Do gay people expect the state or the feds to force congregations to marry same-sex couples against their faith beliefs?

no

No churches are expected, nor will they be forced, to marry anyone, gay or straight. Marriage equality is granted by the courts of the United States. If a particular church can’t or won’t marry a gay couple, because of their religious beliefs, couples that want to marry will be married in a court house, and now they can’t be denied that right. Just like straight people. Easy peasy.

In addition to what @Kardamom states, there is one additional fact: There are Christian ministers and congregations in the US who openly accept people of the LGBT community into their fold. Several of my friends who are gay are very Christian and are members of churches.

A couple of years ago, I talked to an old college friend who is a Lutheran minister in Virginia. I asked him if would be willing to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. He said yes, as long as they were Christians or were open to becoming one.

Several of my friends who are gay are very Christian and are members of churches.
Wonder what Bible they are using?

@Hypo I often wonder what Bible you are using too.

^ I will tell you, the one God inspired the prophets to write, and was found on the Dead Sea scrolls and other ancient text. The Bible that came from that.

Well I sure hope you aren’t mixing your polyester with your cotton, sir. And eat no shellfish or lobster.

Churches don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want, not even members of their own congregation, as it is.

Technically, it’s the state that makes a marriage official, and now, the state can’t discriminate.

If a gay couple wants the blessings of the lord, then they can seek out a church that treats all god’s children equally.

As far as I know, churches have always had the authority to deny marriage services to parishioners. And it should remain so.

I thought that you were capable of understanding the difference between marriage and wedding. Guess not.

I posted a link to this story waaay back a long time ago. I don’t have time to find it now, but maybe I will later. In the U.S. , it’s legal for churches to refuse to marry interracial couples. It’s legal to refuse to marry people if at least one or both of them don’t belong to your faith or your individual church. It’s legal to refuse to marry two people who belong to your church if you have any religious objection to these people getting married (example—bride agreed to arranged marriage, but now wants to marry another man in the congregation)

Right now, a religious leader can refuse anyone a wedding for any reason he wants, so long as he can prove that marrying those two people goes against the beliefs of his church. Why would same sex couples be any different?

I’m not sure what happens when your church has many ministers, and while the church officially condones gay marriages, one of the ministers refuses to perform the ceremonies. Most ministers I’ve met seem to be reasonable people, and it’s likely that the ministers would work something out between themselves. But that’s a matter to be resolved by the church itself. The State will likely refuse to be involved in deciding any sort of solution.

It will be tested in court eventually. I suspect that we’ll see it tested on the edges at first. Things like a religious college that has housing for married couples. Do they have to expand that to same sex couples as well. There is still a lawsuit pending against the Little Sisters of the Poor, over birth control. The idea that this ruling has settled all disputes is naïve at best. We are entering a period where religious freedom is being tested. You can still believe whatever you like but what you practice had better meet populous demands.

Churches deny weddings for all sorts of reasons now. Why would that change? If you’re not a confessing Catholic you can’t get married in the Catholic Church. Pastors refuse to marry couples that they deem to be “living in sin” all the time. Nothing about legalizing Gay Marriage changes that any more than decriminalizing co habitation laws changed a pastors right to refuse to marry some same sex couples.

Here is the link I mentioned earlier. I edited it because I accidentally clicked on the official Supreme Court ruling. It was so filled with legalese that it was practically unreadable for anyone without a law degree.

So @Jaxk , there has already been a case taken to the Supreme Court over churches being allowed to refuse weddings to anyone they want. So sure, people could sue. People sue each other all the time. But it wouldn’t go very far—it would be extremely unlikely to go up to the Supreme Court again. The wording in the case I linked to was very clearly worded that it was legal for churches to set up their own rules about who they will and will not marry.

Unless they have an extremely creative lawyer who has an imagination far outside the boundaries of all of us combined, I doubt the cases will go very far at all.

