Marriage in Markovia

[GayChristian]

Here's my thoughts - they could be wrong:

The government shouldn't provide marriage certificates to gay marriages.

There, I said it. I'm gay, and I think that the government shouldn't provide marriage certs to gay couples.

What's my twist? Simple, I think that the government should NOT be in the business of marriages at all. ever.

The government should be providing legal protection for legal things.

In my world - (let's call it Markovia), here's how things would work:

1. The Government of Markovia provides binding contracts between consenting adults for legal stuff.
2. Legally recognized churches should provide marriage certificates to whomever they condone a marriage to be between. They'll deal with the morality and "rightness" of how they interpret their own members lives.

If I want to have a legally binding contract between me and my best friend (perhaps she's physically handicapped and wants somebody to be able to handle her legal affairs in case she gets impaired... or wants me to take authority over her children in the case of a disaster, etc.) - it's a process that I follow in the government of Markovia. It requires consenting adults, and has no prejudice based on anything but legal-ness (sound mind, etc... just like any legal document)

If I'm gay, and want to get married in Markovia - the government can't stop me... but the CHURCH can. (maybe I’ll shop around for a church... who knows... that's what we all do already anyway). The church provides for covenants between man and God and stuff like that... not the government.

Legal stuff => dealt with by the government
Agreements between God and "Man" => the church

............

What do you think about this concept, what are some pros and cons of this situation?

[coldcupofjoe]

I have no disagreements excpet with the name. I personally don't feel the government has any right to decide who can marry and not marry. I am against gay marriage but I don't want the government telling me it's wrong. It's not it's place to do so IMO. Now there are LEGAL aspects to a marriage, things having to do with taxes and what not but I think the government would be better off letting it's citizens do what they want (don't take this out of context you know what I mean) then getting all nit-picky over things like that. It's a free country, it doesn't hurt me. Let them do what they want theyre both consenting adults, but just don't expect me to tell you that God blesses the union.

[Evanescence]

Here's my thoughts - they could be wrong:

The government shouldn't provide marriage certificates to gay marriages.

There, I said it. I'm gay, and I think that the government shouldn't provide marriage certs to gay couples.

What's my twist? Simple, I think that the government should NOT be in the business of marriages at all. ever.

The government should be providing legal protection for legal things.

In my world - (let's call it Markovia), here's how things would work:

1. The Government of Markovia provides binding contracts between consenting adults for legal stuff.
2. Legally recognized churches should provide marriage certificates to whomever they condone a marriage to be between. They'll deal with the morality and "rightness" of how they interpret their own members lives.

If I want to have a legally binding contract between me and my best friend (perhaps she's physically handicapped and wants somebody to be able to handle her legal affairs in case she gets impaired... or wants me to take authority over her children in the case of a disaster, etc.) - it's a process that I follow in the government of Markovia. It requires consenting adults, and has no prejudice based on anything but legal-ness (sound mind, etc... just like any legal document)

If I'm gay, and want to get married in Markovia - the government can't stop me... but the CHURCH can. (maybe I’ll shop around for a church... who knows... that's what we all do already anyway). The church provides for covenants between man and God and stuff like that... not the government.

Legal stuff => dealt with by the government
Agreements between God and "Man" => the church

............

What do you think about this concept, what are some pros and cons of this situation?

Isn't Markovia a bank?

Oh, no. That's WACHOVIA.....

There's a name you can bank on....:D :rolleyes: :D

[bdfwinn]

Governments should not issue marriage certificates but SHOULD decide which churches are legally recognized?:confused:

Bill

[GayChristian]

Governments should not issue marriage certificates but SHOULD decide which churches are legally recognized?:confused:

Bill

Well... they already do that, right? I wouldn't be changing anything there. (and frankly, if you get a congregation together and issue a marriage certificate in Markovia... we would probably honor it)

Because (in Markovia) there would be no legal binding associated with Marriage (it would be a binding agreement between the parties involved and God) - it's up to God and the congregation to decide the morality and "rightness" of the decision.

If you want to use your marriage certificate to try and file your taxes together or some other legally binding practice... it won't hold up in court, because the marriage would only be a certificate that acknowledges that you and your congregation agree that you are being bound together before God.

If you want legal stuff, go to the govm't.

(good point about the government affirming churches... I'll think about that a little bit more)

-Mark

[GayChristian]

I am against gay marriage but I don't want the government telling me it's wrong.... ....but just don't expect me to tell you that God blesses the union.

That's exactly it! Let the Churches bless unions, let the Government bind legal contracts.

[Trillamum]

Hmmmm, it looks as if the marriage system in Markovia closely parallels the system in Trillopia.

One of my friends at church was celebrating that Alabama had passed it's "one-man-one-woman" act. Imagine his suprise when everyone else standing there goes "yeah, but at least the federal one didn't go through, thank God." Ah ultra-conservative Christians....they make me sad.

[musicjaytee]

I like the idea. It's a win-win situation. The church still gets to hold to its morals (if it so chooses), and people can still get the legal benefits of marriage. Marriage is a thing with God anyways, not the government. It should totally stay in the church.

[cheewiee]

While I agree in principle, that Marrage should be a matter of the church and civil unions should be a matter of the state, What happens when Michael Newdow or some other litigious athiest sues for the right to be married outside of the church?

[musicjaytee]

While I agree in principle, that Marrage should be a matter of the church and civil unions should be a matter of the state, What happens when Michael Newdow or some other litigious athiest sues for the right to be married outside of the church?
He wanted separation of church and state so much, he should have thought about the consequences. ;)

[Jesuslove]

I like the idea. It's a win-win situation. The church still gets to hold to its morals (if it so chooses), and people can still get the legal benefits of marriage. Marriage is a thing with God anyways, not the government. It should totally stay in the church.
I think gays and lesbians should be afforded the same basic rights whether it's called marriage or something else. Denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't going to positively impact or strengthen one heterosexual marriage. Just my $.02.

A recent example recently happened to a lesbian friend of mine. Her partner is dying of cancer. My friend cannot get time off from work because FMLA (the Family Medical Leave Act) applies to those related through marriage, blood (as in children) or adoption. Therefore, her partner lay dying in the hospital and my friend cannot get any more time off from work to care for her, without threat of losing her job. If she was married or had legal status given by the Federal Government, she could get time off. It is my understanding that those are the types of rights gay and lesbian people are fighting for.

[Debbie]

As obedient christians, please show me where in the bible that this is right. Are you living within the state laws or biblical laws?

We know that GOD loves us all emmensely and never lets us down. Is this a behavior which we are letting him down? Be honest about what is right with GOD and not what is right with you....

[GayChristian]

As obedient christians, please show me where in the bible that this is right. Are you living within the state laws or biblical laws?

We know that GOD loves us all emmensely and never lets us down. Is this a behavior which we are letting him down? Be honest about what is right with GOD and not what is right with you....

Hi Debbie,

Can you elaborate? I'm confused by your questions. What do you mean by, "are you living within the state laws or biblical laws?" and "Is this a behavior which we are letting him down?"

thanks,
-Mark

[GayChristian]

While I agree in principle, that Marrage should be a matter of the church and civil unions should be a matter of the state, What happens when Michael Newdow or some other litigious athiest sues for the right to be married outside of the church?

Good question - let's pose a couple of examples if Michael does this:

1. The govm't says, "okay michael, you can get married outside the church... but we (the govm't) don't do marriages... where would you like to be married?" and he says, "my favorite bar". Okay, great, he goes to the pub, they sign the document declaring that he is bound to somebody else in an atheistic fashion (however, NOT a legal binding agreement concerning legal stuff). He's got his document, he's bound to his loved one... the pub got to sell some beers. YOUR church and YOUR marriage hasn't been tarnished (because Michael was excluded from your church's rules and was not allowed to get a marriage cert from your church.)

2. the govm't says, "nope, you have to form a church to get married". He gathers 2 other atheists and declares the "lack of God church" and they issue a certificate to him. Still... that hasn't affected the validity, holiness or "rightness" of your marriage.

Both of these options don't have any legal ramifications regarding the legal stuff that governments should be protecting.

what other problems does this present?

-Mark

[cheewiee]

Good question - let's pose a couple of examples if Michael does this:

1. The govm't says, "okay michael, you can get married outside the church... but we (the govm't) don't do marriages... where would you like to be married?" and he says, "my favorite bar". Okay, great, he goes to the pub, they sign the document declaring that he is bound to somebody else in an atheistic fashion (however, NOT a legal binding agreement concerning legal stuff). He's got his document, he's bound to his loved one... the pub got to sell some beers. YOUR church and YOUR marriage hasn't been tarnished (because Michael was excluded from your church's rules and was not allowed to get a marriage cert from your church.)

2. the govm't says, "nope, you have to form a church to get married". He gathers 2 other atheists and declares the "lack of God church" and they issue a certificate to him. Still... that hasn't affected the validity, holiness or "rightness" of your marriage.

