I know what he meant but just twisted his words around just to piss him off more

In this classic statement, EC founder Dr. Blair states simply and clearly,

“There are no homosexuals in the Bible."

Ruth and Naomi were no lesbians. David and Jonathan weren't gay. Neither were Jesus and John, the men of Sodom, cult prostitutes, slave boys and their masters, nor call boys and their customers. ...as Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says: "there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today" and as SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish says: "There is no 'text on homosexual orientation in the Bible." Says Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary: "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used ... not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved. ... No single New Testament author considers [homosexuality] important enough to write his own sentence about it." (excerpt from The Bible is an Empty Closet by Dr. Ralph Blair).

We, as LGBT Christians, are often attacked by our non-LGBT members of Christ's family, with the Bible being used as their weapon in an attempt to separate us from the love of Christ. The Bible was not intended to be used as a weapon, nor as a tool to separate us from Christ; rather, its sole purpose is to gather all to Christ and His unconditional love.

All of us as members of Christ's family are called to learn the scriptures for ourselves and hold them in our heart , and doing so will enable us to reach out to everyone in all communities and demonstrate that Christ's love and grace is for all of us.

But no one really cares what the bible says now, once one person says one thing, then it gets backing from others, and it just snowballs out of control. Its crazy what people think and say now about the whole issue.

Prove that it's more than a tiny minority who accept unrepentant homosexual couples. Prove it's not just your continued delusion

If you can

BTW you're supposed to be ignoring me in your usual tolerant accepting way

Not "anything".
In fact, I describe some issues I DO support, like discriminating against pedophiles, as discrimination too. It has nothing to do with "don't approve of".

In this case, it IS discrimination.
Why do you always want to describe any discrimination you like as a "qualification", refusing to admit it IS discrimination?


And again we come back to garysher REPEATING HIMSELF because he's too damned stupid to comprehend that his statement has ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.
Yes. Men and women are different.
Blacks and whites are different.
Jews and christians are different.

But despite these differences, we TREAT them the same under the law.
When will you get it through your skull that the mere EXISTENCE of differences does not justify discrimination?


No. YOU, as an individual, are the only person I have ever met who is stupid enough to pretend that the MERE existence of the difference justifies discrimination.
And I am talking about a CONSTITUTIONAL concept here. The fact that you can't just use "well, it's different, therefore it's justified" as an argument. It's unconstitutionally unsound.

You remember our discussions on "legitimate state interest"?
I thought you had actually made some progress there. Have you forgotten already?


Blech. You're on that kick today?
The legitimate state interests for polygamy and prostitution being illegal have been repeatedly explained to you.
Take notes if you can't remember something longer than 5 minutes.


Which gets me back to a question you dodged earlier.
If we had a law which stated that people could only marry within their faith, would that be "constitutional" to you???

Answer the question this time instead of cowardly avoiding it.


Your actions speak louder than words.
It's only when it is pointed out that your "description" of marriage COMPLETELY LACKS any mention of "love" that you suddenly rush to change your story.
Oh yes. "Love" is suddenly important, except not for gays...


And thus you JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.
Sure it's "important".
But not a "pre-requisite".
People like you make me sick. You're the REAL threat to marriage.
"Love" is important, but not important enough to be a pre-requisite.
Allowing any form of sham marriage that heterosexuals can devise.

If I was against homosexuality as much as you were, and I was called a "homophobe", I would proudly claim the name.

But you are afraid to admit what you truly are.
That's funny!

You really should read my quotes BEFORE you quote them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
But love is not the only pre-requisite for marriage


Then perhaps you won't look like such a gormless buffoon!

Tristan, I believe there is homosexuality mentioned in Joshua. Just before the city was destroyed, a prostitute gave refuge to the strangers. Many men of the city demanded that the prostitute let them have sex with the vistors (who where men).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, that is in the Bible.
However - again, as so often in the Bible, including the story of Lot - it isn't really about homosexual couples. It's about intimidation of strangers through gang rape...a common occurence during the stories' time. It was used to prove superiority over others, much as it's used in the penal system today.