Gay Marriage

[Rey Reynoso]

1) Is it Biblically mandated (and justified)? Explain.

2) Is it socially mandated (and justified)? Explain.

3) Is it naturally mandated (and justified)? Explain.

4) Is it civilly allowable (and justified)? Explain.

[Rey Reynoso]

1) It doesn't matter. They're yes and no questions with explanations.

2) It would be redundant to ban something that is already not allowed in most states; therefore even if the topic was a positive statement, it still would be technically right.

[Scott]

Joe -

I think you hold to the same position as Rey does - the Biblical one:

Just to quote you from the other discussion thread by Stefanie:

Perhaps "traditional marriage" is the wrong phrase. Biblical marriage would be better.

Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman. No where does the Bible ever state that same sex marriage is a viable option.

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership.

If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

So given that, I can’t see how a Christian could support SSM on Biblical principles.

[Stefanie Ang]

ScottL said:

Joe -

I think you hold to the same position as Rey does - the Biblical one:

Does that mean that Joe can't take umbrage with Rey's argument?

[Scott]

Stef -

He's more than welcome to challenge Rey. I have challenged Rey on certain points in the past in regards to other topics. It's healthy to be challenged in our view. I just got the sense that Joe was challenging Rey, not because Joe had specific points he wanted to raise for Rey, but he challenged Rey simply to stir up things. I could be completely off-base, and if so, I apologise. But I get this sense that the challenge was given only to stir and cause problems. That will never accomplish much and help us move forward in the discussions.

[Stefanie Ang]

ScottL said:

Stef -
He's more than welcome to challenge Rey. I have challenged Rey on certain points in the past in regards to other topics. It's healthy to be challenged in our view. I just got the sense that Joe was challenging Rey, not because Joe had specific points he wanted to raise for Rey, but he challenged Rey simply to stir up things. I could be completely off-base, and if so, I apologise. But I get this sense that the challenge was given only to stir and cause problems. That will never accomplish much and help us move forward in the discussions.

Right.

This will be my last comment to this topic. If all goes as planned, Joe and I will be continuing our discussion in the thread I originally started.

[Scott]

Thanks for your gracious understanding.

[Stefanie Ang]

ScottL said:

Thanks for your gracious understanding.

You are welcome. Feel free to join us in the other thread.

[james h robeson]

"So given that, I can’t see how a Christian could support SSM on Biblical principles."

this does not exclude ssm because there is no "only " in matthew 19, for those who have been given the word to marry someone of the opposite sex. in verse 11 jesus says there are those who have not been given the word to marry those of the opposite sex. here again, those who would add there stroke of "only" also choose to add there stroke that eunuche means this and not that. but christ does not qualify a limitation to the term "eunuche". in addition physicality has never been A LIMITATION TO MARRIAGE in that there have been those who had no testes who still married because they had received the word which was evident in the mutual devotion between the 2 people who chose to marry.

[james h robeson]

there is no word "only" in either genesis or matthew 19 you are adding your own stroke. just because something isnt mentioned in scripture doesnt mean that it is against god. in matthew 19 receiving the word to a take a woman in marriage isnt about physicality because there have been those who were born without the equipment to have intercourse who still married.