Both of these options don't have any legal ramifications regarding the legal stuff that governments should be protecting.

what other problems does this present?

-Mark

Again, While I agree with what your saying, by setting up two seperate distinct institutions, it's very possible that you violate the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment...
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[musicjaytee]

Exactly. Gays can get equal protection under the law, as well as conservative Christians. If it were set up this way, then we could grant the LEGAL benefits to anyone, and the church could maintain its belief. Set up this way, the law would not only provide for homosexuals, but also situations like the example of the friend in a wheelchair.

What is being described is not marriage. I am against gay marriage, and I believe that homosexuality is sinful. However, the church still allows people in much worse sins to get married simply because they're straight. With this law in place, the church can still say no to gay marriage, and would be much more free to say no to re-marriage, gold-digger marriage and cradle-robber marriage.

And to answer the question, we live under biblical law. However, we function with the law, and the law was designed to protect people. Preventing someone from being by their gay lover's side as they die of cancer is no way of showing Christ's love, and will do nothing more than turn them away from God.

Economic benefits are not a reward in God's eyes, they're just a 'necessity' to survive in America. By giving gay couples the 'rights' afforded to everyone else LEGALLY, without recognizing their bond in the house of God, we aren't supporting their way of life. Only their humanity.

[Debbie]

Hi Debbie,

Can you elaborate? I'm confused by your questions. What do you mean by, "are you living within the state laws or biblical laws?" and "Is this a behavior which we are letting him down?"

thanks,
-Mark

Hello Mark,

Which laws do you apply to your life 1st? State or biblical? Homosexual behavior is sinful, do you feel you are pleasing God with this?

Blessings,
Debbie

[Gandalf]

Visitation, decision making, etc. can already be accomplished through power of attourney, living wills, and the like. There's no need to change anything in order for that to be possible between any two people. And the economic benefits (tax/legal recognition, etc.) are conferred by the government in order to encourage strong families.

Our laws are supposed to be based on morality. The only relevant question is the moral one, really. The government should not be encouraging immorality (whether that be homosexuality, divorce, adultery, murder, etc.). So, if homosexuality is sinful (the Bible says it is), then it's wrong for the government to encourage it. If it were morally acceptable (as parts of the secular society say it is), then it would be wrong for the government to discourage it.

Since the governing authorities are mandated by God to enforce justice and have just laws, the only thing to consider here is what's morally right. Feelings and random thoughts on the issue seem somewhat irrelevant. While there would be nothing inherently wrong in the government leaving marriage to the church, its recognition of marriage is in place to encourage moral behavior; why remove that? Where our laws are inconsistent in their application of justice, shouldn't we make them more moral, not less?

[prayercloth sis]

One man and one woman...that is the way God ordained it and that is they way that true marriage is in the eyes of God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth. Sodomy is sin. Sodomy used to be illegal in all states...and should still be.

The one and only Holy God ordains marriages not the state or government..but if our government wants to continue to do right they will never issue a marriage license to gay couples...if they want to be right with the one Holy Righteous God.

I do not know if I will get in trouble for stating this or not..but here it goes..

The fact that a person is allowed to exploit their preferred sexual behavior on a Christain forum is wrong. Sexual preferences should be private and not advertised. There are things in ones lives that should be personal and not publicized. Sex is not a christian topic in the sense that one prefers gay sex.

There are several members on these boards but they do state there sexual preferences and use then to instigate and dissect the word of God and
i am disappointed that anyone calling themselves a christian would do such a thing. I personally question their salvation. For I know that gay sex is a sin and the scriptures state that no sin shall enter in (Heaven).

The scriptures state specifically....

Philippians 4:8 Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; If there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.

Gay sex is none of those.

We can love a person's soul without agreeing with the sin in their lives...

Respectfully but with the boldness of the word of God

Rhonie

[Evanescence]

One man and one woman...that is the way God ordained it and that is they way that true marriage is in the eyes of God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth. Sodomy is sin. Sodomy used to be illegal in all states...and should still be.

The one and only Holy God ordains marriages not the state or government..but if our government wants to continue to do right they will never issue a marriage license to gay couples...if they want to be right with the one Holy Righteous God.

I do not know if I will get in trouble for stating this or not..but here it goes..

The fact that a person is allowed to exploit their preferred sexual behavior on a Christain forum is wrong. Sexual preferences should be private and not advertised. There are things in ones lives that should be personal and not publicized. Sex is not a christian topic in the sense that one prefers gay sex.

There are several members on these boards but they do state there sexual preferences and use then to instigate and dissect the word of God and
i am disappointed that anyone calling themselves a christian would do such a thing. I personally question their salvation. For I know that gay sex is a sin and the scriptures state that no sin shall enter in (Heaven).

The scriptures state specifically....

Philippians 4:8 Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; If there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.

Gay sex is none of those.

We can love a person's soul without agreeing with the sin in their lives...

Respectfully but with the boldness of the word of God

Rhonie

Some of you people crack me up, you are so sure of yourselves....its amazing.

Sodomy is sin? Did you know that some states and churches consider some sex acts between men and women Sodomy? Rhonie, you may indeed be guilty of these "sins" and yet you are condeming soemthing you know nothing about.

Sexual sins between two consenting adults may be sinful but in a sense are victimless crimes and should NOT be unlawful. The govt should not be telling me what I can do with my consenting partner.

The very thing or perhaps close to it that we are wanting to make unlawful we have done....want to do...or will do, so how can we make such bold statements? Whats next? A chip that monitors your fantasies, and then the cops shoow up at your house?

Yes, some people are talking about their sexual preferences on here but not in a deatiled way. They should be welcome just as you or I when we make the statement we are heterosexual. What next? Ban people if they appear gay? Please....

I aksed this question 1000 times and no one had the gall to answer it: Why is OK for someone to have convictions about hair, jewelery, clothing, head coverings, beards for worship etc etc, but yet a Christian can't be convicted that they are born gay and cannot be with the opposit sex?

Why can't the gay Christian love and follow Jesus and have a conviction such as this? But, yet, some other people (no names but they just posted above)
can have their "convictions" and its OK?

In the thread..."Should gays be allowed to adopt" Middletree made the statement that studies show that most gays come from broken homes, traumatic childhoods and other things that MADE them pursue the same sex. Although i agree with SOME of that theory, i also firmly believe that many gays are born with a genetic/medical condition and it cant be helped. I've seen kids that look very boyish or girlish. i've seen boys that are VERY feminie and girls that are tom boys. Most importantly, they people themselves state they ALWAYS had sexual feelings for the same sex. I think that in itself is reason not to judge...

Rhonie, in this last post you made mention about gays and their salvation and "no sin shall enter heaven." Paul gave a list of people who won't make it to heaven, "homosexual offenders, liars, thieves etc etc". You probably aren't gay but I am sure you sin. I am sure you sinned today...maybe in the past hour....or while reading this post. Are you pure? Can you honestly say you havn't lusted in the past year? So, just so you know. God puts you in the same category as the gays. You're just like them.....a sinner.

But, maybe their not a judging sinner....:confused:

Signed, E- a repenting sinner

[GayChristian]

Hello Mark,

Which laws do you apply to your life 1st? State or biblical? Homosexual behavior is sinful, do you feel you are pleasing God with this?

Blessings,
Debbie

I would love to open a different thread or PM to dissect my personal life - but this is a thread about the pros and cons of the marriage concept that I placed before you. I respectfully decline to argue about details of my personal life in this particular thread.

thank you,
-Mark

[Debbie]

I would love to open a different thread or PM to dissect my personal life - but this is a thread about the pros and cons of the marriage concept that I placed before you. I respectfully decline to argue about details of my personal life in this particular thread.

thank you,
-Mark

Not asking for an arguement, but asked general questions which don't require dissecting. However, in response to your initial thread here....I wondered these things.....

[middletree]

I aksed this question 1000 times and no one had the gall to answer it: Why is OK for someone to have convictions about hair, jewelery, clothing, head coverings, beards for worship etc etc, but yet a Christian can't be convicted that they are born gay and cannot be with the opposit sex?
Since when has someone refused to answer this question? Gall is not needed; it's very clear that Scripture (NT) defines same-sex sex as sin, and doesn't do so regarding the other items. Not sure why you even bring those into the discussion.

As for the "born gay" reference, there is no evidence--scriptural or scientific-- that homosexuals are born gay. There is plenty of evidence pointing to environmental factors.

[prayercloth sis]

Some of you people crack me up, you are so sure of yourselves....its amazing.

Sodomy is sin? Did you know that some states and churches consider some sex acts between men and women Sodomy? Rhonie, you may indeed be guilty of these "sins" and yet you are condeming soemthing you know nothing about.

Sexual sins between two consenting adults may be sinful but in a sense are victimless crimes and should NOT be unlawful. The govt should not be telling me what I can do with my consenting partner.

