So ? Marriage is Now Legal In NYC!!!
Options
Comments
-
The Bible condemns ? sex but doesn't even mention ? marriage. So you could have a sexless ? marriage and Jesus would have to be like "Welp, you're clearly ? , but I have to let you into Heaven anyway."
So conceivably, there's a bunch of sexually pent-up ? in Heaven. U mad, Christians? -
Word, Jesus would be so peeved.@My_nameaintearl wrote: »The Bible condemns ? sex but doesn't even mention ? marriage. So you could have a sexless ? marriage and Jesus would have to be like "Welp, you're clearly ? , but I have to let you into Heaven anyway."
So conceivably, there's a bunch of sexually pent-up ? in Heaven. U mad, Christians?
SMH @ Them protesting the wrong thing.
"Yes, we think being a murderer is bad, but that's not the issue. What we really have a problem with is that these murderers are BUYING CARS." -
? would still be ? if they didnt pass it so not like it changed anything really
-
congrats to the homosexuals.
-
Isn't ? marriage some kind of double negative or something?
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »The Bible condemns ? sex but doesn't even mention ? marriage. So you could have a sexless ? marriage and Jesus would have to be like "Welp, you're clearly ? , but I have to let you into Heaven anyway."
So conceivably, there's a bunch of sexually pent-up ? in Heaven. U mad, Christians?
But the bible defines marriage. It is a heterosexual union. The bible also condemns homosexuality. So the logic would simply follow that it condemns ? entering into a union that is specifically designed for man and woman -
Does the Christian bible actually say marriage must only be heterosexual? If so, where?But the bible defines marriage. It is a heterosexual union... -
fiat_money wrote: »Does the Christian bible actually say marriage must only be heterosexual? If so, where?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore ? hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6).
That's right from Jesus Christ. ? made man and woman to get married. Period.
Continuing: 1:24 Wherefore ? also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of ? into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause ? gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their ? one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1).
And that is the New Testament. So there is no question that homosexuality is not just a sin, the Bible calls it "Vile." I am just keeping it Biblical. There's no debate that the Bible is against homosexuality. So the only real question is whether you will humble yourself before ? and follow Him or continue with your own ideas of what is "right" based on what "feels right" to you. I hope and pray you choose the former. -
But that's merely a verse where Jesus is replying to a question about divorce between a man and his wife, so it makes sense that his response refers to a man and woman being married. What those verses don't say is "Marriage must only be between a man and a woman.".NJBeliever wrote: »And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore ? hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6).
That's right from Jesus Christ. ? made man and woman to get married. Period...
So there's no actual verse that says "Marriage must only be heterosexual." or something similar? -
fiat_money wrote: »But that's merely a verse where Jesus is replying to a question about divorce between a man and his wife, so it makes sense that his response refers to a man and woman being married. What those verses don't say is "Marriage must only be between a man and a woman.".
So there's no actual verse that says "Marriage must only be heterosexual." or something similar?
But it condemns the act of homosexuality so i
Think it's ok to reason that it would also condemn a homosexual
Marriage and endorse a heterosexual one -
Well, it's been established that the Christian bible condemns homosexual intercourse.But it condemns the act of homosexuality so i
Think it's ok to reason that it would also condemn a homosexual
Marriage and endorse a heterosexual one
What hasn't been shown, however, is the Christian bible saying "Marriage must only be heterosexual." or something similar; which is what you implied here:But the bible defines marriage. It is a heterosexual union... -
Doesn't the bible condemn fornication, and eating shellfish and pork, working on sunday, ? , greed, envy, sloth, gluttony and a host of other tings that are more serious sins than homosexuality.
-
fiat_money wrote: »Well, it's been established that the Christian bible condemns homosexual intercourse.
What hasn't been shown, however, is the Christian bible saying "Marriage must only be heterosexual." or something similar; which is what you implied here:
I'm not even 100% on that.
