Born again spouse wont attend gay wedding...should I care ?

[twinsmom]

Fair enough. I was just curious, because so many men ARE "grossed out" by the thought of men together, but titillated by women together, and that just seems so hypocritical. Thanks for clarifying.

[Namul]

Good. Don't be proud of that.

 

(And I would have left it at that except I'm being told my message is too short.)

 

I think there is something to be said for succinctness.

 

 

I have no pride left in me (that I can think of).

 

I was just being honest. In the words of John Hendryx "if we affirm that we are no better ... and but for the grace of God we would be worse, then there is little to no danger of a message that unnecessarily offends. If we are fellow beggars just pointing the way to bread then it is the opposite of self-righteousness"

[Corporate]

No not at all. I am straight and to be honest being at a gay male bachelor party would make me uncomfortable.

 

So, there was a gay male bachelor party?

[Samantha0905]

He shouldn't necessarily be ashamed of it either. You don't have to like something to tolerate and accept it. A person can be all for gays getting married while at the same time repulsed by the sight of two men making out.

 

I'm not a big P.D.A. type of person and feel uncomfortable at times around people who are participating in it. I don't feel "repulsed" however.

 

I never think of homosexual parts on television or the movies as homosexuality being "shoved down our throats." For instance, I love the show "Brothers and Sisters" and simply think the male couple on that show are a homosexual couple. I actually think one of them is dang cute and wish he liked me instead. It doesn't repulse me when they kiss. Why would it?

 

I wonder if homosexuals are "repulsed" by heterosexuals kissing on television shows or in the movies? If so (which I doubt), they certainly have to endure a lot more of that than we do homosexuals kissing.

 

Fair enough. I was just curious, because so many men ARE "grossed out" by the thought of men together, but titillated by women together, and that just seems so hypocritical. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I haven't met many men who aren't titillated by that, but have been told by a couple of men they aren't interested in such activity.

 

I have no pride left in me (that I can think of).

 

I was just being honest. In the words of John Hendryx "if we affirm that we are no better ... and but for the grace of God we would be worse, then there is little to no danger of a message that unnecessarily offends. If we are fellow beggars just pointing the way to bread then it is the opposite of self-righteousness"

 

I think we all have some pride left in us and I'm not saying that to be smarmy with you. In any event, I've enjoyed your posts and appreciate your honesty. I was simply honestly sharing my thoughts on that particular part of your post.

[Jack & Coke]

I'm not a big P.D.A. type of person and feel uncomfortable at times around people who are participating in it. I don't feel "repulsed" however.

 

I never think of homosexual parts on television or the movies as homosexuality being "shoved down our throats." For instance, I love the show "Brothers and Sisters" and simply think the male couple on that show are a homosexual couple. I actually think one of them is dang cute and wish he liked me instead. It doesn't repulse me when they kiss. Why would it?

 

I wonder if homosexuals are "repulsed" by heterosexuals kissing on television shows or in the movies? If so (which I doubt), they certainly have to endure a lot more of that than we do homosexuals kissing.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that. I just think that people are well within their right to feel however they do, it's the action that defines them. He can be repulsed by homosexual activity yet still love that person as a brother/sister in Christ.

[fit]

He shouldn't necessarily be ashamed of it either. You don't have to like something to tolerate and accept it. A person can be all for gays getting married while at the same time repulsed by the sight of two men making out.

OK but wouldnt you also be repulsed by watching 2 400 lb people have sex ? or make out for that matter ?

How about Danny Devito and Kathy bates ? w wou d that gross you out ?

[Jack & Coke]

OK but wouldnt you also be repulsed by watching 2 400 lb people have sex ? or make out for that matter ?

How about Danny Devito and Kathy bates ? w wou d that gross you out ?

 

Once again, I'm not speaking for myself personally. But either way the point remains. My point is You don't have to like ______, to tolerate and accept it. Insert 400 lb people having sex or the Danny Devito example and the point remains the same. A person (ANYONE. Not naming somebody in particular) isn't necessarily wrong for disliking something as long as they're tolerant and respectful. I don't understand what you're getting at...

Edited July 7, 2010 by Jack & Coke

[taiko]

Once again, I'm not speaking for myself personally. But either way the point remains. My point is You don't have to like ______, to tolerate and accept it. Insert 400 lb people having sex or the Danny Devito example and the point remains the same. A person (ANYONE. Not naming somebody in particular) isn't necessarily wrong for disliking something as long as they're tolerant and respectful. I don't understand what you're getting at...