The very thing or perhaps close to it that we are wanting to make unlawful we have done....want to do...or will do, so how can we make such bold statements? Whats next? A chip that monitors your fantasies, and then the cops shoow up at your house?

Yes, some people are talking about their sexual preferences on here but not in a deatiled way. They should be welcome just as you or I when we make the statement we are heterosexual. What next? Ban people if they appear gay? Please....

I aksed this question 1000 times and no one had the gall to answer it: Why is OK for someone to have convictions about hair, jewelery, clothing, head coverings, beards for worship etc etc, but yet a Christian can't be convicted that they are born gay and cannot be with the opposit sex?

Why can't the gay Christian love and follow Jesus and have a conviction such as this? But, yet, some other people (no names but they just posted above)
can have their "convictions" and its OK?

In the thread..."Should gays be allowed to adopt" Middletree made the statement that studies show that most gays come from broken homes, traumatic childhoods and other things that MADE them pursue the same sex. Although i agree with SOME of that theory, i also firmly believe that many gays are born with a genetic/medical condition and it cant be helped. I've seen kids that look very boyish or girlish. i've seen boys that are VERY feminie and girls that are tom boys. Most importantly, they people themselves state they ALWAYS had sexual feelings for the same sex. I think that in itself is reason not to judge...

Rhonie, in this last post you made mention about gays and their salvation and "no sin shall enter heaven." Paul gave a list of people who won't make it to heaven, "homosexual offenders, liars, thieves etc etc". You probably aren't gay but I am sure you sin. I am sure you sinned today...maybe in the past hour....or while reading this post. Are you pure? Can you honestly say you havn't lusted in the past year? So, just so you know. God puts you in the same category as the gays. You're just like them.....a sinner.

But, maybe their not a judging sinner....:confused:

Signed, E- a repenting sinner


No where in the scriptures is same sex marriage condoned....this thread refers to that not all the other sins that you have mentioned. No one is born gay. Go read about Sodom and Gomorrah and the evil spiritual condition it was in and why only Lot and his family were saved.

And no I have not sinned today....nor have I lusted after anyone in a very loooong time...many years...God gave me victory over that and many other things that used to be apart of my life.

I do not promote sexual preferences on a Christian forum or try to say that it is okay when scriptures clearly state otherwise.

And no I do not commit sodomy. Speculating about anothers personal life well is disrespectful and rude. Nor have I ever posted about my personal life...that's why it is personal. Etiquette and manners enough said. Try it some time.

I am not judging just stating truth...there is a difference.

You have a lot to learn my young friend.

Blessings

Rhonie

PS There are scriptural references pertaining to my convictions, such as that of hair, clothing, jewelry and worship. I can back them all up with several scriptures and have. You cannot do this with gay marriage and that is the topic of this particular thread.

[prayercloth sis]

I would love to open a different thread or PM to dissect my personal life - but this is a thread about the pros and cons of the marriage concept that I placed before you. I respectfully decline to argue about details of my personal life in this particular thread.

thank you,
-Mark

Dear Mark

When you come on a board such as this and openly admit you are gay what is your purpose for doing so? You say you do not want to discuss this but you are the one that came on and on several occasions have publicized your own private life.

I persoanlly do not feel that anyone should know the personal details of one's life nor should they discuss it in an open forum such as this.

I feel the majority of the members of this board do not agree with a homosexual lifestyle. I also feel that this board was not created to promote that type of lifestyle as well.

There is alot of young people that come here and read these post and promoting that type of lifestyle in a Christian forum doesn't line up the the word of God.

I respectfully ask you why do you come here and bring up this lifestyle over and over?

Why would you promote it on a forum that is not your own?

What good comes from this? How does this glorify God?

I am concerned for your well being (physically and spiritually) and I believe maybe you are coming here for council or help. Maybe this is a way for you to reach out for help and I do know that God can deliver you from these spirits that oppress you. There is another way and Jesus is the answer. He does love you and cares for you. He can deliver you and use you in mighty ways and you can reach out to others.

I do love your soul but Sir I cannot agree with your lifestyle. God has much more than this for you. I pray you get it. In Jesus Name Amen.

God Bless

Rhonie

[bridges]

I read the opening post of this thread, and I think that most of the participants herein have not answered what Mark asked.

Gandalf, I very much appreciate your matter-of-fact approach; you did answer, and that right well.

While I agree completely with Prayercloth Sis about why a person would take "Gay Christian" as a username on these boards, I do see some merit in the question that Mark has posed. The thing about it is this: the whole "separation of Church and State" thing sounds good in theory, but let's face it, guys, this nation was established by Christians, and they didn't foresee the consequences of some of the liberties they designed into our legislative system. Apparently they thought that since God had given us the wonderful "New World" the people here would continue to remember Him and respect His desires.... Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, first made by God between Adam and Eve, and is something to be celebrated by EVERYBODY, Church and Government alike. Everybody should be happy when two people who are in love get married and follow God's natural plan, establishing the foundation for a new family. I suppose that our forefathers expected that "One Nation Under God" would be a strong enough phrase to ensure that America would remain a Christian nation with godly moral values, but because of the perversion and lasciviousness of an increasingly politically active minority, many of the standards that should have been unquestionable are being challenged.

It is my belief that when people want strongly enough to do something wrong, whatever it may be, they will learn to ignore the wrongness of it, sear their conscience over against any possible guilt that comes from doing it, label those who object as "intolerant", and do it anyway. The more of them doing it, the more bravely they come out of the closet with it, and do it more publicly. They know it's wrong, but there is strength in numbers, so more of them doing it makes it more acceptable, or at least less assailable. Now you have a society in which a member of a Christian forum in a Christian nation can challenge the "no brainer" fact that sodomy is sin.

Has anyone read Aristotle's "Politics" lately? It's an oldie but goodie.

I don't know what to say. Lust for another person of the same sex is something that should be avoided, put under the blood of Jesus Christ, mortified, and left there. I thank God that although I was once one who "did it more and enjoyed it less", used by demons and left near dead over and over, there just never was any part of a man that I found attractive in any amorous way. If any man feels attracted to any other man, I daresay it is ONLY as a means of unnatural sexual gratification, and further, that equal gratification (however carnal it may be, and SO FAR AWAY FROM ANYTHING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH AS CHRISTIANS) can be obtained in the "natural" way with a person of the opposite gender in a morally and Biblically acceptable monogamous marital relationship.

Anything worth having is worth waiting, and working, for.

[bridges]

Straighten people out on these forums.

Nevertheless, I'm going to say this very quickly (I'm quite the typist, it would seem), and as soon as I'm done, I'm going to save the entire conversation to my hard drive.

Evanescense, your speculation about what my wife might or might not have done lately borders on sexual harrassment. If you were to make the same observation at the place where I work, I have no doubt it would result in your dismissal. I will not dignify your remark with any clue to the negative or the affirmative (I think she might have already answered in that respect).

Also, I will say this: be grateful that I am not so much like my earthly father. He beat two men to death in a bar in Illinois in the early 70's for being lewd in front of some women. You, sir, are lewd. I leave you in God's hands, He not only has more time and is more capable of dealing with you than I am, but He also is absolutely immune to prosecution. They can't find Him. They would find me. I tell you be grateful; I am grateful, my Dad's propensity for violence, combined with his willingness to hurt those men for exposing themselves, cost him a lot of money, and eventually some time in the Federal Penitentiary, where they put a 400 pound Cuban in the cell with him to kill him in his sleep. Dad's a free man tonight, about to turn 70 next month, while the Cuban..., well, I don't think he made it. We're descended from the McCoys on one side and the Comanches on the other, so meanness comes honest. I'm the NICE one in the Bridges family.

Well, I'm looking at what I have written, and I have probably crossed some line again. It's okay, by the posting rules, to say what I think is right, but NOT okay to say WHO I think is WRONG.

Since I'm the NICE one, I'm going to ask real nice: if any of y'all have any more thoughts on what my or my wife's private life might entail, thoughts that are products of twisted minds given too much time to ponder thoughts not directly related to immediate survival and serving God, please keep them to yourself. It's not NICE to speculate about other people's private lives.

Take a look at the ants. They're not in dire straits, yet they work feverishly from daylight to dark, laying up stores for lean times. The vast majority of them have NO sex life whatsoever, and the ones that ARE sexually active are only so for the sake of the continuance of the species. Whatever you are called to do also needs to be done. How hard are you working at it? How long have you put it off? How much of it will you still have time to do when you finally decide to start? Are the things you spend your time thinking about worth the opportunity cost? Does a tithe of your TIME belong to the Lord who so graciously provided you with breath and life? How pleased is He with you and your attempts to justify this "alternative lifestyle"? Am I judging when I ask these probing questions, or am I just trying to get you to take a look at yourself? Judging will be done when the event has ended. Life is still ongoing.

