If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

IAccidentlyTheFleshlight

✖✖✖ IAccidentlyTheFleshlight ✖✖✖
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Says Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
-----------------------------♥----------------------------

How is me being against Gay Marriage make me a bad Christian/Person?
Don't get me wrong I'm not against them one bit, But I do think Marriage is a constitution between one male & one female.

Basically, you're seeking to disallow legal rights based on some kind of pseudo-religious nonsense. Marriage never was restricted to one male and one female. Not biblically, certainly.

Why should a fallacious appeal to religion negatively impact the very secular legality of marriage?

[comfortably_dumb]

Elf Lord Chiewn

IAccidentlyTheFleshlight

✖✖✖ IAccidentlyTheFleshlight ✖✖✖
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Says Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
-----------------------------♥----------------------------

How is me being against Gay Marriage make me a bad Christian/Person?
Don't get me wrong I'm not against them one bit, But I do think Marriage is a constitution between one male & one female.

Basically, you're seeking to disallow legal rights based on some kind of pseudo-religious nonsense. Marriage never was restricted to one male and one female. Not biblically, certainly.

Why should a fallacious appeal to religion negatively impact the very secular legality of marriage?

Is homosexual marriage in the Bible as being good? No? I didn't think so.
When God created Adam and Eve, were they man and woman? Yes? I thought so.
When He created Adam, did he say that man should not be alone, so he specifically created a woman, not another man? Yes? I thought so.
Did God say it was good? Yes? In fact, He said it was very good. I thought so.

Heterosexual marriage is biblical only.

[Blairnensha]

Elf Lord Chiewn

IAccidentlyTheFleshlight

✖✖✖ IAccidentlyTheFleshlight ✖✖✖
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Says Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
-----------------------------♥----------------------------

How is me being against Gay Marriage make me a bad Christian/Person?
Don't get me wrong I'm not against them one bit, But I do think Marriage is a constitution between one male & one female.

Basically, you're seeking to disallow legal rights based on some kind of pseudo-religious nonsense. Marriage never was restricted to one male and one female. Not biblically, certainly.

Why should a fallacious appeal to religion negatively impact the very secular legality of marriage?

Why should a fallacious appeal to secularity negatively impact the very religious legality of marriage?

Or rather, why should there be a legality of marriage at all?

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

comfortably_dumb

Elf Lord Chiewn

IAccidentlyTheFleshlight

✖✖✖ IAccidentlyTheFleshlight ✖✖✖
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Says Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
-----------------------------♥----------------------------

How is me being against Gay Marriage make me a bad Christian/Person?
Don't get me wrong I'm not against them one bit, But I do think Marriage is a constitution between one male & one female.

Basically, you're seeking to disallow legal rights based on some kind of pseudo-religious nonsense. Marriage never was restricted to one male and one female. Not biblically, certainly.

Why should a fallacious appeal to religion negatively impact the very secular legality of marriage?

Is homosexual marriage in the Bible as being good? No? I didn't think so.
When God created Adam and Eve, were they man and woman? Yes? I thought so.
When He created Adam, did he say that man should not be alone, so he specifically created a woman, not another man? Yes? I thought so.
Did God say it was good? Yes? In fact, He said it was very good. I thought so.

Heterosexual marriage is biblical only.

...what?
You're not even making proper sense in order to construct the fallacious argument I think you're attempting to make.

[comfortably_dumb]

Elf Lord Chiewn

comfortably_dumb

Elf Lord Chiewn

IAccidentlyTheFleshlight

✖✖✖ IAccidentlyTheFleshlight ✖✖✖
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Says Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
-----------------------------♥----------------------------

How is me being against Gay Marriage make me a bad Christian/Person?
Don't get me wrong I'm not against them one bit, But I do think Marriage is a constitution between one male & one female.

Basically, you're seeking to disallow legal rights based on some kind of pseudo-religious nonsense. Marriage never was restricted to one male and one female. Not biblically, certainly.

Why should a fallacious appeal to religion negatively impact the very secular legality of marriage?

Is homosexual marriage in the Bible as being good? No? I didn't think so.
When God created Adam and Eve, were they man and woman? Yes? I thought so.
When He created Adam, did he say that man should not be alone, so he specifically created a woman, not another man? Yes? I thought so.
Did God say it was good? Yes? In fact, He said it was very good. I thought so.

