Would you go to a gay wedding?

[d000hg]

Deuteronomy 22:11 is a good one as well.

Indeed. A reasonably valid (IMO) argument against the idea that the bible condemns homosexuality is that verses are taken out of context, and/or cherry-picked without mention of the fact that the verses surrounding them are typically NOT seen as binding in the New Testament. Take away a couple of key OT verses and the remaining ones tend to talk about homosexuality in the context of lust and promiscuity.

[MyUserName]

Indeed. A reasonably valid (IMO) argument against the idea that the bible condemns homosexuality is that verses are taken out of context, and/or cherry-picked without mention of the fact that the verses surrounding them are typically NOT seen as binding in the New Testament. Take away a couple of key OT verses and the remaining ones tend to talk about homosexuality in the context of lust and promiscuity.

I have never met a Christian who did not cherry pick bible verses to follow. Mainly because many of them are so insane and brutal to a modern society that to attempt to follow them would result one either becoming a social pariah or just being arrested and sent to prison.

Usually the excuse is trotted out that the OT is not relevant anymore etc. but this is normally claimed by people who still insist we should tithe, follow the 10 commandments (popular version, not the one given to Moses) etc. which are specified in the OT.

[Mich the Tester]

Would you go to a gay wedding?

I've been to one. No big deal.

[NotAllThere]

Call me cynical but he did it to gain the pink vote (and to deprive Labour of it) just like he tried to buy the greys in the budget a couple of weeks ago.

He is a politician , not a philanthropist.

Matthew Paris suggested in his column once that most gay people are naturally conservative.

So if mixed race couples were told that they could no longer get married but could enjoy the benefits of civil partnerships, there could be no reasonable objection?

The argument doesn't really hold. Through-out recorded history marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman - the different genders was an important part, as was the ability (in theory at least) to produce children. The change to allowing same-sex marriages is a radical redefinition of marriage.

Countries who forbade mixed race marriages also had to redefine marriage from the historical definition. Their intent though was to prevent mixed race children - "polluting the purity of the race" - so there was never going to be a mixed-race civil partnership.

In many European countries the state does the marriage for everyone and the church bit is an optional add-on. Many couples do the civil bit with just the legally required minimum of witnesses, but then get married in church a few months later That's why the issue hasn't really caused much of a stir here - all marriages are civil partnerships. Considered in that light, it's a natural progression.

[NotAllThere]

...
Usually the excuse is trotted out that the OT is not relevant anymore etc. ...

It's not an excuse. It's a central part of the formulation of Christianity - the fulfilment of the Torah on our behalf by Jesus, so we don't have to keep it. The ruling in the NT is that gentiles must refrain from sexual immorality and from eating blood - this was decided by the original apostles. Gentiles are not required to follow Jewish law and ritual. Paul's letter to the Romans makes it clear that Jews who become Christian (and most of the early church were such) also are not required to follow Jewish law and ritual, but he encouraged them to do so, so as not to put fellow jews off from following the messiah.

However, it is very hard to argue that homosexual acts do not fall under the biblical definition of sexual immorality, even ignoring the OT.

People who are not Christian (according to God's definition which may not coincide with human definitions!), are already condemned, so it makes no difference what they do.

[MyUserName]

It's not an excuse. It's a central part of the formulation of Christianity - the fulfilment of the Torah on our behalf by Jesus, so we don't have to keep it. The ruling in the NT is that gentiles must refrain from sexual immorality and from eating blood - this was decided by the original apostles. Gentiles are not required to follow Jewish law and ritual. Paul's letter to the Romans makes it clear that Jews who become Christian (and most of the early church were such) also are not required to follow Jewish law and ritual, but he encouraged them to do so, so as not to put fellow jews off from following the messiah.

However, it is very hard to argue that homosexual acts do not fall under the biblical definition of sexual immorality, even ignoring the OT.

People who are not Christian (according to God's definition which may not coincide with human definitions!), are already condemned, so it makes no difference what they do.

*Yawn*

I have had the in laws over for a large part of this weekend and have already heard this very conversation bounce back and forth a dozen times.

[OwlHoot]

Take away a couple of key OT verses and the remaining ones tend to talk about homosexuality in the context of lust and promiscuity.

Their main beef was temple prostitution, involving both sexes, which many pagan religions featured and made them strong competitors to Judaism and Christianity.

[vetran]

just had a conversation about breast feeding in public (the exciting life I lead). a lady in her 70s was quite uncomfortable about someone doing it. I'm pretty relaxed about it, my kids think its perfectly normal.

The Gay marriage thing will go the same way, in 10 years your kids will all be attending gay weddings as if its perfectly normal. Anyone objecting will be seen as a little weird.

now the real problem is where will the line be drawn? one hopes this is about as far as it goes, I'm not sure I want to attend a wedding between Gricer & Flossie the sheep.

[sirja]

That's the scary thing . When people know they are "right".

What if he's not right?

Maybe our parents' generation was right. I seem to remember being told by everyone from family members to schoolteachers that homosexuality wasn't right but that we should be compassionate to those who are oriented that way (although it wasn't really talked about that much tbh).

30 years on and the whole thing has been turned on its head and we are expected to celebrate people's gayness. Personally, I dont really give a hoot but I am concerned about subversive elements using this pro-gay legislation as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Still, looks like the CofE is going to roll over to have its tummy tickled from what I was reading earlier. That, for me, would probably be the last straw and I'll be doing what I've always considered unthinkable and going over to RC.

This is what worries me a bit. If as you say 30 years ago Homosexuality was not right, but today it's being celebrated, then what can we expect in the next 30 years? What behaviors that we frown on today will be celebrated and promoted 2044? Where does it end?

[MyUserName]

This is what worries me a bit. If as you say 30 years ago Homosexuality was not right, but today it's being celebrated, then what can we expect in the next 30 years? What behaviors that we frown on today will be celebrated and promoted 2044? Where does it end?

I am guessing it will end on December 31st 2044?