I am not here to state who is going to hell or who is righteous or not. I am here to ask this question: why are homosexuals so bent on calling what they want "marriage"? First, from its origin, marriage does not reflect the model that the homosexual community is presenting----the same gender being joined as life partners. Second, the concept of "marriage" is a biblical endeavor whose standard is set with the first man and woman. “Marriage” is to join separate and complimenting components merging, bonding or blending them. How can joining two separates that are the same represent a complimenting circumstance? To say testosterone can compliment testosterone is to say a lamp compliments a lamp rather than a bulb being the complimenting factor. Just as attempting to join two separate north poles from two separate magnets represents conflict and an anti-marital environment by nature of their structural content so does the concept and attempt to create “Same Sex Marriage”.

 Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between GOD and his creation; displaying the love, provision and interaction that He communicates along with man's role as expected to show gratitude as well as reciprocating love and interaction is only part of what's to be mirrored. Also, in a marriage, commonly, it is rightfully assumed that a couple will reproduce or "procreate" which furthers this reflection of the marriage mirroring GOD's dealings with man whereas GOD "creates". Even in a case where a man and a woman are joined and cannot (whether the problem lies in the man or the woman physically) procreate it at least has the appearance of the possibility of procreation.

 The pretentious petition for “same sex marriage” is an attempt to make a mockery of faith and of its essence is to Edge God Out! Marriage holds for mankind a reminder that GOD is a Great Creator, in fact, the Creator of all things. Every time a child is born it is a reminder of the awesomeness of creation. Life is first in the man delivered to the woman for her to carry for a hopeful 9 months. This is why we call GOD a “He”, not because He has gender in His Spirit form but because He “is the first cause of a thing”. A homosexual couple cannot represent this possibility which is why it would be redefining “marriage” to ultimately become something that is not Marriage at all.

 It is evident to me that the attempt of the homosexual community is indeed pretentious. I firmly believe that those for “same sex marriage” have set out to “DESTIGMATIZE” homosexuality and are on a quest to normalize its lifestyle. In doing this they are doing to others what they don’t appreciate having done to them; they are disregarding the faith, convictions and a wholesome societal paradigm for a selfish behavioral cause AS homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and not an ETHNICITY. Though I am not for same sex unions at all, I ask, why not call it something else if these attempts to legalize such unions have no ulterior motives?    

 

Sincerely,

C.E. Burns Jr.

 http://www.nwitimes.com/lifestyles/article_823bcc05-4d11-5377-8331-...

Please share with anyone that argues what GOD says about marriage.

Views: 41

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

My brother,

You called this an analytical discussion but your premises fail to meet the standard of objective analysis.  An analytial argument does not contain generalizations.

Generalization:

I am here to ask this question: why are homosexuals so bent on calling what they want "marriage"?   You assume that all homosexuals want to marry.  How many have you interview before you maid this specious claim.?

 

Ridiculous claim:

First, from its origin, marriage does not reflect the model that the homosexual community is presenting----the same gender being joined as life partners

The first recorded marriages were between one man and several women.  I am sure you have read about the marriages in the Bible.  so in one respect you are right the homosexual community has not been vocal on polygamous marriage.

 

A "dud" moment:

You stated "Marriage” is to join separate and complimenting components merging, bonding or blending them.

These men married many women.  Enough said.

 

Baseless presumption:

Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between GOD and his creation; displaying the love, provision and interaction that He communicates along with man's role as expected to show gratitude as well as reciprocating love and interaction is only part of what's to be mirrored

Is this your opinion or do you have some other verifiable source of information?

 

What?  You wrote Also, in a marriage, commonly, it is rightfully assumed that a couple will reproduce or "procreate" which furthers this reflection of the marriage mirroring GOD's dealings with man whereas GOD "creates".

Never make an assumption in an analytical argument.  To say that one assumes that couples will have offspring is really a far reaching conclusion that is not substantiated by any fact.

 

Norman or Not?

You wrote " I firmly believe that those for “same sex marriage” have set out to “DESTIGMATIZE” homosexuality and are on a quest to normalize its lifestyle.  How do you determine what is normal.  Great philosophers, scientists and other scholars have not been able to determine where the "norm" is but you seem to have arrived at a provable concept of normality.  WOnderful  please share with these learned people how you did it.

 

Just plain DUmb

 

You wrote homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and not an ETHNICITY.  Do you know what an ethnicity is?  Ethnicity refers to race.  You do yourself an injustice to make a statement as ignorant as this. 

 

There are stupid people who are saying that legalizing homosexual unions would destroy heterosexual marriage.  But the divorce rate according to statistics by the department of State is almost at 50%.  Now the only way that homosexual mariage will destroy a marriage is if one of the partners in the supposedly heterosexual marriage is really gay and decides to live their life as a honosexual.

Before you attempt an analytical argument you may want to get an understand on how to analyze  It is obvious that you do not know.