The 400lb couple is supposed to stand in for the big gotcha. i am truly following a similar should we or should we not attend a wedding on the Catholic answers forum only the reason is that one party was baptized, to appease the grandparents and the church rules as they see it, but not raised as a Catholic. Now the same arguments about can one support this invalid union are being made as in the case for same sex union.

[Samantha0905]

And there's nothing wrong with that. I just think that people are well within their right to feel however they do, it's the action that defines them. He can be repulsed by homosexual activity yet still love that person as a brother/sister in Christ.

 

We're in agreement. I wish the loving part shone more brightly in many Christians. I think the repulsion shows more. (I'm not speaking of Namul's post here.) I think as a nation many are so repulsed by homosexuality it is to the point of not allowing homosexuals to marry. This goes way beyond the personal human freedom to feel however we do personally about homosexuality. It truly is a civil rights violation based in bigotry. I'm saying that from the viewpoint of this being America and as Americans we all have certain unalienable rights.

 

Even if those who are Christians want to claim marriage is between a man and a woman, this should not effect whether or not homosexuals should be able to get married legally. Americans who don't believe in God have a civil ceremony. They are still able to marry. You don't hear Christians complaining about non-Christians getting married who are opposite sex couples. How absurd would that be? We are a freedom of religion country. Yet they claim homosexuals can't get married because they are "sinning." Non-believers get married without even recognizing God and/or Jesus. Seems that would be a greater sin to these Christians waving their righteousness protest flags than say -- homosexuals who believe in God and Jesus. I'm not saying that should be the case -- just pointing out a confusing oddity.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but America has freedom of religion right? Jewish people don't believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but they get married right? Buddhists can get married here right? Atheists can get married here...... Why are we "allowing" them to marry? LOL All of that was tongue in cheek. This is America. I don't think religious beliefs should be the basis for not allowing people to marry. I don't even think of homosexuality as a sin. Does that make me not a Christian? I'm sure my sincere belief in Jesus Christ as God's Son makes me one, but maybe I read something incorrectly.

 

For that matter, some churches recognize gay marriage, so homosexuals could be married in one of those churches in a religious ceremony.

 

It simply makes no sense in America in this day and time for it to be illegal for homosexuals to marry.

 

I may seem to have gone off on a tangent here, but I really do see how this "repulsion" has become so strong it is effecting the civil rights of others.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Samantha0905

[pureinheart]

I guess the same reason you're not threadjacking........

 

My son was raised with the Truth, which includes Love.

 

Perhaps it's small minded to think everyone should be held forcibly to one truth. This is actually a civil rights argument and to tell homosexuals they can't marry is a violation of their civil rights in America.

 

Who is holding you to one truth? If your son was raised with the truth that it is ok to be homosexual, then he is in fact following through with the teaching he was raised with.

 

CN taught her sons the truth of the Bible which states that homosexuality is in fact sin, they followed through with that teaching...

 

FTR Roe v Wade was based on a lie...Norma McCorvey was never raped, which is what that Supreme Court case was based on.

Edited July 8, 2010 by pureinheart

[pureinheart]

We're in agreement. I wish the loving part shone more brightly in many Christians. I think the repulsion shows more. (I'm not speaking of Namul's post here.) I think as a nation many are so repulsed by homosexuality it is to the point of not allowing homosexuals to marry. This goes way beyond the personal human freedom to feel however we do personally about homosexuality. It truly is a civil rights violation based in bigotry. I'm saying that from the viewpoint of this being America and as Americans we all have certain unalienable rights.

 

Even if those who are Christians want to claim marriage is between a man and a woman, this should not effect whether or not homosexuals should be able to get married legally. Americans who don't believe in God have a civil ceremony. They are still able to marry. You don't hear Christians complaining about non-Christians getting married who are opposite sex couples. How absurd would that be? We are a freedom of religion country. Yet they claim homosexuals can't get married because they are "sinning." Non-believers get married without even recognizing God and/or Jesus. Seems that would be a greater sin to these Christians waving their righteousness protest flags than say -- homosexuals who believe in God and Jesus. I'm not saying that should be the case -- just pointing out a confusing oddity.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but America has freedom of religion right? Jewish people don't believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but they get married right? Buddhists can get married here right? Atheists can get married here...... Why are we "allowing" them to marry? LOL All of that was tongue in cheek. This is America. I don't think religious beliefs should be the basis for not allowing people to marry. I don't even think of homosexuality as a sin. Does that make me not a Christian? I'm sure my sincere belief in Jesus Christ as God's Son makes me one, but maybe I read something incorrectly.