@keobooks – Good article. There are however some gaping holes that aren’t covered. First of all the Supreme court did not create some civil rights legislation. What they created was a fundamental right, the limits of which have not been tested. When the Reverend Barclay was tested, marriage was not a fundamental right. Not for anybody. Now it is.

As I said above, I don’t expect a church to be challenged directly at first but will come through religious organizations. To think that the limits of this new fundamental right will not be challenged, I still think, is naïve.

That is a very good question but we will have to wait and see. I don’t think they can because of the separation of church and state, and how dare the state decide what is best and legal for God to accept? No. They’ll keep much distance on that one.

@cazzie Well I sure hope you aren’t mixing your polyester with your cotton, sir. And eat no shellfish or lobster.
I do not eat seafood, and I can mix my polyester and my cotton as well as my leather with my wool, and if you don’t know why I can, then you do not know the Bible and should stay away from it. Like a chainsaw in the hands of a toddler, it could be dangerous for you.

@Jaxk It will be tested in court eventually.
Silly not to think that, it blossomed under illegal marriages in San Fran and got rammed and stuffed down the throat until the Supreme Court had to capitulate to it. To legitimize the union some person will try to get a church wedding to show it is equal and when the pastor or church refuses go running off crying they have been wronged and there ought to be a law.

@Hypocrisy_Central “I can mix my polyester and my cotton as well as my leather with my wool, and if you don’t know why I can, then you do not know the Bible and should stay away from it. ”

Please explain.

Good luck with that.

^ @dappled_leaves do your own research friend. Hint: look up mixing cotton and wool garments in the OT (Old Testament). Then find out why Christians don’t have to adhere to those laws. It would do you good!

@snowberry Well, I could read the whole bible, or I could just ask one person to clarify a statement he has already made. I know which one I’m choosing.

@dappled_leaves No, you’ll learn more if you do the work yourself. That’s part of Hypo’s point.

@snowberry Hmm. I see no one backing up their own point. That tells me plenty.

I don’t think the feds will force a church to do it if they deny, but like @Kardamom they now have the option to get it done elsewhere.
People will have a problem with this till the end of time as some still do with coloured people , different religions , and races.
It is now legal for them and good for them.
AS for different faiths that will never accept this,that is their hangup,I wouldn’t want to be part of any faith that was so against it, but that is just me.

Nope. There are plenty of gay ministers who would be willing to perform the ceremony, and open minded, rational straight ministers who would be willing to perform the ceremony.
If I was gay, and wanted to get married, the last thing I would want is having someone forced to perform the ceremony. What would any couple even get out of that?

@Jaxk—if the fact that marriage is a right will create a situation where churches will be forced to perform gay ceremonies, then it seems all sorts of lawsuits are in the making. Jewish couples will demand to get married in Catholic Churches, for instance. Who knows? Someone could claim that they had their marital rights denied because the church wanted too much money and the couple couldn’t afford it. Perhaps people could even sue that the church refused to perform their wedding because they were already booked solid for the entire year.

You may laugh, but you never know. I would have laughed several years ago if you told me that people were going to march around their local Target carrying semiautomatic weapons because they were demonstrating their right to bear arms. (Off topic, but it steams me right now the second amendment seems to carry much more weight than the first. You can kick protesters out of Target and tell them to go protest somewhere else… But that’s for another thread…)

“Do gay people expect the state or the feds to force congregations to marry same-sex couples against their faith beliefs?”

Wow. You see what you’re doing? You are projecting again. You fear that if gay people get enough of an equal footing, god forbid, they will be able treat people who follow your brand of Christianity just as these Christians have treated them. How base. Once their legal rights are intact, you and your kind become irrelevant.

“I can mix my polyester and my cotton as well as my leather with my wool, and if you don’t know why I can, then you do not know the Bible and should stay away from it. ”
Please explain.
I feel I better answer it or you might fall into the fallacy as so many others here in trying to understand a Bible they can’t comprehend because they do not have the spiritual tools to do so. It would be like trying to explain to someone how to trim the sails and tack a boat if they do not even have a concept of how the rudder on the boat works with the sails to move it in any direction that is not down wind.

