Black pastors bash NAACP for endorsing gay marriage

[CrazyPaul]

Just curious. Some have said that marriage is all about love, some said it's about children, some said it's about legal rights, etc. Apparently there is no consensus about what marriage means.

Marriage means a bond between two adults until death. They marry for many reasons such as true love, companionship, growing a family, tax purposes, health benefits, inheritance and much more. There are loveless marriages as well as childless marriages.

 

[TXgolfer]

No, do not treat me as second class citizen!

How is that treating anyone like a second class citizen??? It allows you to have your tax and SS "benefit" and allows you to marry at a church willing to perform such a marriage. Are you saying this entire fight is about vocabulary rather than rights or love?

 

[Berry]

I don't know about other people but I've never said that "certain sexual acts are a worse sin than murder."

This thread started out about same-sex marriage, and then moved into interracial marriage and shrimp eating, then Galileo, and now you're including murder.

Time to refocus.

I do not believe there was a "move" too interracial marriage from same-sex marriage as the arguments against both are the same. I was told as a child that being a product of miscegenation -- that is white blood and Native American blood -- I was the product of a union that was "an abomination to both God and man".

I am now told by religious people that same-sex marriage is "an abomination to both God and man".

Of course now most Christians see being anti-interracial marriage as "unenlightened".

I believe most future Christians will see the current intolerant attitudes in the same light.

 

[rolling7]

that's not what I said.

What I said is this.... as the humanity progresses as we're becoming more unified and understanding, the less bigotry and ignorance there are.

Thousands, upon thousands of years of mankind's history tell us you are wrong.
Where is DeafCaroline when we need her.

 

[Berry]

It most certainly is. Fornication is still a sin.


I'm afraid you have either misunderstood what happened, or you chose to mislead with your statement.

One of us has misunderstood the import of the story.

On a personal level I do not see the story as a tale of morals at all. I see it as a story about the disastrous consequences of greed, to society, to the individual, and to the power structure, regardless of what that greed might be for, whether money, women, or possession of a stolen Cezanne.

Solomon had all the women he needed, and was still righteous in the eyes of God.

But he STILL had to have one more at all costs.

 

[Reba]

I do not believe there was a "move" too interracial marriage from same-sex marriage as the arguments against both are the same. I was told as a child that being a product of miscegenation -- that is white blood and Native American blood -- I was the product of a union that was "an abomination to both God and man".

Well, they told you wrong. They had no Scripture to support that statement.

I am now told by religious people that same-sex marriage is "an abomination to both God and man".

Homosexual sex in itself is a sin, so mocking marriage as the union that God established would also be a sin. Being a different "race" (if there is such a thing) is not a sin.

Of course now most Christians see being anti-interracial marriage as "unenlightened".

I believe most future Christians will see the current intolerant attitudes in the same light.

They really can't be compared. But it is possible that some churches will go that direction, as some already have. That doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they go with the flow, as they do in other doctrines.

 

[Foxrac]

How is that treating anyone like a second class citizen??? It allows you to have your tax and SS "benefit" and allows you to marry at a church willing to perform such a marriage. Are you saying this entire fight is about vocabulary rather than rights or love?

It is about fight over vocabulary.

I don't accept civil unions.

 

[Reba]

One of us has misunderstood the import of the story....

There is no import of the story if it's not even told accurately.

 

[Berry]

There is no import of the story if it's not even told accurately.

My apologies. It has been a long time since I read the Bible.

It was Solomon's father, David, who caused Uriah's death so he could possess Bathsheba, Solomon's mother.

To my mind a trivial detail. The story is still the same. Lots of money, lots of power, lots of women, lots of greed.

And still there is no condemnation for all that intra and extra marital sex. Both father and son had more than enough wives and concubines to keep them occupied. And nowhere was it condemned.

 

[Reba]

My apologies. It has been a long time since I read the Bible.

It was Solomon's father, David, who caused Uriah's death so he could possess Bathsheba, Solomon's mother.

To my mind a trivial detail. The story is still the same. Lots of money, lots of power, lots of women, lots of greed.

And still there is no condemnation for all that intra and extra marital sex. Both father and son had more than enough wives and concubines to keep them occupied. And nowhere was it condemned.

It was most certainly condemned by God in the Bible. Because of David's sin, his child with Bathsheba died, and David lost the respect of his people. Because of Solomon's sin, his kingdom was divided and torn apart for generations to follow. Both David and Solomon lost other friends and familiy members as a result of their sins. Their entire nation suffered for what they did. There were many repercussions to the sins that they both committed.

Going back to Abraham, his sin of sex outside marriage had very long term, widespread bad consequences.

God included their stories in the Bible as warnings to us about the consequences of sin. I don't see how it's possible to say they weren't condemned for what they did.

 

[TXgolfer]

It is about fight over vocabulary.

