and who like to cite every part of the Bible except the Gospels, consider Matthew, Chapter 20, The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Can't you see the parallel there?
2007-07-21 07:46:36 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
First of all the institution of marriage has been failing miserably since the 60's.
50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce - Those Christians that are sitting in judgement of gay marriage are just people that have not learned the true message of God's unconditional love. Judge not lest ye be judged.
2007-07-21 07:53:31 · answer #1 · answered by Kaybee 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
there is no relation between men standing around in the vinyard doing nothing and gay marriage. How about Sodum and Gammora. That depicts homosexuality but as you know the town was destroyed. How about the festivities of the sinners while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments from the Lord? The pesants festivities included homosexuality and again you saw them destroyed. What point are you trying to make because Matthew 20 has nothing to do with devaluing the institution of marriage. God Bless
2007-07-21 08:00:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
huh? what parallel- explain yourself, What does a parable about the vineyard owner paying the same for a person who works all day, and a person who works just minutes- and gay marriage devaluing marriage? The workers are rewarded the same- which means you can accept Christ, years before you die, and be given the reward, which is eternal life, or you can accept Christ minutes before death, and get the same gift. I cannot understand how remotely connected this is with the concept of gay marriage. PLEASE EXPLAIN. You tell Christians that we misrepresent the meaning of scripture- wow!!
2007-07-21 08:11:54 · answer #3 · answered by AdoreHim 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not Christian, but I agree with them on this issue. Gay marriage does devalue the institution of marriage, not only from a religious standpoint, but a legal one as well. Both state that it is a bond between a MAN and a WOMAN, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
2007-07-21 10:55:08 · answer #4 · answered by Bookworm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For Joseph C, Gnostic and many others, marriage as defined by religion was one man and up to 4 women for more than 3000 years. About 1000 years ago that upstart religion need to change things to gain more control over people and out lawed multiple marriages under pain of being boiled in oil. It has nothing to do with 'god's' law, but rather man's control.
2007-07-21 08:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on no account. yet via calling something marriage that could on no account be marriage extra effective erodes standards and the language that people use to make experience of the international. it particularly is the previous "what number legs does a canines have if we call the tail a leg"? "It has 4 legs.....it particularly isn't any longer suitable what you call the tail....it particularly isn't any longer and not in any respect would be a leg". I have little doubt that gay people can love one yet another. it particularly is human emotion. yet till they could procreate and get via the actuality that gay habit is an evolutionary ineffective end and easily a perverted sexual practice announcing that they are married is merely permitting them to play dwelling house. Now the clarification i do no longer supply a crap is that gays as a team are no longer combating for my rights. the appropriate to be left on my own and not have my life run for me. the appropriate to maintain the made from my exertions. the appropriate to guard myself. as quickly as I see some stream in that section i would be chuffed to re-examine. till then i'm no longer real fascinated in gay rights. in the event that they think of I have no organic rights then they only could desire to do what the state says and forget approximately approximately marriage.
2016-10-09 05:05:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, thats how the word is defined. Thus a man cannot be married to anyone else but a woman, and the act of marriage can thus only be perfromed between a man and a woman. Gay people can be together, thats their choice, but they cannot be married, they have to use another word!
2007-07-21 08:16:41 · answer #7 · answered by craz_erussian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is a meaningless institution now.
You exchange vows. That can be done outside of marriage.
You have a wedding. That kind of conflicts with the idea behind marriage anyway, so who cares?
You get wed by a priest or judge. In the case of the former, if you reject gay marriage, wouldn't you have to reject ALL non-Christian marriage? Or do you think you're the only ones worthy of it?
It's not even a Christian concept in origin.
I know my view isn't popular; nihilism rarely is. But think it through for a moment.
2007-07-21 07:53:19 · answer #8 · answered by Skye 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. I don't. You are twisting scripture or something. This is nothing about gay marriage.
Read 1 Corinthians 6:9 Can't get much plainer than this!!!!
How can you dismiss this verse? It's as plain and simple as it can get!
2007-07-21 08:02:11 · answer #9 · answered by byHisgrace 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Could you please make another post and explain this better. I do not see any relationship between the workers in the vineyard and gay marriage. I see no reason to identify gays as being the last workers, if that is what you are trying to imply. Please explain further.
2007-07-21 07:54:04 · answer #10 · answered by ignoramus_the_great 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