If there is any wisdom in anything I've written, let the glory be to God, and if it all seems madness, let it be on me.

[bridges]

Got the whole thread in less than a second.

God bless you all, and good night.

[middletree]

When you come on a board such as this and openly admit you are gay what is your purpose for doing so?

I respectfully ask you why do you come here and bring up this lifestyle over and over?

Rhonie:

Once again, you have done a great job of disagreeing with someone while remaining very respectful. You don't beat around the bush, but you manage to treat those with whom you disagree as important; you regard them as not less than you in any way. I admire you very much for your ability to do this. Your tone is a great example of Christ-likeness.

If I can, I'd like to speculate a little by answering the questions above, even though they're directed toward Mark, not myself.

The reason Mark comes here and discusses his beliefs that gay sex is not sin is because he thinks that most of the Church has this wrong, that they are reading certain Scriptures incorrectly, and he wants to do what he can to help people understand what he thinks is the correct, Scriptural perspective on homosexuality.

(Note that I don't agree with him, just pointing out his motive).

If you think about it, he's no different from your husband, or myself, or many others here. I have made it clear that I think that most Christians are wrong in certain areas, and I'd like to express my view, and provide verses to back myself up. I've done this on a few topics that are important to me, such as

--Christians are not to refer to themselves as sinners; we are former sinners
--Christmas trees, steeples, and Easter eggs have no place in celebrations of Jesus
--race car drivers aren't athletes

OK, the last one isn't a theological perspective, but you get the idea.

Your husband has different pet topics than me, including his perceived need to be baptized in water, in the name of Jesus, as essential for salvation.

We all have pet topics, but some of us feel the need to come here and convince others to come over to our way of thinking. It may be right or wrong to do so, but there it is. And in this respect, Bridges and Mark have some similarities.

Note that I'm not saying that Mark is right. I don't agree with him on this, nor do I think that Bridges is right about baptism, and I'm sure that a lot of people aren't convinced about the things I have said. That's the way it is in a world full of people with free will. But the bottom line is that Mark isn't so much trying to display a lifestyle as much as he is trying to explain why he thinks that the majority of genuine, well-meaning, loving Christian people are wrong when it comes to homosexual behavior.

Hope this answers your question.

[middletree]

Bridges, what he said wasn't sexual harrassment. He was responding to Rhonie's statement that sodomy is illegal or sin, by saying that some people have a broad definition of sodomy, and some adhere to a more strict definition. I'm obviously not going to be specific here, but look in any dictionary, and you'll see that there are some acts mentioned in there which many Christians wouldn't define as sin. He was simply saying that some Christians might be engaging in acts which fit the broad definition of that word. It was unfortunate the way he chose to say it, but he wasn't trying to harass anyone. He should have known that Rhonie's use of that word was involving the more strict definition, and left it alone.

[cheewiee]

Rhonie:
...
--race car drivers aren't athletes...

... I'm sure that a lot of people aren't convinced about the things I have said...

I know alot of people (Especially many on this board) who really aren't convinced about the race car drivers not being athletes bit... :D

(Sorry, I wanted to take a moment to brighten a rather gloomy thread)

Back to topic, I do agree with you, Middletree, about Mark's motives. I would also like to point out that he has always presented a loving attitude in carrying on discussion that must be VERY PERSONAL to him, when many others, myself included have gotten heated about things that really didn't matter to us.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Some of you people crack me up, you are so sure of yourselves....its amazing.

says the guy who has issues with the bible yet vehemetly defends everyone of his views based on his common sense.

hello pot, were the kettle

The fact that a person is allowed to exploit their preferred sexual behavior on a Christain forum is wrong. Sexual preferences should be private and not advertised. There are things in ones lives that should be personal and not publicized. Sex is not a christian topic in the sense that one prefers gay sex

once again, reading and understanding the bible will cause you to have a different view.
try matthew 18:15
romans 1
for a start

if anybody openly admits to sin and is too proud to repent, it is the duty of the church to call for repentance and if repentance is ignored, the church has every right to admonish him.

youre bubble gum christianity is nauseating.

I aksed this question 1000 times and no one had the gall to answer it: Why is OK for someone to have convictions about hair, jewelery, clothing, head coverings, beards for worship etc etc, but yet a Christian can't be convicted that they are born gay and cannot be with the opposit sex?

maybe nobody has answered this because it is so obvious. hair, jewelry, clothing, and head coverings are cultural. homosexuality is not. it was an abomination in genesis and an abomination in romans. you know, there was a guy named Paul. he was an apostle. he wrote lots of books that were inspired by God. he dealt with homosexuality quite a bit.

by your rationale, "John" has an addictve personality he was born that way. he should be allowed to smoke crack and get drunk. he cant hel that he has an addictive personality. he shouldnt be held accountable for his actions.

"Jose" is a man. he loves women. he cant be faithful. God created him with a strong desire for women, therefore he shouldnt be held accountable for adultery.

nice "common sense", E:rolleyes:

Although i agree with SOME of that theory, i also firmly believe that many gays are born with a genetic/medical condition and it cant be helped
i was born into sin, too. so were you. you dont have a license to indulge. why are you advocating that the gay man does??

[prayercloth sis]

Rhonie:

Once again, you have done a great job of disagreeing with someone while remaining very respectful. You don't beat around the bush, but you manage to treat those with whom you disagree as important; you regard them as not less than you in any way. I admire you very much for your ability to do this. Your tone is a great example of Christ-likeness.

If I can, I'd like to speculate a little by answering the questions above, even though they're directed toward Mark, not myself.

The reason Mark comes here and discusses his beliefs that gay sex is not sin is because he thinks that most of the Church has this wrong, that they are reading certain Scriptures incorrectly, and he wants to do what he can to help people understand what he thinks is the correct, Scriptural perspective on homosexuality.

(Note that I don't agree with him, just pointing out his motive).

If you think about it, he's no different from your husband, or myself, or many others here. I have made it clear that I think that most Christians are wrong in certain areas, and I'd like to express my view, and provide verses to back myself up. I've done this on a few topics that are important to me, such as

--Christians are not to refer to themselves as sinners; we are former sinners
--Christmas trees, steeples, and Easter eggs have no place in celebrations of Jesus
--race car drivers aren't athletes

OK, the last one isn't a theological perspective, but you get the idea.

Your husband has different pet topics than me, including his perceived need to be baptized in water, in the name of Jesus, as essential for salvation.

We all have pet topics, but some of us feel the need to come here and convince others to come over to our way of thinking. It may be right or wrong to do so, but there it is. And in this respect, Bridges and Mark have some similarities.

Note that I'm not saying that Mark is right. I don't agree with him on this, nor do I think that Bridges is right about baptism, and I'm sure that a lot of people aren't convinced about the things I have said. That's the way it is in a world full of people with free will. But the bottom line is that Mark isn't so much trying to display a lifestyle as much as he is trying to explain why he thinks that the majority of genuine, well-meaning, loving Christian people are wrong when it comes to homosexual behavior.

Hope this answers your question.

Dear Bro. Middletree

While Bro. Bridges does have his pet issues (after 19 years of marriage I definitely know alot of them), as well as myself, Bro. Bridges issue is scriptural. Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 and many more, as I know you are well aware.

Bro. Mark's issue is not. They may have the same desire to change points of view but they do not have the same scriptural foundation. For Bro. Bridges issue if founded on the word of God and Jesus Christ. Bro. Mark's is not. While I yet understand your thoughts, I do not completely agree Sir. As well as some of your pet issues are based on many scriptural references as well. No disrespect intended, not worded as adquately as I would have liked.

I am praying as I am sure you and others are Bro. Middletree that it is more than just to change points of view but that in reality this precious soul finds what God has been awaiting to give him. A victorius life. Changed and anew by the power of Jesus Christ whom has all power in Heaven and in Earth.

Being gay is a definite ungodly lifestyle and we cannot take that out of the equation when it has continuously been posted thread after thread with an open admition of sexual preferences on this Christian forum. In which, when questioned there are no answers. At other times it is discussed in convenience. To which I feel is to cause conflict at times and other times I prayingly hope for the reaching out for help.

It is not my desire to disrespect or hurt anyone person here on these boards. I pray if I have done so that this apology will be accepted. It is truly my hearts desire to see souls living at their fullest potential for Jesus Christ as a vessel of honor. Becoming prayer warriors, and intercessors, and soul winners until Jesus returns. My apologies for my pointedness.
Praising the Lord for the deliverance he has given me in my life.

My Love and prayers to all.

Rhonie

[Grank]

...gay people would be deported along with anybody else i found annoying or leading a life based on sin. in the united states of america however, i believe that a gay couple should receive the same tax breaks and legal protection any other couple would. you're not giving them a tax break because of marriage... it's because of dependancy. i don't think they should be married though as i don't believe the gov't should play a role in marraiges. marraige is a Christian insitution and a pact made between the couple and God, correct?

