caste system should be opposed just as institutionalising the gay lifestyle should be opposed as being bad for society.

Greed is not worship, as I'm sure you are well aware.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon
Mammon is a term, derived from the Christian Bible, used to describe material wealth or greed, most often personified as a deity
...as I am sure you are aware?

How did that attempt to ban the worship of false gods, given that we established that greed and desire is not worship of false gods.

Asked and answered.

Did Trocaire attempt to make Hindism in Ireland illegal?

It attempts to discourage the institutionalisation of poverty by any political or religious system which might for example worship mammon to the extent of denying basic needs to the poor.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it not equally sinful to support any legislation that normalized idolatry or the worshipping of false gods?

Probably more sinfull if anything.

How many Christians seek to repeal freedom of religion laws?

Nothing to do with it. People are free to chose to do evil. If they do evil others are free to call them to account for the acts they do. I totally defend that nazis have the right to free speech but I also expect hate speech to be countered and the person making it dealt with if it results in any damage to anyone.

mehfesto

For a christianity forum, I'd like to see more bible references. Where did that 'compliment each other' bit come from. Lets back up religious beliefs with religious teachings, surely?
I'm for gay marriage, I believe the bits in the bible against it are shady at best. I mean Leviticus wrote about the evils of round hairdos and trimmed beards for starters:

"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

Leviticus 19:27 (from a chapter in between his two big gay comments)

He was also pro-slavery as noted in Leviticus 25:44-45

And he was against pork.

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

And he was against mixing fabrics:

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

I will refuse to have Leviticus cited as a legitimate source on this issue, unless the person in question wears clothes entirely of one fabric, has never trimmed their beard (if they're male, obviously) nor never eaten pork.

There well be more verses I'm not aware of (indeed I'm pretty sure there are), but surely you must obey all Leviticus if you believe some of it? Indeed surely the bible must be followed in its entirety if one is to be Christian at all?

Cybercelesta

mehfesto wrote: »

For a christianity forum, I'd like to see more bible references. Where did that 'compliment each other' bit come from. Lets back up religious beliefs with religious teachings, surely?
I'm for gay marriage, I believe the bits in the bible against it are shady at best. I mean Leviticus wrote about the evils of round hairdos and trimmed beards for starters:


Leviticus 19:27 (from a chapter in between his two big gay comments)

He was also pro-slavery as noted in Leviticus 25:44-45

And he was against pork.


And he was against mixing fabrics:


I will refuse to have Leviticus cited as a legitimate source on this issue, unless the person in question wears clothes entirely of one fabric, has never trimmed their beard (if they're male, obviously) nor never eaten pork.

There well be more verses I'm not aware of (indeed I'm pretty sure there are), but surely you must obey all Leviticus if you believe some of it? Indeed surely the bible must be followed in its entirety if one is to be Christian at all?

Catholics do not look upon the Old Testament as an ethical guide for living nor as a model for the Christian life.

Catholics understand that God’s plan of salvation involved taking an earthy, rebellious people (the Jews), and over time exposing them to what He expected from them. Much of the Old Testament, in fact, chronicles the Jewish people’s failure to follow God; yet we see that God, despite Israel’s sins, never abandons His people.

http://catechismoncall.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/catholics-and-the-old-testament/

Monty.

mehfesto wrote: »

but surely you must obey all Leviticus if you believe some of it? Indeed surely the bible must be followed in its entirety if one is to be Christian at all?

This statement is self contradictory.
Jesus specifically done away with some customs.
The Bible must be studied, interpreted and understood in its entirety.
The New testament amends, updates and revises the old, Christianity is not ancient Judaism.
The New testament also condemns homosexual acts.

mehfesto

Cool, so.

Can I have links to the New Testament passages that condemn homosexuality?

efb

mehfesto wrote: »

Cool, so.

Can I have links to the New Testament passages that condemn homosexuality?

It's in the bits without Jesus, surprisingly...

gimmebroadband

mehfesto wrote: »

Cool, so.

Can I have links to the New Testament passages that condemn homosexuality?

Monty never said homesexuality is condemnded, homosexual acts is!

Romans 1:25-27
1 Timothy 1:8-10

http://www.catholicbible101.com/homosexuality.htm

Manach

I'm unsure if this was posted before on this thread, but also in support of gimmebroadband, the doctrine from the Vatican is described in link.

gimmebroadband

efb wrote: »

It's in the bits without Jesus, surprisingly...

Actually Jesus commissioned the disciples to teach all nations, and to obey everything He commanded them, they didn't make it up as they went along!!!

Matt: 28: 18-20

The Great Commission


18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the points made.

1. Idolatry is not only saying prayers in front of a idol.

That is primarily what it is, and that is not illegal. This nonsense about financial regulation as a way of limiting greed (which its not) which in turn is a form of idolatry (which its not) is just you stuck to answer a fairly basic question. Greed is not illegal, neither is worshipping money.

You know that there exists sins that Christians do not attempt to regulate using Earthly laws. Western societies do not ban other religions despite them breaking the 1st Commandment.

ISAW wrote: »

2. Christians accentuate the positive rather than ban the negative.

Except when the negative is legal, then they wish to ban it. I've already said this, that Christian groups where homosexual marriage is legal have called for it to be banned and where it looks like it will be legal such in Ireland have called for laws to make it illegal to make laws allow it.

ISAW wrote: »

The issue isn't one of banning homosexuality. It is of making gay marriage legal.

Which is going to happen. Your frankly ridiculous argument is that once it does Christians won't object since they don't ban the negative?

I wonder how may of the other Christians arguing against gay marriage will agree?

Cybercelesta

Even if this legal charade happens, it won't be facilitated by the Catholic Church. Those who support it will be held accountable to God - which will DEFINATELY happen!

CerebralCortex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Even if this legal charade happens, it won't be facilitated by the Catholic Church. Those who support it will be held accountable to God - which will DEFINATELY happen!

It's spelt definitely.

NuMarvel

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Even if this legal charade happens, it won't be facilitated by the Catholic Church. Those who support it will be held accountable to God - which will DEFINATELY happen!

Is there anyone ASKING the Catholic Church to facilitiate same sex civil marriage? I think it's understood by most that the Catholic Church has particular viewpoints on what is and isn't a marraige, but it doesn't have the monopoly on marriage. Civil, non-religious, marriages can AND do happen, and I have yet to see a valid argument as to why that right should be denied to same sex couples.

gimmebroadband

NuMarvel wrote: »

think it's understood by most that the Catholic Church has particular viewpoints on what is and isn't a marraige, but it doesn't have the monopoly on marriage.

But God does!

NuMarvel wrote: »

and I have yet to see a valid argument as to why that right should be denied to same sex couples.

Because it makes a mockery out of REAL marriage and reduces it to a commodity!

Delirium

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Because it makes a mockery out of REAL marriage and reduces it to a commodity!

How exactly does allowing two people of the same sex to make a life-long commitment to each other make a mockery of marriage?