Heterosexual marriage is biblical only.

...what?
You're not even making proper sense in order to construct the fallacious argument I think you're attempting to make.

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

[Blairnensha]

comfortably_dumb

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

When&where did they get married?

[comfortably_dumb]

Blairnensha

comfortably_dumb

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

When&where did they get married?

I suppose it isn't quite literal, but can be assumed in:

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Adam left his Father (God) to be fruitful and multiply with Eve, like God asked.
Adam and Eve became one flesh when they were... being fruitful and multiplying.
Adam and Eve stood before each other, naked, and unashamed.

So, because of what they did, and because of Genesis 2:24, God's saying they were married.

[Blairnensha]

comfortably_dumb

Blairnensha

comfortably_dumb

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

When&where did they get married?

I suppose it isn't quite literal, but can be assumed in:

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Adam left his Father (God) to be fruitful and multiply with Eve, like God asked.
Adam and Eve became one flesh when they were... being fruitful and multiplying.
Adam and Eve stood before each other, naked, and unashamed.

So, because of what they did, and because of Genesis 2:24, God's saying they were married.

It "can be assumed"?

You realize that's a two-way street, right?

[comfortably_dumb]

Blairnensha

comfortably_dumb

Blairnensha

comfortably_dumb

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God created Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

When&where did they get married?

I suppose it isn't quite literal, but can be assumed in:

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Adam left his Father (God) to be fruitful and multiply with Eve, like God asked.
Adam and Eve became one flesh when they were... being fruitful and multiplying.
Adam and Eve stood before each other, naked, and unashamed.

So, because of what they did, and because of Genesis 2:24, God's saying they were married.

It "can be assumed"?

You realize that's a two-way street, right?

I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and is perfect. I believe that the reason that that verse was in the Bible after Eve's creation was so that it would be known that they were married.

Why else would it be there like that? Why else would Adam do all of those things for Eve, and Eve not be his wife?

[Blairnensha]

comfortably_dumb

Blairnensha

comfortably_dumb

I suppose it isn't quite literal, but can be assumed in:

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Adam left his Father (God) to be fruitful and multiply with Eve, like God asked.
Adam and Eve became one flesh when they were... being fruitful and multiplying.
Adam and Eve stood before each other, naked, and unashamed.

So, because of what they did, and because of Genesis 2:24, God's saying they were married.

It "can be assumed"?

You realize that's a two-way street, right?

I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, and is perfect. I believe that the reason that that verse was in the Bible after Eve's creation was so that it would be known that they were married.

Why else would it be there like that? Why else would Adam do all of those things for Eve, and Eve not be his wife?

If the Bible is perfect, then why would you believe something that requires you to make assumptions? I know the Bible has a lot of laws that are straightforward and don't require you to make any assumptions at all.

Anyway, God saw that Man was lonely. Why would he do all those things? Maybe because she was the only other person around?

[Totrue-Tufaar]

Let me speak about religion a bit. My Aunt and Uncle were a part of the Presbytarian Church. Their church, along with many others, have left the main group. Why? Not because the Council is getting close to changing the rules of allowing people to become priests. If a person is a non-practing homosexual, that is fine. But the changes would allow adulters, perverts, and practing homosexuals as priests.
The person sent to talk to the church actually yelled at the congregation about not telling the clergy what to do, and then a person quietly pointed out that he was wrong, and that that is why her son stopped being a pastor. The changing of the rules to be a priest that would allow active homosexuals and adulters to be priest and to force the churches to use them are besides the main point. The Presbytarian Church would do various other things that would defy belief, though would give a show of being "politically correct". These actions included funding anti-Israeli terrorists, funding abortionists, putting money into making those who have abortions feel better, and once being a part of the Sofia movement which claimed that God was a woman. Not a promising indication of the future.
I know I have sinned. I have several homosexual friends and treated them as well as I would anyone. They can be quiet reasonable. But not all people are. Yesterday a person said that homosexuals and bisexuals are smarter than heterosexuals because they do not have bias or see people by their sexual orientation. He did not see the irony. Another time when asking why a person said that "Everything was Jesus's fault" We got into a bit of a discussion. Which ended with several of his friends mocking me, shouting at me, etc. Admittedly, these two incidents happened on Gaia and the only real world interactions I would have with homosexuals would perhaps be my friends from school, and ultraliberal calling most of the people who made up the Army homophobes, and two incidents in which a guy smacked my rear and laughed at me. Though he was probably just a jerk.