Before I know if I can even make any sense to you, I need to know what foundation I am working with, rock or sand. Do you know the difference between the Covenant under the Law, and the Covenant under Grace? Let’s start from there, however, if you really did, you would know the question.

@Espiritus_Corvus Wow. You see what you’re doing? You are projecting again.
Not in the least, I just want to see if I have to figure going to jail by standing on God’s degree and not allowing that sort of debase acts in any congregation I have any say over; might as let everyone sleep with each other’s wives, their daughters be strippers, and the young men be porn stars as well.

@Hypocrisy_Central The version of the Bible is probably the same as yours: The King James Version. You will have to confirm that. Please see my response to your follow-up question for more details. Unless you are willing to invest the time to watch the video and then comment, it will be difficult to respond to any further comments on the subject.

I could have sworn I posted some Bible verses here. They don’t seem to be here. I’m wondering if I posted in the wrong thread and now people are wondering why I posted all these bible verses and then asked @Hypocrisy_Central why he didn’t post them himself.

I just hope it wasn’t in the Southpark thread…

Edit: oops never mind. I found it

@Pied_Pfeffer Unless you are willing to invest the time to watch the video and then comment, it will be difficult to respond to any further comments on the subject.
I do not have time right now to view it, but I will make some time to view it, not to be like the greater Fluther who make statements on passages or stories in the Bible they have not invested enough time (or any time) to understand. When I do, I will let you know what I think. I am not afraid to go on record what I believe, not duck, dodge, and hide, as is often done.

@keobooks now people are wondering why I posted all these bible verses and then asked @Hypocrisy_Central why he didn’t post them himself.
To answer [—are you trying to hide these verses? Why didn’t you post them when someone asked you for them?
I have no need to hide anything in the Bible, I had not posted those scriptures because unless they can be taken as any form of truth, what would be the use? That would be like trying to use a manual on time travel written by a ghost rider to convince a scientist who is hell bent on not believing time travel and thinking the book is fiction without a hint of truth, how could anything in the book be taken seriously if the scientist believes the book is bogus from the start? That is where we will be, if the stories in the Bible are fake, or at worse, lies, then anything said about homosexuality would be a lie to and rejected without any serious consideration; posting them would be a waste of time.

@dappled_leaves

The explanation is that the things in the Bible that are inconvenient for him don’t count, those that are convenient for him do count, and only his interpretation is the correct one.

I know I said that using the bible to convince people of a fact was a bad idea. But to point out that a verse they don’t believe is in the bible is actually there is different.

I disagree with the belief that gays can’t be Christians. But I think the verses I listed could be used as very good reasons that people believe otherwise. Even if they still disagreed with you, they could still see that you had biblical reasons for your beliefs. They may not agree with you, but at least they’d know you weren’t just pulling beliefs out of your ass with no biblical reference.

If I had your beliefs, I’d think it very important to post those verses. If not for the nonbelievers, then to the Christians defending homosexuality. They would have some serious thinking to. Do they choose to ignore the verses and be guilty of biblical cherry picking? Do they find an alternative interpretation of those verses? Do they change their minds and stop supporting gays in the church?

Posting those verses could have been something really serious and thought provoking in this thread or of your dozen other questions you posted tonight on almost the exact same topic. (I’d tell you my opinion of this habit of yours, but it would cross the line and be considered a personal attack. )

But instead you chose to post about toddlers with chainsaws and other really weird stuff.

I can’t speak for all gay people, but most gay people I’ve come across do not believe in forcing churches to marry same-sex couples, this gay man included.

For one thing, I can see no reason why any self-respecting gay person would want to be married by a church that rejects them and is only doing so under duress. It seems masochistic to me.