[middletree]

While Bro. Bridges does have his pet issues (after 19 years of marriage I definitely know alot of them)


19 years? Wow! That's an accomplishment. I hit 11 years next Monday.

, as well as myself, Bro. Bridges issue is scriptural. Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48 and many more, as I know you are well aware.

Bro. Mark's issue is not.

Well, I agree that Mark is wrong in his interpretation of Scripture, but he falls into a group of people who are convinced that the bible allows for homosexual behavior, and that people like me and you are reading it wrong. I don't think he argues that the bible is wrong.

No disrespect intended

I wish you'd quit talking like that. You have never been disrespectful here.:)

I am praying as I am sure you and others are Bro. Middletree that it is more than just to change points of view but that in reality this precious soul finds what God has been awaiting to give him. A victorius life. Changed and anew by the power of Jesus Christ whom has all power in Heaven and in Earth.

I agree that Mark and other gays need prayer. As I have said many times, the studies convincingly show that gays often have many hurts from childhood, and even Mark has said he falls into this category (I believe he says he falls into the most common category of gay men: those who had a weak or passive father and domineering mother, but I could be wrong).

[musicjaytee]

...gay people would be deported along with anybody else i found annoying or leading a life based on sin. in the united states of america however, i believe that a gay couple should receive the same tax breaks and legal protection any other couple would. you're not giving them a tax break because of marriage... it's because of dependancy. i don't think they should be married though as i don't believe the gov't should play a role in marraiges. marraige is a Christian insitution and a pact made between the couple and God, correct?
I thought that was the point of the 'permit' and leaving marriage in the church. The way that Mark described his idea is political, simply allowing gays (or any couple for that matter) the same LEGAL rights given to other couples. Then, the church would retain the right to turn away gay couples, as well as other sinful couples, without being called bigots. Marriage would be only between the couple and God, the way it should be.

By the way, I am a believer that homosexuality is a sin. Mark also made the statement that he doesn't think gays should get married. So from two people supporting the idea, neither believes that gays should be married. This is simply economic equality.

FYI, for those struggling with the 'victimless' aspect of consensual adult sodomy, do not overlook the truth. It has been proven that whether it is between two men, or a man and a woman, sodomy is a dangerous act. It can break down the immune system because of the sensitivity (and 'absorption') of that area. There is a reason why many meds are given in that way. So no, it is not a victimless act.

[cheewiee]

I thought that was the point of the 'permit' and leaving marriage in the church. The way that Mark described his idea is political, simply allowing gays (or any couple for that matter) the same LEGAL rights given to other couples. Then, the church would retain the right to turn away gay couples, as well as other sinful couples, without being called bigots. Marriage would be only between the couple and God, the way it should be.


Let me assure you, that as long as the Church has an Anti-Homosexuality stance, she will be regarded as a group of bigots....

[musicjaytee]

Let me assure you, that as long as the Church has an Anti-Homosexuality stance, she will be regarded as a group of bigots....
It's funny you say that, because I re-typed that statement like five times before I opted for the bigots phrase. It was too wordy the other way. What I meant was that the churches that chose to turn away those couples wouldn't be regarded as bigots any more than those who stand against homosexuality already are.

We also wouldn't be targeted with so much hatred, since they could simply move on to another church. Of course, there will always be the extremists who will always show hatred, as there will be on our side of the debate, but it would be lessened a lot.

I just really like the idea that Mark described. It would help a lot of people. For example, two good friends graduate college and decide to rent an apartment together in order to share the cost. They could get one of the 'permits', and have the benefits of marriage without being 'married', and get a little extra help getting set in life. Or, two widow/ers, in any combination of male/female, who don't feel like marrying again, could get a 'permit' for the same reason. Two people who care about eachother could come together and help eachother out, and marriage could be put back in God's hands entirely.

[cheewiee]

It's funny you say that, because I re-typed that statement like five times before I opted for the bigots phrase. It was too wordy the other way. What I meant was that the churches that chose to turn away those couples wouldn't be regarded as bigots any more than those who stand against homosexuality already are.

We also wouldn't be targeted with so much hatred, since they could simply move on to another church. Of course, there will always be the extremists who will always show hatred, as there will be on our side of the debate, but it would be lessened a lot.

I wish i could believe that.. But I honestly do not think the homosexual community will be satisified, until they can make Romans 1 hate speach...

22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures. 24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.



I just really like the idea that Mark described. It would help a lot of people. For example, two good friends graduate college and decide to rent an apartment together in order to share the cost. They could get one of the 'permits', and have the benefits of marriage without being 'married', and get a little extra help getting set in life. Or, two widow/ers, in any combination of male/female, who don't feel like marrying again, could get a 'permit' for the same reason. Two people who care about eachother could come together and help eachother out, and marriage could be put back in God's hands entirely.

I do see the virtue in civil unions for Widows... widowers... There are two sisters in my church who live together (NO NOT IN SIN) that could honestly benefit from tax breaks and such....

[Gandalf]

Anyone could benefit from tax breaks. That's beside the point. What reason would there be for the government to sanction such a relationship and confer benefits based on it? Any tax, etc. benefits of marriage are a recognition of the fact that the two become one. It's reasonable for the government to encourage this, because marriage builds families, and strong families improve the society as a whole. Just because people want a special benefit from the government or could personally gain from it doesn't mean it should be done.

[cheewiee]

What reason would there be for the government to sanction such a relationship and confer benefits based on it?

Honestly... I could see it used to encourage older people who don't want to remarry to develop dependant relationships with others, instead of forcing loved ones to place them in dependant care facilities...

How many people die in nursing homes in this country yearly? What percentage of these institutionalized folks get regular visits by loved ones?

People used to be able to die with dignanty, surrouned by loved ones... today one should expect to die in a hostpal gown alone.. because that's how it ususally happens....

[musicjaytee]

Same-sex isn't the only marriage the church could stop in this situation. This would also allow churches to take a stronger stance AGAINST re-marriage. Marriage would be a bond with God, not a legal document.

Marriage would be something special, something that would take serious consideration and most importantly, faith. It wouldn't be the piss-on institution it has become because of legislation taking so much power away from the church. It would no longer be legal, but holy.

P.S. - Something should be done BECAUSE it could help people. Jesus never denied compassion and humanity to any sinner. The only people He condemned with afiery passion were the preachers and teachers who thought they were holier than thou. Yes, He always noted each person's sin, telling them to go and sin no more, but He always reached out to them first.

[Gandalf]

Tax breaks across the board would help more people. Why give special treatment to people because they engage in selfish behavior?

I agree that marriage needs to be strengthened. I think removing governmental recognition of it would weaken it though.

[musicjaytee]

So should straight Muslims be allowed to marry? They are living in sin as well.

[musicjaytee]

Tax breaks across the board would help more people. Why give special treatment to people because they engage in selfish behavior?

I agree that marriage needs to be strengthened. I think removing governmental recognition of it would weaken it though.
Actually, it would be the exact opposite. The church would be removing recognition of government unions.

[middletree]

So should straight Muslims be allowed to marry? They are living in sin as well.
Huh?

[musicjaytee]

Huh?
Well, they do deny Christ as the Son of God and do not accept Him as their personal Savior. We're against gay marriage because it is a sinful lifestyle, correct? So why not lump all non-Christians (especially Scientologists) into the bunch and not allow anyone who doesn't follow Christian ways to be married?

Edit: This is why I don't go to any more rallies. We can't pick and choose which sins to allow according to the law. If we're going to fight gay marriage because it's against the Bible, we should also fight non-Christians and divorcees as well. Instead of fighting against gay marriage, we should be fighting for the church's right to belief. We allow all these other sinners equal benefit in the economy, why not gays? Money is a worldly posession, so why be concerned with it? How does equal monetary benefits show support for the lifestyle if the church doesn't recognize the relationship? We show humanity to straight sinners, we should show humanity to gay sinners.

[Buttabean]

Well, they do deny Christ as the Son of God and do not accept Him as their personal Savior. We're against gay marriage because it is a sinful lifestyle, correct? So why not lump all non-Christians (especially Scientologists) into the bunch and not allow anyone who doesn't follow Christian ways to be married?


:confused:


um, because they don't get married in a Christian church, we as a Christian church couldn't deny them that right. They are obviously OK according to the church they would be getting married thru. No offense, but your comment doesn't really make much sense.

[middletree]

Well, they do deny Christ as the Son of God and do not accept Him as their personal Savior. We're against gay marriage because it is a sinful lifestyle, correct? So why not lump all non-Christians (especially Scientologists) into the bunch and not allow anyone who doesn't follow Christian ways to be married?
The logic leaps you make here are astounding. People who are married, but not Christians, are still married. When Peter preached a message and saw 5000 come to Christ in one day, did he then demand that all couples get married in a Christian ceremony, because up to that point, they weren't really married?