[Lord Setar]

Totrue-Tufaar

Let me speak about religion a bit. My Aunt and Uncle were a part of the Presbytarian Church. Their church, along with many others, have left the main group. Why? Not because the Council is getting close to changing the rules of allowing people to become priests. If a person is a non-practing homosexual, that is fine. But the changes would allow adulters, perverts, and practing homosexuals as priests.

What's so bad about the last one?

Totrue-Tufaar

The person sent to talk to the church actually yelled at the congregation about not telling the clergy what to do, and then a person quietly pointed out that he was wrong, and that that is why her son stopped being a pastor. The changing of the rules to be a priest that would allow active homosexuals and adulters to be priest and to force the churches to use them are besides the main point. The Presbytarian Church would do various other things that would defy belief, though would give a show of being "politically correct". These actions included...funding abortionists,

What's so bad about this?

Totrue-Tufaar

putting money into making those who have abortions feel better,

What's so bad about this?

Totrue-Tufaar

and once being a part of the Sofia movement which claimed that God was a woman. Not a promising indication of the future.

Why not? Oh, and last time I checked your god is all about being everything and nothing, etc., etc...so wouldn't that mean your god is both male and female?

[Totrue-Tufaar]

Lord Setar

What's so bad about the last one?

You don't question the other two? It is undermining the individual churches, the feelings of those in it, and ignores Scipture. They churchmembers wish to have someone a to be able to listen to without being a blaring hypocrite. The examples I gave would be of priests being actively practing, unrepentedly sins. Having the council change the rules of ordainment just so that they can get in it doesn't help.

Lord Setar

What's so bad about this?

Infantcide is not a good thing. Why should the head honchos be putting money into something that the people don't support, believe is a sin, etc.

Lord Setar

What's so bad about this?

They do not support abortion. We be putting time and money into doing that when they can help orphans, the homeless, etcetera.

Lord Setar

Why not? Oh, and last time I checked your god is all about being everything and nothing, etc., etc...so wouldn't that mean your god is both male and female?

The Bible refers to him as the Father. Nothing to suggest otherwise. God just wished to be refered to as that. He is above gender. And I am not quite so sure about your "everything and nothing" thing.

I see you didn't question funding of anti-Israeli groups.

[linaloki]

comfortably_dumb

Is homosexual marriage in the Bible as being good? No? I didn't think so.

Is it in there as being bad? No? I didn't think so.

comfortably_dumb

When God created Adam and Eve, were they man and woman? Yes? I thought so.

When God created Adam and Eve, were they naked and of the same race? Yes? I thought so.

comfortably_dumb

When He created Adam, did he say that man should not be alone, so he specifically created a woman, not another man? Yes? I thought so.

When He created Adam, did He not create animals for him to find a partner amongst first? Yes? I thought so.

comfortably_dumb

Did God say it was good? Yes? In fact, He said it was very good. I thought so.

Instead of mocking you, I'm calling BS.

comfortably_dumb

Heterosexual marriage is biblical only.

Your grammar here sucks, considering you've just suggested that heterosexual marriage is only a Biblical concept. Meaning it isn't existent IRL.

[linaloki]

comfortably_dumb

Where in the Bible does it say that homosexual marriage is, you know, biblical? I'd like a verse, please, because you do say it's biblical.

He said a one man, one woman marital restriction is not Biblical. Find me a verse where God says "One man, one woman in marriage, and none else".

comfortably_dumb

And about Adam and Eve -- God created Adam first, yes? God said that it was not right for Adam to be alone, so God create

Animals. Then...

comfortably_dumb

Eve for Adam. God didn't create a man for Adam, but a woman. Furthermore, God said that it was very good... as in the new relationship between a man and a woman. We were created for relationship, and this being between one man and one woman as seen in Genesis.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. God never said Adam + Eve was good, or even very good. You are wrong. We are NOT created for such a relationship, as Jesus points out in his lesson about "eunuchs," or people not meant to marry women. Further, David. Solomon. Jacob. None had one wife. They had more than one. They were all blessed and part of the lineage of Joseph, Mary's husband.