Thank you for unequivocally sharing your position on this matter Evangelist.
Oh by the way,  I find your posiiton equivocal

Jesus asserted the following about marriage: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Jesus identified the relationship between Adam and Eve as the model for marriage. By his definition you are right to assert that "same-sex marriage"

 

I think you are mostly right about the motivations of the proponents of gay marriage. States like New York, where I live, already recognize civil unions for gays. But this does not satisfy the most ardent activists... they want to call their unions "marriages" because, as one advocate phrased it, "marriage is an institution/ ritual/ relationship that has existed for thousands of years, one that has tremendous resonance in our culture in a way that civil unions simply don't." The activists insist that, with civil unions, same-sex couples are “second-class citizens” who may be treated less favorably than opposite-sex couples. I have never seen an advocate explain why civil unions, if crafted to replicate the rights afforded to married couples, are legally insufficient; this is not so much a legal effort as a campaign for public validation.

 

If you work in a hospital setting and see a child born with both sets of male and female genetalia then what do you say.  What scripture do you dredge up to explain that phenomena?

when a woman marries and falls ill and finds that shewas orn with undescended testicles what word of go do you use for this incident,  It sorts of kick the heck out of god made adam and eve not adam and steve,  God made everyone  just like they are.

"Evangelist" Alim, I still don't follow. Your comparison is between an anatomical state of being versus a sexual, which is behavioral, orientation. I don't see an "apples to apples" juxtaposition in your rebuttal.

My premise is set forth in the sound argument of my first post.  Do you put a label on individuals with 2 sets of genetailia?  are they gay or are they both hetero or homo sexual.  I am saying that during gestation some strange things happen cause by the inbalance of the hormones that the fetus is exposed to.  I am saying if what appears t be a woman has undescended genetals then is that person gay or what and did he/she choose to be gay?  I also hear a lot of uneducated preachers maintain that animals never have same sex sex.  I would like for them to read something other than the bible.  It happens in the animal kingdon frequestly.

Evangelist, the American Medical Association categorizes hermaphroditism as an abnormality; are you making a parallel between hermaphroditism and homosexuality? I wonder what the gay lobby would say about that?

 

It is important to remember that since the fall of mankind, sin has permeated the created world; this explains why the human race has been bombarded with every kind of sickness, disease, disorder and birth defect imaginable. This does not mean, however, that disorder and abnormality is the perfect will of God. When a child is born with a cleft palate, we don''t just leave her that way, reasoning, "Well, God made everyone just like they are." No, we call it an abnormality and attempt to repair or treat it.

Well said Brother Joseph.

The AMA is a body of practicioneers who seek to advance the knwledge of the medical community.  Where did you get your information from.  You probably should look at the American Psychological Association because they are the bodyof scientists who look at the things  that are "different" that whay laypeople call normal.  The American Psychological once considered homosexuality as "abnormal" but later retracted their findings.  I am sure you have studied this in dept an d simply misspoke when you said the AMA.

 

These are excerpt from the APA websity

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

 

The Psychological Society of South Africa Issues Statement Calling ...

The Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) issued a statement to the Ugandan people and their leadership offering a science-based assessment of the proposed “Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009” and calling upon them to abandon or defeat it.

If you dismiss what the experts say then why are you making a weak attempt to quote them.  Let us stay on the topic of homosexuality.  An attempt to study the subject OBJECTIVELY would be of great advantage.  Many of by friends tell me that many christians do not have the ability of look at anything objectivelt but I have faith in the intelligence of christians.  .....sometimes

 

You identified yourself as a scientist, so I appealed to a scientific source for your benefit. I thought you would appreciate the effort.

 

You raised the issue of hermaphroditism, and so I was answering that point specifically. Now you cite the APA regarding homosexuality; but lets not leave your digression so quickly. If you bother to look up the APA's description of hermaphroditism (they discuss it in various pieces of literature regarding the psychological repercussions of intersex conditions) you will see they take the same position as the AMA and all other credible scientific sources: hermaphroditsm is an abnormality... a disorder in sexual development.

 

What scripture do you dredge up to explain that phenomena? That was the somewhat disparaging question you asked. To answer, I would say children born with both sex organs in no way would contradicts God's intent for humanity as evidenced in the Garden of Eden with the creation of man and woman. Disorders in sexual development were introduced into the world by Adamic sin... or in theological terms, by the permissive rather than the perfect will of God.

 

The scripture of hope regarding disorders in sexual development: Romans 8:18-21. A corrupted and diseased earth is earnestly awaiting the redemption and transformation that will come with Christ's return.

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

 

If a person has the outward appearance of a woman and has a penis then what category would you put them in.

 

I refuse to call myself a "true" scientist.  I have studied psyhcology.  I have a degre in psychology.  However knowing the depths that the studies entail I refuse to call myself a psychologist.  Unlike many of my brethern and sisters who have only a high school diploma and call themselves Dr. or Prof.  If I had completed the required masters and doctoral studies I would then take they title.  However I am in the process of getting a doctorate and it is not in the sciences or theology but it is a "REAL" doctorate.

 

I do not see how Romans address physical abnormalities or sexual disparities.

 

I also see where you proposed the concept of Adamic sin.  Did not CHrist wipe away this sin? 

RSS

© 2018   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service