Maso,

I appreciate civil discourse, and find no reason to be offended. However Paganism is a religion. The Brother-in-law marring the widow is religous based. I am not talking Christian marriage, when I say religion, I am saying religion in general. And that is where marriage came from. back before religion (if there was a time), it was the strongest grabbed the beauties, but hardly could that be called marriage (anymore than the bull seal grabbing his harem could be). There were unions prior to religion, but religion made it an institution and called it marriage.

Foreverserenity posts:

Lula posts #140

KFC POSTS:

KFC, yes, girl, say it like it is...your shorter version is just fine.   

DYNAMASO POSTS:

DRGUY POSTS:


In another blog KFC said, "Marriage is from the beginning”, established by God between one man, Adam and one woman, Eve in the Garden of Paradise. Marriage was preordained by God who established it at the climax of Creation. When God brought Eve to Adam and pronounced His blessing upon them, He instituted the sacred character of Marriage. God is the Author of authentic Marriage not man. "In the beginning", the vocation to Marriage was first a natural union that came from the hand of the Creator. Although the dignity and greatness of the institution of Marriage is not the same everywhere, some sense of the matrimonial natural union exists in all cultures and has from the beginning of time.

The anthropological truth of the natural contract of Marriage is presented in Sacred Scripture. In Genesis there are 2 accounts of the institution of Marriage and each indicates an element of the meaning of Marriage. Marriage in this sense has permanent characteristics and both themes are joined throughout the history of Marriage proceeding from Adam through the Patriarchs to the present. Scripture describes the covenant of Marriage to the covenant of God with Israel and the Christ raising it to the efficacy of a sacrament and a symbol of His own union with the Church Eph. 5:30-31.

The first account of Marriage in Genesis 1:27-28 is a blessing rendering them fruitful.

“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it , and rule over the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”

The second account 2:20-25 affirms that man and woman were created for one another.

“And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field; but for Adam there was not a helper like himself. 21 Then the Lord cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs and filled up flesh for it. 22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman; and brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE; and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked ; to wit, Adam and his WIFE, and were not ashamed.”

These words according to the authority of our Lord Himself, and as we read in St.Matt.19:6, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.

First, God formed Eve out of Adam’s rib because all mankind , even Eve, was to proceed from Adam. And secondly, because husband and wife were to belong to one another in union, one heart, one soul and one flesh by their love. Scripture affirms God gave man the woman, ‘flesh of his flesh’, woman was to be man’s nearest in all things. “One flesh” signifies God’s plan for them is an unbreakable union. “Union” takes place by virtue of God who created them male and female and gives them the power to unite those natural and complimentary dimensions of their male and female persons.

Besides offensive; this is pure malarkey.

Marriage is clearly being attacked. We are confronting an ideology that believes there are no moral wrongs, only legal rights. At the heart of it is consent, that if adults agree to do something, no one has a right to criticize their choices. In fact, they believe society should award their new found "preferential" status with the same social and legal benefits and protections of marriage.

Some see this as entirely relativistic and changing the law to make a wrong (which opposes the way society has looked at sexuality and marriage for 4,000 years) into a so-called right.

Bottom line: It isn't hateful to tell the truth about the destructive consequences of homosexuality and to defend Marriage.

The key phrase here KFC is G-D is not accepting of sin. Last time I checked it is the Holy Spirit that's supposed to do the convicting of the hearts and NOT man.

Don't forget to take the plank out of your own eye before telling others about their splinter. How about judge not lest ye be judge to the same degree? I don't know of a single verse that says Bible believers are now the Moral police of the WORLD (not just 'among you'). Do you?

There are more than just homosexuality as being a sin according to the Bible.

on another note:

Do you really think that a couple of laws are going to prevent gays from being gay?

If I recall correctly in World History class the Greeks and Romans had an acceptable level of gays. I'm sure there are other societies but these are the two I can think of off hand.

True and where did the Greek and Roman civilizations end up...in the dustbin of history, right?

Since I fully agree with KFC's statement, I'll respond by saying that the Holy Spirit is God...and there has been no convicting of hearts by anyone here. We are dutifully bound to judge behavior, which homosexuality is, and God is to judge hearts and souls.

After HUNDREDS and (in the case of the Romans) OVER A THOUSAND YEARS of organized civilization.

Besides, their civilizations didn't 'end up in the dustbin', they evolved like any civilization is bound to. The city I live in was settled by the Romans 2.200 years ago, and it's never been uninhabited since - so I fail to see where that civilization, that legacy of Tarraco, is 'in the dustbin'.

If you honestly expect modern society to last as long as Greek and Roman society (supposed morals be damned), dream on, sister.

Can you give me a scripture that states that Christians (or Bible believers) are 'dutifully bound to judge behavior'?

The issue wasn't 'where' the civilizations end up. You said:



Your view regarding society being against it has been shown to be false. Not only are these two examples but these are two very LARGE and well-known societies.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality caused Rome and Greece to fall????

To those that say it is not natural:
So is using birth control... and many other things heterosexual couples are capable of and willing to do. Should only fertile male-female couples with a desire for children conceived through the missionary position be allowed to marry? Should we not be allowed to drive automobiles, or use refined sugar, and especially not artificial sweeteners?

To those to say it is against religion:
Do you refuse to recognize my marriage to my wife of over 10 years, been together over twelve, simply because it was a civil union instead of a religious ceremony? Would you say we are not married? Would you call me a liar for saying I had a wedding ring?

To the legalists and traditionalists:
In my opinion, law should do nothing more than minimum to restrict behavior necessary for a functioning society. No killing, no stealing, no fraud, no extortion, etc... As such, I would have to say no, the government should not be in the business of marrying people (or really even civilly uniting them); but until it removes itself from the equation, it should apply such unions equally to all couples able to give consent. Besides that, I am sure somewhere out there, there is a religion that does recognize same-sex marriages, and for the government to recognize heterosexual ones, while not doing so for same-sex ones could violate the laws separating government from religion.

Except where it comes to the legal benefits thereof. Of course then they get to get smacked with the marriage penalty too - why should only heterosexual couples get "that" benefit.



Unitarians for one. There are probably others as well.

You and I actually agree on this one. I believe the GOVERNMENT should be morally neutral on this issue, ideally.

Same-sex ceremonies have been conducted in the Episcopal Church and the first openly homosexual bishop in the Anglican Chruch is V. Gene Robinson, who ditched his wife and children for his lover, Mark Andrew. Now that New Hampshire has approved "gay unions", he's talking wedding bells.