I don't accept civil unions.

Well at least you admit it..... most won't.

Such a petty argument won't garner much sympathy.

 

[Berry]

It was most certainly condemned by God in the Bible. Because of David's sin, his child with Bathsheba died, and David lost the respect of his people. Because of Solomon's sin, his kingdom was divided and torn apart for generations to follow. Both David and Solomon lost other friends and familiy members as a result of their sins. Their entire nation suffered for what they did. There were many repercussions to the sins that they both committed.

Going back to Abraham, his sin of sex outside marriage had very long term, widespread bad consequences.

God included their stories in the Bible as warnings to us about the consequences of sin. I don't see how it's possible to say they weren't condemned for what they did.

So how does a gay person win this game?

If they have sex with each other outside of marriage they have committed a sin (Is it a mortal sin?) but they can't marry because that is not approved of.

Seems gay people are in a no win situation here.

How is that to be remedied?

 

[rockin'robin]

So how does a gay person win this game?

If they have sex with each other outside of marriage they have committed a sin (Is it a mortal sin?) but they can't marry because that is not approved of.

Seems gay people are in a no win situation here.

How is that to be remedied?

Beats me...but since I'm not gay, no answer to that. Then again, sex was and IMO, is sacred. But seems it's not anymore, but there are those who still believe it is. And rightly so.

 

[caz12]

it really sad when gays got fight for basic human rights for tax and other benifits that hetro get...but if you really feel church marriage is only way to go then i believe the quakers do not discriminate

 

[TXgolfer]

So how does a gay person win this game?

If they have sex with each other outside of marriage they have committed a sin (Is it a mortal sin?) but they can't marry because that is not approved of.

Seems gay people are in a no win situation here.

How is that to be remedied?

By choosing abstinence. Of course most aren't going to want to do that.... And that is their choice. But abstinence is the only remedy for the scenario you presented.

 

[Berry]

Beats me...but since I'm not gay, no answer to that. Then again, sex was and IMO, is sacred. But seems it's not anymore, but there are those who still believe it is. And rightly so.

Sex hardly seems sacred. We share it with all manner of disgusting creatures. Flies, worms, snakes, and octopi, among others.

Sex is like a walk on the beach. You can enjoy it all by yourself. You can enjoy it with a stranger, or with a friend. The more you care for the one you are with the more pleasant the journey.

For some reason many people insist God has an unhealthy obsession with how people conduct their sexuality. Seems a petty trait for an omnipotent being to have.

 

[Berry]

By choosing abstinence. Of course most aren't going to want to do that.... And that is their choice. But abstinence is the only remedy for the scenario you presented.

Seems as though abstinence might be worth it if you believe you will be rewarded sufficiently in the hereafter. Perhaps eternity in Heaven. However I am not sure what the point of life everlasting is if you cannot spend it with the people you love expressing that love in the way you choose.

Seems like Heaven would be hell for a gay person.

Come to think of it, when I was a kid a preacher described Heaven to me as this beautiful city with streets of gold. Problem is I don't like cities.

Can I trade my stay in Heaven in on a trip to the Garden of Eden?

 

[rockin'robin]

Sex hardly seems sacred. We share it with all manner of disgusting creatures. Flies, worms, snakes, and octopi, among others.

Sex is like a walk on the beach. You can enjoy it all by yourself. You can enjoy it with a stranger, or with a friend. The more you care for the one you are with the more pleasant the journey.

For some reason many people insist God has an unhealthy obsession with how people conduct their sexuality. Seems a petty trait for an omnipotent being to have.

Well, Berry, I do respect you and your opinions. But we differ here. I take care of my body, I don't abuse it with multiple sex partners, or like you said "sex is like a walk on the beach".....It's sacred to me, so is my body. At age 65, I've known many, many female friends who have come to me, very upset with themselves and their past, having multiple partners, even diseases...being called an "easy lay"....even a whore....No pride within themselves at all.

And the new "trend" today among teenagers/middle-schoolers today, is that now girls pressure the boys for Sex.....not visa-versa....It's happened to both of my teenage boys. They both at ages 15 and 17 are still virgins, and soon to be 16 and 18....So what do they call girls like this? ...."Sluts"....

 

[deafskeptic]

So how does a gay person win this game?

If they have sex with each other outside of marriage they have committed a sin (Is it a mortal sin?) but they can't marry because that is not approved of.

Seems gay people are in a no win situation here.

How is that to be remedied?

It's a case of heads you win and tails i lose. It's a catch 22 that's for sure.

 

[deafskeptic]

By choosing abstinence. Of course most aren't going to want to do that.... And that is their choice. But abstinence is the only remedy for the scenario you presented.

If we were to follow Reba's views on this subject on both straight and gay sex, I think most peole would find it more than a bit frustrating..