[musicjaytee]

:confused:


um, because they don't get married in a Christian church, we as a Christian church couldn't deny them that right. They are obviously OK according to the church they would be getting married thru. No offense, but your comment doesn't really make much sense.
So if gays were getting married through a justice of the peace, then we as Christians couldn't deny them that right? Because if I remember correctly, the laws that we are trying to enact make gay marriage illegal entirely.

[prayercloth sis]

Thank you E for your apology. I appreciate it very much. I have to admit that some of the probing questions in a certain post of yours did rub me the wrong way.

I still do not understand all of your motivation and points of view but I do admire your zeal and boldness.

My apology to you sir for my pointedness and misundersanding for your point of view.

I typed this on your apology thread and I will post it here as well.

Humbleness is a Jesus trait that I wholeheartedly admire. I myself have faults and failures and this is one trait that I continually strive to have and keep.

Blessings to you

Thank you again E.

God Bless

Rhonie

[BeTheMoon]

Well, they do deny Christ as the Son of God and do not accept Him as their personal Savior. We're against gay marriage because it is a sinful lifestyle, correct? So why not lump all non-Christians (especially Scientologists) into the bunch and not allow anyone who doesn't follow Christian ways to be married?.

If two straight muslims marry their sin is not the marriage, their sin is the fact that they are muslim.

If two homosexuals marry their sin is the marriage and also the fact that they are homosexual.

If the two straight muslims receive Christ after they are married their marriage can stay intact and they will be forgiven.

If two homosexuals receive Christ after they are married (and believe what the Bible says about homosexuality) what becomes of their marriage? It is still a sin.

Regardless of religious beliefs a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not a sin.

[kiwisongbird]

What about a polygamous marriage?

[BeTheMoon]

Regardless of religious beliefs a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not a sin.
:confused:

[prayercloth sis]

If two straight muslims marry their sin is not the marriage, their sin is the fact that they are muslim.

If two homosexuals marry their sin is the marriage and also the fact that they are homosexual.

If the two straight muslims receive Christ after they are married their marriage can stay intact and they will be forgiven.

If two homosexuals receive Christ after they are married (and believe what the Bible says about homosexuality) what becomes of their marriage? It is still a sin.

Regardless of religious beliefs a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not a sin.


Great post!

[prayercloth sis]

What about a polygamous marriage?

confusing!!!!!:eek: :p

[kiwisongbird]

I think it would definitely be confusing for the husband who had to cope with more than one wife when she was feeling a bit grotty!!! :) :)

Ok, I met a man here who has three wives - he's a muslim - if he became a Christian - would he have to get rid of two wives or would he be sinning by having three? I don't think he would, the Bible only says that leaders in the church should be the husband of one wife - doesn't say anything about if you're just a member of the church... and, sorry I just threw that comment in the mix - :D

[BeTheMoon]

Ephesians 5:31
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

This is what is commanded by God.
Doesn't say "three" will become one flesh. (or four, or five....)




1 Corinthians 7:1-3
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

The Bible talks alot about one wife, I don't recall ever reading anything about God ever approving of more than one living wife. (There were several instances of polygamy but it was never commanded by God.)


Titus 1
6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,

I think this scripture is referring to divorce.

[middletree]

Ok, I met a man here who has three wives - he's a muslim - if he became a Christian - would he have to get rid of two wives or would he be sinning by having three?

Excellent question. In Malachi, we see the quote that God hates divorce.

I don't think he would, the Bible only says that leaders in the church should be the husband of one wife - doesn't say anything about if you're just a member of the church... and, sorry I just threw that comment in the mix - :D

I don't have time to go into it now, but if you read the story of David and Solomon, you'll see that God commanded them to not marry so many women, and it was their appetite for multiple women that led them into deep sins (in David's case, adultery and murder, and in Solomon's case, idolatry). I think there's a principle there that God doesn't like multiple marriages, whether or not it happens to be a sin. It's not the best plan, and He wants what's best for us.

[BeTheMoon]

I agree Middletree, but if God defines marriage as one man and one woman then wouldn't anything beyond that be considered adultery and therefore a sin?

[middletree]

I agree Middletree, but if God defines marriage as one man and one woman then wouldn't anything beyond that be considered adultery and therefore a sin?
Like I said, it's not completely clear in the OT, as God seemed to tolerate it with David and Solomon.

[Pouye]

I agree Middletree, but if God defines marriage as one man and one woman then wouldn't anything beyond that be considered adultery and therefore a sin?

God does not define marriage as such in the Bible. In fact, most of the pillars in the Old Testament (including Moses and Jacob) had multiple wives. The Bible contains hundreds of strict laws given to the Israelites. Not one of those laws says that for a man to marry more than one woman is sin. There are also no laws forbidding this in the New Testament.

If you stand by your statement, Jacob was an adulterer. Period. He married Leah, and then Rachel. God never once told him that He was an adulterer because of this.

Middletree brings up the idea that God warned of marrying multiple women. The warning was to Israelites not to marry foriegn women, because they carry with them their gods and religions.

Polygamous marriage is a terrible thing when it is abused, just like monogamous marriage is also a terrible thing when abused. I personally know two women who are happily married to one man. He treats them both well and fulfills his duties and responsibilities regarding them and the children. He is faithful to them. He does not sleep around. He did not have an affair and then marry the second woman, but publically sought her hand in marriage with the consent of his first wife, just like Jacob did.

There is a huge double standard when I hear Christians say that God views polygamy as adultry, since most of the people in the Old Testament that God had close relationships with were polygamists. You would think God would have mentioned it to them, at least! Or you would think God would come up with a better law than this:

“Do not marry a woman and her sister because they will be rivals. But if your wife dies, then it is all right to marry her sister." Leviticus 18:18

Why would God waste His breath on such a commandment? Why not simply say, "Do not marry more than one woman." Wouldn't that cover everything else (sisters, etc.)?

The reason why God didn't say that is because, in God's eyes, marrying more than one woman was not a sin, as long as the marriage was recognized (meaning she was a virgin, not pledged to be married to someone else, etc.), and all the duties and responsibilities (cultural, legal, personal) were carried out.

Please do not take this post as I am FOR polygamy. I'm not for it, but I'm also not against it when and where the cultural and govenment allow for it. I think the ideal, as Middletree pointed out, is monogamy. However, I don't believe in cultural settings where polygamy is allowable, that those who are married to more than one woman are somehow going against God's will or ideal. If this was the case, Jacob would be a second rate patriarch who was also going against God's ideal plan... but God used both Rachel and Leah to birth the nation of Israel as per His plan.

Rock

[BeTheMoon]

If you stand by your statement, Jacob was an adulterer. Period. He married Leah, and then Rachel. God never once told him that He was an adulterer because of this.




This arguement doesn't work for me, Moses was also a murderer but I don't recall God ever coming out and directly calling him a murderer.

Samson was an adulterer but God still used him. He is also one of the great "pillars" of the bible. Did God ever come out and directly call him an adulterer? (I don't know)

If multiple marriages are accepted by God then show me an example of scripture where God says He approves and thats what he wants for us.


Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

If God wanted us to have multiple wives then explain this scripture and why it doesn't say "wife or wives". If God wanted us to have muliple wives don't you think he would have also spelled it out.

[middletree]

If multiple marriages are accepted by God then show me an example of scripture where God says He approves and thats what he wants for us.

I think the wording of this question shows us the mindset involved, and in that mindset is the problem. The issue of polygamy isn't about "is this sin?", or "am I allowed to do this?". It's not about rules. God knows what actions by us can make our lives better and which actions can make life hard. Polygamy can create all sorts of complications and troubles in our lives, and that's why He warned David and others away from it.

For Solomon, as Rock mentioned, it brought in other gods and idols from the home nation of the wives. For David, his sexual appetite, probably contributed to by having multiple wives, led to grave sin. including murder. He had been used to having any woman he wanted, and to see one that he wasn't supposed to have made him want her even more, and it went from there.

So we should look at God's warnings to Solomon, or the passages in the New Testament, as God doing us a favor, and sparing us from unknown dangers and complications.

[musicjaytee]

If two straight muslims marry their sin is not the marriage, their sin is the fact that they are muslim.

If two homosexuals marry their sin is the marriage and also the fact that they are homosexual.

If the two straight muslims receive Christ after they are married their marriage can stay intact and they will be forgiven.

If two homosexuals receive Christ after they are married (and believe what the Bible says about homosexuality) what becomes of their marriage? It is still a sin.

Regardless of religious beliefs a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is not a sin.
But does making gay marriage illegal prevent them from sinning?

And there are monogamous marriage between a man and a woman that are sinful. We should also outlaw remarriage.