Secondly, it goes against freedom of religion. Churches have a right to stick to their beliefs and the government does and should stay out of it. A church could theoretically prohibit black people from joining. And the Mormon church did prevent black people form being ordained until 1978. Their decision to allow black people into the priesthood was entirely their own without government intervention. Point is, no church needs to “accept gays”. There are already some churches out there that do, and all same-sex marriage being legal means is that same-sex couples can get married, whether that’s in a gay-friendly church or in a courthouse. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be a matter of forcing anyone to do something that goes against their beliefs.

Thanks @Hypocrisy_Central. I look forward to hearing what you thought of it.

Jesus the Christ’s coming represented a new covenant with God’s children, which means the laws of the Old Testament are null and void.
The new law: Love God above all else, Love thy neighbor as thyself.

There is nothing in the New Testament about gays so Christians who know their religion don’t cite “The Bible” as an excuse to judge them – or anyone else for that matter.

A chainsaw? Odd. I’m not the one wielding a book as a way to divide people. In my mind, you are the one with the chainsaw.

@dabbler There is nothing in the New Testament about gays so Christians who know their religion don’t cite “The Bible” as an excuse to judge them – or anyone else for that matter.
I would bet my dollars to your donuts and not have to worry about you taking a penny from me. That statement is so wrong I have no words to say how far it missed.

@keobooks If I had your beliefs, I’d think it very important to post those verses. If not for the nonbelievers, then to the Christians defending homosexuality. They would have some serious thinking to. Do they choose to ignore the verses and be guilty of biblical cherry picking?
Since everyone is ducking the original question I will post some verses from standardly accepted Bibles, of which I am sure some of these congregations have to be using as well as their alleged gay Christians.

Romans:24–27 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. NKJV

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. NIV

24 So God let them follow the desires of their sinful hearts. They did sinful things among themselves with their bodies. 25 They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and cared for what God made instead of worshiping the God Who made it. He is the One Who is to receive honor and thanks forever. Let it be so.
26 Because of this, God let them follow their sinful desires which lead to shame. Women used their bodies in ways God had not planned. 27 In the same way, men left the right use of women’s bodies. They did sex sins with other men. They received for themselves the punishment that was coming to them for their sin. New Life Version (NLV)

Let the spin begin. What is the natural use of men and women to each other, even if you take the Bible out of it, what is the function of men and women? What sexual sin can ne man do with another as the Scripture say? Oh, were they holding hands?

1 Corinthians 6:9 _9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,..] NKJV

9 Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God. NLV (Poor Bruce)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Let’s start with these. What do you call a man who has sex with other men…..class? Wait….someone is trying to concoct an excuse, try to pry that foot from their mouth, or come back like a politician with more spin then a carnival ride. Go ahead, spin it people, then I will hit you with the right you did not see coming because the left made you dizzy.

But instead you chose to post about toddlers with chainsaws and other really weird stuff.
It is an illustration that the ungodly trying to use the Bible is like a child trying to use a chainsaw, they might end up cutting their heads off (ideologically, and spiritually not actually).

So, those verses only related to homosexuals and not to straight people who have affairs and get divorced and remarried multiple times, and have “weird” sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, but go to church in the middle of all of it so it’s OK?

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m not sure what KJV version of the bible you are reading, but your chapters and verses are different to what I remember. I googled the text in each verse to make sure.

You’re say that you are quoting Romans Chapter 24–27 verse 27. I’m not sure how one bible verse takes the span of 3 chapters. Also, Romans only has 16 chapters, so I’m doubly confounded. The verses I posted last night were Romans Chapter 1 verse 18 – 27 and they had identical text to yours.

These are the most commonly used verses in the New Testament to defend homophobia. They are called the “clobber verses,” or the “slam dunk” verses against homosexuality. This article is one of the most thorough and best written arguments against these verses being used to defend homophobia that I have read online. I checked the bio of this guy. He is a very biblically conservative Christian who refuses to “throw out” verses in the bible. He does a heck of a lot of research on his own and he talks to ministers and theologians. If I had time and didn’t need to sleep, I’d pick out the best of the article, but I think you can manage to read it for yourself.