 

For that matter, some churches recognize gay marriage, so homosexuals could be married in one of those churches in a religious ceremony.

 

It simply makes no sense in America in this day and time for it to be illegal for homosexuals to marry.

 

I may seem to have gone off on a tangent here, but I really do see how this "repulsion" has become so strong it is effecting the civil rights of others.

 

Is homosexuality a religion? Now it's also a civil rights matter? Wow, and people wonder why this country is in the shape it's in...and now Christianity has come to this? This is way too much, even for me...you all have fun...

[Samantha0905]

Who is holding you to one truth? If your son was raised with the truth that it is ok to be homosexual, then he is in fact following through with the teaching he was raised with.

 

Now that's really twisting things. He was born a homosexual. We didn't teach him to be one. He was told about God and Jesus and he chose to be a Christian.

 

I'm glad you don't have a homosexual son.

 

CN taught her sons the truth of the Bible which states that homosexuality is in fact sin, they followed through with that teaching...

 

She can teach her sons what she wants.

 

FTR Roe v Wade was based on a lie...Norma McCorvey was never raped, which is what that Supreme Court case was based on.

 

Regardless of what you think of Roe v. Wade, I'm pro choice as I've stated yet would not choose to have an abortion and hope others do not.

[Samantha0905]

Is homosexuality a religion?

 

More twisting. Where did I say that?

 

Now it's also a civil rights matter? Wow, and people wonder why this country is in the shape it's in...and now Christianity has come to this? This is way too much, even for me...you all have fun...

 

It's definitely a civil rights violation.

 

"Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent?

 

Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have.

 

The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it."

 

(link below)

 

Christianity has come to what?

 

You know I probably shouldn't have responded to you at all because I'm still quite appalled you think people "teach" people to be homosexual. Or you think by me saying "Son, it's not good for you to be homosexual. It is a sin" that all of a sudden his homosexuality would leave the building.

 

A person's homosexuality isn't just about sex. It's about who they are as a person. It's not a choice any more than a person being heterosexual is a choice. It's a state of being.

 

In any event, I have responded and I have read what you've written because I think discourse is the only way to clear up some misunderstandings or to try to understand where someone with a different opinion is "coming from."

 

I've found an excellent essay about the subject if anyone is interested. It covers many of the arguments against gay marriage, along with discussions refuting said arguments, in a civil discussion presented by someone who is homosexual.

 

It's refreshing and presents a perfectly logical discussion of why the Bible can't be used as a solid argument against legalizing gay marriage.

 

It even covers the "ick" factor (repulsion) which was discussed earlier in this thread.

 

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

 

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

 

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

[flying]

FTR Roe v Wade was based on a lie...Norma McCorvey was never raped, which is what that Supreme Court case was based on.

 

For the record, this is absolutely not true.

 

Norma McCorvey did initially claim she had been raped when she tried to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. That didn't work, and she admitted she lied.

 

Later, when the case went to the Supreme Court, she had already admitted that she wasn't raped, and "rape" never appears anywhere in the case whatsoever. Rape simply wasn't part of Roe v. Wade in any way, let alone what the case was "based on."

[gamma1]

Who is holding you to one truth? If your son was raised with the truth that it is ok to be homosexual, then he is in fact following through with the teaching he was raised with.

People are born that way. I can't believe it's still not obvious to some people.

 

I was born heterosexual. I'm only attracted to women. I've never been attracted to a single guy all my life. Not once. I can't explain why I am wired a certain way deep inside me, but there's absolutely no way I can change that.

 

If someone is born homosexual, it's the exact same thing except they are attracted to people of the same sex. They can't change and trying to force them to change is cruel. It would be like forcing me to be attracted to other males. It's just not possible.

Is homosexuality a religion? Now it's also a civil rights matter? Wow, and people wonder why this country is in the shape it's in...and now Christianity has come to this? This is way too much, even for me...you all have fun...

It is absolutely a civil rights matter.

 

Giving gay people the same rights as straight people is "too much for you"? Really?

 

One reason why the country is in the shape it's in is that so many people can't accept those that are different from themselves.