[BeTheMoon]

I think the wording of this question shows us the mindset involved, and in that mindset is the problem. The issue of polygamy isn't about "is this sin?", or "am I allowed to do this?". It's not about rules. God knows what actions by us can make our lives better and which actions can make life hard. Polygamy can create all sorts of complications and troubles in our lives, and that's why He warned David and others away from it.

For Solomon, as Rock mentioned, it brought in other gods and idols from the home nation of the wives. For David, his sexual appetite, probably contributed to by having multiple wives, led to grave sin. including murder. He had been used to having any woman he wanted, and to see one that he wasn't supposed to have made him want her even more, and it went from there.

So we should look at God's warnings to Solomon, or the passages in the New Testament, as God doing us a favor, and sparing us from unknown dangers and complications.

I couldn't agree with you more.....except about whether or not it is a sin.
If God intended marriage to be between two people (a man and a woman) anyone else added to the relationship would result in adultery.

[BeTheMoon]

But does making gay marriage illegal prevent them from sinning?

And there are monogamous marriage between a man and a woman that are sinful. We should also outlaw remarriage.

What does the bible say?:confused:

[BeTheMoon]

It is not our duty to keep other people from sinning, we can't. It is our job to protect the sanctity of marriage and everything it stands for.

[Sam!]

Agreed. If we have to resort to passing laws to legislate morality, then we have already lost the battle. The victory is in influencing the culture without mandates like laws to back it up.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I don't know why we try to bring Jesus into politics. There's a reason why He stayed out of them in the first place. And it's not because He was happy with the system.

[Evanescence]

Here's a question that is somehow related:

We are taught and most of us believe that divorce is permitted on in the case of adultery. If we oo our spouse cheats, we are then permitted to divorce. Right?

Ok, but Jesus taught that if we lust, we have commited adultery of the heart....the same sin. Now we've all lusted....and if we're married when we lusted, we've commited adultery. Now, don't anyone come on here and lie and say they never lusted while married.....please don't insult us....except for maybe newlyweds...

So, because all of us married folk are somehow guilty of "lust" and "adultery of the heart" can we divorce now at any time? After all, our spouse HAS commited adultery of the heart...as Jesus taught...

Also, what if the person gives permission for the person to "be with someone else"...lets say someone is dying and they gve their husband/wife permission to be with someone else. Is that cheating? Or is it adultery? Or not at all?

Does sex have to be involved for it to be adultery?

[BeTheMoon]

Here's a question that is somehow related:

We are taught and most of us believe that divorce is permitted on in the case of adultery. If we oo our spouse cheats, we are then permitted to divorce. Right?

Ok, but Jesus taught that if we lust, we have commited adultery of the heart....the same sin. Now we've all lusted....and if we're married when we lusted, we've commited adultery. Now, don't anyone come on here and lie and say they never lusted while married.....please don't insult us....except for maybe newlyweds...

So, because all of us married folk are somehow guilty of "lust" and "adultery of the heart" can we divorce now at any time? After all, our spouse HAS commited adultery of the heart...as Jesus taught...?

Good question, i'm not sure, but I don't think so because the actual physical act didn't take place.
Matthew 5
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication.....

Also, what if the person gives permission for the person to "be with someone else"...lets say someone is dying and they gve their husband/wife permission to be with someone else. Is that cheating? Or is it adultery? Or not at all?

Does sex have to be involved for it to be adultery?

It may not be cheating but its still adultery in Gods eyes.

[middletree]

It is our job to protect the sanctity of marriage and everything it stands for.
Is it? Really?

[middletree]

I couldn't agree with you more.....except about whether or not it is a sin.
If God intended marriage to be between two people (a man and a woman) anyone else added to the relationship would result in adultery.
Will you consider what Rock said, then? If Jacob had multiple wives, how come God continued to bless him? (Moses' murder is a bad analogy, as it was a one-time act. If Jacob's multiple wives was a sin, he continued to walk in that sin for decades)
Please note that I am not in favor of polygamy for myself. I couldn't handle more than one wife ;)

[BeTheMoon]

Is it? Really?

I don't know, I kind of think maybe you ought to stand up for what you believe in. Even if its just with your vote.

[kiwisongbird]

It is our job to ..... "...go to all the nations..."

... there are horror stories about stuff that's happened to second and third wives after their husbands have converted to Chrisitanity...

One sad story I heard was about a guy in Africa who wasn't allowed to take communion because he had two wives... the only reason he even got his second wife was because his first wife was embarrassed to married to him alone - he was telling his peers that he didn't have enough wealth, she was getting harrassed and she was also too busy and wanted some help around the place!!!

Other stories about men having their 'extra' wives killed so they wouldn't be sinning any more!!!

[Evanescence]

During these times...of Polygamy, was it permitted for a WOMAN to have more than one husband?

The shoe on the other foot? :rolleyes:

[ausgirl]

I think that if we want to genuinely call our selves christians - ie christ followers - we have to follow his word - not just the bits that we choose to follow - but all of it.
The bible says, there is no sin greater than another - if I break the law in anyway - whether I steal, murder, have sex outside of marriage - I have sinned and need to ask forgiveness for that sin. Homosexual sin is no greater sin than mine, however, the bible also gives us plenty of examples where sins are forgiven, but if you all recall, the sinner is instructed to go and sin no more. Therein lies the problem with homosexuality - the person does not intend to change their ways, walk away from that sin - but intends by the very nature of their relationship to continue sinning and always will.
It is not up to us to judge for it is only God himself who can be the judge.
As for gay marriage, it is quite clear that the bible -which if we are christians - we follow - tells us that marriage is sealed by God and is a union between man and woman - end of story I'm afraid.
God loves all sinners - afterall we are all saved by grace - it's the sin that he hates.:)

[Pouye]

My point was that just because God never came out and called him an adulterer doesn't mean he wasn't. Just as God never called Moses a murderer didn't mean he wasn't. I don't think God ever judged anyone for their sins did He? At least not yet.

Hello... God judged many people in the Old Testament for their sins. What are you talking about? How many evil kings died at the prophet's judgement? What about David's son dying because of his sin with Bathsheba? Do you even read your Bible?

Moses was also called "A friend of God", he had two wives, as well:

1) Zipporah: Exodus 2:15-16,21 and Exodus 18:1-6
2) Ethiopian woman: Numbers 12:1(-15)

Zipporah was not an "Ethiopian woman" herself. Zipporah was of the tribe of Midian. Genesis 25:1-3 shows that Midian was one of the six sons born unto Abraham by his third wife, Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was "Abrahamic", who was "Shemitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27). But the "Ethiopian woman" ("Cushite woman" in the Hebrew) descended of Cush, who was "Hamitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Ham, per Genesis 10:1,6).

I just do not think that God would overlook adultery in the Patriarchs. He didn't overlook David's sin with Bathsheba, that's for sure.

Rock

[BeTheMoon]

Do I even read my bible? Thats nice.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Do I even read my bible? Thats nice.

wow! youre just getting ripped from both sides of the theological spectrum.

[cheewiee]

Do I even read my bible? Thats nice.

It's a valid question. Your post about God never passing judgement is indictitive of somone who hasn't read much of the Bible.

So rather than express offense at the question, why don't you clarify what exactly you ment by "Judgement"



As an aside, this particular thread, and the Word forum can get heated at times, it is suggested that you have think skin if you plan on posting on either, because people are pretty dogmatic about certain things...

[BeTheMoon]

So rather than express offense at the question, why don't you clarify what exactly you ment by "Judgement"






I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking of David and Bathsheba as Gods judgement. I was speaking more of the final judgement.

[BeTheMoon]

Hello... God judged many people in the Old Testament for their sins. What are you talking about? How many evil kings died at the prophet's judgement? What about David's son dying because of his sin with Bathsheba? Do you even read your Bible?

Moses was also called "A friend of God", he had two wives, as well:

1) Zipporah: Exodus 2:15-16,21 and Exodus 18:1-6
2) Ethiopian woman: Numbers 12:1(-15)

Zipporah was not an "Ethiopian woman" herself. Zipporah was of the tribe of Midian. Genesis 25:1-3 shows that Midian was one of the six sons born unto Abraham by his third wife, Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was "Abrahamic", who was "Shemitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27). But the "Ethiopian woman" ("Cushite woman" in the Hebrew) descended of Cush, who was "Hamitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Ham, per Genesis 10:1,6).


I just do not think that God would overlook adultery in the Patriarchs. He didn't overlook David's sin with Bathsheba, that's for sure.

Rock

Yes I read the bible, I just don't twist it like you guys do

[Howlin' Wolf]

Yes I read the bible, I just don't twist it like you guys do

ha ha ha

youve accused me of twisting scripture before. now you accuse Pouye. it warrants mentioning that he and I agree on very few things. so i'm stumped then, if he and i are on opposite sides of the theological coin, where pray tell, are you?

[coldcupofjoe]

ha ha ha

youve accused me of twisting scripture before. now you accuse Pouye. it warrants mentioning that he and I agree on very few things. so i'm stumped then, if he and i are on opposite sides of the theological coin, where pray tell, are you?


i was wondering that myself...