It is interesting that right after Romans 1, Paul continues on to Romans 2, first four verses:

” You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning your self, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”

Very interesting, don’t you think?
-––—-

The second verse you mentioned, I Corinthians 6:9 isn’t quite as popular as the first one. It’s likely because the verses that surround it make the anti-gay argument a little bit shaky. Once again, this guy does a good job at laying it out.

If you don’t simply read verse 9, but also read all of verses 7–10, you will see that Paul singles out several other groups of people as being unworthy of salvation.

Top Seven Sinners Who will not Enter the Kingdom of Heaven (I Corinthians 6:7–10)

The Sexually Immoral
Idolaters
Thieves
The Greedy
Revilers
Swindlers
Christians who File Lawsuits Against other Christians

I Corinthians isn’t the only chapter to kick people out of God’s favor.

Top Eight Sins that will Prevent You from Inheriting the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19–21)

Hatred
Discord
Jealousy
Fits of Rage
Selfish Ambition
Dissensions
Factions
Envy

Top Eight Sinners Destined for the Lake of Fire (Revelation 2:18)

Cowards
Unbelievers
The Vile
Murderers
The Sexually Immoral
Sorcerers
Idolaters
All Liars

I doubt there is anyone who can boast that they do not fit any of these descriptions. If you claim that you do, please remember the “all liars” one from Revelation. Basically the point of these verses is to make it clear that nobody deserves to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. Only Jesus can get you in. Instead of pointing out the sins of others, you should remember that you’re just as unworthy.

Anyway, I am kind of surprised that fundamentalists do the very same cherry picking that they socially liberal Christians of doing. It’s an even messier surgery from the Bible than the liberals use. Most liberals will just be vague and try not to mention verses that make things look bad for their argument. Fundies extract the verse right out of context, even when it’s sandwiched between two verses that further explain the original intent of the entire passage—and the message is NOT the one they wanted to present because it’s NOT a message they like or agree with.

@keobooks My popcorn just flew out of my hands! Why? Because I just stood up and am applauding you for being extremely smart, thorough, and accurate.

Also nice : )

Keep up the good work.

@Kardamom thanks for your kind words.

I was looking around some more on that site. I just found a passage that blew me away. Also remember that this is exactly how it’s worded in the King James Version of the bible, which is a very old translation and used primarily by the most conservative denominations and churches in America.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34–35, KJV)

What the heck? Two men? In one bed? Two women? Grinding together? I know that I have a dirty mind, is that what it sounds like?

According to my old buddy who studied Hebrew, Sumerian, Latin and Greek’s use of the word “grind” it sure does. (Seriously, check the links on that page. OMFG!)

This is not a modern interpretation. I read this verse as a kid (and it gave me scary dreams, because I was scared that the rapture was going to happen at any moment when I was very young.) I never ever would have put a gay connotation with it because I grew up on the NIV and the gender of the men was removed and instead of being in a bed, they were standing in a field. But the gender of the women was NOT removed, they were still grinding away, and I don’t recall anyone taking notice.

Anyway if this is legit, it’s more than just a Bible verse about some gays and lesbians gettin it on. (Mind blowing that it is) it says that one of them vanishes right in the middle of the sex act! Where the heck did they go? Well, in the next verse, the disciples ask the same question, and Jesus answers.

And answering they said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.”

That’s kind of a vague and weird answer, but people Generally people believe that Jesus is referring to the rapture. This is a belief that there will come a time when all of the Christians will vanish from the earth and go to heaven. And the unbelievers will remain behind, where a bunch of really nasty things will start to happen.

Anyway, so this passages has a gay couple and a lesbian couple in the middle of sex, and one person from each couple suddenly gets whisked away into heaven to be with God forever.