[califnan]

 

It's refreshing and presents a perfectly logical discussion of why the Bible can't be used as a solid argument against legalizing gay marriage.

 

 

---------------------

 

The Bible is The solid source against all sins.

 

Any one who wishes to pursue their own ideas of how to live their lives as far as what they consider "civil rights" .. could find backup from many .. incl Supreme Court Justices .. After all, the court set radical legalized abortion (baby killing) in motion ..

 

If we don't follow God's Word, at the end of the day - we do reap.

[Samantha0905]

---------------------

 

The Bible is The solid source against all sins.

 

Any one who wishes to pursue their own ideas of how to live their lives as far as what they consider "civil rights" .. could find backup from many .. incl Supreme Court Justices .. After all, the court set radical legalized abortion (baby killing) in motion ..

 

If we don't follow God's Word, at the end of the day - we do reap.

 

Did you read this part?

 

Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change. Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like.

 

How about Deuteronomy 25:5-10, for example: "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying 'I have no desire to marry her,' then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and declare 'This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.'"

 

If the Bible is sacred and inviolate when it comes to the institution of marriage, then the above passage and all the other inconvenient ones require reverence too, do they not? If the Christian is going to say, well, that's old, quaint and should no longer be expected to apply, well, then, that's exactly the point! The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it. Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress.

 

 

He makes a valid point. I understand Christians who feel they need to follow what they perceive the Bible to say in their own lives as far as marriage is concerned. Do you understand, however, not all share the exact same beliefs? Therefore, as a country which practices religious freedom and declares there are certain unalienable rights which should be available to all citizens, America should not make it legal for 90% of its population to marry and illegal for 10% of its population to marry based on sexual orientation.

 

Google recently took a bold step in relation to this blatant civil rights violation. It's a step in the right direction.

[xxoo]

---------------------

 

The Bible is The solid source against all sins.

 

Any one who wishes to pursue their own ideas of how to live their lives as far as what they consider "civil rights" .. could find backup from many .. incl Supreme Court Justices .. After all, the court set radical legalized abortion (baby killing) in motion ..

 

If we don't follow God's Word, at the end of the day - we do reap.

 

All your religious opinion.

 

But that's ok. Our country's laws protect your right to express your religious opinion peacefully.

 

Similarly, our country's laws need to protect the rights of same sex couples.

[taiko]

All this convenient "cherry picking" out of the bible is ridiculous and reveals the hypocrisy of many of these so-called "christians."

 

I'm curious who is picking the person who goes to a same sex union ceremony or the one who doesn't? The person who attends a wedding outside of church walls without their Bishops permission or the one who doesn't? The person who cheers on a fat person at an eating contest or the one who refuses?

[ComputerJock]

If your wife won't go to the gay wedding will you divorce her? How important to you is attendence at a gay wedding?

[twinsmom]

Pureinheart opposes loving homosexual relationships, and believes they are sinful, but apparently condones adulterous affairs, of which she was a party. But wait..I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that. Waiting..waiting...

[Eye of Hourus]

As Twinsmom said.....

 

Pureinheart opposes loving homosexual relationships, and believes they are sinful, but apparently condones adulterous affairs, of which she was a party. But wait..I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that. Waiting..waiting...

 

Deuteronomy 22:22"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

 

 

Leviticus 20:10"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

 

"Give me that ole time religion"

 

 

 

The Eye

Edited July 9, 2010 by Eye of Hourus
Perfidity

[gamma1]

Pureinheart opposes loving homosexual relationships, and believes they are sinful, but apparently condones adulterous affairs, of which she was a party. But wait..I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that. Waiting..waiting...

The hypocrisy of so many of the fundamentalists is mind boggling.

[califnan]

Pureinheart opposes loving homosexual relationships, and believes they are sinful, but apparently condones adulterous affairs, of which she was a party. But wait..I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for that. Waiting..waiting...

 

------------------

 

Since you're intent on bashing other posters - I'll answer for Pure.

 

She uses her prev experiences to try to help and minister to others. She has Never said she (we) aren't sinners. And she has repented.

 

It's not as if she is on here bashing Christians, condoning, adultery, homosexuality, abortions.. and sins in general.. Nor will you find Pure giving excuse to sin.

[califnan]

The hypocrisy of so many of the fundamentalists is mind boggling.

 

------------------

 

and the hatred and excuses of others..