[middletree]

I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking of David and Bathsheba as Gods judgement. I was speaking more of the final judgement.
Well, there's the guy who was struck dead for not carrying the Ark of the Covenant correctly. Is that final enough?

[cheewiee]

Yes I read the bible, I just don't twist it like you guys do

Because you seem to have stumped a number of us, with this claim, can you please post an explanation of how you believe Rock (Poyue) is "Twisting" scripture in this case?

[Debbie]

Because you seem to have stumped a number of us, with this claim, can you please post an explanation of how you believe Rock (Poyue) is "Twisting" scripture in this case?

Let me chime in here and say this:

The way you guys go back and forth and challenge one another, you twist it, no doubt about it. Sometimes, to even say what the previous poster said but just putting your twist on it so you appear right and undoubtedly you both are right but you twist it to twist the minds of those who twist their post to keep these twisted discussions going.

Somebody, help, I am all twisted up :p :p

The above describes how it is for someone new or anyone to join in on your discussions.

Come on fellows, do you have to take everything everyone says here so literally and then begin to bully up on them, ecspecially a new person?

[Evanescence]

Let me chime in here and say this:

The way you guys go back and forth and challenge one another, you twist it, no doubt about it. Sometimes, to even say what the previous poster said but just putting your twist on it so you appear right and undoubtedly you both are right but you twist it to twist the minds of those who twist their post to keep these twisted discussions going.

Somebody, help, I am all twisted up :p :p

The above describes how it is for someone new or anyone to join in on your discussions.

Come on fellows, do you have to take everything everyone says here so literally and then begin to bully up on them, ecspecially a new person?

We all twist the bible....

:cool:

[coldcupofjoe]

We all twist the bible....

:cool:


I more kind of roll mine... fits in my pocket better.

[Debbie]

We all twist the bible....

:cool:

LOL!! and when you do somebody SHOUTS! :p :p

[cheewiee]

Let me chime in here and say this:

The way you guys go back and forth and challenge one another, you twist it, no doubt about it. Sometimes, to even say what the previous poster said but just putting your twist on it so you appear right and undoubtedly you both are right but you twist it to twist the minds of those who twist their post to keep these twisted discussions going.

Somebody, help, I am all twisted up :p :p

The above describes how it is for someone new or anyone to join in on your discussions.

Come on fellows, do you have to take everything everyone says here so literally and then begin to bully up on them, ecspecially a new person?

twist Audio pronunciation of "twisting" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (twst)
v. twist·ed, twist·ing, twists
v. tr.

1.
1. To wind together (two or more threads, for example) so as to produce a single strand.
2. To form in this manner: twist a length of rope from strands of hemp.
2. To wind or coil (vines or rope, for example) about something.
3. To interlock or interlace: twist flowers in one's hair.
4. To make (one's way) in a tortuous manner: twisted my way through the briar patch.
5. To turn so as to face another direction: twisted their heads around at the sound of the doorbell.
6. To impart a spiral or coiling shape to, as by turning the ends in opposite directions: twisting wire into a loop.
7.
1. To turn or open by turning: twisted off the bottle cap.
2. To pull, break, or snap by turning: twist off a dead branch.
8. To wrench or sprain: twist one's wrist.
9. To alter the normal aspect of; contort: twist one's mouth into a wry smile.
10. To alter or distort the intended meaning of: The cross-examiner twisted the words of the witness. See Synonyms at distort.
11. To alter or distort the mental, moral, or emotional character of: The trauma twisted the child's outlook.


The term twisting as supplied by dictionary.com would lead me to believe that it is an intentional act... Tryinig to make the word of God mean something that it doesn't...

What goes on here, is not the same thing (In most cases).

Everyone here has their beliefs, and sometimes our beliefs are effected by scripture, and other times, our beliefs color the way we view scripture.

On this board, when we discuss various aspects of scritpure and doctrine, no doubt there are times when our beliefs effect the way we present scripture. However this is not twisting... Twisting is what cults do... Twisting is an intential methodical changing the meaning of scripture to make scripture say what we want it so say to further our agenda...

As far as newbies go, we have heated discussions on this board. That is what the purpose of the "Word" forum and "HOT TOPICS". Perhaps there should be a disclaimer that these particular forums require a "thicker skin" because when you discussion points of contention, you are going to get heated.

[Debbie]

What goes on here, is not the same thing (In most cases).

Thank you Cheewiee for your explanation. I am impressed that someone took the word "twist" literally and got to the real meaning of it.

For the most part I can agree with you. However, "twisting" of the word does occur and/or "twisting" one's previous point of view to another to keep the arguement going also occurs. I have no problem with this and acknowledge it here. My point is not related to one's personal beliefs.

As far as heated discussions, the HT and the Word forum...I agree with you still.

Thank you for your suggestion to new members and the HT's forum. Let's talk about this for a post or 2. Just some thoughts here...

Regardless of the forum, would you agree that new members should be made to feel welcomed? If yes to that question...within the HT's forum how would you do that? Last, if they were actively participating in a discussion, then suddenly make a statement that is being misunderstood or was just generalized causing one or more to have questions, then you see suddenly that more than one person ask the same question to that person in a challenging manner....Do you feel you have any responsibility to help that person? Guide them etc. With that said, I agree that the HT's forum is not the 1st door a new member should open without reviewing what is going on inside that door. But it does happen...

Looking for your thoughts..

Blessings,
Debbie

[cheewiee]

Thank you Cheewiee for your explanation. I am impressed that someone took the word "twist" literally and got to the real meaning of it.

For the most part I can agree with you. However, "twisting" of the word does occur and/or "twisting" one's previous point of view to another to keep the arguement going also occurs. I have no problem with this and acknowledge it here. My point is not related to one's personal beliefs.

As far as heated discussions, the HT and the Word forum...I agree with you still.

Thank you for your suggestion to new members and the HT's forum. Let's talk about this for a post or 2. Just some thoughts here...

Regardless of the forum, would you agree that new members should be made to feel welcomed? If yes to that question...within the HT's forum how would you do that? Last, if they were actively participating in a discussion, then suddenly make a statement that is being misunderstood or was just generalized causing one or more to have questions, then you see suddenly that more than one person ask the same question to that person in a challenging manner....Do you feel you have any responsibility to help that person? Guide them etc. With that said, I agree that the HT's forum is not the 1st door a new member should open without reviewing what is going on inside that door. But it does happen...

Looking for your thoughts..

Blessings,
Debbie

Yes, newbies should feel welcomed by the community, I know when I started posting, I didn't feel real welcome at first, untill I got into a few heated discussions myself, and PMed the person just to let them know that there were no hard feelings on my end...

I used to belong on a community that had a forum similar to H/T's that one couldn't see for their first X number of posts, and then had to ask to see the forum. This seems very difficult to do, and I don't htink it's necessary, but I bring it up to say that there are other places that experience the same type of issues.

The first think I noticed is the description..

Discuss the political climate, current world events, and other "hot topics".

Perhaps the wording could be retooled to mention that this particualr forum can get heated/emotional....

How about a Stickied post at the top, (Similar to the Word forum) that explains the purposes of the forum, and the heated nature of the exchanges that go on.

As far as "guiding" newbies... I thnk my post was pretty well done... I realize that there is no tone in text, but I ment that honestly as a way to redirect the poster from being frustrated to share the frustrations with us...

[Howlin' Wolf]

we shouldnt feel the need to coddle newbies. if youre gonna post your thought about something, you should be able to back it up. and because its a messageboards, tempers will flare alot faster than in person.

[Debbie]

Yes, newbies should feel welcomed by the community
Thank You. This should be the general rule for this and all forums.

Perhaps the wording could be retooled to mention that this particualr forum can get heated/emotional....

How about a Stickied post at the top, (Similar to the Word forum) that explains the purposes of the forum, and the heated nature of the exchanges that go on.

Great idea! We could use or do something similair here...

Another thought though...even when things get heated and emotional, we should still avoid offending or getting personal at all cost, anytime no matter what or who. You can get mad all you want to, but do it without offending others or getting personal.

[Debbie]

Thanks for your insight Tulip.
we shouldnt feel the need to coddle newbies.

When they 1st join, yes you should respectfully welcome them and respond to their post without making them feel they are surrounded by angry christians.

if youre gonna post your thought about something, you should be able to back it up.
Agree

and because its a messageboards, tempers will flare alot faster than in person.

I agree, because it is very difficult to post your "tone". However, when you become offensive or get personal, it is your tone of posting that makes it obvious and with all due respect, each of us should be able to control out tempers, it is a choice to fly off the handle. Anyone who wants to get mad or fly off the handle should perhaps avoid posting their reply until they have calmed down. It would make a world of difference. Another resolve would be avoid intentional one on one challenges with other posters.