Oh ho ho! nteresting…

@keobooks It is interesting that right after Romans 1, Paul continues on to Romans 2, first four verses:
” You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning your self, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”
Very interesting, don’t you think?

Yes, seeing you are spinning it and not getting it entirely.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

For all those who want to laud your spin on it as well as other, I guess that verse pretty much guts their theory, or exposed them as liars and at worse hypocrite wanting to cherry pick what they want that please them.

I Cor: 9–13 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not meanwith the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Now you caused someone to lose their popcorn snack by your lack of knowledge, but that is what happens when you try to use the Word to promote wickedness. I can judge the actions of someone to see if they line up with the Word of God, especially if they say they are of the family. Clearly it says to not hang, socialize, or even eat with sexual immoral people (a crumb for you, it means straight people as well).

If you don’t simply read verse 9, but also read all of verses 7–10, you will see that Paul singles out several other groups of people as being unworthy of salvation.
You said that to say what? I never said gays were not going to enter heaven, I was asking how they reconcile themselves to what the Bible said, if they feel they are not going to heaven or as you just pointed out, they are in a group not slated for heaven, if they do not change their ways, how do they figure they are going to get in, hide in the trunk of a believer’s car, sneak in through a back door, something? Just because there are other on the list doesn’t make gays any closer or less culpable, or is that what you are trying to spin?

If you claim that you do, please remember the “all liars” one from Revelation. Basically the point of these verses is to make it clear that nobody deserves to be in the Kingdom of Heaven. Only Jesus can get you in. Instead of pointing out the sins of others, you should remember that you’re just as unworthy.
The thing is I know I was a sinner, and I repented of it and started to the best of my ability to do things God’s way, as in His book, without trying to make excuses and spin it to fit my old man so I can keep doing it.

Roman 6:1–3 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

You did know that was in the Bible since you know it so well, right? Now that you know, if you did not know before, those in danger of the lake of fire which you just pointed out, you would not warn them because you feel they will be offended? If they were going into a room with leaking gas to smoke would you remain silent as to not be against their smoking? While we are at it and you have such a vast knowledge how to apply this gospel you are not following? What does the Bible tell Believers about them in relation to the ungodly and being in the watchtower?

Forgot to tell you, i gave you different versions, hence the NLV, NIV, etc. I thought you should have recognized that, knowing the Bible so well.

You say that I am spinning a verse out of context that says: “You know all those wicked people I just condemned in chapter 1of my letter to you? Well, don’t even THINK about judging them because you’re not any better.”

I’d like to here your take on that verse without all” the spin.”

Then you take this verse against me:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16)

And you totally fail to see that I could use this exact same verse to my own defense better than you can, because I’m not taking minor verses out of context and using them to make major all-encompassing verses regarding the entire nature of salvation untrue.
—-

I’d like to point out several things wrong with the next paragraph. First of all, you make a serious error citing the chapter and verse of this scripture and make it more difficult to know what it is you’re quoting. You did this with your Romans verses as well.

You have the verse as ” I Corinthians Chapter 9–13 verse 9”. The passage is actually “I Corinthians Chapter 5 verses 9–13. ” When you are citing scripture it’s: “Book : Chapter number, verse numbers” not “Book, verse numbers, first verse number, skip the chapter number altogether”.

The standard way makes it easy for someone understand exactly what verse in the bible you are citing and makes it very easy to find even in a paper copy of the Bible with no electronics at all. Your way makes it nearly impossible to find the passage without google. It’s not like you made a minor formatting error. You totally left out the chapter number. If you’re going to pass yourself off as a serious Bible expert, at least learn how to cite a passage with multiple verses correctly or at least in a way that includes everything you need to find the verse without using Google or needing to read the entire book of the bible to find it. P

——

Anyway, the verse you mentioned is another “Clobber verse” it’s not generally known as a “slam dunk” verse, however and it’s not used nearly as much as the Romans verses. Its early in the morning and I don’t have as much time as I’d like to answer as fully as I’d like or find a great site for you. I’ll give you, this site for now as it does a fairly good job at addressing the specific context those verses were written. I’d personally prefer one not written by Jehovah’s witnesses, but this early in the morning, it’s the best I can do.