? can marry in NYC? Meh. I guess I advocate the rights of all peoples regardless of race, sexuality or gender. But marriage is already a joke so...if ? think that getting married will make them happier and more acceptable to the general population, I think many of them will be extremely disappointed. -
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Noah get down and ? w his son or something?
-
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Noah get down and ? w his son or something?
I think that was his daughters. They apparently "? " him -
Doesn't the bible condemn fornication, and eating shellfish and pork, working on sunday, ? , greed, envy, sloth, gluttony and a host of other tings that are more serious sins than homosexuality.
nope jesus said that it is not what a man takes in that make him ? or bad it is what he puts out ( his wrong actions) also most of the stuff your talking about is in the torah whic is the the old testament and the old covenant with ? . there are some thing mentioned by paul in his letter to the galations and corinthians but he plainly state that sin is sin and no one sin is greater than the other.
in fact the 7 deadly sins are never mentioned as a list in the bible. they come from interpertation -
I think that was his daughters. They apparently "? " him
your refering to the curse of ham and that has been one of the more libeal translations it only says that he saw his fathers nakedness. what the does that mean who knows.
in the end it was a justification for a bunch of racist ? by racist jew and christians. -
why cant they just have civil unions if the they have the same rights as citizens but call it civil unions what difference does it make.
why is a marrige defined as between a man and women? because of the gender roles that still exist even thouhg it is not p.c. to talk about them
a husband has a certian role to play in a marrige a husband does husband things. if there are two husband who fulfills the role of the wife the other husband
in my opinion when i get married this sept. it will not be the same thing as two dudes who get married because who is getting married and the roles they play are different
so by definition you cant call them the same thing.
you want a civil union fine but dont call it marrige dont call it what my wife and I have cause its not the same.
. -
Damn the ? have offically taken over New York. Does Mister Cee get a pass now?
-
fiat_money wrote: »Well, it's been established that the Christian bible condemns homosexual intercourse.
What hasn't been shown, however, is the Christian bible saying "Marriage must only be heterosexual." or something similar; which is what you implied here:
true, nowhere does it specify what marriage HAS to be. but there are instructions on how to carry out a Biblical marriage and the roles of both the male and the female. from that, i think its same to believe that a biblical marriage must involve a member of each sex -
Doesn't the bible condemn fornication, and eating shellfish and pork, working on sunday, ? , greed, envy, sloth, gluttony and a host of other tings that are more serious sins than homosexuality.
it condemns them all -
true, nowhere does it specify what marriage HAS to be. but there are instructions on how to carry out a Biblical marriage and the roles of both the male and the female. from that, i think its same to believe that a biblical marriage must involve a member of each sex
Yet Solomon had multiple wives. Several Biblical kings had multiple wives. And yet they were blessed beyond belief.
So I guess parts of the Bible are applicable today, parts have changed do to "the times", parts of the Bible need to be looked at in "context" (eye roll) and other parts are literal. Do you not see how someone who is NOT a Christian would look at christians with disdain and disbelief because they can change their Holy book conveniently.
Today, ? people are going to be ? .
Heterosexuals are still heterosexual.
Married people are still married.
? married people will get married
Children will still be drinking lemonade and playing in the sprinklers.
Life goes on....unless you're a rightwing nut job who believes its the end of the world. -
Yet Solomon had multiple wives. Several Biblical kings had multiple wives. And yet they were blessed beyond belief.
So I guess parts of the Bible are applicable today, parts have changed do to "the times", parts of the Bible need to be looked at in "context" (eye roll) and other parts are literal. Do you not see how someone who is NOT a Christian would look at christians with disdain and disbelief because they can change their Holy book conveniently.
.
because something happens in the Bible, doesn't always mean its endorsed by the Bible. -
because something happens in the Bible, doesn't always mean its endorsed by the Bible.
You realize you just opened up a can of worms right? -
You realize you just opened up a can of worms right?
only if what i said is misinterpreted