——-
You then claim that you never said that gays weren’t going to heaven. But then a few sentences later, you ask how gays will get into heaven without sneaking in? If this doesn’t mean that you don’t believe that gays get into heaven the exact way that all other sinners get into heaven, (not by their own works, but by the divine grace of God,) what exactly does it mean?
—-
You say that you are different from people who commit these specific sins you’re singling out because you’ve already admitted that you were committing sins and don’t think you’re willfully sinning anymore. I don’t think I’m the only one that could easily point out some of the sins you are willfully committing right here in this thread and all over this site.

In another one of the bajillion threads very recently posted about gays and Christianity, someone mentions your habit of posting some of the most graphic NSFW questions on the site probably isn’t scoring you any points with God. If other people don’t chime in by the time I come back from my vacation later this week (I’m leaving in just a few hours and won’t be back for a few days). I’ll be glad to point out a few myself. It’s ok for me to do this, because I’m not Christian and haven’t been specifically commanded in several verses of the Bible not to do it. Christians have, but I don’t count.

—-
The next passage you quote (correctly! With the chapter and verse included in the right order! Bravo) Anyway, the stuff you say after the verses wanders all over the place and talks about leaking gas, smoking, watchtowers and vast knowledge. I’m not up for dissecting everything and figuring out what you’re trying to say and exactly how to respond to it. My husband is making constant requests that I stop writing and continue packing so that we can leave in a few hours, so that may be contributing to my simply glossing over the end of your post.

———-
But I can’t ignore your last few sentences because they have annoyed the crap out of me since I read them. Where do you get the idea that I didn’t identify your using different versions of the bible? Why do you seem to think that I don’t understand what NLV, NIV, etc mean when in a post right above yours, I specifically mention never reading the KJV version of a certain passage because I grew up reading the NIV bible? How does that give you any impression that I don’t understand that there are different versions of the bible available and why does this make you feel so smug?

Oh I just figured it out. I posted in jest that you must be using a version of the KJV bible that I’d never heard of because in your version there were entire chapters in your version that didn’t exist in the version I read. I just wrote that to poke fun at your mislabeling your passage so badly. I thought it was nothing more than a simple typo at first, but then you did it again with another verse the exact same way. And the second time made me question if you understood how and why people cite verses a specific way.

@keobooks & @Hypocrisy_Central _ I’m not a bible scholar nor religious in general but it seems to me that you two are so far down into the minutia that your missing the point. According to all the religious teachings I’ve heard is that having sex is a sin. In fact it is ‘Original Sin’. Since we need a way to procreate, religious teachings allow for sex to have children and create a family but not for fun. Marriage is the loophole used to allow sex for procreation. If we look at this principle, it explains why both Birth Control and Gay marriage would be opposed by the church. They both sanction sex for purposes other than procreation. It’s like a license to sin. The church is more than willing to forgive sin but it’s not in the business of sanctioning it.

Personally I don’t have a dog in this fight but it seems we could understand each other without calling each other names. I see no hypocrisy in this viewpoint nor do I see bigotry. Just a difference of beliefs.

I don’t know about you @Jaxk, but I’m rather enjoying @keobooks rebuttal. It’s so scholarly!

@Jaxk

If that be the case then why do none of these folks protest marriage for a man and woman who are infertile?

Edit

@Jaxk The Original Sin was that Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to touch or eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden; the penalty for doing so would be death. When God discovered that Adam and Eve disobeyed, he backed down from his earlier threat and punished them both, along with the serpent, in other ways. There is no mention about the sin having anything to do with sex.

Since there is a mention about drilling down too far into the minutia, here is the bigger picture and why it is so important. Homosexuality and bisexuality have been around since the beginning of living creatures on Earth. Thus, if there is a God who is the all-creator, it only makes sense that this was part of His design.

It wasn’t until the Middle Ages in Europe that homosexuality started taking on a view of being taboo. Obviously, this is long after the Old Testament and New Testament were written. The reason for this change had very little to nothing to do with what was written in the Bible.

The misunderstandings stem from mistranslations, etymology, and changes in cultural practices. Through studies by scholars trained in languages, history and cultural studies, the truth comes out about what the Bible is really saying.

@Darth_Algar – Really!! Most people don’t know they are infertile until they’ve already tried to have a baby. And many people that believe they are infertile get surprised by having a baby. It’s simply not something you can predict nor something you would necessarily advertise. Simply not a realistic argument.

@Jaxk

But this person and that person can’t get married because a bearded sky fairy said so is totally a realistic argument.

@Pied_Pfeffer – First, I’m not arguing whether homosexual activity is or is not a sin. I’m a heathen with no right to judge nor any real concern one way or the other. The Catholic Church however teaches that any every sexual act must be open to life and the only acceptable act is ‘genital to genital intercourse, open to life, and within marriage. Pretty damned restrictive. Gay marriage then would be tantamount to providing a license to sin. The church is quite open to gorgiving sins but not to providing license to do so.

That’s about as far as I’m willing to go in theological debate.

@Darth_Algar – Whether or not religion has any real grounding is something that we could argue forever with no resolution. The use of terms like ‘Sky Fairy’ are designed to inflame rather than inform. I’m not religious enough to be susceptible to the inflammatory rhetoric so I’ll pass on this one.

No, because it’s a sincerely held belief.?

@Jaxk My intent was not to debate with you. If it came across that way, then please accept my apology. The point intended was to share information that explains that homosexuality became taboo by Christians long after the Bible was written.

@Pied_Pfeffer – No need to apologize, I was merely saying that we had reached the limits of my knowledge. It really doesn’t matter to me or for my argument whether Homosexuality was specifically called a sin in 15 BC or 1500 AD, or even at all. The god of Abraham didn’t seem to endorse sex for any reason other than procreation and even then seemed to tolerate it rather than endorse it. He/she/it would never endorse getting naked and jumping in a pile. If you believe that then whether the person is homosexual or not becomes irrelevant, it is the sex that is the problem. And gay marriage endorses the type of sex that he/she/it seems to have a problem with.

@Jaxk I guess you haven’t read Song of Songs.

Guess not. I’ve never even heard of it.

@Jaxk

The point wasn’t to be inflammatory, but rather to point out that if you’re talking about religious arguments against then you’re not starting from a place of realistic arguments to begin with.

@Pied_Pfeffer Homosexuality and bisexuality have been around since the beginning of living creatures on Earth. Thus, if there is a God who is the all-creator, it only makes sense that this was part of His design.
That I would say is not absolute, but came later, maybe sooner than way later, but later. The Earth and all of Creations was perfect and none of this today was part of the plan, it was a byproduct of man’s rebellion and disobedient by way of sin. Just to let you know. Otherwise, it was very accurate.

Dude…The song of Songs—Solomon. It’s in the Bible

How could a perfect God create something that he knew (because he’s all-knowing) was going to screw up so badly, @Hypocrisy_Central? Why didn’t he create something else that wouldn’t screw up? Guess he’s not really omnipotent.

@Dutchess_III , One would argue that the divine one let us have our own free will,which is great but why would he let it get so screwed up?

To me, the question is, why did he create us when he knew ahead of time we would screw up and he’d have to send a bunch of us to Hell?

@Dutchess_III That is a good question, and why would he let some so evil even be born?

Good questions. I can answer them from a Christian POV: “Free will,” which is a ridiculous argument, IMO. It’s another cop out. It’s the only go-to for hard questions like, why did he save one and let 1000 others perish?